It’s become more and more popular over the last few decades to say that Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin was not what we call sodomy or homosexuality, but it’s just not Scripturally accurate.
Genesis 19:1-5 shows that the men (not the women) of the city wanted/desired to have sex with the male visitors.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 calls this very act to’evah, often translated abomination, and this is easily seen by even pro-gay “Christian” proponents, because their argument here is just: “The law is no longer binding through Christ.” Unbelievers see it clearly too. I once heard Ian McKellan say that he tore out the Leviticus 18 page of the Gideon Bible when he slept in a hotel room, because he didn’t want to sleep beside such garbage. They all see it; it’s not hard to see.
Jude 1:7 then says the cities were given over to ekporneuo, a Greek word meaning sexually immoral acts, and suffered the punishment of eternal fire. The strange flesh Jude mentions isn’t speaking of the men wanting sex with angels - they didn’t even know the men were angels - it’s speaking of the flesh being different than female, i.e. a male-to-male sexual relationship.
The text many progressives like to go to is in Ezekiel 16:49. There we find that *a* sin of Sodom was pride connected with a neglect of helping the poor and needy. Most do not read the next verse though where it says that Sodom practiced to’evah, the same word used in Leviticus 18:22 (and verse 26, 27, 29, and 30) and Leviticus 20:13.
It would be fine to say that practicing homosexuality was not Sodom’s *only* sin, but that’s certainly not how those using Ezekiel 16:49 frame it. They attempt to bypass the Older Testament Law by saying Leviticus has been abolished, or they try to use some fancy footwork to get around what Genesis and the rest of the Bible teaches against, all in hopes of appeasing a modern crowd.
White and Neil write, “Indeed, arrogance and pride are closely related to a willingness to twist even the most basic and fundamental aspect of our being, our sexuality, and to flaunt this in the face of God and our fellow creatures.” (The Same Sex Controversy, p.42)
Some try to say gang rape is in view in Genesis 19:1-5, but it was only the men of the city who were lustfully wanting the *male* visitors. They weren’t interested in the females. And there was no violence going on in Genesis 19:1-5, only a request that righteous Lot knew was wicked (2 Pet. 2:6-8).
Yahweh even held the Canaanites accountable to their many sexual sins; that’s how Leviticus 18 begins and ends. He tells Israel to not act like the Canaanites, because the Canaanites were vomited out of their land due to their sexual sins (Lev. 18:27-28). It’s similar to when Yahweh speaks of the “iniquity of the Amorites” (Gen. 15:16). Homosexual practice is just like adultery, it’s not limited to being prohibited in Israel.
In the beginning Yahweh made them male and female (Mt. 19:4). This is why a man leaves *father and mother* (one family unit) and *he* cleaves to his *wife* (forming a new family unit), Genesis 2:23-24. It’s been happening for thousands of years.
Some people use the, “Well Jesus never condemned homosexuality.” I can at least understand if an unbeliever says something like that (because they don’t believe the Bible), but for a believer to say such is unacceptable. We are supposed to be whole Bible Christians. Yeshua (Jesus) doesn’t have to address something for it to be a sin. His Father is the law-giver, and is top authority. As a matter of fact, Yeshua didn’t even speak his own words (John 12:49-50).
Stick with the whole Bible my friends. Don’t let anyone fool you by quoting one verse. #pridemonth
I've been out of town recently and haven't had the opportunity to dedicate alot of time to the blog, but I have been thinking about certain happenings in this country. I have actually never voted for President in my life, and haven't until recently been interested in voting for any candidates that have ran for the office. What I see in those seeking for either a Democratic or Republican nomination is people who are not concerned about following Yahweh and thus Biblical Law.
Sure, there are some who are better than others, but that is only true when we compare the men amongst themselves, and I believe that is the problem with people. For example you have one candidate who is for abortion (more properly infanticide) and another who is against the practice. Assuredly, the one against is a much better choice for a person than the one for, if you standards are found in the Bible. However, just because there is a man who's views are correct on this one issue, doesn't make him the man we should back as the President of the United States. We should judge a man by what should be and once was the supreme law of the land in the minds of the people of this country - Holy Scripture.
In the earliest stages of the founding of this country (1600's) there existed a people who truly believed that the Bible was the authority; not only individually or as a church body, but governmentally as well. They recognized that Yahweh's law is perfect (Psalm 19:7). Citations from the book of Deuteronomy and Leviticus existed in the documents that governed citizens of Connecticut and elsewhere. Needless to say, we've come a long way.
One thing that has "leaped off the page" to me recently is the Pluralism that exists in this Country. Just yesterday I had a discussion with the clerk at a local filling station about religion. He commented to me that all religions believe in the same God, they just have different ways of expressing such, and different names to call Him. I was thankful that I knew enough to explain him that I did not agree with that position. For instance, the One Muslims serve is not the same One that a true believer in the Messiah serves. "How come?" he answered. I asked him if his Mighty One had a Son. Of course Islam doesn't believe that "Allah" has a Son. Farbeit for God to have a Son, the Quran states. The Mighty One I serve has a Son, and it is through that Son that the Father has chosen to save His people (Matthew 1:21; 1 John 4:14).
The mindset of this clerk is the mindset of many in America, including professing Christians. No one wants to "rock-the-boat" when it comes to religion. No one wants to "draw lines in the sand" anymore, yet time and time again we see holy men and women in Scripture who took a stand for righteousness. Pluralism was not accepted; you could not "serve" Yahweh and at the same time serve Baal, Dagon, Nibhaz, Tartak, etc. The very first command in the Decalogue pronounced that Israel, Yahweh's people, were to have no other gods beside Him.
There is one way that Pluralism has crept into America that many people would not think about. This comes with the absence of the name Yahweh. Politicians and people of all religious creeds can say "God bless America" because when they use the word God they are thinking in their mind about their particular god; whomeover He is or whatever it is. It is a generic term with no unique quality or specification. Thus we should be able to see that with the removal of Yahweh's name from the lips of those who profess belief in His book leads to Pluralism, i.e. the acceptance of other gods and the invitation for other religions.
Another way in which people in America turn away from Yahweh is by leaning on man-made rules and regulations. Once such man-made document is the Constitution of the Unites States of America. Some people are vehement defenders of this document even though a simple reading of it shows that it clearly contradicts Biblical law. We shouldn't be involved in promoting a document that promotes idolatry.
Blog by Matthew Janzen. Lover of Yahweh, Yeshua, my wife and 5 children. All else is commentary.