An Investigation Into the Bible and Homosexuality

By Paul Thomas Cahill

(Note: This was written in 1994 while I was yet a Christian believer. It was intended as a serious attempt at
harmonizing the Biblical record with contemporary scholarship. All Hebrew and Greek words have been
transliterated for the benefit of my non-Hebrew and non-Greek readers. While I believe the scholarship is sound, I
have since abandoned faith in general, and Christianity in particular.)

Most protagonists against the gay experience begin with a simple premise: Gay people are miserable,
whether they know it or not; the life style(s) of gay people run the gamut of everything that is tawdry, seamy and
nefarious; and most gay people live lives of quiet desperation. Sad to say, this is sometimes true, but it is by no
means universal or anywhere near a majority. That it is at all true can be and usually is ascribed to the social
environment in which those of us who happen to be gay were nurtured. When the weight of society ranges against
you and your innermost desires, is it any wonder that negative self-esteem is the end result? A life of promiscuous
sexuality and the debauchery that attaches thereto is not a mystery when viewed in this light. Where in this society
are gay relationships or gay sexuality supported? Of course, the answer is obvious, else we wouldn't be presenting
this study. The point is just that. It is a catch twenty-two situation. There would be less promiscuity and debauchery
if there were more support; there cannot be more support because society, through its dependence on the traditions
of historic Judeo-Christianity, refuses to offer such support; therefore, since gay sexuality has been largely driven
underground, there will be promiscuous sexuality and debauchery.

When a man or woman surfaces, however briefly, from a life of debasement, be it drugs or alcohol,
bathhouse/public park/bookstore promiscuity, sadomasochistic behavior, etc., it is no wonder that many will begin a
search for answers to the ensuing depression? The superficial response of the Church is to offer mystical bandages
to real-life emotional hemorrhages. Through insensitive application of biblical injunctions, seen through the lens of
tradition, hurting and vulnerable people are exhorted to “come out” of the lifestyle, without regard to the human
being behind the behavior. “If only you just stop doing what you're doing, you'll be on the road to recovery,” is often
the admonition. But it isn't quite that simple. While the Gospel is so simple that little children can understand, the
principles of Christian living are not so simplistic. Ex-gay ministries are quick to proffer their statistics of their
“success” stories, of conversions from gay to straight, or at least, to the uninvolved middle ground, asexuality. What
they do not report is the number of human tragedies for which they are responsible, for those who attempted to
change, or at least be subjugated to the change ethic, only to heap failure upon failure. And they most definitely do
not report the chilling statistics of the number of suicides, especially among the young, who out of sheer desperation
after longing for release, can no longer face the prospect of their inability to harmonize their unchangeable
orientation with the desired spirituality.

“In the Beginning...”

The starting point in the path towards a new “evangelical” understanding of homosexuality begins where it
all began, the Garden of Eden. It is a given that God, in His act of human creation, created one human male and one
human female. Further, He created them in such a manner as to preclude any alternative other than that they be for
each other. However, to extrapolate from Adam and Eve and their circumstance to a blueprint for each and every
human man and woman ignores a very important fact: These ancestors of the human race, by an exercise of the free
will God had given them, caused to enter into that perfect Garden the evil of willful disobedience. This in turn began
the deterioration of creation which numbered the days of the creation. As the human race progressed, more and more
results of sin became manifest. First, Cain committed fratricide. It only got worse after that, until eventually, God
felt compelled to destroy almost the entire human race, save eight souls. But this did not eliminate the results of sin.
And to this day, we see its results around us. Sickness, deformity, warfare, cruelty, murder, strife. All that is wrong
with this world can be laid at the foot of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God's Perfect Plan for His
creation, as far as its human inhabitants were concerned, was clear. Sin put an asterisk in that plan. As study after
study is completed, the genetic/biological component for the predilection for homosexuality becomes increasingly
more certain. We may decry this information, but we can no longer deny it. Even Jesus, when instructing his

1
disciples, told them, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are
“eunoukos” because they were born that way; others were made that way by men and others have renounced
marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matt. 19:12 NIV,
emphasis added) Apparently, extremist conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists cannot. They continually toss
the canard at gay people “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” as though this were a valid, intellectual,
half-way understanding argument. This is the same Adam and Eve who disobeyed God, got tossed out of the Garden
on their bare bottoms, and left future humanity burdened with sin and pain, anguish and despair. Yet, these are the
wonderful heterosexuals that we're supposed to pattern our lives after? Let's hear it for these splendid role models!
A thinking, open-minded person might be inclined to say that the possibilities are very interesting. What makes it
even more interesting is the fact that “eunoukos” in biblical times and Middle-Eastern cultures did not always mean
what the Romans later called the "castrati." In other words, not all keepers of harems were males who no longer
possessed their testicles, but merely were incapable of cohabitation with females. There have been many accounts of
such men in harem circumstances who were known to be homosexuals, not "castrati." Could the Lord be instructing
his disciples in this instance that there were males who were incapable of being full participants in the propagation
of the species precisely because they were not orientationally inclined to comply? The story of Sodom as being a
tale of divine punishment for homosexuality is woven of far less sturdy fiber.

The “Sin” of Sodom

The next stop in the panoply of the evangelical argument is Sodom. Yes, the men of Sodom attempted to
sexually violate the “male” strangers Lot was boarding. Much is made of the Hebrew word, “yadha” which is
translated “know.” The word occurs 943 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in only ten occurrences is it used to
indicate some kind of sexual intercourse. The context would indicate that something other than social information is
being sought in this case. This would have, if successful, resulted in gang rape by anal penetration. This was a
practice by, among others, Middle-Eastern people to totally humiliate those males they desired to subjugate, be they
captives, slaves, or, in this instance, strangers. Without doubt, this was a wanton act of gross inhospitality, and no
amount of evangelical waffling on this issue will color it differently. Holding that this single verse clearly
demonstrates that every male resident of Sodom (forget about Gomorrah and the other cities of the plain for the
moment) was a homosexual as the term is understood today is a stretch of biblical proportions. If Sodom was
destroyed because of rampant homosexuality, where is the evidence of it. No mention of Lesbianism amongst the
female residents. And what of the children? If all the males were gay, they crossed the line, and often. Lot offered
his daughters in lieu of the strangers, something that would hardly have made much of an impact on males inclined
to sexual behavior with other males, but certainly would have relevance to a mob bent on rape!

Always allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, here is what the prophet Ezekiel has to say about the
matter "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned,
they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away
with them as you have seen." (Eze. 16:49,50, NIV). Further, Ezekiel is telling the Jews that they are doing more
detestable things than even the Sodomites did, yet no one has ever claimed that all the Jews at the time were actively
homosexual. It is obvious that whatever the sin of Sodom was, universal homosexuality was most definitely not it.
The Authorized Version translators of the Bible notwithstanding, “Sodomy” is not a legitimate English word to
describe the sin of Sodom s equivalent to homosexuality.

In 1 Kings, 14:24 (and also 15:12, 22:46 and 2 Kings 23:7), we 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.”(KJV) Strong’s dictionary/concordance defines “qadesh” as follows: From H6942; a (quasi) sacred person,
that is, (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry: - sodomite (sic), unclean”. Now, why
did the translators of the Authorized Version insert the word “sodomite” into the text in place of “shrine prostitute”
as more contemporary versions do? Perhaps it was due to the fact that their patron, James Stuart (from whom we get
the “King James” Version), was also a notorious lover of young men, and this was the only way they could defame
him and get away with it. Yet, thousands of devout and sincere people ever since have maintained that the sin of
Sodom was homosexuality, and the Bible clearly states it. After all, there were “sodomites” abroad in the land, God
hated them, and their home town was toasted. Christians speak so sincerely and absolutely about this, but any clear
thinking, halfway reasonable person that refuses to read the Scriptures with homophobic-tinted spectacles will
readily see that ritual sex used to please and placate the gods is what Yahweh was ticked off about. Our God is a

2
jealous God, and any worship of any other god is not only not permitted, it is hated by God as only He can hate. In
their rush to damn homosexuals, the latter day Pharisees gloss over the idolatry that is at the root of all God’s
displeasure at foolish humanity. Golden calves, sanctified statuary, holy days and celebrations…all items of open
idolatry or potential for it.

“It Is an Abomination”

Next we come to the Law Code of Leviticus. This will pose several problems for us, mistranslation being
not the least of them. First, the Hebrew. Two words are involved: “toevah” and “qadesh.” In Lev. 18:22, the KJV
has, : Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” The NIV translators have it
“detestable.” The word “toevah” does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft, but
something which is ritually unclean for Jews, involving ethnic contamination or idolatry (John Boswell, Christianity,
Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, pg. 100). In Lev. 20:13, the proscription against “man lying with a man as one
lies with a woman” appears, on the surface to be a blanket condemnation of homosexual behavior, until one views
the verse in the context, not only of the Law Code, but the cultural environment as well. The Lord God called the
Hebrews (the Children of Jacob/Israel) out from among the indigenous population of Canaanitic peoples, which
were worshipers of other gods and rituals. The Decalogue stated that they were to have no other gods before them,
and that was first and foremost. In Deuteronomy 23:18, we read, “Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the
price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the
LORD thy God.” “The price of a dog” refers to the Hebrew “keleb,” from an unused root meaning to yelp, or else to
attack, a dog, hence (by euphemism) a, male prostitute. We have already cited the references to the “qadeshim” in
the books of Kings.

Among the practices of the Canaanites, temple prostitution, male and female, was part and parcel of
ecstatic worship. It is difficult in the extreme for us products of 20th Century civilization to envisage sexual
intercourse as part of ritualistic acts of worship, but for many centuries, mankind believed that in the transmission of
the “seed” coupled with fertility mysticism, good things were bound to happen. But the behavior was in conjunction
with “other gods” and so was to be proscribed. Compare the proscriptions against cult prostitution in Deut. 23:17.
“None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute.”
(NASB). So many references to ritualistic sexual behavior and the Levitical passages must be read in this context,
not the context of constitutional homosexual orientation. The Bible interprets the Bible, not homophobia. No doubt
that male homosexual behavior received a less than favorable acceptance in the patriarchal society of the Hebrews.
However, the so-called “blanket condemnation of all forms of homosexual behavior that is crystal clear to our
understanding” is not borne out in the texts in question. They are specific and direct, dealing only with ritual
prostitution used in conjunction with worship of the divine, and not to be tolerated because of the idolatrous aspects.
That is the only thing certain.

David and Jonathan

I want to say something in passing regarding David and Jonathan. I am not going to make a case for either
David's or Jonathan's orientation as being homosexual. Since constitutional homosexuality was not even
conceptualized until the mid 1800's, pre-exilic Hebrews and other Middle-Eastern peoples cannot be faulted if they
didn't have hard and fast concepts of sexuality. That there was a lack of cultural stigma against male-to-male sexual
behavior (in a non-ritualistic sense) can be claimed as the result of anthropological investigation into the behaviors
and mores of the times. Could David and Jonathan have had an erotic relationship conjointly with their intensely
stated love for each other that surpassed that of the love of a woman (2 Sam. 1:26)? Only myopic evangelicals and
Orthodox Jews insist that there could not have been any eroticism between them because they would not have
violated God's commands. Yet, David's life is replete with willful disobedience in other areas, so why not here as
well, assuming that they had the same view towards Leviticus as contemporary evangelicals do. Rather, if we see
that male-to-male non-ritualistic eroticism could be considered apart from the Levitical Code, David's and
Jonathan's possible sexual liaisons become possible and understandable. It is not out of the realm of the possible that
David was as we might say today ‘bisexual’ and Jonathan was a card-carrying, certifiable homosexual. This would
then take nothing away from David's later escapades with Bathsheba and others. One may read the same words of
description of David and Jonathan's love for each other and find in them a love story between two men who were
capable of fulfilling that love in every way. Only blind adherence to a traditional view refuses to admit of the

3
possibility. Were David and Jonathan romantic lovers? Saul called his son Jonathan a “son of a bitch” (1 Sam 20:30)
because of his love for David, told David, when speaking of his pending marriage to Saul's daughter Michal “Now
you have a SECOND opportunity to become my son-in-law.” (1 Sam 18:21b)...of course, David was NOT married
to any other of Saul's daughters, and in 1 Sam 20:41b, the Hebrew seems to indicate that something “intense”
happened between the two of them. The language does NOT rule out an orgasm.

“Malakoi and Arsenokoitai”

The remainder of the Biblical record revolves around the Apostle Paul and his thoughts and
pronouncements. I will first deal with 1 Corinthians/l Timothy and the Book of Jude, and then deal with the first
chapter of Romans.

The cultural environment of the Greek world of the 1st Century, as far as homosexual behavior was
concerned dealt with two major areas. First, there was the refined temple prostitution activity. Only now, it had
taken on a significant self-mutilation aspect that made it particular detestable. In the course of ritual worship, temple
prostitutes, male and female, would have sexual intercourse with worshipers during drunken orgiastic excesses,
often including self-emasculation. The Temple of Diana at Ephesus was notorious for such practices, and Paul, first
as a Pharisee of the Pharisees and then as the Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ to the gentile world, would have been
utterly appalled at such spectacles. Paul spent some considerable time in Ephesus and Corinth, also a center of
Grecian temple worship, including the aforementioned prostitution. Secondly, Hellenistic society practiced the
institution of male mentorship of an older established man to a younger protégé. This often included anal intercourse
by the older upon the younger, usually until the young boy reached puberty. It was not unheard of for the
relationship to continue beyond puberty, but this did not receive wide social approval. In fact, many of the leaders of
Athens wrote extensively against the practice, out of a sense of the betrayal of the younger man's right to progress
into a proper manhood. This practice was called “paiderastes,” from which we get the word identifying anal
intercourse, “pederasty,” losing to some degree the identification with children, except in the term, “pederast” or
“pedophile.”

Paul would have certainly known of the “paiderastes” and would no doubt not have approved, in view of
the problems with adult/child power inequities. But he failed to mention this in any of his letters. What he did
mention, on two occasions, was “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai,” which were enigmatic for the Church for the first
400 years. “Malakoi,” meaning soft, in fabric or morality, is not as clear in meaning in the vice lists Paul includes in
his letters to the Corinthian Church or to his star pupil, Timothy. There has been much speculation as to his exact
meaning, but there is no positive evidence to indicate his meaning beyond this speculation. He could have meant the
morally lax or the sexually impure, but anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's.

“Arsenokoitai” poses a slightly different problem. It is a compound word, composed of the roots “arsen,”
man or male, and “koitai,” beds, usually the marriage bed, from which the English word “coitus” is derived. Since
there existed a better descriptive word, “paiderastes” to describe more general homosexual behavior, Paul must
have had something else in mind. In view of his attitudes toward the ritualistic practices in the temples, including the
prostitution, this could have been what he had in mind, there being no specific word in existence to describe it. An
alternative may be indicated by the fact that the compound word itself is in the plural form. It may mean nothing
more complex than “male sexual beds” and be Paul's coining of a word signifying promiscuous heterosexual males.

There is another clue which we might take some comfort in. We have seen that in Leviticus 18:22 and
20:13, the possibility exists that what these passages actually refer to is the cultic ritual sex practiced in Canaanitic
idolatry, not homosexual behavior as we understand it today. In the LXX (Septuagint), the Greek translation of the
Tanakh, there is a form of “arsenokoitai” (ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην/arsenos ou koimethese koiten)
employed in Leviticus 18:22. Though not a certainty, there may be a common thread between the references to “men
lying with men” and the “sacred ritual prostitutes”. Since we have already seen that the “Qadesh” was a sacred
ritual prostitute, “Arsenokoitai”, as used by Paul could very well have been meant to convey this meaning to Greek-
speaking Jews. We cannot know for certain, but what “arsenokoitai” most definitely doesn't mean is “homosexuals”
which many modern English Bible translations make it mean. This is not some hopeless, wild-eyed attempt at
Scripture-twisting to suit the homosexually committed justify their Biblical approval, or at the least, non-

4
condemnation. It is rather an honest attempt to understand the “clear” intent and meaning of Biblical passages in
light of the culture and environment of the 1st Century.

It is interesting to note that Paul further admonishes that “so were some of you.” Since in another part he
plainly states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, the “some” is not meant to be exclusionary of
others. Rather, Paul is indicating that the unregenerate will not inherit the kingdom, and he gives examples. The
malakoi and arsenokoitai were placed in the same category as thieves, the greedy or covetous, drunkards, slanderers
or revilers and swindlers. Since Paul was a precise writer, does it stand to reason that he would strain at the gnat of a
rather insignificant portion of the population, the homosexuals, and ignore the much more populous heterosexually
promiscuous?

In the 7th verse of the general letter of Jude, the writer says “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities
about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh (sarx heteras), are
set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” What exactly is “strange flesh”? Is it men going
after men, as the traditionalists would have us believe? Or is it that the “sodomites” (sic) were attempting to attack
and rape the “angels disguised as men” that were the nonhuman “flesh” of their interest. I think the answer should be
obvious, and only rank homophobia insists on the former interpretation.

Against Nature

Next, we come to Paul's letter to the Roman Churches. It is considered to be the best and most concise
compendium of Christian theology ever done by one man and published in one work. And as such, Paul goes to
great lengths to lay out the ground work for his system of theology. Naturally, just as John does when he describes
Jesus Christ as the Word Incarnate, Paul begins by describing the state of humankind, from the creation to the
incarnation. Paul's Bible was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint, which contained the
Apocrypha. He, being a trained Pharisee in the law and Scriptures, would have been very familiar with the Book of
the Wisdom of Solomon, especially the 13th and 14th chapters which have close parallels to the 1st chapter of
Romans. Keeping in mind that Paul is not far away from the consciousness of the real world he resides in, his basic
understanding of the human condition is one of idolatry, and all human moral activity revolves around the worship
of the gods. Paul is not writing about human beings, in their rebellion and wickedness, willfully and voluntarily
converting themselves from heterosexuals into homosexuals; rather, he is talking about idolatrous ritual worship
practices in the temples of the civilized world he knows only too well. He is most certainly not condemning an
innate homosexual orientation that he could not have conceived. He probably would not have approved of
“paiderastes,” but we do not have his thoughts on the subject. We don't know what he would have thought about
homosexuality as it is understood by most of the medical and psychological practitioners of today, other than those
who are also evangelicals and wear permanent blinders.

Paul discourses at some length about those who “change” the natural usage of sex into something low,
degrading and detestable. Most clear thinking believers who take the time to understand the dynamics of a
homosexual orientation know that there is an important distinction between “orientation” and “behavior”. The
hidebound traditionalists do not see a distinction, lumping the behavior along with the orientation, and classify it all
under the heading “choice.” Of course, when a homosexual “acts” in a homosexual way, it is a matter of choice.
Everyone chooses to be sexually active, except the victims of rape, incest or child sexual abuse. However, when a
gay man or Lesbian desires to be sexually active with their partner, it is because they love their mate and wish to be
intimate with them. They are as driven to “making love” as heterosexuals are with their spouses. Being attracted to
another human is not a matter of choice. Attraction is a reaction to a stimulus, not a choice to select from a Chinese
menu.

I am forced by the preponderance of evidence, to conclude that the various passages traditionally used by
Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and other traditionalists to damn and vilify homosexuals are in fact the biblical
“inspired” writers’ recording of God’s displeasure with human attempts at worship of false gods. From the earliest
moments of Israel’s history, God instructed that they were to “have no other gods before Me” (Deut. 5:7) God is a
jealous God and this theme runs throughout the Bible as one of primacy in God’s concern for the relationship
between Him and His creation. Yehoshua (in Greek, Iesous) thought it so important that when He recast the Mosaic

5
Law into two precepts, He emphasized the love of Yahweh as primary, and the love of one’s neighbor as one’s self
equally important. Yehoshua did not seem to feel that there was any other specific “sin” that required specific
citation, but idolatry was condemned as a major disobedience. Therefore, because of His emphasis on two, and only
two, commandments, all sin must be understood as disobedience of one or the other.

Jesus on “Homosexuality”

A popular tract among gay and Lesbian Christians is titled “What Jesus had to say about homosexuality.”
Inside the tract, it is devoid of anything. The intention is to show that the Savior said absolutely nothing about the
matter. I believe, on the contrary, that Jesus spoke volumes about gay people. The problem for fundamentalists is
that it was all positive.

As recorded in the eighth chapter of Matthew, Jesus is called upon to go to the aid of a Roman Centurion of
faith. The Centurion tells Jesus that his “servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.” (Matt. 8:5-6 NIV).
Normally, the Greek word for servant used in the New Testament is “doulos” and is quite clearly meaning slave or
indentured servant. In this instance, the word used is “pais,” which means beloved boy. Not son, which would be
“uios.” There are some scholars who believe that the person being described as the Centurion's “pais” is in fact his
young, male lover. Again, the evangelical/fundamentalist mind recoils at such a suggestion, because Jesus would
never condone a homosexual relationship, certainly not by healing an illness probably brought on by detestable
homosexual behavior. No, this is nothing more than a faithful Roman officer who has a sick attendant or something
like that, who Jesus heals. That is all, they would say. We on the other hand hold out the possibility that this
Centurion, full of faith in Jesus, is asking for ministry for his beloved, as any lover would do. And Jesus, who never
uttered one word against homosexuals or homosexuality in any clearly identifiable way, healed the boy and blessed
the Centurion. This is as it should be and great hope can be derived from the telling.

In Luke 10:30 - 37, the following story is told. “Jesus replied and said, ‘A man was going down from
Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half
dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who
was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his
wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of
him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and
whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ Which of these three do you think proved to be a
neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.” Now Samaritans were the descendants of the Israelites who were
returned from captivity in Babylon. Over the years, they had developed a form of Judaism which diverged from the
Temple Jews in Jerusalem. They even had their own holy sites, including Mt. Shechem. The “orthodox” Jews, under
the Sadducees and Pharisees, were more than antagonistic towards them. The “fundamentalists” of Judaism
considered the Samaritans as worse than infidels, for they should have known the truth, but rejected it for their
“own” understanding. And so, Samaritans were reviled, despised, ridiculed, denigrated and hated. Just like our own
latter day Samaritans, homosexuals. Lepers were also in the despised class, and gay people with AIDS are now
Samaritans with leprosy. Jesus taught by His own example how all people should be treated…with love,
compassion, tolerance and respect. In Matthew 5:22, Jesus says “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with
his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing, (KJV: Raca)’
shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery
hell.” (NASB) Some scholars are of the opinion that “raca” was the Aramaic equivalent of “faggot”. Even if that is
a mistaken belief, it is not mistaken that Jesus was definitely not approving of name-calling, especially the outcast
and oppressed. Any Christian who resorts to vilification is in danger of punishment, and I wouldn’t want to learn
what that punishment was.

The Bottom Line

Finally, there is the small matter of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, Son of the Most High God and the Perfect,
unblemished Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world. He came, not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill the

6
Law. But what does that mean? Are we above the Law? As Paul said, “Absolutely not!” (Rom. 6:15 7:7) Rather, he
said that we would not have known what sin was except for the Law as it pointed the way. But it could never
produce righteousness or salvation. It took the atoning sacrifice of the Lamb to provide for salvation. We are
absolved from the penalty for transgressing the Law, which we cannot help doing. The Law leads to only one
destiny: death. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law by taking our place in death as the penalty for sin. Each and every one
of us, man and woman, black and white, Jew and Gentile, gay and straight, fail to hit the mark of God's perfect
standard (“hamartia”), even willfully missing the mark! God doesn't demand perfection of us prior to our becoming
His adopted children. He only insists that we “metanoia”…change our minds about continuing a life of willful
disobedience. Jesus' righteousness covers us. Our lives are records of our path to perfection, as God purifies us for
His presence through trials and testings. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me.” (John 14:6, NIV) Paul told us how to achieve it when he wrote, “That if you confess
with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.”
(Rom. 10:9,10, NIV)

Evangelical Christians spend so much time and energy trying to find ways how to exclude people from the
“koinonia” (fellowship) of the Church, yet Jesus ate and fellowshipped with outcasts and sinners: lepers, tax
collectors, prostitutes and (yeech!) Samaritans! He even had kind words to say for eunuchs made that way from birth
(as stated above, eunuchs were more than men without testicles, but men unsuitable for marriage and/or fathering
children). Will the Church ever pull its head out of the traditional sands of ignorance? I fear, with the wagon train
mentality of “us v. them,” the answer is not favorable. I plead for tolerance and openness, for understanding and an
end to hatred. And some are even daring to practice true agape love, bereft of the hatred and fear that comes from an
inability to divorce “hating the sin” from the sinner. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of gay men and women
are rushing into an eternity without the knowledge of the Savior. They will pay the ultimate price for unbelief, but
can the Church avoid censure and sanction for their willful disobedience? I submit that the answer is in the negative.

Note: This is by no means an exhaustive study of the Biblical record regarding the so-called “clear”
condemnation of homosexuality. Many others have written about specific Bible passages or issues at greater length
and depth. I have sought to present the arguments in as concise and complete format for the average, nonscholarly
reader.