THE SCRIPTURES ON SAME GENDER SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

Contrary to what many people have been taught there is nothing in the
Bible which condemns people with a homosexual orientation having
homosexual relationships. In fact, did you know the word "homosexual", as
we understand it today, does not occur in the Bible at all in the original
languages it was written in!

Let's take a look at the passages which have often been use to oppress the
homosexual people:

GENESIS 18-19

the story of Sodom and Gomorrah actually condemns inhospitality and
idolatry, not homosexuality. Read the Scriptural cross-references:

Deuteronomy 29:23, Isaiah 1:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Lamentations 4:6, Ezekiel
16:49-50, Amos 4:11, Zephaniah 2:9, Matthew 10:15 / Luke 10:12, Luke
17:29, Romans 9:29, Jude v.7, Revelation 11:8

NOWHERE in the Scriptures does it say that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah
was homosexual sex. Even if the specific point of the story was concerning
a sexual matter, rather than hospitality, the issue is rape not
homosexuality. Jesus claimed the issue was simply one of showing
hospitality to strangers (Luke 10:12). How ironic that those who
discriminate against homosexuals seem to be the true practitioners of the
sin of Sodom.

JUDGES 19

Here is a story which parallels the Sodom account. The Sodom account
showed the inhospitality of a Gentile city-state but in Judges 19 we see
an example of extreme inhospitality among the "children of Israel"
themselves. As in the Genesis account the house is surrounded by men and
the host of the house offers women in the place of his guest and says
"HUMBLE THEM..." (v. 19). This clearly shows the purpose of the attack was
to humiliate and most probably to kill the stranger, not to satisfy
homosexual "lust". (20:5)

The guest finally puts his concubine outside and they humiliate him by
raping and abusing her all night until she died. This act was an extreme
violation of the Hebrew people's sacred code of hospitality. This act of
INHOSPITALITY by people of the tribe of Benjamin so enraged the other
Hebrew tribes that they went to war with them.

When interpreting the Genesis 18-19 account fear and prejudice toward
homosexuality cause some people to focus on the fact that the rape would
have been homosexual rape and they then condemn all homosexual sex acts.
Judges 19 is an almost identical account depicting a group of men raping a
woman. Should we therefore conclude that the story was a condemnation of
all heterosexual sex acts?

After careful study it seems obvious that neither Genesis 18-19 nor Judges
19 were written as tools for condemnation toward homosexuals. The major
focus of these stories was the issue of hospitality.

DEUTERONOMY 23:17-18, I KINGS 14:24 AND I KINGS 15:12

These passages are often translated as if they refer to homosexuals,
however the actual word that is being translated is "qadesh" which means
"holy one" or "someone set apart for a holy purpose." In this case the
word is referring to people who commit ritual acts of prostitution in
order to honor their deity. The clearest translation of this concept would
simply be "temple or ritual prostitute".

For example, Deuteronomy 23:17 should be translated thusly: "There shall
be no ritual prostitute of the daughters of Israel, or a ritual prostitute
of the sons of Israel". Any translation which translates qadesh as pervert
or sodomite is blatantly mistranslating. An example which shows this
clearly is found in the New King James version which translates qadesh in
its male form as 'perverted one' but translates qadesh in its female form
as 'ritual harlot', both should be 'ritual harlot or prostitute!' Another
example of this kind of biased translation can be found in the King James
version which translates the word for male ritual prostitute as
"sodomite". The fact of the matter is that (as far as I can ascertain) in
the original languages of the Bible there isn't such a word as sodomite".

These passages do not condemn homosexuality, for that matter they don't
even condemn prostitution. Instead, they condemn the practice of religious
prostitution connected with the worship of a foreign god.

At this point the reader should be able to see a pattern developing. In
the Genesis and Judges accounts some people choose to ignore the actual
issue of hospitality and construe the accounts to condemn homosexuality.
In the Deuteronomy and 1st Kings passages the actual issue of idolatry is
ignored in favor of construing them as passages condemning homosexuality.

LEVITICUS 18:22 AND 20:13-14

It is likely that the prohibition thou shall not lie with a male as with a
woman came about for one of the following reasons:

a) Only sexual acts which could lead to procreation were valued as the
tribes needed to grow in numbers in order to survive.

b) Male homosexual sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with
idolatry. Notice that Lev. 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the
prohibitions in the Holiness Code were probably connected with idolatrous
practices, see 19:26-29.

c)Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were
generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual
intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the
Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the
offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN. If this line of thinking
is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against
female homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Women could not be degraded
by such an act as they were already not held in high esteem.

d) there is a theory that the Hebrew people believed in a perfect order of
creation and anything that violated that order was considered unclean or
an abomination. A probable example would be that fish were considered the
perfect sea animal, hence anything in the sea that did not have scales and
fins was unclean. (Lev. 11:9-10) Cattle were the perfect cud chewing
animal, hence anything that chewed cud, but didn't have hooves was
unclean. (Lev. 11:6). If this theory is correct then the prohibition
against male sex acts would be violating the role of the perfect ideal
human: man. It would seem to mix the sex role of the imperfect woman with
the ideal role of the man.

Even if the reader disagrees with the theories stated above they should
take note that these verses are a part of the Hebrew scriptures often
called the 'Holiness Code'. This 'code' is no longer followed by the
Christian church.

In Leviticus 18:19 (which is just a few verses before the prohibition
'thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman') having sexual relations
with a woman during her period is forbidden yet this is not proclaimed as
a binding rule for today.

Also, 18:8 and 18:18 show that this code allows for polygamy yet this is
now considered immoral.

19:28 prohibits tattoos yet they are not proclaimed as sinful by the
Christian church.

19:19 forbids crossbreeding of livestock yet the church allows, farmers
who do this very thing to worship in church.

19:19 forbids sowing a field with mixed feed, yet farmers are not
condemned who plant hay and alfalfa.

11:7 forbids the eating of pigs, yet people unashamedly have a side of
bacon with their eggs!

11:6 forbids the eating of rabbits (hares) because they don't have cloven
hooves but they chew cud, yet some Christians love to eat rabbit. 11:9-10
forbids the eating of any seafood that doesn't have fins and scales, yet
shrimp and lobster lovers are not told to repent by Christians, nor is Red
Lobster picketed!

23:3 instructs that the seventh day of the week is to be the Sabbath, not
Sunday, yet the Christian church disregards this.

Deut 22 states that a woman is not telling the truth if she says she was
raped but no one heard her scream.

It is clear that the Christian church does not abide by the Holiness Code.
It was a set of regulations which governed the Hebrew tribes but is not
considered binding on the Christian church because there is now a NEW
COVENANT IN JESUS CHRIST! The following verses talk about this New
Covenant:

Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or
regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of
things to come, but the substance is Christ."

Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former
commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made
nothing perfect."

Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the
first obsolete."

Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods
and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time
of reformation."

There are those who recognize that Christians are under a New Covenant and
yet state that the Old Covenant was divided into three parts, civil,
ceremonial and moral. They then insist that the moral part of the Old
Covenant remain in force. This distinction can nowhere be found in the Old
Covenant itself. In fact, many guidelines clearly have both a
civil/ceremonial use AND a moral one (See Leviticus 19:13). Who, then, has
the authority to decide "this is morality, but this is civil procedure and
this is ceremonial..."?

since the Christian church does not follow the Holiness Code it has no
right to arbitrarily pick Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13-14 as still binding
just because it seems to support a particular prejudice.

At this point the reader may be thinking, "Well that may be true about the
Old Covenant but there are New Testament verses which forbid homosexual
acts." Well, let's take a look at those passages.

ROMANS 1:24-27

This passage has been used by some Christians to make an issue over how
"unrighteous" and sinful homosexuals are. In fact, it has been used to
support the view that AIDS is the "penalty of their error which was due".
What is fascinating about this kind of application is that it is totally
at odds with what, I believe, Paul was really saying. IN ORDER TO
UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF ROMANS CHAPTER ONE YOU MUST READ ROMANS CHAPTERS
ONE THROUGH THREE. The outline is as follows:

I. The Gospel is for EVERYONE, Jews and Gentiles. (1:16)

II. Why? Because God's wrath is against ALL unrighteousness. (verse 18).

II. The Gentiles need the Gospel. (1:28-32) The examples of their
"uncleanness" include idolatry and homosexual acts which are either
connected to or resulting from idolatry.

III. But the Jews are just as unrighteous as the Gentiles. (2:3)

IV. "All have sinned" and are "justified (made right with God) FREELY by
God's grace (unearned love) through the redemption that is in Jesus
Christ." (3:23-24)

While Paul is certainly not favorable toward the homosexual acts that he
is writing about it is interesting to note that Paul classifies them
"unclean" which is not necessarily a "moral" precept. (According to the
Holiness Code lobsters and shrimp are "unclean" also.) He may be pointing
out that though the Jews are different than the Gentiles in that they are
ritually "clean" (according to the Old Covenant) they are still just as
much in need of the grace of the New Covenant.

Let's look at some of the verses in this section:

Verse 27b "And receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which
was due". Is Paul here saying that those who committed homosexual acts
were punished in some physical way...as in venereal disease? Or could
"uncleanness", being cut off from the Old Hebrew Covenant, be the penalty
of the Gentile's error?

28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God
gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not
fitting..." People often take this to mean one of the following things:

a) Since homosexuals didn't retain God in their knowledge, God gave them
over to a debased mind.

b) Since the Gentiles were idolatrous God gave them over to a debased mind
of homosexuality.

However, I believe that Paul was saying the following:

c) "Since the Gentiles did not retain God in their knowledge God gave them
over to a debased mind. The debased mind is NOT homosexuality but a mind
that is centered on unrighteousness, hence the listing of what the Gentile
mind is full of in verse 29.

29-32 This list of "unrighteousness" is being applied to all Gentiles, not
Gentiles that commit homosexual sex acts. It is the Gentiles "who are
worthy of death". These verses are really just an exposition of verse 18.

26-27 Another interesting point to consider is that people often use
verses 26-27 to prove that Paul used an argument from "nature" to prove
that homosexual activity was wrong. However that kind of usage of the word
"nature" is highly unlikely as Paul usually uses the word "nature" or
"natural" to mean not what "Mother Nature" does but instead he means "the
previously accepted common usage". Nature is not a great teacher about
ethics and humans are nowhere called in scripture to emulate it. What is
more, homosexual activity DOES go on in the animal world.