Exploring Homosexuality in Biblical Context - Part Three
In part one, we examined the cultural and historical context of homosexuality in ancient pagan societies, where it was widely accepted and celebrated. In contrast, Judaism introduced a countercultural ethic rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures, elevating sexuality to a sacred, covenantal act within marriage. This revolutionary moral framework emphasized relational integrity and divine purpose, shaping Jewish culture and laying the foundation for Christian teachings on sexuality.
In part two of this study, we delved into the moral framework established in the Hebrew Scriptures and carried forward into the Apostolic writings of the New Testament. We examined how the Torah, as God's eternal instruction, provides the foundation for understanding His design for human relationships and moral boundaries, particularly concerning sexuality. By exploring key passages such as Genesis, Leviticus, and the teachings of the apostles, we saw how God's universal laws and the covenant with Israel set a standard of holiness that transcends cultural and temporal boundaries. The New Testament reaffirmed these principles, calling both Jews and Gentiles to live in alignment with God's will. This continuity highlights the life-giving purpose of God's commands and their relevance in guiding all people toward righteousness and flourishing. With this understanding, we now turn to practical applications of these biblical teachings in contemporary contexts.
Two Letters
When addressing topics like homosexuality from a Biblical perspective, we often encounter tension and resistance, particularly when engaging in conversations with someone currently practicing homosexuality. Before delving deeper, it’s important to take a moment to reflect on the reality of this situation. In his sermon series on homosexuality, Dwight Pryor highlights two compelling "Letters to the Editor," one written by a Jewish author and the other by a Christian, offering valuable insights into this complex discussion.
Letter from a Jew
The first letter appeared in the Jerusalem Post International Edition for the week ending June 5, 1993. Each week the Jerusalem Post features a column called Shabbat Shalom, authored by Rabbi Riskin, in which he reflects on the Torah portion for that week. The letter responds to a column Riskin wrote about Leviticus 18.
Pryor introduces the letter by encouraging his audience to pay attention not only to the content but also to the spirit in which it was written. The letter begins:
"Sir, I write in response to Rabbi Shlomo Riskin’s comments on the Bible’s prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22. The rabbi writes that he does not know how this verse is dealt with in gay synagogues. Perhaps before writing a column in which he claims that Judaism sees homosexuality as the family’s most lethal enemy, Rabbi Riskin might have spoken with some gay or lesbian Jews to ask how we do respond to the biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, such as in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13."
The writer continues by explaining how gay Jews, depending on their perspective of the Torah, approach these prohibitions:
"Gay Jews who accept the Torah as God’s word given to Moses seek to interpret these verses in ways that narrow their applicability. Some, for example, argue that the biblical prohibition refers specifically to male cult prostitution, a feature of Canaanite religion, rather than to homosexuality in general. Gay Jews who view the Bible as written by humans consider the prohibition of homosexuality to reflect time-bound human prejudice rather than the divine will."
The letter then addresses the broader impact of these verses:
"No matter which view we hold, all Jews must confront the legacy of hatred that stems from these two verses in Leviticus. For centuries, those who persecuted homosexuals used these verses as their justification. Despite this painful history, many gay and lesbian Jews choose to affirm their Jewish identity and express their Judaism in either gay or mixed synagogues."
The writer then raises concerns about the impact of Rabbi Riskin’s views:
"Rabbi Riskin and others who share his perspective create a damaging and potentially life-threatening environment for young people who recognize homosexual feelings within themselves. Will these young people, knowing the views of their community leaders, feel they can turn to their rabbis, teachers, parents, or friends? Or will they keep their struggles to themselves in silent and painful isolation, knowing their innermost feelings are condemned by their own community?"
The letter concludes with a sobering statistic:
"The statistic that the rate of teenage suicide in the United States is estimated to be three times higher among homosexual youth than among their peers should give pause to those who condemn homosexuality or deny that homosexuals exist in all communities."
Letter from a Christian
Next, Pryor read excerpts from a letter addressed to Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family. It was published in the July 1993 issue of Focus on the Family magazine. The letter, written by a young man who identifies as gay, begins:
"I am gay, and I am writing on behalf of many thousands of gay people in this country who have grown to hate the church because of the actions of organizations like yours. I grew up in the home of a minister. It was a very happy, non-dysfunctional environment. I grew up as a Bible-believing Christian and always tried to put Christ first in my life and live by His commandments. I loved the Lord, the church, and my family—in that order."
The writer goes on to share his personal journey:
"I left home and attended college, where I spent hundreds of hours studying the Bible, theology, and the history of the church. My parents were very proud and thought everything had turned out perfectly. When I graduated, that’s when I told them I was gay. They were devastated. You see, from the moment I entered puberty, I was attracted to the same sex. It never changed. Of course, I tried to change because I thought I was the only one in the world like this, and my father preached against it. From the sixth grade through my junior year of college, I tried everything I could to go straight—counselors, prayer vigils, reading countless books on the evils of homosexuality, and attending Homosexuals Anonymous. Nothing worked. The more I tried to change, the more natural it seemed for me to be gay. So, I decided to come out of the closet."
The writer describes his experience after coming out:
"The first person I met in a gay club was the choir director’s son from my parents’ church. He introduced me to many other gay individuals—seminary students, Sunday school teachers, church pianists, ushers, and many (he underscores the word many) preachers’ sons."
As the writer continued his education, he began to question traditional interpretations of the Bible regarding homosexuality:
"In the next few months, I took a course in college on the Pauline Epistles. One of our textbooks included a lengthy chapter discussing what the Bible says—and does not say—about homosexuality. To oversimplify a complex argument, it concluded that the Bible does not take a definitive position on what we know today as committed gay relationships."
The letter ends with a heartfelt plea to Dr. Dobson:
"If you are really concerned about winning people to Christ, then look to the gay community. They are ripe for harvest. They would respond to a voice that preaches hope, forgiveness, acceptance, and sexual morals—as long as you understand that we are not perverted in our feelings of love for one another. Dr. Dobson, I remember watching your first videotape series in my dad’s church, and I felt so strongly about your message. I still do. My partner and I, along with thousands of other gay people, simply wish you would be more inclusive."
This letter reflects a deep inner conflict and a desire for reconciliation between faith and sexual identity, as well as a call for understanding and inclusion from the Christian community.
When discussing topics like homosexuality, we must never forget that we are talking about human beings—people who are often sincere, intelligent, and committed, yet deeply hurting. You may sense the pain expressed in these letters. Can you imagine the anguish someone might feel if they experienced these struggles personally or if their child did? In our conversations, we must be careful not to lose sight of the individuals behind the issue amidst harsh rhetoric or heated arguments. Compassion must remain at the forefront of these discussions.
The Biblical Perspective on Sexuality: Upholding the Covenant of Marriage and Addressing Distortions
In our study of the Bible's commentary on homosexuality, we find that Scripture prohibits all non-marital sexual acts, including homosexuality, incest, and bestiality. At the same time, it upholds heterosexual relationships within the covenant of marriage as the ideal. This marital union is presented not only as a source of personal fulfillment but also as the foundation for the continuation and flourishing of society itself.
By channeling the human sex drive into this sacred context, the Bible elevates the status and significance of sex, love, women, marriage, and the family. It establishes the basis for the civilization we know today. Consequently, any behavior—such as homosexuality, incest, or bestiality—that undermines or distorts this ideal is described in Scripture as an abomination (to’evah in Hebrew). The rabbis offer a wordplay on to’evah, interpreting it as toei atah ba, meaning “you are going the way of error.” It is a tragic and destructive mistake.
Paul provides a sobering analysis of the pagan mindset. Paul describes those who reject God and thereby bring judgment upon themselves. In a deliberate and measured act, Paul says, God "hands them over" to their desires. They are given over to impurity, shameful lusts, inflamed passions, and indecent acts. For Paul, the punishment is intrinsic to the sin itself: the perversion becomes its own penalty. The power of sin and its consequences spiral inward, leading to self-deception and self-destruction.
To summarize Paul’s view—and, by extension, the New Testament’s view—on homosexuality: Paul stands firmly within a well-established tradition that regards homosexual acts as an abomination, a tragic error with devastating consequences. Such actions, according to Paul, represent a willful flaunting of the rights and regulations established by the Creator. They dishonor God and lead to the degradation and destruction of the self. Paul describes this as the result of a depraved mind and inflamed, compulsive passions—a perversion that turns in on itself in an ever-tightening spiral of deception and destruction. Paul’s stance is unambiguous. He shares the deep and abiding rejection of pagan sexual perversions, including homosexuality, that characterized the Judaism of the biblical period and the Torah of the God of Israel.
Objections to The Bible’s View of Homosexuality
Objections have been raised—both to the Old Testament prohibitions and to the New Testament texts, particularly Paul’s writings. These objections deserve careful consideration as we continue this study.
One pastor argued that the book we should rely upon is not the Old Testament or Paul’s writings, but what he called: “The book of what Jesus said about Homosexuality.” He continued:
“If you open that book, you will find its pages blank. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, but he had much to say about loving one another. To know this liberating and inclusive Christ is to be freed from bondage to the literal, which makes us curators of a dead culture rather than creatures of a new creation.”
While this perspective may seem appealing to some, respectfully, it represents a deeply flawed principle of biblical interpretation and faulty reasoning. This approach is dangerous because it sets Jesus in opposition to the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament. In doing so, it maligns the Torah—and thereby the God of the Torah. It also misrepresents Jesus. This is logic that stems from separating Jesus from the Torah.
The truth is that the will and wisdom of God expressed in the Torah has eternal validity. While its application may vary depending on covenantal contexts, its moral truths are unchanging, and its wisdom remains relevant. Jesus Himself was the embodiment of the Torah—its telos (purpose), fulfillment, and ultimate expression. Far from discarding the Torah, He lived and taught in alignment with its eternal principles.
The argument that “Jesus didn’t address homosexuality, so it must not matter” is fundamentally flawed and slippery. Arguments from silence can be used to prove almost anything. For example, Jesus never explicitly condemned incest or child abuse—does that mean such actions are permissible as long as they’re done “in a loving way”? Of course not.
Jesus shared the deep antipathy toward homosexuality that was characteristic of Judaism, rooted in the Torah. His silence on the subject does not imply approval but reflects the consistency of His teaching with the moral framework already established in Scripture.
The more nuanced argument made by this pastor is that “love” is the foundation of a truly Christian ethic. This idea holds much truth—it is indeed central to Christian teaching. Love is described as the royal law (James 2:8) and is the very purpose of the Torah itself.
However, it is not the whole truth. A biblical understanding of love is always tethered to God’s moral order. Love does not nullify God’s commandments; it fulfills them. As Paul writes in Romans 13:10, “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” True love seeks what is best for others, and that includes honoring God’s design for human relationships and sexuality.
The idea that Jesus’ silence on a specific issue permits behavior contrary to God’s moral law misrepresents both the character of Jesus and the teachings of Scripture. Love is indeed the foundation of Christian ethics, but it is not a license to discard God’s moral standards. Instead, it is the guiding principle through which those standards are rightly applied. To pit love against the Torah, or Jesus against the rest of Scripture, is to misunderstand both.
Jesus’ teaching on love calls us not to abolish the law but to live it out in a way that reflects God’s holiness and compassion—a balance that we must carefully maintain in our discussions of challenging issues like this one.
The Torah teaches that love is foundational, and many often cite the example of Jesus with the woman caught in adultery to illustrate this. Adultery, a clear violation of God’s law, presented an opportunity for condemnation, yet Jesus extended mercy. Writing on the ground, He declared, “Neither do I condemn you,” and many interpret this as love triumphing over judgment. They argue that love liberates and sets us free from condemnation, as the New Testament proclaims there is no condemnation in Christ.
Some extend this reasoning further, claiming that entering into a committed, loving relationship—even with the same sex—carries no condemnation if it is done in love. This argument is emotionally compelling but deeply flawed both biblically and logically. Yes, Jesus acted in love, but He also acted in obedience to the will of the Father, and He calls us to do the same. He said, “If you love me, you will obey my commandments.” Love and obedience are not in opposition; they are inseparable. The Torah itself is an expression of God’s love and grace—a guide intended to bring us into fullness of life. True love seeks to enhance life in the other, and the law serves as its compass, providing direction and instruction.
Without the law to guide it, love becomes unmoored, reduced to mere sentimentalism or, at worst, compulsive and self-serving feelings. Yes, Jesus affirmed love as the greatest commandment, but it is not the only commandment. Without the teaching and wisdom of God, love alone cannot reliably guide ethical decisions, as our hearts are prone to deception. Have you ever made an irrational decision under the influence of love, only to later look back and think, “Thank God for His grace”? This illustrates why love, while central, is not a sufficient foundation for Christian ethics—it needs the grounding of God’s law to avoid the pitfalls of relativism and situation ethics.
True love desires the well-being of the other and aligns itself with God’s divine pattern and purpose to bring about shalom—peace, wholeness, and flourishing. Acting contrary to God’s will does not bring freedom or well-being but instead leads to bondage, both for the one acting and for others impacted. As Paul teaches, if we do not live by the law of the Spirit, we will inevitably fall under the law of the flesh. The question is not whether we will serve a law but which law we will serve. Will it be the law of self, which leads to separation from God and the loss of peace, or will it be God’s divine law, which brings humility, fulfillment, and shalom?
When Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, “Neither do I condemn you,” He also said, “Go, and sin no more.” He demonstrated both mercy and justice, reflecting the dual nature of God as both Avinu (our Father) and Malkenu (our King). God is merciful, yet He is also just. He is Adonai—the covenant God—and Eloheinu—the Creator and Judge of heaven and earth. To affirm only one aspect of God’s character while neglecting the other results in a partial truth, and partial truths can be among the most dangerous deceptions.
Scripture assures us, “If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us.” But that forgiveness calls us into a life of obedience, where love is lived out according to God’s law, bringing about true freedom and flourishing. This balance of love, law, mercy, and justice is the heart of God’s redemptive design. We must never lose sight of the dual nature of God. He is as intimate as Abba, as Apapa, yet as transcendent and holy as Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh. Love needs law to guide it.
Revisionist Approaches to Homosexuality in the Bible
When addressing the biblical texts regarding homosexuality, those who argue for its acceptability—often referred to as revisionists—tend to take one of three approaches. They either reinterpret the text, restrict its meaning or applicability, or reject it outright.
Revisionists often reinterpret biblical passages to narrow their scope. For example, the story of Sodom has frequently been reframed, claiming the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality but inhospitality—the violation of Middle Eastern hospitality norms. Others argue that God’s condemnation in this story is specifically about gang rape rather than consensual homosexual acts.
Similarly, Paul’s writings are often reinterpreted to limit their applicability. Some claim that Paul was condemning only cult prostitution, which he does address elsewhere, or that he was specifically denouncing pederasty—the sexual relationships between older men and younger boys.
Another approach is to dismiss the text entirely as archaic and irrelevant. These arguments suggest that biblical prohibitions are tied to ancient cultural norms that no longer apply today, and therefore have no bearing on loving, monogamous homosexual relationships.
All these approaches rest on faulty assumptions—chief among them, the idea that the ancient world did not understand homosexuality as we do today. While it is true that the ancient world lacked the modern psychological concept of homosexuality as an identity, they were deeply familiar with homosexual desire and practice. Homosexuality was widespread and well-documented in the ancient world. Yet, every time homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible—whether in the Old Testament or the New—it is unequivocally condemned. This consistency is significant, and to dismiss or reinterpret it is to undermine the authority of Scripture.
Avoiding the significance of these passages, whether subtly or overtly, represents a departure from the high view of Scripture. A high view of Scripture holds that the Bible is both authoritative and normative for how we live our lives. To downplay or distort its message is to reject its rightful role in guiding us toward God’s truth.
The “I Was Born This Way” Argument
What about the person who says, “I was born this way—God made me this way. How can it be wrong for me to act on these feelings?” This argument is deeply compelling, but it is not the full story.
First, the evidence for a genetic predisposition to homosexuality is tenuous at best. While this hypothesis is widely discussed, it remains far from a proven fact, and some are inclined to believe it will never be definitively established. However, for the purposes of this discussion, whether or not a genetic predisposition exists is ultimately irrelevant.
There are many individuals who have experienced same-sex attraction from their earliest memories but have, through God’s grace and a long process, been transformed and delivered from those tendencies. They have come to understand that their inclinations were not inherent to their created nature but were part of the fallen and broken condition we all share.
Even if a genetic predisposition were to be proven—which I find unlikely—it would not be theologically decisive. Our identity and actions are shaped not only by biology but by God’s redemptive purposes for us.
Furthermore, current research suggests that only 1-3% of the population is exclusively homosexual, far lower than the often-cited 10% figure popularized in the media. While the struggles are real and the challenges profound, God’s truth, grace, and transformative power remain available to all who seek Him.
From a logical perspective, it’s essential to distinguish between the existence of something and the ethics of it—between what is and what ought to be. Just because something exists doesn’t mean it is right or should be affirmed. Even if genetic predispositions are present, they do not invalidate God’s will or wisdom. For example, some people are believed to have genetic tendencies toward alcoholism, but that doesn’t lead us to affirm or promote alcoholism. Similarly, some social scientists suggest that certain individuals may have a genetic inclination toward violence or sociopathic behavior, but society rightly chooses to limit and not condone such behaviors.
The truth is that all humans, from birth, possess a yetzer hara, an inclination toward evil. It’s a given—a consequence of the fall of Adam and Eve. But the Gospel teaches that Christ came not to confirm the old, fallen nature but to transform it. He came as the second Adam to undo the brokenness caused by the first Adam and to make us new creations in Him.
This is an area where repentance—teshuvah—is essential for every disciple of Yeshua. Sin is deeply rooted in the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. The Torah acknowledges this by teaching us to battle our evil inclination, including our inclination toward immorality. When it says, "When you go out to war against your enemies," it reflects the lifelong battle against the desires of the flesh—a central part of living a life of devotion and godliness. This struggle is ongoing, a constant war against our lower nature. Prepare yourselves for this fight—against the evil inclination, the lust of the eyes, the desires of the flesh, and the pride of life.
At the heart of the arguments surrounding homosexuality—both in secular culture and within some parts of the Church—is the question of identity: Who am I? A destructive and corrosive logic is at work when identity is reduced solely to sexual orientation. Sexuality is indeed a beautiful, God-given part of life, but it is not the entirety of life. For those in Christ, identity is not determined by biology but by the truth of Scripture. You are not defined by your sexual orientation but by your status as a creature made in the image of God, called to be transformed into the image of His Son, Jesus.
Let’s turn to Paul’s words in 1 Thessalonians 4: “This is the will of God: your sanctification—that you abstain from sexual immorality, that each of you know how to control your own body in holiness and honor, not in passionate lust like the Gentiles who do not know God.” Paul emphasizes that sexuality, within the boundaries of sanctification, is not only a matter of personal discipline but a divine calling to holiness.
Unfortunately, our culture often swings to two extremes. In some church settings, where celibacy and abstinence are exalted, sexuality can seem taboo or shameful. In contrast, the world often treats it as commonplace, profane, and without boundaries, pushing the idea that personal gratification is an innate, undeniable right. Both views miss the mark. In Judaism, sexuality is neither dirty nor profane. Instead, it is considered holy. As Paul explains, it’s part of our sanctification—part of what makes us holy.
Holiness means being set apart for a sacred purpose. Think of the Sabbath, the first thing God declared holy. What makes it holy? It is set apart from ordinary days, guarded by boundaries, and reserved for divine purposes. Similarly, the sacrifices in the temple, the priesthood, and even the sanctuary itself—especially the Holy of Holies—are examples of holiness: firm boundaries and sacred intention in service to Hashem. According to the Torah, sexuality is to be treated in the same way. It is holy when reserved for the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage. This sanctification is not just a rule—it’s a reflection of God’s design for holiness in every aspect of our lives.
The good news of the Gospel is that we are not under the law of sin but under grace. As Paul explains in Romans 6, we are no longer slaves to the compulsive power of sin in our bodies. Instead, through the resurrection power of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit, we can experience transformation and renewal. Change is possible—and by God’s grace, it happens.
This is why it is particularly heartbreaking when churches affirm homosexual relationships as acceptable alternatives to heterosexual marriage. Such affirmations not only rob individuals of their God-given potential but also redefine identity in ways far below the biblical standard. They seek to sanctify the fallen nature rather than embracing the transformation of the new nature in Christ. In doing so, they diminish the image of God, detract from His holiness, and prevent individuals from experiencing the fullness of shalom available in Christ.
God’s transformative work may manifest differently in each person. For some, it may involve a lifelong call to celibacy, a daily crucifixion of the old self while the Spirit works within. For others, it may lead to deep inner healing over time, as they encounter God’s affirming love, hear His truth, and walk in obedience.
This journey of transformation—whether through celibacy or healed desires—demonstrates the power of God’s grace to redeem, restore, and bring life into alignment with His perfect will. It is a testimony to the hope and freedom found in Christ alone.
God’s Word must be regarded as supreme, and our ultimate purpose is to fully surrender ourselves to Him. Only through this surrender can we find true fulfillment, peace, and salvation.
The argument that "God made me this way, so it must be permissible" doesn’t hold up. God made all of us with sinful inclinations—desires that often lead to self-destruction. Just because a desire exists doesn’t mean it should be fulfilled. This applies universally, whether one is straight or gay, single or married. As Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 4:5, we are not to live “in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God.” The issue is not just sexual immorality but the deeper problem: the world’s rejection of God.
An Overarching Call For All to Recognize God and His Authority Through Obedience
Finally, I want to shift focus to what I believe is the most critical and overlooked issue in this entire discussion. While much effort is spent debating individual texts and their interpretations, we often miss the larger context. We become so consumed with the details—arguing over specific verses—that we lose sight of the overarching principles of God’s law and the purpose of Scripture as a whole.
Let us step back and consider the forest rather than getting lost in the trees. The issue at hand is not merely about individual verses or cultural interpretations but about the holistic message of Scripture, its authority, and its call for obedience to God’s design. It is within this broader framework that the truth becomes clear.
What is the bigger picture without which you can never adequately interpret the smaller texts of Scripture? It’s this: You will never fully understand or appreciate the Bible’s negative stance on homosexuality unless you see it in light of its extraordinarily positive and profound vision of sexuality. Put another way, you’ll get a skewed understanding of passages like those in Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians unless you start where the Bible begins—with Genesis chapters 1 and 2.
The Bible’s prohibitions regarding homosexuality only take on their full meaning when understood alongside its exalted view of sex. The negative treatment of certain behaviors stems not from disdain for sex but from a reverence for it. Scripture does not condemn homosexual activity because it looks down on sex as something dirty or demeaning, permissible only under restrictive circumstances. On the contrary, Scripture places boundaries on sex because it elevates sex to a sacred and essential part of human existence.
Sex, by God’s design, is good. The Fall didn’t create passion; it perverted it. Passion itself is God’s creation, intentionally embedded within the male and the female. In fact, sex is both a duty and a delight within the covenant of marriage. Marriage, as depicted in Genesis, is the pinnacle of God’s creative activity—the culmination of His work in uniting man and woman in covenantal union. Marriage is often compared to Sinai because it is seen as a sacred covenant. It is called kiddushin—holy—because marriage is sanctified in Scripture, bringing completeness, or shalom, to human life.
The very complementarity of male and female—reflected even in their sexual anatomy—symbolizes the spiritual completeness and union that is achieved in marriage. In the Bible, sex is both a channel for creating life and a channel for expressing love. It is so highly esteemed that God places strict boundaries around it to protect its sanctity. Extramarital sex in any form is prohibited, not because sex is bad, but because it is so good and so important.
God’s wisdom in this design is further affirmed by modern studies. For example, research consistently shows that sex is most fulfilling and meaningful within the context of a committed, lifelong marriage. It shouldn’t surprise us that the Creator of something knows how it works best. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist—or even a philosopher—to understand that the One who designed sex also knows how to protect its purpose and sanctity.
The Bible’s restrictions on sexual activity outside of marriage stem not from repression but from reverence. God values sex so highly that He created boundaries to safeguard its beauty, power, and purpose within the covenant of marriage. When we see this big picture, the smaller texts make much more sense.
What Happens When We Avoid God’s Vision
Recent studies have shed light on the effects of promiscuity on marriage, challenging conventional wisdom. The findings reveal that the more premarital sexual relationships a person has, the less likely they are to experience fulfilling sexual relations within marriage. Premarital sexual activity is also linked to decreased marital satisfaction, increased likelihood of extramarital affairs, and higher divorce rates. These patterns align closely with God’s wisdom as revealed in Scripture, which seeks to preserve and protect sexuality as a sacred bond within the covenant of marriage.
God’s design for sexuality is not about restriction for its own sake but about safeguarding its profound purpose. Marriage is not merely a human institution but a cosmic covenant—“made in heaven”—intended to sanctify God’s name. The perfect unity of God is to be reflected in the oneness of man and woman within marriage. This union embodies the love and unity that Christ has with His bride, the church. When viewed through this lens, it becomes clear why homosexual acts undermine God’s purposes for marriage, creation, and society.
Homosexuality disrupts God’s design, undermining the sanctity of marriage, destabilizing the family, and threatening future generations. Rabbi Shlomo Riskin aptly described homosexuality as “the family’s most lethal weapon.” The Bible, and Judaism as a whole, affirms life. Homosexuality, by contrast, poses a lethal threat not only to the institution of marriage but also to the individuals who engage in it. The Torah calls us to “choose life,” and to act contrary to God’s wisdom is to choose the opposite of life.
Scientific evidence further highlights the destructive consequences of homosexual behavior. Research has shown a compulsive aspect to sexual activity among homosexual men. For instance, a major study found that 43% of homosexual men reported having sexual relations with over 500 partners, and nearly 30% reported over 1,000 partners. These numbers starkly contrast with the average heterosexual experience in the U.S., where adults over age 18 reported an average of seven lifetime sexual partners.
The study also revealed that 80% of homosexual men said more than half of their sexual partners were strangers, and 70% reported that most of their partners were one-time encounters. Even gay authors and leaders have acknowledged this intrinsic characteristic of homosexuality. A study of 100 gay couples in committed relationships found that 0% had maintained monogamy for five years or more. The authors concluded that non-monogamy is essential to the gay identity and that attempts at monogamy are a result of societal pressure rather than an innate desire.
Biblically speaking, homosexual acts cannot fulfill God’s purpose for sexuality. Instead, many seek surrogate fulfillment in promiscuity and other behaviors that distort God’s design. This has devastating consequences. For example, AIDS has overwhelmingly affected those engaging in homosexual activity and drug abuse, with over two-thirds of AIDS patients reporting homosexual activity in their past. Despite media narratives suggesting that everyone is equally at risk, the data makes clear that behaviors carry different levels of risk.
Homosexuality, often portrayed as a glamorous and hedonistic lifestyle, is in reality marked by loneliness, promiscuity, self-pity, suicide, and disease. Its toll on those who engage in it is immense.
Ultimately, the biblical vision of sexuality and marriage is the foundational reason that the Bible—and those who believe in it—must reject homosexuality as a morally viable option. It is not merely about individual verses but about the overarching purpose and sanctity of God’s design for humanity. The Bible’s rejection of homosexuality is rooted in its high regard for marriage, family, and the flourishing of life according to God’s will.
The Christian Response to the Homosexual Community
How should we, as Christians, respond to the young man who wrote Dr. Dobson, as well as others like him who genuinely have a heart for God yet struggle with the inclination toward homosexual behavior? In a word: repent.
What does this mean? It means acknowledging a hard truth—that in many respects, the criticisms leveled at the Church by homosexual individuals are valid. Too often, Christians have been ignorant, insensitive, and unsympathetic to the struggles faced by those in the LGBTQ+ community. Yes, homosexual acts are described as sin in the Bible. They violate God’s will and distort His design. But let us not forget: they are not the only sins, nor are they necessarily the gravest sins mentioned in Scripture.
Why is it that we can preach so loudly against homosexuality while remaining silent about greed, gluttony, pride, or racism? We all know that occult practices are called abominations in Deuteronomy 18. But did you know that dishonest business practices are also called an abomination (to’evah) in Deuteronomy 25? That those who sow discord among believers are described as an abomination in Proverbs 6? Or that Proverbs 28:9 states the prayer of someone who refuses to obey God’s will is itself an abomination?
The Church has often been quick to condemn the sins it sees “out there” while neglecting the sins “in here.” This pattern is un-Christlike and falls short of God’s standards.
It’s also vital to distinguish between a homosexual inclination and a homosexual act. The Bible does not call it a sin to feel a homosexual inclination any more than it calls it a sin to feel a heterosexual inclination. Both are natural inclinations. It is the act—the willful engagement in behavior outside of God’s design—that the Bible describes as sin. While the acts may provoke revulsion, we must never lose respect or compassion for the person caught in the grip of these struggles.
We may feel a visceral reaction to certain behaviors, but we must never lose sight of the humanity and inherent worth of those who struggle under the deceptive and compulsive power of sin—whether that sin is homosexuality or any other. Jesus calls us to extend grace, mercy, and love to all people while upholding the truth of God’s Word.
This balance of truth and love is not easy, but it is necessary. It allows us to address sin honestly while still respecting and valuing the person caught in its grip. That is the Christlike response, and it is the response the Church must offer to those who seek God but struggle in this area of their lives.
Dr. Stanton Jones of Wheaton College, in a striking article published in Christianity Today (July 1993), makes a profound observation: “If you cannot empathize with a homosexual person because of fear or revulsion, then you are failing our Lord.” This statement calls the Church to a higher standard. As Christians, we are called to demonstrate God’s love to everyone, including homosexual individuals, in both words and deeds. Yes, we must speak the truth, but we must always speak it in love.
The Church must also repudiate acts of violence against homosexuals, both physical and verbal, as well as attitudes of intolerance. What does verbal violence look like? It includes derogatory jokes, slurs, and dehumanizing rhetoric. It also includes sensationalized messaging, such as a fundraising campaign from a well-known evangelical ministry that used the inflammatory slogan, “Stop the gays dead in their perverted tracks.” This is not the way of Christ.
Homosexual individuals face serious struggles, but so do we. We all have areas of brokenness, and it is only by God’s grace that we are being healed and made whole. That same grace must flow through us to those who are struggling with homosexual tendencies. While we must speak the truth and confront sin, we are called to be the loving opposition. The Church should be a place of refuge—a sanctuary where those struggling with homosexuality can find prayerful support, acceptance, and guidance toward healing.
Imagine how someone in your church would be treated if they admitted to struggling with homosexual tendencies. Would they be welcomed, or would they become an outcast? Sadly, too often they would be shunned, made untouchable, out of fear—even though Scripture tells us that God has not given us a spirit of fear. We are called to witness to the truth out of love. Sometimes that love must be tough, but it must always be Christlike.
Hollywood and media outlets have shown great sympathy for those suffering from AIDS, often more than the Church has. While sympathy is commendable, it is not sufficient. The Church must go further, lovingly sounding the alarm and engaging in compassionate, Christlike opposition to the behaviors and mindsets that contribute to the spread of disease and destruction. To compromise truth out of sympathy undermines God’s Word and His authority. However, to communicate truth without love—through arrogance, hateful rhetoric, or a lack of empathy—also fails to reflect Christ.
We must strike a balance. If we compromise, we misrepresent God’s sovereignty. If we are harsh or unloving, we misrepresent His grace. Either way, we fail to honor Christ. Jesus died for all people, including those struggling with homosexuality, just as He died for you and me.
It’s important to consider the consequences of our rhetoric against the so-called "gay agenda." When it comes to opposing this movement in our country and culture, the church and people of faith need to recognize that this fight is over. The battle has been lost. Hindsight is 20/20, and it’s now clear that this was likely not a battle we should have engaged in—because it was not one we could have won. If victory was never possible, perhaps it was a fight that should never have been fought. Instead, our energy might have been better spent on securing private liberties for individuals and organizations with religious convictions, rather than trying to impose those convictions on people outside the assembly of Messiah and outside the camp of Israel.
Today, broader society views the acceptance and celebration of LGBT lifestyles as a fundamental moral issue. This is crucial to understand. For most people under 30, this perspective is self-evident. Unfortunately, many pastors and church leaders fail to grasp the extent of this cultural shift. It is no longer a question of persuading the culture—the culture has decided.
In the eyes of modern society, anyone who does not affirm, accept, celebrate, or advocate for LGBT lifestyles is deemed not just narrow-minded, bigoted, or old-fashioned but a perpetrator of hatred. This perception places such individuals on par with racists, fascists, and other purveyors of evil. By opposing same-sex marriage or LGBT rights, the church has disqualified itself in the culture's eyes as a credible source of moral authority. Many within the church seem unaware of the extent of this cultural shift or the danger it represents. The cultural shift is undeniable, yet the church continues to operate as though it were still 30 years ago.
Meanwhile, the church in this country is in decline. Millennials and younger generations are leaving in droves, and they are not coming back. One of the primary reasons they cite is their perception of the church as judgmental, bigoted, and out of touch—especially on this issue. This is not the only problem, of course, but it is a significant one.
Some churches, realizing that the moral ground has shifted beneath their feet, have taken steps to adapt—but they are doing so in the wrong way. They have begun sanctioning practices they once forbade, acting as though they have the authority to redefine moral boundaries. Having abolished the Torah as their foundation, they seem to believe they can shift with the winds of culture. But without the Torah, there is no firm ground to stand on.
It’s true that you can make the Bible say almost anything you want if you twist it enough. Unfortunately, there is an entire movement of liberal Bible scholars who make their living doing just that—manipulating Scripture to say things it does not say and to permit things it clearly does not permit. That’s one way to approach it, but it’s not the right way. So, what is the right answer?
There are times when you go to war against your enemies, and your enemies prevail. In those moments, you’re left with three choices:
First, you can stand your ground and die on the hill—a choice many conservative Christian churches are making, and they are dying as a result.
Second, you can surrender—a choice that liberal Christian churches and some liberal schools of Judaism, such as Conservative and Reform traditions, have made. This is a surrender to the prevailing culture.
There is a third option: retreat. When your enemies prevail on the battlefield, sometimes retreat is the wisest tactical decision. What does retreat look like? It is a withdrawal from the cultural battle to a secure position—a place where you can regroup, heal, and strengthen yourselves for the inevitable future assaults.
When soldiers retreat, they take time to tend to their wounds and stop the hemorrhaging. Today, conservative Christianity and Judaism are hemorrhaging members—particularly young people—who are leaving for secularism, agnosticism, and even atheism. There are many reasons for this complex phenomenon, but one significant factor is the church’s rhetoric against homosexuality.
Much like the letter we read earlier, Daniel Lancaster, a pastor and Bible teacher, encounters this often. A Christian woman in her late 20s wrote to Lancaster, expressing her frustration with the traditional Christian stance condemning homosexuality. She said she left the church because she was tired of hearing anti-gay sermons.
Daniel Lancaster wrote back to her with empathy, acknowledging that her feelings are valid and that anyone with a heart of compassion can understand her perspective. He also explained that I believe it is wrong for Christians to condemn non-believers for failing to live by biblical standards. Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 5:12–13: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” In other words, people outside the community of faith are not our business. Their lives are between them and God. Throwing stones at them is not our place.
The issue arises, however, when someone within the faith community identifies as a follower of Jesus while openly living in ways the Bible prohibits—whether it’s a gay relationship or any other sin. Let me be clear: experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin. Temptation itself is not sinful. But openly embracing and celebrating actions the Bible calls sin is a problem, just as it would be for someone indulging in pornography or any other illicit relationship. The church often gets this wrong, treating certain sins—like homosexuality—as worse than others, while ignoring equally grievous sins within a heterosexual context.
This imbalance highlights a deeper issue: a lack of consistent application of Scripture. For instance, those who passionately quote Leviticus 18’s prohibition of homosexuality often overlook the chapter’s rules on marital separation during the monthly cycle. Both are part of the same Torah, yet we apply them with unequal weights and measures. This lack of consistency undermines the church’s credibility.
Sin does not disqualify a person from following the Master—thank God for that. We all struggle with sin, and even our Master wrestled with temptation. The real issue arises when sin is no longer acknowledged as sin, when it is celebrated as part of one’s identity, or when culture dictates what is permissible instead of Scripture. Deciding that something the Bible forbids is no longer sin because society “took a vote” is a dangerous path.
Let’s remember: feeling attraction, whether same-sex or heterosexual outside of marriage, is not sinful. Acting on those desires, however, is. Struggling with sin is part of the human condition, but the path of teshuvah—repentance—is always available. The problem comes when we stop struggling, stop repenting, and start justifying. As our Master said, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46). Following Him means acknowledging sin for what it is, seeking forgiveness, and pursuing holiness. That is the way forward—not through condemnation, not through surrender, but through a retreat to righteousness.
When you become a disciple of Yeshua, you sign up for a different set of terms and conditions. These don’t apply equally to everyone, and I’m sorry if no one told you this when you first came to faith—but it’s true. Similarly, being Jewish comes with responsibilities that don’t apply to non-Jews. It’s like joining the army: you willingly give up certain rights and privileges. Soldiers live by a different set of rules, and the same is true for those who follow Yeshua. We accept the terms and conditions laid out in Scripture, and they often limit our freedoms—especially when it comes to sexuality.
In Deuteronomy 22:13, the Torah teaches that sexual relations belong within marriage. Jewish sages have long interpreted this as a command to reserve all intimacy for the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. Paul echoes this in 1 Corinthians 6:16, warning that joining oneself to another outside of marriage defies God’s design, as “the two shall become one flesh.” The Torah’s term for sexual immorality, zona—often translated as "prostitute"—applies broadly to any sexually permissive behavior outside marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual. The Torah is clear: no double standards exist. It prohibits all forms of extramarital intimacy.
This principle extends to Gentile believers as well. The Apostolic Decree in Acts 15 included sexual immorality among the prohibitions for God-fearing Gentiles, meaning the same standards apply to all disciples of Yeshua. Yet the church often focuses its outrage on same-sex relationships while ignoring heterosexual sins, creating an imbalance that undermines its moral authority. The truth is, all sexual activity outside of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage is prohibited.
When we signed up to follow Yeshua, we voluntarily laid aside our rights to live by our own desires. Just as soldiers relinquish personal freedoms for the greater mission, disciples of Yeshua commit to holiness and sanctification. This includes resisting all forms of immorality, no matter how natural the temptation may feel. Whether someone struggles with same-sex attraction, the challenges of being single, or the temptations within marriage, the standard remains the same: we are all called to resist our inclinations and live according to God’s will.
Instead of casting stones at those outside the faith, we must focus on shoring up our own defenses—defining ourselves by biblical standards and conforming to God’s commands. The cultural shift on this issue is like a storm surge, and the church’s levees are failing. Our task is not to judge the secular world for acting like the secular world but to strengthen the purity and holiness within our own community.
As disciples of Yeshua, we have chosen to follow a higher calling, voluntarily forfeiting our right to self-gratification. This battle is not easy—it is every man’s and every woman’s battle. Yet, this is what it means to put on the uniform in the Lord’s army. As the Torah portion reminds us, “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand…” may it be so for us.
To the young man who wrote to Dr. Dobson, our response must begin with empathy. Coming out or grappling with one's sexuality is an incredibly challenging and often painful journey, marked by deep anguish and hardship—sometimes exacerbated by the very people who should offer support, including the Church.
Yet the call of the Gospel remains the same for everyone: to receive God’s offer of shalom—peace, wholeness, and restoration—through Jesus the Messiah. It is in our repentance and through His sacrificial blood that we find forgiveness and new life. This transformative message of grace and redemption is not reserved for some; it is for all. As Christians, we must ensure that this truth is not only proclaimed but demonstrated through our love, understanding, and compassion.
But grace doesn’t end there. Once we receive it, we must respond with faithfulness and obedience to God’s call. We must surrender ourselves—our bodies, our desires, and our actions—to righteousness for His name’s sake. This is not a call for some; it is the call for all. The Gospel invites us to find our completeness in Christ, to lay down our brokenness, and to walk in His grace and truth. That is the challenge and the beauty of the good news.
Transformation and healing don’t typically happen through a single prayer for deliverance or simply affirming a set of creeds about Jesus. These can be important beginnings, but true salvation is a lifelong process of experiencing God’s presence and power. As we regularly and fully enter into His presence, He begins to transform us from the inside out. This transformation can extend even to deeply ingrained struggles, including homosexual tendencies.
Grace operates through faithfulness. All healing and salvation begin at the cross and proceed from it. Sometimes God’s grace manifests by redeeming your suffering; other times, it comes through the removal of that suffering. Either way, His grace is at work, and we can glorify Him through our faithfulness and costly discipleship.
Dwight Pryor recommend two books by Leanne Payne, a writer whose profound insights into the human soul and the struggles surrounding homosexuality have been invaluable. Her books, The Broken Image and Crisis in Masculinity, offer deep understanding and hope for those wrestling with these issues.
The Churches Response
As we draw this discussion to a close, let us address the pressing question: What should the Church's response be?
Stand as the Loving Opposition
As members of society, the Church has both the right and the responsibility to stand as the loving opposition to the militant efforts of the gay rights movement, particularly when these efforts undermine the foundational values of our society and civilization. This is not an issue of civil rights, despite how it has been framed in media and public discourse.
Civil rights are rooted in immutable characteristics—such as race or ethnicity—that define who a person is. Sexual conduct, however, is a matter of behavior and choice. While someone may feel a strong inclination toward homosexuality, they still possess the ability to choose whether or not to act on those impulses. This distinction makes the issue of homosexuality fundamentally different from race or gender.
Society has the authority to limit behaviors that are seen as harmful to the common good. This is not about imposing a theocracy or policing private consensual acts between adults. In a democratic society, personal freedoms must exist—but they do not need to be promoted or encouraged. The government has no place behind bedroom doors, but it also has no business endorsing or normalizing homosexual behavior as an alternative to the biblical ideal of heterosexual marriage.
The activist movement is not merely seeking tolerance but is driving a larger cultural revolution. This revolution aims to redefine the values of Western and biblical traditions, with a particular impact on children. As Christians, we must resist this cultural shift with truth and love—not with hateful rhetoric or bitterness, but with clear, unwavering conviction.
Bear Witness to a Higher Standard
The Church must reclaim its responsibility to stand as a beacon of hope, truth, and holiness. We are called to embody a different reality, one rooted in God’s eternal standards rather than the world’s shifting norms. The passages in Leviticus 18 and 20, which address sexual immorality, are part of what is known as the Holiness Code. These teachings call God’s people to live as a distinct and set-apart community.
It is tragic when the very institution called to holiness—the Church—compromises and begins to sanctify sin, such as homosexual activity. Our calling is to be a holy people, set apart from the world’s ways. Holiness means living according to God’s standards, not society’s, and bearing faithful witness to His truth.
If the Church fails in this high calling, judgment will begin in the house of God. By neglecting our role as a holy people, we risk succumbing to the very forces of moral decay we are called to resist. To fulfill our mission, we must be light in the darkness, standing firm in our commitment to God’s Word and ways, while extending His love and grace to all who are seeking truth and redemption.
At its core, the issue before us is a question of authority: Who shall be God? It is a battle over who determines what is good and evil, right and wrong. If we reflect deeply, we recognize that this struggle is as ancient as humanity itself, tracing back to the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve sought the power to define morality for themselves, and the adversary fed their desire by questioning God’s authority: “Has God really said?”
Tragically, the Church today, which is meant to uphold God’s authority, has often joined in the same question, reinterpreting Scripture to suit human desires and undermining God’s sovereignty. At its heart, this is pride—the same pride that Scripture warns leads to destruction.
There is a pervasive assault on God’s holiness in our world, and few areas reveal this more starkly than the reinterpretation of God’s design for sexuality. As Judges 17:6 hauntingly reminds us: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” The same is true today. Without acknowledging God as King, without acknowledging God’s eternal instruction (Torah)—even within some churches—every individual defines morality on their own terms, often with well-meaning but misguided intentions. In doing so, we abandon the sovereignty of God and embrace the relativism that undermines truth and transcendent authority.
Whether it’s a raised fist in defiance or a raised symbol of rebellion, the underlying issue is the same: opposition to God. History shows us that rebellion, whether personal or systemic, always leads to judgment.
We are called not to rebellion, but to submission—to lift up holy hands to the King of the Universe, not fists of defiance. If the Church fails to stand firm in this calling, the following consequences will inevitably unfold:
The Authority of God’s Word Will Be Undermined
When the Church conforms God’s Word to human desires rather than conforming humanity to God’s Word, we attack the integrity of Scripture. Consider the 1991 report from the Presbyterian Committee on Human Sexuality, which stated that God’s Word is only those parts of the Bible that are “just and loving,” while the rest can be dismissed. Such logic is pernicious—it diminishes God’s sovereignty and invites relativism into the Church, undermining the holiness of Scripture.
The Sanctity of Sexuality and Marriage Will Be Eroded
The Church’s failure to uphold biblical teaching on sexuality and marriage does not liberate individuals; it enslaves them to their old nature. Marriage is the culmination of God’s creative design—a sacred covenant that reflects His perfect unity and love. To compromise on this issue is to devalue marriage and erode the foundation of society itself. As I’ve shared in previous teachings, our first and highest ministry must be to our families. Men are called to lead their homes with love and faithfulness, and women are called to honor their roles as mothers and wives. These roles are not secondary; they are central to God’s design for His kingdom.
The Church Will Lose Its Witness
If we fail to uphold God’s truth, we fail to bear witness to His holiness in a darkened world. We are called to be distinct—a holy people who reflect God’s light and love. When the Church compromises on issues of morality, it forfeits its role as a beacon of truth and contributes to the moral decay of society. Judgment begins in the house of God, and if we neglect our calling to be set apart, we risk succumbing to the very forces we are meant to resist.
Our Identity in Christ Will Be Lost
The most profound truth is this: our highest and truest identity is found in Christ alone. It is not found in our sexual nature, intellectual achievements, possessions, or power. If we are not being conformed to the image of Christ, we are being deformed into the image of the world, which is enmity with God. To default on our responsibility to reflect Christ is to forsake our purpose as His witnesses in an increasingly broken and confused world.
Let us remember: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” May we stand firm in His truth, offering light in the darkness and pointing all people to the fullness of life found only in Him.
Conclusion
As we conclude, it is vital to remember that discussions on homosexuality are not merely theological debates—they involve real people, their struggles, and their desires to belong. The Bible’s teachings on sexuality are unwavering, yet they are also part of a broader vision for human flourishing within God’s design. The Church’s response must be marked by humility and grace, offering both the truth of God’s Word and the transformative hope of the Gospel. In upholding the sanctity of marriage and sexuality, let us be known not for condemnation but for compassion, striving always to reflect the love, mercy, and holiness of our Creator.