I first became interested in the issues of homosexuality in the early 1950′s when I was a graduate student at New York University centered in Greenwich Village in New York. It was in that particular area I came in contact with every conceivable kind of deviation from the norm, shall we say, and particularly there was a tremendous amount of homosexuality apparent out in the open, and even flaunted at that particular time.
Today [circa 1980], of course, we have gay lobbies, legislation being proposed for the benefit of the gay community; we have gay public relation departments, we have the phrase, “Gays of the World Unite,” and we have about us, on every side, the media quite obviously trying, or attempting, to give the gays—or the homosexuals—a fair shake. I don’t think you can honestly evaluate the problem and look squarely at it from the perspective of Biblical theology without being provoked in your thought processes and in your spiritual nature.
The 17th chapter of the Book of the Acts, the Apostle Paul in Athens, was provoked by the evil he saw about him. In that case it happened to be idolatry in which the whole city was given over to the worship of idols. Now had the Apostle not been provoked in his spirit and become angry, spiritually, at the evil—not the people—but the evil they were practicing and which held them in bondage, he would never have had an opportunity to go to the Areopagus, which was the court that heard public speakers and licensed them to talk in Athens.
And had he never debated in the marketplace, and made it a basic issue for everyday communication, he would never have had the opportunity to preach his message on Mars Hill. So what got him to Mars Hill and out [into] the marketplace where people could listen to him on the higher echelons of learning, and to penetrate and to permeate all other levels—as a result—was the fact that within himself he was provoked at the presence of evil.
And I think the Christian Church has to be provoked, always, at the presence of evil. The great sin of the church today, and there are a number, is that we are apathetic, lethargic—happy to go along with the tide—and courageous when it doesn’t cost us something. And because of that, today we have a whole community of individuals for whom Jesus Christ died—the gay community—and they’re not being ministered to, they’re not being penetrated, they’re not being successfully evangelized.
And because the church will not move forward, [it] has become essentially impotent in the area because it doesn’t want to “get involved.” Evangelical Christianity has drawn back from the conflict, liberal Christianity has plunged into it; not with the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the soul, but attempting to find some rationale for the permission of the acts—which of course is and scholastic, theological, and historical madness.
Now there are people who say, “Well, there are convincing arguments put forward by homosexuals who are good theologians.” There is no good theological theologian; and the reason why there isn’t any good homosexual theologian is, to adopt the position, you must vitiate Biblical revelation. And this is something nobody wants to face. I am vigorously opposed to the prostitution of Holy Scripture in defense of what God has considered one of the most vile of all acts.
Now that’s just plain Biblical revelation that has to be faced. And someone will say, “Well, that’s a very hard line.” It’s mitigated by God’s attitude toward Sodom and Gomorrah before He destroyed [them]. Let us no forget that before the Lord rained fire and sulfur on Sodom that He first was willing to spare the city. That He first loved enough—despite the evil—to say, “Find 50, find 10, find 5, who were justified and I’ll spare it.”
It was not an arbitrary, capricious, annihilation of a city; it was the result of cosmic judgment because love was rejected, judgment ensues. Now, there are those who take a very hard line on homosexuality; and when they take too hard a line, they forget that the homosexual is a victim of sin. What is sin? It is defined for us as transgression of the Law; and all unrighteousness is sin. Now if we accept that, the next question which must follow logically is: What saith the Law?
For if sin is unrighteousness, and all unrighteousness is sin—and sin is described in the context of the Law—you would automatically have to go to the Law to find out what it was. That’s if you know anything about exegesis and Biblical hermeneutics, you’d have to do it. And immediately when you go to the Torah you find God saying, “Cursed is any man that lies with a man as with woman.” I don’t even think that needs interpretation.
I don’t think it needs blackboard diagram; or any amount of sophisticated logical presentation a fortiori. I think you can be a fifth-grader and understand that if God says “cursed” is something He takes an extremely dim view of it. I think that’s a rational approach. So the homosexual theologians who are attempting today to defend homosexuality on the basis of Biblical theology are in the same position as the Sadducees, to whom Jesus addressed this remark: “You do err. Not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God.”
That’s exactly where they are. They are trying to put Christianity and homosexuality in the same bed; and you’re not gonna do it because Jesus Christ very forcibly condemned it. And you say, “Where in the New Testament did Jesus ever mention homosexuality?” Open your Bibles and find out; because contrary to what the gay church says, He not only spoke against it—He went out of His way to make it very clear [so] nobody’d misunderstand Him.
Of course, you do have to study your Greek New Testament to come up with it. Most homosexual theologians, so-called, that I have talked to don’t even know the Greek alphabet, much less their Greek exegesis so they miss it completely—but it’s here in the passage and it should be looked at. Matthew, chapter 15, Christ is speaking, verse 19, “For out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts, murders,” notice the differentiation, “adulteries, fornications,” plural, “thefts, false witness, blasphemies.”
“These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” “The word homosexual is not there; what are you arguing about?” I’m arguing about the use of the word porneus, which was found written over the wall, and the doorway, and the arches, in excavations [by] archaeologists of Roman brothels. And the word porneus did not mean “sex before marriage” alone.
It meant homosexuality, bestiality, and all forms of degraded sex. And it became well known to everybody in the culture, if any of them ever did their homework, that porneus referred to anything goes. Jesus well knew the Roman brothels. He well knew the culture of His time; and when He said adulteries and fornications—plural—He was making a direct reference to the practices of the Romans and the Greeks and the pagans of the time who prostituted themselves to all forms of evil.
He knew it; He condemned it. It’s not just the matter of the word, it’s a matter of the culture; and Jesus certainly understood the culture of His time—if He didn’t, nobody did. And therefore, when He used the word fornications, He obviously was making reference to all forms—all forms, inclusive forms—of that which was the deviation from the norm of Jewish law.
And the reason I can say that with such dogmatism is because He was a rabbi. And if a rabbi didn’t know Jewish law on the subject of homosexuality, nobody on earth knew it. Jesus was a rabbi; a master of the Law. In fact, He was the only person that could ever say to a man on the Sabbath day, “Take up your bed and go home.” And when He was questioned on it He responded in John, chapter 5, that He could loose the Law of the Sabbath any time He wanted to for the Son of Man was Yahveh of the Sabbath.
Which meant He could do whatever He wanted with His Own Law because it was His. I do think that we have forgotten the fact that universe belongs to Somebody else; that this creation was ordained by Somebody Who had a specific plan in mind. He did not make Adam 1 and Adam 2. He made Adam and Eve. Now if He wanted to have the “gift” of homosexuality bestowed upon His creation, I feel He would have bent over backwards to explain to us that homosexual love was perfectly acceptable, as was heterosexual love.
And we would have had more partners in the Garden; but we don’t have more partners in the Garden, because what the Creator designed as natural, He says is natural. Not us, He says it’s natural. Now our homosexual revisionist theologians say that [homosexuality] is a gift from God. No, it’s a gift from Satan; because it is sin, and is a transgression of what God says, not obedience.
Who is the first transgressor; the liar and the murderer from the beginning. Who first broke the Law? Satan. Who first disrupted the natural order of heaven; which was the love of God and fellowship with Him. Satan. Who penetrated creation and destroyed… Satan. Who penetrated the Garden and led [Adam and Eve] astray; “You will not die, you will become gods.” Satan.
Who has always deviated from the norm of divine revelation? Satan. And who today is trying to put Christ and homosexuality together? Satan. And it’s against this that the church must stand. There is a basic theological issue that must not be debated; it just simply must be affirmed. Jesus condemned all unnatural sexual practices. And that definition would come under the Law, which He Himself gave.
It was Christ Who gave Moses the Law on Sinai. If you don’t know that, you don’t even know the rudiments of Biblical theology; because in the 3rd chapter of Exodus, the Voice that spoke from the burning bush said, “AhYah Asher AhYah, I Am That I Am.” And Jesus Christ, to the Jews in John chapter 8—verse 58 said, “AhYah; I Am the eternal God.” The minute He said that, they reach for rocks.
They didn’t need any diagrams, they knew Who He said He was… Now I think, therefore, the bedrock position must be established; theologically, there is no room for homosexuality inthe revelation of God. There isn’t room, really, for it to be debated seriously. It simply has to faced for what it is; the practice is condemned by a divine curse.