John S. Feinberg & Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World, ch. 8 (Crossway Books 1993)185-205.


Homosexuals have come out of the closet. Though many are still uneasy about going public, there are equally as many or more who are not embarrassed about their sexual preference. They tell us that homosexuality is gay, an alternative sexual orientation, a genetically inherited characteristic, and even compatible with the teaching of Scripture.

It is difficult to estimate accurately how many adults are homosexuals, since that depends a great deal on how one defines homosexuality. John Money of Johns Hopkins University, a well-known sex researcher, defined a homosexual as one who had six or more sexual experiences with members of the same sex. Using this as the definition, he found that 13 percent of adult males were gay and about 7 percent of adult females were lesbians.1

A more recent study published in 1989 using data gathered from adult men in the U.S. in 1970 and 1989 suggests lower estimates. Charles F. Turner, a co-author of the study, said that the estimates made about homosexuals were the most conservative possible, since they took the lowest possible numbers that could be drawn from the data. There was also a lack of information from which one might establish the true number, which could be higher. Some of the estimates were as follows. At least 20.3 percent of American males had had a same-gender sex experience by the age of twenty-one, and 6.7 percent had that encounter by the age of twenty. The study further suggests that after the age of twenty, perhaps as few as 1.8 percent rarely had a sexual encounter with the same sex, 1.9 percent occasionally, and 1.4 percent fairly often.2

It is clear that homosexual men have traditionally been quite active sexually. In 1982 a study of fifty AIDS victims done by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta discovered that the median number of lifetime sexual partners for these men was 1,100, some claiming as many as twenty thousand. The median number for a control group without the disease was 550. This study's findings are consistent with those of a 1978 survey of 685 gay men living in San Francisco. Psychologist Alan P. Bell and sociologist Martin S. Weinberg of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research headed a study that showed that 15 percent of these men reported sex with between five hundred and one thousand partners, while more than 25 percent claimed more than a thousand partners. Lesbians showed a relatively lower rate of sexual activity. Better than 70 percent reported fewer than nine lifetime partners, 3 percent claimed to have had more than a hundred, and none more than five hundred.3 There is no question that AIDS has reduced promiscuity, but how much is not yet determined.


Homosexuals have long claimed they are different not just in their behavior but constitutionally. That is, they feel their sexual orientation is not a matter of choice or even formed through interaction with their social environment, but something they were born with.4 Recently, there have been two studies that seem to confirm that claim, one by Swaab and Hofman5 and another by Simon LeVay.6 While both studies dealt with the hypothalamus of homosexual men, they were somewhat different. The Swaab and Hofman research studied the volume of the suprachiasmatic nucleus (hereafter referred to as SCN) in homosexual men. The SCN is a cell group located in the basal part of the brains of mammalians. It has been thought to be a principal component of the biological clock that generates and coordinates hormonal, physiological and behavioral body rhythms. Thus, it has been thought to have involvement in sex because of the varying body rhythms in sexual desire as well as the sexual changes that come with aging. The study observed the brains of thirty-four subjects. There was a reference group of eighteen male subjects who died of a variety of causes. There was a second group of ten homosexual men who died of AIDS and a third group of six heterosexuals who died of AIDS. This last group consisted of four males and two females.7 The conclusion of this study is that ". . . the human hypothalamus revealed that the volume of the . . . SCN in homosexual men is 1.7 times as large as that of the reference group of male subjects and contains 2.1 times as many cells."8

Simon LeVay examined the anterior hypothalamus in the area that regulates male-type sexual behavior. Four cell groups, called INAH 1, 2, 3, 4, were studied. Postmortem tissue was measured from three subject groups: women, men presumed to be heterosexual, and homosexual men.9 LeVay found there were no differences in the volumes of INAH 1, 2 or 4. The INAH 3, however, was more than twice as large in heterosexual men as in women and homosexual men. Thus, LeVay concluded that there is a significant difference in the hypothalamus of heterosexual and homosexual men. He does caution that his results should be considered speculative. Moreover, the results of his study do not allow one to decide if the changes in the hypothalamus are the cause or consequences of an individual's sexual orientation.10

The caution expressed by LeVay was not exhibited by all. Many have concluded there is a genetic reason for homosexuality, Of course, this claim is extremely important to homosexuals for at least two reasons. First, if homosexuality is something innate or constitutional, then homosexuals are no more responsible for their sexual orientation than for eye color or height. Attempts to get homosexuals to change their sexual orientation will also be useless. Second, this claim has political ramifications. If there is a biological basis for homosexuality, then there will be pressure to grant them minority-rights status. This is a special civil rights status that would protect them from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.11

We must be cautious about what we conclude from these studies. It is wrong to conclude from these and other studies that no generic factors go into the homosexual's sexual orientation. On the other hand, it also concludes too much to think that these and similar studies show that homosexuality is constitutional and beyond change. Let us set forth our views on these studies and the broader issue of the biological basis for homosexuality.

First, LeVay's study seems more significant than Swaab and Hofman's. Both study the hypothalamus, a gland that is important both hormonally and sexually. However, LeVay's research dealt with an area that is directly related to sexual response.12 Having said that, we would not simply dismiss the Swaab/Hofman research, for it constitutes some collaborating evidence.

Second, in both studies an important group of subjects was very small. The Swaab/Hofman study was based on thirty-four subjects, while LeVay examined forty-one patients. Of the thirty-four subjects in the Swaab/Hofman research, only ten were homosexuals.13 There were nineteen homosexuals in LeVay's study.14 Thus, the two studies examined the brains of only twenty-nine homosexual men. This is hardly the kind of sample from which to make global pronouncements.

Third, in both studies an important group of subjects were presumed to be heterosexual. In the Swaab/Hofman research there was a reference group of eighteen subjects. As to their sexual orientation, Swaab and Hofman write: "Sexual preference of the subjects of the reference group was generally not known."15 In LeVay's study, he called the second group of subjects "men who were presumed to be heterosexual."16 Thus, in both studies the hypothalamus of homosexuals was compared with subjects from groups presumed to be heterosexual. Obviously, that could be wrong, and if it is, any conclusions from these studies become extremely dubious.

Fourth, it is not clear that the differences observed in the hypothalamus are not due to some factor other than the sexual orientation of these men. All homosexual males studied in both sets of research had AIDS. Could the differences in hypothalamus be the results of that disease rather than the cause of sexual orientation? Indeed, it could. Furthermore, it is possible that the observed differences in the hypothalamus result from some as yet unknown cause or causes.17

Fifth, even if it could be shown with certainty that the size of the hypothalamus and homosexuality are related, that would not settle the question as to whether size of the gland was the cause of the sexual orientation or a consequence of it. In other words, it would not tell us whether there is simply a correlation between hypothalamus size and homosexuality or a causal relationship.18

Finally, there is the need for more study in order to confirm the conclusions of the two mentioned. Research of sexual dimorphism, which both of these studies are, has a history of controversy and contradiction. The structures on the slides are difficult to see. Researchers disagree as to whether the most reliable way to determine size of the hypothalamus is volume measurement or actual cell count. Swaab and Hofman used both, LeVay only the volume measurement. And there is always the disturbing possibility that observed differences are influenced by factors not observed or tested for.19 Thus, we. suggest that it goes far beyond the scientific evidence we presently possess to conclude that homosexuality is constitutional and cannot be changed.20


If homosexuality is not simply a genetic or constitutional condition, what are its causes?21 That is a difficult and hotly debated question, even among those who do not appeal to Scripture for help on this matter. Some have suggested that homosexuality is traceable to an imbalance in sex hormones. G. Dorner's research on rats indicated that hormonal irregularities during the fourth to the seventh month of prenatal development might predispose them toward homosexuality. Male homosexuality, however, has been treated with the injection of male hormones with very limited success.22 Lack of success, however, may be related to the fact that the treatment is after the fact. It has also been pointed out that while sex hormones are needed for the physiological development of sex organs, psychological factors determine the choice of a sex partner and the intensity of sexual pleasure.23 Moreover, Dorner's studies have not been confirmed by those of other scientists.24

There is some evidence that family pathology at least contributes to homosexuality.25 About 67 percent of male homosexuals come from a home where the mother is a domineering man-hater and the father is weak, detached and often uninvolved in the family. However, it seems clear that this family structure is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for homosexuality. Thus, Evelyn Hooker is most likely correct. Homosexuality is the result of a variety of causes, none of which decisively determines sexual preference. There may be some biological factors which either predispose or contribute to homosexuality, and the home environment is also a significant factor. Still, in cases where all of these elements are present, one will not necessarily become a homosexual.26


Christians have been among the most ardent opponents of homosexuality, because they believe it is contrary to the explicit teaching of the Bible. One might think gays would not really care what the Bible says about their lifestyle, because they do not view Scripture as their authority, and think it is wrong on this matter anyway. However, there are many homosexuals who not only care about scriptural teaching, but think it does not condemn their practice.27 As Walter Barnett writes: "Some theologians and a number of Gay Christians, working from a growing understanding of the biblical texts, have come to the conclusion that the Bible does not exclude homosexual people from the Christian fellowship. . . ."28 John J. McNeill's opinion is more extreme as he cites favorably what he calls the opinion of scholars that "nowhere in the Scripture is there a clear condemnation of a loving sexual relationship between two gay persons."29

Can these claims be right when at least six passages of Scripture (Gen 19:1-11; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-10) appear to condemn the practice of homosexuality? In what follows we shall set forth recent homosexual interpretations of these texts and evaluate these interpretations to see if the traditional understanding of the biblical teaching on this subject has been in error.

GENESIS 19:1-11

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah has traditionally been taken to be homosexuality. In fact, another name for homosexuality is "sodomy." The grossness of this sin was thought to be seen in the character of the judgment that God brought on these cities.

The traditional interpretation of this passage has been challenged in at least two ways by homosexuals. First, some have argued that if the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, was sexual, it was not simply homosexuality but homosexual rape.30 Lot’s pleas to the townspeople were not to rape the visitors (gang rape at that). If this is so, then condemning homosexuality because of homosexual rape is no more justified than condemning heterosexuality because of instances of heterosexual rape. Anyway, the sinfulness of any rape lies not in the fact that it is homosexual or heterosexual in character, but in the fact that it victimizes a nonconsenting partner.31

While it is true that the men of Sodom desired to rape the angelic visitors to their city, this interpretation is certainly wrong. Nowhere does the text even slightly hint that what the men of Sodom wanted to do would be permissible if only Lot's guests had consented. Moreover, this interpretation does not account for the fact that that God's judgment fell upon two entire cities. Was homosexual rape a common practice and thus brought the judgment of God? It could have been, but such is not stated in the text. What is more damaging is that God's judgment on homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah is quite in harmony with his prohibition and denunciation of this sin in other Scriptures properly interpreted. It is not as though this is the only time homosexuality is denounced and judged.

A second interpretation of Genesis 19 is even bolder, for it claims the passage is not about homosexuality at all.32 Rather, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah related to a gross violation of the hospitality code. Sodom and Gomorrah were exceedingly wicked cities. God determined to find out the truth about their reputation, so he sent two angels to investigate. They came to the city one evening and were met at the gate by Lot who invited them to his home for hospitality. Before the visitors retired for the night, the inhabitants of the city demanded to meet and get acquainted with the visitors. This demand to meet the angelic visitors grew out of Lot's serious breach of hospitality rules. Lot was a resident alien. a sojourner. In return for the protection and toleration of the city, he had certain obligations, some of which pertained to visitors. This incident arose in regard to those obligations. Lot, either ignorantly or intentionally, exceeded the rights of an alien resident in receiving and entertaining two "foreigners." The visitors might have hostile intentions, so it was not unreasonable to require that their credentials be examined. The visitors should have been received first by the Sodomites. Moreover, the men of Sodom's suspicion of these visitors may have been heightened because Lot does not seem to have been a man of pleasing character, for Genesis says that though he was a sojourner, he acted as a judge among them.33

This interpretation is supported by three lines of argument. First, the Hebrew word yada' is found 943 times in the OT. It is used only ten times without qualification (excluding this text and its derivative, Judg 19:22) to refer to sexual relations, and always of heterosexual relations. Had homosexual relations been in view, then the Hebrew word shakab would be expected. Shakab is used some fifty times in the OT for sexual intercourse, relations between men and women, men and men, and even humans and animals. Thus, yada' must be taken in its common meaning of "to know" or "to get acquainted with." The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were simply interested in getting to know the angelic visitors.34

The offer of Lot's daughters is understood in two quite different ways. Some think there is no sexual overtone to it. Lot's daughters are offered to the men of the city simply as the most convenient bribe to get them to be hospitable in their actions.35 Others are less convinced about the nonsexual nature of the verb "to know" when used of Lot's daughter. However, in their opinion this does not prevent the hospitality interpretation of Sodom's sin.36

The hospitality breach interpretation is also supported by the way the biblical texts refer to Sodom and Gomorrah. That is, it is argued, the interpretation of Sodom's sin as homosexuality is not supported by intrabiblical exegesis. Examine Isa 1:10, Jer 23:14, Ezek 16:48, 49, Matt 10:14, 15 and Luke 10:10-12. These passages use Sodom and Gomorrah as symbols of utter destruction, and their sin is said to be so great that it deserves exemplary punishment. These passages, however, make no mention of sexual sin. They either mention the arrogance of the cities or their lack of hospitality.37

Finally, proponents of this interpretation say the understanding of Genesis 19 as referring to homosexuality arose in the intertestamental period primarily as the result of the books of Jubilees and Josephus.38 There are even some who try to connect this story with other ancient myths about hospitality.39 2 Peter and Jude are a reflection of this apocryphal attitude.

Careful examination of this interpretation leaves us unconvinced. For one thing, we disagree that yada' simply means "to know" or "to get acquainted with." Statistics alone can never determine the meaning of a word, but even here statistics suggest something other than what Bailey claims. Of the fifty or so uses of yada' in Genesis, five uncontestedly are sexual in nature (Gen 4:1, 17, 25; 24:16; 38:26).40 In addition, there are two other passages in Genesis where sexual connotation is contested (Gen 19:5 and 19:8, the passage about Lot and Sodom). Bailey says there are only ten uncontested uses of yada' with a sexual meaning in the whole OT (if Gen 19:5, 8 are added, that would make twelve instances of sexual connotation). Now, even if we rule out the two verses in Genesis 19, that still means that half of the ten sexual uses in the whole OT appear in Genesis. That seems rather overwhelming evidence that Moses did use the term with sexual connotation, and it seems clear that the way the writer in question (Moses) uses the term is more significant than the way other writers (the rest of the OT) use it. Moreover, both sides in this debate agree that Judg 19:22 is a clear parallel use of the verb and that no sense but the sexual sense makes sense there.41

Despite these considerations, statistics alone can never determine the meaning of a word in a specific passage. Context must decide which meaning of several is to be preferred. The sexual understanding of yada' in Gen 19:5 is supported by its use in the immediate context of the Sodom story (v. 8). In verse 8 the same verb has to mean "to have sexual relations with," for it makes no sense to say Lot's daughters were not acquainted with any men. If nothing else, they knew Lot, and he was surely a man! Even Bailey's claim that Lot's offer of his daughters was just the most attractive bribe available does not avoid the sexual use of the verb. He was offering his daughters for sexual use to the men of the city. The verb in verse 8 clearly has a sexual meaning, and it is very unlikely that the same verb in a single narrative (19:1-11) should have two different meanings without some indication in the text, particularly when the uses of the verb occur so close together.42 Finally, if all the men of Sodom wanted was to investigate the visitors' credentials, Lot's offer of daughters for sexual pleasure makes no sense. Why did not Lot just introduce his guests and demonstrate their good intentions?

As to the way other Scriptures refer to Sodom and Gomorrah, it is true that not every reference to them condemns their sexual sins. But neither do those texts exclude homosexuality as at least part of the cause of divine judgment. The two cities were exceedingly wicked, and their utter destruction is graphic evidence of that. Even those who defend a non-sexual interpretation of the text recognize that Sodom was so wicked that she was destroyed for many reasons.43 Furthermore, the sins mentioned in the texts cited are quite in keeping with the kinds of sins Romans 1 describes, of which sexual sins are only a part.44

We are also unconvinced by Mollenkott and Scanzoni's suggestion that the men of Sodom were not constitutional homosexuals but bisexuals. That is why Lot offered his daughters to them, and their bisexuality is why they were judged .45 In response, we note that the text says all the men of Sodom wanted to have homosexual relations with the angels. Though we doubt there is such a person as a constitutional homosexual, if there is, there should have been some among all the men of Sodom. Hence, to say the judgment fell on them because they were all bisexuals is highly unlikely. What Scripture portrays instead is a culture that was so desirous of pleasure that it rejected any sexual restraints.46

In addition, those who believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture will be unpersuaded by the attempt to deny the genuineness of the 2 Peter and Jude passages. Jude gives a striking commentary on the sin of Sodom. It is called "going after strange or different flesh" (sarkos heteras), which is a way of describing unnatural sex acts. Jude uses the verb porneuo with the preposition ek, which means they gave themselves up to sexual immorality completely and utterly! This is an extremely strong statement.47 These kinds of sin make the complete destruction of the two cities understandable. We realize that arrogance and inhospitality are terrible sins, but they cannot explain the judgment of God in the destruction of two entire cities.

Finally, we reject the breach of hospitality interpretation because it seems unjust. If the problem at Sodom was that the hospitality code was broken, it was Lot who broke it, not the inhabitants of Sodom. But then, Lot should have been the one judged. Instead, Lot and his family are the only ones who escape while Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed. That is clearly unjust!

For all these reasons, we find this interpretation of Genesis 19 unacceptable. It is a novel interpretation, but not one that squares with the text or with other passages of Scripture that condemn homosexuality.

LEVITICUS 18:22 AND 20:13

The next major statement in the OT about homosexuality is found in the Holiness Code, Lev 18:22 and 20:13. This Code contains God's demands for ordering the life of his covenant people, Israel. This order had as its goal the setting apart of Israel from the immoral and idolatrous practices of her neighbors so that she might be acceptable to worship the true and living God (cf. Lev 18:3). In this Code are what appear to be two definite and direct prohibitions against homosexual acts. Lev 18:22 stands amidst legislation against all impermissible and unnatural sexual relationships. Lev 20:13 restates 18:22, and adds the death penalty for the practice. Both call the homosexual act an abomination (to'ebah in Hebrew). These commands expand the Seventh Commandment. Their purpose is not exhaustive regulation of sexual activity, but prohibition of the grossest offenses.48

Homosexuals have advanced a number of explanations for these texts. These explanations are sometimes offered by themselves and sometimes in combination. We present the most common ones.

D. S. Bailey thinks the prohibitions against homosexuality in the OT simply reflect the attitudes of the peoples of Canaan and Egypt. However, he thinks there is very little available. information about these nations' attitudes, most likely because homosexuality was not as common among them as often thought. Most likely the Egyptians regarded homosexual practices with a degree of contempt, but such practices were not common among them.

Bailey thinks the Assyrian and Babylonian views on the matter are no clearer. While the Code of Hammurabi seems to show that homosexuality was practiced in Assyria, no extant portion of the Code expressly mentions that fact, and in Bailey's judgment, nothing can be construed as implying a reference to it. Two Middle Assyrian Laws which go back to the fifteenth century B.C. make homosexual acts indictable. If convicted, the man's penalty was castration and submission to the very act he had performed on others. There is no indication, however, how common such practices were.

The Hittites whose culture is now thought to have had significant influence on the Hebrews, have a reference that calls homosexuality an abomination. However, it is Bailey's view that we are not able to tell from this the attitude of the people to such practices or how common they were. This leads him to conclude that it goes beyond the evidence to suppose that the homosexual practices of Israel's neighbors endangered her morals.49 He says: "We can only judge from these two laws that the Hebrew attitude to homosexual practices differed but little from that of the Egyptians and Assyrians . . . ."50

Bailey's views do not reflect the majority opinion on this issue and seem quite clearly to be false. The compelling reason is that homosexual practices were often associated with the rites of pagan religion, a topic to which now turn.51

A second understanding of the Holiness Code laws says homosexuality is condemned not because it is inherently wrong, but because it was practiced in the OT world in connection with idolatrous, pagan rites. This view is expressed by almost every pro-homosexual writer. Homosexuality, it is argued, is associated in the Jewish mind with idolatry, as can be seen in a passage such as Deut 23:17. This grows out of the fact that Israel's neighbors practiced fertility rites in their temple worship. God was understood as sexual, so worship included overt sexual acts. It is in this context that whenever homosexual acts are mentioned in the OT, the writer has in mind the use that male worshipers made of male prostitutes.

Support for this position is found in the word "abomination" (to'ebah) which, on this view, does not signify something that is inherently evil such as rape or theft, but something that is ritually unclean like the eating of pork or engaging in sexual intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in this context. Temple prostitution is called an abomination and is condemned in 1 Kgs 16:3, while prostitution in general is called "wickedness" (zimmah) and is prohibited in Lev 19:29. Sometimes the word "abomination" refers to an idol, as in Isa 44:19, Jer 16:18 and Ezek 7:20. Specifically, it is claimed that Leviticus 18 has the purpose of distinguishing Israel from her pagan neighbors (18:3), and the prohibition of homosexuality follows directly after the condemnation of idolatrous sexuality (18:21). The same is true of chapter 20, which begins with a prohibition of sexual practice in connection with idolatry.52

Unquestionably, pagan religious rites included sexual activities among which was male homosexuality. Participation in the idolatrous worship of the pagans was certainly forbidden and punished by God. His people Israel were not to be like their neighbors. However, that does not end the matter. Nothing in Leviticus explicitly states why the prohibited practices are condemned. The Leviticus texts just naturally assume the practices are condemned because they are inherently wrong, not because they were part of the idolatrous worship of the Egyptians and Canaanites. In the Leviticus Code incest, adultery, child sacrifice, bestiality; spiritism and the cursing of one's parents are all prohibited. Only one act condemned in the Code has cultic or symbolic significance—child sacrifice, and it is condemned whether associated with religious worship or not. Child sacrifice was practiced in pagan religious rites, but it was wrong on two counts—in itself and because of its association with idolatry. As a matter of fact, that the surrounding nations practiced both child sacrifice and the other prohibited acts only serves to confirm the corruption of these cultures in the mind of the Israelite.53 Moreover, homosexuality is condemned in the context of adultery, bestiality, and incest. Clearly, those practices were not prohibited simply because of their association with idolatry or Egyptian and Canaanite cultures.

A third handling of the Leviticus Holiness Code claims that the Mosaic Law or at least parts of it are irrelevant for the Christian today. In its most extreme form, this view argues that the Mosaic Law has no relevance for us today. All of it reflects folk ways of an ancient culture. We live in the enlightened twentieth century. Others say that since Christ is the end of the law for the Christian (Rom 10:4), even the Ten Commandments are no longer binding (2 Cor 3:7-11). The Law has been superseded (Heb 7:11).

A weaker version of this position is used far more commonly. It distinguishes between the moral and ceremonial elements within the law. The former are still binding, but the latter have ended. Just as we need not feel obligated to follow the prohibitions in the law against eating rabbit (Lev 11:26), oysters, clams, shrimp and lobster (Lev 11:10ff.) or rare steaks (Lev 17:10), there is no need to adhere to prohibitions against homosexuality, since they, too, are a part of the ceremonial element of the law and so are not binding today.54

This position in some forms contains an element of truth, but as argued in our chapter on moral decision-making, OT law does not become irrelevant even for those holding a discontinuity position on the relation of the testaments. In fact, we believe this is a classic example of a case where the OT prohibition is clearly relevant, since the NT repeats the same command.

As to the matter of the ceremonial versus the moral elements of the law, we can again agree that there are differences. The problem is that the distinction is irrelevant to the question of homosexuality. While there are ceremonial elements in the law that we may safely disregard today, most Christians as well as Jews have always recognized that there are commands within the law that are of continuing ethical significance. Exodus 20-40 and Leviticus contain much of that material. Even Boswell admits that these prohibitions are in chapters that seem to stem from moral absolutes, not ceremonial concerns.55

A fourth approach to these texts claims that the prohibitions against homosexuality are related to male dignity and the sacred character of the semen or "seed" of life. The Hebrews, like other ancient peoples, had no accurate knowledge of the biology of conception. They did not know that women produce eggs which in turn are fertilized by male sperm. They thought the seed for new life comes solely from the man. It was "sowed" in a woman and grew into a new being in the same way that a plant sprouts and grows when sown in the ground. Moreover, they did not know that matings between certain species were infertile. Thus, men ought not to sow their seed where it would be unproductive (as would happen in homosexual relations) or in animals where it might result in "confusion" as in a centaur. This ignorance also explains why women are prohibited from receiving seed from an animal, but are free to do among themselves what they please. That is, the OT does not prohibit lesbianism.56

Moreover, in the patriarchal society of the Hebrews the position of the male was inviolable. It was not uncommon for the victors in war to rape conquered kings or soldiers as a mark of utter contempt and submission. In a male-dominated society it is not unreasonable to think that homosexuality could be associated with effeminacy. At least one of the partners in male homosexual acts had to assume the position normally taken by a woman.57 All of these things, then, would undermine the status and dignity of the male. Therefore, it is not that homosexuality is morally wrong in itself, but that it is prohibited because of an ignorance about conception and a desire to maintain the dominance of the male in a patriarchal society.

This proposal is as unsatisfactory as the preceding. The texts give no indication that these are the reasons for the prohibition, so the view is purely speculative at best. Moreover, we cannot be sure that ancient peoples were as ignorant as suggested. Certainly, they did not know what we know today, but one can fairly question whether they were totally ignorant of the biology of conception. Finally, this argument totally ignores the inspiration of the Scriptures and the divine source of these commands. These commands are not the result of human speculation and superstition, but are from God and are inscripturated in the Bible.

ROMANS 1:26-27

When we turn to the NT, we find that it too condemns homosexuality. A passage that immediately comes to mind is Rom 1:26-27, as it seems to be the strongest condemnation of such actions. Rom 1:26 deals with lesbianism (homosexual relationships between women), while 1:27 treats male homosexuality. This is the only text in Scripture that mentions female homosexuality. This passage teaches that homosexual practices are evidences of God's judgment on those who reject his revelation.

As we might expect, this interpretation of Paul's teaching has been challenged. A variety of alternative interpretations have been suggested. An initial one says homosexuality per se is not condemned, but only such acts in connection with idolatry.58 Paul knew of the pagan rites associated with Roman religion, and he took this opportunity to warn the Romans against them. That these verses are found in the context of condemning superstitious beliefs adds credence to this view. Moreover, this theory has possible echoes of OT attitudes on this matter, so it is argued.

Much of what has already been said about the connection of homosexual practice with idolatry applies here. As a matter of fact, it is even rejected by the pro-homosexual writer Boswell for the following reasons. He thinks the temple rites of the Romans included heterosexual as well as homosexual practices. Thus, if Paul was referring to such rites, there is no reason to think he would not have condemned both. It is also clear that the sexual practices themselves are objectionable, not simply their associations. More importantly, Paul is not condemning dispassionate acts done in the worship of a god, but those that grow out of lust or passions.59

By far the most common reinterpretation of the passage is that Paul is condemning unnatural homosexual actions. This view was first argued by Bailey,60 but has been accepted widely by others.61 The argument is sometimes called the "abuse argument" and is as follows.62 Paul is condemning certain homosexual acts, not homosexuality, or the homosexual, or the responsible practice of homosexual behavior. Whether he knew it or not, we now know that some people constitutionally prefer members of the same sex. They experience no attraction to members of the opposite sex. Therefore, we must distinguish between the invert and the pervert, between inversion and perversion. Perverts are not genuinely homosexual. They engage in homosexual practices although they are heterosexuals, or they commit heterosexual acts though homosexuals. Inverts, on the other hand, are constitutionally gay. Their sexual orientation is the inverse of heterosexuals, and for them, engaging in homosexual acts is normal. In Romans 1 Paul condemns perversion, not inversion.

Support for this view is adduced from Paul's claim that those he discusses changed or left the natural use of their sexuality for that which was unnatural or against nature. Thus, Paul only condemns homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons.63 This, so it is claimed, is in keeping with the point of Romans 1, which has as its purpose the stigmatization of those who reject their calling.

For those who reject this view and appeal to Paul's claim that homosexuality goes "against nature," Barnett disagrees. He says that "against nature" is difficult to interpret, but it must mean a variation from what is usual or normal. The homosexual is not desirous that everyone should be like him or her in sexual preference. Homosexuality is a variation from what is normal, i.e., heterosexuality. It is not, however, a sin or disorder. Nature is full of variations from its overall design. Some people are midgets, others are albinos, still others are left-handed. These, like homosexuals, are and always will be minority variations from the majority. These differences are not unique to our culture and time. They have always existed and will continue to do so. They evidence neither sin nor the fallen condition of humanity, but merely the lack of uniformity in nature. Rather than condemn them, he argues, we should affirm them and rejoice that they exist.64

Despite these claims, careful exegesis of the text does not support this view. As already argued, there is no proof that there is a constitutional homosexual for whom homosexual acts follow from a genetic condition, but this interpretation clearly requires that. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that even if such a condition exists, Paul knew of it and refers to it here. Even Boswell admits this,65 but then, why conclude Paul is teaching what this interpretation asserts?

Furthermore, it is most unlikely that when Paul says they gave up the natural use of their sexuality and did that which was against nature (para phusin), he is referring to homosexual acts by heterosexuals or heterosexual acts by homosexuals, acts that would be against their natural inclinations. Nor is it likely that Paul asserts, as Barnett claims, that some people are just different from the norm, but there is no penalty for such variation. Instead, these verses teach that homosexual acts are against the order of sexuality established in nature (an order clearly revealed in Genesis 1 and 2)66 and are an evidence that God has judicially given over those who practice these acts to their own lusts.67

Barnett's final judgment is that even if Paul does condemn homosexuality per se, he is simply stating his own opinions. At other places in Paul's writings, he offers his opinions about marriage, bodily pleasure, the status of women, slavery, and civil authority. Since all of these are his views, not God's, we are free to reject them.68 However, Paul never claims that these words about homosexuality are his private opinions, and the OT passages already discussed show they are God's views as well.69

A third main line of interpretation of this passage claims that it does not condemn homosexuality per se, but only homosexual acts growing out of lust which is a wrong motive. Paul's comment in 1:27 that they burned in their lust for one another is the key to understanding what he condemns. Lust is wrong. Any sexual activity produced by lust is immoral, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. The only moral sexual activity is that which grows out of love and devotion. Therefore, if homosexual acts are motivated by a sense of love, devotion and commitment, they are part of God's design for human sexuality.70

The problem with this interpretation is twofold. First, in view of what we noted about how many partners male homosexuals typically have, promiscuity seems to be a usual part of male homosexuality. And it is highly dubious that those who are sexually promiscuous with hundreds of partners (as the figures show) act out of love, devotion and commitment to all of them! Second, the text does not say lustful homosexual acts are condemned by God. It says that because of homosexual acts God has given them over to this lust for one another. The lustful desire is a consequence of their sinful homosexual acts.

A final approach to Rom 1:26-27 says that it really condemns false righteousness, not homosexuality. Hence, Paul's mention of homosexuality in Romans 1 is quite incidental to the real object of his attack—false religion (Romans 2). His real concern is those Jews who thought they were keeping the law and were thereby righteous. In Romans 1 he simply adopts a common catalog of vices from extrabiblical sources without endorsing its judgments in order to portray the sins of the Gentiles.71 But this list is incidental to his main attack on the religious complacency of pharisaism.

On the contrary, however, this interpretation overlooks the fact that the argument of Romans 1 and 2 leads to a ringing condemnation of both Gentiles and Jews in chapter 3 that takes quite seriously the sins of both Gentiles and Jews.72 Moreover, if Paul's actual attack is on Jewish self-righteousness, Romans 1 adds nothing to that topic. What function does it serve in the book?

From this analysis of alternate interpretations, we conclude that the traditional understanding of the passage is correct. Homosexuality and lesbianism are condemned. Moreover, Paul states very clearly that homosexuality is God's judgment (v. 26), a judgment that punishes those who reject the truth of God's revelation about .himself (vv. 25-26). In essence, Paul is saying that homosexuals are made, not born!


These two passages from Paul complete our study of the major biblical texts on this subject. We group 1 Cor 6:9-11 and 1 Tim 1:8-10 together because they both contain vice lists which include a similar word that bears on our present discussion. In 1 Cor 6:9-11 Paul talks about who will inherit the kingdom of God. He gives a list of vices and says that anyone who persists in these sins will not inherit the kingdom of God. In 1 Tim 1:8-10 the law is the subject, and Paul says it is good if used wisely. It is not for the righteous man but for the ungodly and sinners. He then describes in a vice list sins that the ungodly and sinners commit.

In the 1 Corinthians passage Paul includes in his list the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. The 1 Timothy list also includes arsenokoitai. These Greek words have been translated variously in English versions of the Bible. The KJV renders them "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind." The NASB retains "effeminate" but prefers "homosexual" for the second word, while the NIV uses "male prostitute" and "homosexual offender." As we shall see, there is some uncertainty about the precise meaning of the these Greek terms. But the majority opinion has been that the first term refers to the passive partner in a homosexual relationship and the second to the active member.73

The first response to these verses by pro-homosexual interpreters is that these actions are not singled out in these lists as being especially wicked, and if we were to take vice lists seriously, no one would enter into the kingdom of God, since we are all covetous.74 Interpretations of this sort are really unsatisfactory. To say that a sin in a long list does not draw special condemnation does not mean Scripture approves the action. A vice list is still a vice list. Moreover, there is a failure to make a biblical distinction between a repentant sinner who seeks with God's help to be free of some sin but who may at some time fail and an unrepentant sinner who follows a planned and uninterrupted course of disobedience. The vice lists refer to the latter, not the former. There is grace and forgiveness for the former, but not for the latter.75

A more serious objection to the majority opinion on these texts stresses that the meaning of the two Greek words is uncertain and concludes that it is unwise, therefore, to use them in a blanket condemnation of homosexuality and homosexuals. There are some typical arguments offered in support of this approach.76 Proponents claim there is no Greek word that perfectly corresponds to the English word "homosexual." Most likely this is because homosexuals in ancient Greek culture were married and therefore bisexual. There are, however, a number of Greek terms that refer to people who engage in homosexual intercourse: paiderastia, pallakos, kinaidos, arrenomanes and paidophthoros. Thus, if Paul wanted to refer to these people, he most likely would have used one of these words. Instead, he used two terms whose precise meaning is a matter of debate. The word malakoi is the plural of a root that means "soft" (see, e.g., Matt 11:8; Luke 7:25). In moral contexts it is used of those who are loose, weak or lacking in self-control. Moreover, l Cor 6:9-11 and 1 Tim 1:8-10 are never used by patristic Greek writers as a reason for condemning homosexuals or homosexual behavior. On the contrary, they are used of generally dissolute behavior and occasionally of specific sexual acts such as masturbation.

The meaning of arsenokoitai is even more uncertain. It is a compound of koite, which means "those who engage in sexual intercourse," and arsen, which means "male" or "masculine." Thus, it may mean that the male is the subject or object of the intercourse. If he is the subject, then the word refers to male prostitutes. If the object, it means those who have had sexual intercourse with males. For this reason many modern lexicons understand the term to refer to those who are the active partners in anal intercourse with males. Yet if either of these meanings is correct, it is surprising, so it is argued, that early Greek fathers such as John Chrysostom did not interpret the 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy passages as referring to homosexual behavior.

In evaluating this position it is only fair to note that there is some difference of opinion about the meaning of these terms, but their meaning is not nearly as unclear as pro-homosexual writers want us to believe. In classical Greek, malakos is used of boys and men who allow themselves to be used homosexually and of those who play the part of the passive partner in homosexual intercourse.77 In Roman Antiquities, written about 7 B.C. by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Aristodemus of Cumae is called malakos because he had been "effeminate" (theludrias) as a child, having undergone things associated with women.78 Thus, while there is some ambiguity about malakos, there is evidence in supporting the view that it refers to the passive partner in homosexual intercourse. Moreover, this view is further supported by its use with arsenokoites, a term for the active member in such acts. Aristotle in Problems has a lengthy discussion on the origins of homosexual passivity, and he uses the word malakos.79

The second of these terms, arsenokoites, is used by Paul in both 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10.80 Boswell claims it has only tangential relationship to homosexuality.81 His point seems to be that it is found in a list of sexual sins, sexual immorality (pornos), adultery (which is referred to in the passage by referring to adulterers, moichoi), and effeminacy (malakos). However, rather than strengthening Boswell's position, his point seems to weaken it. Arsenokoites is related to sexual sin. It is among sexual sins in Paul's list, and as Ukleja says, "It could have easily become a euphemism for homosexuality."82 Further, Boswell's case is weakened by the fact that both malakos and arsenokoites follow pornos in Paul's vice lists. Pornos is a general term for sexual sin and is often, as in the texts under consideration, followed by specific examples.83 Finally, much of Boswell's evidence for his views on these terms is based upon post-first century A.D. usage, but what we need to know is how the terms were used when Paul wrote, not several centuries later.84

In summing up our discussion of biblical teaching on homosexuality, we note that Scripture does not say a lot about homosexuality. Possibly this is because it was not widespread in Jewish culture. However, we cannot escape the clear conviction that when Scripture does speak of it, it prohibits and condemns it. Thus, we must conclude that pro-homosexual writers seem to escape the text's meaning, not explain it.


One cannot conclude a discussion of homosexuality in our day without saying something about AIDS. This is not to suggest that only homosexuals have AIDS, because others do as well. We discuss it, instead, because the vast majority of those suffering from this disease in the Western World are homosexuals.


AIDS stands for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. It is a relatively new disease. It was first recognized in 1981 when an unusual form of pneumonia due to a protozoan parasite killed five young men.85 They all lived in Los Angeles and were all homosexual. In that same year a number of young gay men died of an extremely rare form of cancer (Kaposi's sarcoma). In all of these cases, during the final phases of these diseases these men exhibited a profound impairment of their immune defense systems. Since they had been healthy most of their lives, it was reasonable to think that they were immunologically normal until the terminal disease. Thus, it appeared that their condition was "acquired," and that it was secondary to something else."86

By examining these and other cases, it was discovered that this condition involves a lack of certain lymphocytes or white blood cells called T4 lymphocytes. These white blood cells are helper and regulatory cells necessary to mounting proper immune responses. Lacking these cells, a number of diseases, called "opportunistic," would attack the body, ultimately killing the person.87 By the middle of 1985, twelve thousand cases of the disease had been diagnosed in the U.S. alone. In 1991, ten years after discovery, AIDS had killed 126,159 Americans, and 196,000 in the U.S. were known to have the disease. It was estimated as well that 1.5 million are infected, though exact figures are not easy to come by.88

We now know that AIDS is a secondary condition to the HIV virus. Moreover, the stages through which those infected pass are also fairly well known. The final stage or two stages (as some specialists count them) are AIDS. Upon infection with the HIV virus there may be a fever and rash, but they may be so slight as to go unnoticed. About four weeks later the person becomes infectious. Tests for detecting the virus are not effective until the twelfth week, and some infected may not discover their condition until three years have passed. During this time the victim may unwittingly infect many others. The period from onset of infection until full-blown AIDS may be as short as two years or as long as fifteen. Once one has AIDS, it is fatal in one to four years. At present there is no known cure for AIDS, though some drugs such as AZT slow its onset as well as its progress.


It is now believed that AIDS is only passed through intimate contact with someone who is infected. The two most common ways this happens are sexual intercourse and the mingling of one's blood with that of an HIV positive person. Semen and blood are two very effective vehicles for transmitting the virus. The two most common means of mingling one's blood with that of an HIV positive person are by sharing needles when using drugs and by passing the virus from infected pregnant mothers to their babies. Before the precise nature of AIDS was known, the blood supplies of the U.S. and a number of Western nations were contaminated with the virus. As a result, it is estimated that about 70 percent of all hemophiliacs are now infected, and many (such as the recently deceased Arthur Ashe) who had major surgery requiring blood transfusions are infected as well. Today it is very unlikely that AIDS would be passed through the blood supply in the West. However, that is not so in many Third World countries, particularly in Africa.

At times some have feared infection from mosquito bites or the saliva, sweat or tears of someone who has the disease. None of these has been shown to be very effective vehicles for transmitting the disease.

However, while there are various ways of becoming infected with the HIV virus, quite clearly the most common is through homosexual intercourse. It is estimated that 70 percent of those suffering from the HIV virus are practicing homosexuals. The reasons are not certain, but the most likely is that the membranes in the anal passage are not designed for sexual intercourse. Thus, when this type of sexual contact takes place, there is the greater probability that membranes will tear. The combination of bleeding and semen are a very hospitable environment for the virus and its transmission.


Before answering this question, we believe one must distinguish between three questions. First, are AIDS victims responsible and thus blameworthy for their disease? Second, is AIDS the judgment of God? And, third, should we show compassion to those who have AIDS? These questions must be distinguished, because some think that if the answer to either of the first two questions is yes, there is no room for compassion. Not uncommonly, they try to avoid assigning any responsibility for their condition to those who are infected.

We think this is misguided. Even if one is responsible for becoming infected with AIDS, and even if AIDS is God's judgment, the appropriate Christian response is still compassion. In fact, these might be the best reasons for compassion. God himself does not delight in sending judgment. Just as parents on occasion must punish children for their actions and yet genuinely grieve that they must punish them, so it is with God. We make this point because however one answers the first two questions, we are truly sorry for those who have this disease. It is hard to know what they experience, but we do sympathize with them as much as is humanly possible.

But is AIDS the judgment of God?89 The answer is more complex than it may initially seem. The answer depends on exactly what one means by the question. One may mean, is AIDS God's judgment for some personal, immoral acts that each person infected with the virus has done? If so, then everyone with the disease would be blameworthy because of what they did. If this is what the question means, then the answer is surely no. Many with AIDS did nothing blameworthy. We would not add, for example, to the burden already borne by those infected in their mother's womb or by those who received contaminated blood through a transfusion by saying they did something to warrant the disease. They are total victims of this disease.

There is a second way this question can be understood—is God judging innocent people by allowing them to receive the HIV virus? If that is what is meant, that appears to contradict God's justice. For persons to be judged, it seems that they must he responsible or blameworthy for their action. If God dispenses judgment indiscriminately, how are we to understand his justice and goodness? Some try to protect God against such claims by positing a God with limited power and (possibly) wisdom. He is doing the best he can, but evil comes to good people anyway. There is a certain attractiveness to this view, but in the end the problems it creates and the fact that it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture make it untenable.

What seems a better response begins by noting that while some AIDS victims are guilty of no direct action for which the disease is the just penalty, they do live in a fallen, sinful world. As a result of sin, Scripture teaches that there is death (Rom 5:12). And if there is death, there must be diseases that cause death. Scripture also teaches that we all sinned in Adam, and thus we all are responsible for what has befallen our world (Rom 5:12-21). In this sense, no one can claim complete innocence for the presence of AIDS or any other disease in the world.

Some may still question how it is fair for those who committed no specific act that brings AIDS to get it anyway. Moreover, even granting our corporate guilt in Adam, many have received God's forgiveness for sin by accepting Christ. Why should AIDS fall even on such as these? Here we respond that sin not only has eternal consequences but temporal ones as well. While God guarantees that repented sin will correct our standing before him and assures us of eternal life with him, God does not guarantee freedom from all earthly consequences of sin. All of us are sinners, and that sin seldom affects only the sinner. Hence, in war innocent people die. In a divorce the innocent suffer. In the AIDS epidemic people innocent of immoral acts, even people who know Christ as savior, can get the disease. Sin is a serious matter. Even when repented and forgiven, its social consequences can victimize us and others as well.90

We still must face the most common form of the question—is AIDS God's judgment on those who are guilty of committing homosexual acts? We think it is. This does not make many people happy, but it seems a proper conclusion from scriptural teaching. Scripture clearly shows that homosexual behavior is sinful. And since AIDS is transmitted through homosexual acts, it is hard to escape the conclusion that AIDS is recompense for that sin. To say anything else would give false hope to those who get AIDS as a result of these acts. This, of course, does not mean that everyone who practices homosexual behavior will get AIDS, but only that those who get it from such behavior, get it as God's judgment. That some homosexuals do not get AIDS neither disproves it to be God's judgment nor shows God to be unjust to those who do get it. Rather, it demonstrates his mercy and grace to those who escape.

Having said these things, we must remember several points as we reflect on this matter. First, this is a moral universe. We are not free to do whatever we want without any consequences. We break God's commands at our own risk. Some seem to think God is obligated to make us happy at any cost. That is simply not so. As Carson puts it, God is more concerned about our holiness than our health.91 God loves us so much that he is willing to go to any extreme to make us the kind of people we should be, people who can go to live eternally with him. Second, we should not fail to see God's grace even in his judgment. As noted, many who are guilty of this sin do not get the HIV virus. Many others have been infected only after repeated instances of disobedience. God has been patient, hoping that the sinner would repent. Even when infected, God's presence is promised to those who desire it and repent. God can bless the afflicted even amidst the affliction. Moreover, Christ's death paid for the eternal consequences of this sin, so there is forgiveness. Finally, God's judgment on homosexuality is quite in keeping with his judgment on all sin. We may be tempted to single out homosexuality because of a distaste for the sin and the enormity of AIDS, but we should not forget that God's judgment rests on all forms of wickedness. That should drive all of us to our knees in repentance, asking for forgiveness for our own sins.


1. Tom and Nancy Biracree, Almanac of the American People (New York: Facts on File, 1988), pp. 180-182.

2. Robert E. Fay, Charles F. Turner, Albert D. Klassen, and John H. Gagnon, "Prevalence and Patterns of Same-Gender Sexual Contact Among Men," Science 243 (January 20, 1989): 338-348. See also the Chicago Sun Times, January 20, 1989. Here we would add that a further complicating factor in determining how many homosexuals there are is the distinction between having homosexual tendencies and acting on those tendencies. It is likely that there are people who have those feelings at one time or another but have never engaged in homosexual activities. Do the feelings make them homosexuals, does acting on those tendencies make them homosexuals, or what?

3. Nikki Meredith, "The Gay Dilemma," Physch T (January 1984): 56-57.

4. Maria Barinaga, "Is Homosexuality Biological?" Science 253 (August 1991): 956.

5. D. F. Swaab and M. A. Hofman, "An Enlarged Suprachiasmatic Nucleus in Homosexual Men," Br Res 537 (1990): 141-148.

6. Simon LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 235 (August 30, 1991): 1034-1037.

7. Swaab and Hofman, pp. 141, 143.

8. Ibid., p. 141.

9. LeVay, p. 1034.

10. Ibid., pp. 1035-1036.

11. Cal Thomas, "Sexual Preference Is Not Determined by Genetic Factors," DH, September 6, 1991.

12. Barinaga, p. 957.

13. Swaab and Hofman, p. 143.

14. LeVay, p. 1035.

15. Swaab and Hofman, p. 141.

16. LeVay, p. 1035.

17. Barinaga, pp. 956-957; LeVay, p. 1036.

18. Barinaga, p. 956.

19. Ibid., pp. 956-957.

20. Cf. G. Timothy Johnson, "Studies Link Homosexuality to Genetics," Chi Trib, November 8, 1985.

21. For a rather thorough discussion of this matter from a Christian perspective, see the works of Elizabeth R. Moberly: Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1983); Psychogenesis: The Early Development of Gender Identity (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983); and The Psychology of Self and Other (London: Tavistock,1985).

22. Garfield Tourney, "Hormones and Homosexuality," in Judd Marmot, ed., Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal (New York: Basic Books), p. 42.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid., p. 55.

25. Those who support the learned behavior thesis include Klaus Bockmuhl, "Homosexuality in Biblical Perspective," ChrT 17 (February 16, 1973): 13ff.; Kenneth O. Gangel, The Gospel and the Gay (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1978), pp. 125-135; and William P. Wilson, "Biology, Psychology and Homosexuality," in What You Should Know About Homosexuality, ed. Charles W. Keysor (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,1979), pp. 147-167.

26. Evelyn Hooker, "Sexual Behavior: Homosexuality," International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. David L. Sills (New York: Macmillan, 1968), 14: 224.

27. For recent discussions of the biblical materials that go beyond the direct references that follow, see Fred Craddock, "How Does the New Testament Deal With the Issue of Homosexuality?" Encount 40 (19691: 197-208; David Field, The Homosexual Way—A Christian Option (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1979); Michael Green, David Holloway and David Watson, The Church and Homosexuality (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1980); Roger Moss, Christians and Homosexuality (Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1977); Kent Philpott, The Gay Theology (Plainfield, NJ: Logos, 1977); John White, Eros Defiled (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1978); and Malcolm Macourt, ed., Towards a Theology of Gay Liberation (London: SCM Press, 1977).

28. Walter Barnett, "Homosexuality and the Bible," in Pendle Hill Pamphlets (Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill Publications, 1979), p. 3.

29. John J. McNeill, "Homosexuality: Challenging the Church to Grow," Chr Cent (March 11, 1987): 246.

30. Barnett, p. 8.

31. Ibid.

32. This view has been defended by a whole host of writers. Barnett, pp. 7-10; D. Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1975), pp.l-28; John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), pp. 91-100; James B. Nelson, "Homosexuality and the Church," SLJT 22 (June 1979): 199; McNeill, pp. 244-245; John McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual (Kansas City: Sheed, Andrews, and McNeel, 1976), pp. 42-50; Harry A. Woggon, "A Biblical and Historical Study of Homosexuality," J Rel Health 20 (Summer 1981): 158-159.

33. Bailey, p. 4.

34. Ibid., pp. 2-5.

35. Ibid., p. 6.

36. See Barnett, p. 8ff.; Boswell, p. 94; and McNeill, The Church, pp. 47, 48.

37. Bailey, pp. 9,10; Barnett, p. 9; Boswell, pp. 94-95; McNeill, The Church, pp. 46-47.

38. Bailey, pp. 10-28; Barnett, p. 9; Boswell, p. 94; McNeill, The Church, pp. 46-47.

39. Bailey, p. 7 relates this to such legends as that of Philemon and Baucis; Barnett, p. 9 finds antecedents in rabbinical literature; Boswell, p. 96 associates this with the legend that Zeus is the protector of visitors; McNeill, The Church, pp. 8-49 relates this to the Yahwist tradition. See also S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (London: Methuen, 1906), p. 203, note 1; and T. K. Cheyne, "Sodom and Gomorrah," in Encyclopedia Biblica (New York: Macmillan, 1914), IV: 4670-4671.

40. P. Michael Ukleja, "Homosexuality and the Old Testament," Bib Sac 140 (July-September 1983):261.

41. See Bailey, p. 2; Barnett, p. 8; Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, in Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1963), p.137; or Ukleja, p. 261.

42. Paul D. Feinberg, "Homosexuality and the Bible," FuJo 4 {March 1985}: 17-18.

43. Ibid., p. 18.

44. Richard Lovelace, Homosexuality and the Church (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1979), pp. 100-101.

45. Virginia Mollenkott and Letha Scanzoni, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Another View (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 55-59.

46. Lovelace, p. 101.

47. Ukleja, p. 262.

48. Ibid., pp. 262-263.

49. Bailey, pp. 29-37.

50. Ibid., p. 37.

For an opinion that is unrelated to the question of the morality of the practice, see John Bright, A History of Israel, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), p. 118 and 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), p. 239.

52. Boswell, pp. 100-102; Barnett, p. 12. Here we note, however, that in Leviticus 18 the prohibitions against idolatrous sexuality and homosexuality are juxtaposed in vv. 21 and 22, whereas in chapter 20 the prohibitions are substantially separated from one another (vv. 1-5 as opposed to v. 13). Therefore, while it might be reasonable to think that in chapter 18 the two practices are being joined together (i.e., homosexuality in ritual worship is what is condemned), it is much harder to draw that conclusion in chapter 20.

53. Lovelace, pp. 88-89.

54. Mollenkott and Scanzoni, pp. 60-61.

55. Boswell, pp. 100-101.

56. Barnett, pp. 12-13 is a clear example of this kind of argument.

57. Ibid., p. 13.

58. McNeill, The Church, pp. 42, 54ff.; Boswell, p. 108.

59. Boswell, p. 108.

60. Bailey, pp. 40-41.

61. See Boswell, p. 108ff. and McNeill, The Church, p. 54ff. as examples of important advocates of pro-homosexual interpretations of Scripture who follow this line.

62. P. Michael Ukleja, "Homosexuality in the NT," Bib Sac 140 (October-December 1983): 352-353.

63. See Bailey, pp. 40-41; Barnett, pp. 21-26; Boswell, p. 109ff.; McNeill, The Church, pp. 54-56.

64. Barnett, pp. 21-22.

65. Boswell, p. 109. For a critique of Boswell's views, see Richard B. Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1," J Relig Ethics 14 (Spring 1986): 184-215.

66. We find it significant that those favoring homosexuality seldom discuss Genesis 1 and 2. However, those chapters recount God's creation of man as male and female, not male and male or female and female. God then explicitly tells Adam and Eve that they are to reproduce. Does this not clearly imply that God's desired order for human sexuality is that men and women will have sexual relations with one another, not with members of the same sex? We think so. Some may object that God created man as male and female only because that was the only way to propagate the race; other than reproduction, homosexual and lesbian relationships are fine. However, this overlooks two very important facts. First, Adam named the animals, but none of them was suitable as a helpmate for him. God then created the appropriate mate for Adam, and it was not another man, but a woman (lien 2:18-25). The suitable mate (not only sexually but emotionally, etc.) for man is woman, not man. Second, for those who think God had to create a man and woman because no other way would allow the race to multiply, this is not so. The same God who created Adam from the dust of the ground could have produced the rest of the race by special creation, and the rest of that race could have been male only. God created woman not because there was no other way to produce the race, but because woman is the proper helpmate for man.

67. Ukleja, "Homosexuality in the NT," p. 355 and Lovelace, pp. 92-93.

68. Barnett, pp.17-21.

69. We also note that Barnett's views misunderstand the significance of the divine inspiration of Scripture. Even if Paul says the views originate with him, the fact of inspiration entails that so long as Scripture includes them and does not reject them, they express not only the human author's views, but God's as well.

70. Barnett, pp. 26-27. See also Boswell, p. 108 and Lovelace, pp. 94-95.

71. Lovelace, pp. 95-96.

72. Ibid, p. 96.

73. Ukleja, "Homosexuality in the NT," pp. 350-352.

74. Mollenkott and Scanzoni, p. 70; David L. Tiede, "Will Idolaters, Sodomizers, or the Greedy Inherit the Kingdom of God?" Word & World 10 (Spring 1990): 147-169.

75. Lovelace, pp. 96-97.

76. See Barnett, pp. 14-15; Boswell, pp. 106-107; McNeill, The Church, pp. 50-53.

77. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), s.v. "malakos," pp. 489-490.

78. Dionysius, Roman Antiquities 8.2.4. See also Ukleja, "Homosexuality in the NT," p. 351.

79. Aristotle, Problems 4.26. See also Ukleja, "Homosexuality in the NT," p. 351.

80. See David F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes?: The Meaning of Arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10)," VigChr 38 {1984): 125-153; William L. Peterson, "Can Arsenokoitai Be Translated by 'Homosexual?' (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10)," VigChr 40 (1986): 187-191; David F. Wright, "Translating Arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10)," VigChr 41 (1.987): 396-398.

81. Boswell, pp. 341-342.

82. Ukleja, "Homosexuality in the NT," p. 352.

83. Don Williams, The Bond That Breaks: Will Homosexuality Split the Church? (Los Angeles: BIM, 1978), p. 83. See also D. J. Atkinson, Homosexuals in the Christian Fellowship (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 91; Peter Zaas, "1 Corinthians 6:9ff: Was Homosexuality Condoned in the Corinthian Church?" SBL Seminar Papers, Vol. 2, ed. Paul J. Achtemeier (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 206-210; Harold J. Greenlee, "The New Testament and Homosexuality," in What You Should Know About Homosexuality, ed. Charles W. Keysor, pp. 97-106; David Field, The Homosexual Way—A Christian Option? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979), p. 16.

84. Williams, p. 84.

85, Centers for Disease Control, "Pneumocystis Pneumonia-Los Angeles," Morb Mort W Rep 30 (1981): 250-252.

86. Mathilde Krim, "AIDS: The Challenge to Science and Medicine," Hast Center Rep 15 (August 1985): 3.

87. Ibid.

88. Kathleen McCleary, "Sex, Morals and AIDS," USA Weekend (December 27-29, 1991): 5.

89. See D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?: Reflections on Suffering & Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990), pp. 58-264.

90. For example, the adulterer can trust Christ and be forgiven, but that does nor mean his relationship with his wife will automatically be repaired. She may still find it hard to trust him. And if through his adulterous relationship he contracted a sexually transmitted disease, his repentance of sin will not guarantee healing from the disease. Earthly consequences of sin can continue long after our relationship with God is repaired!

91. Carson, p. 263.