| Vivid Christianity |
|
| Teaching Christians how to live a "vivid" Christian life. | |
|
Homosexuality Is Not Always a Sin
Introduction
Most Christians seem to assume that the only form of sexuality allowed in the Bible is between one man and one woman, and only if they're married to each other. But as we're going to see, the belief that homosexuality is always a sin is actually based on a misunderstanding of several Bible passages. I've tried to deal with this subject carefully, but please forgive me if anything I say makes you uncomfortable. I don't believe that God cringes at this subject but instead He wants us to know His will, so we should try to set our personal reactions aside in order to seek God's view on the matter. It's important that we don't allow our feelings or assumptions to dictate our beliefs. Homosexuality tends to be an emotionally-charged topic for people, which makes it very difficult for Christians to step back and look at this subject objectively. But if we're not trying to be thorough, objective, and unbiased when we study any topics in the Bible, looking for the full picture, then we're not likely to discern what the Bible really teaches on those topics and we won't see the patterns that God has given us in the Bible (for the reasons why, see my article called How to Study the Bible). Update on 07/06/2024: If everything at my website (VividChristianity.com) says what God wants it to say then He will confirm that for you by doing a miracle (if you're a Christian). When you see the miracle, it means that He wants you to believe everything in all of the articles at my website (including this article) and in my book. See my home page for the details. Shakespeare vs. God
Anyone can read the words that Shakespeare wrote, but if we just read what's on the surface then we won't fully grasp his meanings and intentions. We need to dig deeper into what he wrote to find the metaphors, similes, archetypes, figures, and symbolism that he put into his plays. God is infinitely smarter than Shakespeare, and the Bible is much, much deeper than anything that Shakespeare ever wrote. Anyone can read the words of the Bible, but if we just read what's on the surface then we won't fully grasp God's meanings and intentions. The Bible is filled with allegories, allusions, figures, hyperbole, imagery, metaphors, parables, parallels, personifications, poetic or flowery language, similes, symbolism, types and foreshadowing, and other forms of figurative speech, all of which require interpretation. God also placed numerous patterns in Scripture for us to find, and they're always significant. In addition, different versions of the Bible use different words when translating from the original Greek or Hebrew because most words have multiple meanings depending on the context. The translators must make interpretations and educated guesses about what the original authors of Scripture meant in order to translate from the original language into another language such as English. If their interpretations and educated guesses are wrong then their translations might be misleading as we'll see. Just reading what's on the surface (and only reading in one version of the Bible) and then making assumptions or jumping to conclusions about what we're reading is not the way to understand the Bible. For example, try going to any Christian bookstore and picking any Bible commentary at random, then open it up to several pages at random. Read what's written on those pages, and you'll begin to get a sense of the depth and complexity of what God has written in the Bible. It's important that we look for that depth and complexity in order to better understand what God has written. As a Bible teacher, my job is to dig deeper into Scripture than most Christians usually go in order to find all of the relevant passages for a topic (not just two or three passages), and be guided by the Lord to put those pieces of information together properly so that we can see the full picture of what God wants us to know about that topic. The Lord teaches us a little at a time (see my article called How to Discern God's Guidance), and therefore our understanding of the Bible is always a work in progress. Before we dive into the passages concerning homosexuality, we first need to understand some background information. Our Assumptions and Emotions Affect Our Discernment When We Read the Bible
Imagine that you're on trial for a crime you didn't commit, and a jury will decide your guilt or innocence. If anyone on the jury has biases or preconceived ideas about you based on your profession, or the circumstances of the crime, or how you're dressed, or any other factors, then they're not likely to evaluate the evidence impartially or objectively, and you might be found guilty. This is why trial lawyers ask potential jurors a series of questions to uncover any biases, as this quote describes: "For trial lawyers, the goal of the voir dire process is to ensure that no members of the jury are harboring any biases that could jeopardize the outcome of the case...Subtle bias can have a profound, unintentional impact when there are two sides presenting conflicting evidence...Most biased jurors are good people who simply have opinions, feelings or beliefs that would make it hard for them to be completely fair and impartial in your case. The problem is they don't understand how subtle bias can have a big impact, unintentionally" (The Essential Guide To Voir Dire  ,
emphasis added).
In exactly the same way, any assumptions or biases that we have when we study the Bible will affect our understanding of what we read. It's very important to remain objective and look at the full picture of what God is teaching us in the Bible, and not allow assumptions or biases or emotions or preconceived ideas to affect our discernment. Notice that growth always requires change, such as when babies grow or when plants grow. There can be no growing or maturing without change, and throughout the New Testament we're told numerous times to continue growing and maturing in faith and in the knowledge of God (see my article called Cheat Sheet #05). We must always be open to the leading of the Lord, even if it means changing our views when He shows us something different from what we currently believe. No one's Christian views are perfect and complete because all of us are fallible (e.g., 1 Corinthians 13:9, 12). Growth always involves change, so if you stick to all of the Christian views that you've believed for years then it means that you're not growing in the Lord. Think about it for a moment. Therefore, try to set all of your assumptions and biases aside for the moment. Let the Bible be your source of information, with the interpretation provided by the Spirit of God, rather than relying on your emotions or what you've been taught. This will help you see what Scripture really says (or doesn't say) about homosexuality. This will be difficult for many Christians because it has been so ingrained in us that homosexuality is always a sin, but being thorough, objective, and unbiased is the only way to fully grasp God's meanings and intentions in the Bible. Definitions
Easton's Bible Dictionary
and the
Holman Bible Dictionary
define sin as disobedience to God's commands, laws, or wishes. It's a rebellion against God caused by self-centered thoughts, desires, or motives, leading to outward acts that are the manifestations of sin. All of the individual sins listed in the Bible (e.g., murder, adultery, lying, stealing) are different manifestations of our disobedience to God, whether we do them intentionally or not.
Although we now have terms such as "gay" and "lesbian," this topic is most frequently referred to as "homosexuality" in Christian circles, so I've followed that convention here. Just to be clear, when I refer to men or women, this is based on their current physical sexual organs and not on which gender they self-identify as. The reason is because there's nothing in the Bible that clearly describes our concept of gender self-identification or non-binary genders, so the physical characteristics of male and female fit best with the descriptions of homosexuality throughout the Bible. Similarly, "same sex" in this article means "same physical sexual organs" (or "same current physical sexual organs" in the case of those who have had a sex change operation, also known as gender affirming surgery, gender confirmation surgery, and sex reassignment surgery). Concerning the word "homosexuality," these are some representative dictionary definitions:
As these and other dictionaries explain, homosexuality tends to be defined in terms of both the attraction to people of the same sex, and sexual activity with people of the same sex. Throughout the entire Bible, the human authors of Scripture most often spoke of sex in an indirect way, as in these examples: "Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain..." (Genesis 4:1 NKJV)The NIV tends to paraphrase the original Greek or Hebrew into modern English, so it uses terms such as "have sex" or "make love." But the original texts of Scripture are often more indirect as we see in the above passages, which can make it difficult to discern or properly interpret exactly what is meant in passages that mention sexual sins. We need the guidance of the Spirit of God to understand what He wants us to know (1 Corinthians 2:12-14). When we speak of homosexual sex or gay sex or lesbian sex, the word "sex" is really short for "sexual activity" because "sex" is the usual term for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman (so in this sense, two men or two women are physically unable to have sex together). It gets a bit more complicated because the term "gay sex" is sometimes used specifically for two men, and sometimes it's used generically for two men or two women. "Sodomy" refers to anal intercourse between two men or between a man and a woman: "Under the Common Law, sodomy consisted of anal intercourse." (legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.comTo define the goal of this article, we'll attempt to answer these questions:
I'm looking for God's view concerning these issues, and I can only hope that you are willing to do the same. At What Point Are Two People Married in God's Eyes?
What do two people need to do in order to actually be married? It's important that we determine what marriage is so that we can determine if gay marriages are acceptable to God. It seems that most of us just assume that if a man and a woman have a Christian wedding in a church then they're married in God's eyes, but that's not what the Bible says. Some people claim that a man and a woman are married when they first have sex together because the Bible says that "the two will become one flesh": "Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."" (1 Corinthians 6:16)The statement that "the two will become one flesh" originally comes from the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:24. Before the cross, Jesus lived His entire life under the Old Covenant, and He quoted that statement under the Old Covenant (Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7-8). The apostle Paul quoted that statement under the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31). Therefore, "the two will become one flesh" has been applicable throughout all of human history. In the Old Testament, King David had concubines and wives (2 Samuel 5:13), and King Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Kings had sex with their concubines, yet those concubines were not wives. In other words, having sex with a concubine did not turn the concubine into a wife. They remained concubines, and they remained separate from the king's wives in the Bible. Sex by itself does not equal marriage in the Bible. So what are the requirements in order to be married in God's eyes? Here are some things to consider:
In the following passage (and in Mark 10:6-9), Jesus gave us the only description in the New Testament of how to be married in God's eyes (repeated by Paul in Ephesians 5:31): ""Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 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'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."" (Matthew 19:4-6)Jesus was partly quoting from Genesis 2:22-24, which gives us the reason why marriage is between one man and one woman: "Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." (Genesis 2:22-24)The above passage essentially says that a husband and wife complete each other in some sense, although Paul said that there's nothing wrong with remaining unmarried: "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." (1 Corinthians 7:1)Paul also gave us another important requirement for marriage: "A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord." (1 Corinthians 7:39)Based on the above passages, these are the requirements in order to be married in God's eyes, as you'll find in other articles online:
These are the requirements for being married in God's eyes based on the information that we're given in the New Testament. After a couple is married, other passages provide guidance on how to have a proper and healthy Christian marriage, but those are beyond the scope of the discussion here. As you'll find elsewhere online, the New Testament never says that wedding rings or similar customs are necessary, or that a church wedding is necessary, or that any specific vows are necessary, or that the marriage must be blessed by someone in authority in a church. Concerning vows, this article makes a strong case for rethinking the idea of wedding vows and other oaths or pledges: Oaths, Vows, Pledges, and Sovereignty .
Consider that Christians are told to take pains to do what is right in the eyes of others (e.g., Romans 12:17, 2 Corinthians 8:20-21, 1 Thessalonians 4:12, 1 Timothy 5:14, 6:1, Titus 2:4-8, 1 Peter 2:12). Therefore, it's good for Christians to have a church wedding, even though it's not a requirement. As the above requirements demonstrate, there's no such thing as gay marriage in God's eyes. Throughout the entire Bible, marriage is always described as being between one man and one woman, and Genesis 2:22-24 (above) gives us the reason why. Therefore, if two men or two women are legally married, this does not mean they're married in God's eyes, even if they have a church wedding. Homosexuals say that there are examples of gay and lesbian couples in the Bible, but even if that's true, it does not mean that God considered them as being married. However, just because two men or two women cannot be married in God's eyes, this does not mean that they are sinning by being legally married. We need to study all of the passages concerning homosexuality throughout the Bible, objectively and without biases or emotions or assumptions, being guided by the Spirit of God, in order to determine under what conditions homosexuality is or is not a sin. What we're going to see is that there's not a shred of scriptural evidence that it's a sin for two men or two women to be legally married. God's Covenants
A covenant is essentially a contract between two parties, such as between God and humans. For example, when I lived in an apartment in Seattle, I had a contract with the apartment management there. No one else in the world was required to obey that contract, and no one else in the world could violate that contract. Before I moved back to Houston, I fulfilled the obligations of my old contract in Seattle, and that contract was canceled. Neither I nor the management in Seattle are required to obey the terms of that old contract anymore, and we can't break or violate the terms of that old contract. I now have a new contract with my apartment management in Houston. The analogy is that the Old Covenant has been completely canceled (see my series below), and Christians are under the New Covenant. It's very important to understand how God's covenants (contracts) work because throughout human history, God has made a total of nine different covenants with people, some of which are still in force to this day and affect every person on earth. All nine covenants are explained in detail in my series called Covenants, Dispensations, and the Ten Commandments. When God gives commands to people under a particular covenant, those commands do not apply to people who are not under that covenant. Remember, my apartment contract only applies to me and the apartment management. It would be completely wrong to assume that my apartment contract applies to anyone else. This is a very important issue to understand because many Christians have formed wrong conclusions by assuming that the commands in a particular covenant apply to people who were not under that covenant. For example, the Old Covenant was specifically between God and the Jews (Exodus 19:3-6). All of the non-Jews (Gentiles) during that time were not under the Old Covenant and therefore they were not required to obey the Ten Commandments or any of the other commands in that covenant unless they converted to Judaism or were servants of Jews (Exodus 12:43-49, 20:10). Recall that shortly after Moses led the Jews out of bondage in Egypt, God made a contract with them, which we refer to as the Old Covenant. This covenant contained 613 commands that are collectively referred to in the Bible as the Law of Moses (Judaism 101 - A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) ).
When Jesus died on the cross, He had fulfilled the old contract (the Old Covenant) and completely canceled it, and He initiated a new contract (the New Covenant). This is essentially the same as when my old apartment contract in Seattle was fulfilled and canceled, and my new apartment contract in Houston began. The Old Covenant and the Law of Moses were completely canceled when Jesus died, so
after the cross, no one is required to obey any of the 613 commands in the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses, and no one is able to sin by breaking or violating any of those 613 commands
(such as the Ten Commandments, the tithing laws, the kosher dietary laws, or the Sabbath laws).
This is explained in detail in my article called
Covenants, Dispensations, and the Ten Commandments - Part Three.
When we read any passages in the Bible before the cross, it's extremely important to discern which contract (covenant) applies to those passages, otherwise we're in danger of misunderstanding and misapplying those passages. Now that we have some background information, we can begin examining the passages concerning homosexuality throughout the Bible. Passages on Homosexuality under the Old Covenant
Here are all of the passages that directly mention homosexuality under the Old Covenant (the Judges 19:22-25 passage will be discussed in the next section along with a similar incident in Sodom): "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable [toebah]." (Leviticus 18:22)If you ask any Christian if homosexuality is a sin, it's very likely that they will paraphrase one of the above verses in Leviticus to say that homosexuality is a sin and has always been detestable to God. That's not an accurate answer, which shows how important it is to understand God's covenants in the Bible. One reason why that's not an accurate answer is because the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses (including the above commands in Leviticus) were completely canceled when Jesus died, so after the cross, no one is required to obey any of the 613 commands in the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses, and no one is able to sin by breaking or violating any of those 613 commands. The second reason why that's not an accurate answer is because Leviticus 18:22 (above) is the very first commandment against homosexuality in the Bible, which means that we have no evidence of any commands from God against homosexuality for the thousands of years of human existence since Adam before the Old Covenant was initiated. Remember, sin refers to disobedience to God, and since there were no scriptural commands from God against homosexuality prior to the Old Covenant, we have no scriptural evidence that any homosexuals were sinning by disobeying God prior to the Old Covenant. However, people were meant to be ruled by God through human governments and their consciences prior to the Old Covenant (see my series called Covenants, Dispensations, and the Ten Commandments). It's certainly possible that God prohibited some or all forms of gay sex through people's consciences rather than through direct scriptural commands prior to the Old Covenant, but if so, then this is one of those issues that we can't directly support with biblical evidence. The third reason why that's not an accurate answer is because the Old Covenant (contract) was specifically between God and the Jews, so no one else in the entire world was required to obey the Old Covenant unless they chose to convert to Judaism or were servants of Jews (see my series above). Therefore, while the Old Covenant was in force, the commandments against homosexuality in the above passages did not apply to anyone in the world except the Jews. This means that we have no scriptural evidence that any non-Jewish homosexuals in the world were sinning by disobeying God while the Old Covenant was in force. Again, though, the Gentiles (non-Jews) during that time were meant to be ruled by God through human governments and their consciences, so it's possible that God prohibited some or all forms of gay sex through their consciences. But we have no direct biblical evidence to support any conclusions concerning Gentile homosexuals during the period when the Old Covenant was in force. The fourth reason why that's not an accurate answer is because the Hebrew word toebah ("detestable") in the above Leviticus passages is being misunderstood. For example, under the Old Covenant the Jews were forbidden to eat certain animals such as pigs, and God said that those animals were detestable using that same Hebrew word toebah (Leviticus 11:1-47, Deuteronomy 14:3-21). But under the New Covenant, we're allowed to eat any meat, including pigs' meat (Acts 10:9-16, Romans 14:1-3, 5-6, 13-15, 20-23, 1 Corinthians 8:6-13, 10:25-33, 1 Timothy 4:1-6). In addition, when God made a covenant with Noah (the Noahic Covenant, centuries before the Old Covenant), He said that every living creature is allowed to be eaten (Genesis 9:1-4). Therefore, pigs and certain other animals were only detestable (toebah) under the Old Covenant, and only for the Jews while the Old Covenant was in force. All other people in the world at that time (the Gentiles) were still under the covenant with Noah, so if they ate pigs and certain other animals while the Old Covenant was in force, this was never forbidden nor called "detestable." To make this point more clearly, notice that:
Now we can see the importance of being diligent and digging deeper to find the full picture in the Bible, rather than looking on the surface of one or two passages (such as the Leviticus passages) and assuming that those are the full picture. Something is going on here concerning the word "detestable" that needs to be explained and understood. The passages in the above bullet points make it appear as if God kept changing His mind in different covenants about animals being "detestable" and allowed to be eaten. However, this is impossible because God does not change and He does not change His mind: "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" (Numbers 23:19)The above passages make it clear that God never changes His mind, and therefore He did not keep changing His mind about animals being detestable to Him in different covenants. There are, however, certain things that are detestable to God: "The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not covet the silver and gold on them, and do not take it for yourselves, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable [toebah] to the LORD your God." (Deuteronomy 7:25)These are all of the places where we're told that something is detestable (toebah) to God, and notice that we don't see anything about homosexuality or eating animals in the above passages. So who were those animals meant to be detestable to? Besides God, the only other people involved in the Old Covenant were the Jews, which means that God was saying that the Jews needed to consider certain animals as being detestable. This is the only explanation that fits the scriptural facts because if we say that God kept changing His mind about animals being detestable to Him in different covenants, then we're violating the above passages. God does not keep changing His mind. We can confirm this even further because in the Old Covenant, when God told the Jews that certain animals must not be eaten, He also used the Hebrew word seqes, which is translated as "unclean" in the NIV and is "A masculine noun meaning a detestation, an abomination, and a detestable thing" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, seqes, emphasis added). When God said that certain animals must not be eaten under the Old Covenant, He specifically said that the Jews needed to regard them as "detestable things" (or "unclean" in the NIV translation): "But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales - whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water - you are to regard as unclean [seqes]. And since you are to regard them as unclean [seqes], you must not eat their meat; you must regard their carcasses as unclean [seqes]. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean [seqes] by you. These are the birds you are to regard as unclean [seqes] and not eat because they are unclean [seqes]: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean [seqes] by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean [seqes]." (Leviticus 11:10-23 NIV)This further confirms that when God said "Do not eat any detestable thing" (Deuteronomy 14:3), He was not saying that those animals were detestable to Him. He was saying that the Jews needed to regard them as detestable things. The reason for gaining a proper understanding of what is or is not "detestable" to God is because in the Leviticus passages concerning homosexuality (above), we see the same Hebrew word toebah ("detestable") being used in the same way as in the passage concerning pigs, and in the same covenant as the passage concerning pigs. Therefore, in order to be consistent in the way that we interpret Scripture, when God said that gay sex (or some form of gay sex) was "detestable" (toebah) in the Leviticus passages, He was not saying that He considered it as being detestable. He was saying that the Jews needed to consider it as being detestable. Any other conclusion means that we're being inconsistent in the way that we're interpreting Scripture, which does not honor God. As we saw, in every passage that tells us what is detestable to God, there's never any mention of homosexuality. For all of these reasons, when Christians say that all forms of gay sex have always been detestable to God, they are misunderstanding and misapplying the above passages in Leviticus. Nowhere in the Bible did God ever say that homosexuality in any form is detestable to Him. In fact, those two Leviticus passages don't actually condemn all forms of gay sex. Look closely at what those passages say: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (Leviticus 18:22)On the surface, it's easy to read these passages and jump to the conclusion that they simply mean that homosexuality is a sin. However, notice that both passages contain the very specific phrase, "as one does with a woman." God does not do things without reason, and He deliberately placed that phrase in both of these passages, so He wants us to discern something here. He could have said, "Do not have sexual relations with a man; that is detestable" and "If a man has sexual relations with a man, both of them have done what is detestable," in which case we could reasonably conclude that He was forbidding all forms of gay sexual activity. But instead, He was very specific about what He was forbidding. Notice that if two men engage in anal intercourse together then the passive partner is taking the female role, and the active partner is literally having sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, which is what both of the above passages specifically describe. The above Leviticus passages specifically condemn anal intercourse, not any other forms of gay sexual activity. This will be further confirmed in the next section. But again, we need to keep in mind that the above commands in Leviticus were given under the Old Covenant. The entire Old Covenant and the Law of Moses were completely canceled when Jesus died, so after the cross, no one is required to obey any of the 613 commands in the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses, and no one is able to sin by breaking or violating any of those 613 commands (this is explained in detail in my article called Covenants, Dispensations, and the Ten Commandments - Part Three). Passages on Homosexuality Prior to the Old Covenant
This is the only passage that describes homosexuality before the Old Covenant was initiated: "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." "Get out of our way," they replied. "This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door." (Genesis 19:1-9)In the above passage, the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the two "men" (actually they were male angels) who were staying with Lot. The men of Sodom were demanding to have gay sex with Lot's guests, but it wouldn't have been consensual sex. It would have been a gang rape. This incident in Sodom is essentially the same as the incident in Gibeah that we saw in the previous section (Judges 19:22-25). In both cases, the wicked men of the city surrounded a house and demanded to have gay sex with the male traveler(s) staying in that house. If they had succeeded, there would have been nothing tender and loving in their actions; it would have been a brutal assault on the travelers' bodies. We know this because in Judges 19:22-25, the wicked men of Gibeah had no access to the male traveler so they took his concubine instead, raping and abusing her all night (a few verses later, and in Judges 20:5, we find that she did not survive this attack), and in Genesis 19:1-9 (above), the wicked men of Sodom made it clear that they had intended to treat the male travelers badly. These incidents were clearly not meant for the male travelers' pleasure; they were meant to be brutal attacks against the travelers. Therefore, the most likely description of their intentions is that the wicked men wanted to sodomize the male travelers through violent anal intercourse, because other forms of gay sexual activity would not have the same aspect of rape and abuse that's described in these passages. For this reason, Bible scholars and Bible commentaries use the term "sodomy" for anal intercourse, based on the above incident in Sodom. Once again, it's important to understand how God's covenants work in the Bible because Lot and his uncle Abraham (Genesis 11:31, 17:5) lived 430+ years before the Old Covenant began (Galatians 3:16-18). They were not under the Old Covenant, so the Leviticus passages against homosexuality that we looked at in the previous section did not apply to the men of Sodom. To put this into perspective, recall the analogy of my old contract for my apartment in Seattle. That contract began at the time when I moved to Seattle and got my apartment, just as God's contract with the Jews (the Old Covenant) began in Moses' time. If we say that the men of Sodom would have sinned by having gay sex because they were required to obey those Leviticus passages, this is exactly the same as saying that I was required to obey the terms of my apartment contract in Seattle long before I even considered moving to Seattle. Clearly it would be impossible for me to violate the terms of a contract that did not yet exist, and in exactly the same way, it was impossible for the men of Sodom to violate the terms of the Old Covenant because it did not yet exist. We saw that sin is defined as disobedience to God, but throughout the entire Bible there are no passages which indicate that homosexuals were disobeying any scriptural commands from God against gay sex before the Old Covenant began. So if we step back and look at the above passage objectively, we have no scriptural support for claiming that the wickedness in Sodom involved gay sex in general. In a moment we'll see some evidence that sodomy (anal intercourse) was a sin against people's consciences back then, but other forms of sexual activity in a monogamous gay relationship might have been perfectly acceptable to God back then, and perfectly acceptable for all Gentiles while the Old Covenant was in force. Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. We can't say for certain one way or the other because the Bible does not give us that information. Again, the goal here is to find out what God has recorded in the Bible, objectively and without emotions or biases or assumptions affecting our discernment, being guided by the Spirit of God. In order to be thorough, these are all of the passages in the Bible that mention the sins of Sodom (other than Genesis 19:1-9, above): "Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD." (Genesis 13:13)A number of passages in the Bible describe the destruction of Sodom, but the above passages are the only ones that mention the sins of Sodom (other than Genesis 19:1-9, above). One thing to notice is that the above passages never actually say that homosexuality was one of the sins of Sodom. Perhaps it was, but we're never specifically told that, and we're never told that homosexuality in general was a sin prior to the Old Covenant (which was initiated about 430 years after the Sodom incident as we saw). In Ezekiel 16:49-50 (above), God said that in addition to their other sins, Sodom did "detestable" things, using the same Hebrew word (toebah) that we saw in the two Leviticus passages. Therefore, Bible commentaries tend to point out that the above Ezekiel passage makes a direct association between the "detestable" sin in Sodom and the "detestable" sin in the two Leviticus passages. So the same "detestable" sin is being described in every passage on homosexuality throughout the Old Testament (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Judges 19:22-25, Genesis 19:1-9). This provides further confirmation that the two Leviticus passages are specifically referring to sodomy (anal intercourse) because that's the only form of homosexual behavior described or implied in Sodom (Genesis 19:1-9) and in Gibeah (Judges 19:22-25). We'll see even more confirmation of this when we look at the passages on homosexuality in the New Testament. In Jude 1:7 (above), the NIV says that Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to "sexual immorality," and the Greek word means "To practice fornication, be given to lewdness" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, ekporneuo). This is a generic term for sexual immorality, so it doesn't specifically say or imply anything about homosexuality. The NIV then says that Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns committed "perversion," but the Greek is more literally translated as "gone after strange or other flesh," as we can see in other versions of the Bible: "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7 NKJV)The Greek word for "strange" or "other" in Jude 1:7 (above) occurs 99 times in the New Testament, and it's almost always translated as "other" or "another" in English versions of the Bible such as the NKJV, ASV, and Young's Literal Translation. The NIV tries to paraphrase the Greek into modern English, such as using the word "perversion" here. The only time this Greek word is translated as "strange" in English versions of the Bible is in Jude 1:7 (above), showing that the translators were making a possibly unwarranted assumption about the meaning of this Greek word here. Bible software is very useful for these types of studies (see my article called How to Study the Bible). So according to Bible translators, this Greek word means "other" or "another" because nowhere else in the entire Bible do they ever translate it as "strange." Since that Greek word is translated as "strange" in Jude 1:7 (above), Bible commentaries tend to say that "strange flesh" is meant to be a reference to homosexuality, in the sense that it's strange for a man to be sexually attracted to other men. However, this is just an assumption on their part because the expression "strange flesh" does not appear anywhere else in any English version of the Bible that I've checked. There's not a shred of scriptural evidence that "strange flesh" is a reference to homosexuality. Gays point out that if Jude 1:7 (above) were referring to homosexuality then it would say "gone after same flesh" instead of "gone after strange flesh." Sometimes people say that the "strange flesh" is really a reference to "angelic flesh," since the two guests in Lot's house were actually angels. However, there's not a shred of scriptural evidence that the men of Sodom knew that Lot's guests were angels, so there's no reason to assume that they were intentionally going after "angelic flesh." To summarize, we saw that either gay sex in general or specifically sodomy was a sin under the Old Covenant, depending on which perspective we take with the Leviticus passages, but the men of Sodom lived centuries before the Old Covenant began. They were not under the Old Covenant, so the Leviticus passages against homosexuality did not apply to the men of Sodom. Instead, they were under the covenant with Noah in which they needed to obey God through human governments and their consciences. They did not have any scriptural commands against homosexuality back then, and we don't know what God was telling them in their consciences. All we can say with certainty is that the men of Sodom wanted to sexually assault the two male travelers, most likely through violent anal intercourse, which is why Bible scholars and Bible commentaries use the term "sodomy" for anal intercourse. For all we know from the Bible, sexual activity (other than sodomy) in a monogamous gay relationship might have been perfectly acceptable to God back then, and perfectly acceptable for all Gentiles (non-Jews) while the Old Covenant was in force. We don't know whether it was acceptable or not because the Bible doesn't give us that information. Male Temple Prostitutes
These passages don't directly describe homosexuality, but they refer to male prostitutes who were associated with pagan shrines or temples: "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute." (Deuteronomy 23:17)This is how these male temple prostitutes are described in Bible commentaries and Hebrew dictionaries: "In the context of a pagan temple cult, which was the proper context for this word, it connotes a man who was set apart for pagan temple service, namely, male prostitution (Deu 23:17 [18]; 1Ki 14:24; 1Ki 15:12; 1Ki 22:46 [47]). This term is sometimes translated as sodomite, which is an excellent expression of the likelihood that these were homosexual or at least bisexual prostitutes." (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, qades, emphasis added)These and other Bible commentaries and Hebrew dictionaries tell us that the male temple prostitutes were condemned by God for practicing sodomy (anal intercourse) as a part of pagan idol worship. Passages on Homosexuality in the New Testament
These are the only passages in the New Testament that clearly describe homosexuality: "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral [pornos], for those practicing homosexuality [arsenokoites], for slave traders and liars and perjurers - and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." (1 Timothy 1:9-11)In 1 Timothy 1:9-11 (above), the NIV says "for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality." In that verse, "the sexually immoral" comes from the Greek word pornos, meaning whoremonger or male prostitute or fornicator (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates), and "those practicing homosexuality" comes from the Greek word arsenokoites, meaning "from arsen (G730), a male, and koite (G2845), a bed. A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates). There's a lot of discussion about this word online because most of the Greek words in the New Testament are well-known in classical Greek literature, but arsenokoites is not found in any Greek writings prior to Paul's use of this word in the above passages. Paul or someone else combined two Greek words from Leviticus for "man" and "bed" (arsenos and koiten) to coin the new compound word "man-bedders" (arsenokoites). For example, the Interlinear Study Bible - Greek Language for Leviticus 18
shows that in Leviticus 18:22, the Greek version of the Old Testament says
"meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten [gynaikeios]."
The
Interlinear Study Bible - Greek Language for Leviticus 20
shows that in Leviticus 20:13, the Greek version of the Old Testament says
"hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos."
These are the Greek versions of the two Leviticus passages concerning homosexuality that we studied earlier in this article (which were originally written in Hebrew), and again, Paul or someone else combined two Greek words from those Leviticus passages to coin the new compound word "man-bedders"
(arsenokoites).
Paul was very familiar with the Greek version of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint ),
and he quoted from it extensively in the New Testament (as the above Wikipedia article points out). By using a new compound word ("man-bedders") coined from two Greek words found in those two Leviticus passages, Paul was referring back to those two Leviticus passages without quoting from them directly. We know this because each of the specific sins that he mentioned in this passage refers back to the similar sin in Leviticus and Exodus. For example, killing fathers or mothers refers to Exodus 21:15. Murderers refers to Exodus 20:13.
Pornos
as whoremongers or prostitutes refers to Leviticus 19:29 and 20:5. Slave traders refers to Exodus 21:16. Liars refers to Leviticus 6:2-4 and 19:11. Perjurers (those who swear falsely) refers to Leviticus 6:3 and 19:12. Paul was saying that these sins in the Old Covenant are also sins in the New Covenant, just as some of the requirements in my old apartment contract in Seattle are also found in my new apartment contract in Houston (same obligations but
different
contracts). Therefore, the sin in those two Leviticus passages is also a sin in the New Covenant, whether it's all forms of gay sex or specifically anal intercourse.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (above), Paul used the same Greek words pornos and arsenokoites that we just looked at, plus another Greek word (malakos) that the NIV does not directly translate into English. Most English versions of the Bible translate malakos as "effeminate" because in classical Greek literature this word refers to things that are soft or feminine, such as clothing or people with feminine characteristics, as this article explains: "In the ancient world, effeminacy was implicated in heterosexual sex as much as homosexual - or more so. When Diogenes the Cynic sees a young man prettied up, he cannot tell whether the boy is crying to attract a man or a woman; in either case the boy is equally effeminate (Diogenes Laertius 6.54; the term malakos does not occur here, but effeminacy is the subject). Chariton in his novel Chaereas and Callirhoe provides a typical portrait of an effeminate man (1.4.9): he has a fresh hairdo, scented with perfume; he wears eye makeup, a soft (malakon) mantle, and light, swishy slippers; his fingers glisten with rings. Only a modem audience would find it strange that he is off to seduce not a man but a maiden. When the author of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Physiognomy wants to portray the "Charitable Type" of man, he makes him typically effeminate - and very hetero-sexual. Such men, he says, are delicate, pale, with shining eyes and wrinkled noses; they cry a lot, are "reminiscent," warmhearted, and with nice dispositions. They are particularly fond of women, with whom they have lots of sex, and they tend to produce female children (808a34)...The real problem with being penetrated [anal penetration] was that it implicated the man in the feminine, and malakos referred not to the penetration per se but to the perceived aspects of femaleness associated with it. The word malakos refers to the entire ancient complex of the devaluation of the feminine. Thus people could use malakos as an insult directed against men who love women too much...it is masculine to ejaculate seed and feminine to receive it...There is no historical reason to take malakos as a specific reference to the penetrated man in homosexual intercourse. It is even less defensible to narrow that reference down further to mean "male prostitute." The meaning of the word is clear, even if too broad to be taken to refer to a single act or role. malakos means "effeminate."" (Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and ConsequencesThe article quoted above appears to be intended to show that the meanings of the Greek words malakos and arsenokoites are not as clear-cut as our English translations of the Bible make them sound. But the main question here is what meaning did Paul have in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (above)? Many characteristics can be considered effeminate, some of which are described in the above quote, so was Paul intending to condemn all possible effeminate characteristics? Bible commentaries tend to see this as highly unlikely, pointing out that those two Greek words are paired together in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (above), which those Bible commentaries say is a strong reason to understand malakos ("the effeminate") as being the "female" or passive partners receiving anal intercourse (as described in the above quote), and arsenokoites ("the man-bedders") as being the active partners doing the anal penetration. Since these two Greek words are paired together in this passage, the NIV has translated them as "men who have sex with men" (describing both the active and passive partners in anal intercourse). Recall that a moment ago we saw that in 1 Timothy 1:9-11, Paul used that same Greek word arsenokoites to refer back to those two Leviticus passages, and earlier we saw why the sin in those two Leviticus passages was specifically anal intercourse. According to this Greek dictionary, the difference between two of the Greek words we've looked at in this passage is that: "The Greeks considered one who prostituted himself for gain as a pornos. In this sense it seems to be used in 1Co 6:9 where malakoi (pl.) (G3120), the effeminate, are also mentioned. The distinction between them and pornoi, fornicators, seems to consist in that the pornoi prostitute themselves for gain, but the malakoi, effeminate ones, do it without charge." (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, pornos)Here we see that the "effeminate ones" are those who prostitute themselves but without charge. The word "feminine" typically applies to females, and "effeminate" typically applies to males. Since the "effeminate ones" are prostituting themselves, once again we see that these are men who engage in sexual acts, including (but possibly not limited to) taking the "female" or passive role in receiving anal intercourse, making them effeminate (as explained in the article quoted above). In Romans 1:25-32 (above), the apostle Paul mentioned homosexuality, but, as in most of his comments about sexual issues, he described it in an indirect way that's open to various interpretations (as you'll find in articles online). First he said that "women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones," and then he said that "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." Bible commentaries unfortunately also tend to be indirect when discussing sexual issues, but the ones that use more specific terms invariably refer to the sin in this passage as being sodomy as in these examples: "The sin which is here specified is what was the shameful sin of Sodom, and which from that has been called sodomy." (Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible, Romans 1:27, emphasis added)When Paul said that men committed shameful acts with other men, Bible commentaries such as the ones above tend to interpret this as a description of sodomy (anal intercourse), which Paul referred to as being unnatural (abandoning natural sexual relations). In a moment we'll see why sodomy is unnatural. Paul also said that "women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones." It would be easy to just look on the surface and jump to the conclusion that Paul was referring to lesbianism, but this would be reading something into the Bible that isn't actually there. Look carefully at this passage in any version of the Bible and notice that Paul did not say that women had sexual relations with other women. He specifically said that they had "unnatural" sexual relations "in the same way" that men had unnatural sexual relations. We saw that the unnatural sexual relations for men involved sodomy, and Paul said that this was "in the same way" that women had unnatural sexual relations. Therefore, Paul's point was that there were women who desired to be the "female" or passive partner receiving anal intercourse, which was just as unnatural as when men engaged in anal intercourse (sodomy) with other men. For example, there are many men and women today (both heterosexuals and gays) who enjoy receiving anal penetration, sometimes with the use of anal toys that are specifically designed for this purpose (search online for "anal toys"). It would be unreasonable to assume that the desire for receiving anal penetration was non-existent in Paul's time, and his comment that this is unnatural is consistent with all of his comments concerning homosexuality in the above passages. In Romans 1:25-32 (above), the word "unnatural" in the NIV comes from two Greek words meaning "against nature," as you can see in other versions of the Bible. But why is anal intercourse "unnatural" or "against nature"? Notice that the female vagina is naturally able to lubricate itself (as is a person's mouth) for male penetration. In contrast, a person's anus and rectum have no natural way to lubricate themselves for being penetrated from the outside. Anal penetration is not a natural design of the body, so Paul said that it's "unnatural" or "against nature." Since Paul used the expression "against nature" in Romans 1:25-32 (above), gays tend to say that if a person is heterosexual from birth, then it would be against their nature to have homosexual sex. They then say that if a person is homosexual from birth, then it would be against their nature to have heterosexual sex. The conclusion of this argument is that Paul was not condemning gay sex at all, but instead he was condemning going against one's own nature. However, Paul did not say that people went "against their nature," he said that people went "against nature." Therefore, this argument by gays isn't supported in Scripture. We've seen that throughout the entire Bible, every passage that refers to homosexuality has a clear association with anal intercourse. There are no exceptions. In addition, we've seen that throughout the entire Bible, every passage that refers to homosexuality never describes any other forms of gay sexual activity. There are no exceptions. God clearly tells us that any form of anal penetration for pleasure or other sexual purposes is a sin (for both heterosexuals and homosexuals), and He never tells us that any other forms of gay sexual activity are a sin. In order to be thorough, there's one more passage in the New Testament that might contain a reference to homosexuals (not counting any gay couples in the Bible, which will be discussed later in this article): "Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, 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 there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others - and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."" (Matthew 19:8-12)In the above passage Jesus made some comments about marriage and divorce, prompting the disciples to say that it's better not to marry, and in that context Jesus described three types of people who are not likely to get married. He referred to them as "eunuchs," and the Greek word that He used means: "A keeper of the bed or bed chamber, a chamberlain, one who has been emasculated, such persons being employed as the keepers of oriental harems or dwellings of females. A eunuch (Mat 19:12), those impotent from birth and those who live like eunuchs in voluntary abstinence" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, eunouchos)In the entire New Testament, the only other place where this Greek word is used is in reference to the Ethiopian eunuch that Philip baptized in Acts 8:26-39. Taking in reverse order the eunuchs that Jesus mentioned, they are:
We saw that in Matthew 19:8-12 (above), Jesus described three types of people who are not likely to get married, and one type is eunuchs who were born that way. This type of eunuch is never mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament, so perhaps Jesus intended to include people who feel that they're gay from birth, and perhaps not. We have no scriptural evidence for making a conclusion one way or the other, but I've included this passage for the sake of being thorough. Are There Any Gay or Lesbian Couples in the Bible?
Homosexuals say that Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:14-17, 2:10-11), Daniel and Ashpenaz (Daniel 1:9), David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:1-4, 20-21, 20:17, 41, 2 Samuel 1:26), and the centurion and his servant (Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10) are examples of loving gay relationships in the Bible. The scriptural evidence that they provide in numerous articles online is more compelling than most Christians might realize, and, when studied in depth, less convincing than gays believe it is. After studying their evidence and the relevant Scripture passages, I had intended to explain in detail why none of those passages provide strong enough evidence of gay couples in the Bible. However, the Lord is telling me not to do that (see my article called How to Discern God's Guidance), and I'll explain why when I summarize this article in the Conclusion section. Conclusion
As a Bible teacher for many years, I've seen numerous patterns in the Bible. God must have enjoyed putting patterns in Scripture for us to find because there are so many of them, and they're always significant and important. As a heterosexual cisgender male, it does not affect me one way or the other if any or all forms of homosexuality are sinful ("cisgender" essentially means that my internal gender is the same as my external physical gender at birth). I don't have any agenda, for or against homosexuality. I do the best I can to let go of biases and emotions when I study the Bible, attempting to be guided solely by what God has recorded in Scripture, listening for the proper interpretation from the Spirit of God. I believe it's important to honor Him in this way, and I can only hope that you are willing to do the same. If you recall, the goal of this article is to attempt to answer these questions:
Now that I have answered these questions to my own satisfaction, my personal conclusion is that the consistent pattern in all of the relevant passages, based on digging deeper to discern the actual intended meaning, demonstrates that homosexuality is not always a sin. Gay sex is only a sin if it involves any form of anal penetration for pleasure or other sexual purposes, with the understanding that gay sex would be sinful in similar ways that heterosexual sex would be sinful, including prostitution, adultery, rape, and sleeping around. We saw that throughout the entire Bible, every passage that refers to homosexuality has a clear association with anal intercourse. There are no exceptions. In addition, we saw that throughout the entire Bible, every passage that refers to homosexuality never describes any other forms of gay sexual activity. There are no exceptions. God clearly tells us that any form of anal penetration for pleasure or other sexual purposes is a sin (for both heterosexuals and homosexuals), and He never tells us that any other forms of gay sexual activity are a sin. Again, it's wrong to make the blanket statement that homosexuality is a sin because the New Testament never condemns homosexuality in general. We also saw that a person's anus and rectum have no natural way to lubricate themselves for being penetrated from the outside. Anal penetration is not a natural design of the body, so Paul said that it's "unnatural" or "against nature." Concerning the issue of gay or lesbian relationships in the Bible (based on everything we've seen in this article): On the one hand, if all forms of homosexuality are sinful then it means that either (1) there are no gay or lesbian couples in the Bible, or (2) any gay or lesbian couples were sinning, or (3) any gay or lesbian couples were not sinning if they did not engage in any sexual activity together. On the other hand, if anal intercourse is the only form of homosexual activity that's condemned in the Bible, then any loving, monogamous gay or lesbian relationships in the Bible were not sinful as long as they did not engage in anal intercourse. So even if there are any gay or lesbian relationships in Scripture, this doesn't affect our understanding of whether or not all forms of gay sexual activity are a sin. No matter what we each believe concerning homosexuality, it's very important to keep in mind that God loves everyone (John 3:16, Romans 5:8, Ephesians 2:4, 5:2, Titus 3:3-4, 1 John 4:8, 11, 16). When Paul listed numerous sins of people who will not make it into heaven (e.g., 1 Timothy 1:9-11, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Romans 1:25-32), this does not mean that anyone who commits those sins will be prevented from entering heaven. If it did, then we would all be in trouble because all of us do some of those things at times, such as envying, causing strife, lying or being deceitful, feeling or acting with malice, gossiping, slandering, or being arrogant or boastful. The Bible is very clear that we all do sinful things (Romans 7:15-25, James 3:2, 1 John 1:8, 2:1), and we will be disciplined for our sins if we don't ask for forgiveness, but our sins will not keep us out of heaven because the only requirement for receiving salvation and being allowed into heaven is to have proper faith in Jesus (see my article called How to Receive Salvation). People who repeatedly commit the sins listed in passages such as 1 Timothy 1:9-11, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Romans 1:25-32 are demonstrating that they do not have proper faith in Jesus (i.e., obedient faith), and that's why they will not be allowed into heaven. Therefore, heterosexuals and gays alike (and people who use other terms for themselves) all need to be certain that the things we do are acceptable to the Lord, and the best way to do this is to make a diligent effort to learn how to discern His guidance throughout the day, every day (see my article called How to Discern God's Guidance). Since God loves everyone as we just saw, and since God wants everyone to be saved (see my article called Our Lives Are Not Predestined), the proper way to treat those who identify as being in the LGBTQIA+ community (and everyone else) is to show them God's love and welcome them into churches. Then teach them how to discern God's guidance (see my article called How to Discern God's Guidance), and let God be the One to show them any changes that He wants them to make. It might not be the changes that you think they should make, and He might allow them to do things that you think are wrong. He is God and we are not; it's His decision, not ours. He probably wants you to make changes in your life because no one is without sin (Romans 7:15-25, James 3:2, 1 John 1:8, 2:1). As an example of Christian love for those in the LGBTQIA+ community, this is a heartwarming story of a Christian family that experienced pain and trauma (within themselves and from Christian friends and leaders) after their son came out as gay, but later began sharing their journey of healing and reconciliation in a ministry that has helped numerous other families: After their son came out, this conservative Christian couple went into a closet of their own .
Another thing we've seen is that the New Testament never forbids gays from being pastors or leaders in church or ministry. The scriptural qualifications for the offices in the local church are described in detail in my series called New Testament Passages Concerning Women, so anyone who identifies as being in the LGBTQIA+ community (or anyone else) and meets the scriptural qualifications should not be forbidden from serving in any roles in church or ministry based on being LGBTQIA+ (or any other unscriptural reasons). For the glory of the Lord Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, who came in the flesh, was delivered over to death for our sins, and was raised to life for our justification. Dave Root home page and email: https://www.vividchristianity.com "Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:3) "Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist - denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:22-23) "If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God." (1 John 4:15) "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." (1 John 4:1-3) "And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love. I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 1:6-7) "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." (Romans 4:25) |
| Modification History |
|
| All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (R). NIV (R). Copyright (C) 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. (Emphasis added.) |