By Reese Currie, Compass Distributors

There are a wide spectrum of arguments made by those in the churches that are pro-homosexual and in favor of such things as gay marriage. Some of them have no validity at all, but some of them are actually quite worthy of our examination, as such examination makes us stronger in our faith.

Up until recently, most of the arguments I had come across were based on unbelief, and to be honest, I just don’t respect that. These are the arguments that claim we can safely disregard the teachings of Paul on homosexual activity because his words aren’t Scripture, etc. These arguments are dealt with below—and quite easily, may I add.

However, there are some who argue from a position of belief in the Scriptures that perhaps we should not be so sure that the Bible condemns homosexual relationships as we know them today. It is suggested that we come to the "proof-texts" against homosexual behavior with the preconceived notion that what the text is referring to is the same as modern homosexuality, and it isn’t the case when the original language is examined objectively.

At Compass Distributors, we are acutely aware of the problem of coming to Scripture with preconceived notions. It’s part of our mission to try to help people read the Scriptures without preconceived notions, and we are more than willing to examine our views on any matter Biblically if someone can offer a Bible-based argument. Through this study, we have come to the conclusion that our original views on homosexual activities were correct, but we provide the research so that you, too, may have an answer for the pro-gay arguments that may come your way.

In this article, we will deal first with a couple of the common unbelieving arguments, and then move on to the arguments based on alternate interpretations of the Scriptures.

It is argued by some that Paul’s writings aren’t Scripture and that Paul did not think he was writing Scripture. These arguments are very simply refuted. Peter affirmed the view of the church that Paul’s words were Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16. He wrote, "… and regard the patience of our Lord {as} salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (NASB).

Paul knew his own words to be Scripture when he wrote 2 Thessalonians, his second earliest letter. Verse 2:15 says, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us" (NASB). Here, he’s telling the people to view his writings, and those of the other apostles, as Scripture. (At the time Paul wrote that, none of the gospels had yet been written, and that’s why he speaks of holding fast to traditions taught by word. It is certainly not a proof-text for accepting traditions over Scripture.)

This argument basically states that Paul thought homosexual activity was wrong just because his culture trained him to think it was wrong. The problem with this argument is, the same argument would apply to the person making it. Cultural pressures have forced some weaklings in the faith to accept homosexual acts simply because it’s the popular thing to do. Aaron did the same thing when the people of Israel asked him to make an idol for them to worship.

It comes down to a choice. If I have two people who are possibly "affected by their culture," do I go with the views of a modern (even modernist) minister, or do I go with the views of Paul? Paul is the man whom God chose to write the larger part of New Testament Scripture, not any modern minister. Reason would dictate that I choose Paul.

This is correct in a sense. We cannot know for a certainty that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality just because nothing is recorded in the New Testament. There are things Jesus said and did that are not recorded in Scripture. John says so in closing in John 21:25, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written" (NASB).

Jesus did occasionally hold up Sodom as an example of a sinful city (e.g. Matthew 11:23, Luke 10:12), but mainly to tell people that the sinfulness that caused them to reject Jesus and His disciples was worse than Sodom’s sinfulness. No specific mention of homosexual activity is made, nor should it be assumed; Scripture lists other reasons why Sodom was destroyed (more on that in the next section).

However, it is important to note that, even if Scripture does not record any word from Jesus against homosexuality, this still does not argue in favor of a pro-gay position. By the pro-gay’s own argument, culture was so against gays that it supposedly influenced Paul to be anti-homosexual. If that’s the case, and being against homosexuality was wrong, why didn’t Jesus say a word to address this flaw in society? I can see only three possibilities: a) because the attitude wasn’t present (highly unlikely); b) because the attitude wasn’t wrong; or c) because the attitude is indirectly addressed by Jesus’ other teachings.

In reality, it is wrong to pick out one "sin" of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:48-50 says, "‘As I live,’ declares the Lord GOD, ‘Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw {it}’" (NASB).

It is rather fascinating to note that the "guilt" of Sodom was arrogance, and having an abundance of things yet refusing to help the poor and needy. The result of their guilt was being haughty and committing abominations. These abominations evidently included (but were not limited to) homosexual activity (referred to as an abomination in Leviticus 18:22), but it is important to note that committing abominations was the result of their guilt, not the cause of their guilt, and this is an important distinction to make. This cycle of guilt for sin and resulting consequences is seen also in Romans 1, where Paul does not actually name homosexuality as a sin, but as a result of sin.

Understanding that the very phrase "sin of Sodom" is a misnomer, we will proceed to look at the argument that the "sin of Sodom" in Genesis 19 was inhospitality, not anything having to do with homosexual activity.

The extreme proponents of this view hold that when the men of Sodom came to the door and asked Lot to bring out the two men that they might "know" them, it was because the Sodomites were xenophobic, and only an interrogation is implied. This does not fit with the context at all; Lot certainly understood the sexual context when he offered his daughters instead (which we would agree was deplorable in its own right).

Lot knew in advance of this incident that the streets in Sodom were an unsafe place to stay, which is why he was so adamant in offering the men lodgings in the first place. It would seem that the people of Sodom regularly victimized strangers sexually and Lot wanted to spare these two men that horrible experience. Perhaps we could infer from Lot’s attempt to offer his daughters that the men of Sodom didn’t particularly care about the sex of their rape victims.

The attempted homosexual rape would serve as evidence of Sodom’s overall sinfulness—but it alone was not the cause of the destruction of Sodom. God sent the angels there because, in His own words, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know" (Genesis 18:20-21). Seeing the attempted homosexual rape, God knew that it was the result of sinfulness, and knew that Sodom was guilty, and removed them.

In the NASB, 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals…"

The word translated "effeminate" is the Greek word "malakos," and the word translated "homosexuals" is the Greek word "arsenokoites." The meanings of these words are debated by pro-gays, and not without good reason.

"Malakos" literally means "soft." It is translated as "effeminate" in some versions, as "male cult prostitute" in others. It’s something of an interpretive leap, perhaps made because of its near proximity to the word "arsenokoites." James Strong defined the word as a "catamite," the boy partner in a sexual relationship between a man and a boy.

"Arsenokoites" is a very unique word. Linguists today think the word was probably coined by Paul, because it is not used in any literature of his time period or before. Its first use in non-Biblical literature is not until the second century A.D., where it is used to describe male sexual abusers of male children. Perhaps for this reason, Martin Luther’s version translated it Knabenschänder, the German word for "boy-abuser."

"Arsenokoites" was not, in Paul’s time, the Greek word for "homosexual." There were other words available to Paul that he could have used to be more specific, such as:

1) ANDROKOITHS, having intercourse with a man
2) ARRENOGAMEW, to marry men
3) ARRENOKOITHS, a sodomite (in the Attic form)
4) ARRENOMANHS, mad after males
5) ARRENOMIKTHS, a sodomite
6) ARSENOMIKTHS, also a sodomite
7) ARRENOMICIA, the word for sodomy itself
8) ARRENOPIPHS, one who looks lewdly on males.

So, why did Paul use a word apparently of his own invention? He combined "arsenos", men, and "koites", bed, to create a word similar to "men-bedder." The source of the words Paul combined was the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of Scripture in use in Paul’s time.

Leviticus 20:13, in English, reads, "If {there is} a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them" (NASB).

In Greek, that reads (in transliterated form), "KAI HOS AN KOIMHQH META ARSENOS KOITHN GUNAIKOS, BDELUGMA EPOIHSAN AMFOTEROI; QANATOUSQWSAN, ENOIXOI EISIN."

It would appear that Paul turned ARSENOS KOITHN into one word. I can only guess as to why he would do this, instead of using the normal Greek words he could have used; but I do have a few ideas.

First, it could be he didn’t know the normal Greek words, and so made his own from a text he did know, the Septuagint. This is extremely unlikely because there is Scriptural evidence that Paul was well-versed in Greek literature; yet, we all know there are certain words people don’t say around their ministers. It could be no one ever shared the words that meant "homosexual" with Paul.

Second, perhaps he knew the normal Greek words, but he wanted to tie what he was saying to the passage in Leviticus, so his cause for saying it could be traced to Old Testament Scripture. (In fairness to the other side of this argument, he could have used these words to differentiate between the sort of homosexuality the other words describe, and the kind intended in Leviticus.)

Or, finally, Paul may have simply avoided the direct words for homosexuality because he considered it "disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret" (Ephesians 5:12, NASB).

So, there is some merit to this argument, but the words are not nearly as vague as some pro-gay apologists make them out to be.

There are many variations of this argument. The idea is to make us throw out Leviticus altogether from our thinking on the homosexual issue. It is argued that, since shellfish are an abomination in Leviticus, to be consistent Christians should speak out against seafood restaurants, and since it is wrong to wear clothes of mixed fabrics, we are all in dire straits if we apply the Levitical laws to ourselves.

It is argued by some that there are "moral" and "ceremonial" laws in Leviticus, and the moral laws still apply to Christians while the ceremonial ones don’t. I agree with that, but it doesn’t necessarily help us convince others that homosexual acts are contrary to moral law. As far as many pro-gay apologists are concerned, none of Leviticus applies to Christians and even if it did, homosexuality is covered by ceremonial rather than moral laws and is no longer wrong today.

There is actually a very simple answer to this. There are two kinds of abominations in Leviticus. There are things that are eternally abominable to God, and there are things that are temporarily abominable to the Israelites. Scripture always perfectly indicates which things are temporarily abominable, and which things are eternally abominable to God. When Scripture says something "is abominable," then it is referring to something abominable to God. When Scripture says something "shall be abominable" or "abominable to you," it is indicating something abominable only to the Israelites.

The things that are eternally abominable to God apply to people whether or not they are under the Mosaic Law. 1 Kings 14:24 says, "They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD dispossessed before the sons of Israel." The reason God dispossessed those nations was because they did the abominations that defiled the land. Leviticus 18:24 warns, "Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled."

Those nations were not under the Law, but were cast out because of their abominations; therefore, the punishment for acts which are abominable to God apply to people whether or not the Mosaic Law applies to them.

The list of things that God made temporarily abominable to the Israelites included only food restrictions. Israelites were not permitted to eat anything in the water that does not have fins and scales, eagle, vulture, buzzard, kite, falcon, raven, ostrich, owl, sea gull, haw, owl, cormorant, great owl, white owl, pelican, carrion vulture, stork, heron, hoopoe, bat, all winged insects that walk on all fours (except for those with legs built for jumping like the locust, cricket, and grasshopper), the camel, rabbit, shaphan, pig, and swarming things and things that crawl on their bellies.

All of those restrictions were lifted with a vision to Peter in Acts 10. But the things that are eternally abominable to God have never been cleansed. According to Scripture, this list is:

1) Eating the flesh of a votive or freewill offering on the third day after the sacrifice is made
2) Lying with mankind as with womankind
3) Idols
4) Serving other gods
5) Sacrificing blemished animals to God
6) Passing one's son or daughter through the fire
7) One who uses divination
8) One who practices witchcraft
9) One who interprets omens
10) One who is a sorcerer
11) One who casts spells
12) One who is a medium
13) One who is a spiritist
14) One who calls up the dead
15) Cross-dressing
16) Remarrying your ex-wife, if she married another man after your divorce
17) Having differing weights and measures (in business, to bilk your customers)
18) Devious people
19) A proud look
20) A lying tongue
21) Hands that shed innocent blood
22) A heart that devises wicked imaginations
23) Feet that are swift in running to mischief
24) A false witness that speaks lies
25) A person that sows discord among brethren
26) The sacrifice, way, and thoughts of the wicked
27) One that justifies the wicked, and one that condemns the just
28) The prayers of one that turns away his ear from hearing the law

There are other moral laws in the Law that still apply but for the purpose of this exercise, I only want to count the abominations. You’ll note that the first and fifth items are linked to sacrifice, which is no longer required for Christians. Because we don’t make sacrifices today, we’re in no danger of the associated abominations.

I can’t imagine that even pro-gay activists would argue against the immorality of any of these abominations, except lying with mankind as with womankind and cross-dressing. (It’s important to note that pro-gay apologists are always speaking in favor of what they call GLBT people, that is, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered. They consider all of these things normal.)

So when they say that you are a hypocrite if you oppose homosexuality and yet eat seafood or wear blended fabrics, they are knowingly or unknowingly mixing apples and oranges because they are comparing ceremonial laws to abominations. It’s hard to imagine any Christian being in favor of the other things that Scripture notes are abominations to God Himself.

Another thing I have to note is, the people who argue in favor of homosexuality are in grave danger on the last two points, "one that justifies the wicked, and one that condemns the just" and being "ones that turn their ears away from hearing the law." As Paul warned in Romans 1:32, "although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

While this may sound like a ridiculous argument on the surface, in fact it is one of the more compelling arguments the pro-gay apologists make.

If you look at the context of Leviticus 18:22, you can see that this argument seems reasonable at first glance. Using the NASB’s paragraph markers, here is the paragraph containing Leviticus 18:22:

"Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity. You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, to be defiled with her. You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion." (Leviticus 18:20-23, NASB).

It is sort of odd to find a reference to cult worship practice in the middle of a series of sexual laws. Could it be a change of topic to the practices in the worship of Molech? I researched the practices of Molech worship, which are definitely too disgusting to relate here, other than to say they did include male homosexual prostitution and sex with animals. Molech was a fertility god and in his case, as in the case with all fertility gods, the worship practices included depraved and degrading sex acts.

At several points in the history of the kings of Israel and Judah, purges were done in which male cult prostitutes were expelled from the land. (These can be found at 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). Despite the fact that the King James Version translates this as "sodomites," leading us to think all homosexuals were purged, in fact the only people purged were male cult prostitutes.

The argument is that homosexual acts are only unacceptable within the context of cult prostitution. But is that true? If it is, then bestiality should also be acceptable outside of cultic worship practices, and burning your children should be acceptable as well, because these were the other two practices involved in Molech worship.

Deuteronomy 12:31 says, "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods."

This indicates that the act itself is abominable, no matter why it is done or who it is done for. And, it so happens that in Leviticus, burning sons and daughters in the fire is mentioned in the same paragraph as homosexual acts.

Pro-gay apologists argue that the following people had homosexual relationships: Ruth and Naomi; David and Jonathan; and Daniel and Ashpenaz.

I’ll deal with the easy ones first. Ruth and Naomi formed a family relationship, in which Naomi adopted Ruth as her own daughter rather than just her daughter-in-law. That’s why Naomi refers to Ruth as "my daughter" in Ruth 3:1, and that’s why Boaz qualified as a kinsman-redeemer for Ruth. To see a sexual relationship here is simply to project one’s own perversion onto the text.

Ashpenaz was the chief of the eunuchs and a eunuch himself. Since he was the chief of Daniel, Daniel was presumably also a eunuch. The "favor and compassion" Ashpenaz granted Daniel in Daniel 1:8 refers to permitting him not to eat choice food offered by the king. It is utterly ridiculous to read a personal sexual relationship in that.

In the case of David and Jonathan, there are a number of texts that, if interpreted in our modern context, seem to imply homosexuality. There are three passages in particular that suggest this to the modern eye.

Before I examine those verses, I must note an inconsistency in Bible interpretation that the pro-gay apologists require for us to derive a pro-homosexual message from 1 Samuel. They expect us to read Paul "in the context of his time" when they ask us to ignore his plain anti-homosexual messages. Then they expect us to read 1 Samuel with no regard for its historical context. They need us to read it in the context of the 21^st century in order to derive a pro-homosexual message from it.

That having been said, the problem verses are 1 Samuel 18:1-3, 1 Samuel 19:1, 1 Samuel 20:41, and 2 Samuel 1:26.

"Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself" (NASB).

This is interpreted by pro-gay apologists as the beginning of a love affair between David and Jonathan. The problem is, by the same reasoning, David also had a homosexual love affair with all the men in Israel and Judah, because 1 Samuel 18:16 says, "But all Israel and Judah loved David, and he went out and came in before them."

"Now Saul told Jonathan his son and all his servants to put David to death. But Jonathan, Saul's son, greatly delighted in David" (NASB).

The Hebrew word for "delighted" is "chaphets," which means "to incline to, to bend." Its figurative meaning is "to be pleased with" or to "desire." "Chaphets" is the word used to describe King Ahasuerus' desire for Esther, for instance. This gives an opening for the pro-gay interpretation; however, that’s really just exploiting an ambiguity in the Hebrew language. There is really nothing here to suggest anything more than Jonathan being highly pleased with his friend.

"When the lad was gone, David rose from the south side and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times. And they kissed each other and wept together, but David {wept} the more" (NASB).

Once again, it’s important to read this in its cultural context and recognize that this is not 21^st century North America. It is common in Scripture for men to kiss men or women to kiss women in greeting or in parting without any sexual connotation. Normally this is reserved for family members in Scripture, but there is no reason to believe it is impossible for close friendships as well.

"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women" (NASB).

The pro-gay apologists interpret the meaning of this verse to be "gay sex with you was more wonderful than straight sex with women." It reflects a narrow-minded view of what love is. In reality, David is contrasting the love in his friendship with Jonathan with the love he shared with women. The love David shared with women included sex; the love he shared with Jonathan, in friendship, did not.

Romans 1:21-27 says:

This is the one part of Scripture that also condemns lesbianism in addition to male homosexuality, although it could be inferred from the prohibition of male homosexuality in the Law that female homosexuality was also forbidden.

Here we see the amazing consistency that demonstrates the Bible is God’s Word. Paul, along with Ezekiel, explains that abominations result from sin. The sin in this case is idolatry, and the impurity (in this case, homosexual activity) is the result of the sin.

Those pro-gay apologists who do not discount Paul altogether, explain these verses by pointing out that Paul’s word "natural" is the Greek word physin which can mean "nature" or "instinct." So they say, a homosexual’s nature is naturally homosexual, and when they have sex with a same sex partner, they are not operating contrary to their own "nature" or "instinct." This admonition, then, is only against people who exchange their heterosexual natures to take part in homosexual sex. (You may ask, "Why would someone do this?" Perhaps such an exchange would take place in fertility god worship.)

The problem is, Paul doesn’t say "their natural function," he says, "the natural function," and so one must assume that Paul is referring to heterosexual sex as the natural function, especially since he contrasts the "natural function" with homosexual sex!

Normally, the truth of the Christian way is found between the extremes. On the extreme left, we have the United Church of Canada petitioning their nation’s government to legalize same sex marriage. On the extreme right, we have the "God Hates Fags" ministry of Westboro Baptist Church in the United States, the activities of which include dancing on the graves of recently deceased homosexuals while waving anti-gay placards. I strongly suspect that neither activity is pleasing to God.

Philippians 4:5 says, "Let your gentle {spirit} be known to all men. The Lord is near" (NASB). By "all men" we must include homosexuals, unbelievers, people of other religions, etc. It doesn’t mean that we have to agree with the things they do or the things they propose to do (for instance, gay marriage), and we do have a right to oppose these things.

However, we all cut people slack out of love. We don’t rail against our friends who have been divorced for causes other than adultery, and we often accept it when friends or relatives choose to live together outside of marriage. Active homosexuality is no greater a sin than these, in fact it may be less grievous, because at least it does not contravene one of the Ten Commandments, "you shall not commit adultery." For people with these sorts of problems in their lives, we don’t pretend that no problem exists, but we love past the problems. Thankfully Christ loved past the things that are wrong in our own lives, and died for us that we might not be forever alienated from God, if we turn to Him in repentance and faith.

My fear for homosexuals is that the false teaching churches will convince them that there is nothing in their sexual lives to be repentant for, and they will miss heaven’s reward because of false teachers. So I admit to some disappointment toward false teachers who twist the Scriptures to give license to any activity that may be popular at a given moment in time, just as Aaron went along with the popular demand for a golden idol. I am displeased with the pro-gay false teachers because they do not love homosexuals enough to tell the same truth that Jesus told the woman caught in adultery. He did not permit the religious zealots to harm her, but he did not lie to her and say that she was not in sin. I believe that, if we want to be like Jesus, we should do the same in both respects.

Some of us Bible-believers may fear that, by being gentle toward homosexuals, we are being disobedient to God. I have given that a lot of thought. What I have noticed from Scripture is that, even though the kings of Israel arguably had an obligation to kill any homosexual in their dominion (from Leviticus 20:13), they did not even kill the male cult prostitutes that they expelled from the land. And yet God was not displeased with those kings for failing to carry out the full letter of the Law. Scripture tells us He was pleased with them, even though they did not follow through with the death penalty that had been mandated. Obviously, God was more forgiving than the Law allows even in Old Testament times.

The difference between those kings and us is that they were actually under the Law, and yet they were gracious. We Christians on the other hand are under grace and yet tend to be legalistic. I believe what we have to remember is neither heterosexual nor homosexual has a chance at eternal life apart from Christ. We must not conduct ourselves in such a way that a homosexual will not give Christ even a passing glance, because of the way they have been treated by us.

Pro-Homosexual Arguments Examined is Copyright © 2005 by Compass Distributors.

Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.