The six most cited texts from the Bible which either prohibit or negatively refer to same-sex intercourse, are often disparagingly referred to by many as the “clobber texts.” Many today who self-identify as either Gay or in some way affiliated with the LGBTQIA+ community, either reject the Bible and Christianity outright, or else dismiss the “clobber” passages as insignificant, since they are so few in number. In the previous blog I considered the fallacies of that argument.
However, there is a rapidly growing movement within the church which seeks to reinterpret these texts so as to make them affirm, rather than condemn, same-sex intercourse, as long as it is practiced within a committed monogamous relationship. They argue that the prohibitions were primarily directed against sexual excess and that the biblical authors didn’t even contemplate the possibility of same-sex marriage.
However, there are problems with this argument. In the first place, there is nothing new under the sun. Contrary to what they argue, while it is true that most same-sex activity was promiscuous in that culture, there are, nevertheless, examples of same-sex marriages in ancient literature. Proportionately, they were in all probability no different from the present-day situation, since surveys show that 99.5% of homosexual relationships today are not monogamous. Of the very few that are, many have made mutual agreements which allow for casual sex with other partners outside of their marriage.
In the second place, to argue that the biblical authors would have affirmed present day same-sex monogamous relationships if they had only lived in our postmodern culture, ignores or denies the fact that the human authors were inspired of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Scriptures are therefore infallible and able to make us wise unto salvation (2Tim 3:15-16; Psa 119:160 cf. Jn 17:17). Jesus told His disciples that the Holy Spirit would reveal to the Apostles things to come (Jn 16:13). Wouldn’t we expect that God who inspired the human authors would have at least prompted them to use words which would allow for a cultural shift towards same-sex marriage, if indeed He sanctions it? On the contrary, every time same-sex relations are mentioned in Scripture they are presented negatively.
What about Jesus? Being God incarnate and knowing what is in men’s hearts, wouldn’t He have foreseen our times and at least prepared the way for same-sex marriage rather than consistently reinforcing God’s original design of marriage between one man and one woman, and saying that any sexual relations outside of that monogamous male/female union was porneia? (Matt 19:4-6,9). He consistently presented marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman (Matt 15:4-6;10:37; Luke 18:20, etc.).
Do the revisionist interpretations presented by Gay advocates like Matthew Vines and his Reformation Project manage to convincingly convert what have been traditionally understood to be blanket prohibitions of same-sex relations in these six primary texts into affirmations of same-sex intercourse as long as it is restricted to partners within a lifelong monogamous relationship? Having sought to objectively consider their arguments, I have concluded that they fail on all points, as I hope to briefly demonstrate in this blog. The following is a condensed consideration of each of the six primary passages. asz
1) Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-38)
In Genesis 18 the Lord told Abraham that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was “very grave.” In fact it was so prevalent that there were not even ten righteous found among them (Gen 18:20-21,32). What was this sin that was said to be so serious as to require their destruction? The most common argument presented by Gay advocates is that God destroyed them primarily due to their lack of hospitality. This they do by citing one of the several sins listed in Ezekiel 16. However, reading the full passage, we see that their lack of hospitality was just one of several sins in a downward spiral which finally led to the sin or abomination which actually resulted in their destruction. This can be seen by reading the whole passage:
“Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.” (Ezek 16:49-50)
Here we see a downward progression, finally leading to them committing abomination, just as we have seen repeated in great civilizations throughout history, such as the Roman Empire. The cities of the plain were fertile and by far the most prosperous of the region. Just as with the downward progression presented in Romans 1, we see that, rather than being thankful, their foolish hearts were darkened, being lifted up with pride (Rom 1:21-22). Their wealth led to idleness and the pursuit of self-gratification, to the point where they finally committed abomination before the Lord.
What was the abomination they committed that made it necessary for God to intervene and destroy them? Clearly, it was not a lack of hospitality. In the first place, not giving to the poor is a sin of omission, not a sin of commission. In the second place, we see that it was committing the abomination that resulted in their destruction, not the prior sins mentioned.
Some point out that many things were referred to as being an abomination in the Levitical Law, ranging from wearing mixed fabrics, to breaking the sabbath or having sexual relations with one’s wife during her menstrual period. However, these were amoral ceremonial restrictions intended to set Israel apart from the nations around them, and they were only binding upon the nation of Israel. For example, the death penalty was prescribed for any Jew who willfully broke the sabbath, but such laws were not binding upon the nations around them. Not even Abraham had to observe those restrictions since the Law had not yet been given.
When we look at the abominations for which even the nations around them are said to be judged by God, the list becomes reduced to child sacrifice and sexual sins such as incest, homosexuality and bestiality (Lev 18:24-25).
So, what was the abomination that they committed which resulted in God destroying them? Some would say that it was for having sex with angels, but there are a couple of reasons why that was not the abomination. In the first place, it would have only been attempted rape, since they were not permitted to carry out their intentions. In the second place, both Lot and the men of the city thought that the angels were men, so in their minds they were seeking to have sex with two men, rather than angels.
In the third place, the abomination was not only committed on that single occasion in the city of Sodom; it was something also being practiced in the surrounding cities which were destroyed along with Sodom. Peter makes it clear that their abominable acts were sexual perversions which they had been practicing for some time prior to their destruction. Peter says:
“and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct (ἀσελγείᾳ ἀναστροφῆς, aselgeia anastrophes) of the wicked...” (2 Peter 2:6-7)
Obviously, considering that Lot went so far as to offer them his own virgin daughters, the reference to him being righteous is only so in comparison to the depths of depravity to which the inhabitants of Sodom had sunk. Here we can see by the words “filthy conduct” that it wasn’t some isolated incident of attempted gang-rape, but their filthiness had become a lifestyle. The Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon defines aselgeia as, “behavior completely lacking in moral restraint, usually with the implication of sexual licentiousness - 'licentious behavior, extreme immorality.’” Certainly, Peter’s choice of words speaks of something beyond mere inhospitality or even an isolated attempt at gang-rape.
Likewise, Jude says that, not only Sodom and Gomorrah, but also the surrounding cities, had “given themselves over” to sexual immorality, going after “strange flesh (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, sarkos heteros)” (Jude 1:7). The term “strange flesh” literally means “flesh of a different kind” and would include any sexual union apart from the one-flesh (σάρκα μίαν, sarka mian) union between one man and one woman, as ordained by God since creation (Gen 2:24 LXX). Rather than being satisfied with the natural use of their bodies in a one-flesh union between one man and one woman, they became inflamed with lust for flesh-unions other than that ordained of God, and they suffered the consequences when God destroyed their flesh in judgment.
The parallel between the downward spiral in Ezekiel 16, finally leading to the abomination which we see described in 2Peter and Jude as having been sexual perversion with different flesh, resulting in their physical destruction, seems to be the same downward spiral described in Romans 1, degenerating to the point of homosexuality and finally the penalty which they received as a result:
“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Rom 1:24-27)
So, all things considered, it becomes evident that the reason the metropolis of Sodom was destroyed was not for a lack of hospitality or for a failed attempt at gang-raping the two angels, but rather it was destroyed because they had given themselves over to vile passions, women with women and men with men, and they received the due penalty for their abominable practices. As God says in Ezekiel 16, “they committed abomination before me, therefore (for that reason), in judgment I removed them from the land of the living.” It is evident that they committed an abomination which was punishable by death even though they were among the Gentile nations. When the Law against homosexuality was given later to the nation of Israel in Leviticus, they were warned against committing the same abominations as the nations around them and were told that, if they did, they would suffer the same judgment (Lev 18:24-29). I consider this subject with more detail in my blog: “Who Destroyed Sodom and Why.”
2 and 3) “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman”
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. 24 'Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants.” (Lev 18:22-25)
“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” (Lev 20:13-14)
These passages so clearly prohibit any form of same-sex coitus that their universal application was never questioned prior to the present Postmodern sexual revolution. The various attempts to make it somehow allow for homosexual intercourse remind me of the mental gymnastics the Calvinists have resorted to in order to deny that Jesus Christ is indeed the Savior of the whole world, rather than just the elect few.
Some argue that the text must have been altered prior to the translation of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) between the 1st and the 3rd century B.C. However, there is absolutely no manuscript evidence to back up that claim. Others argue that it only prohibits same-sex intercourse in the context of cultic idol worship in which men had sex with male prostitutes. From there they argue that the prohibition does not apply to committed same-sex monogamous relationships today.
However, the list of sexual prohibitions in these two chapters is not limited to homosexual intercourse only, but it also prohibits sex with members of the immediate family as well as sex with animals. Few would argue that it is acceptable to practice these other vile acts as long as you love each other and don’t do it as part of cultic idol worship. Though it seems bazaar, some today even justify having sex with their pets by getting married to them. [i] Using the same argument which says that this passage only prohibits sex acts outside of a committed monogamous relationship, one could actually affirm monogamous incest or bestiality.
Another argument often presented is that we are no longer under the Old Covenant Law, so these prohibitions no longer apply to us. Some Gay Revisionists, such as Matthew Vines, present both arguments together. However, few would say that male prostitution, incest, or bestiality are acceptable lifestyles now that we are no longer under the Law. While the ceremonial aspects of the Law are no longer applicable to us today, every one of the moral prohibitions contained in the Law are reaffirmed under the New Covenant of grace.
While I will be considering this passage with more detail later, in 1Timothy Paul explains that the Law still stands to convict the sinner of his need for grace, and he specifically incudes the Levitical prohibition against homosexuality. He said:
“But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites (αρσενοκοιταις, arsenokoitais) for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” (1 Tim 1:8-10)
That Paul is here reaffirming the prohibition of same-sex coitus is undeniable since he forms one word from the exact same two words found in both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, of the Greek LXX, which is the translation he would have been using to teach the Greek speaking Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews. In Leviticus the two words used are arsen, “male” and koite, “bed.” It is from the word koite that we derive our word “coitus” or “sexual intercourse.” Paul united the two words, forming the single word arsenokoites, which means, a man laying in bed with a male. He used the same term in 1Corinthians 6:9, which we will also be considering later. I illustrate below how Paul formed the word from the Greek LXX of the Leviticus texts:
Matthew Vines and others actually attempt to argue that in later Greek literature arsenokoites had more to do with finances than sex. He said:
“Although arsenokoites was used quite rarely in Greek literature after Paul, some of the few uses that have survived indicate it most often referred to economic exploitation, not same-sex behavior.” 
When I looked up the sources presented to prove that the word arsenokoites was used to refer to economics, I noticed that they only quoted portions of the texts cited. Whenever I see … in quotes I become curious to see what they are leaving out, so I decided to look at the larger context. When I did, it became obvious that the sources partially quoted by them to give the impression that arsenokoites only referred to economics actually address primarily moral issues. For example, they cite the following partial quote from the Sibylline Oracle:
“… Do not steal seed; Accursed through many generations he who took it unto scattering of life. Indulge not vile lusts (arsenokoites), slander not, nor kill…” 
They argue that since arsenokoites is used here in proximity with the prohibition against stealing seed, it must refer to economic exploitation. However, when I looked up the whole section to see why they only cited a short clip, I found the following:
“And those who have regard for marriages and keep themselves far from adulteries, to them rich gifts, eternal hope, he'll give. For every human soul is God's free gift, and 'tis not right men stain it with vile deeds… Maintain thy virgin purity, and guard love among all. Deal measures that are just; for beautiful is measure full to all… Do not steal seed; Accursed through many generations he who took it unto scattering of life. Indulge not vile lusts (arsenokoites), slander not, nor kill… Disable not thy mind with wine nor drink excessively. Eat not blood, and abstain from things offered to idols.”
So, upon reading the larger context it becomes evident that the author is addressing several moral issues including arsenokoites, rather than the passage dealing primarily with economic matters. The only other source they quoted in order to establish that arsenokoites was an economic term was from the Acts of John. They quoted the following portion:
“…Likewise also thou poisoner, sorcerer, robber, defrauder, sodomite (arsenokoites), thief, and as many as are of that band, ye shall come at last, as your works do lead you, unto unquenchable fire.” 
Quoting this small clip, it could leave one under the impression that the author is dealing primarily with financial matters such as theft and extortion. However, again, upon looking at the whole passage, it becomes evident that the author is dealing with various sexual issues as well. Here is a fuller quote of the passage:
“Thou also that art puffed up because of the shapeliness of thy body, and art of an high look, shalt see the end of the promise thereof in the grave; and thou that rejoicest in adultery, know that both law and nature avenge it upon thee, and before these, conscience; and thou, adulteress, that art an adversary of the law, knowest not whither thou shalt come in the end. And thou that sharest not with the needy, but hast monies laid up, when thou departest out of this body and hast need of some mercy when thou burnest in fire, shalt have none to pity thee; and thou the wrathful and passionate, know that thy manner of life is like the brute beasts; and thou, drunkard and quarreller, learn that thou losest thy senses by being enslaved to a shameful and dirty desire…Likewise also thou poisoner, sorcerer, robber, defrauder, sodomite (arsenokoites), thief, and as many as are of that band, ye shall come at last, as your works do lead you, unto unquenchable fire.”
Clearly, these partial quotes do not demonstrate that arsenokoites meant anything different in later Greek literature than the meaning obviously intended by Paul when he coined the term from Leviticus. And even if the meaning had drifted from its literal meaning with time, it should be obvious to all that in 1Timothy 1 Paul was referring back to the Levitical law prohibiting same-sex coitus.
Therefore, in spite of their extensive nuanced attempts to make the prohibitions of Leviticus inapplicable to same-sex intercourse within a monogamous relationship, it is a straightforward prohibition against any man lying with a male as with a woman. It is a blanket statement which does not leave room for exceptions, any more than the prohibition against bestiality does.
4) Same-Sex Intercourse and Romans 1:26-27
“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Rom 1:26-27)
This passage seems to be just as straightforward as what we saw in Leviticus, except that it also specifically includes same-sex relations among women. How do the Gay Revisionists get around the obvious implications of this passage? To begin with, they argue that the present notion of same-sex orientation is a contemporary development and therefore would have been a concept unknown to Paul.
However, as we have already seen, this undermines the divine inspiration of Scripture. If the Holy Spirit revealed to Paul conditions which would prevail in the future, why would He not also inspire Paul to include the exception clauses that the Gay Revisionists need in order to make their case? In fact, Paul as well as Jesus, alluded to the contemporary situation, but that would be the subject of another blog. Here I will just cite one thing which was revealed to Paul concerning our contemporary sexual revolution. Paul said:
“Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires (ἐπιθυμίας, epithumias), because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2 Tim 4:2-4)
Paul foresaw the time when men would no longer endure sound doctrine. Wanting to fulfill their own “desires” (epithumias), they will turn away from the plain truth of Scripture and will seek out teachers who will tell them only what they want to hear, turning from the truth to fables. Strong’s defines epithumia as: “a longing, especially for that which is forbidden.”
While the word epithumia is, by definition, applicable to one’s illicit desire for those of the same sex, Gay activists have cloaked epithumia in politically correct terms such as “same-sex attraction” or “same sex orientation.” Therefore, many today see same-sex orientation as a neutral term, when in fact the Scriptures simply call it “lust.”
For example, in Romans 1:24, when Paul says: “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts (ἐπιθυμίας, epithumias) of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves,” he was referring to what Gay Revisionists today refer to as simply “same-sex orientation.” Using the same tactics, pedophiles are now organizing and demanding equal rights and society’s acceptance of their sexual relations with “consenting” prepuberty children. 
The meaning of “Nature” (phusis)
Paul says in verse 26 that God gave them over to their own vile passions, and then proceeds to explain what is meant by vile passions. He says that they changed the natural (φυσικὴν, phusikein) use of their bodies for that which is against nature (παρὰ φύσιν). The word phusis and its cognates are from phuo which means “to bring forth or produce.” The fundamental underlying definition of phusis is “that which nature has produced,” as opposed to that which is brought about by artificial means or contrary to nature.  For example, Paul speaks of the natural branches, as opposed to that which was grafted in contrary to nature (Rom 11:24).
How do the Gay Revisionists get around the obvious implications that same-sex coitus is a perversion of nature? They often argue that phusis can mean “custom,” and therefore say that Romans 1 is only referring to the customs prevalent in Paul’s day. To make their point, they cite 1 Corinthians 11:14 which says: “Does not even nature (φύσις, phusis) itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” However, Paul here is not appealing merely to a present trend. Just as with the prohibition against cross-dressing (Deut 22:5), while it is true that what a man wore then is different from what a man would wear now, it is always unnatural for one to take on the appearance of the opposite sex. Paul is saying that it is against nature and shameful for a man to appear as a woman, no matter how that may translate into one’s cultural setting. Actually, Paul is referring to the same confusion of sexes in 1Corinthians 11:14 as he was in Romans 1:26. For a man to take on the role of a woman, or vice-versa, is against nature, not simply against a custom.
Some argue that Romans 1:26-27 is simply a prohibition against pederasty and male prostitution. However, it only needs to be pointed out that Paul first mentions women and then says that the men likewise practiced same-sex intercourse. This means that lesbianism was also being referred to, but lesbians do not practice pederasty. Pederasty is by definition sexual activity between a man and a boy or youth. Also, when he speaks of “arsen with arsen” (male with male), he is clearly referring back to Leviticus, much as he does when he uses the word arsenokoites.
There is much more that could be presented in favor of the traditional understanding of Romans 1:26-27, but without elaborating further, it should be evident to any unbiased student of the Word that this passage cannot be reasonably construed as condoning homosexual activity in any form or circumstance.
5) Neither Effeminates nor Homosexuals will inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-11)
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (μαλακοι malakoi), nor homosexuals (ἀρσενοκοῖται, arsenokoitai), 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such WERE some of you; BUT you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor 6:9-11)
Paul’s reference here to both malakoi and arsenokoites side by side have been traditionally understood to refer to the passive and aggressive partners in a homosexual relationship. For that reason, some translations, such as the ESV, combine the two words, simply saying “men who practice homosexuality.”
We have already considered Paul’s intended meaning of arsenokoites when he coined the word, and some of the fallacies of the Revisionist arguments for understanding it as being merely an economic term. Gay Revisionists likewise attempt to redefine the Greek word malakoi, traditionally understood to be referring in this context to the passive male sex-partner, pointing out that the word often simply means “soft,” and that it commonly refers to a male with feminine traits, without any sexual connotations in Greek literature. However, all reasonable doubt as to its meaning in this passage is removed when it is paired up with arsenokoites, as we see here in 1Corinthians 6:9. Also, nowhere in Scripture do we see any indication that a man would be excluded from the kingdom simply because he has feminine traits.
While Matthew Vines attempts to make these words apply to something other than homosexual activity, as we saw earlier in his attempts to associate arsenokoites with economic exploitation, it nevertheless becomes obvious that he isn’t convinced by his own arguments because he concedes, saying:
“While malakoi and arsenokoitai could encompass forms of same-sex behavior, the behavior they might describe bears little resemblance to the modern relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Christians.” 
Here Vines demonstrates to us that, no matter how clearly the text comes out against homosexual activity, the trump card of Gay Revisionists is always to say that it doesn’t apply to our Postmodern generation. However, considering that all Scripture was given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who inhabits eternity, all His words are profitable for instruction in righteousness, no matter what generation we live in (2Tim 3:15-17; Mt 4:4; Jn 17:17).
They argue that, if only Moses and Paul had understood, as we do today, that some are born with same-sex attraction, rather than seeing it as a perversion of nature, they would have made explicit provision for committed life-long same-sex relationships. They argue that it is unjust to impose a life of celibacy upon those who were born as homosexuals, and for that reason, cannot change their sexual orientation.
However, all attempts to scientifically demonstrate that some were born as homosexuals have actually indicated the opposite. Furthermore, to claim that homosexual orientation is an irreversible life-long condition is to deny the transforming power of the gospel. In the passage we are considering, after warning in verses 9 and 10 that those who continue in the sins listed will not inherit the kingdom, Paul says in verse 11: “Such WERE some of you; BUT you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
So, we see that when we become a new creature in Christ, we are cleansed, receiving a new heart and a new identity. Instead of saying, “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” “once a prostitute, always a prostitute,” or “once a homosexual always a homosexual,” we need to embrace our new identity in Christ. If you are in Christ, you are a new creation, the old has passed away and the new has come (2Cor 5:17). You are now the righteousness of God in Christ (2Cor 5:21). As long as we confess the lie, contrary to the truth as it is in Jesus, saying, “I was born a sinner, I will always be a sinner,” we will remain under the power of our old identity. But when we live according to the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, sin loses its power and can no longer reign over our mortal bodies. As Paul says:
“Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts (επιθυμιαις, epithumiais). 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.” (Rom 6:11-13)
As Paul warns, those who continue obeying their lusts and practicing the sins he mentions, which include both aggressive and passive homosexual activity, will not inherit the kingdom of God. While the sons of the kingdom are reigning with Christ, they will be undergoing correction and purification in eonian fire during the kingdom age (Matt 25:41,45). Rather than claiming our sin as our identity, as many do when they self-identify as homosexuals or alcoholics, we must lay hold of our new identity in Christ. I have found it to be true that if the Son makes you free, you are free indeed (Jn 8:36).
6) The Prohibition of Same-sex Intercourse reaffirmed in the New Testament
While Paul makes it very clear that those of us who are in Christ have died to the Law in order that we might live unto Christ, he also makes it clear that the Law still stands to convict unrepentant sinners of their sinful condition.
“But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites (ἀρσενοκοίταις, arsenokoitais) for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.” (1 Tim 1:8-11).
Since we already saw what Paul meant by the compound word arsenokoites, I will not expand more upon this passage, other than to emphasize that Paul here reaffirms the Levitical prohibition of same sex intercourse without any exemption clauses or loopholes that the Gay advocates need in order to justify contemporary forms of homosexual activity. There are no statements in all of Scripture affirming the homosexual lifestyle. On the contrary, every reference to it is negative. Homosexuals are called upon to repent and believe the Gospel in order that they might be justified and cleansed from their sinful desires, just as are compulsive adulterers, thieves, and liars. On the other side of true repentance and faith there is freedom and transformation through the new life in Christ.
 Vines, Matthew. God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (p. 124). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
 Sibyllene Oracle Book 2.70-77
 The Acts of John 35-36
 Thayer's Greek Lexicon, NT:5449
 Vines, Matthew. God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (p. 130). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.