Some religionists (homosexuals and their sympathizers), while admitting that certain NT passages appear to condemn homosexual conduct, nonetheless deny that Jesus personally censured such acts. This is totally inaccurate. First, Christ clearly taught that the apostles’ doctrine was ultimately from him. To his inspired spokesmen, he said: “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me” (Luke 10:16). Paul, who was very outspoken about sodomy, affirmed that the things he wrote were “the commandment of the Lord” (I Corinthians 14:37). Secondly, when Jesus spoke of marriage as that which was ordained of God, he stated it was for male and female (Matthew 19:4-6). Thirdly, the Lord’s concession that fornication is grounds for divorce by the innocent party condemns sodomy, since this vile practice is but a form of fornication. This latter point needs some elaboration. Unless there are contextual indications (either immediate or remote) which suggest that Biblical terms have been given special meanings, the words of the sacred text are to be understood as they were commonly employed by the writers of that era. The word “fornication” was used in antiquity in a generic sense “of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse” (Arndt & Gingrich, Greek Lexicon, p. 699).  It includes such sins as prostitution, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, and such like (Dictionary of NT Theology, C. Brown, ed., I, pp. 497-501). Jude explicitly declares that Sodom and her neighbors had “given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh” (Jude 7). Finally, Christ indicated that ancient Sodom was in need of repentance and that they were justly destroyed (Matthew 11:23; Luke 17:29).

                Paul’s inspired rebuke of homosexuality in Romans 1 could be misunderstood only by the willfully ignorant. In verses 26, 27 sodomy is characterized as (a) the result of vile passions; (b) a perversion from the natural to that which is against nature (note Jude’s reference to “strange flesh” vs. 7); (c) lust causing males to burn for males and females for females; (d) unseemliness; and (e) error that was due recompense. Further, in I Corinthians 9:6 the apostle declares that the “effeminate” (malakos-
especially of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually” A-G, p 489), and “abusers of themselves with men” cannot (in that condition) inherit the kingdom of God. This latter phrase translates the Greek word arsenokoites (from arsen, a male, and koite, bed). Literally, it is males in bed with males! In I Timothy 1:9, Paul puts homosexuals in the same lawless class with murderers of parents, etc. Some attempt to wrest the scriptures by suggesting that Paul was not condemning homosexuality per se, rather, only the abuse of this practice. There is, liberals maintain, a proper homosexual relationship that would be approved. How utterly absurd! That same type of logic would imply that there is a legitimate form of drunkenness, idolatry, murder, etc. – that only perversions of such acts are condemned!

                The contention is frequently made these days that sexual preference is entirely a private affair. We are told that what homosexuals do is their business. Those who fancy themselves as broadminded intellectuals allege that the “rights” of all must be protected. There are several things wrong with this reasoning. First, the “gays” are pushing for public acceptance of their conduct. They want to teach in public schools, etc. Do parents have any rights? As a parent I have the right to expect that my children will receive their education from reasonably moral people. Should those who champion incest and bestiality be denied their “rights” to teach children? Let the homosexuals answer this! Secondly, one spokesperson for the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights has stated that the ultimate goal of the gay liberation movement is “freedom of sexual expression for young people and children.” The writer says: “We gain nothing by limiting our defense of homosexual love to consensual sex between adults. It is absurd to chard gay men who share their sexuality with boys as ‘child molesters’” (Stockton (CA) Record, 4/7/79). Is this what the Constitution of the United States was designed to protect?!

                It would be most desirable if we could simply teach sinful homosexuals to abandon their wickedness, obey Christ, and accept his forgiveness (Acts 2:38). This is precisely what some in the first century did (I Corinthians 6:9-11). However, many of them appear to be totally unconcerned with anything the Bible says. These people must be dealt with differently. This approach is thus suggested. Virtually every person has a threshold of morality at some point. Why don’t we demand that they defend it? For example, is bestiality immoral? What about incest? If the homosexuals endorse this type of activity, let them come out and publicly say so. If they feel that such conduct is immoral, by what standard is their judgment made? Then force them to logically and consistently defend their views. It will soon become apparent that when one rejects God as the ultimate standard of right and wrong (as his will is revealed in the New Testament record), there is absolutely no stopping place for human immorality. Anything goes is the name of the game. Who is willing to accept the inevitability of this type of thinking? Scarcely no one, we venture to say. Let us, therefore, kindly, but forcefully, press these truths upon our contemporaries. We must take the initiative in this struggle for decent conduct. The future of generations yet unborn depends on how intelligently, spiritually, and vigorously we engage this battle!