SCOTUS’s recent ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has paved the way for the high court to question the legitimacy of its similarly overreaching decisions. D.C. insiders know that one of those past rulings ripe for being overturned is same-sex marriage.
In response to the vulnerability of the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision, the House of Representatives is attempting to rush legislation to make same-sex marriage the law of the land. News stories indicate that secular archaeologists are even trying to help out with the cause, suggesting that ancient human fossil evidence supports transgenderism!
But what does the highest authority in the universe have to say about this matter—that authority being God Almighty as revealed in His Word?
Before examining several pertinent biblical passages that provide the irrefutable and convincing clarity negating same-sex marriage, the issue of who, according to the Bible, is qualified to speak authoritatively about the Bible should be addressed. The Scriptures are clear: God sets the standard for those who are approved to teach His Word. Those God-appointed teachers, called overseers, are identifiable by specific characteristics. The existence of these qualities are intended by God to indicate those whom He has appointed as His mouthpieces—men who are set apart by Him to teach, herald, and preach His Word. The Bible is nonambiguous: no one else is qualified to speak for Him.
Shouldn’t we refer to God’s Word to determine who He says is credible to speak for Him?
Too often on the Hill (or in various state capitols across America) non-believing public servants arrange for illegitimate “Bible spokespersons” to proffer testimonies (which amount to their personal opinions) in subcommittees. The same is true on talk shows and various other mediums.
But according to God’s Word, such people do not speak for Him. One of the pertinent passages that contains the authentications of a legitimate spokesman of God is 1 Timothy 3:2. Therein the Apostle Paul instructs his understudy, Timothy, who has just entered his pastorate, how to choose leaders in the Church who possess God’s stamp of approval. Paul states, An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach.
A legitimate spokesman for God, an overseer (episkopos or pastor-teacher, cf. Ephesians 4:11–12) will be one who, among other qualifiers, is the husband of one wife, (literally, “a male who is a one-woman man”). A legitimate spokesperson for God must believe in male/female marriage to begin with! Put plainly, a supposed member of the clergy who does not believe in male-female marriage is not qualified to speak on marriage! First Timothy 3 (and Titus 1) serve to filter out illegitimate spokesmen for God and His Word, so don’t listen to what these counterfeit representatives might espouse! Pseudo Christian pastors are not qualified in God’s eyes to speak on the subject! If you know the Word, you will quickly ascertain that their arguments are specious.
I wrote a Bible study on “Nine Characteristics of Tares” (cf. Titus 1:11, 3 John 9–11) that elaborates more extensively on the existence of Satan’s pawns—false teachers— whose singular intent, per the insight of Scripture, is to mislead believers. The Scriptures shout about false teachers—and there are many—who attempt to legitimize same-sex marriage. (I will republish “Nine Characteristics of Tares” next week.)
I am cautioning you to carefully consider the lifestyle characteristics of those who claim to be God’s representatives on homosexuality and gay marriage. Naïve is the one who listens to the divergent views of false teachers. The Bible is clear and convincing and does not contradict itself on the matter; it provides one viewpoint throughout all its 66 books!
It stands to reason that the biggest threat to a clear and convincing understanding that the Scriptures negate same-sex marriage is not secular dissension. It is clerical duplicity. Don’t be fooled.
This in-depth Bible study exposits the main passages in the Bible that proponents of homosexuality contort and twist to support same-sex marriage.
One need not look very far into Scripture to learn of God’s singular definition of marriage and His subsequent sweeping disapproval of same-sex marriage. To the point, in no way is God’s Word pro-LGBTQ. Only a Scripture twister could reason otherwise.
Years ago, a legislator challenged me on my understanding of the exclusivity of Scripture regarding this subject. He suggested at a Bible study I was leading in the California Capitol that the Scriptures propounded something different from what he thought was my biased, personal viewpoint. He asked if he could present a Bible study the following week to represent God’s supposed approval of same-sex marriage and homosexuality. No such study ever materialized. The fact is, he couldn’t produce one.
This Bible study on this issue indicates why.
In my scriptural work-up on same-sex marriage, I provide the LGBTQ community’s positions on the various pertinent passages (I think that is only fair). But so doing serves to further uncover their specious arguments.
By way of introducing the perspicuous distinctiveness of God’s mind, notice the following: in addition to the narrative of Adam and Eve, who are specifically identified as husband and wife in Genesis 2:24 (cf. 1:27), Proverbs 12:4a underscores God’s testimony regarding His design and definition of marriage. An excellent wife is the crown of her husband…. As in English, the Hebrew words used in these ancient manuscripts are unmistakably clear: wife (ishshah) means “female,” and the word for husband (baal) means “male.” In one sense, I need not argue further. But Scripture is replete and unswerving in this regard, and this Bible study goes deep.
Don’t be fooled; know your Bible on this matter! All societies that digress from male-female marriage do so at their own peril. Same-sex marriage is not God’s design. Rather, it is human folly. And it leads to an overall dysfunctional society like we are now experiencing.
Read on, my friends.
I. OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES
A. GENESIS 19:4–13
In this passage, what was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” 6But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, 7and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. 8Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. 10But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. 12Then the two men said to Lot, “Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; 13for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”
The homosexual “christian community” interpretation expounds that the sin in evidence is not sodomy, but rather inhospitality. Proponents claim that the Hebrew word for have relations or know (yada1) has “an unknown or ambiguous meaning.” Secondly, sexual activity, they claim, is not indicated in the passage; this is supposedly supported via their referencing of Ezekiel 16:49–50 (the passage to be examined next).
To the interpretive contrary, the word yada appears 943 times in the Old Testament and is not ambiguous in meaning: “to gain knowledge or become better acquainted with someone or something” is its meaning. However, keep the following in mind:
Context strongly indicates that yada is used in Genesis as a polite euphemism for sexual intercourse.
Yada is used euphemistically in Genesis 4:17 wherein Scripture states Cain knew (yada) his wife and she conceived … (KJV). To think of this word usage any differently leads to interpretive problems in both chapters 4 and 19. To illustrate, why did Lot plead with them not to act wickedly (v. 7)? Why did Lot panic, offering sexual substitutes (v. 8)? Is it not somewhat contradictory to attempt to break down another’s door (v. 9) in reaction to their inhospitality? It is apparent from context that Lot understood well that their advances were not friendly in nature.
Furthermore, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah brought the following response from God: And the Lord said, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave” (18:20). In verse 13, God’s angels stated, “For we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.” All these references argue against the sin of Sodom being one of inhospitality.
B. EZEKIEL 16:49–50
The homosexual community nonetheless cites this passage in support of inhospitality being the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. But as will be seen, the following passage hinders, not helps, their argument:
“Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.”
Arrogance, slothfulness, and blindness toward the needs of others are certainly evidence of self-centered, sinful behavior worthy of admonishment in any culture. But an additional listed iniquity in this passage is the word abomination (toebah), which is translated elsewhere from Hebrew to English as “detestable acts.”
For this to mean homosexual acts is in clear view considering Leviticus 18:22, which uses the same word synonymously with homosexual activity:
C. LEVITICUS 18:22
“‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.’”
The word abomination is the same Hebrew word used in Ezekiel 16:50 toebah wherein homosexual activity is clearly described. Toebah is characterized by males lying together. Leviticus 18 and Ezekiel 16 further serve to link, identify, and illuminate the specific sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as being one of homosexuality.
D. LEVITICUS 20:13
“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
Notice the phrase detestable acts is the same Hebrew word as abomination (toebah).
But what about putting homosexuals to death?
The Old Testament (OT) book of Leviticus is God’s manual for Israel—His chosen, set apart people in His old covenant—whom He intended to be His distinguished-from-all-others representative people. He gave them special ceremonies, laws, rituals, dietary restrictions, a personal holiness code, and enforceability to achieve their exclusivity from the practices of the surrounding Canaanites and Egyptians. These surrounding pagans subscribed to all kinds of sexual deviancies, among other immoral actions. Accordingly, Leviticus 18 and 20 have to do with the impermissibility of various forms of sexual immorality—from sleeping with family members to bestiality. All sexual degradations are roundly prohibited and punishable to retain cultural purity and witness. Keep in mind God had said,
“For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth” (Deuteronomy 7:6).
In the New Testament (NT) Church Age, under the new covenant, God abrogates (“to abolish by authoritative, official, or formal action”) Israel’s ceremonial laws, dietary regulations, Levitical priesthood, etc., as evidenced in various respective passages such as Acts 10:1–16, Colossians 2:16–17, and 1 Peter 2:9, etc. These elements, like the stoning of homosexuals, are no longer to be practiced, in that God has instituted a new covenant for His people in the age of the Church, per Matthew 26:28, 2 Corinthians 3:6–18, and Hebrews chapters 7 to 10.
What should be focused on today is the divine character behind the rituals and penalties spoken of in Leviticus. The spiritual principles upon which ancient Israel’s rituals were rooted are timeless because they are manifestations of the very nature and essence of the purity and holiness of God.
Advocates for same-sex marriage have attempted to put words in the mouth of Christian legislators. They too often insinuate that Christians believe stoning homosexuals is proper because Leviticus 20:13b says, “they shall surely be put to death.” The response to such conjecturing is quite simple, as follows.
Ask the following question in response: “Do you believe a principle found in Leviticus is applicable outside of the context of ancient Israel?” If the person answers, “Yes,” then say, “I don’t.” If they answer “No,” then say, “I agree.” Either way the argument is over.
You might want to add or clarify, “Is everything in the Bible that was stated in God’s old covenant about ancient Israel repeated in the new covenant about the Church? Certainly not!”
Furthermore, “Putting to death a man who lies with a male” is not a tenet found recurring in the new covenant of the Church Age. However, the NT most certainly does reiterate and uphold the prohibition of homosexuality, but not the corporeal punishment of it.
It is naïve, if not disingenuous, to falsely insinuate that Christian legislators hold to a belief that governments today should stone homosexuals. On the other end of the spectrum of biblical ignorance are those who suggest that homosexuality is no longer prohibited because Israel’s holiness code is now obsolete. Both suppositions stem from a biblical illiteracy pertaining to a chronological misunderstanding of ancient Israel and the Church today. Such a lack of knowledge is unfortunately too common among journalists and lawmakers. (Challenge them to begin attending a good Bible study that may lead to their salvation.) First Corinthians 2:14 states in this regard, But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
E. JUDGES 19:22–23
This parallel passage to Genesis 19 provides further insight into the meaning of God’s narrative.
While they were celebrating, behold, the men of the city, certain worthless fellows, surrounded the house, pounding the door; and they spoke to the owner of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring out the man who came into your house that we may have relations with him.” Then the man, the owner of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly.”
The words wickedly (rawah) and act of folly (nebalah) roundly mean “profane actions of immorality; senselessness and disgrace.” These words exhibit the wrongfulness of what have relations (yada) means.
II. NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
The gay community claims that Jesus Himself never condemned homosexuality. Note, however, the following passage:
A. MATTHEW 10:14–15
“Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.”
In this passage Jesus specifically mentions Sodom and Gomorrah as He teaches His disciples. His main point is that people who reject God’s messengers—whom He is sending out to be His witnesses— will undergo a stricter judgment than, comparatively speaking, did Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus is therefore acknowledging the appropriateness of the condemnation of these cities for the reason previously established.
B. ROMANS 1:26–27
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Paul’s reasoning in Romans is based upon congruity with creation. God distinguishably created male and female (Genesis 1:27), and as mentioned in the introduction, Genesis 2:24 states that marriage is between a man and a woman: For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Literally, ish shall be joined to ishshah.
Romans could not be any clearer.
This passage pronounces that lesbianism and homosexuality are sin. The literal Greek for the English translation their women exchanged the natural function is “changed the natural use for the use beside.” The homosexual interpretive idea that natural function relates to the natural homosexual desire one already possesses is unfounded here and in the corpus of Scripture. To travel that road is to fight the increasing weight of context and cross references. Nowhere in Scripture is this gay community idea validated; it is eisegesis. Eisegesis means interpreting Scripture based on one’s own presuppositions, agendas, and biases. It is a mishandling of the text by people who only want to make a point at the expense of the true meaning. Exegesis, on the other hand, means discovering the true meaning of the passage based on grammar, syntax, the setting, and the original Greek or Hebrew words that were used by the book’s author.
Further and importantly, note Paul’s choice of the Greek words for women and men. He does not use gune and anthropos, which describe the dignity of women and men. Rather, he uses theleia and arsen, which are descriptive of sexual gender only. Paul’s refusal to ascribe even an implied dignity to those who degenerate into homosexuality is a powerful insight into the mind of God on the subject.
Additionally, Paul uses the Greek word aschemosune in this passage, which translated into English is indecent acts. He uses the same word in 1 Corinthians 13:5 in opposition to true love when he states, love does not act (aschemosune) unbecomingly. This phrase literally means “true love does not seek after its own lust and want.”
In a broader context, this section of Romans relates to evidences indicative of a point at which God no longer restrains sin—when He withdraws His common grace. Homosexuality, in this passage, is evidence of “God’s giving over” people to their own fallen, base ways. When God removes His restraint, a person is said to be reprobate. Homosexuality then is a sign of reprobation. A sentence summary of Romans chapter one is this: when people forsake the Author of creation, they inevitably forsake the order of creation.
C. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9–11
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
The Greek word here for homosexuals (arsenokoitas) is a compound noun; arsen (male) and koitas (sexual intercourse) (English: “coitus”). The word is unmistakable in its meaning. These two words are individually used repeatedly throughout the NT with those respective meanings. The classic and highly respected work, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament states, “arsenokoitas: ‘a male who practices homosexuality’ was the use of the word in extra-biblical literature of the time.”2
Therefore, for the homosexual “church” to state that the original meaning of this compound Greek noun “has been lost… and that it would appear to have no relationship to consensual homosexual activity” is quite dishonest. Additionally, they mislead, reasoning that the English word “homosexual” does not appear in the original manuscripts of the Bible. Such a statement is true but naïve, as the Greek word arsenokoitas does appear, being a much more precise, descriptive, and definitive word of the sin in question than its English counterpart.
D. 1 TIMOTHY 1:9–10
Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.
In this passage, Paul’s point is that the law of God is intended to reveal a person’s need for Christ to lead that person to trust in Him. For any evangelist, be it Timothy or any pastor today, to fail to state what sin actually is, is to be unclear to sinners about the Word of God. What is it one needs to be saved from? Here listed as a sin is the same compound Greek noun arsenokoitas—a male who practices homosexuality. This passage and 1 Corinthians 6:11 illustrate the following:
One needs to be saved from the sin of homosexuality as were some Corinthians.
E. 2 PETER 2:6–10
And if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men… then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.
Peter incorporates these OT cities as an historical example to illustrate his point. The pertinent words in this passage, as well as the whole passage, are oft intentionally overlooked by pro-homosexual interpreters. The late Peter J. Gomes, the former pro-homosexual chaplain of Harvard University, is one such man. For Gomes to have mentioned these passages would have destroyed the thesis of his book.3
Condemned (katarkrino) means, “To pass sentence on because of a crime.” In the construct of the passage, such condemnation is directly related to the sensual conduct (aselgeia), “wantonness and licentiousness” of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah.4 The ancient use of aselgeia was a description of “whatever was disgraceful…that which is characterized by moral impurity or filth.” Lastly corrupt desires (miasmos epithumia) further define the reasons for God’s condemnation. This Greek phrase means, “A strong desire to defile.”
This is yet another passage (as if it were necessary) that helps to interpret the meaning of the sin of Genesis 19. Considering the specific and descriptive words used here in 2 Peter, to interpret yada to mean “to get acquainted and build a friendship” is intellectually impossible.
F. JUDE 7
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
Jude underscores more of the same. The homosexual community generally states that the translators of the original Greek New Testament were unclear as to the meaning of these passages and therefore selected their favorite sin(s) to attack. However, the word for gross immorality (ekporneuo) is a heightened sense of porneuo, which means “fornication,” accordingly “excessive fornication.” Strange flesh (heteras) means “another man.” Lastly, the context of this passage pertains to apostasy—those who seem to be followers of Christ but in actuality are imposters. Jude’s point is comparable to that of Romans: homosexuality is an indication of reprobation, and Sodom and Gomorrah are used repeatedly to illustrate God’s attitude toward reprobation.
Homosexuality and same-sex ceremonies are illegitimate in God’s eyes. His Word is repetitive, perspicuous, and staid on the subject. For the individual to engage in these acts or for society to endorse them is to practice sin.
Not only is homosexuality and same-sex marriage voided by God in His Word, but biology as well condemns homosexuality and same-sex marriage: one cannot be a homosexual evolutionist.
There is hope for all caught in such a pernicious addiction. Jesus Christ came to liberate sinners! Such were some of you; but you were washed… states Paul regarding homosexuals in 1 Corinthians 6:11. Therein is the heart of the minister and the believer toward those who are addicted to whatever sin— to love the sinner, while inalterable on sin. Contextually, some of the Corinthian church members were formerly homosexuals but by God’s grace they found new life in Christ! We need to repent and believe on the Savior today to receive the gift of eternal life, as well as freedom from and power over the bondage of sin. Lastly, note the following:
It is not the place of the state nor its populace to redefine what God has created. Such is arrogance of the highest order. Man should not define God’s ways; God’s ways should define man’s.
This is a serious matter in the eyes of God in that it puts a society in danger of suffering God’s consequential wrath of sowing and reaping.5 When a culture become permissive by embracing homosexuality and other types of sexual sin, it degrades that nation’s foundational building blocks: biblical marriage between a man and a woman, child bearing, and child rearing. If a nation loses what progenerates a healthy society, eventually that society is lost. Sowing by permitting sexual sins reaps a crumbling culture.
1. Yada is used twelve times in the Old Testament with this euphemistic understanding. Euphemism: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive word or expression for one that is harsh, indelicate, or otherwise unpleasant or taboo (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
2. Peter J. Gomes, The Good Book (New York, William and Morrow Company, 1996). In his supposedly comprehensive biblical treatment of the subject, he ignores even mentioning some of the pertinent passages recorded in the Bible and dealt with herein.
3. Walter Bauer and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. by William F. Arndt (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 109.
4. Helpful to understanding what Jude means is the fact that the angels who came to visit Lot in Genesis 19 came in physical form (ref. 19:3, wherein they ate bread). We can conclude that the angels had angelic beauty in physical form. In this sense then, the Sodomites went after “strange flesh.”
5. God’s wrath of reaping and sowing is in view here, abandonment wrath is not. Some leading Evangelicals often cite this passage to support their thesis that America is under God’s wrath of abandonment. They quip, “If God doesn’t judge America He owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology!” But note that if there were only a few believers in Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Genesis 18:22–33) God would have spared those cities. Therefore what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah is not analogous to America: millions of faithful believers reside in America! (See my study on “Is God Judging America Today?” for a thorough exposition on God’s wrath of abandonment.)