HOMOSEXUALITY

HOMOSEXUALITY: A BIBLICAL ANSWER

Dr. Errol Wagner D.D.

Introduction.

There is no doubt that the issue of homosexuality is one of the ‘hot’

issues being debated in society in general and the church in particular

at the moment. Increasingly homosexuality is being accepted as normal.

Scientific studies are offered to prove that homosexuality is hereditary

and that 10% of the population is exclusively homosexual. In schools,

part of the curriculum on sex education presents homosexuality as an

alternative life-style, just as legitimate as heterosexuality. As a

result, more and more homosexuals are coming out of the closet and

publicly declaring their homosexuality. Instead of resulting in shock,

these people are being acclaimed as brave and are admired.

The debate has become more sharply focused in South Africa because 18

gay couples together with the Gay Equality Project has challenged the

common-law definition of marriage in the Johannesburg High Court. In

another case brought before the Supreme Court of Appeal by Marie Fourie

and her partner Cecelia Bonthuys, the court declared that the common-law

definition of marriage to be unconstitutional. (Sunday Times: Dec 2004).

Under South African common law, marriage is defined as ‘the union of one

man and one woman’. This could now be changed to read: ‘Marriage is

the union of two persons to the exclusion of others for life.’ However,

this has not yet been taken up in the Marriage Act of 1961. So legally

homosexual ‘marriages’ are not yet recognized, but may become legal if

the Act is changed. Of course, changing laws cannot make something

that is wrong, moral. There is no necessary link between law and

morality, as we in South Africa well know. For years immoral acts were

legal, e.g., the Pass laws and separate development.

This is yet another step in forcing society to change its attitude to

homosexual practice. I use the word ‘forcing’ deliberately, because

there is no question that the majority of people in society still

believe that homosexual practice is wrong (immoral) and unnatural. The

agenda is quite clear in a pro-gay article which appeared in the Sunday

Times on December 5th, ‘…the real problem will lie in persuading society

to accept gay couples to be allowed not only to love each other, but to

exchange vows and enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual

couples.’(Sunday Times: Dec 2004) Professor Ronald Louw, of the law

faculty at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, in the same article is

quoted as follows;

‘There is no doubt that civil society will resist this [same-sex

marriage] and that it is going to be viewed as a very unpopular judgment

by a large residue of homophobes across all racial group.’(Sunday Times:

Dec 2004).

One wonders what Louw means by ‘a large residue of homophobes’? The

fact of the matter is that an HSRC representative national survey of

4980 adults (aged 16 and older) conducted during September and October

2003 indicates that 78% of South Africans feel that sexual relations

between two adults of the same gender are ‘always wrong’. What is

significant is that the disapproval rating is highest among black

Africans (81%). (HSRC: 2004). One can only conclude that 78% of South

Africans at the present time are ‘homophobes’ and should be pressured

into changing their views. It is interesting that the ANC at their

93rd Annual Meeting in Umtata in January 2005 criticized Judges for not

taking the opinion of the masses into account in their judgments.

Whilst not advocating that Judges should tailor their judgments

according to public opinion, or that morality should be based on

majority vote, to be consistent, our law concerning same sex marriages

should also reflect public opinion, which would mean the marriage act

would not be changed to allow for same gender marriages.

There are signs that there is a concerted effort by the media in the

West, including South Africa to change society’s attitude to homosexual

practice. Our TV, for instance, regularly features films and

programmes where homosexuality is depicted as normal and even admirable.

Alongside this, they regularly portray those who reject the homosexual

lifestyle as bigoted and hateful and usually written off as radical

‘fundamentalists’ who are guilty of discriminating against homosexuals.

How has the church responded to these changes? Responses have varied

widely, ranging from denunciations of persons experiencing a hint of

homosexual orientation, to an acceptance and permissiveness that might

be interpreted as encouraging homosexual behaviour and commitment. For

example, over the past two years some denominations have even been

prepared to ordain practicing homosexuals to the Christian ministry.

In the United States, the Episcopal Church in November 2003 consecrated

Gene Robinson, a self-confessed practicing homosexual, as bishop in New

Hampshire. (ChristianityToday.Com: 11/07/2003). Reaction to this in

the Anglican Church has been mixed. Here in South Africa Archbishop

Njongonkulu Ndungane of The Church of the Province of Southern Africa

said, ‘We would like to congratulate Gene Robinson and pray for

him.’(CT: Nov 2003) This response stands in sharp contrast with other

Anglican communities in Africa. Primate Peter Akinola of The Church of

Nigeria [Anglican Communion] said ‘We are appalled that the authorities

within the Episcopal Church USA have ignored the heartfelt plea of the

Communion not to proceed with the scheduled consecration of Canon Gene

Robinson’. As a result they have broken ties with the Episcopal

Church. (CT: 2003) The Church of the Province Uganda called the

consecration of Gene Robinson as ‘unacceptable to the church’. (CT:

2003) The Church of the Province of Central Africa stated that this

consecration has brought ‘darkness and disappointment’ to the church.

(CT: 2003) The Anglican Church of Australia ‘will not recognize him

[Gene Robinson] as an Anglican bishop’. (CT: 2003) In its response to

the Supreme Court of Appeals decision regarding same sex marriages, The

South African Council of Churches’ (SACC) attitude was reflected by its

General Secretary, Molefe Tsele’s statement that ‘the core teachings of

Christianity do not explicitly prohibit the validation of faithful,

loving same-sex relationships’.(The Witness 3 December 2004 p 4).

This ambivalent attitude to homosexuality by the certain sectors of the

institutional church has confused many Christians who have always

believed that homosexual behaviour was a sin. What has exacerbated the

confusion is the fact that many texts in the Bible that have always been

interpreted as condemning homosexual practice have been reinterpreted.

In the midst of the debate, two sectors of the church have consistently

maintained that homosexual behaviour is a sin, the Roman Catholic Church

and conservative Christians or evangelicals who insist that the

traditional interpretation of the Bible affirming that homosexual

behaviour is contrary to the will of God remains decisive for Christian

morality today.

This does not mean that Christians support homophobia (defined as fear

of homosexuality) or discrimination of any form or the denial of civil

rights, against those who are practicing homosexuals. We acknowledge

that in the past Christians have been guilty of rejecting and isolating

homosexually orientated persons. We have been guilty of putting

homosexual sin in a category by itself. Such an attitude has no

justification in Scripture. We have also been guilty of defining

homosexuals in terms of their sexuality, ignoring the fact that they

have the same needs and interests as other people and that homosexuality

itself does not prevent a person from being a productive and functional

member of society. We believe that all people should be treated with

respect and their dignity recognized. They should be accepted as

persons. Whilst rejecting homosexual practice, we do not believe it is

the ‘unforgivable’ sin. The example we are called to follow is that of

our Lord Jesus Christ who welcomed all sinners without prejudice.

What the popular media often chooses to ignore is that not all those who

reject homosexual activity are homophobic or discriminate against

homosexuals. Although there are some Christian groups who are guilty

of these things – not all are. Rejection of homosexual practice should

not be equated with homophobia or discriminating against homosexuals.

This point must be stressed simply because the media have been guilty of

caricaturing Christians who consider homosexual activity to be immoral

as hateful and bigoted. It is not simply bigotry that causes many

Christians to reject homosexual behaviour, but principle. We believe

it is immoral but that does not mean we hate homosexuals, or feel

uncomfortable in their company, refuse to work or mix with them or have

them living in our neighbourhoods. To state that homosexual activity

is inappropriate is one thing; to act with fear and hostility towards

homosexuals is quite another matter. In an article, Greg Koukl, a

strong opponent of homosexual behaviour exemplifies this,

“If someone asked me what I felt about homosexuality, I’d answer: I

honestly don’t feel uncomfortable simply because someone is a

homosexual. Some homosexuals are likeable, some are not. I treat persons

as individuals. If I were asked what I think about homosexuality,

however, my answer would be different. I think that homosexuals are

human beings that should be treated with respect, should not be bashed

or called names, and should be given the same rights that any other

citizen has. That’s what I actually think. I also think, though, that

homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. I say this not as a personal

preference, but as a personal conviction – I think that statement is

actually true. I’m also glad to give you reasons why I think so. This is

my moral, cognitive conclusion about homosexuality, as opposed to what I

feel.”(Koukl: 1998)

Let us also be quite clear that love does not mean acceptance of wrong.

God’s love is demonstrated precisely in the fact that he rejects our sin

and did something about it.

In this context all serious Christians are looking for answers. What

should our attitude be to homosexuality in general and homosexual

behaviour in particular? Are we outdated in our beliefs in condemning

homosexuality as sinful? Is it normal? Is it an alternative life

style? How can we condemn those who have been born with a homosexual

orientation? How can we condemn those who really love each other? In

this booklet we seek to explain why Christians have traditionally

believed homosexual behaviour to be unnatural. We make no apology for

stating that our basis of evaluating anything remains the Scriptures of

both the Old and New Testaments. Every single person has some criteria

on which they base their convictions and opinions. Our purpose is also

to encourage Christians to reach out in love with the gospel that is the

power of God unto salvation to all who believe.

Definitions

What is homosexuality? Basically is refers to men or women who are

sexually attracted to members of their own sex, though lesbianism is the

word normally used to distinguish female homosexuality. Sherwood Cole

defines homosexuality “as the sexual/erotic expression between two

people with the same external genital anatomy and physical appearance”

(Cole 1997: 359)

Homosexuality however, should be distinguished from homosexual

behaviour. There are cases where someone has a homosexual orientation

but does not engage in homosexual acts, choosing to live a celibate

life. In other words, it is important to draw a distinction between

personal orientation and behaviour. Some people with a homosexual

orientation never put their desires into practice. The Bible says

nothing about homosexual orientation, but it does condemn homosexual

acts forthrightly (as we propose to show). It is a fact that often

homosexual orientation may be due to factors beyond a persons’ control,

whereas, behaviour is within a person’s control.

We must also recognize that there are situations where someone who is

not homosexual engages in homosexual acts, like for example, in a prison

where heterosexual men or women are isolated from the opposite sex.

Homosexual behaviour is then situational and not inherent in the person.

It is also important to realize that there are degrees of homosexuality

and that some people for example are ‘sexually attracted to individuals

of both biological sexes, as distinguished from heterosexual and

homosexual orientations’. (Hart 1990: 91). However there is a great

deal of controversy over whether this type of sexual attraction actually

exists. (Hart 1990: 91).

Clarifying some claims.

Before we look in detail at relevant passages dealing with homosexuality

in the Scripture, it is important to deal with certain claims made by

pro-homosexual activists. Invariably these claims are conveyed as

factual and beyond question.

Ten Percent of the population is homosexual.

A claim that is often made is that ten percent of the population is

homosexual. Is this true? What is the basis of this claim? This

figure derives from a survey done by A.C. Kinsey in 1948 of white

American adult males. From his survey he found that 4% were

exclusively homosexual in their behaviour after puberty, while 8% were

exclusively homosexual for at least three years. His figures for females

(1953) were lower and based on a smaller sample; he discovered that 13%

had behaved homosexually at some point in their lives before the age of

45. (Field 1995: 450). However, Kinsey’s data is generally believed to

over-represent male homosexuality because his sample came from prison

inmates. In other words, his sample is considered to be biased.

William Simon, formerly a research associate at the Kinsey Institute,

suggested that only ‘2 to 3 percent of the male population has a serious

long term homosexual pattern’. (Hunt 1974: 308). Bieber suggests that

1-2% of the adult male population is exclusively or near-exclusively

homosexual. (Bieber 1976: 215). Hunt puts the figure at 2-3%. (Hunt

1974: 308)

Time magazine, referring to the work of the Battelle Human Affairs

Research Centres in Seattle, says that one of the most thorough studies

on male homosexual behaviour found that only 1% of 3321 men surveyed

said they considered themselves exclusively homosexual. (Time Feb 15

1993: 46). Newsweek reports,

“Some gay activities now concede that they exploited the Kinsey estimate

for its tactical value, not its accuracy. ‘We used that figure when most

gay people were entirely hidden to try to create the impression of our

numerousness,’ says Tom Stoddard, former head to the Lambda Legal

Defense Fund.” (Newsweek April 26, 1993: 27).

Of course, even if the 10% figure is accurate it proves nothing, for

morality is not determined by surveys or Gallup. Moral principle is

based on a more reliable foundation than public whim.

Recent research proves that homosexuality is not a pathological

disorder.

Much is made of the fact that homosexuality was removed from the

approved list of pathological psychiatric conditions by the American

Psychiatric Association [APA] in 1974. Thus, neither the APA nor the

American Psychological Association consider homosexuality a pathological

disorder. The impression has been created that this was in response to

the findings of scientific research. However, it is important to

understand the history and context which led to the APA’s action.

First, while the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM (Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) was in response to a majority

vote of the APA, it appears that the majority of the APA membership

viewed homosexuality as pathological in spite of the vote. Four years

after the vote, a survey found that 69% of psychiatrists believed that

homosexuality ‘usually represents a pathological adaptation’ (Bayer

1981: 167). The editor of the journal that published this survey

suggested that the 1974 vote ‘might have been affected by

socio-political considerations’ (Bayer 1981: 167). The vote may have

been a demonstration of support for homosexual civil rights and not the

views of psychiatrists about the pathological status of homosexuality.

Second, the vote was called at a time of tremendous social upheaval and

change. The volatility of the social order may itself have been an

inappropriate influencing factor in the decision process. (Bayer 1981:

167). Third, the vote was taken under conditions of explicit threats

from the gay rights establishment to continue disruptive demonstrations

which would impede APA conventions and research. (Bayer 1981: 167).

Finally, it was an action taken with such unconventional speed that

normal channels of consideration of the issues were circumvented. (Bayer

1981: 167). In other words, no research has established whether or not

homosexuality is a psychopathological condition or not.

Homosexuality is genetically determined.

Researchers have tried for decades to identify a biological basis for

homosexuality. Quite obviously, if biology explains homosexual

behaviour, it means that individuals cannot be held responsible for

behaviour over which they have no control. In fact, it can be argued

that it is “natural”. Cole in a footnote points out that

“This argument is clearly reflected in ….comments made by a psychologist

at a major convention. He states that to assume a biological basis for

sexual orientation is the best track for convincing the legislature,

judiciary, and public that homosexuals should be treated like anyone

else and protected against discrimination in public policy” (Cole 1997:

356) (Quoted from Scott Sleek, “Research Lights Path to Policy Changes,”

APA Monitor 17 [1996]: 54).

Early research seemed to suggest that there was a genetic component in

the causation of homosexuality. To support this hypothesis, the

findings of Kallman (1952) are often cited. However these results have

not be replicated and Kallman himself later called them a ‘statistical

artifact’. (Jones & Workman 1989: 218)

More recently, new research was carried out by Simon LeVay, a biologist

at San Diego’s Salk Institute of Biological Studies. (Time 1991: 58)

In a study of 41 brains taken from people who died before age 60, LeVay

found that one tiny region in the brain of homosexual men, namely the

hypothalamus, which is associated with sexual behaviour, was found to be

more than twice as large in heterosexual men. In other words, it was

similar in size to that found in women. (Time 1991: 59). However many

technical aspects of the study are questionable, as LeVay himself

concedes. For example, there is no certainty as to whether all the

heterosexual men in the study were heterosexual. Furthermore, since

AIDS attacks the brain, the size difference may have nothing to do with

sexual orientation. Anne Fausto-Sterling, professor of medical science

at Brown University in Rhode Island commented, “My freshman biology

students know enough to sink this study”. (Time 1991: 60). In another

study carried out by a Dutch research team they discovered that a

different group of neurons in the hypothalamus is larger in homosexual

than in straight men. However, some scientists maintain that this

group of neurons controls daily rhythms and not sexual behaviour. (Time

1991: 60). This means then that ultimately the evidence is still far

from clear.

What about other causes of homosexuality? There is no consensus about

the causes of homosexuality. However, most experts agree that

homosexual orientation for the most part is learned, and is usually

traceable to early childhood, and attributable to some form of

deficiency in the parent-child (most often same sex) relationship.

According to Bieber, who has worked exclusively with male homosexuals in

therapy, “In every case I have examined, studied or treated,

homosexuality was the consequence of serious disturbances during

childhood development” (Bieber 1976: 164). He maintains that

homosexuality is “due primarily to a profound disturbance in

parent-child relationships” (Bieber 1976: 164).

Jeff Collins, executive director of the Annapolis, Maryland-based Love

and Action, a ministry to people with AIDS said all he has experienced

personally and in ministry supports the view that homosexual orientation

is learned.

“Ninety-five percent of the AIDS patients we have worked with who are

homosexual had absentee fathers’ said Collins. ‘or their parents were

divorced. Or for some reason they were deprived of normal parent-child

relationships” (Christianity Today November 1990: 57).

As a generalization then it could be said that homosexuality often seems

to rest from an unhappy home life, usually involving confusion in sexual

identity. More specifically, if there is a common thread, it seems to

be a home where the mother is dominating, overprotective and possessive

of her son, while the father withdraws from the son.

Dr Elizabeth Moberly, who contributed to Psychogenesis – Homosexuality:

A New Christian Ethic (James Clarke 1983), in her article ‘First Aid in

Pastoral Care XV. Counselling the Homosexual’ states,

“My data lead me to conclude that the homosexual—whether male or

female—has been unable to meet the normal developmental need for

attachment to the parent of the same sex. In the earlier years of life,

some difficulty in relationship—perhaps temporary separation—has led to

the repression of the child’s attachment to the parent of the same sex.

Needs for love, dependency and identification that are normally met

through this relationship, remain unfulfilled’ (Moberly 1985: 262)

Having said this, there are cases where homosexuality occurs in a

seemingly happy home where no obvious distortion in parent roles can be

observed. In other words, although there are some common factors, this

condition is complicated and there may be other causes so that absolute

conclusions are not available.

Condemning homosexuality robs homosexuals of their dignity.

It is often stated that in condemning homosexual practice we are robbing

them of their dignity and personhood. According to Patrick Henry “By

declaring that their identity as homosexuals is odious in God’s sight –

we are failing to guard the dignity and saving the pride of many of our

brothers and sisters” (Henry April 1976: 37).

Are we to infer from this statement that a person with homosexual

orientation defines his or her identity in terms of their sexual

preference? Is this true? No it is not, for the dignity of a person

is not connected to sexual orientation. One’s dignity is based on

one’s humanity. Homosexuals are human beings before they are

homosexuals. By condemning homosexual practice we are not declaring

that the identity of the homosexual is odious, only the practice. Does

declaring a certain life style sinful degrade someone’s dignity or rob

them of their dignity? To say murder is wrong, does not rob the guilty

person of his or her dignity as a human being. Identity is connected

to humanity and not sexuality. What if someone’s life style is

bestiality or child sex – if we declare it morally wrong, are we

undermining that person’s dignity or does that person not undermine his

or her own dignity?

Homosexuality and the Bible.

For the Christian, the only basis of evaluating anything should be the

Scripture. Traditionally Christians have accepted without question

that the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour. However, today, there is

a significant group of church leaders who now support homosexual

behaviour. How, one would ask, can this be when the Bible so clearly

condemns homosexual behaviour? The fact is that some Bible scholars

have recently challenged the traditionally negative conclusions drawn

from these biblical passages and have actually found approval for

homosexual behaviour on the basis of the Bible. The relevant passages

of Scripture have been reinterpreted. On the basis of these revised

interpretations, the traditional interpretations have either been

rejected or considered as irrelevant for the modern age.

The question is; have these scholars have found any evidence that our

traditional interpretation has been faulty? The answer is negative.

What has happened is that the texts have been reinterpreted out of their

contexts. It is on the basis of these reinterpretations of the

relevant texts that Patrick Henry declares without any substantiation

“The explicit biblical statements on homosexuality are simply not a

substantial basis for a moral judgment” (Henry April 1976: 35). What

is significant is that he does not even deal with the biblical passages;

he simply dismisses them.

On the other hand, Klyne Snodgrass – Bible professor at North Park

Seminary in Chicago states, “Nothing in Scripture suggests that

homosexuality is a viable lifestyle. In all references to homosexual

practice, the Bible speaks negatively”(CToday. Nov 5 1990: 57). We

will discuss some of these interpretations and give a response to them.

Genesis 19:1-11

This is the account of the visit of two angels to the city of Sodom to

warn Lot and his family of the impending destruction of Sodom and

Gomorrah. Lot pressed the strangers to stay over at his home for the

night. However, it was not long before the men of Sodom heard about

the strangers. In the fourth and fifth verses we are told that,

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of

Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 5 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." The literal reading of verse 5 is And they

called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men which came in to you

this night? Bring them out to us, that we may know them. According to

the traditional interpretation the word ‘know’ refers to sexual

intercourse, thus an obvious reference to homosexual sex.

However, recently some scholars have questioned the traditional

interpretation. For example, Yale historian John Boswell believes that

the problem was that Lot was violating the custom of Sodom by

entertaining guests within the city walls at night without obtaining the

permission of the elders of the city. When the men of Sodom gathered

around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, “that they

might know them”, they meant no more than to “know” who they were, and

the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality but for

the sin of inhospitality to strangers (Boswell 1980: 107-117).

Shirwin Bailey in an influential book “Homosexuality and the Western

Christian Tradition” likewise denies that the verb “know” has a sexual

connotation. He argues that the men of Sodom wanted to interrogate

Lot’s guests to see if they were spies. In particular he claims that

the word, “know” (which the NIV translates “have sex with”) simply

means, “to become acquainted”. Thus, Lot’s protest was against the

discourtesy of interrogating his guests and God punished them for

breaching the rules of hospitality, and not sexual perversion (Bailey

1955: 38).

Support for this interpretation is found in Ezekiel 16:49-50 where the

sin of Sodom is described, `Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom:

She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did

not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable

things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Christopher Wright draws our attention to the problem when he states,

“Ironically, the one thing for which Sodom is most famous in traditional

Christian interpretation, the attempted violent homosexual rape in

Genesis 19, is the one thing Ezekiel does not mention explicitly”

[Wright 2001: 148).

The sin of Sodom is her lack of social responsibility for the “poor and

needy”. Brownlee puts it even more strongly, “Thus ‘sodomy’

(so-called) in Genesis is basically oppression of the weak and helpless;

and the oppression of the stranger is the basic element of Genesis

19:1-9…” (Brownlee 1986: 248). Having said this, Brownlee does make

the point that “the threatened homosexual attack upon the visitors in

all its abhorrence was simply ‘the straw which broke the camel’s back’”

(Brownlee: 248).

Although Bailey’s arguments have attracted a strong measure of support,

commentators on the text do not support his arguments. According to

Derek Kidner

“The doubt created by Dr. Bailey has traveled more widely than the

reasons he produces for [the doubt]. Not one of these reasons, it may be

suggested, stands any serious scrutiny” (Kidner1967: 137).

What are our reasons for rejecting this revised interpretation?

Evaluation of arguments.

First, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of grave sin. This is

clearly stated in Genesis 18 verse 20,

“And the Lord said, ‘The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great,

and their sin is exceedingly grave’.” Indeed, not even ten percent

righteous people could be found in the city. It is interesting that

this was no isolated incident - it was prevalent in those cities for we

see how the whole town was involved - young and old.

Secondly, although the word “know” is not always used in a sexual sense,

it is the context that is determinative when it comes to the meaning of

a word. What is significant is that the same word “know” is used in

verse 8, quite obviously in a sexual sense, Behold now, I have two

daughters which have not known man. I pray you, let me bring them out to

you, and you do to them as you see fit. But do nothing to these men, for

this is why they came under the shadow of my roof. Furthermore, we may

well ask why Lot offered his daughters to the men of Sodom simply

because they only wanted to see the credentials of the two strangers?

Thirdly, we have no other instance in Scripture where God wiped out or

judged a nation for the sin of bad manners. There is no textual

evidence that inhospitality was a capital crime. However,

homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel. We can come to no

other conclusion than these angels were obviously very attractive to

these homosexual men in Sodom and they wanted to rape them.

Of course, it could be argued that the men of Sodom were only judged for

promiscuous behaviour - but homosexuality per se, where there is a

stable, loving relationship is accepted. However, Jude refers to this

incident in this way: “In a similar way Sodom and Gomorrah and the

surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and

perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment

of eternal fire.” [verse 7]. If Jude had meant rape, he could have

stopped at word fornication [pornia], translated sexual immorality in

the NIV, and need not have added “going after different flesh” -

translated in NIV as perversion. The sin was fornication, which was

manifested in doing something unnatural - homosexual sex. Thus, the

very act of sexual relations between those of same sex is forbidden.

That is why God punished them.

But what about the omission of homosexuality in Ezekiel? How do we

account for this? Because Ezekiel plays such an important role in this

revised interpretation, it is necessary to deal with this passage in

some detail. It is one of the general rules of interpretation that in

order to understand any passage in the Bible (or any other piece of

literature for that matter) it is necessary to look at the context in

which it appears. The context of this passage is oracles about the

sins of Israel and Jerusalem and God’s impending judgment. In chapter

16 we find that Ezekiel gives an account of Israel’s spiritual history

in the form of an allegory, which serves to justify God’s decisive

judgment upon Jerusalem. Ezekiel shows that in spite of God’s great

love and care, Jerusalem has been unfaithful to Him. In a comparison

designed to shock the people of Jerusalem, they are told they are worse

than despised Samaria in northern Israel (which had been destroyed over

a century ago), and debauched Sodom (which had been destroyed centuries

before).

The question remains, why does Ezekiel describe Sodom’s sin in the way

he does? Why does he not refer to their homosexuality? The reason

becomes clearer if we look at the historical situation. At that time

Jehoiakim was king. According to John Taylor,

“Jehoiakim was a thoroughly irresponsible ruler as far as his people

were concerned and he earned Jeremiah’s utter contempt especially for

his grandiose scheme for palace improvements and the imposition of

forced labour to carry it through (Jeremiah 22:13-19)” (Taylor 1978:

30).

Jeremiah accused the king of oppression of the poor and weak, and

injustice. What the king was guilty of was current in society at that

time. This too was the sin of the northern kingdom (Samaria), which

was the burden of the prophet Amos. In other words, Ezekiel specifies

the actual sins of which Jerusalem was guilty. To stress the

seriousness of these sins, Ezekiel mentions both Samaria and Sodom who

also incurred God’s judgment for injustice and oppression. To make his

point he deliberately omits Sodom’s homosexuality. Israel would know

the tradition of Sodom’s homosexuality and would agree that this was a

sin deserving God’s judgment. However, Ezekiel wants them to know that

Sodom was also destroyed for injustice and oppression. Just because

Ezekiel does not explicitly mention homosexuality does not mean that

they were not guilty of this sin. One cannot base an argument on

silence. However, it is reasonable to assume that homosexual sin “is

doubtless included in the broad expression they did detestable things”,

especially if one looks at the sexual colouring of the allegory (Wright

2001: 148). In any case, by no stretch of the imagination can one

equate lack of hospitality with injustice and oppression.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13

In Leviticus 18 verse 22 we read, `Do not lie with a man as one lies

with a woman; that is detestable. On the face of this, we have a clear

condemnation of homosexual sex. However, it is pointed out this

condemnation of homosexual intercourse also includes the prohibition of

intercourse with a menstruating woman in verse 19, `Do not approach a

woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly

period.

On this basis it is argued that these stipulations have nothing to do

with moral behaviour but concern ceremonial uncleanness, like eating

certain ‘unclean foods’. Thus if we are going to call one of these

prohibitions a binding revelation of the divine will then we must treat

the others likewise. In other words, it is inconsistent to focus on

this prohibition against homosexual practice while ignoring the other

regulations in the Holiness Code.

Evaluation of arguments.

However this argument ignores the whole context. Israel was going into

a land that was notoriously sexually perverted. This was one of the

reasons why God commanded Joshua to totally destroy the Canaanites. God

was not just being capricious or ridding the land of its people to make

way for Israel. Their destruction represented God’s judgment upon

their sin. It was a judgment long in coming, in fact, 400 years. It

is a historical fact that sexual perversion was closely associated with

their religion. What is highlighted here are certain specific sins

which were characteristic of the Canaanites. What was prohibited?

18:6-19 interfamily sexual relations.

18:19 sex with menstruating woman – makes ceremonially unclean.

18:20 adultery

18:21 child sacrifice

18:22 homosexual sex which is called detestable or an abomination.

This term speaks of strong disapproval in Hebrew and is used 5 times in

this chapter. It comes from a root meaning ‘to hate’ or ‘to abhor’. An

abomination is literally something detestable and hated by God (Wenham