Hi Aaron,
Thanks so much for visiting our site and for signing our guestbook. I appreciate that you shared your thoughts with us.
Before I discuss your concerns, I just want to make it clear that, although Justin and I are fellowservants in the Faith of the Lord, we are from two different organizations. Justin is the head of Gay Christian Network/Gay Christian Radio (www.GayChristian.net) and I am the head of King James Bible Ministries International (with
www.GayChristianSurvivors.com being our gay Christian outreach). Many years ago, Justin generously contributed the "Gays & Marriage" article to our site; but actually, he and I have never met (though I'd very much like to some day). We also include some of his YouTube videos on our site as a resource, simply because they are so well done. I'll be the first to admit that, over all, he and I have different styles and different perspectives, but I don't think that we are so different as to contradict one another, as evidenced by the fact that we both reach similar conclusions. One of our main differences is that I accept only the King James Bible as an authentic translation of the Scriptures in English, whereas Justin freely uses various versions - versions which unfortunately create doctrinal conflict when getting down to the fine points on the issues of biblical morality. Because of this, Justin and I will differ a little on biblical interpretation.
If I understand the position of Justin's ministry correctly, they hold that the Levitical laws DO condemn homosexuality, but that we are not bound to the law in the New Covenant under Jesus. Yet at the same time they admit that being homosexual is an inherent trait. Unfortunately, to my mind that is rather the same as saying that God creates left-handed people and then condemns them if they use their left hand as right-handers use their right hand.
My position, however, is that both the biblical Hebrew/Greek majority manuscripts and the English King James Bible confirm that Leviticus says nothing whatsoever against homosexuality, but only condemns heterosexual men who leave their wives to fornicate with other males. In other words, the Old Covenant was never anti-gay in the first place; it is anti-fornication and anti-adultery.
The Bible has no problem with homosexuals (so long as they are not fornicating), which is why no one in Israel did a double take when David and Jonathan entered a marriage covenant in front of the king and the entire Israeli militia. With David LAWFULLY being married to Jonathan (the rightful heir to the throne), Saul became instantly jealous of David’s victories (which a female wife would not have achieved), and Saul perceived his son-in-law David as a direct threat to his throne. A female spouse of Jonathan would strive to achieve the throne for her husband. Since Jonathan was heir to the throne as Saul’s son, Saul would have approved of such a wife. BUT, David (in Saul’s mind) might seek the throne FOR HIMSELF. Thus Saul thinks that David is plotting a coup when he refuses to attend Saul’s banquet, and Saul warns Jonathan through mockery of their sexual union that his marriage to David will prevent him from ever rightfully attaining the throne: "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" Clarke's Bible Commentary makes this fascinating remark about it, "The Hebrew might be translated, Son of an unjust rebellion - i.e. Thou art a rebel against thine own father." Saul did not merely see that Jonathan's marriage to David could put David on the throne, but that the House of Saul would be supplanted by the HOUSE OF JESSE on the throne - which is why Saul says that Jonathan "hast chosen the son of Jesse" rather than "chosen David".
The specific words Saul used are the key. No one - not the people, not the Bible, not God - had a problem with Jonathan marrying a man. Even Saul and all the people and servants in the beginning thought highly of their marriage and brought David into the royal household ("The soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day and would let him go no more home to his father's House. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword and his bow and his girdle. And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him and behaved himself wisely. And Saul set him over the men of war and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants."). Their homosexual marriage was not a secret to anyone nor rejected by anyone. God Himself said not a single word against it. The only ones who seem to have a problem with it are today's Pharisees who believe they have the right - 3000 years after the event - to redefine what was happening between David and Jonathan, and to say that the reason why no one condemned them was because they weren't in a marriage in the first place; they were "just friends", they say. If the Bible is only depicting "just friends" in its description of David & Jonathan's relationship, then I am forced to redefine Romeo & Juliet's relationship as being "just friends".
The massive confusion comes from the church's belief that there is no such thing as a person with inherent homosexuality. Rather, the church believes that there is ONLY inherent heterosexuality, and that "homosexual" merely refers to a heterosexual person who fornicates with a person of the same gender (which would more properly be called "bisexuality" - not homosexuality). Therefore, when the Church reads the laws in Leviticus, they see it as a ban on ALL forms of homosexuality. So we are then left with a world where everyone thinks that there is no difference between "a homosexual" and "a heterosexual who fornicates with the same gender". But this, of course, is as absurd as saying that there is no difference between “a woman” and “a man that dresses like a woman”, or "a left-handed person" and "a right-handed person who uses his left hand", or "a Brunette" and "a Blonde who dyes their hair brown".
Because of this belief by the church, all new Bible versions are created from that perspective; this explains why so many new Bible versions have had the audacity to actually insert the word "homosexual" into the text, even though it does not occur in ANY biblical manuscript - not even the satanically corrupt ones. The new bible versions are merely the personal interpretations of the editors; so if the editor is anti-gay, he/she will produce a new bible version containing their bias. The KJV contains no such bias because the translators wrote what God SAID rather than what they think He MEANT. When Moses wrote Leviticus, he wrote it in Hebrew, and the Hebrew states that it is an abomination for a man that lies with a woman to also lie with men. The KJV translates this perfectly, saying, "If a man also lieth with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, they have both committed abomination...". God is here speaking to the men among His people, whom He has already commanded to engage in sex only within the confines of marriage. Therefore, "as he lieth with a WOMAN" can only refer to the man's wife. God said "a woman" – singular, as a wife - not "women", as more than his wife. He is reiterating that you can only have sex with your SPOUSE, and if the husband is out with the guys in the harvest field or the battle field or the sports field (ancient Olympics) and starts feelings a little horny, he's not allowed to have a quickie with his male buddy just to get off. He must save it for his spouse. God is telling these men, who are not gay and therefore do not consider such activity to be adultery, that it is in fact adultery.
NATURALLY God would condemn a man who cheats on his wife with another man. God was condemning a major view in those days, a view which believed that a heterosexual man could have non-submissive sex with another man and it would not be considered adultery or unmanly. This was a huge practice in those days and flourished throughout Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. Paul confirms this in Romans 1 by saying, "Men, LEAVING the natural use of the WOMAN [i.e. his wife], burned in their LUST one toward another." For the church to say that this refers to HOMOSEXUALS is to accuse innocent children of lustfulness when they NATURALLY realize their exclusive attraction to the same gender even though they had no understanding of SEX. What a perverted accusation from perverted minds!
Brother, there will always be divisions even among friends. Justin and I offer you two perspectives on the matter. It is now up to you, with reliance on the Word of God and the Holy Spirit (not your own reasoning or opinion), to determine what is sound and appropriate doctrine in the answering of your heart’s questions. I’m here for you - and I am certain that Justin is as well - if you would like to talk further about this.
Yours in Christ,
Rev. Jim Cunningham
