Revision as of 00:37, January 11, 2009

This page is presented as a conservative Christian response to the frequently manifested attemps by pro homosexual apologists to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations, otherwise referred to as homoeroticism, and to read such into Scripture.

Foundational Issues

The study of homosexual apologetics progressively evidences that it's revisionist school operates out a radically different exegetical basis than which enduring historical Biblical scholarship has evidenced as a whole. Alex D. Montoya^[1] prefaces his essay on the subject at hand by stating,

“Developments in the secular society in its acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle have put pressure on the evangelical church to respond in some way. Homosexual spokespersons have advocated varying principles of interpretation to prove from the Bible the legitimacy of their lifestyle. They have resorted to either subjectivism, historic-scientific evolving of society, or cultural biases of the Biblical writers to find biblical backing for their position. Scripture condemns homosexuality is such passages as Genesis 19; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; 2 Pet 2:7; and Jude 7. The true biblical teaching on the subject requires the church to condemn the sin of homosexuality, convert the homosexual, confront erroneous teaching, and cleanse itself. The church must be careful not to adopt the customs of the world.”^[2]

Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoerotisicm^[3] work from the theological foundation of Biblical infallibility, and in which God, as the author of Scripture, made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws for attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the use of proven rules of interpretation (hermeneutics), and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that it's moral laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed. In addition, historically Christian theologians have seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications are made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colosians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)^[4]

As relates to homosexuality, consistent with the position that God in particular made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual conduct are considered transcendent. In examining such it becomes evident from the beginning that all sexual relations outside marriage is fornication (1Cor. 7:2), and as regards homosexuality, the explicit sanction of heterosexual relations by marriage stands in contrast to that of any evidence for such sanction between homosexuals. This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to God's design and decrees, in which only the women was created from man in order to make man sexually complete, being uniquely complementary and compatible to that end, and is alone sexually joined to him in marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6 1 Cor. 11:8-9). And as such this exclusive union remains part of God's immutable moral law. And in addition, in the places where homoerotic relations are explicitly dealt with, it is only condemned (see Homosexuality and the Bible). These injunctions are understood as being part of the immutable moral law of God, and unconditional in scope, not simply applicable to certain cultural or behavioral conditions.^[5][6] As evangelical Bible scholar Greg Bahnsen stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."

In contrast, those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticim in Scripture typically view the Bible as a book that allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, and allows a much broader range of interpretation of moral commands and their immutability. While the issue of homosexuality and the Bible does involve some texts which are necessitate some deep examination, in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism and to wrest sanction for such, hermeneutics are employed by homosexual apologists which effectively would negate most any moral command, and the Bible as a moral authority. A primary homosexual apologist, a Professor Walter Wink, concluded that the Bible offers no coherent sexual ethic, especially as regards homoeroticism, which he perceives as “interpretative quicksand”. Instead he essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by being in accordance with one's own understanding of Christian love. This requires that the manifestly immutable moral laws of the Bible must yield to what Wink sees as enlightened morality in today's society. (cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)^[7][8] Likewise, pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs concludes, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”^[9] As again, due to the hermeneutics employed in arriving at this desired conclusion, this statement would apply to all the laws regarding basic sexual behavior.

Principal Sources

Sources of pro homosexual interpretations are abundant, such as John J. McNeill,^[10] Robin Scroggs,^[11] L. William Countryman,^[12] Roman Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak,^[13] and many others. The revisionist scholar who is primarily noted for first advancing their novel view (1955), was the Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey. Perhaps the basic primary source for most of the main pro homosexual polemics represented here is John Eastburn Boswell. Born in Boston in 1947, and educated at Harvard, he was later made a full professor at Yale, where he founded the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center. Described as a devout Roman Catholic, Boswell was yet an openly announced homosexual. He wrote a number of books seeking to negate Biblical injunctions against homosexuality and to justify it, with one of his last books being, "Dante and the Sodomites" (1994). Boswell died of complications from AIDS on December 24, 1994, at age 47.

In depth evangelical responses to the above yet remain few. The foremost contributor in this regard is Robert A. J. Gagnon^[14]. Adding to his numerous and extensive reproofs of pro homosexual claims is Thomas E Schmidt^[15] ("Straight and Narrow?"), Guenther Haas^[16] ("Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice), James B. de Young ^[17] (Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law), Dave Miller Ph.D. (“Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?"), apologist James Patrick Holding^[18] ("Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?", and other responses.

Terms Defined

The term "homosexual" is a relatively recent one, with it's first know occurrence apparently being in an 1869 pamphlet in the German language, and attributed to native Austrian Karl-Maria Kertbeny. Over time, this term, which was used within the field of personality taxonomy, and which could be used to denote any same gender environment, in now used almost exclusively in regards to sexual attraction and it's activity. This is as yet unsatisfactory, as such use lacks the distinction between nonsexual homosexual social activity, denoted by the term "homosociality," versus same gender love, "homophilia," and which may be romantic, and that of homoeroticism (clinically MSM), denoting homosexual erotic activity, that of same gender sexual relations. As most of this article deals with the sexual practice of homosexuals, the term homoeroticism or homoerotic activity will usually be used. Sodomy might normally have been, but this originally defined a temple prostitute. ("Sodom" itself is derived from the word "scorch," or "burnt".)

Texts at Issue

Here let us consider errors of attempts to justify homo eroticism in the Bible, insofar as I am aware of them, of which the main ones may be seen online in Thomas E Schmidt's book ^[19]

Genesis and union of man and women

(Gen 2:18-24) "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. {20} And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. {21} And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; {22} And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. {23} 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. {24} Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."'

Here, attempts are made by pro homosexual apologists to negate God's choice to uniquely join man and women together, in order to read into Scripture an allowance for marriage between same genders (and which, by implication, would also include animals). However, we first see here that the specific cause for creating opposite genders was to join them sexually in marriage. Jesus affirmed this union in Matthew 19, specifically including that it was opposite genders that were joined:

(Mat 19:4-6) "And he answered and said unto them, 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."'

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is only specified as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently explicitly stated and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God, being based upon the creational foundation of Genesis. It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with him sexually, in marriage “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." ^[20]

In contrast to the preceding and other explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, is the homosexual proponent's idea that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions.^[21] This idea is based upon a prior and extra Biblical assumption that homosexual marriage is implicitly sanctioned in Scripture, and is not explicitly forbidden, but this is shown to be without warrant, and it's logical conclusions untenable. Instead what Scripture reveals is that God uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, the joining of which is God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20). Women here and in other places are not only revealed to be supremely and uniquely designed for the life giving purpose of procreation within marriage, but to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, to the glory of God. And they alone This is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon.^[22] In addition, whenever God gives instructions for sexual bonding it is always between a male and female - even between animals, as seen in Noah's pairing (Gn. 7:9). Hereafter the only marriages in the Bible are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, in all of the Bible there exists absolutely zero evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and piece of poetry in the Hebrew Bible having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite.”^[23] An attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage (dealt with later), though that word is never used for marriage between humans, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. The attempt to argue that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it is readily seen as possessing the same amount of legitimacy as saying that marriage between man and animals, or between man and rocks must be allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. The facts are that they need not be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly, and consistently specifies who is joined together in marriage, and designed them that way, and abundantly confirms only the union between the male and female as sanctified, and unconditionally prohibits men laying with men as with women (Lv. 18:22), which “cleaving” is intractably part of God's description of marriage.

1 Cor. 11:1-12 explicitly confirms the unique bond of man and women in marriage, which in every aspect is contrary to a man to man union:

(1 Cor 11:3) "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

While some attempt to make this positional distinction culturally caused, the context reveals that this is a creational, ontological distinction between man and the women, in which the man is the head of the women, as it is based upon the Divine order between the Father and the Son. This is directly related to the creation of women for the man, as we next read,

(1 Cor 11:8,9) "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 'Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

Here again it is explicitly stated that the women was created for the man. This hearkens back to Gn. 2:18-24, in which the women was created to be man's “helpmeet”, and as we see beginning in Genesis, by design and decree she is his uniquely compatible and complementary mate, in more ways than just the procreative aspect.

The mutual interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in vs. 11-12

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."

To join man with man in contrary to this unique union in marriage between opposite genders, in which both genders hold distinctive roles due to their creation differences, both in position, overall paracletal purpose and procreation.

Jame B. De Young,^[24] in “Homosexuality,” writes, “ The creation of humans as male and female (Gn. 1) and the heterosexual union that constitutes marriage (Gn. 2) lie at the at the basis of the rest of Scripture and its comments about sexuality and marriage. A proper understanding of, and submission to, the record of Creation will guide the inquirer to the truth about homosexuality and heterosexuality. Genesis 1 — 3 clearly is foundational to other Bible texts.”

Robert J. Gagnon states, The text states four times that the woman was “taken from” the “human” (adam, thereafter referred to as an ish or man), underscoring that woman, not another man, is the missing sexual “complement” or “counterpart” to man (so the Hebrew term negdo, which stresses both human similarity, “corresponding to him,” and sexual difference, “opposite him”). Within the story line man and woman may (re-)unite into “one flesh” precisely because together they reconstitute the sexual whole.^[25]

While is it not a command that all men be sexually joined, the only other alternative is celibacy, as seen in the only alternative to fornication being marriage:

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Cor 7:2) .

Note that here again only man and women are joined in marriage.

Nor does the fact that polygamous marriages were allowed (even concubines were wives: Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3), as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife (unlike children, when as individual husband is addressed, it is not love your wives, but wife, and as seen above), even this excess, is in keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, and it is they which are uniquely sexually joined in marriage.

A more subtle attempt to read allowance of homosexual marriage into the Bible is made by homosexual apologist John J. McNeill ^[26] This polemic attempts to forces marriage under the New Testament to included homosexuals due to it's lower priority upon procreation, and emphasis upon essential oneness of all races in Christ. (Gal. 3:28) However, as noted aforetime, the bond of marriage is not simply for procreation, and the women's uniqueness as the helpmeet of the man transcends that aspect (although this is by no means a minor one, and which itself is contrary to same sex unions). And under the New Covenant, marriage is only reaffirmed as the union of opposite genders, with this unique union being evident in their complementary positional differences, which are based upon creational distinctions after the Divine order. Furthermore, just as under the Old Testament, marriage is dealt with under the New only as being between the man and the women, and rather than long term sexual abstinence, conjugal relations are actually enjoined (1Cor. 7:4,5). In addition, while they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain the resurrection of the just shall “neither marry, nor are given in marriage" (Luke 20:35), even the church is metaphorically a female, as it also is based upon marriage in Genesis with it's union of different but complementary genders, purposely made to be so.

(Eph 5:30-32) "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

Eunuchs and exegesis

Faced with the foundation of marriage from the beginning of the Bible, in which only the women was distinctly created for the man, and which unique joining of opposite genders and it's foundation is only affirmed and linked to under the New Testament, McNeill and others seek to create a back door for homosexual marriage. This is done by postulating or asserting that the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals. And as love is basically made to trump other restrictions, and as for many it is unthinkable that Jesus would have them abstain from sexual activity, and since such outside of marriage is fornication, then the provision of marriage for eunuchs, which are all made out to be homosexuals and vice versa, would be implied. However, this polemic makes unwarranted presumptions, while duplicitously employing a rule of interpretation which is the opposite of a faulty hermeneutic used to negate the unconditional injunction against homoerotic relations in Lv. 18:22. While it may be true that in other nations eunuch's were sometime homosexuals and who sometimes could procreate,^[27][28] yet rather than being like other nations, homoerotic relations was one of the inherently evil sins which God declared Israel was not to do, in contrast to pagans (Lv. 18:24,27). In seeking to disallow that universal prohibition, the homosexual apologist almost always relegates that moral law to the category of ceremonial laws, using what might be called the “shellfish hermeneutic,” thereby abrogating the literal application of this and all such laws outside of formal idolatry. But as will be dealt with more under Leviticus 18, the Bible itself specifies which type of laws were typological (Col. 2:16; Heb. 9:10), while consistently affirming moral laws, the applicability of which are not dependent upon a specific culture, and under which category laws condemning illicit sex manifestly stand (Mk. 7:21; Eph. 5:3). However, in response to the need to find sanction for homoerotic relations, here the homosexual apologist supposes that Israel was like the others nations, while the opposite was to be the case. Not only in Scripture but in every other extant piece of evidence about Jewish views on same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond, it shows them to be consistently hostile to such behavior. ^[29] In addition, any idea that Jesus' reference to eunuchs may imply sanction for homosexual marriage is destroyed by the context of Mt. 19:12, in which eunuchs are established as a class of persons which do not get married.^[30] In the light of this, it is not surprising that the actual effect of the employment of specious homosexual hermeneutics is to negate the Bible as a moral authority, with the requirement of marriage for sexual relations being a specific causality.

The reference to eunuchs includes both those who were born without the ability to reproduce, or who were castrated (Dt. 23:1; Isaiah 39:7; 56:4,5; Mt. 19:12), the latter of which could be spiritually under the New Covenant and it's spiritual kingdom. As seen in Acts 8:26-40, eunuchs could be saved through repentance and faith in LORD Jesus, but this does not sanction homoeroticism, rather it requires repentance from all forms of fornication. Under the Old Testament one who was castrated was an outcast, and being made a eunuch was demeaning (see above ref.), while under the New Covenant no physical deformity excludes one from being part of the kingdom. But practicing immoral behavior denies the faith, and thus the redeemed included those were formerly “effeminate” (1Cor. 6:9-11).

Proclivity and permission polemic

The prior homosexual argument relates to one that posits that some men are born homosexual, and thus marriage must be allowed for them.^[31] The premise for this is both unproven,^[32] and it's logic is untenable. No sound evidence exists to prove that homosexuals were born that way, though this may be possible, and certainly one individual may be more prone to one type of sin that another. However, this is irrelevant as the Biblical fact is that all mankind is born with a proclivity to sin, but this in no way justifies acting it out. (Romans 6, 7; 1John 2:6). Every day men must resist sexual desire if it would be immoral as contrary the Creator's laws, which are good and necessary. (Rm. 7:12) The logical end of the homosexual argument is that all innate proclivity to sin justifies acting it out, but God told Cain that he could resist sin. (Gn. 4:7), and commands us to resist sin and overcome it, and shows us how. (Rm. 8; 12)

In summary, all marriage in Scripture is based upon it's foundation in Genesis, in which God purposely created two different genders to be joined in a uniquely complementary and compatible sexual union, with distinctive positions patterned after the Divine order, for both procreational purposes as well as in sexual and non-sexual ways which transcend this. In contrast to homosexual attempts at eisegesis (2Pet. 3:16) nowhere is same sex marriage evident or sanctioned, in principal or by precept, rather, to join Adam (man) with one of his own (or an animal), is manifestly contrary to what God has specifically and transcendently ordained, by both design and decree. What therefore God has placed (sexually) asunder, let no man join together.

Genesis 19

The story really begins in Genesis 13, in which Abraham and Lot have too many livestock for their present land, and Abraham, seeking peace, offers Lot the first pick as to what land he shall choose. Lot sees and chooses the then verdant plain of Sodom. But the sober note of Scripture is, "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly." (Gen 13:13). Later in chapter 18, the LORD and two angels visit Abraham in the plains of Mamre, appearing as men, with the two angels being sent on a mission of investigation and judgment to Sodom. Understanding the nature of judgment, Abraham most reverently intercedes for Lot and his kin, and is assured by God that even if there remains at little as 10 righteous souls in the city then God will not destroy it. The verdict of the investigation of the "very grievous" (or heavy) sin of Sodom is revealed in what happens to the angels appearing as men.

Gn. 18: "And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; {21} I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. {22} And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD."

Gn. 19: "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.

{12} And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: {13} For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it."

The issue here is not the forced manner of sexual relations that is evidenced, but the homosexuality nature of it, which defines the practice from whence the term "sodomy" was derived. However, as this story would evidence that the most notable sin of Sodom had to with homoerotic relations, and which “filthy” lifestyle resulted in Sodom becoming the foremost example of the judgment of God, and upon “those that after should live ungodly” (Pet. 2:6), therefore homosexual apologists most typically seek to disallow that the "very grievous" sin of Sodom here had anything to do with homoeroticism. Instead, they seek to attribute it to simply "inhospitality,” albeit of a violent nature.^[33] While Sodom certainly manifested “inhospitality,” it is the specific expression of it which is the issue.

Two words focused upon in the attempt to remove homosexual abuse from Gn. 19 are "men" as in "the men of Sodom", and "know" as in "know them", which the men demanded Lot allow them to do. The first assertion is that the word for men used in Genesis 19:4, "'ĕnôsh" (Strong, #582), is not gender specific, but simply indicates mortals or people, and instead the word "esh" (or "'îysh", Strong, #376) would have been used in Gn. 19:4 if it specifically meant men.^[34] Actually, Gn. 19:4 does state both "the men of Sodom" and "all the people", but the use of enosh need not exclude the men from being the more particular subject, as 'ĕnôsh is often used elsewhere where the subjects are specifically male (Gn. 6:14; 17:27; 26:7; 34:7; 43:15-18,24,33; Ex. 2:13; Josh. 2:2-5, etc.), and is sometimes used in distinction to women (Ex. 35:22; Dt. 31:12; Jdg. 9:51; Neh. 8:3), as well as for all the references to the angels in this chapter (Gn. 18:2,16,22; Gn. 19:5,8,10-12,16). The word 'ĕnôsh is often used to denote man in plurality, including both men and women (Josh. 8:25) and when men only are indicated (Jdg. 8:17; 2Sam 11:17; 2 Ki. 10:6; 6:30; 8:17), and in such places as Josh. 8:14 for all the people when men in particular are preeminent (in such Biblical times, it was the men who did the actually fighting and were usually targeted for killing). As for "esh", this word is most often for singular males, but it is not necessarily always gender specific (Ex. 11:7; 16:18; Jer. 51:43; Hos. 11:9, etc.), and can also denote what would seem to be a mixed multitude (Num. 9:10; Dt. 29:10; Josh. 10:21). A more neutral word would be "'âdâm" (H120), for mankind in general (Gn. 6:1; 2Ch. 6:18,30; Job 7:20). The Hebrew word which is strictly gender specific is "zâkâr" (H2145), and is used in such cases as Gn. 7:10, but it is not the only word used to denote a crowd of men. Also, the word used for people ("‛am," H5971) in Gn. 19:4, as in "all the people from every quarter", can be used when it would apply to males in particular, as in Gn. 26:10.

Thus, while 'ĕnôsh may often denote a multitude of people irrespective of gender, yet as it is used in cases where men are clearly the subject, it's use in Gn. 19:4 to denote men as the particular subject cannot be disallowed. In the continuing context, Lot goes outside and entreats his "brethren" (a word ("'âch," H251) that most often denotes males), saying, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly", and proceeds to offer them his two daughters "which have not known man" (v. 8). This they refuse, and they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door." But the men ('ĕnôsh) angels rescue him (vs. 4-11). Lot's address and the nature of his appeal and their violent reaction best indicates men in particular.

The next word in contention, "yâda‛" (H3045) is more critical as to determining the particular nature of the inhospitality of Sodom. To those familiar with the Biblical use of yada as a primary verb to sexually know a human, the meaning is clear enough, but homosexual apologists contend that since yada is used over 940 times to denote non-sexual knowing, then it's use here only denotes interrogation, albeit of a violent nature. However, while forced sex is mentioned elsewhere (2 Sam. 13:1-14), violent interrogation itself is not evident in the Scriptures, and "yâda‛" is never used to denote gaining information by such means, unless Jdg. 19:25 (the parallel account to Gn. 19) is made to convey such, but interrogation is hardly conveyed by “they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning”. (Jdg. 19:25). Even the use of "yâda” to denote any gaining of non-sexual personal knowledge by close contact with another person only occurs perhaps 3 times, but "yada" (as in "know/knew/known") is clearly used 13 times in the Bible, in addition to Gn. 19, to denote for sexual relations: Gn. 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:18,25; Jdg. 11:39; 19:25; 21:12; 1Sam. 1:19; 1Ki. 1:4; cf. Mt. 1:25.

The Bible, as in many languages and cultures, makes abundant use of euphemisms for sex, such as "know" or "lie with" or "uncover the nakedness of" or "go in into." Ancient languages which also used this allegorical use of “know” included Egyptian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic,^[35] as well as Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek ^[36] Hebrew scholars defining 'know' as used in Genesis 19:5, used terminology like 'sexual perversion'^[37] 'homosexual intercourse'^[38] and 'crimes against nature',^[39][40]

As one commentator states, “In narrative literature of this sort it would be very unlikely to use one verb with two different meanings so close together unless the author made the difference quite obvious. In both verses 5 and 8 "yada" should be translated "to have sexual intercourse with." The context does not lend itself to any other credible interpretation.” ^[41]

Another misleading argument that the less ambiguous word shakhabh (H7901) would have been used instead of the word "yâda if sexual knowing was meant, ^[42] yet shakhabh even more often means sleep or rest, while (again) "yâda is used instead of shakhabh to gain sexual knowledge 12 times in the Bible, besides the disputed verses.

In addition, that Lot interpreted the Sodomites demand to “know” his male guests as to know sexually is indicated by his offering to bring his two virgin daughters (he had married ones also, not with him) out to them, "which have not known [yada] man", which is best understood as being substitute bodies for the Sodomites to sexually know right there (rather than the angels), rather than being sacrificed in pagan idolatry, as homosexual apologists usually assert. The latter position is untenable in the light of the response of the men to the same offer in the parallel story in Judges 19, for which see below.

An argument is also made (and dealt with more later) in response to the Book of Jude's confirmation that Sodom's most notable sin was fornication, that the Sodomite's sin was knowingly seeking sex with angels. However, not only was Sodom evidently practicing their damnable sin prior to the arrival of Lot's angelic guests (Gn. 18:20-22), but it is most unlikely that they, nor even Lot, knew then what manner of men his guests were. It should also be noted that at the time of Lot's immigration to that city, the men of Sodom were already said to be “wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly” (Gn. 13:13), and likely had gotten worse since Lot first arrived. Heb. 13:2 most likely refers to Abraham and or Lot's angels incognito. We see beginning in 19:10 that the men then refused Lot's offer of virgins, and threatened to do worse to Lot then with his guests, and pressed sore against him, almost breaking the door, until the angels smote them with blindness and pull Lot inside and shut the door. This would be impossible for ordinary men, and the Sodomites would then have realized that the men whom they sought were no ordinary men.

The sexual connotation in this story is further confirmed in the parallel story of the Levite and his concubine in Judge 19, whom men of Belial “knew” and abused all the night.

Judges 19

Jdg. 19: "Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. {23} And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. {24} Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. {25} But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go."

Judg 20: "And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead. {6} And I took my concubine, and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel: for they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel."

In this episode, beginning in Jdg. 19:1, a Levite (who is no model of virtue himself) is traveling back home after fetching his departed concubine (a wife: Jdg. 20:4; Gn. 30:4; 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22), who played the whore against him and ran away. On his way back, and finding no one that would receive him in a strange city (Gibeah), he is taken in by an old man, a resident of the town. No sooner had they eaten, then "certain sons of Belial" came and demanded of the old man, "Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know [yada] him" (v. 22). Like unto Lot, the host beseeches them “do not so wickedly” (v. 23), adding, “do not this folly”, and then offers his own virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine to them to “humble, saying "unto this man do not so vile a thing." At first it appears they refused, hoping for the man, but being given the concubine by the man, "they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go."

Homosexual apologists sometimes contend that this abuse also was non-sexual, and they only wanted to kill the man by violent interrogation, but here again, that the crowd's desire to "know" the guest(s) was sexual is best indicated by the context and language. The only two choices for the manner of “knowing” are that the men wanted to non-sexually interrogate the men, or that they desired to know them sexually, both being in a violent way that could or would lead to death. Again, rather than the word “know” (yâda‛) meaning gaining intimate personal knowledge by interrogation, it is clearly used is many places for gaining sexual knowledge by physical intimacy, as shown under the Gn. 19 section. And as there, the offer of virgins by the resident host (who like Lot, would know what his fellow countrymen were after) is best understood as an offer of substitute bodies for immediate gratification by sex, even if it was abusively. This is in contrast to the idea that the offer of the women was for a pagan sacrifice, which is contrary to their response and th fact that the men of the city were Benjaminites (19:14; 20:4; cf. Josh. 18:24; 21:17). The Levite did fear they would kill him (Jdg. 20:5), and the concubine did die, but not until after they “knew her, and abused her” and let her go (vs. 25-28). The Levite further stated that they “forced” (KJV) her, that she was dead (Jdg. 20:5). He then states that they “committed lewdness and folly (same word as vile) in Israel" (Jdg. 20:6).

Grammatically, the Hebrew word used for humble (“‛ânâh” , H6031), as in “humble ye them” (19:24), usually means afflict, but it is also often used for humbling someone sexually (Gn. 34:2; Ex. 22:10,11; Dt. 21:14; 22:21,24;29;. 2Sam.13:12,14,32), while “folly” and "vile", as in “do not this folly”, and “do not so vile a thing” (Jdg. 19:23,24), are from the same Hebrew word (“nebâlâh,” H5039), which is mostly used in sexual sense when referring to a specific sin of action (Gn. 34:7; Dt. 22:21;. 2Sam.13:12; Jer. 29:23). Likewise, “lewdness” (“zimmâh/zammâh,” H2154), as in “they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel” (20:6), is used more in a sexual sense than for any other type of sin (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; 20:14; Jer. 3:27; Ezek. 16:43,58; 22:11; 23:21,27,29,3544,,48). “Abused” (“‛âlal,” H5953) as in “they knew her and abused her all the night” (v. 25) offers no other precise meaning other here than what the context indicates.

Taken together, the weight of the evidence is that the abuse the women suffered was violently sexual, and which best defines the type of “knowing that “certain sons of Belial” (a term used for fornicators in 1Sam. 2:12, cf. v.22) sought to have, and which would result in death. And which serves to define the manner of “knowing” which was sought in Gn. 19. The only real difference between this and Gn. 19 is that these men finally took the substitute offer of the women (which was also sin). And though both Gn. 19 and Jdg. 19 specifically show homosexual rape itself to be sin, it was not simply the manner in which they sought relations (such as the women suffered) that was called vile, but the homosexual aspect of it.

Finally, that the sin of Sodom was attempted homosexual rape hardly needs any of the above for confirmation, as Jude 7 (see below) clearly tells us that not only was Sodom and company given to fornication, but that this included a perverse kind.

The book of Jude

Jude is a book dealing with the manifestations and consequences of spiritual and moral declension, in contrast to the purity and power of Godly love. Verse 7 follows examples of men and angels went backwards in rebellion against God, and suffered certain judgment, and which then 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." (KJV)

Here, it is explicitly stated that not only Sodom but Gomorrha also the cities about them in like manner “gave themselves over to fornication.” with a specific form of it being the culmination of such surrender to sensuality. The Greek (which the New Testament was written in) word from which the emphasized phrase comes from, is “ekporneuō” (G1608), and is only Biblically used here, but it is a combination of “ek,” denoting motion, as in “giving themselves,” and “porneuō,” meaning fornication. Ekporneuō also occurs in the Septuagint to denote whoredom Genesis 38:24 and Exodus 34:15. Realizing this, some homosexual apologists again seek to deny homoeroticism from being the specific primarily sin of Sodom by proposing or contending that as the word for “strange” basically means “another,” “other,” “altered” or even “next,” then the meaning is unclear, and if the the condemnation of Sodom was sexual, then it is likely that they sought to commit fornication with “other than human” angels, perhaps referring to Genesis 6 and or the book of Enochian legends. However, this would require them to abandon the argument that Gn. 19 had nothing to do with sex, while if the “sons of God” in Gn. 6 are fallen angels, then it is about them going after the daughters of men, as it is in the Book of Enoch, not the other way around. And if we are to believe the latter apocryphal book, then we must believe in their approx. 443 foot height offspring (or 44 feet if the Egyptian text was corrupted)

As for “other,” as in “strange flesh,” the Greek for the phrase, “strange flesh” is “heteros” and “sarx,” with the former basically meaning “other/another,” while “sarx” denotes the nature of man, or (once) a class of laws from God which deal with earthly matters as washings (Heb. 9:10). Heteros could easily refer to other than lawful or right, as in Rm. 7:3 or Gal. 1:6, that being contrary to God's law and design, and rebellion has been the context prior to this. Dave Miller comments, “Strange” refers to “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind” (Thayer, p. 254), and so pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p. 393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7).^[43]

That this fornication was the Sodomites knowingly seeking sexual relations with angels is further militated against by the fact that the fornication was a regional issue, not simply isolated to Sodom, and in Gn. 19 it is highly unlikely that the Sodomites knew that the men were angels. The angels appearance as men was in order to find out whether the cry of Sodomy was true, and it is certain that this cry was not that of seeking sex with angels. Taken together, it is unreasonable to hold that that the particular primary sin of Sodom, leading to their destruction, was not sexual, while the most warranted understanding is that is was widespread regional fornication, including that of a most perverse manner, that of men seeking to sexually “know” men, albeit unknowingly it was with angels, and which positively confirmed the investigation of their grievous sin.

A final attempt by homosexual apologists to disallow the most particular sin of Sodom from being sexual is to assert that other summations of the iniquity of Sodom do not mention sexual sin but shows it to be inhospitality to strangers, for which cause they invoke Ezek 16:49: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." However, widespread promotion of sensuality and homoeroticism in particular, tends to be a product of and concomitant with, pride, abundance of food, idleness, and selfishness. And as will be shown, Sodom is associated more for sexual sins than with inhospitality or any other physical type of sin. But first we should notice that while verse 49 states overall sins, the next verse He states, "And they [Sodomites] were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." The word for “abomination” here is tô‛êbah, and (contrary to many homosexual assertions) it is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 22:11; 33:26), including in this chapter (vs. 22, 58). And that the context in this chapter is that of fornication by Israel, and while the Hebrew is sparse in vs. 47-48, contextually the LORD was comparing Israel with Sodom (even calling it “thy sister”), and yet revealing that Israel was different, not in the sense that Sodom's physical sins were different, or those of Samaria, but that the Israelites went beyond them in scope and degree, and by idolatry violated their covenant with God and thus faced certain judgment. Thus Sodom is once again listed in connection with sexual sins.^[44]

Sins to which Sodom is linked to elsewhere include,

1. adultery and lies (Jer. 23:14);
2. unrepentance (Mt. 11:20-24; Mk. 6:11, 12);
3. careless living (Lk. 17:29);
4. shameless sinning (Is. 3:9);
5. and overall “filthy conversation” (G766), which means sexual sins (lasciviousness: 2Pet. 2:7; cf. Mk. 7:22; 2Co_12:21; Eph. 4:19; 1Pet. 4:3; Jud_1:4; or wantonness: Rm. 13:13, 2Pe_2:18).

In regards to this, homosexual apologists also claim Jesus did not invoke Sodom as an warning to cities because they were merely generally inhospitable, rather He foretold that cities which would not repent would be judged more severely than Sodom (Mt. 10:14; 11:20-24), as that was the cause behind their specific “inhospitality” toward His disciples, who “went out, and preached that men should repent” (Mk. 6:11,12), which rejection Biblically was and is the ultimate sin of damnation.

Jewish Ethics and Halakhah For Our Time (2002), confirms, “The paradigmatic instance of such aberrant behavior is found in the demand of the men of Sodom to “know” the men visiting Lot, the nephew of Abraham, thus lending their name to the practice of “sodomy” (homosexuality) (Cf. Genesis Rabbah 50:5, on Gen. 9:22 ff. More generally see M.Kasher, Torah Shlemah, vol. 3 to Gen 19:5.)^[45]

Extra Biblical historical sources

These sources do not have the authority of the Bible, and are of varying historical value, but which. serve to provide historical opinion. These references include historians, extra Biblical books (apocryphal and pseudepigraphical) and Jewish commentary.

Historians

Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC - 50 AD) described the inhabitants of Sodom,

"As men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after other women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature, and though eager for children, they were convicted by having only an abortive offspring; but the conviction produced no advantage, since they were overcome by violent desire; and so by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they also made their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of men, as far as depended on them" [133-34; ET Jonge 422-23] (The Sodom tradition in Romans Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring, 2004 by Philip F. Esler).

In summarizing the Genesis 19 account, the Jewish historian Josephus stated: “About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, in so much that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices” “Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence” (Antiquities 1.11.1 — circa A.D. 96).

Pseudepigrapha

The apocryphal Testament of Benjamin, part of Books of Twelve Patriarchs (circa 2nd century BC) warned in regard to Sodom,

"that ye shall commit fornication with the fornication of Sodom," (Concerning a Pure Mind, 9:1) http://^[46]

Anther book within the same collection, the Testament of Naphtali, states,

"But ye shall not be so, my children, recognizing in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made all things, that ye become not as Sodom, which changed the order of nature." (3.5.) ^[47]

The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch, warned:

"And those men said to me: This place, O Enoch, is prepared for those who dishonour God, who on earth practise sin against nature, which is child-corruption after the sodomitic fashion, magic-making, enchantments and devilish witchcrafts, and who boast of their wicked deeds, stealing, lies, calumnies, envy, rancour, fornication, murder, ...." (10:4; in J recension Ch. I.118); Late 1st cent. AD.)^[48]

The Old Testament apocrypha, Testament of Isaac. Probably originally from Egyptian Judaism, but shows pronounced Christian elements. "The angel said to me, 'Look at the bottom to observe those whom you see at the lowest depth. They are the ones who have committed the sin of Sodom; truly, they were due a drastic punishment." (5.27. Ch. I.909; Second century AD) ^[49]

Mishnah

The "Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer" compilation of the Mishnah, portrays the sin of Sodom as being crass inhospitality, including that of fencing in the top of trees so that even birds could not eat of their fruit.

The Babylonian Talmud (which contains many odd fables) also does not explicitly mention sexual sins in regards to Sodom, but attributes cruelty and greed to it, including that if one cut off the ear of his neighbor's donkey, they would order, “Give it to him until it grows again.” — Sanhedrin 109b

However, it also clearly condemns homoeroticism:

“He Who commits sodomy with a male or a beast, and a woman that commits bestiality are stoned. — Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 54a Soncino 1961 Edition, page 367

Several texts in the Midrashic literature written in the early Christian centuries, such as Beresheth Rabbah 26:5 commenting on Genesis 6:2, also asserted that God is patient with all sins except fornication, and which included homoeroticism. To be continued

See also

References

External links