Thus far in this series, we have looked at three of the six so-called "clobber verses" which speak against homosexuality, Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. In each case, we have looked at the arguments made on these texts by people in the gay community who seek to justify their conduct. Again, today we will look at arguments made in an article, "What About The Bible and Homosexuality?", which can be found at the Resources page of CHRISTIANGAYS.COM, specifically on Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Have these verses been misunderstood, mistranslated and misapplied, as some contend, or do these people seek to corrupt God's will, allowing them to continue in sin? Let us continue in our study.

ROMANS 1:26-27 - THE PROGRESSIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF THE GODLESS
Of the context, "Anita" states, "...he is describing the progressive spiral into unrighteousness of the unbelieving Gentiles." She goes on to say of Chapter 2, "...Paul admonishes the Jews that as they pass judgment on even these, they are in fact condemning themselves..." Exactly! Don't know that I could have said it better myself. In the first chapter Paul reveals the wickedness of the godless, and in chapter two, lays blame at the feet of those who, knowing God, practice the same.

In "Anita's" argumentation on this text, she makes the unsubstantiated statement, "...this passage of Scripture isn't referring to my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ but to an ungodly people that Paul had observed in his time." On what basis is this exclusion made? This exclusion casts a blind eye to the very point which is made in this text, that the Gentiles were guilty of sin in their downward spiral of godlessness, and the Jews (God's people) were equally guilty if they conducted themselves in the same. Such a statement only serves to show the length at which one will go to justify sin -- even rejecting that a passage of Scripture condemning sin applies to her "...gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ..." Wearing the name of Christ does not make sin alright! If such a statement can justify homosexuality, I could just as easily drop down to verse 29 and justify myself in committing murder! You see, "...this passage of Scripture isn't referring to my blood-thirsty brothers and sisters in Christ but to an ungodly people that Paul had observed in his time." Ludicrous!!!

Several possibilities have been suggested for what Paul meant by "...the women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature..." The statement is made, "...there's nothing in these few words that suggest these unnatural relations (plural rather than singular) were about homosexuality." My simple suggestion is that "Anita" and all others who hold to that statement reread the text again. Notice, "...even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lusts for one another, men with men committing what is shameful..." Friend, that is homosexuality. The unnatural relations had nothing to do with a woman being the aggressor, or with having intercourse during a menstrual cycle, etc.. The context clearly demonstrates that men were with men, and women were with women. It is unnatural; it is indecent; it is part of the progressive downward spiral of the godless.

Notice the progress of wickedness in the context:

• 1:20 - they should have known God;

• 1:21 - they did, but did not glorify Him;

• 1:22 - being wise in their own eyes, they became fools;

• 1:23 - they turned to idolatry;

• 1:24 - God gave them up to uncleanness;

• 1:25 - they worshiped creatures rather than the Creator;

• 1:26 - God gave them up to vile passions;

• 1:27 - in lust (not worship) homosexuality resulted;

• 1:28 - God gave them over to a debased mind;

• 1:29 - all manner of unrighteousness among the godless;

• 1:30 - all manner of unrighteousness among the godless;

• 1:31 - all manner of unrighteousness among the godless;

• 1:32 - they approve and participate in unrighteousness;

• 2:1 - God's people are equally guilty, if they practice the same.

Notice, they were given up to uncleanness (v 24) and the result was idolatry; they were given up to vile passions (v 26), and sexual immorality (specifically homosexuality) was the result; and they were givne up to a debased mind (v 28), and all overflow of wickedness resulted. It is convenient for the homosexual to say that the sexual misconduct of verses 26-27 had to do with idolatry, but the context does not bear this out. Are we also to conclude that all the actions of verses 29-31 are idolatrous also? If this text justifies homosexuality, so long as it is not related to idolatry, then it also justifies "...all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, ...envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness, ...whispers, bickbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful...", so long as these actions and attitudes do not accompany some manner of idolatry.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 and 1 TIMOTHY 1:9-10 - MALAKOI AND ARSENOKOITAI
The translation of these texts is called into question by "Anita" and others who support homosexuality as a 'godly' lifestyle. Of malakoi, Thayer says, "...a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness..." Of arsenokoitai, he says, "...one who lies with a male as with a female..." The latter word is comprised of two Greek words, arsen, meaning male, and koite, meaning bed or chambering. I am not a Greek scholar, however, I am always curious when people seek to cast doubt on the translation of a word, so as to change completely the meaning of a Bible text. From an Interlinear Greek New Testament, the text reads, "...know ye not that unjust ones [the] kingdom of God not shall inherit be not mislead neither fornicators nor idolators nor adulterers nor ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES AS WOMEN nor ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MEN..." (1 Corinthians 6:9).

Early 'Christian' writings are not Scripture, however, such writings help us to understand what the early church believed regarding various topics. It must be understood, these quotes are coming from people who lived in Roman society, where homosexuality was prevalent, and where historical evidence seems to suggest that homosexual marriages were openly permitted. Also, these writers were not so far removed from the time of writing of the New Testament books that they should not clearly understand what was meant by the apostle's use of the terms malakoi and arsenokoitai. Consider:

• "...for the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire." (Theophilus of Antioch, 181 AD, To Autolycus 1:14)

• "...All other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shleter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities." (Tertullian, 220 AD, Modesty 4)

• "Having forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: 'Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed their iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it' [Lev 18:24-25]." (Eusebius of Caesarea, 319 AD, Proof of the Gospel 4:10)

• "All of these affections [in Ro 1:26-27] were vile, but chiefly the made lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in disease... [The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men... And sundry other books of the philosophers one may see full of this disease. But we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature; but this is contrary both to law and nature..." (John Chrysostom, 391 AD, Homilies on Romans 4)

SOME CLOSING REMARKS
I am curious, if homosexuality is approved by the Bible, why is there not a single homosexual marriage to be found? And why is there not a homosexual relationship in the Bible which stands as an example for those who would choose such a lifestyle? There are countless examples of men and women married to one another, examples both of good and bad, and instruction given, by which a marriage will be successful. Whenever approved sexual conduct is mentioned in the Bible, it is one man and one woman. When God created man, he created a man and a woman. They were made for each other. The Bible approves heterosexual relationships, so long as they are conducted according to God's will. There is not one Bible text which casts approval on homosexual relationships.

I don't doubt that God loves homosexuals, and He wants them to be saved. However, for such to occur, they must turn away from that which the Bible calls "...very grave..." (Gen 18:20), "...wickedly..." (Gen 19:7; Jdg 19:23), "...an abomination..." (Lev 18:22; 20:13), "...unnatural..." (Ro 1:26-27), "...what is shameful..." (Ro 1:27), "...unrighteous..." (1 Cor 6:9), and "...lawless and insubordinate...ungodly...unholy...profane..." (1 Tim 1:9). All must be careful not to twist the Scriptures to suit one's own purpose. The conscience may be settled and the mind deceived, but that false security will fail in the judgment.

Isaiah plainly warned, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight." (Isaiah 5:20-21).

Click here for this week's Answering The Atheist
Matthew reports two blind men healed at Jericho (Matthew 20:29-30), but Mark says there was only one (Mark 10:46-47). Is there a contradiction?