Sodomy and Sodomites

[Anonymous]

Rather than muddy an existing discussion in another forum on deliberate, unrepentant sexual sin, I thought I'd ask this question here, just to get a sampling of everyone's view on the subject.

Most of us know that male-male sexual union is prohibited in Scripture (at least, I hope we can all agree on this point). My question is what Scripture verses do we have to support this view? To my knowledge, the only EXPLICIT verses are as follows:

Leviticus 18:22: “And do not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13: “And a man who lies with a male as he lies with a woman: both of them have done an abomination, they shall certainly be put to death, their blood is upon them.”

Romans 1:27: “and likewise, the men also, having left natural relations with woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing indecency, and receiving back the reward which was due for their straying.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the reign of Elohim? Do not be deceived. Neither those who whore, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor greedy of gain, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers shall inherit the reign of Elohim.”

1 Timothy 1:9-10: “knowing this: that Torah is not laid down for a righteous being, but for the lawless and unruly, for the wicked and for sinners, for the wrong-doers and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for those who whore, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and for whatever else that is contrary to sound teaching,”

Now, I realize there may be a number of implicit passages that indirectly tie to this subject, but I'd like to see if there's any other EXPLICIT verses that I've missed. I've found two OT and three NT verses that speak directly to the act of male sodomizing, so regardless which covenant you follow, there's enough to go around for everyone. Is anyone aware of any other explicit condemnation of male sodomy anywhere else in Scripture?

On a side note, would we say that a person can continue in deliberate, unrepentant sodomy with another man and still gain forgiveness for it? As I see it, there are only three possibilities here:

(1) Sodomy is not a sin and therefore need not be repented of.

(2) Sodomy is a sin but God will forgive and forget all sins, regardless whether we repent or turn away from it.

(3) Sodomy is a sin and God requires that we must repent and turn away from it in order to gain forgiveness.

Opinions? Comments?

In His love,
David

 

[Mark C]

Your recollection coincides with mine, David -- there are five explicit condemnations of male homosexuality in the Bible.

...would we say that a person can continue in deliberate, unrepentant sodomy with another man and still gain forgiveness for it?

I note again that sodomy, unlike polygyny, and unlike divorce, is unconditionally prohibited. Furthermore, there is no "certificate of sodomy" which allows such a practice to be engaged in at all, once God's requirements have been met!


Blessings in His Word,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

I note again that sodomy, unlike polygyny, and unlike divorce, is unconditionally prohibited.

Agreed. So would you then say that something such as adultery, which incidentally is also unconditionally prohibited in Scripture, also qualifies as something that a person cannot deliberately and unrepentantly continue in?

Let's take the question out of the venue of adulterous marriages. If a married woman decides she'd like to have an affair with another man, I think we can all agree that this qualifies UNCONDITIONALLY as adultery, yes? So can said married woman continue in her deliberate adulterous relationship with this "not-lawful-husband" man and gain forgiveness for it when she refuses to turn away from said relationship? I should think the answer would be the same, whether we're talking about two men (sodomy) or a man and a married woman (adultery). Both sodomy and adultery are prohibited in the OT and NT. Both sodomy and adultery required the death penalty in the OT.

Always in His love,
David

 

[Mark C]

So would you then say that something such as adultery, which incidentally is also unconditionally prohibited in Scripture, also qualifies as something that a person cannot deliberately and unrepentantly continue in?

This has never been in question.

But a woman whose former husband has clearly and explicitly relinquished his headship and authority over her, by giving into her hand a certificate of divorce, is no longer married. She is responsible for her own vows. She has no living husband.

Blessings,
Mark

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See this thread for more:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563

(And the "prohibited in both the OT and NT" claim is redundant, and therefore spurious. God does not change, and He said so.)

 

[sadanyagci]

As someone who was once involved in this and has studied the subject throughly, I can tell you that it is the third option. Forgiveness can be obtained if the action is ceased and it is repented of. Keep in mind that we are those who turned away from the kingdom of Satan to the Kingdom of God. We cannot bring the kingdom of Satan with us, by performing actions that poison His people and His earth. By doing so we show ourselves to truly serve the kingdom of Satan, and He is just and faithful to return us to it.

 

[Anonymous]

But a woman whose former husband has clearly and explicitly relinquished his headship and authority over her, by giving into her hand a certificate of divorce, is no longer married. She is responsible for her own vows. She has no living husband.

Indeed. How do you reconcile this view against Romans 7?

Romans 7:2-3: "For the married woman has been bound by Torah to the living husband, but if the husband dies, she is released from the Torah concerning her husband. So then, while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's. But if her husband dies, she is free from that part of the Torah, so that she is not an adulteress, having become another man's."

If God's certificate of divorcement was sufficient to free Israel to take "another husband", why did Jesus have to die at all? Why not just beat Him really good and cut on Him so we'd still have the blood. Why was His DEATH necessary if she wasn't still bound? Paul certainly seemed to understand the reason. In order for Israel to be truly free from the Torah, God didn't merely need to write her a certificate of divorcement and send her away. He needed to die in order to free her from that law. Romans 7 has a dual meaning, because marriage is a type and shadow of our relationship with Him. This aligns exactly with NT teaching on the subject of marital separation and adultery. She could not be free to partake of the New Covenant unless she was first released from the Old Covenant by His death.

Nowhere does Scripture even remotely state anything like the idea that adultery (or anything else, for that matter) voids a marriage. Scripture gives two cases where a marriage is dissolved lawfully and the woman is freed to remarry.

(1) Prior whoring by the woman (invalidating the marriage in the first place).
(2) Death by the man.

If Paul had meant to say "adultery" where he chose to say "death", he might have saved us a lot of confusion and just said so. If the woman had actually committed adultery, she wasn't entitled to remarry, she was entitled to die.

In any event, we're getting off track here. We already know we're not going to agree as to whether a married/divorced woman can remarry. The question here is only whether something that is unconditionally prohibited in Scripture (adultery, sodomy, etc.) can be deliberately and unrepentantly maintained, even if it's under the guise of "marriage". If it will make the question more palatable, assume the husband refuses to give his wife a certificate of divorcement, yet she remarries anyway.

In His love,
David

 

[Mark C]

Mark C wrote:
But a woman whose former husband has clearly and explicitly relinquished his headship and authority over her, by giving into her hand a certificate of divorce, is no longer married. She is responsible for her own vows. She has no living husband.


Indeed. How do you reconcile this view against Romans 7?

Just as I already said. A lawfully-divorced woman has NO LIVING HUSBAND.

 

[Anonymous]

As someone who was once involved in this and has studied the subject throughly, I can tell you that it is the third option. Forgiveness can be obtained if the action is ceased and it is repented of. Keep in mind that we are those who turned away from the kingdom of Satan to the Kingdom of God. We cannot bring the kingdom of Satan with us, by performing actions that poison His people and His earth. By doing so we show ourselves to truly serve the kingdom of Satan, and He is just and faithful to return us to it.

Exactly! As the very next verse in 1 Cor. 6 says:

1 Corinthians 6:11: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were set apart, but you were declared right in the Name of the Master Yahushua and by the Spirit of our Elohim."

Every sin can be forgiven, if we truly repent and turn from the sin. Our individual sins may be different, but we all come to Him needing the exact same grace and mercy, because we have all messed up in our various ways.

Always in His love,
David

 

[Anonymous]

Indeed. How do you reconcile this view against Romans 7?

Just as I already said. A lawfully-divorced woman has NO LIVING HUSBAND.

Was Israel lawfully or unlawfully divorced by Yahweh in Jeremiah 3? Again, why did Jesus have to DIE, according to Romans 7?

 

[sadanyagci]

I do not like posting on the topic of divorce and remarriage, as I have many parts of God's word to reconcile in my own mind concerning it, but I will state this:

A harlot can certainly marry, by God's word... and in Hosea, His command. Though the scriptures in Hosea are usually translated as a woman who has committed adultery. But lets stay on the safe side and say that it was just a regular ol' harlot, like the one from Jericho who just happens to be in the lineage of Jesus. Now, if a harlot can repent and be freed of the men she had joined herself to, can not an adulterous wife who was sent away? Is a harlot not a woman who was joined to and sent away from many men?

As Jesus states, divorce without adultery causes adultery. Adultery is the theft of a woman by another man. So it can be argued that the men of a harlot never owned her. However, the man who rapes a married woman never owned her, and yet he was joined to her, was he not? Was that not adultery? Right judgment of that was the same as for adultery... death unto him.

I guess my problem is that I find the only solution to the family problem in the western world is to men, or all the women, who have done such. Everything else just looks like muddy water. Understandably, I'm not too happy about that. I really need to understand further. Surely there is a solution somewhere in repentance and Christ. One cannot expect every woman on earth who's husband wronged them or who sinned to disobey all their human programming and remain celibate, can one? The problems with celibacy and monogamy are found expressed in this as well. Polygamy is understood as the solution... but can we expect of women who have sinned more than of strong Christians who fall into sin from monogamy and celibacy?

Yes, a woman who leaves her husband must remain unmarried, or fall into adultery. However, Jesus said a man who divorces his wife CAUSES her to commit adultery, basically meaning she WILL marry again and it's HIS fault. Can such women not be saved?

I'll stop here. My thinking brings up more questions than answers. I've laid out the problem... now lets talk and pray of these things. Certainly there is an answer in Truth.

 

[Tlaloc]

sadanyagci,

If you have some time look at topics that are locked on this forum, many of them are dealing with divorce and remarriage, there is an honest attempt to find the right answer but it always end up to be endless and cyclical.

This is one really tough topic.

 

[sadanyagci]

If you have some time look at topics that are locked on this forum, many of them are dealing with divorce and remarriage, there is an honest attempt to find the right answer but it always end up to be endless and cyclical.

I've seen the topics and comments peppered throughout the forum. It is argued about a lot.

This is one really tough topic.

Sure is. The endless cyclical nature isn't just on the forum. It's in my head too.

This is an important topic, and one that's just a best guess in the state it's in. Like the question of how to pronounce God's name, YHWH, information is needed that is just seemingly missing. But as it's a matter that affects how to judge what is right and wrong, I believe God will give the true answer. I think if an answer is to come, it must come from God directly, and be confirmed through multiple people, multiple ways.

I'm not one for new revelation in regards to things like that, but something is needed to solve this problem of not being able to stand firm and judge rightly what is good and what is evil with such an important question of sinning against the body, against one's self... an issue that affects nearly the entire western world at this moment. Understanding must come. This must end! Countless women and children are staked upon this one topic that I don't think anyone understands. If we can all agree that right now only He knows, as with Daniel and the interpretation of the dream of the king, as well as countless other scenarios, then maybe with prayer God will directly answer.

Oh Lord, we only wish to know your heart, and your truth. You have taught us so much, opening the flood gates of understanding to us. We have remained faithful. Now teach us, that we may once again rightly judge. Do this so that we may know what to do, and so that others may know that there is a God among us... Your rejected ones. I stand in fear of you, oh my Lord, and I dare not speak what I do not understand. Give us the answer, oh Lord our God. No one else can but you.

 

[DrRay777]

Sadan,

Some of us understand it, but it takes enlightenment from the Holy Spirit and not just a head knowledge of the Word. There is revelation on the subject, but some do not receive it. You are correct in the issue of many women wronged. Women who repent and receive Christ are new creations just as any man would be. If they are married to a non-believer and can live in peace, they should stay married. If their non-believing husband wishes to divorce them, they are free. Period. They can remarry. It is what God joins together that man should not separate. If people are joined in the flesh and not from God, then they can divorce and not be held accountable. The law was for Israel and the New Covenant is for believers. All those outside do not follow the same rules. If a man commits adultery and that can be from lust alone, the woman is free. She can stay or leave.

Do not let the confusion get to you; it is human wisdom in operation.

Be blessed,

Ray

 

[sadanyagci]

You are correct in the issue of many women wronged. Women who repent and receive Christ are new creations just as any man would be. If they are married to a non-believer and can live in peace, they should stay married. If their non-believing husband wishes to divorce them, they are free. Period. They can remarry.

Ok, new creations, but that is spiritually. But we are talking about physical position of the woman, meaning who is over her, who owns her. If a slave is not freed upon salvation, and a wife is not unmarried upon salvation, and a saved American is still under the American government, though he is a new creation, how is such a headship voided? I know where this idea comes from... the words of Paul. But does it state anything about such a thing directly? I suppose it can be taken from the statement that if the husband leaves let him leave... and we are not bound in such a case. But what exactly is this binding that we are no longer bound to? If a husband is no longer bound as well, what exactly is that binding that he is no longer bound to? Bound to force him to stay? Bound to force her to stay? Bound to keep her in his house? Bound to stay there? Or bound to remain married... whether together or not.

I suppose it could be argued that the binding should be interpreted by the previous passage... context. The previous passage was that the believer was bound to not divorcing their spouse. So that makes the most sense, which was the original idea I held on this. So then a believer truly isn't bound by an unbeliever leaving, maritally.

But then there are the cases of a believer leaving. That is expressly forbidden and said to be no reason for divorce. She must remain unmarried. That is easy to understand. The text is clear.

But then there are the mixtures. What if he left when she was unsaved? That, I suppose, could be extrapolated from the situation with the unbeliever leaving the believer. That would then leave the girl to be without marital binding. Oh dear God, what is coming out of me!

Then there is the situation of an unbelieving wife leaving her man. When she is saved, can she marry? This is more of a question mark than the others, but I would say the forgiveness extends to that. Or is she bound to returning to her previous husband? Is she bound to remain unmarried because she didn't understand before she was saved? That makes little sense to me. I believe she is freed.

Rahab was taken into Israel and married, though she was a prostitute. Such things are recorded a few times. I do not think God would have honored a wrong in such a way as to put Jesus in the linage of it. Jesus was not born through the adultery of David, but through a real marriage. The child of adultery died. She was David's.

I know a girl in the Philippines that believes this, and is remaining alone because of it... and also because her heart still belongs to the unbeliever in her mind. She left him because he wasn't saved. But they weren't married... though if I recall correctly (and recalling is a major problem of mine), she did sleep with him... and may have planned on marrying him. They may have been engaged. Engagement, by the word of God, is as good as binding as marriage. Though engagement was a bit different back then... better. *Sigh* What a mess.

OK, I think I have it mostly clear now.
1. Believer & Believer - Believer leaves - Bound
2. Believer & Unbeliever - Believer leaves - Bound
3. Believer & Unbeliever - Unbeliever leaves - Not Bound
4. Unbeliever & Unbeliever - Unbeliever leaves and later gets saved - Not Bound
5. No marriage / Harlotry / Prostitution - Gets saved - Not Bound
6. No salvation involved - Do as they like - Dead anyway - But speak to them of the above options in case they may be saved.

But if a believer leaves a believer, are both bound or just the one who left? This is the last question mark that I see... and from what I can tell, it's simple. The believer fell out of covenant by divorcing. They would then be demoted to the unbeliever stance... and the one who was sent away is freed.

Then it can be extrapolated that the unbeliever sins for leaving the believer, that is her binding of sin. Therefor, is she not bound? She would be freed, upon salvation, of her wrongs. But this is another kind of binding. It's a binding of sin. Can she return to the unbound? No. Therefor, is she bound to remain unmarried? Only if she was saved. If she wasn't, then the binding is meaningless anyway, as she's drowning in sin and will either marry a drowning man, or marry a believer and pull him in, or be pulled up and the salvation will unbind her. Therefor, only a saved woman who divorces must remain unmarried. The rest are unbound in that manner, are they not?

But what about the man? Would this be the place to include the scripture about the man who divorces and marries another sinning in that marriage? I believe it would. So then both are bound to remain unable to marry anyone else... though the man may keep his other wives. But the divorced wive's portion must not be given to another. This was the binding on marrying another wife. Do not decrease the previous wive's food, clothing, or marital relations. The food and clothing can be argued to not be reapportioned... but marital relations, if given to a new girl, will always take the place of the one who was put away. The one who was put away, her portion was decreased. He may not marry.

It is what God joins together that man should not separate. If people are joined in the flesh and not from God, then they can divorce and not be held accountable.

This is supposition. God invented the joining, the sexual union. It is how we can be joined to prostitutes... how we can join the Lord to a prostitute. This statement just doesn't fit anything much, from what I can see. If so, an unbeliever's marriage would not be valid, and we can take their wives from them... if they are believers that is.

The law was for Israel and the New Covenant is for believers. All those outside do not follow the same rules. If a man commits adultery and that can be from lust alone, the woman is free. She can stay or leave.

I don't understand this statement. What covenant part are your referencing, and what rules. What adultery from lust?. (I planned on posting some original research on lust that might interest you guys, but haven't yet. I should get to that.)

Some of us understand it, but it takes enlightenment from the Holy Spirit and not just a head knowledge of the Word. There is revelation on the subject, but some do not receive it ... Do not let the confusion get to you; it is human wisdom in operation.

You're not kiddin', there's revelation on this subject. All that above just poured out of me! :shock:

 

[sadanyagci]

More to say. It's kind of burning from the inside to get out!

This leaves a subject open. What if the believer was not told it was sin before the believer sent away the other believer or unbeliever? Are they still bound?

I would say not. His or her sin would be treated as if they were an unbeliever who just came to the realization that they sinned, and with repentance they would be forgiven. Thus, they would not be bound either, in this case, whether male or female, would they? Thoughts?

 

[Mark C]

Sadan, your table is good and in general I concur with the conclusions. However (and I think you understand this, because later comments in your post so indicate) do not forget that the commandments for men and women in this regard are DIFFERENT.

But if a believer leaves a believer, are both bound or just the one who left?

If the wife leaves (I Cor. 7:10-11) then the husband MAY remarry. That rebellious wife, as you understand, is to remain unmarried, since she still has a living husband. The obvious corollary (which, in this post-Biblical society, must necessarily be made clear to any such new wife) is that if the rebellious wife repents, her husband should forgive her and take her back under his covering. (Indeed, in my own case I contend she remains under that covering.)

Just to be complete, I contend that there are significant translation errors in many renderings of Matthew 5:32. There is in fact a distinction in both the original Hebrew (which, almost certainly, or Aramaic, was the language in which Yeshua made the teaching) and even the Greek rendering between the word for "put away" and that part of the process which correctly and necessarily ADDS the "certificate of divorce". (Many men in that day "dealt treacherously" with their wives, by putting them away without cause, and without such a certificate -- thus leaving them in a "never-never land" without covering. In such a case, the man truly DID "cause her" to commit adultery! This has been dealt with at great length in several previous threads here.)

The bottom line, IMO (and, I contend, in complete consistency with a Written Word and God who "changes not") is that divorce IS permitted (Deuteronomy 24:1) and that a woman properly separated, and possessing the written proof of such a "divorce", MAY remarry, "only in Him". If there is fault* -- if she was put away improperly, for example -- the HUSBAND bears that guilt, and that responsibility!

The issue of "Caesar's license" is important, and related, but not necessarily central. We should simply recognize that, if we "serve Him ONLY", we do not ask permission from 'another master'.
(Bear in mind what Deuteronomy 21:1-15 shows. IF that "other master" gives us a wife, the WIFE AND SUBSEQUENT CHILDREN belong to him!) What IS important, I contend, because there is SUCH a MESS of "divorced" women in the world today, who may soon "come out of" Caesar's system, is that they be taught and counseled that there is hope, and that they may be forgiven, redeemed, comforted, and ultimately remarried, again "only in Him". This is part of the prophecy of Isaiah 4:1, also much-discussed elsewhere.

Truly, "all things are possible" in Christ Yeshua - even remarriage for women who once considered themselves "damaged goods".

Blessings in His love,

Mark



----------------------
* "sexual sin" on her part was the only exception, for which she could be lawfully "put away" without such a certificate. Even so, however, "we are called to peace", and should forgive, as both the teaching of Numbers 5, as well as Yeshua's dealing with the 'woman caught in adultery', show.

 

[sadanyagci]

Truly, "all things are possible" in Christ Yeshua - even remarriage for women who once considered themselves "damaged goods".

Yes, indeed. This completely eliminates such problems. I had it in my mind that such bindings upon someone recently saved didn't sound right any more than the bindings that a man can only have one wife.

Truly this allows provisions for innumerable women within the church who are destitute. God made woman for man, and it is a sorry sight for them not to have a covering... like the widows always referred to by God as those we should provide for. Orphans and widows... two groups with one thing in common... no covering. God's heart goes out to them, and He helps them in their distress. Surely these women are in the same group... and surely God's heart goes out to them.

Thank you, Lord, for opening my eyes, as I asked of you.

 

[steve]

If the wife leaves (I Cor. 7:10-11) then the husband MAY remarry. .[/quote]

just a minor distinction, unless i missed something he may marry again whether she stays, leaves, lives in a tent in the backyard, on a mountaintop in peru..............

Truly this allows provisions for innumerable women within the church who are destitute.
amen, sadan

 

[sadanyagci]

There is in fact a distinction in both the original Hebrew (which, almost certainly, or Aramaic, was the language in which Yeshua made the teaching)

A fun little side note on this. I can pretty much prove that Matthew was originally written wholly in Aramaic... and the Peshita Aramaic has the original of it. It is the only version of the book of Matthew where Matthew 1 makes numeral and logical sense. Interestingly enough, there is early historical testimony that Matthew wrote first, and in Aramaic.

Count them out... 14 generations, 14 generations, 13 generations.

BUT, a woman is included in the genealogy. That's an odd thing. In every other version of the Bible it says Joseph the husband of Mary. But in the Peshita it says Joseph the MAN of Mary, which can either mean husband or father. It was rendered husband in the Greek. Of course, as everyone knew Mary's husband was named Joseph. What the translators probably didn't know though was that her father was named Joseph too. This is the genealogy of Jesus, through Mary, not Joseph as Bible Scholars have been saying (Joseph's is clearly recorded in Luke.) The different word for father used for Mary's father was used because it was a woman's genealogy. Different sex, different situation, different word usage.

"Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ." and poor ol' Matthew finally passes math class, after 2000 years. We graded his test wrong all this time. Truly Matthew can count! :lol:

 

[Mark C]

If the wife leaves (I Cor. 7:10-11) then the husband MAY remarry...

just a minor distinction, unless i missed something he may marry again whether she stays, leaves, lives in a tent in the backyard, on a mountaintop in peru..............

Thanks for the correction, steve. I should have been more specific, but let my thoughts run ahead of my fingers.

What I REALLY should have said is a bit more. Like the "Law of the Levirate" in the Torah, this is the other Biblical example of where a man may be REQUIRED to have two wives. IF the wife leaves, AND he marries again, when she returns and he takes her back as he should - then that husband has two wives.

And thanks, Sadan. I have long been fully convinced as well that Matthew was translated from Hebrew and/or Aramaic into Greek. Michael Rood and Nehemiah Gordon have an interesting study on Matthew 23 (esp. v 2-3) which focuses on an inconsistency in the Greek, since the difference between "they" and "he" is only a single yod ( ' ) . What it really said was,

...the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
All therefore whatsoever [that] he bids you observe, observe and do; but do not follow after their works: for they say, and do not.

The rest of the chapter is then a consistent exposition of why He properly calls them "Hypocrites!" for violating Deuteronomy 4:2, and for replacing the commandments of God with the traditions of men. Unfortunately, the 'Church' continued in that transgression...

Blessings in Him,

Mark