Pro-Homosexual (Mis)interpretations of Scripture Refuted From the Word of God
By Brother Daniel
Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob (Is. 41:21)

God's laws are "holy, and just and good" (Rm. 7:12) and are given of necessity (Gal. 3:19) for our benefit, to the glory of God. Obedience to God brings life, while sin works death. The latter is clearly the case as regards the practice of homosexuality (sodomy), which the Bible manifestly condemns in all it's forms (Gn. 19:4:7-11; Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:17; Jdg. 19:22; 1Ki.14:24; 22:46; 2Ki. 23:7; Job 36:14; Rm. 1:26, 27; 1Cor. 16:9; 1Tim. 1:10; Jude 1:7; Rv. 22:15).

This treatise is made in response to some of the attempts to distort the intent of the prohibitions against the practice of homosexuality, which practice effectually works against the purpose of the laws of God, that of both the spiritual and temporal well being of souls, to the glory of God.

Most but not all of the above texts will be dealt with, as I will be examining the clearest ones which the adversaries to truth principally must seek to distort. The reader is urged to prayerfully consider the following, with a heart that truly wants nothing less than total submission to the Lord Jesus Christ, “who loved me and gave Himself for me.” (Gal. 2:20).

Genesis 19:1 "And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.
11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.


The reason that the angels were sent to destroy Sodom was not because of homosexuality, for the Bible states that the iniquity of Sodom was "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezk. 16:49). The word "know" as used in Gn. 19:5 means be acquainted. They men of Sodom came to Lot's house because they wanted to know who the strangers were. Their sin was that they were inhospitable to the strangers and thus were destroyed for a "serious breach of hospitality."


Such a theory is easily seen as nonsense when the account is read in it's entirety (Gn. 19).

The angels, sent by God to Sodom because their sin was "very grievous" (Gn. 18:20), arrive in Sodom and meet Lot at the gate. They are willing to stay in the street, but Lot constrains them to abide with his family. Once there, "the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. But Lot goes out, closes the door and pleads with them, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly" (v. 5). He then goes on to even offer his daughters, “which have not known man”, that they may do what they please with them. They me will have nothing to do with it, threaten to do worse to Lot: "And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door But the men [angels] put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door." All this is supposed because (as some suppose) they wanted to a non-sexual acquaintance with the men.

The homo-apologist position is that the crowd outside Lot's door were alarmed that the strangers in Lot's house posed a danger to Sodom (which they certainly did!), and thus they simply wanted to "know" them in the sense of examining their purpose, etc. This interpretation is contextually disallowed by the use of the word "know." That the word "know" here means sexually, as it does in a few other instances in the Bible. (such as in Gn. 4:17, 25; 19:6, 25; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:17, 35, 1 Kg. 1:4; Mt. 1:25) is obvious by observing that that Lot offered his daughters to them as virgins, "who have not known man." It cannot possibly be believed that Lot's daughters were never acquainted with men! And what advantage would it serve for Lot to offer his daughters whom had never "known" man (even if Lot was lying about their virginity to protect the angels), if all they wanted to do was to interrogate the men? The whole description is one of a crowd filled with lust (Jude 7 confirms Sodom gave themselves over to fornication). Lot knew the crowd was seeking something sensual, namely that they might "know" the men as they might "know" the proffered daughters if they were so inclined. It is thus that Lot told them they could do with his daughters as they pleased. But they would have none of Lot's offer, and threatened to do to Lot worse than they would to the men, and pressed upon him to the breaking down of the door.

One only has to look at a similar occurrence, in Judges 19:14-25ff, to see this was of sexual intent.

In this account, a man (who is no model of virtue himself) is traveling back home after fetching his departed concubine. In a strange city, and finding no one that would receive him, he is taken in by an old man. No sooner had they ate, "certain sons of Belial" ' came and demanded of the old man, "Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him" (v. 22). Like unto Lot, the man offers his own daughter and the other man's concubine, saying "unto this man do not so vile a thing" (the word for “vile” is most often used in sexual sense). At first it appears they refused, hoping for the man, but being given the concubine, "they abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." The man later declared that they “committed lewdness and folly in Israel” (Jdg. 20:6).

It is quite obvious here that, as in Gn. 19, the crowd's desire to "know" the guest (s) was clearly sexual. The only substantial difference was that they finally took the substitute offer (which was also sin). And though both Gn. 19 and Jdg. 19 specifically show homosexual rape itself to be sin, it was not the manner in which they sought relations that was called vile, but the homosexual aspect of it.

As for the stated iniquity of Sodom, while "pride, fulness of bread" and indifference to the plight of the poor were their overall sins over the course of their history, not all of what they did is stated (other Biblical summations do likewise). As we will see, Jude (see below) declares they were "giving themselves over to fornication.” Gn. 19 deals with a specific manifestation of fornication. Yet the chief sin of any man or society is idolatry, worshiping anything less than the One True God, out of which all else flows. It is likely that the practice of what came be called sodomy was a latter development, a practice they did in their “idleness” that was the capstone of iniquity before their final destruction.

Jude v.7, which deals with the end of spiritual and moral declension, declares: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."


As the word "of other" (heterosis) is usually rendered other, another, altered or even next, the meaning is unclear. It could be that the condemnation of Sodom was that they sought to commit fornication with angels.


The above speculation certainly affirms that the purpose of the men of Gn. 19 was that of fornication, so rather than strengthening the homosexual position it actually weakens it. The purpose of the men wanting to “know” the angels is become more obviously sexual. And it is also quite evident that the men of Sodom believed Lot's guests to be men (who would even dare to mess with angels?). Unlike the parallel account in Judges 19 which confirms the “men with men” sexual intent of Genesis 19, there is no instance of men seeking sexual relations with angels. Moreover the Bible condemns fornication of any sort, but unlike that for heterosexuals, nowhere is any provision made for any kind of sanctified sexual union between people of the same gender. Therefore all sexual activity between those of the same gender is condemned, just as premarital and extramarital relations is between those of opposite gender.

Finally, as it is clearly stated that Sodom and Gomorrah were giving themselves over to fornication, the “strange flesh" aspect is that it is indeed "strange" or aberrant for men to lust after men, as the men of Sodom were given to do.

Rather than accepting the plain and clear meaning of such texts, homosexual apologists vainly seek to explain away such texts, and can be quite inventive in doing do. Consider the following:


1. This is part of the Levitical holiness code for priests; it does not apply to all persons.

2. This is part of the law contrasting pagan nations with Israel - idolatry with the worship of the one true God: Therefore it only condemns things like temple prostitution that were part of pagan idolatrous practices. Other prohibitions are repeated elsewhere, but the prohibition against men lying with men is not, because it refers to religious, “ritual uncleanness.”

3. This is simply part of the ceremonial laws for uncleanness, which was later done away with for Christians (Acts 15:19, 20).

4. The word “sodomy” or “sodomite” is not a Biblical word.

5. The word “abomination” refers to ceremonial violations rather than to things that are inherently evil.


1. This first objection is easily refuted y observing to whom these laws were addressed: “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them ..” (Lev. 18:1). These were laws which Moses, the law giver, was instructed to give to all of Israel, and a fuller reading of the rest of the laws makes it clear that 18:22 was in no way restricted only to the priests.

2. Such a conclusion is based upon a strained, complex but vain attempt to link the plain prohibition in Lv. 18:22 (and 20:13) against men lying with men to Dt. 23:15 which deals specifically with the practice of Sodomy as part of a pagan temple activity, so that that sodomy would only be conditionally wrong, that is if it was done as part of an idolatrous pagan religious rite. This logically would require that other things listed in this chapter, such as familial nakedness, killing ones children as an offering to Molech ( a false god), bestiality (lying with animals), stealing, lying, disrespect to parents, etc., be held as wrong only if other nations did it and or if it was done in conjunction with formal idolatry (though again, all sins are ultimately because of idolatry). Yet it is manifest that such things are basically evil themselves and the condemnation of them transcends mere religious uncleanness. Therefore their attempt to explain away the clear and basic prohibitions against men lying with men requires more imagination. It is thus that a radical significance is claimed for the presence of (supposedly) only two specific condemnations of sodomy (by description) in the Bible, and one mention of it's death sentence. To apply Lv. 18 and 20 to merely prohibit homosexuality as an idolatrous temple practice requires dismissing all the other condemnations of homosexual activity and seeing the practice of sodomy in Dt. 23:17 as the only application for the two texts in Leviticus (and in Romans 1:18-26, etc.), rather than as a specific aspect of the whole homosexual problem.

Neither an absence of a specific prohibition against men lying with men where accompanying commands are reiterated in Deuteronomy (or anywhere in the Bible, as is imagined), nor only one mention of it's death penalty warrants relegating it to a prohibition that simply addressed a more immediate problem of pagan temple prostitution. A careful look at Lev. 18 reveals that they are all sexual sins, and thus we would expect a more detailed list of such, details of which are not always completely included in other miscellaneous lists.

As for the solitary mention of the death penalty for sexually lying with men, whereas things like bestiality had two or more, if the prohibition were in fact, only directed against temple prostitution, then according to the homo-apologist theory (that Lv. 20:13 only mentions the death penalty because it applied only to temple prostitution), it would also demand reiteration as did other sins, for Biblical history shows that such a practice was a recurrent problem. Surely the homo-apologist does not presume that God mandated capital punishment only for homosexual practices if coupled with Canaanite idolatry at that time, but He did not for whatever syncretistic brands of idolatry they practiced it with hundreds of years later? The fact is such theology requires them to disallow the transcendence of such accompanying commands against such things as adultery, incest, bestiality, etc. It is such iniquity that brought about the destruction of the nations Israel displaced, and which, being evil in and of themselves, the Lord therefore warned them not to follow. The same rebellion to the Living and True God and corresponding fleshly indulgence will just as surely bring about the destruction of America as well (from within and without). And it is the same pro-homosexual twisting of the Word of God that by implication must allow for “Christian” practice of the prohibited sins which accompany the injunction against sodomy. “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” (Rm. 13:14). And indeed, all the “works of the flesh,” of which sodomy (under fornication) is part.

The universal scope of the commands against homosexual relations is clearly evident in the language of these two commands, which yields nothing that even intimates that it has only a unique religious application. The address “Speak unto the children of Israel” which Lv. 18 begins with, is not to just to temple workers but to the people in general, and under it come both ceremonial (which do have efficacy themselves) and transcendent moral laws. The command, “Thou [all the people] shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” is also general in nature. Likewise, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” applies to any man in general, not just to a specific “profession.” The specification is the act - a man lying sexually with man - and unlike heterosexual fornication, there is not even a hint that it is only conditionally wrong. The next verse, which also belongs to the category of unnatural sex, “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:” is also a universal prohibition, one that cannot be simply relegated to a prohibition against a religious cultic practice. Like all the other (17) sins in this chapter (uncovering the nakedness of ones kin, incest, adulteries, etc.), the prohibition against men lying sexually with transcends time and culture. Men not lying with men as with women is an UNCONDITIONAL command. Even the injunction against burning up your kids to please false gods, has both an immediate application and a universal perpetual one.

Neither should it be held that the only homosexual practice of the nations (that are held in contrast) was only that of temple prostitution. What morality is sanctioned by the “temple” (the house of God) sets the standard for all that is under it. If they did such things in the temple you can be sure it happened in the (bath) houses! Lev. 18 and 20 deal with the latter, Dt. 23:17 with the former. If it is stopped there in a theocratic society, all else must follow. In short, Lev. 18 and 20 both clearly condemn the whole scope of men sexually lying with men - it, the latter as a capital crime. In neither case is it described as simply prohibiting sodomite prostitution. That related aspect, which is even more grievous, is addressed separately, condemning the same practice within a different and (what should have been) hallowed context.

It is of no radical significance (as the pro homosexual thesis requires) that these prohibitions were made against the backdrop of pagan idolatry, for the larger backdrop of the whole Bible is against idolatry in it's broader sense. The ways of the righteous are often contrasted with the ways of the unrighteous. This will be expanded upon later in dealing with Romans 1. The commands such as we see in Lv. 18 and 20 are not given simply to contrast Israel with other nations, as if for the sake of distinction (like team colors), but because His laws were holy in and of themselves.

The 10 commandments themselves are in the context of Israel being a “holy nation” distinct from the Egyptians, yet the holiness of the laws which God gave them transcend mere specific cultural distinction with Egypt. Likewise, when Jesus proscribed “vain repetitions” in prayer (Mt. 6:7), He was not saying such empty rote was wrong only if done to the wrong god, but it was wrong in principle. Simply because many Catholic priests were condemned as pedophiles does not mean that pedophilia is wrong only in the “temple,” or of practiced as part of a particular idolatrous religion. Rather, it is unconditionally perverse. So it is with homosexual practices as we shall continue see. Though there are times when something within the moral realm is wrong when done in the wrong time, place or manner, such as premarital sex, the Bible makes this clear and gives clear provision for it's legitimate practice. But unlike the example given, in no place does God sanction homosexual relations by marriage (nor original design) as he does between man and women. And if they cannot marry, they are committing fornication, and no fornicator has any inheritance in Christ (except ye repent ye shall likewise perish - Lk. 13:3..).

As for injunctions against men lying with men being less prevalent in general, with the law being “added because of transgressions” (Gal. 3:19), the unnatural and (normally) shameful nature of homosexuality is so self evident I should think that a twofold, O.T. specific condemnation of it should be sufficient. And the destruction of Sodom had become legend among the people of Israel. Genesis 19, Judges 19, and Romans 1 makes it clear that homosexual lust, which again God makes no provision for, is at the end of degeneration. Abhorrent practices like incest and bestiality also have less mention than idolatry, the latter for which Israel in general had a manifest proclivity for. All in all, homosexual relations are prohibited in the O.T alone just as clearly as sexual relations with animals. Though the rather sparse prohibition against men sexually lying with men and a solitary mention the death penalty for it may seem interesting, both the language, context, and larger principals of the Word of God support it's universal, unconditional meaning. There simply is no real basis for applying the clear prohibitions of Lv. 18 and 20 solely to participation in pagan ceremonies.

3. This is an aspect of the above, and is the most common attempt to nullify this clear prohibition against homosexual relations. However, it fails to discern what was ceremonial and what was strictly moral and the basis for each. The fact that eternal moral laws were sometimes mixed with laws which obviously could not be perpetually kept doe not allow us to place all laws in one category or the other. The same is true with literal things and symbolisms. Arbitrarily relegating whatever we feel like to ceremonial laws will not do, and the attempt to do so with the prohibitions against homosexual relations will not stand the test of Scripture.

Under the New Covenant instituted by Christ's sacrificial death for us sinners, we are neither saved by our own righteousness (as under the Law) nor are enjoined to observe the ceremonial law according to the letter. Christians “are not under the law” in the sense that in contrast to the Old Covenant, in which justification (a right standing) with God was based of one's obedience in keeping all the law (Dt. 6:25; 27:26; Gal. 3:10), under the New Covenant the righteousness of Christ - who took and paid for our sins - is imputed (credited) to the sinner upon true repentant faith in the Lord Jesus. The soul that does truly believe is thereby saved on God/Christ's expense and on His “credit “However, saving faith, if it is true, will have it's outworking in a love-response of obedience to the Lord Jesus. In so doing he will both keep the moral law and the intent of the ceremonial law. The difference between the two in terms of obedience is that the former are enjoined upon believers in Christ, and while we are to seek to fulfil the full intent of strictly moral laws as well (avoiding adultery in heart, not simply in act, etc.), it is rare that one can obey the intent of the moral law without obeying it in letter. The same is not true of the ceremonial laws. For instance, modern technology allows us to wear clothes of diverse kinds without risking tears that might expose nakedness.

But what just is the ceremonial law and are the injunctions against homosexual relations part of it? Both questions are answered rather easily in the light of the New Covenant, in which we see that things relating to ritual observance of days, Jewish religious ceremonial practices, and dietary laws, though they had a beneficial effect themselves, were . While all 9 of the 10 commandments are reiterated under the New Covenant, there is neither any command given for keeping the Sabbath and the New Testament church is actually chastised by the apostle Paul for it's annual observance of “days, and months, and times, and years” (Gal. 4:10). Moreover, seeing that such laws regarding diet and liturgical days were a shadow, or prefigure of Christ (as the Body who made the shadow) we are commanded “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath” (Col. 4:16). Likewise both the Jewish Temple, the Levitical Priesthood and the sacrifices and rituals therein were “a shadow of things to come” and which were fulfilled by Christ (cf. Hebrews 7-10).

Notice however, that nowhere under the New Covenant are any of the moral laws done away with. Rather they are affirmed, with both sexual immorality between men and women outside of marriage, and as we shall see, sexual relations between men and men being part of the immutable moral law. While Jesus declared that it was out of the heart of man than iniquity was brought forth, He declared that that which the heart brought forth - including “fornications” - to be “evil things” which “defile the man” (Mk. 7:21-23 - and nothing that defileth, shall enter the Heavenly City - Rv 21:27). The ceremonial laws and moral laws each have distinct characteristics. In short, ceremonial laws related to diet, religious observation of times, religious dress and rites, such as animal sacrifices, circumcision, mixing linen with wool, the wearing of fringed garments, the Aaronic Priesthood and it's rituals. And although they had a beneficial aspect themselves, (Romans 8:4), they had a typological value attached to them pointing men toward Christ and the New Covenant realities. The scapegoat and unblemished animal of Lev. 16:and 17 being a prime examples, both being clearly fulfilled in Christ (Isaiah 53; Mt. 27; 1Pet. 1:18, 19; 2:21-24; 3:18). Moreover, many of the ceremonial laws required the existence of the Jewish Temple and theocracy in order to be obeyed, which Temple was destroyed as Christ predicted. On the other hand, the moral law reflects the immutable holy and omniscient character of God, such as the relationship between man and women revealing the Diving order between the Father and the Son, and between Christ and His church (1Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23 - and which again militates against homosexuals). And as such, they are timeless, with any kind of sexual immorality belonging in the strictly moral category. Neither are the moral laws dependent upon the existence of the Temple, and other nations were judged for disobeying them (such as Sodom - even according to the homosexual misinterpretation). There is absolutely nothing prophetically typological about the prohibitions against men sexually lying with women, any more than the prohibitions against normal fornication finds any fulfillment in Christ and His church (except that we also are to avoid spiritual fornication as well). Rather they are both moral laws, with the condemnation of being affirmed under the New Covenant in principal and by precept.

4. The word “sodomy,“ like many other words translated from original languages, derives it's meaning from the practice of the people with whom it is associated. That the wicked thing that Lot begged the men of Sodom not to do was simply rape is militated against by the fact that he offered his daughters in place of the men, that they might to them as they pleased. The corresponding word which homosexuals prefer for themselves, “gay,” likewise is derived from a light, effeminate character typical associated with them, (though studies1 show the opposite of "gay" is overall true).

5. The word abomination, like the Mosaic Law itself, applies to both disobedience to God in ceremonial law as well as in moral law. Concerning the latter, all the sins of Lev. 18 (and which are inherently evil)are categorized as abominations (Lev. 18:26), as are the images of false gods(Dt. 7: 25), following false gods (Dt. 12:31; 13:14; 17:4), following witchcraft (Dt. 18:12). Also called an abomination are such things as false weights and balances (Dt. 25:16 and affirmed elsewhere in Proverbs), repentance (Pro. 13:19), the sacrifice, way and thoughts of the wicked (Prov. 15:8, 9 26), the proud in heart (Prov. 16:5), he that justifieth the wicked [such as sodomites do], and condemneth the just [as they do to them that reprove them: Prov. 17:15], those that will not hear the Law of God (Prov. 28:9) and, “a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren” Prov. 6:17-19). Homosexual practices are indeed just that, an abomination, as well as the insolent proud look that justifies it.

Deut. 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.


The Hebrew word for sodomite (found 6 times in the O.T.) , qadesh (kaw-dashe') literally means a sacred (set apart) person, and at worst means a male temple prostitute, and not “loving monogamous sexual unions with the persons same gender.”


As conclusively shown before, the condemnation of sodomy cannot be restricted to homosexual practices in pagan temples, as we see the good kings of Israel commended for driving such "out of the land" (1Ki. 15:12), and not simply out of the Temple. Jehoshaphat even broke down their houses (2Ki. 23:7).

That which is done in the Temple represents the highest sanction, and while Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 as well as other passages in both the O.T and N.T condemn sodomy in general, homosexual temple prostitution is specifically singled here out as it presumes the highest religious sanction of a sin which is against God's natural order, a sanction that would set the standard for all other authorities to follow. This "holy" sanction is what the sodomite movement seeks today in demanding not simply civil unions recognized by the government, but the title of marriage, which the Bible recognizes as only between a man and a woman. There simply is no basis for anything else.

Scriptural statement: Nowhere in the Bible are homosexual relationships honored by God.


The relationship between Ruth and Naomi is one of two lesbians. Ruth 1:14 says that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" (KJV) is the same word used to description heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

David and Jonathan is also homoerotic, as in 1 Samuel 18:3-4; 18:20-21, 4;2Sam. 1:26.


Once again we see vain attempts at eisegesis (reading into the text, not out of it), which depend upon ignorance of the immediate context, as well as that of the culture in which the events took place. In the first instance The same Hebrew word for clave (ayth) is also used in commanding us to cleave unto God (Dt. 10:20; 11:22, 13:4), or to describe how their enemies of Israel pursued them (1Sam. 14:22). 2Sam. 20:2 declares that the men of tribe of Judah “clave unto their King.” And even Ruth's future husband (Boaz) even tells her to “abide (cleave) fast by my maidens,” and likewise to “keep fast (cleave) by my young men” (Ruth 2:8,,21). All this for a “virtuous women (3:11 - according to Biblical definitions), who was seeking a husband! Reading these instances in context easily reveals that such cleaving mean sticking close in non sexual ways (cf. 2:23).

In the second instance the relationship between David and Jonathan is surmised to be sexual, despite the fact that God, who does not bow down to culture (“Learn not the way of the heathen”), never sanctions such, as he does between man and woman by marriage.

First, let us consider the historical context:

Saul, Israel's first king, fails critical leadership tests and David is chosen by God to be his replacement and is thus anointed by the prophet Samuel. David slays the giant Goliath (1Sam. 17), and proves himself a mighty warrior. Saul would quickly become jealous, and for a few years the future King David would be found escaping Saul's attempts, though David could have slain him. But it was in the wilderness that David learned to really pray (read the Psalms) and depend on the Lord. And early on the help of one on the “inside” (Jonathan) would prove Providential. David would finally realize the Kingdom, but not until not only Saul, but even David's closest friend died.


At the subsequent meeting after slaying Goliath with King Saul, Saul's son, Jonathan, likely sees him as a hero and recognized David's godly character. “And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants.” (1Sam. 8:1-5).

Without any warrant from Scripture, those who seek to find some evidence of approved homosexual relations suppose they find it here. They think knit means to be homoerotic as they are, as they seem to have trouble conceiving of true brotherly love than is nonsexual. Many soldiers had precious war buddy's who would lay their life down for them (not their bodies sexually), as Jonathan basically did for David. Grammatically, the word “knit” is never used to mean sexually, but rather as to be of one heart and soul, “as one man” in Judges 20:1. Likewise in 1Chrn. 12:16, 17 the tribes Benjamin and Judah said to be knit with King David (and no, they were not homosexual tribes!). Even more closely, the same word is used to describe Jacobs love for his son Benjamin (Gn. 44: 30). It's most prevalent use is in the negative sense, as conspiracy (1Sam. 22:13), in that case also denoting a nonsexual soul-bond.

Neither can we read a sexual connotation into “loved him as his own soul” as they word soul basically means life. In all 753 instances of the Hebrew word there is nothing sexual bout it. Jonathan loved David as his own life, as we are commanded by the Lord to do. But while the Lord commands that love encompass sexual expression between man and woman (1Cor. 7:2-5; and the word wife always means woman), He does no such thing for men with men, but rather forbids it.

However, what about Jonathan giving his robe, his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle,” to David? Here the imagination of natural mind (1Cor. 2:14) of homosexuals, who suppose this to be erotic, must be subject to the Word of God (1Cor. 10:5).

What meaneth this?

Why would Jonathan give David his clothes? The answer is easily seen.

First, as pertains to kinship, it is reasonable to surmise that Jonathan, who also had some fame as a daring warrior, was looking for such a fellow soldier as David showed himself to be, being also of a humble spirit and genuine character, and so Jonathan enters into a covenant with him And making covenants distinct from marriage was not uncommon in that world, by which each party basically agreed “I am as thou art” (2Kg. 7:3).

However, David had just come from came his job as a keeper of sheep, no lofty position, and one that placed him in humble clothing. In contrast Jonathan was the heir to the throne and as such was clothed accordingly. Jonathan therefore, quickly acts (perhaps impulsively, but as a true friend), to rectify the situation at his own expense.

The details are noteworthy. Instead the clothes of a poor Shepard, Jonathan gives David his royal robe and garments, which would make him more fit for a job as a courtier (an attendant at the court of a sovereign). And instead of a shepherd's scrip, Jonathan gives David a girdle (either a belt or a sash); and instead of a slingshot, David receives a sword and bow, and, garments befitting a soldier in the army of the king. The fact that David now would wear the same garments as the heir to the throne wore not only insured greater acceptance by the rest of the royal staff, but it also indicated what would eventually follow.

Thus far there is nothing that warrants anything different than exceptional but holy affection between two Godly like-hearted spiritual brothers and warriors in the kingdom of God. It is quite obvious that the purpose of Jonathan removing some of his garments (they did wear under garments) was to give them to David, not for any erotic purpose.

But what of two chapters later, were we read “And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded” (1Sam 20:21). Is this erotic?

The context is that of David leaving the house of Saul. For sometime now his days were numbered, with jealous King Saul (jealous because of David's fame as a warrior) more than once trying to pin him to the wall with a javelin. Jonathan has warned David of Saul's mind toward him -incurring the displeasure of Saul himself by his loyalty to David - and has now given him a sign by way of a lad shooting arrows. Like the apostle Paul in Acts 20:38) they shall see each others face no more. And like Paul's departure, it is marked by tears and kisses of brotherly affection. “And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him” (Acts 20:37). “.. and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.” This was a fairly common but nonsexual sign of affection in that culture, as it is today among Middle Eastern cultures. Only by insisting to see what one wants to see can contrary conclusions be drawn, based upon the plain evidence.

Finally, we have the poetic description of Jonathan precious love in David lament over his death. “How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2Sam. 1:25, 26).

While those who are intent on finding some evidence of sexual love between men hope to find it here, neither the use of the word “pleasant” (which can even describe land - Gn. 49:15) or that the love of Jonathan surpassed that of women necessarily denotes anything sexual. That is unless one cannot conceive of such brotherly affection as being nonsexual, which seems to be the problem. This is nothing to warrant equating pathos with eros here, and the burden of proof is upon those that would do so to prove such here. Souls that are utterly dependent on each other necessitate loyalty, and though it is rare to find men whose heart is so knit together in mind and purposes that it is greater than with those whom they are joined with physically (and David was married), when it happens it is aptly expressed as David did here. An ancient saying, “Friendship produces an entire sameness; it is one soul in two bodies: a friend is another self”(Clarke), is quite applicable in this case.

It is a like “fervent charity” and “one heart and of one soul” that the early church manifested (Acts 2:41-47; 4:32), a love that would lay down it's life for the brethren, “dearly beloved and longed for” (Phil. 4:2).

While David's expression (and perhaps realization) was the greatest one concerning male to male relationships, it stands in clear contrast to the greatest expression of male to female love by the latter's inclusion of the element which is utterly missing from David's description, that of erotic love. From way before the time of Christ the Song of Solomon has stood a as the epitome of romantic love between man and woman. NOTHING like it is given us even among the closest male to male Biblical relationships.

There are other attempts purporting to find some intimation of homosexual relationships in the Bible, they are so lacking in substance that I will not presently take the time to expose them, suffice to say that it is distressing to see souls so desirous to find evidence for God-sanctioned homoerotic relationships that read such into texts intimations which simply are not unwarranted. If homosexuality is as normal and wholesome as they insist it is, surely we would see God clearly sanctioning such, especially and necessarily by marriage. But nowhere in any place in Scripture is this the case. Is this absence because it would have been hard for other cultures to accept homosexuality? Is God bound by culture so that He leaves out something that is essential for man's well-being as homosexuals purport their relationships to be? No, not in any way. If anything it was the other cultures who practiced homosexual relationships and were judged by God for such. The list of sins in Lv. 18 for instance were things in which all the nations are were defiled by, and which God cast out before them (Lv. 18:25): While under the New Covenant men such as Paul adapted to culture in the amoral realm, he preached against fleshly immorality, and warned that such sins as fornication and “abusers of themselves with mankind,” would keep one out of the Kingdom of God (1Cor. 9-10).

Moving onto the New Testament, we see one the clearest condemnations of homosexual relationships in the entire Bible (while 1 Cor. 6:9 and Tim. 1:10 and the meaning of arsenokoitai and malakoi can also be discussed, I feel that is unnecessary at this time as this treatise is mainly dealing with the clearest texts concerning sodomy, which, along with the complete lack of sanction, show sodomy to be sin).

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." (Romans 1:22-28)


1. This only pertains to sexual abuse, as slaves were often forced to commit homosexual acts. It does not apply to consensual relationships.

2. This means that if you were born heterosexual, it would be wrong and unnatural for you to engage in homosexual relations.

3. This only has to do with religious idolatrous practices, and not with consensual relationships.


1. This is pure imagination, as a careful reading of the text neither explicitly or implicitly conveys such an idea. Rather it deals with the causes and effects of the general degeneration of man, not practices within a specific institution, and which context shall be expanded upon under #3. But the fact that it is clearly said that men “burned in their lust one toward another;” shows it not to be forced activity, but indeed consensual.

2. Again, there is nothing to suggest such a strange interpretation: Paul does not say or intimate that normally heterosexuals men were somehow denying their natural proclivity, but rather that men left “the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,” or unnatural; and received in their own defiled bodies their just punishment. They were, after all, doing what they had been delivered over to. All souls have sinful desires, and the fact that we are born with sinful desires in no way justifies our acting them out. God gives us grace self control and even deliverance, but the more one yields to sin to more he is taken captive by it. And Jesus came to set the captives free who truly want Him. But for those who resist His Spirit there is a point of no return after which they cannot. May non harden there heart that read this but “Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts,” and decide they want Jesus rather than sin and receive an follow Him who died for them and rose again.

3. This hearkens back to the supposition that Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 is only condemning homosexual acts that are done in conjunction with pagan temple idolatry. However, not only does that text stand on it's own, but these passages here apply to man in general. Both the preceding verses leading up to the section condemning homosexual practices and those proceeding from it make this clear. The section specifically dealing with homosexuality is part of Paul's declaration of the gospel of Christ, which idolatry and homosexual relations are in contrast with, and continues the theme of obedience to revealed truth and blessing and accountability versus disobedience deception. Beginning in verse 18, we are warned that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness,” truth which is revealed by nature (God's creation) as well as the explicit revelation of His written revelation, the Word of God (the Bible). And here is will be noted that it is a naturally observation that men are physically designed for sexual compatibility with women and not with men (and male and female complementary compatibility does not end there). The Holy Spirit then reveals the progressive steps of degeneration, proceeding from rejection of truth and leading to men working that which is unseemly, or against nature. It is not dealing with homosexual temple prostitution, but with consensual general homosexual relations working that is against nature, not simply against “ritual purity.” The text then goes to overall list other fruits of the reprobate mind which are manifest to various degrees, .and are the result of resisting the truth of the One True God (relative to the degree they do), as those do who seek to wrest the Scriptures to fit their unholy ends.

According to this theme, Romans chapter 2 will go on to show that the Gentiles - encompassing all outside the Nation of Israel - had the essence of the Law of God written in their heart. And as other texts show, God is a rewarded of them that diligently seek Him and thus when men truly want the Truth, when they wholeheartedly want the Light, then , like Cornelius (Acts 10), they will truly hear Christ and receive Him as their Lord and Savior. The opposite is true for those who do not (Jn. 3:19-21). The principal of degeneration seen in Romans 1 is that when man rejects the natural revelation God gives them, then they become progressively more blind. They seek to make God after an image more to their own fleshly liking (and render the Bible likewise) - which homo-apologists have effectively done in this case - and eventually in their rebellion become given over to their own fleshly lusts. The fact that the sinful practices of Romans 1 are shown to proceed out of formal idolatry does not mean that such vile physical practices are condemned only if they are conjoined with such evident idolatry, rather is shows perversity as an effect of idolatry, and which can take many forms. We may detail the steps of degeneration that led Germany to follow Hitler, but that does not mean the end result is only wrong if done as part of such manifest “idolatry,” and or in obedience to such an idol. Pedophilia is not simply wrong if a priest does it, but the act is wrong at anytime by anyone.

While the attempt to make the condemnation of consensual homoerotic relations that of only pagan idolatry is a vain one, the fact which Romans makes clear is that idolatry leads to progressive degrees of blindness and captivating and devastating sin. The fact is all sin is a manifestation of idolatry. The first commandment is to love the God of the Bible with all we've got (Dt. 6:4). If we do so we will neither be following after false gods nor doing the things which are the result of such. Idolatry is not limited to formal deities. Whenever we worship/obey an idea of deity that is made like to corruptible man, that is according to the carnal mind (which is “not subject to the law of God” - Rm. 8:7 - as homosexuality is not), we are in fact guilty of idolatry. Whatever we live for at any given time is our god at that time. Whether it be “the lust of the flesh” [sensual pleasures], or “the lust of the eyes” [possessions], or “the pride of life” [prestige-ego fulfillment], it is all idolatry whenever they become our chief love and or source of security. Only God is almighty and eternal, whereas the rest are finite created things that cannot deliver us nor truly satisfy the soul. But Jesus is the Bread of Life, and as He promised “he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (Jn. 6:35). And he who writes these things testifies that these things are true and is no lie. My basic soul hunger was and is satisfied since I truly repented and received the Lord Christ at age 25 (though I was brought up “religious”- Catholic). His Spirit came in me and changed my heart in ways I never thought needed changing. I do, however, seek for more and more heart righteousness, till all that is within me cries glory!


Statement: Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.


The Lord Jesus, while speaking on many things within the four gospels , also said nothing directly about a lot of issues, including (in the realm at issue) incest, rape, or bestiality, etc. But He both gave us the moral essence behind specifics, as well as promising “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now” (Jn. 16:12), thereby pre-authenticating the rest of the New Testament, part of which we have just dealt with. The gospels are the Manifestation of Christ (the O.T the Preparation), and the epistles the Explanation (Revelation being the consummation). In Mark 7:21 the Lord Jesus declared that “fornications” (plural) was one of the things that made one unclean and thus unfit for Heaven. In such places as Rm. 1 we one of the kinds of prohibited fornications defined. Moreover, the Lord Jesus clearly affirmed (in Matthew 19) that marriage was between a man (male) and a women (female). We will thus deal with this next.

On the Positive Side

If homosexual relations are normal and good, and have a claim to equality to heterosexual relations, then we must ask, just where is the positive sanction for homosexual practices? For if, like sex between men and women, homosexual practices are only conditionally wrong, according to time (before marriage), place (public) and circumstance (lust, not love), then where is the expected and necessary provision of marriage that would make it right? The Lord from the beginning to the end of the Bible (wife and bride are both manifestly female) sanction/affirms marriage for heterosexuals, but nowhere for homosexuals. And if they cannot marry, then they are fornicating. And in a most perverse manner. Let us briefly look at the God-ordained institution of marriage in the Bible.

In Genesis 2:23, 24 we read, "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The word “wife” here (ish-shaw', naw-sheem') is feminine, and is found 780 times in the Old Testament, and when used in reference to a person(s) it always refers to either a women or a wife (singular or plural), but NEVER TO A MAN. Likewise the word for wife (gune) in the New Testament. Every marriage in the Bible is between a man and a woman, and never is a man literally a women nor vice versa.

The Lord Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6, also used the above passage as the authority for life-long marriage: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And conversely, what God hath put asunder (sexually same gender sex), let not man put together. It is clear both Scripturally and anatomically, etc., that God hath NOT joined men together as with women.

Seeing that the provision for literal marriage is only given throughout the Bible for men and women, let us look at the figurative use of the word. When God Isaiah 54:5, God is called Israel's husband, and the context makes it clear Israel is the wife. In Jeremiah. 3:14, God is said to be married to Israel, and while God always uses the male pronoun to refer to Himself, Israel is referred to as the women (vs. 7, 8). In Hosea the male - female typology between Yahweh and His (backsliding) people is made more abundantly clear.

In the New Testament, the church is shown to be the bride, which is female (Rev. 21:2, 9, 17), and in Ephesians :22-33, that relationship is used as an illustration for male husbands and their female wives. This arraignment also hearkens back to the original providence of Genesis 2:23, 24 (v.31). Fast forward to Revelation, and we see again marriage being between male and female. “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to Him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints” (Rev. 19:7, 8; cf. 21:2, 9, 22:17).

Thus the only provision for marriage is given to heterosexuals, both literally, typologically and spiritually, and the manifest absence of the required positive sanction for homosexuals unions is alone sufficient to disallow homosexual unions, and is confirmatory of the aforementioned negative prohibitions against men sexually lying with men. This absence, and the contrasting provision for heterosexuals cannot be explained except that only one kind of union, that of heterosexuals, has any kind of approval.

Homo-sexual relations is shown to be wrong in principal and by precept. Like that of bestiality, man is not designed for sexual relations with those of the same gender nor animals. Heterosexual marriage is the only kind of physical union that can fulfil one of it's primary functions (Gn. 1:28). The human anatomical differences are not complementary, even apart from procreative purposes, and are resulting in increased rates of certain diseases. And yet the union between male and female is complementary in more ways than physical. Homosexuality is wrong in principal and by precept.

As for animals, for which God also provides no positive sanction, sexual union therein is confusion, while it is also likely that AIDS was passed onto humans through sexual relations with apes (and as history shows, it was then initially spread primarily through the homosexual community).

The absence of the like institution of marriage for homosexuals is not, as some might dare to insinuate, because God was sensitive to cultural feelings, as if homosexual marriage was “too much” for them to bear. To the contrary, not only is God committed to giving us what it “holy, just and good” which His laws are, but in so doing He expressly contradicted cultural norms in establishing a “holy nation.” And as mentioned before, that holiness and the condemnation of the practices of other nations was not simply for purposes of distinction, but because the laws and the required behavior was holy in and of itself. Nor, as related to heterosexual marriage, was it because procreation was always required, as the attributes of Eve as a help mate go beyond having children. The Song of Solomon is not about procreation, neither is there a Song of Solomon for homosexuals in the Bible.


The homo-apologist would have us believe that homosexual practices are wholesome, healthy (though numerous medical studies1,2 militate against it being “wholesome and healthy”), even preferable or necessary for some, and affirmed by the Bible. They would have us believe that homosexuality is something that is so good and necessary for mankind that it ought to enjoy the same sanction of marriage as heterosexuals are given. They would have us believe this despite the plain and clear prohibitions against men lying with men as with women, the condemnation of those who did so, and despite the utter absence of positive Divine sanction for homosexual marriage - the normal and natural provision which is given to heterosexuals. In so doing they would have us effectively believe that God is unwilling to make His will sufficiently clear, though He has, nor willing to provide the man the blessed sanction necessary for his lawful conjugal happiness, though the positive provision of marriage for heterosexuals is clearly given!

Finally, having wrecked havoc with the Word of God, they not only demand equality with heterosexuals in this matter, but that they also be called Christians, a title no one can earn and that they are welcome to, but a redemption that can only be had upon repentance from dead works and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ.

But which redemption they spurn as long as they remain obstinate in positively affirming homosexuality. I pray they, and all souls, will yet turn from darkness to light, and receive the salvation that alone is in Christ Jesus.

And let those who oppose it also take heed, for though the practice of homosexuality is exceeding unholy and sinful, yet all have sinned, there is none righteous, nothing that defileth shall enter the Holy City of God, Hell is forever, and all must be saved. And which salvation can not be had on the basis of any merit we suppose, not any sacrifice we make, but only the blood of the sinless Jesus can truly atone for sin, and save sinners. And not only save but transform hearts. May al who read this know “so great salvation, “ by “the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ”(Heb. 2:3; Titus 2:13). Praise ye the Lord.

The following offer information on studies of the detrimental effects of the homosexual life.3

End Notes

(1) - see this AFA Article
(2) - see also this article
(3) - Note: The editor of this website does not necessarily subscribe to, promote, believe, or support every position taken by these organisations or individuals in every area. The links to the articles are provided for the purposes of discussion on this topic specifically and solely.