Appendix 2
Aonghas Ian Macdonald - biblical teaching on homosexual practice
Is the decision to allow two men (or two women) to live together in a relationship practising sexual and other intimate activity on the same basis as a married couple a contradiction of the Scriptures or a matter that is open to an alternative interpretation?
The Old Testament
Leviticus 20, 13 states, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable". This indicates something that has serious social and spiritual consequences. Several commentators on this verse explore the issues of homosexuality in the context of the cult and worship of the "love and war" Egyptian goddess Ishtar. Sacro-homosexual practices were well established with Canaanite and Egyptian cults. Within normal social relations Middle Assyrian laws prescribed castration for a convicted practising homosexual [Pritchard – Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament]. Other societies do not make specific pronouncements.
Some commentators note that the homosexual interpretation of the activities in Sodom (Gen. 19, 5) has not been stressed as detestable by the authorities on the Talmud but see these rather as a failure in the canons of hospitality and justice. These authorities do not however deny that such actions were detestable. If we take the inspiration of Scripture seriously however the last word on Sodom must lie with Jude v 7 which refers to God’s judgment on the godless. It is stated clearly "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."
In Judges 19, 22-24 the vile nature of this act between man and man is underlined as the old man at Gibeah is forced to offer his virgin daughter and his guest’s concubine to the depraved demands made at his door; finally giving up the concubine who was raped and subsequently died.
The relationships between David and Jonathan and also between Naomi and Ruth have been used in a suggestive way by homosexuals and lesbians but there is no hint within the text of this. David’s marriages testify to his orientation and similarly with Ruth’s marriage to Boaz when the two widows returned from Moab to Bethlehem.
The Old Testament uniformly condemns such activity as an abomination for which the penalty was death. It violated the natural order of sexual relationships and catered to perverted lust rather than the procreation of the species. It is regarded as more heinous than fornication in that it contradicts the created order set out in Gen. 1, 27 where God’s creation for consummated companionship - that is marriage - is categorically male/female union as Jesus affirmed in Mark 10, 6-9. There is no other ordained "one flesh" alternative and that is why Paul is justified in referring to any other as "unnatural relations" (Rom. 1, 26f).
In Deuteronomy 23, 18 the Hebrew term "dogs" is applied to male cultic prostitutes or to homosexuals in general and is likely to lie behind the word "dogs" in Rev.22, 15 where the immoral are excluded from the city of God.
The New Testament
Homosexual practices are comprehensively condemned in the New Testament. There is little direct reference within the gospels and such principles as do exist lean categorically in the direction of leaving a lifestyle that contradicts heterosexual marriage. One lustful look constitutes adultery (Matt. 5, 27f) and the life of sin has to be forsaken (John 8, 11). The Prodigal is not made comfortable in the pigsty – he has to return home.
In line with all that Jesus taught we find this teaching expanded and illustrated in the epistles of the New Testament.
In Romans 1, 27 Paul wrote that God has given the unbelieving world over to His wrath so that they practise their sinful desires and thus degrade their own bodies with one another. "Even their women exchange natural relations with unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
As Paul reminds the Corinthians of their brotherly relationships to each other and the dignity to which they have been called away from their previous lifestyles, he states in 1 Cor. 6, 9f
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Reference has already been made to Jude v.7 with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah.
Statements of immense consequences in the context of the General Assembly’s decision, if it is not reversed, come to us in 1 Cor. 5, 9f: "I have written to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people – not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."
Guilt by association and guilt by remaining in fellowship hangs over those who reject sincerity and truth and allow the old yeast that denies the new creation to which the Passover lamb - Christ crucified and risen - has brought us (1 Cor. 5, 6-8).