By Al Dobras
[See comment below.]
There has been a serious effort by postmodernists and homosexual rights
advocates to remold public opinion regarding the nature of homosexual behavior.
In a basic sense, these efforts are intended to show that the Biblical
texts—from which Western culture has derived its concepts of homosexuality—have
been misunderstood. They attribute these ‘misunderstandings’ to inaccurate
translations and confusion on the part of modern commentators on the substance
of what the writers of the Bible actually meant when they discussed homosexual
behavior, or what the Bible calls ‘sodomy.'
Fortunately, a significant number of writings exist authored by patriarchs of
the faith and other early commentators that express—in terms that are forthright
and unambiguous—personal views of same-sex sexual behavior. These views are
reflected in the following commentaries:
Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC to AD 50). Jewish philosopher, theologian, and
contemporary of Jesus and Paul. Writing on the life of Abraham.
“The land of the Sodomites, a part of Canaan afterwards called Palestinian
Syria, was brimful of innumerable iniquities, particularly such as arise from
gluttony and lewdness, and multiplied and enlarged every other possible pleasure
with so formidable a menace that it had at last been condemned by the Judge of
All…Incapable of bearing such satiety, plunging like cattle, they threw off from
their necks the law of nature and applied themselves to…forbidden forms of
intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages
of their neighbors, but also men mounted males without respect for the sex
nature which the active partner shares with the passive; and so when they tried
to beget children they were discovered to be incapable of any but a sterile
seed. Yet the discovery availed them not, so much stronger was the force of the
lust which mastered them. Then, as little by little they accustomed those who
were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, they saddled them with
the formidable curse of a female disease. For not only did they emasculate their
bodies by luxury and voluptuousness but they worked a further degeneration in
their souls and, as far as in them lay, were corrupting the whole of mankind.”
Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian (circa AD 37-100). Commentary on the history
of the Jews.
“As for adultery, Moses forbade it entirely, as esteeming it a happy thing that
men should be wise in the affairs of wedlock; and that it was profitable both to
cities and families that children should be known to be genuine. He also
abhorred men’s lying with their mothers, as one of the greatest crimes; and the
like for lying with the father’s wife, and with aunts, and sisters, and sons’
wives, as all instances of abominable wickedness. He also forbade a man to lie
with his wife when she was defiled by her natural purgation: and not to come
near brute beasts; nor to approve of the lying with a male, which was to hunt
after unlawful pleasures on account of beauty. To those who were guilty of such
insolent behavior, he ordained death for their punishment.”
Methodius, bishop of Olympus and Patara (AD 260-312). Commentary on the sin of
Sodom:
“But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature, or of any
unlawful practice; for such are enmity to God. For the sin of Sodom is contrary
to nature, as is also that with brute beasts. But adultery and fornication are
against the law; the one whereof is impiety, the other injustice, and, in a
word, no other than a great sin. But neither sort of them is without its
punishment in its own proper nature. For the practicers of one sort attempt the
dissolution of the world, and endeavor to make the natural course of things to
change for one that is unnatural; but those of the second son — the adulterers —
are unjust by corrupting others’ marriages, and dividing into two what God hath
made one, rendering the children suspected, and exposing the true husband to the
snares of others. And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not
being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of
pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these
things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: Thou shalt not lie
with mankind as with womankind. For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone
them with stones: they have wrought abomination.”
St. Basil, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (circa AD 330-379). The first
canonical epistle:
“They who have committed sodomy with men or brutes, murderers, wizards,
adulterers, and idolaters, have been thought worthy of the same punishment;
therefore observe the same method with these which you do with others. We ought
not to make any doubt of receiving those who have repented thirty years for the
uncleanness which they committed through ignorance; for their ignorance pleads
their pardon, and their willingness in confessing it; therefore command them to
be forthwith received, especially if they have tears to prevail on your
tenderness, and have [since their lapse] led such a life as to deserve your
compassion.”
St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (AD 347-407). Commentary on
Romans 1:26-27:
ALL these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for
the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in
diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives
them of excuse, by saying of the women, that “they changed the natural use.” For
no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate
intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to
fulfill their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For
the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines
he said, “They changed the truth of God for a lie.” And with regard to the men
again, he shows the same thing by saying, “Leaving the natural use of the
woman.” …For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God
hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was
their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical.
St. Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430). Confessions. Commenting on the story of
Sodom from Genesis 19:
“Can it ever, at any time or place, be unrighteous for a man to love God with
all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and his neighbor as
himself? Similarly, offenses against nature are everywhere and at all times to
be held in detestation and should be punished. Such offenses, for example, were
those of the Sodomites; and, even if all nations should commit them, they would
all be judged guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which has not made men
so that they should ever abuse one another in that way. For the fellowship that
should be between God and us is violated whenever that nature of which he is the
author is polluted by perverted lust.”
John Calvin, Protestant reformer and theologian (1509-1564). Commentary on
Genesis 19 and Romans 1.
“Moses sets before our eyes a lively picture of Sodom. For it is hence obvious,
how diabolical was their consent in all wickedness, since they all so readily
conspired to perpetrate the most abominable crime. The greatness of their
iniquity and wantonness, is apparent from the fact, that, in a collected troop,
they approach, as enemies, to lay siege to the house of Lot. How blind and
impetuous is their lust; since, without shame, they rush together like brute
animals! How great their ferocity and cruelty; since they reproachfully threaten
the holy man, and proceed to all extremities! Hence also we infer, that they
were not contaminated with one vice only, but were given up to all audacity in
crime, so that no sense of shame was left them…What Paul says, also refers to
the same point: that God punished the impiety of men, when he cast them into
such a state of blindness, that they gave themselves up to abominable lusts, and
dishonored their own bodies. (Romans 1:18.) But when the sense of shame is
overcome, and the reins are given to lust, a vile and outrageous barbarism
necessarily succeeds, and many kinds of sin are blended together, so that a most
confused chaos is the result. But if this severe vengeance of God so fell upon
the men of Sodom, that they became blind with rage, and prostituted themselves
to all kinds of crime, certainly we shall scarcely be more mildly treated, whose
iniquity is the less excusable, because the truth of God has been more clearly
revealed unto us.”
John Wesley, Protestant evangelist, theologian and founder of Methodism
(1703-1791). Commentary on Romans 1:24-27:
“Romans 1:24. Wherefore — One punishment of sin is from the very nature of it,
as Romans 1:27; another, as here, is from vindictive justice. Uncleanness —
Ungodliness and uncleanness are frequently joined, 1 Thessalonians 4:5 as are
the knowledge of God and purity. God gave them up — By withdrawing his
restraining grace.
25. Who changed the truth — The true worship of God. Into a lie — False,
abominable idolatries. And worshipped — Inwardly. And served — Outwardly.
26. Therefore God gave them up to vile affections — To which the heathen Romans
were then abandoned to the last degree; and none more than the emperors
themselves.
27. Receiving the just recompense of their error — Their idolatry being punished
with that unnatural lust, which was as horrible a dishonor to the body, as their
idolatry was to God.”
Robert Haldane, Evangelist and writer (1764-1842). Exposition of the Book of
Romans, Chapter 1: Romans 1:26— For this cause and gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is
against nature. 27. — And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which
is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which
was meet.
The Apostle having awfully depicted the magnitude of Pagan wickedness, and
having shown that their ungodliness in abandoning the worship of the true God
was the reason why they had been abandoned to their lusts, here descends into
particulars, for the purpose of showing to what horrible excesses God had
permitted them to proceed. This was necessary, to prove how odious in the sight
of God is the crime of idolatry. Its recompense was this fearful abandonment. It
was also necessary, in order to give a just idea of human corruption, as evinced
in its monstrous enormities when allowed to take its course, and also in order
to exhibit to believers a living proof of the depth of the evil from which God
had delivered them; and, finally, to prove the falsity of the Pagan religion
since, so far from preventing such excesses, it even incited and conducted men
to their commission.
Receiving in themselves that recompense. — As the impiety of the Pagans
respecting God reached even to madness, it was also just that God should permit
their corruption to recoil upon themselves, and proceed also to madness. It was
just that they who had done what they could to cover the Godhead with
reproaches, should likewise cover themselves with infamy, and thus receive a
proportionate and retributive recompense.
28. — And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. The
Apostle shows here how justly the Pagan idolaters were abandoned since they had
so far departed from the right knowledge of God. In the 18th verse he had
declared that the wrath of God was revealed against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men. He had now conclusively established the first charge of
ungodliness against the Gentiles, adding to it their consequent abandonment to
the vilest affections.
In colonial times, sodomy was so reviled that Thomas Jefferson authored a bill
to penalize the act by castration. George Washington, as Commander-in-Chief of
the revolutionary army ordered that an officer be drummed out of the military
for attempting to commit sodomy:
His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence
and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieut. Enslin to be drummed out
of camp tomorrow morning by all drummers and fifers in the Army never to return.
Numerous other examples can be cited, but it is sufficient to say that sodomy
has consistently been recognized as deviant sexual behavior from biblical times
to the present. Although homosexual rights activists wish to rewrite the
historical record and infer that early writers did not understand what
“homosexual love” was about in the modern sense, the facts are shown otherwise.
As the writer of Ecclesiastes said:
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is
that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. (Eccl 1:9).
Attribution:
Original Intent, by David Barton. WallBuilder Press, 1996.
Homosexuality in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, by
Dr. James B. De Young. Kregel Publications, 2000.
Christian Classics Ethereal Library. On-line at
http://www.ccel.org/
[COMMENT: Christians rightly hold all persons accountable for righteous behavior according to the law of God, as appropriately applicable. Gene Robinson is, in appearance, the first person to be consecrated a bishop in the history of Christendom. In reality, the bishops who consecrated him had long before put themselves outside of Christendom and so had "unbishopped" themselves, so the consecration was not of a bishop in the Church.
In holding homosexual persons accountable, it is imperative that Christians make a clear distinction between the person caught in homosexual addiction and the addiction or the behavior itself ("who I am" and "what I do" are two different things). While Jefferson's disgust for homosexual behavior is to be applauded, his solution is less than helpful because it attacks the person rather than the condition. Of course, persons in his day did not have an appreciation for psychological conditioning which can lead us down addictive paths, nor the process of healing which is required for coming out of such conditions.
Psychological conditioning (such as childhood sexual abuse, unhelpful parenting, etc.), does not relieve anyone of moral responsibility. The addict is still responsible for a desire to change, and for seeking appropriate help. And likewise, society, especially Christians, are responsible for reaching out to such persons with tough love, drawing such persons into helpful healing and forgiving accountability relationships. The law is made for man, not man for the law. It is all about personal relationship. E. Fox]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Go to: => TOP Page; => Homosexuality Library; => What'sNew? => ROAD MAP