In the embrace of homosexuality there is the attempt to strip off the imago dei by the Lesbian or sodomite in question. Sexuality is so closely tied up with the Image of God in men and women that when one defiles and reverses their sexuality they at the same time are seeking to rip the image of God out of themselves.
The reason this can be advanced is that male and female together comprise the image of God.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
When a man or a woman seek to strip themselves of their God ordained sexuality they are therefore seeking to undress themselves of the Image of God appointed to them in their composite role as image bearers.
There is also the reality that in man and woman together reflecting the character of God, in all their glorious God appointed sexuality, the fact that, together as image bearers, they reflect the one and the many found in the Unity and plurality of the Godhead. In seeking to strip off their God ordained masculine or feminine sexuality there is the attempt to turn God into a monad absent of His plurality.
The embrace then of Lesbianism and / or Sodomy then is, at its foundational level, an attack on God via the means of the attempt to erase God’s Image by erasing God’s ordained sexuality placed upon the man and the woman as God’s creaturely image bearers.
This explains why this particular sin is so dangerous and why St. Paul can write,
I Corinthians 6:17 — Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.
The lesbian and / or the sodomite is sinning against their own body because by illicit coupling they seek to disembody themselves of the image of God contained in their physical bodies as given in their sexuality.
Sexual sin is particularly primal. It goes to the core of our identity as image bearers of God. While one can never successfully sanitize themselves of the fact that they are the Imago Dei, one can so twist their self understanding of the reality that they are image bearers that the twisting begins to approach a searing of the conscience so severe that few recover.
The Alabama Supreme Court has held that judges “are ordered to discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”
Following are important quotes from the ruling:
“[M]arriage, as a union between one man and one woman, is the fundamental unit of society.”
“[M]arriage has always been between members of the opposite sex. The obvious reason for this immutable characteristic is nature. Men and women complement each other biologically and socially.”
“[O]ne legitimate interest behind the laws (among others) is recognizing and encouraging the ties between children and their biological parents.”
“Government is concerned with public effects, not private wishes. The new definition of marriage centers on the private concerns of adults, while the traditional definition focuses on the benefits to society from the special relationship that exists between a man and a woman, i.e., the effects for care of children, the control of passions, the division of wealth in society, and so on.”
“[I]f love was the sine qua non of marriage, then polygamy also would be constitutionally protected . . . .”
“[W]hat ultimately is at issue is the entire edifice of family law . . . an edifice that has existed in some form since before the United States was even a country. . . . It is no small thing to wipe away this edifice with a wave of the judicial wand.”
Intercessors for America invites people across the country to join in recognizing the Sanctity of Marriage with days of fasting and prayer during the week of April 13-17. This time period is strategically prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s schedule to hear oral arguments during the last week in April prior to a monumental ruling on same-sex marriage that will affect the entire country.
From Chapter 27 of The Institutes of Biblical Law Volume 3.
By Dr. Rousas John Rushdoony
I frequently get telephone calls and letters, attacking me for affirming Biblical law. The questions begin thus: “Do you believe that homosexuals should be executed?” My answer always is simply that God so requires it in the Bible, and, as an interpreter of and a believer in the Bible, I do not believe that I have the right to disagree with God. The next question is usually this: how then can you be a Christian since Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone” (John 8:7)? I try to explain that, first, an ancient premise of law requires that those who take part in a trial have “clean hands” in the matter, i.e., no thief can take part in a trial for theft as a credible witness. Second, if no man can be a part of a trial unless he is sinless, then, since we are all sinners, there can be no law, no courts, no police, no penalty, for crime since we all are sinners. This does not seem to disconcert most questioners.
This means that contemporary antinomianism is moving logically and steadily into the thinking of the Marquis de Sade. Sade held that any act committed was a natural and therefore a good act. Theft, murder, rape, incest, sodomy, and all the sins condemned by God, being natural were therefore good. Only Christianity and its faith and law were evil because they were supernatural.
It is interesting that the first question is usually about homosexuality. In personal confrontations, such questioners commonly refuse to answer the question, “Are you a homosexual, or, Why are homosexuals such a key concern for you?” Homosexuality has become a central intellectual concern because it is a central offense against God, and the essential burning out of man in his hatred of and war against God. (In Romans 1:27 “burned” should be translated as “burned out.”) Questions about God’s law on homosexuality are ways of challenging God’s moral status! Some questioners insist that Jesus demanded the death of the law, despite His statement in Matthew 5:17-19. Such opinions reflect William Blake and ancient and modern gnosticism.
Another statement common to such critics is that to affirm God’s law is to affirm hate! But hatred of what? To affirm God’s law means that one wants to protect people from rape, murder, theft, and lawlessness in all its aspects. In the post-World War II years, I have unhappily known of many, many cases of rape, some of particularly vicious and sadistic character. Whom do these antinomians propose to love, the rapists or the victims? Some will insist on demanding that we “hate the sin and love the sinner.” But sin does not exist in the abstract; it is an act of men and an expression of their nature. Some rapists have laughed in the faces of their victims and have held that they did them a favor. A person’s acts do not exist in the abstract, in some strange realm, while he continues as an innocent man whom God supposedly requires us to love. The “love the sinner, hate the sin” idea goes back to Hellenic paganism and its virtual divorce of the body from the mind.
Modem man’s love affair with the homosexual is really a hatred of God and a love affair with himself. He will answer, when challenged about his “concern” for homosexuals, that he has no use for them; he is concerned about their civil liberties; he wants a “free and open” society, and so on and so on. Of course, there is commonly an insistence that the Biblical texts about homosexuality refer to male prostitutes. Implicit in their reasoning is the premise, “If God tolerates them, He must certainly tolerate me!” One man said that he would like to be on our side, and would be if our affirmation of God and moral law were a more general one! Men and women have often insisted that they love their spouse, and their adulteries must be understood in context!
The total context of our lives is the triune God, His law-word, His atoning work in Christ, and more. If we do not take His law in all its facets seriously, we cannot appreciate His atoning work.
Psalm 5:5 “The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,”
Psalm 11:5 “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates.”
Leviticus 20:23 “Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.”
Proverbs 6:16-19 “There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.”
Hosea 9:15, “All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels.”
Homosexuals commonly claim that Jesus never condemned homosexuality. However, they are factually wrong. Jesus condemned homosexuality when he reaffirmed the creation ordinance of marriage between a man and a woman. The parallel passages of Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-12 contain some of Jesus’ teaching on marriage.
Matthew 19:3-9 And the Pharisees came forward to him testing him, and saying to him, Is it allowed to a man to dismiss his wife for every reason? 4 And he answering said to them, Did you not read that the one making from the beginning, made them male and female. 5 And he said, On account of this a man shall leave the father and the mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two will be for one flesh. 6 So that no longer are they two, but one flesh. What then God yoked together, let not man separate! 7 They say to him, Why then did Moses give charge to give a scroll of divorce, and to dismiss her? 8 He says to them that, Moses for the hardness of your heart committed to your care to dismiss your wives; but from the beginning it happened not thus. 9 And I say to you, that who ever should dismiss his wife, not for harlotry, and should marry another, commits adultery; and the one being dismissed marrying, commits adultery. (Apostolic Bible Polyglot)
Mark 10:2-12 And coming forward, Pharisees asked him, Is it allowed for a man to dismiss a wife? testing him. 3 And answering he said to them, What did Moses give charge to you? 4 And they said, Moses committed to one’s care to write a scroll of divorce and to dismiss. 5 And answering Jesus said to them, Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote to you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. 7 Because of this a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be cleaved to his wife; 8 and the two will be for one flesh. So that no longer are they two, but one flesh. 9 What then God yoked together, let not man separate! 10 And in the house again his disciples concerning the same asked him. 11 And he says to them, Who ever should dismiss his wife, and should marry another, commits adultery against her. 12 And if a wife should dismiss her husband, and should marry another, she commits adultery.
In each account of Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees Jesus reiterated the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman by stating, “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. Because of this a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be cleaved to his wife; and the two will be for one flesh. So that no longer are they two, but one flesh.” Note that Jesus actually states the definition of marriage three times in this instance.
First, Jesus states that God “made them male and female.” This statement references several different statements of the creation account.
Genesis 1:27 And God made man. According to the image of God he made him. Male and female he made them.
Genesis 2:23-25 And Adam said, This now is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh; she shall be called woman, for from the man she was taken. 24 Because of this man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be for one flesh. 25 And the two were naked, both Adam and his wife. And they were not ashamed.
Genesis 5:1-2 This is the book of the origin of men in which day God made Adam. According to the image of God he made him. 2 Male and female he made them, and he blessed them. And he named his name Adam, in which day he made them.
The account of the forming of Eve is particularly important to this subject because the author of Genesis noted that there was no suitable helper found for Adam.
Genesis 2:21 And Adam called names to all the cattle, and to all the winged creatures of the heaven, and to all the wild beasts of the field; but to Adam there was not found a helper likened to him.
Only the forming of the female counterpart to Adam was sufficient to meet the qualifications of a helper or “help meet.” The physical union of Adam and his helper constituted a marriage. No combination of two males or two females can constitute a marriage.
Secondly, Jesus referenced a man leaving his “father and mother.” By referencing a man’s father and mother Jesus noted that the procreative abilities of a man and and his wife were an explicit part of the definition of marriage. When Adam names his wife Eve in Genesis 3:20 he also references the fact that all men would be descendants of Eve and himself.
Genesis 3:20 And Adam called the name of his wife, Zoe (Chavvah in Hebrew or Eve), for she was mother of all the living.
Thirdly, by stating that a man in particular “shall be cleaved to his wife,” Jesus again noted the different genders of each party to a marriage.
After explaining how Jesus condemned homosexuality by reaffirming the definition of marriage, homosexuals still vainly cry that Jesus did not explicitly say something to the effect of “homosexuality is wrong” or quote the condemnations of sodomy in Leviticus. However, such a statement is unnecessary.
As the above graphic illustrates, it is foolish to believe that because Jesus did not explicitly condemn a certain practice that that practice is acceptable. Jesus confirmed the whole of the Old Covenant scriptures in John 10:35 and other places. It was unnecessary for him to restate the entirety of the Old Covenant moral code.
In the case of a hypothetical homosexual marriage, the advocate of such a thing is presupposing that such a thing as a homosexual marriage fits within the definition of a marriage. There can be no such thing as a homosexual marriage since the definition of marriage as defined by God and set forth in creation is between a man and a woman. Claiming that the Christian scriptures must condemn homosexual marriage for it to be wrong would be like claiming the scriptures must condemn killing rocks for it to be wrong. It is impossible to kill something which is not alive and further still impossible to kill something which has never been alive. In order to kill a rock one must change the definition of kill to mean something other than to end the life of something that is living. In the same way, in order to allow for such a thing as homosexual marriage to exist, the definition of marriage must be changed to allow for two males or two females to be married in addition to the traditional definition of a male and a female. No warrant in scripture is given to ever change the definition of marriage.
Since a homosexual marriage is an impossibility, homosexuality is condemned since sexual intercourse outside of marriage is also condemned. Hebrews 13:4 is one of many condemnations of sexual intercourse outside of the marriage bed.
Hebrews 13:4 The wedding is esteemed in every way, and the marriage-bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Other condemnations of homosexuality in scripture include Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10.
It is impossible to escape the conclusion that homosexuality is condemned in Scripture. It is also impossible to escape the conclusion that there is no such thing as a homosexual marriage and thus, the claiming of such a title for a homosexual relationship does not justify it.
As the author of Scripture, Jesus condemned homosexuality during His incarnation and in His revelation to us in the Old and New Covenant.
Those that claim to be both gay and Christian have a glaring inconsistency in their belief system. If Jesus and the Bible are wrong about condemning homosexuality then why should we believe what the rest of the Bible has to say about crucial topics such as salvation? Why should one believe in Jesus if according to one’s own opinion of Him, He was incorrect about homosexuality? The truth is that Jesus condemned homosexuality very clearly when he reiterated the pattern set forth in creation of marriage being between a man and a woman. Jesus also confirmed the law which also clearly condemns homosexuality in Leviticus. When supposedly gay Christians confess that they believe in Jesus and yet also believe He is wrong about an issue so crucial to them they expose the contradiction in their own belief system.
Thus, advocates of homosexuality and sodomy go to great lengths to deny the clear teaching of scripture regarding homosexuality. They falsely claim Jesus abolished the law. They falsely claim loving one’s neighbor as ones self can somehow overturn other laws. Incredibly, they believe that following their own definition of love gives them the right to disobey other laws. In essence, they demonstrate the height of antinomianism and humanism in direct rebellion against God.
When man rejects God’s law, he must of necessity replace it with his or another man’s law. This is why homosexual advocates fight desperately to have their perverted lifestyle approved by the state and even enforced and taught as normal. The witness of God’s law in creation and in man’s conscience is so evident that the homosexual lives in a constant state of rebellion and continually tries to suppress the knowledge of God.
The homosexual, in an effort to suppress his conscience, is driven to religion, whether it be the religion of the state or a perversion of the Christian faith. When he turns to the Christian faith while still remaining in rebellion he is faced with a dilemma. He rejects the clear teaching of the scripture against homosexuality by either fruitlessly explaining away all condemnations of it or he acknowledges the Bible’s teaching condemning homosexuality while claiming the Bible is in error concerning the matter. Often, homosexuals will attempt both methods in their desperation.
By attacking the inerrancy of scripture in claiming that the Bible is wrong concerning homosexuality, homosexuals expose that they have viewed themselves as god. When they claim that Jesus is wrong about homosexuality they also are claiming themselves to be a higher authority than God. One wonders why such a person would even need a savior?
If the homosexual will repent and humble himself before God, he will find Christ to be a perfect Savior. Paul, in his letter to the Christians in Corinth wrote reminding them that some of them were previously homosexuals and yet still Christ washed, sanctified, and made them righteous.
Or know ye not that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not led astray. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate men, nor homosexuals, nor greedy men, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor the slanderous, nor the predatory will inherit the kingdom of God. And some of you were these things, but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were made righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ACV
Increasingly, people who profess to be Christians claim that one can be both gay and a Christian. These people frequently reference how being gay just “feels right” or some other claim based on feelings and not on the objective revelation of the scriptures. Feelings can be deceiving as Jeremiah 17:9 points out.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Thus scripture must be our final authority and not our feelings.
Gays who profess to be Christians claim that they love God. However, the scriptures are clear that if one truly loves God one will keep His commandments. (John 14:15; 1 John 2:3-5, 5:2-3; 2 John 1:6)
How does a so called gay Christian exegetically defend his interpretation of Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10?
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:26-27 On account of this God delivered them up unto passions of dishonor. For both their females changed over the physical use unto the one against nature. And indeed in like manner the males leaving the physical use of the female, burned away in their lust for one another — males with males manufacturing indecency, and accepting in themselves the compensation which was a necessity of their delusion.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unjust shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be misled; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor homosexuals,
1 Timothy 1:9-10 knowing this, that for the just the law is not situated, but for the lawless and unsubmissive ones, impious and sinners, unholy and profane, murderers of one’s father and murderers of one’s mother, manslayers, fornicators, homosexuals, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and if anything other is an adversary to healthy instruction,
Also, to be consistent, what other sexual relations which were forbidden in the Old Testament would also be acceptable since gays don’t believe Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are to be followed?