The Encyclopedia Of 7700 Illustrations, (Garland Texas: Bible Communications) refers to a comment taken from the Pastor’s Manual (Tan, P.L. 1996, c 1979). It states that a congregation is being established in Atlanta, Georgia, to serve the “largest homosexual population in the South.” It is the 20th local church of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches described as a “gay denomination.” The National Institute of Mental Health estimates there are some 4 million men and women in the United States who are considered homosexuals, but some homosexual organizations estimate the number to be as high as 10 million (The Libronix Digital Library System, series X, logos research systems).
It is one thing to advocate the gay lifestyle based on secular arguments of one kind or another (gene proclivities, biological divergence, etc.), but quite another to use the Bible for support. Today, there are a number of “Christian gays” who insist the Bible does not condemn a loving relationship between two people of the same sex. This is the issue that will be examined in this article.
Material written by Christian gays informs us that many translations of the Bible reveal the personal biases of the translators, and that it is difficult to find English words to match the Hebrew and Greek original. Translators of the Bible, they tell us, assumed that everyone was heterosexual. Homosexual advocates insist that the “Holiness Code” of the Jews (Lev. 17-23) is no longer binding, and that it is not clear what the Apostle Paul meant when he addressed the issue in the New Testament. They tell us that Paul may have been referring to temple prostitution or people who are not innately gay or bisexual, engaging in homosexual acts. Also, that the Bible says almost nothing about homosexual feelings.
Their arguments include the view of many Christians today who do not feel Paul’s writings are a useful guide for the ethics and morals of the twentieth century. They believe that Paul’s writings should apply only to his day and to the people of the Mediterranean basin. Also, in ancient times there was a shortage of males due to the constant wars, and procreation was limited, but in our day there is a population explosion that threatens civilization. Therefore, they say Paul’s criticisms about homosexuality are no longer valid.
Homosexual advocates insist that the New Covenant of grace is being ignored, and the Old Testament is emphasized for the purpose of condemnation. Furthermore, that the New Covenant is not concerned about gender roles. The New Covenant “did away” with all distinctions between clean and unclean, and that God affirms the love of heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Both Ruth and Naomi, and David and Jonathan are regarded as having same-sex relationships. Furthermore, Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality. After all, we are told, God is love.
It is not in the scope of this paper to address in detail the arguments regarding the validity of the “Holiness Code,” or what is required under the New Covenant. These issues have been largely addressed in various articles posted on our Web site. The interested reader may want to examine some of these articles. We will take a look, instead, at the various Scriptures that have been cited by gay advocates to substantiate that lifestyle.
A brief look at the Holiness Code illustrates various health and moral laws that were given for the well-being of society as a whole. These include laws regarding crossbreeding of animals and crops for the purpose of maintaining healthier species. Among these laws are those regarding homosexuality. Were these laws beneficial? Of course. Would they be beneficial if applied today? Definitely. But, we do not live under the kind of theocratic government established during the Old Testament period. Does that mean these laws would be bad for us? Of course not. If observed today, we would be healthier and better off. There is, however, an important factor that is overlooked regarding what is written in the Old Testament. Jesus said: ” . . . It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). Note: All Scriptures in this article are from the New King James Version unless otherwise noted. The Old Testament is an important part of the Word of God. As such, consideration must be given to it. A few more points that should be called to the reader’s attention are that when one becomes a Christian, he or she does not cease being male or female. And, indeed, as was stated, God is a God of love. But how does God define love? Read 1 John 5:3: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (AV). But God is also a God of justice. Justice and the ensuing penalty for sin will not be overlooked in the final Judgment (Rev. 22:11-12).
Gay advocates insist that there is no clear biblical condemnation of people with a homosexual orientation. Those verses that seem to condemn it, they say, are homosexual acts under some set of circumstances of which we are not aware. Genesis, chapters 18 and 19 are a case in point.
When the angels appeared at Sodom and were domiciled in Lot’s home, the men of Sodom assembled outside. We read: “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: 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” (Gen. 19:4-5 AV). In the New King James Version the word “carnally” is added, but is not found in the original text.
The original Hebrew word, yada, means “to know.” Homosexual advocates tell us that the word “know” is ambiguous and that it is not clear whether the men of Sodom wanted to simply “meet” the guests, or sexually force them, or attack them physically. How can we know? The Hebrew word used for “know” means, “to know, to ascertain by seeing,” and is used in a great variety of senses. But, it also means to know one carnally, that is to have sexual relations. How do we know this? By examining the Old Testament usage. An important key to understanding the Bible is the context in which a word is found. Notice verse eight of this chapter (NKJV). Lot says, “See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man . . . .” The word “known” is the same word that is used in verse five. It would be a gigantic assumption to believe they had never met or talked with any man. Surely these daughters were acquainted with men. So, the meaning in both verses refers to sexual relations. Other examples of where the word for “know” is used in the same sense are in Genesis 4:1, 17, 25. A wife could not conceive by merely “being acquainted” with her husband. In each of these cases it could only refer to sexual relations. Consider the incident in Genesis 38 where the word “know” is used. Judah’s daughter-in-law, Tamar, disguised herself as a harlot and Judah had relations with her. She conceived (v. 18). After she bore twins, we read: ” . . . And he never knew her again” (v. 26). Surely Judah was “acquainted” with Tamar after that. After all, she had borne him two sons. So, the meaning is that he never again had sexual relations with her.
We read this about Sodom and Gomorrah: “And the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave” (Gen. 18:20). “But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the LORD” (Gen. 13:13). They were guilty of sin. What is sin? The Bible states: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4 AV). Yet, homosexual advocates say that it is unclear whether the men of Sodom were uncharitable to strangers, or wanted to rape people, or wished to engage in homosexual acts. They refer to Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:7-14 for proof that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Matthew 10:14-15 reads “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 the day of judgment than for that city!” Luke’s account adds: “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” (Luke 10:10-11).
These cities were condemned because they rejected Christ’s message-the gospel of the Kingdom of God (v. 9). We should not assume the people of these cities would treat every stranger in the same manner they did God’s representatives. The issue was not inhospitality. The men of Sodom did not know the angels were God’s messengers, so could not have been condemned for rejecting God’s representatives. But the cities in Jesus’ day did reject Christ. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for sodomy, not inhospitality.
Several Scriptures indicate this. Notice, for example, the warning in Deuteronomy 29:21-23 for breaking the Covenant:
And the LORD would separate him from all the tribes of Israel for adversity, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this Book of the Law, so that the coming generation of your children who rise up after you, and the foreigner who comes from a far land, would say, when they see the plagues of that land and the sicknesses which the LORD has laid on it: The whole land is brimstone, salt, and burning; it is not sown, nor does it bear, nor does any grass grow there, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in His anger and His wrath.
Is it logical to assume that God would destroy four cities because the people there were inhospitable? Not likely.
Notice Ezekiel 16:48-50:
As I live, says the Lord GOD, neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.
Homosexual advocates maintain that verse 49 proves that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Yet, they fail to notice the significance of the word “abomination” in verse 50. Compare the word “abomination” in this text with Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. The same Hebrew word is used in reference to sodomy in all three texts. Homosexual advocates say that the word “abomination” is a religious term that refers to idolatry, not to homosexuality. So, they think the sin of Sodom was idolatry as well as inhospitality. What are the facts? The word “abomination” refers to many things in the Bible. It is not limited to idolatry. Bible dictionaries inform us that “abomination” applies to anything that offends the religious or moral sense of a person and causes extreme disgust, hate, or loathing. In the Bible this includes idolatry, the worship of carved images, the sacrifice of inferior animals, wearing the clothing of the opposite sex, witchcraft, and spiritism. It even includes evil-minded persons, a false balance, the thoughts of the wicked, the justification of the wicked and the condemnation of the just, a proud look, a lying tongue, feet that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked imaginations, feet that are swift to run to mischief, a false witness, and one that sows discord. All these abominations use the same Hebrew word found in Ezekiel 16:50, and Leviticus 18:22; 20:13.
Consider 2 Peter 2:5-8. It tells us that God:
. . . did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds).
Lot’s plea to the citizens of the town was not to violate his guests. Homosexual advocates argue that the sin was not homosexual rape, but the victimizing of a nonconsenting partner. The sin, we are told, was treating a man like a woman. The fact is: There is not the slightest indication in the Scriptures that homosexual activity would have been permissible had Lot’s guests consented. What is even more important than this interpretation is the fact that the condemnation of homosexuality in other passages is not limited to homosexual rape. Homosexual conduct, whether by consent or not, is clearly censured in the Bible.
Leviticus 18:22, is very clear. It states: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Homosexual advocates insist that while this text is found within the context of incest, bestiality, adultery, engaging in sex during a woman’s period, etc., the only one that is a religious term-the word “abomination” (v. 22)-is directed against temple prostitution, not against a loving relationship between two persons of the same sex. Why cannot this view be substantiated Scripturally? As we have already seen, the word “abomination” means many more things than temple prostitution. Why, then, should verse 22 be selected out of the many found in this section-all of which refer to things God forbids-to refer specifically to temple prostitution? The answer: To support a view that makes some forms of homosexuality acceptable. When it comes to textual proximity, Byrne Fone says, ” . . . textual proximity is not a definitive argument . . . ” (Homophobia, page 83). The fact is: The meaning of “abomination” cannot be limited to temple prostitution. Many of the practices God forbids in this chapter were not prohibited because they were idolatrous. Homosexuality, in this passage, is not associated with idolatry. Exactly the same thing can be said about the argument used to reject what is stated in Leviticus 20:13. This Scripture reads: “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”
Take a look at Deuteronomy 23:17, in the Authorized Version. It reads: “There shall be no whore (Heb. kadesha) of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite (Heb. kadesh) of the sons of Israel.” Homosexual advocates contend that the word “sodomite” is a blatant mistranslation. According to them, it should be translated “holy one,” or “one set aside for a holy purpose”-and refers to one who practices prostitution in order to honor his/her deity. The primary function of these prostitutes, according to homosexual advocates, was to engage in sexual activity with women. So, they say here the condemnation in Deuteronomy 23:17 is for temple prostitution, not for a loving relationship between two members of the same sex. It is true that in the overall sense the word kadesh refers to holiness, but the argument that the word kadesh limits the biblical proscription to temple prostitution (homosexuality) fails to take into consideration the fact that God’s Word elsewhere condemns homosexual activity. Compare Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. So, if the meaning of kadesh in Deuteronomy 23:17 refers only to temple prostitution, then both temple prostitution and homosexuality, in general, are condemned in the Bible.
Aside from all that, there is little evidence that male temple prostitutes engaged in homosexual acts with women only. From a book entitled, A History of Prostitution, by George Riley Scott, we read: “These men, Kadeshim, were attached to the temples and consecrated to the goddess, in a precisely similar manner to the consecrated women. They were male prostitutes for the service of the priests [emphasis ours] and worshippers” (p. 182, fn). Also, Colin Spencer states: “Sacred prostitution was the central part of the ritual in the Temple. The priestesses performed a sacred marriage to ensure the fertility of the country and the great fortune of the new king, for the king copulated with the holy priestess at the beginning of his reign. There were lesser priestesses who were also musicians, singers and dancers, certainly some of these were men who also copulated with both men and women” [emphasis ours]. The goddess Ishtar had turned these men into women as a demonstration of her awesome power (Homosexuality in History, p. 29).
Homosexual advocates also refer to Judges, chapter 19. In the account, a traveling Levite and his concubine were forced to spend the night in the city of Gibeah. They were invited into the home of an old man. The section dealing with homosexuality reads:
So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink. 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 (Judges 19:21-22, AV).
Homosexual advocates give the same explanation here as in Genesis 19:5, that is, the word “know” is too vague to understand. They reason that since the mob threatened to kill the Levite, the act of the men of Gibeah was an act of ultimate inhospitality. They say if it refers to homosexual activity, it refers to homosexual rape, not to a consensual homosexual relationship.
The problem with this argument is that it overlooks two important verses. The first is Judges 19:25. There it states: “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” (AV). It is obvious these men were doing more than “getting acquainted with her.” They were sexually assaulting her. The word “know” is the same word used in verse 22. The second verse that is overlooked is Judges 20:5. It reads: “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” (AV). The notion that the Levite killed her is false. She died from the sexual assault, which is not an uncommon thing under such circumstances. The word “forced” is used in Lamentations 5:11 where we read: “They ravished the women in Zion, and the maids in the cities of Judah” (Lam. 5:11 AV). The New King James Version gives the following rendering for Judges 20:5: “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 the argument that the word “know” is too vague to understand cannot be supported Scripturally. This was clearly a case of rape, and these Gibeonites had fully intended to rape the Levite. The end result was that almost the entire tribe of Benjamin was killed in the ensuing war that followed. It is unlikely the whole nation of Israel became enraged over an “act of inhospitality.” Rather it was because of the intended homosexual rape and the murder of the concubine-a thing unheard of in Israel. ” . . . No such deed has been done or seen from the day that the children of Israel came up from the land of Egypt until this day . . .” (Judges 19:30). This crime against the Levite and his concubine could not go unpunished.
Two texts in I Kings, which address “sodomy,” can be dispensed with rather quickly. In the Authorized Version they read: “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” (1 Kings 14:24). “And he [King Asa] took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made” (1 Kings 15:12). In both cases, homosexual advocates say the texts refer to temple prostitution and that they say nothing about consensual homosexual activity. As we have already seen, both temple prostitution and homosexuality, in general, are forbidden in God’s Word, so the whole argument here is moot.
Paul’s epistles were mentioned on page one of this article. Because of man’s rejection of God’s Way, Paul wrote the following:
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 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 (Rom. 1:24-27).
Homosexual advocates contend that Paul “might have been criticizing” people who engaged in homosexual activity which was against their nature; that is, they were really heterosexual but were engaging in homosexual acts, or they were homosexual but were engaging in heterosexual acts. In brief, they tell us it is not clear what Paul meant. Also, they insist that verses 23-24 indicate those criticized were guilty of idolatry, so that the sexual acts described in verses 24-27 “might have been” associated with idol worship. They insist that the verses are too vague to be interpreted as a blanket prohibition against same-sex activities. They add that while Paul is not favorable toward homosexual acts, he classifies them as unclean (v. 24), which is not a moral precept. The sin, they say, is not homosexuality, but rather a mind that is centered on unrighteousness.
Consider this: Paul said these people changed the natural use into that which was against nature. What was the natural use? We read in Genesis 2:24-25: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” The natural use is a heterosexual relationship. The natural use was what these sinners abandoned. They turned to that which is against nature. What is against nature? The answer: men and women burning in lust toward those of the same sex (Rom. 1:26-27). These Scriptures are very clear, and there need be no doubt. To say that Paul’s statements are too vague to understand, illustrates an unwillingness to accept the Scriptures for what they really say.
What about the assertion that while such behavior constitutes uncleanness (v. 24), this is not a moral precept? What does the Apostle Paul say about uncleanness? “For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God” (Eph. 5:5). This is not considered a moral precept? The fact is: Paul made it clear what will happen to those who practice such things.
Also, according to homosexual advocates, Paul does not condemn homosexuality, but a mind that is centered on unrighteousness. What is unrighteousness? “All unrighteousness is sin . . . ” (1 John 5:17). What is sin? “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4 AV). Can a mind be centered on unrighteousness and not be guilty of sin? Hardly. The Bible tells us: “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he . . . ” (Prov. 23:7). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made it plain that wrong thoughts are just as sinful as wrong actions. He said that if one is guilty of lusting in his heart, he is just as guilty as if he had committed the act (Matt. 5:27-28).
Another Scripture homosexual advocates try to explain can be found in 1 Corinthians 6:9. This text reads: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” (AV). “Abusers of themselves with mankind” is from the Greek word arsenokoitai. This word will be addressed shortly. The word “effeminate” is from the Greek word malakoi, and means “soft.” Homosexual advocates inform us that the original meaning of malakos is unknown, that in Greek literature malakos was never applied to homosexual acts in general, and that while a number of Greek words were used to describe homosexual acts, this word was not among them. The authoritative work, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Arndt and Gingrich, points out that malakos refers to men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually. This work also lists a number of places where this word is used in Greek literature, ranging from the first century BC to the third century AD. The fact is: It makes little difference whether or not it refers to homosexual acts “in general.” Arndt and Gingrich say it refers to specific acts, and it is clear the Apostle Paul condemns them.
To look at arsenokoitai, notice 1 Timothy 1:9-10. It reads:
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.
The phrase “for them that defile themselves with mankind” is from the Greek word arsenokoites. This same word, arsenokoitai, was used in 1 Corinthians 6:9, as “abusers of themselves with mankind.” (The reader should keep in mind the different spellings of a root word ending reflect its grammatical usage.) Homosexual advocates inform us that the meaning of this word is too vague to understand since “the meaning has been lost.” They ask that since the word means “male bed,” does it refer to a “male copulator,” “a man who copulates with women,” or a “man who is copulated”? This, of course, is simply obfuscation. If anything, they say, it refers to a male copulator associated with temple prostitution.
The reader is already aware that the “temple prostitution” argument is moot, since all forms of homosexuality are condemned in the Bible. Arndt and Gingrich define the word arsenokoites, and its cognates, as “a male who practices homosexuality.” Polycarp referred to it in the second century, and it is found in papyri and other nonliterary sources. Polycarp’s employment of the word in the second century shows that it was in use at that time. This indicates the meaning is not as vague as homosexual advocates would have us believe. While Paul used it in the New Testament, evidence suggests the term did not exist prior to the Christian era. However, the question that needs to be asked is this: Was the New Testament inspired by God or not? Indeed it was. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to use the word arsenokoitai. The context in which it is found (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10), links it with other sexual sins. Homosexual advocates would be quick to point out that idolatry is also mentioned in connection with arsenokoites in 1 Corinthians 6:9, but since temple prostitution is also condemned, the argument is hollow.
Referring to these sexual practices, Paul told the Corinthians, “and such were some of you.” Some of these Christians had been practicing homosexuality. But Paul says, ” . . . but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). These Corinthians had turned to God, repented, and were baptized. They were no longer homosexuals. With the help of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, they had been able to overcome the pulls that had led them down this wrong path. Anyone who is willing, can be given the same opportunity today. But gay people should not delude themselves into believing that homosexual conduct is acceptable to God. Homosexual advocates often speak of a “loving relationship between two persons of the same sex.” The extent that this is practiced within the gay community may be a matter of debate. The high incidence of AIDS among gays does not indicate too many “monogamous loving relationships” between persons of the same sex. If anything, it indicates the high degree of promiscuity among gay people.
The last Scripture to be addressed in this article is Jude 7. This text reads: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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” (AV). Again, homosexual advocates say the meaning of this verse is not clear. They insist that the text does not refer to the account in Genesis 18 and 19 since it says the people went after “strange flesh.” They reason, angels would be strange flesh indeed. What it illustrates, they say, is people attempting to dishonor angels. Also, Jude’s comment about “going after strange flesh” is taken to refer to some apocryphal or extra-biblical story. Homosexual advocates may not be aware that many apocryphal or extra-biblical accounts are often outlandish embellishments.
The word “fornication” in this verse is translated from the Greek word ekporneusasai. It means “gross immorality,” “ultra-fornication.” In Greek literature, it includes male prostitutes (The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich). The term applies to all forms of sexual sin, and as far as Sodom and Gomorrah were concerned, referred to sexual conduct that was out of control. This would certainly include homosexual rape. In regard to “strange flesh,” not all the truth about a matter is generally found in a single passage. A key to Bible understanding is found in Isaiah 28:10. “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little.” Putting the accounts together, we see that the Sodomites were guilty of gross immorality in all forms, including bestiality. The idea that men had sexual relations with angels contradicts Jesus’ statement in Luke 20:35-36. Angels do not engage in sexual relations.
The Bible does not delineate between homosexual acts in general and “loving relationships between two persons of the same sex.” God’s Word forbids homosexuality in all forms. The last book in the Bible-Revelation-includes the following statement: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie” (Rev. 22:14-15 AV). What is the meaning of the word “dog”? During the Old Testament period the pay received by a sodomite (temple prostitute) was not to be put into the Temple treasury (Deut. 23:17-18). Notice the word “dog” in verse 18. The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary tells us that “the wages of a dog” is a figurative expression used to denote the gains of a qadesh (sodomite) because of the dog-like manner in which he debased himself.
Homosexual advocates would immediately argue that the text in Revelation 22 is speaking about temple prostitution only. But the Bible makes it plain that God’s Word forbids all forms of homosexuality. To limit Bible proscriptions against homosexuality to temple prostitution only is an attempt to justify an aspect of sin that clearly is forbidden. Gays may wish to continue in a lifestyle that will eventually bring consequences they may not desire (Rom. 1:27), but they cannot use the Bible for justification.