Bisexuality, Transgender Sexuality in the Bible
After years of study at Ray Of Hope Church Of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Inc. we
have found that when we use the most conservative sources available today for
our Bible research the Bible does not condemn persons of any sexual orientation
and/or gender expression.In fact, we
find there is an infinite spectrum of sexual orientation and gender expressions
clearly shown as possibilities in God’s creation when the Bible is studied
without the control of denominational or ideological filters and presuppositions.
When studying what the Bible has to say on Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and
Transgender Expressions, we use The Strong's Concordance, Young's Concordance,
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, The King James Version of the
Bible, The New King James Version of the Bible, the New International Version
Study Bible, Hebrew and Greek Interlinear Bibles, Liddell and Scott Greek
Dictionaries, Vine's Dictionaries, and many other "Conservative"
standard resources. These are the very sources of scholarship used by so-called
"Christian" groups that claim the Bible condemns us. What we have
found is these are the very sources of scholarship that clearly show we are not
condemned in the Bible. We have found that the more "Conservative"
the approach to the Bible, the more one leans on "Conservative"
resources such as those named above, the more clearly one will see the Bible
makes no condemnation of us. In fact, there are wonderful and famous examples
of male and female same-sex loves, bisexual loves, and even a couple of gender
alternative expressions in key places in our Bible – in any translation.
Therefore, we declare in the Name of Jesus Christ, that the Bible does not
condemn the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Asexual, Intersexed, Transgender person, or
Heterosexual person who supports us.
PURPOSE: This information is here gathered to assist any person
who is trying to respond to the usual "statements" that are
attributed to the Bible concerning the topic of homosexuality. These
"responses" are designed for dialogue with persons who hold a negative
point of view and to convey a truly Christian, and at the same time a
thoroughly LITERAL Biblical proof that constitutional, mutually consenting
homosexuality is NOT condemned mentioned in the Holy Bible.
The writer of this paper, Br. Shawn Francis Benedict, Pastor of Ray Of Hope
Church, starts from the point of view that the Holy Bible is the inerrant
(contains no errors), inspired Word of God, and is the ONLY infallible
(unerring, certain) authority on which the Christian can base his or her Salvation.
To be frank, this is just about the most Conservative Hermeneutical (science of
interpretation) approach one can take to the Bible today. When this Literal
method of Biblical Interpretation is correctly applied to the subject of
Homosexuality the conclusion is astonishingly the opposite of the
teaching that is often proclaimed by "Conservative Christians" or the
"Christian Right." "Conservative Christians" claim to be
interpreting the Bible "literally" when studying Homosexuality. In
fact, it will be shown here that their own method of Biblical Interpretation
(the Literal Method) proves the Bible in no citation of chapter or verse ever
condemns true Homosexuals or their mutual expressions of Love.
At the same time, we do not abandon the Holy Scriptures for a "Liberal
Left" point of view in Theology. To abandon the Literal interpretation is
spiritual suicide for the GLBTQS Christian. The Holy Scriptures are our ONLY
sure defense to show God's position in this matter. Sometimes I summarize the
problem this way: the Christian Right believes they are SO RIGHT that they end
up totally WRONG, and the Christian Liberal Left has gone so far to the
"left" that there is nothing LEFT at all in their theology or belief
system. Both positions are not Biblical. The Bible actually defends us against
both the "left" and the "right." To assist the reader with
further inquiry the sources used herein are listed on the last page. Sources
will be referenced in this paper by listing the author's last name and citing
the page of the source where the ideas and information are confirmed by that
author. For example, (see Boswell page 1).
WHAT THE BIBLE DOES CONDEMN THAT IS MISREPRESENTED AS HOMOSEXUALITY:
The Bible clearly does mention SAME - SEX ACTS, and unconditionally condemns
them, but ONLY and very specifically when those sexual activities were, or are
performed in the context of ritual sacred cult prostitution in fertility
religions.Fertility religions described
in the Bible always included idolatry which is the worship of gods and
goddesses other than Yahweh YHWH, Adonai, God of Israel, God of Heaven and all
of creation, Jehovah, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of Jesus Christ.These fertility religions usually and almost
always required the believers to participate in religious ceremonies that included
having sacred sex ritual / sexual activity with both male and female temple
ritual / cult devotees also called temple prostitutes.
sacred sexual activities were engaged in by heterosexual men who were often
married and were there to secure the blessings of fertility from the god or
goddess.There is no resemblance between this ritual
sexual ceremony and sex that is enjoyed between persons of any gender or sexual
orientation outside of religious ritual.The verses in the Bible that address ritual sex have been manipulated in
“renderings” of these stories in modern languages in such a way that they have
been changed to read as though the Bible condemns modern sexual orientations
and gender expressions other than what we call “straight” or “heterosexual”
today.This is a false equivalency that
is inexcusable in our high tech information age.Those who are responsible for continuing
these perversions of the Bible text should cease and desist in their
misinformation for the health and welfare of modern Christians and Jews and our
modern society.This is my
position.The scholarship published that
revealed these truths is clearly cited throughout this article and in the
bibliography at the end of this article.All of the foundational scholarship behind my position is dependent on
the sources cited at the end of this article.I have been fortunate to be able to draw these sources together in such
a way as to make them readily accessible to the average lay person.That is the aim of my article here, to equip
the saints to do the ministry (Eph. 4:12) and be able to correctly explain what
the Bible does and more importantly does NOT condemn.
Rev. Br. Shawn F. Benedict February 20, 2016
SPECIFIC PASSAGES THAT HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED AND ARE SUPPOSED TO CONDEMN
THE STORY OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH Genesis 19:1-26
Statement: "Surely the word "SODOMY" comes from this
Response: Actually, the name Sodom was not attached to Homosexual
relations until the Middle Ages. The closest word for "homosexual" in
Latin or any vernacular was "SODOMITA". (see Boswell, page 93)
The etymology (origin and development) of the word "SODOMY" has
rendered it to mean many things throughout history including ordinary
heterosexual intercourse in an atypical position, even oral sexual contact with
animals, exclusively male homosexuality, and even almost exclusively heterosexual
excess. (see Boswell, page 93)
Even in some States "Sodomy" can mean sexual contact between married
Statement: "Surely the sin of Sodom was that the men of Sodom tried
to rape the Angels of God."
Response: There is absolutely no indication that the men even
entertained the thought of doing such an act. Would this mean that all the men
of Sodom were Homosexual? That is absurd in and of itself. This wrong
interpretation is based on the phrase: "Bring them [Lot's visitors -
angels in some traditions, men in others] unto us, that we may KNOW them."
(Genesis 19:5) To "KNOW them" is supposed to mean "to have them
sexually, to rape them".
Statement: Of course it meant sexually!! After all, in Genesis 4:1 Adam
Response: True enough with Adam and Eve; however, the same word is in
verse 3:7 "They knew they were naked.” Surely this same word did not mean
sexually... To clarify the issue we have to be LITERAL here and look at the
Hebrew (original as we have it) word and see what word was used in Genesis
19:5. The Hebrew word is yadha. In the Strong's Concordance numbering
system it is word #3045.
According to Biblical word scholars F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, the
word yadha appears in the Hebrew Bible 943 times. D.S. Bailey (1955)
argues it is used only 10 times, excluding Gen 19 and its derivative Judges
chapter 19, to denote any sense of sexual intercourse (sexual coitus). (See
Bailey, page 2)
The 931 times the word yadha , to know, appears in the Hebrew
Bible, it means simply to be acquainted with, or be informed about just as
plainly as it does in English. McNeill asserts the very few times it might
be used to denote sexual coitus, it is always heterosexual intercourse. McNeill
explains the word normally used in the Old Testament for both homosexual and
heterosexual coitus and bestiality is shakhabh (word #7902).
(See McNeill, page 42 & Boswell, page 94F)
Statement: If this is true why did the men of Sodom demand to be
informed of who was in Lot's house? And, why were they blinded by the
Response: The men of the City demanded to know who was in the house
because Lot was violating the city rules. He was not a citizen by birth right.
He was only a 'sojourner' and therefore had only limited rights.
Genesis 19:9 And they said,
"Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to sojourn, and
he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with
them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down
Because Lot was himself an alien to the city he had the obligation to inform
the others when strangers were staying with him. He did not do this. The men
were enraged when Lot refused to hand over the persons he was housing without
their permission. Lot was a good and holy man. He was Abraham's nephew. Lot was
far more concerned with ancient Laws of Hospitality to Strangers (and
travelers) than he was about the laws of the City of Sodom.
22:21 "You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were
strangers in the land of Egypt.
Exodus23:9 "Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart
of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Leviticus 19:33 'And if a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not
Leviticus 19:34 'But the stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one
born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in
the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Lot was more willing to hand over his own virgin daughters to the men than to
have the Laws of Hospitality violated with his guests. Choosing the
"visitors" over his own daughters seems horrific to us today but it
indicates how seriously these Laws of Hospitality to the Stranger were to be
Biblical scholars have embraced this interpretation (that the city was
destroyed for disregarding the sacred laws of hospitality to the stranger, and
in this case visitors sent from God) since around 1955. Scholars also recommend
that sexual overtones in the story are faint, if suggested at all. In the
original interpretive traditions the moral of the story was about hospitality
to the stranger and failure to respond to the offer of Salvation made by the
visitors. (See Boswell, page 93)
Personally, I also believe Lot knew how serious the rejection of the offer of
Salvation was. Lot clearly heard the messengers announce that everyone who
wanted to be saved from the destruction of the city needed to leave, that is,
be "saved." Lot believed them and realized they were not only
"strangers" according to the laws but he knew they were God's
personal messengers of Salvation. For Lot, the protection of God's messengers
was even more important than his own daughters, for surely they would have been
"saved" if they had died for the message of God. However, do notice
they are NOT harmed and are clearly mentioned in the story as escaping the city
in the morning.
Statement: JESUS talked about the destructions of Sodom and
Response: YES He did and we are so thankful He mentioned it the way He
did. Jesus made reference to the sin of Sodom as inhospitable treatment of
visitors sent from the Lord!
Jesus refers to Sodom and Gomorrah only in the context of sending his own
disciples out to preach the Gospel.
10:11-14: Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and
stay there till you go out. And when you go into a household, greet it. If the
household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let
your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words,
when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.
Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah
in that day of judgment than for that city!
And Luke 10:8-12: Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such
things as are set before you. And heal the sick there, and say to them, 'The
kingdom of God has come near to you.' But whatever city you enter, and they do not
receive you, go out into its streets and say, 'The very dust of your city which
clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom
of God has come near you. But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in
that Day for Sodom than for that city.
Jesus tells them to go into a town. They are, therefore, sojourners, travelers,
strangers bearing the message of God's SALVATION for the people. This is
exactly what the 'visitors' of Genesis 19 were. Only now, in the Church Age, Jesus'
disciples are delivering the Gospel, a far more important message (by
implication only, for salvation is by Grace in every dispensation) than the
salvation message the Old Testament Good News bearers were bringing to the
cities of the Plains. Jesus tells His disciples, the Ambassadors of the New
shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house
or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Verily I say unto you, it shall be
more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than
for that city."
(Matt. 10:14-15, CF Luke 10:10-12)
In other words, Jesus says the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and
burned because they would not receive the Word of God in the Old
Testament; but any City that will mistreat you (my disciples) or refuse to hear
the Word of God in the New Gospel of Jesus Christ shall bear a
Jesus was God on Earth.
John 20:28; "And Thomas
answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
1Timothy 3:16; "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
Titus 2:11-13; "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to
all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should
live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the
blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus
Phil. 2:6; "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with
God something to be grasped .... "
Col. 1:19; "for God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him
Col. 2:9; "For in Christ all the fullness of the deity lives in bodily
1 John 5:20b; "And we are in him who is true - even in his Son Jesus
Christ. He is the true God and eternal life."
He existed before the world was
1:1-4. 14; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made
through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4In Him was life,
and the life was the light of men. ... 14And the Word became flesh and dwelt
among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth.
Col. 1:15-19a; "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over
all creation. 16For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that
are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or
principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18And He is the
head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the
dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. 19For it pleased the
Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, ..."
Jesus surely knew all about Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus surely knew of homosexuality in his own day.
It is very noteworthy, then, that he made no mention of the subject even
when he did talk about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Surely if homosexuality was the glaring historical reason for the destruction
of the cities He would have taken the opportunity to teach on the evils of the "sin
Jesus clearly taught on social ills such as murder, prostitution, divorce,
lying, thievery, charging interest on loans, and multiple marriages...... but
homosexuality (which we know was present in his day) called for no such
correction from the Son of God.
THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE ATTEMPTING TO RAPE ANGELS.... IT HAS EVERYTHING
TO DO WITH MISTREATING GOD'S WORD, GOD'S GOOD NEWS AND THOSE WHO ARE SENT TO DELIVER
THAT GOOD NEWS OF SALVATION. (See Boswell, page 94F and McNeill, page
Most people consider the Story of Sodom and Gomorrah to be the most important
proof for Biblically based condemnation of Homosexual practices; however, when
we apply correct linguistics and correct translation of text (producing the
LITERAL METHOD) to the story, we find there is absolutely no basis for this
conclusion. (See Mc Neill, page 49)
If this interpretation is correct we have a horrific paradox connected to the
story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Western Christian history records thousands of years of cruel persecution,
excommunication, torture, and even death of Gay Christians all carried out by
the Church and State in the name of God. In fact, the Church and State have themselves
been perpetuating the true sin of Sodom when Gay persons have been or are still
treated as strangers to be excluded, even eliminated. Will it be worse on the
day of Judgment for the Christian West than for the cities of Sodom and
Gomorrah? (See McNeill, page 50)
THE STORY OF JUDGES 19
There is in Judges 19:3-20:10 a story that similarly deals with the sacred laws
of sacred hospitality.Though the result
of the inhospitable reception of the people of the town is much more tragic,
some commentators say the story in Judges 19 remarkably parallels the Genesis
In Judges, a Levite of Ephraim and his concubine find hospitality in Gibeah
with an old man after considerable effort to find lodging. Their host is a
"foreigner" just like the situation with Lot; (JUDGES 19:16 Just then
an old man came in from his work in the field at evening, who also was from the
mountains of Ephraim; he was sojourning in Gibeah, whereas the men of the place
were Benjamites.) The men of Gibeah are outraged in the same way as the men of
Sodom. Again, the demand: "Bring the man out that we may know him."
(Judges 19:22). The old man even offers his virgin daughter and his guest's
concubine. Biblical interpretive history has NEVER pointed to the Judges 19 story
as a condemnation of homosexuality. Have you ever heard of Gibeahomy??
Yet the inhospitality of the people of Sodom has led to the construction of the
word sodomy making some kind
of connection to same-sex acts between consenting adults.
No one accuses the Benjamite men of Gibeah of being homosexuals. In fact the
interpretation is always correct in saying it is a story of inhospitality to
the travelling stranger that led to the abuse and murder of at least one of the
The Bible is best interpreted by the Bible.
The Bible gives the correct interpretation of the story in Judges 20:1-10.
The Levite himself recounts the story without charging the men of Gibeah as
having any sexual interest in him.
20:3 (Now the children of Benjamin heard that the children of Israel had gone
up to Mizpah.) Then the children of Israel said, "Tell us, how did this
wicked deed happen?" So the Levite, the husband of the woman who was
murdered, answered and said, "My concubine and I went into Gibeah, which
belongs to Benjamin, to spend the night.”And the men of Gibeah rose against me,
and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me, but
instead they ravished my concubine so that she died. "So I took hold of my
concubine, cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the territory of the
inheritance of Israel, because they committed lewdness and outrage in Israel.”Look!
All of you are children of Israel; give your advice and counsel here and
now!" Then all the people arose as one man, saying, "None of us will
go to his tent, nor will any of us turn back to his house; "but now this
is the thing which we will do to Gibeah: We will go up against it by lot.
"We will take ten men out of every hundred throughout all the tribes of
Israel, a hundred out of every thousand, and a thousand out of every ten
thousand, to make provisions for the people, that when they come to Gibeah in
Benjamin, they may repay all the vileness that they have done in Israel."
(See Boswell, page 96)
THE WORD SODOMITE IN THE BIBLE
Statement: My King James Bible has the word "Sodomite" right
in it. How could this not mean homosexuals?
Response: The word "SODOMITE" appears two times in the KING
JAMES translation of the Old Testament and both times only in a context which
simply imply sexual sins. The New King James does not use the word Sodomite
when translating the same verses.
James- Deut 23:17 "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor
a sodomite of the sons of Israel"
The New King James Version translates the same word as a perverted one.
King James- 1Kings 14:24:
"And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all
the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of
Israel. The New King James Version translates the same word as perverted persons.
Apply the Literal Method and again we prove these are mistranslations of the
Hebrew word KADASH, plural KADESHIM #6945 in the Strong's
The word literally means "hallowed" or "sacred" and refers
to the demi-god sacred prostitutes in pagan temples. The literal translation of
this word does not imply that these prostitutes serviced persons of their own
gender. Boswell asserts there is little historical evidence to support such a
conclusion. (See Boswell, page 99)
From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 4, pg 2821. (This is
very significant because this is a very Evangelical and ultra-Conservative
source. It was published in 1939. Yet, it supports our argument.)
(..kadhesh, fem., Kedheshah) Kadhesh denotes properly a male temple prostitute,
one of the class attached to certain sanctuaries of heathen deities, and
"consecrated" to the impure rites of their worship. Such a gross and
degrading practices in Jeh's land could only be construed as a flagrant
outrage; and any association of these with His pure worship was abhorrent (Dt
Note: Here are cited other references in the Bible for sacred cult prostitutes
according to word usage. FROM The New Brown - Driver - Briggs - Gesenius Hebrew
- English Lexicon 6945 qadesh (kaw-dashe)- TEMPLE PROSTITUTE (MAN) cf. Dt
23:18; IKgs 14:24; 22:47; plural form IKgs 15:12; 2Kinsgs 23:7, Job36:14 6948
qedushah (Ked-ay-shaw)-TEMPLE PROSTITUTE (FEMALE) cf. Dt 23:18; plural Hos
4:14; = harlot
The KJV uses "sodomite" to translate a Hebrew word that LITERALLY
MEANS 'HOLY ONE" but in practice meant "MALE CULT PROSTITUTE"
(RSV) (DEUT 23:17; 1KGS 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2KGS 23:7) See the Zondervan
Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible - volume 5, page 446)
Boswell asserts this word was mistranslated as early as the 3rd and 2nd
centuries B.C. by Jewish scholars who effected the Septuagint translation of
the Bible from Hebrew into Greek. When translators attempted to render
KADASH in Greek they employed at least six different Greek words. None of
these selected words in the Septuagint even suggests homosexuality in the Greek
language. Therefore, our modern translations rendering "Sodomite"
are totally inaccurate, culturally and theologically manipulated translations
of the Word of God. (See Boswell, pg. 99)
THE CULT PROSTITUES
The problem of Pagan Cult Temple Prostitution was a real challenge for the
Hebrew people and early Christians.
The subject is so vast that anything said here about it would be grossly
insufficient. This is the context of the prohibition of Leviticus 18:22 and
Romans Chpt 1. It was very important to the Hebrew people that they did not
appear similar in any way to their neighbors the Canaanites.
18:3 "According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you
shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am
bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances."
In Canaan there were many orgiastic, fertility cult religions. These sects had
their own priests, and male and female 'holy' prostitutes. It was believed
(variously according to the cult) that a devotee (worshipper) was somehow in
communion with the sacred by participating in sexual acts with the cult
prostitutes. Needless to say, the Hebrew people could not tolerate such
behavior on at least two accounts.
1. To worship another human being
as god, divine, or somehow a demi-god was an ABOMINATION! and had a special
name - IDOLATRY. Such an act broke the 1st of their 10 Sacred Commandments to
have no false god before the One God of heaven and earth.
2. To have sexual activity with a person other than one's marriage spouse was
ADULTERY!, also one of the 10 Commandments.
LEVITICUS AND The Hebrew word "TOEVAH" “TOWEBAH”translated "ABOMINATION "
Statement: There is no other possible explanation for the Book of
Leviticus Chapter 18:22 and 20:13. It is very clear; a man shall not lie with a
man as a woman. It says they deserve DEATH!!!
Response: Leviticus is the only place in the Old Testament where homosexual
acts per se are mentioned.
These acts are condemned because they were committed in the context of pagan
orgiastic rituals with sacred cult prostitutes.
To correctly understand both of these references you MUST read Leviticus
the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2“Speak to the children of Israel,
and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God. 3According to the doings
of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the
doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor
shall you walk in their ordinances. 4You shall observe My judgments
and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am the LORD your God. 5You
shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he
shall live by them: I am the LORD."
These verses set the context of
the entire section of the Holiness Code. The concern is that the ritual and
social practices show no similarity to those of Canaan and Egypt! THIS
is only in this context that homosexual (same-sex) acts are prohibited AND ARE
CALLED AN ABOMINATION! (“TOWEBAH” in Hebrew) The word ABOMINATION
(“TOWEBAH” in Hebrew) clearly indicates these acts are committed
in the context of IDOLOTROUS, PAGAN, CULTIC Activities. God did not want the
pagan orgiastic fertility cult prostitution practiced with His people. In fact
Leviticus 18:3 has been translated many different ways to bring this point out.
Rheims translation: "..nor shall you walk in their ordinances." New
American translation: "do not conform to their custom." Living Bible translation:
"Do not follow their practices."
NOTE: In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
God condemns same-sex activity as an ABOMINATION (“TOWEBAH”
in Hebrew) when it is done "..... according to the doings of the land of
Canaan." (and Egypt) see Leviticus 18:3
'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (“TOWEBAH”in Hebrew) New King James translation.
LEV 20:13 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination. (“TOWEBAH”in Hebrew) They shall surely be put to death.
Their blood shall be upon them. New King James translation.
The key to correct interpretation is again found ONLY in the LITERAL METHOD.
Transposing the word ABOMINATION back to Hebrew produces the word TOWEBAH
8441 towebah (to-ay-baw) or toebah (to-ay-baw); prop. something disgusting
(morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially IDOLATRY or (concerning) an
IDOL; - abominable (custom, thing), abomination.
The word ABOMINATION is used because these acts involved the mixture of
worshiping a person (false god, the 'sacred' prostitute) and committing
fornication by having anyone as a sexual partner. These are not acts of
homosexual expressions of love between two committed life partners. These are
same gender acts of sexual lust committed only for the religious activities of
false gods and human demi-gods. To associate such low grade acts with sexual
love between homosexual life partners is ludicrous.
Clearly the LITERAL METHOD shows these homosexual acts were prohibited in the
context of IDOLOTROUS pagan worship, i.e. cult prostitution (like the
Canaanites and Egyptians are fond of).
NOTE: The following quotation is taken from a Jewish Torah Commentary and is
cited here to give a Jewish Rabbinical point of view to the question of capital
punishment that as recommended in Leviticus 20:13.
have no record of a death sentence for this crime being carried out under
Jewish auspices. Apparently, Christian courts executed some persons for sodomy
during the Middle Ages. But, up to the present, persons who commit homosexual
acts are subject to severe prison sentences in many countries, including the
United States - even in the case of consenting adults. Until recently,
homosexuality, especially among males, has been regarded with horror as
unnatural, perverted, and degenerate wherever the Jewish-Christian outlook
prevailed. The first public change of attitude in the western world was voiced
chiefly by psychiatrists who called for greater compassion toward
homosexuals." from Torah Commentary pg 881-882
VIOLENT RAPE IN CONQUEST
The Hebrew men were a PATRIARCHAL Society (run by men). They also were a
frequently warring society fighting against pagan countries and peoples.
History records in many civilizations that forced anal rape has frequently been
used by the victorious soldiers over their male prisoners as a sign of victory.
Also, for a man to assume the position of a woman in a sexual act was seen as an
insult to his masculinity. McNeill, pages 58&59, declares forced anal rape
was used as an expression of domination, contempt, and scorn. Forced rape or
any non-consensual sexual activity is not to be construed as normal homosexual
expression of love. There is no similarity at all.
HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE CHRISTIAN TESTAMENT 1Cor 6:9 malakoi,
-10; "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 homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." NKJV
Again, these are mistranslated words. Here are these words from the STRONG'S
733 arsenokoites, ar-sen-ok-oy-tace; from 730 and 2845; a sodomite: - abuser of
(that defile) self with mankind. (Strong's Concordance)
733 arsna - a male; koita - a bed : one who lies with a male as a female, a
sodomite (Thayer's Concordance)
730 arsene probably from 142; male (as stronger or lifting): - male,
2845 koite koy-tay - the male sperm: - bed, chambering, x conceive.(Strong's)
3120 malakos soft to the touch of a catamite, a male who submits his body to
unnatural lewdness (Thayer's)
Both of these Greek words are not words that would point exclusively to
Homosexuals or their mutual sexual expressions of love.
The first word, malakos, is a very commonly used Greek word in the New
Testament. It has been traditionally translated as "sick",
"cowardly", "refined", "weak willed",
"delicate", "gentle", and in a moral sense it could mean
"licentious", "loose", or "wanting in self
control". These conditions are hardly unique to Homosexuals. There are
other examples in Classical Greek where other words are employed to refer
explicitly to Homosexual behaviors. These words would have been used in the New
Testament if the intentions were to convey such thoughts. The second word,
arsenokoitai, John Boswell points out, is less common. Boswell says applying it
to homosexuality in particular would be more understandable. Boswell goes on to
say the best evidence suggests it did not connote homosexuality to Paul, or the
people of his time, but meant "MALE PROSTITUTE". Boswell
proves this word and passage was understood as referring to male prostitutes
well into the fourth century. (See Boswell, page 107)
There is much that should be said about the fornication as it was understood in
the time of Paul.
Paul surely knew of the Greek "PORNEIA", houses of male
prostitution. In these houses the "PORNOI" legally practiced their
trade and paid the pornikon telos, the prostitution tax. (See Boswell, page
As the Roman Empire expanded it absorbed the ancient cult religions and
inherited their practices. The city of Rome was quite comfortable with its
PANTHEON of Gods and Goddesses. It is in this context that the remaining
passage in ROMANS should be addressed.
1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women
exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men,
leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men
with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty
of their error which was due.(NKJV)
There are a number of important items in these verses that prove Paul was
dealing with the same exact concerns as expressed in Leviticus: ABOMINATION,
i.e. IDOLATRY, and ADULTERY.
First, it must be clarified that Paul would not use the expression
"AGAINST NATURE" with anywhere near the same depth of meaning that
such as expression has today. Our understanding of that expression is colored
by the Scholastic Philosophers of the Middle Ages, Freudian psychology, and
social taboos. Paul lived before the Philosophers defined "Natural
Law". Paul meant "what was usual, common, their regular way of
acting". A person who is a true Homosexual has no "NATURAL"
(usual, common, recurring) feelings or desires for women. These men in verse
1:26 exchange their usual behavior for one that is contrary to their usual
THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION IS THEY WERE MARRIED MEN CHEATING ON THEIR WIVES BY
ENJOYING THE CASUAL SEX OF THE LOCAL PAGAN TEMPLES WHERE SACRED RITUALS
INCLUDED SEX WITH SACRED PROSTITUTES. THESE MEN WERE LEAVING THEIR WIVES AT
HOME AND PARTICIPATING IN THE ORGIASTIC CULT SEXUAL PRACTICES IN THE LOCAL
PAGAN TEMPLES. BY PARTICIPATING THEY WERE COMMITTING ADULTERY (CHEATING ON
THEIR WIVES) AND IDOLATRY (WORSHIPING THE CULT PROSTITUTES AS DEMI-GODS AND
GODDESSES). And even proving these married men and women were partaking of the
sexual activities of the fertility cults DOES NOT PROVE THEY WERE PARTICIPATING
WITH MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN SEX EXCLUSIVELY.
With this in mind I will add a commentary here to the Biblical Text of Romans
1:22-32 with the symbol **
Professing to be wise, they became fools, 1:23 and changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and
four-footed beasts and creeping things.
**They started worshipping people, things, and animals instead of God. This is
called IDOLATRY. Certainly the cult prostitutes were considered to be
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts,
to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
**Paul taught the body of the believer was the Temple of God's Holy Spirit. By
participating in cult activity they were dishonoring their bodies and God's
exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature
rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
**Worshiping creatures instead of creator is a 'lie' and trickery of Satan.
this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged
the natural use for what is against nature.
** These women were prostitutes, and thus fornicators.
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their
lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving
in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
**Again, these men were NATURALLY heterosexuals
. Paul is here addressing married men who naturally are affectionate with their
wives but who were getting their LUSTS FULFILLED with the cult prostitutes
(male and female).
For true male Homosexuals there is nothing NATURAL about having sex or sexual
affection for women. The contrary is true.
even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over
to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 1:29 being filled
with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness,
maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are
whisperers, 1:30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors
of evil things, disobedient to parents, 1:31 undiscerning, untrustworthy,
unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
**LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THIS LIST OF SINS THAT "ARE WORTHY OF DEATH”! ISN'T
IT INTERESTING THAT THE ONLY SIN WE TALK ABOUT OUT OF THIS ENTIRE LIST IS THE
WRONGLY SUPPOSED SIN OF CONSTITUTIONAL HOMOSEXUALITY.
Do the same accusers notice the breadth of behaviors that are condemned in this
section??? Usually not!
knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are
worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice
John Mc Neill, page 56, concludes the Pauline epistles never address the
question of homosexual activity between persons who share the homosexual
condition. This being the case, Paul's writings cannot be read as explicitly
condemning such behavior. The Greek malakoi and arsenokoitai, McNeill
concludes, were not necessarily homosexuals; the former were simply debauched
individuals and the latter were probably male prostitutes or those given to
anal intercourse. Anal intercourse is not necessarily nor exclusively a
THE CONCLUSION: THE BIBLE NEVER ADDRESSES PERSONS WHO ARE NATURAL
HOMOSEXUALS, CONSTITUTIONAL HOMOSEXUALS, AND SEXUAL INVERTS.
Although homosexuality was widespread in the Hellenistic world (Plato and
Aristotle had both written about it and there were theories about the condition
in Roman medicine.) it is not clear that Paul distinguished in his thoughts or
writings between gay persons (in the sense of permanent sexual preference) and
heterosexuals who occasionally engaged in homosexual behavior. Boswell notes
that it is in fact unlikely that many Jews of Paul's day made such a
distinction. Boswell's final conclusion is Paul did not discuss gay persons but
only homosexual acts performed by heterosexual persons. (SEE JOHN BOSWELL,
JOHN MC NEILL, pg 60, quotes the conclusive ideas of Herman Van De Spijker the
Bible has no specific text which explicitly rejects all homosexual activities
as such independent of the circumstances of idolatry, sacred prostitution,
promiscuity, violent rape, or violation of guest's rights.
Perhaps the loudest commentary the BIBLE DOES MAKE on true Homosexuality is the
UTTER SILENCE ON THE SUBJECT.
There is no reason to correct something that isn't functioning in error!!!!!
NONE OF THE BIBLICAL REFERENCES FREQUENTLY QUOTED (INCLUDING 3 OR 4 OTHER
LESSER NEW TESTAMENT CITATIONS) EVER REFER TO HOMOSEXUALS WHO ARE SO FROM BIRTH
WITH AN EXCLUSIVE ORIENTATION.
THE ONLY PERSONS CONDEMNED IN THESE VERSES ARE HETEROSEXUALS WHO OCASIONALLY
PARTAKE OF SAME SEX ACTIVITIES AND SPECIFICALLY IN RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES THAT
WERE PART OF FERTILITY AND NATURE BASED RELIGIONS.
SAME SEX ACTIVITIES DO NOT INDICATE A SAME SEX ORIENTATION. THIS IS PROVEN
FREQUENTLY BY THE NUMBER OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS WHO DO CONCEIVE AND BEAR
CHILDREN BUT WHO RECEIVE THEIR EMOTIONAL FULFILLMENT WITH PERSONS OF THE SAME
THE BIBLE IS LITERALLY A GAY'S AND LESBIAN'S BEST FRIEND. THE BIBLE DOES NOT
CONDEM US IN ANY WAY. DO NOT BUY INTO THE LIE ANY LONGER. COME BACK TO GOD AND
THE BIBLE. THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIAN WHILE CHASING YOU AWAY ARE
FRAUDS!!!! THE WORD OF GOD DOES NOT COMDEMN YOU, GAY SON AND LESBIAN DAUGHTER
OF GOD!!!!!!!!! REJOICE! RECLAIM YOUR HERITAGE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD!!
Bailey, Derrick Sherwin. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. London
Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. University of
McNiell, John. The Church and the Homosexual. Kansas City, 1976.
Strong, James LL.D., S.T.D.. The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the
Bible. Thomas Nelson 1990.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Thomas Nelson 1982.
Plaut, W. Gunther and Hallo, William W. The Torah, A Modern Commentary. Union
of American Hebrew Congragations. New York 1981.
Tenney, Merril C. General Editor. The Zondervan Pictoral Encyclopedia of the
Bible in 5 volumes. Zondervan Corp. 1976.
Orr, James M.A., D.D., General Editor. The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishers. 1939, 1956, 1986. Volume 4, page 2821
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality By Daniel Helminiak, Ph.D.
R U gay, lesbian, bi, trans, gender fluid, etc... and someone said you aren't saved? God says you are saved, by God! In the scroll window on this page is a Bible study that will show you God embraces everything about your deepest self, including your full experience of sexuality. It will take time to read and study all of this. Very few people have gone through this study in one sitting. We promise you, if you put time and prayer into this study you will know beyond a doubt that you are Saved.