Changes

The subject of [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is one in which the Biblical condemnation of homosexual relations has historically been upheld.  However, beginning shortly before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, continued attempts have been made by pro-homosexual revisionists to negate the universal injunctions against homosexual relations, and to find sanction for the same via [[wishful thinking]] on the part of those seeking to read homosexuality (and by extension, their own sinful desires) into selected parts of Scripture where such does not exist.  This interpretive conflict is one which is between two fundamentally different positions, these being the traditional/historical position and the latter revisionist, pro-homosexual view.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, "The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref>  Principal texts are [[Genesis]] 1:26,27; 2:18-24; [[Leviticus 18]], and [[Romans 1]].  The religious conflict between the two positions by churches or individuals is typically manifest as correlating to their beliefs about the Bible, and usually parallels their positions on other issues which divide [[conservatives]] from [[liberals]].<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html Revealing Statistics]</ref> {{Main|Homosexuality and Christianity}}

The subject of [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is one in which the Biblical condemnation of homosexual relations has historically been upheld.  However, beginning shortly before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, continued attempts have been made by pro-homosexual revisionists to negate the universal injunctions against homosexual relations, and to find sanction for the same via [[wishful thinking]] on the part of those seeking to read homosexuality (and by extension, their own sinful desires) into selected parts of Scripture where such does not exist.  This interpretive conflict is one which is between two fundamentally different positions, these being the traditional/historical position and the latter revisionist, pro-homosexual view.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, "The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref>  Principal texts are [[Genesis]] 1:26,27; 2:18-24; [[Leviticus 18]], and [[Romans 1]].  The religious conflict between the two positions by churches or individuals is typically manifest as correlating to their beliefs about the Bible, and usually parallels their positions on other issues which divide [[conservatives]] from [[liberals]].<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.net/RevealingStatistics.html Revealing Statistics]</ref> {{Main|Homosexuality and Christianity}}

This article primarily deals with the phenomenon of pro-homosexual polemics regarding homosexuality in the Old Testament, and the examination of its conclusions in the light of traditional/historical Biblical [[exegesis]], that of the explanation of a text, based upon proven principals of [[hermeneutics]],<ref>[http://www.theologue.org/HERMENEUTICS-DMERKEL.html Hermeneutics - A Guide To Basic Bible Interpretation By Darryl M. Erkel]</ref> or rules of interpretation.  See also [[New Testament and homosexuality]]

This article primarily deals with the phenomenon of pro-homosexual polemics regarding homosexuality in the Old Testament, and the examination of its conclusions in the light of traditional/historical Biblical [[exegesis]], that of the explanation of a text, based upon proven principals of [[hermeneutics]],<ref>[http://www.theologue.org/HERMENEUTICS-DMERKEL.html Hermeneutics - A Guide To Basic Bible Interpretation By Darryl M. Erkel]</ref> or rules of interpretation.  See also [[New Testament and homosexuality]]

Those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture typically view the Bible as a book that was not wholly inspired of God, and which allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, as well as tolerating a much broader range of interpretation of basic moral commands and their immutability, even to the point of such being determined by contemporary cultural morality. The Bible is almost universally held by them to be partly the work of ''[[homophobic]]'' editors.<ref>B.A. Robinson; Thomas Horner; Steven Greenberg</ref> Those who penned the Bible are sometimes essentially deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid, thus impugning the Divine inspiration of Scripture, as well as demonstrable sound exegesis.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref>  This effect may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[Homosexual Historical Revisionism|homosexual historical revisionism]].  

Those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture typically view the Bible as a book that was not wholly inspired of God, and which allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, as well as tolerating a much broader range of interpretation of basic moral commands and their immutability, even to the point of such being determined by contemporary cultural morality. The Bible is almost universally held by them to be partly the work of ''[[homophobic]]'' editors.<ref>B.A. Robinson; Thomas Horner; Steven Greenberg</ref> Those who penned the Bible are sometimes essentially deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid, thus impugning the Divine inspiration of Scripture, as well as demonstrable sound exegesis.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref>  This effect may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[Homosexual Historical Revisionism|homosexual historical revisionism]].  

Another solution to the problem of the universal condemnation of and lack of sanction for homosexual relations is that of Professor Walter Wink, who concedes, "I have long insisted that the issue is one of  hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are  deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is  negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." And that "Paul wouldn't accept [a loving homosexual] relationship for a minute." However, he and similar revisionists view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”.  Instead,such hold that people possess a right to sex that supersedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love.<ref>Walter Wink, "To hell with gays" and "the Bible and homosexuality"</ref>  (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) It is understood that this enables the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible to yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm "No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon]</ref>  

Another solution to the problem of the universal condemnation of and lack of sanction for homosexual relations is that of Professor Walter Wink, who concedes, "I have long insisted that the issue is one of  hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are  deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is  negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." And that "Paul wouldn't accept [a loving homosexual] relationship for a minute." However, he and similar revisionists view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”.  Instead,such hold that people possess a right to sex that supersedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love.<ref>Walter Wink, "To hell with gays" and "the Bible and homosexuality"</ref>  (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) It is understood that this enables the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible to yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.net/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm "No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon]</ref>  

Daniel Helminiak's theory of ethics is similar, which Olliff and Hodges notes "is, at its very foundation, self-refuting. While he professes Christianity, he has adopted the autonomous man's position for the basis of his ethics." <ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/response_to_helminiak_2.html A Further Look at Pro-Homosexual Theology], Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges</ref>   

Daniel Helminiak's theory of ethics is similar, which Olliff and Hodges notes "is, at its very foundation, self-refuting. While he professes Christianity, he has adopted the autonomous man's position for the basis of his ethics." <ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/response_to_helminiak_2.html A Further Look at Pro-Homosexual Theology], Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges</ref>   

(Mat 19:4-6)  "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them '''male and female''',  And said, For '''this cause''' shall a man leave '''father and 'mother''', and shall cleave to '''his wife''': and '''they twain shall be one flesh'''?  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. '''What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."''''

(Mat 19:4-6)  "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them '''male and female''',  And said, For '''this cause''' shall a man leave '''father and 'mother''', and shall cleave to '''his wife''': and '''they twain shall be one flesh'''?  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. '''What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."''''

Gaiser adds that the legal materials in Genesis established boundaries for life as actually lived "outside the garden",<ref>Fred J. Gaiser, "Homosexuality and the Old Testament," Word & World 10 (1990): 161-165</ref> and here in the New Testament Jesus references both Gn. 1:27 and 2:14, in being distinctly stating that the union of the male with his female counterpart is what God sexually joins, and which union Scripture elsewhere establishes and consistently confirmes. "It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with man, sexually, in marriage."<ref name=peacebyjesus>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html ''Homosexual relations and the Bible'', peacebyjesus.com]</ref> As Keil and Delitzsch state, “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." <ref>Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament; Johann (C.F.) Keil (1807-1888) & Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)</ref>

Gaiser adds that the legal materials in Genesis established boundaries for life as actually lived "outside the garden",<ref>Fred J. Gaiser, "Homosexuality and the Old Testament," Word & World 10 (1990): 161-165</ref> and here in the New Testament Jesus references both Gn. 1:27 and 2:14, in being distinctly stating that the union of the male with his female counterpart is what God sexually joins, and which union Scripture elsewhere establishes and consistently confirmes. "It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with man, sexually, in marriage."<ref name=peacebyjesus>[http://peacebyjesus.net/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html ''Homosexual relations and the Bible'', peacebyjesus.net]</ref> As Keil and Delitzsch state, “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." <ref>Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament; Johann (C.F.) Keil (1807-1888) & Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)</ref>

Robert J. Gagnon explains,

Robert J. Gagnon explains,

:The text states four times that the woman was “taken from” the “human” (adam, thereafter referred to as an ish or man), underscoring that woman, not another man, is the missing sexual “complement” or “counterpart” to man (so the Hebrew term negdo, which stresses both human similarity, “corresponding to him,” and sexual difference, “opposite him”). Within the story line man and woman may (re-)unite into “one flesh” precisely because together they reconstitute the sexual whole.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm</ref>

:The text states four times that the woman was “taken from” the “human” (adam, thereafter referred to as an ish or man), underscoring that woman, not another man, is the missing sexual “complement” or “counterpart” to man (so the Hebrew term negdo, which stresses both human similarity, “corresponding to him,” and sexual difference, “opposite him”). Within the story line man and woman may (re-)unite into “one flesh” precisely because together they reconstitute the sexual whole.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm</ref>

The traditional position<ref name=peacebyjesus>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html]</ref> thus sees that the physical compatibility of the male/female union, with her unique procreational ability, itself stands in clear contrast to same gender unions,<ref>God, Marriage, and Family, p. 48, by Andreas J. Kostenberger, David W. Jones</ref> and the procreational aspect is what Judaism's traditional opposition to homosexuality is primarily based upon.<ref>Norman Lamm, Judaism and the Modern Attitude Towards Homosexuality, p. 197-98</ref>  Even on the basis of anatomical engineering, homosexual intercourse is seen to be a supreme insult to God and His power and wisdom, with unnecessary deleterious consequences.<ref>Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt</ref>  

The traditional position<ref name=peacebyjesus>[http://peacebyjesus.net/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html]</ref> thus sees that the physical compatibility of the male/female union, with her unique procreational ability, itself stands in clear contrast to same gender unions,<ref>God, Marriage, and Family, p. 48, by Andreas J. Kostenberger, David W. Jones</ref> and the procreational aspect is what Judaism's traditional opposition to homosexuality is primarily based upon.<ref>Norman Lamm, Judaism and the Modern Attitude Towards Homosexuality, p. 197-98</ref>  Even on the basis of anatomical engineering, homosexual intercourse is seen to be a supreme insult to God and His power and wisdom, with unnecessary deleterious consequences.<ref>Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt</ref>  

Yet it is also seen that the purpose of opposite gender marriage to being simply for procreation is untenable, as what Scripture reveals is that God also uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, "that in addition to procreation, there is a unitive function of sexuality that has to do with fulfilling our need for companionship".<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, Genesis 1-2], by Joseph P. Gudel, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref> Hilborn adds,  

Yet it is also seen that the purpose of opposite gender marriage to being simply for procreation is untenable, as what Scripture reveals is that God also uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, "that in addition to procreation, there is a unitive function of sexuality that has to do with fulfilling our need for companionship".<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, Genesis 1-2], by Joseph P. Gudel, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref> Hilborn adds,  

This joining is manifest as God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20), to the glory of God.

This joining is manifest as God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20), to the glory of God.

The Song of Solomon is sometimes invoked as revealing that the women is uniquely designed to be man's compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html Song of Solomon]</ref> (cf. Prov. 5:15-19) In addition, the sanctity of sex within marriage but apart from emphasis upon procreation also seen as being indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:7,8,24-43), and marriage between man and women is presented as the primary alternative to fornication, with conjugal relations being enjoined due to what their marriage union entails (1Cor. 7:1-5), with the marriage bed being undefiled. (Heb. 13:4) Jewish tradition also recognizes the importance of marital love and companionship.<ref>Ketubot, 61b-62b; Feldman, 168</ref>

The Song of Solomon is sometimes invoked as revealing that the women is uniquely designed to be man's compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.net/Song_of_Solomon.html Song of Solomon]</ref> (cf. Prov. 5:15-19) In addition, the sanctity of sex within marriage but apart from emphasis upon procreation also seen as being indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:7,8,24-43), and marriage between man and women is presented as the primary alternative to fornication, with conjugal relations being enjoined due to what their marriage union entails (1Cor. 7:1-5), with the marriage bed being undefiled. (Heb. 13:4) Jewish tradition also recognizes the importance of marital love and companionship.<ref>Ketubot, 61b-62b; Feldman, 168</ref>

In addition, the transcendent exclusivity of marriage being between male and female is seen as being throughout the Bible, in which whenever God gives instructions for sexual bonding it is always between opposite genders - even between animals, as seen in Noah's pairing (Gn. 7:9). The only marriages in the Bible are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, it is pointed out that in all of the Bible there exists no establishment of any homosexual marriage by the people of God. “Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and piece of poetry in the Hebrew Bible having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite.”<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref>

In addition, the transcendent exclusivity of marriage being between male and female is seen as being throughout the Bible, in which whenever God gives instructions for sexual bonding it is always between opposite genders - even between animals, as seen in Noah's pairing (Gn. 7:9). The only marriages in the Bible are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, it is pointed out that in all of the Bible there exists no establishment of any homosexual marriage by the people of God. “Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and piece of poetry in the Hebrew Bible having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite.”<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref>

An argument by pro-homosexual writers against this, is one which asserts that the injunctions against homoeroticism are based upon outdated male headship. "Increasing numbers of scholars— influenced by the sexual deconstruction of M. Foucault and by the feminist critique of biblical sexuality—freely acknowledge a biblical condemnation of homosexuality, but dismiss this condemnation on the ground that it is an arbitrary expression of an obsolete patriarchalism. Since, they maintain, power creates truth, new power structures will create new sexual mores based on mutuality.<ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/211schmidt.html THE HERMENEUTICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: RECENT TRENDS]</ref>

An argument by pro-homosexual writers against this, is one which asserts that the injunctions against homoeroticism are based upon outdated male headship. "Increasing numbers of scholars— influenced by the sexual deconstruction of M. Foucault and by the feminist critique of biblical sexuality—freely acknowledge a biblical condemnation of homosexuality, but dismiss this condemnation on the ground that it is an arbitrary expression of an obsolete patriarchalism. Since, they maintain, power creates truth, new power structures will create new sexual mores based on mutuality.<ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/211schmidt.html THE HERMENEUTICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: RECENT TRENDS]</ref>

Opposing this is the traditionalist's argument that from the beginning, God is the author of male headship, and maintains it without abrogation in the New Testament. (Gn. 3:16; 1Tim. 2:12,13) 1 Cor 11:1-16 is a primary text in this regard, in response to which a modern argument contends that this positional distinction (not simply its expression) is culturally caused. This is traditionally dealt with by contextually showing that this distinction is based upon the creational, ontological distinction between man and the women, in which the man is the head of the women, like as the Father is the head of the Son, and Christ is the head of the church.<ref>Jamieson, Fausset and Brown; 1Cor. 11:3</ref><ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html ARE WOMEN PASTORS BIBLICAL?]</ref>

Opposing this is the traditionalist's argument that from the beginning, God is the author of male headship, and maintains it without abrogation in the New Testament. (Gn. 3:16; 1Tim. 2:12,13) 1 Cor 11:1-16 is a primary text in this regard, in response to which a modern argument contends that this positional distinction (not simply its expression) is culturally caused. This is traditionally dealt with by contextually showing that this distinction is based upon the creational, ontological distinction between man and the women, in which the man is the head of the women, like as the Father is the head of the Son, and Christ is the head of the church.<ref>Jamieson, Fausset and Brown; 1Cor. 11:3</ref><ref>[http://peacebyjesus.net/WOMENPASTORS.html ARE WOMEN PASTORS BIBLICAL?]</ref>

Verse 8 is seen as showing that, while positional distinctions themselves do not require opposite genders, the reason for the headship of the male over the women is being directly due to her being created from the man:  

Verse 8 is seen as showing that, while positional distinctions themselves do not require opposite genders, the reason for the headship of the male over the women is being directly due to her being created from the man:  

:First, to assert that male and female are two incomplete parts of a sexual whole is not the same as saying that all people must marry if they are to be whole persons. It is to say, rather, that if a person chooses to engage in sexual activity, that person always and only does so in his or her particularity as one part of a two-faceted sexual whole, as male or as female. Men and women have inherent integrity in their respective sexes: Men are wholly male and women are wholly female. They are not half-male and half-female, respectively (which, again, is the unfortunate logic of same-sex sexual bonds) The image in Gen 2:21-24 of a woman being formed from what is pulled from the man/human illustrates the point that the missing element from one sex is not another of the same sex but rather one from the only other sex."   

:First, to assert that male and female are two incomplete parts of a sexual whole is not the same as saying that all people must marry if they are to be whole persons. It is to say, rather, that if a person chooses to engage in sexual activity, that person always and only does so in his or her particularity as one part of a two-faceted sexual whole, as male or as female. Men and women have inherent integrity in their respective sexes: Men are wholly male and women are wholly female. They are not half-male and half-female, respectively (which, again, is the unfortunate logic of same-sex sexual bonds) The image in Gen 2:21-24 of a woman being formed from what is pulled from the man/human illustrates the point that the missing element from one sex is not another of the same sex but rather one from the only other sex."   

It is also argued that as plant and animal food was specifically provided for man as his normal sustenance,(Gn. 9:2-6) but may be abstained from (1Cor. 7:5; 2Cor. 6:5) - if only for a time due to necessity - so sex can be abstained from for a time, and marriage permanently if one so chooses. But to engage in sexual relations contrary to the sanctified means for such (marriage), or to be joined in marriage with an unlawful partner, is seen to have less justification than cannibalism.<ref name=peacebyjesus>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html]</ref>     

It is also argued that as plant and animal food was specifically provided for man as his normal sustenance,(Gn. 9:2-6) but may be abstained from (1Cor. 7:5; 2Cor. 6:5) - if only for a time due to necessity - so sex can be abstained from for a time, and marriage permanently if one so chooses. But to engage in sexual relations contrary to the sanctified means for such (marriage), or to be joined in marriage with an unlawful partner, is seen to have less justification than cannibalism.<ref name=peacebyjesus>[http://peacebyjesus.net/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html]</ref>     

In support of the traditional position it is understanding that the exhortation to celibacy in singleness (1Cor 7:7,8,25-35) is shown to be based upon the spiritual nature of the believers relationship with Christ and His kingdom and the attention it is worthy of, and (if only partly) due to "the present distress", (v. 26) and perhaps a sense of imminent trials,<ref>which surely did come, not only from opposition by Paul's own "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rm. 9:3; cf. 1Ths. 2:16), and the turmoil following the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., but from often intense persecutions from a procession of emperors, from Domitian (195) to Diocletian (284-305)</ref> but which in no way abrogates the restriction of sexual relations to being only between opposite genders in marriage.  

In support of the traditional position it is understanding that the exhortation to celibacy in singleness (1Cor 7:7,8,25-35) is shown to be based upon the spiritual nature of the believers relationship with Christ and His kingdom and the attention it is worthy of, and (if only partly) due to "the present distress", (v. 26) and perhaps a sense of imminent trials,<ref>which surely did come, not only from opposition by Paul's own "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rm. 9:3; cf. 1Ths. 2:16), and the turmoil following the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., but from often intense persecutions from a procession of emperors, from Domitian (195) to Diocletian (284-305)</ref> but which in no way abrogates the restriction of sexual relations to being only between opposite genders in marriage.  

Proponents of homoeroticism also argue that the allowance of polygamous marriages in the Old Testament (even concubines were wives: Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf.  2Sam. 20:3) indicates a departure from the Genesis model, and thus sets a precedent that would allow same sex relations and marriages.<ref>Walter Wink, ibid</ref> In response, it is pointed out that there is no structural change here, as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5 Eph. 5:22-6:2)<ref>Matthew Henry, Mt. 19:8-12; Albert Barnes, 1.Cor. 7:2</ref><ref>Unlike children (Eph. 6:1), which is plural, when a individual husband is addressed, it is not "husband love your wives," but "let every one of you in particular so love his wife" (Eph. 5:33). Likewise "honor thy father and mother" are singular (Eph. 6:20) and presumes only one of each. A prime requirement for pastors, who are examples to be followed (2Ths. 3:7,9; Heb. 13:7), is that they only have one wife (1Tim. 3:2; Tts. 1:6; cf. 1Cor. 9:5). Likewise deacons (1Tim. 3:12) See also God, Marriage, and Family, pp. 43-45</ref><ref>The reformist Essene sect at Qumran rejected ‘taking two wives in their lives’ because ‘the foundation of creation is “male and female he created them” [Gen 1:27]' and because ‘those who entered (Noah’s) ark went in two by two into the ark [Gen 7:9]’ (CD 4.20-5.1). Gagnon, http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonSJT2.pdf</ref> yet even an excess of wives is manifest as keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, with polygamy only differing from the Genesis model which Jesus affirmed in the number of female wives (as in too much of a good thing: Prv. 18:22), not their gender.   

Proponents of homoeroticism also argue that the allowance of polygamous marriages in the Old Testament (even concubines were wives: Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf.  2Sam. 20:3) indicates a departure from the Genesis model, and thus sets a precedent that would allow same sex relations and marriages.<ref>Walter Wink, ibid</ref> In response, it is pointed out that there is no structural change here, as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5 Eph. 5:22-6:2)<ref>Matthew Henry, Mt. 19:8-12; Albert Barnes, 1.Cor. 7:2</ref><ref>Unlike children (Eph. 6:1), which is plural, when a individual husband is addressed, it is not "husband love your wives," but "let every one of you in particular so love his wife" (Eph. 5:33). Likewise "honor thy father and mother" are singular (Eph. 6:20) and presumes only one of each. A prime requirement for pastors, who are examples to be followed (2Ths. 3:7,9; Heb. 13:7), is that they only have one wife (1Tim. 3:2; Tts. 1:6; cf. 1Cor. 9:5). Likewise deacons (1Tim. 3:12) See also God, Marriage, and Family, pp. 43-45</ref><ref>The reformist Essene sect at Qumran rejected ‘taking two wives in their lives’ because ‘the foundation of creation is “male and female he created them” [Gen 1:27]' and because ‘those who entered (Noah’s) ark went in two by two into the ark [Gen 7:9]’ (CD 4.20-5.1). Gagnon, http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonSJT2.pdf</ref> yet even an excess of wives is manifest as keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, with polygamy only differing from the Genesis model which Jesus affirmed in the number of female wives (as in too much of a good thing: Prv. 18:22), not their gender.   

McNeill<ref>ref. by Richard Hasbany, The Church and the Homosexual, Cp. 2</ref> and others attempt to force marriage under the New Testament to include homosexuals due to its lower priority upon procreation. However, as related above, conservative Christians in particular see the Bible explicitly honoring romantic and erotic love between a man and his female spouse in places such as the Song of Solomon (cf. Prov. 5:15-19), and otherwise revealing the marriage bond as being far more than for procreation, with the women's uniqueness as the helpmeet of the man transcending that aspect (although the complementary aspect relative to procreation is held as important by conservative Jews and Christians, and which itself excludes same sex unions).<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html#Old A refutation of Dr. Walter Wink: Homosexuality and the Bible]</ref>

McNeill<ref>ref. by Richard Hasbany, The Church and the Homosexual, Cp. 2</ref> and others attempt to force marriage under the New Testament to include homosexuals due to its lower priority upon procreation. However, as related above, conservative Christians in particular see the Bible explicitly honoring romantic and erotic love between a man and his female spouse in places such as the Song of Solomon (cf. Prov. 5:15-19), and otherwise revealing the marriage bond as being far more than for procreation, with the women's uniqueness as the helpmeet of the man transcending that aspect (although the complementary aspect relative to procreation is held as important by conservative Jews and Christians, and which itself excludes same sex unions).<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.net/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html#Old A refutation of Dr. Walter Wink: Homosexuality and the Bible]</ref>

In additional support of the traditional position, it is argued that while under the New Covenant physical procreation is not seen as having the priority evidenced in the Old Testament, yet not only is the unique union of man and women in marriage (alone) affirmed, but rather than long term sexual abstinence in marriage being promoted (or sex only as part of procreation), regular benevolent conjugal relations are actually enjoined, which are based upon to the depth of the ordained marriage union (1Cor. 7:3-5; Heb. 13:4).  

In additional support of the traditional position, it is argued that while under the New Covenant physical procreation is not seen as having the priority evidenced in the Old Testament, yet not only is the unique union of man and women in marriage (alone) affirmed, but rather than long term sexual abstinence in marriage being promoted (or sex only as part of procreation), regular benevolent conjugal relations are actually enjoined, which are based upon to the depth of the ordained marriage union (1Cor. 7:3-5; Heb. 13:4).  

The pro-homosexual argument next proposes that the advocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must also sanction same gender marriage. Countering this it is held that, fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage in the Bible, it is only opposite genders who can be joined in marriage, and not to anyone or anything contrary to what God has joined, nor to unscripturally separate what He has joined. The traditional argument holds that it is evidenced that the sanction of marriage in 1Cor. 7 does not abrogate the Biblical restrictions on marrying near kin, or another man's wife, or an animal, no matter how much one may long to do so, or between same genders. 1Cor. 7 also further establishes that “eunuchs” are those who are single and celibate. It is also held that simply desiring sex is not the real issue in 1Cor. 7:9, and in any case celibacy can also be chosen by persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others, as like the passionate Paul, they can keep their body under subjection (1Cor. 9:27) as they seek and serve the LORD, who Himself was single and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).   

The pro-homosexual argument next proposes that the advocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must also sanction same gender marriage. Countering this it is held that, fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage in the Bible, it is only opposite genders who can be joined in marriage, and not to anyone or anything contrary to what God has joined, nor to unscripturally separate what He has joined. The traditional argument holds that it is evidenced that the sanction of marriage in 1Cor. 7 does not abrogate the Biblical restrictions on marrying near kin, or another man's wife, or an animal, no matter how much one may long to do so, or between same genders. 1Cor. 7 also further establishes that “eunuchs” are those who are single and celibate. It is also held that simply desiring sex is not the real issue in 1Cor. 7:9, and in any case celibacy can also be chosen by persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others, as like the passionate Paul, they can keep their body under subjection (1Cor. 9:27) as they seek and serve the LORD, who Himself was single and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).   

Other aspects of this pro-homosexual polemic are further responded to,<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Eunuchs Homosexual relations and the Bible; Eunuchs ]</ref> with the conclusion that sanction for a radical new concept of marriage cannot be derived from the words of Jesus and Paul, and that instead the LORD reaffirmed the original unique union of opposite genders, in restoring the permanence of that bound. And that those who do not marry are considered eunuchs, able to be single, and required to be celibate, as the LORD as well as His apostle Paul were. (1Cor. 7:7,8).

Other aspects of this pro-homosexual polemic are further responded to,<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.net/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Eunuchs Homosexual relations and the Bible; Eunuchs ]</ref> with the conclusion that sanction for a radical new concept of marriage cannot be derived from the words of Jesus and Paul, and that instead the LORD reaffirmed the original unique union of opposite genders, in restoring the permanence of that bound. And that those who do not marry are considered eunuchs, able to be single, and required to be celibate, as the LORD as well as His apostle Paul were. (1Cor. 7:7,8).

=== Sexual orientation argument ===

=== Sexual orientation argument ===

The prior homosexual argument relates to one that posits that some men are born homosexual, and thus marriage must be allowed for them.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref> This is countered by the traditional response which holds that premise for this is both unproven,<ref>Homosexuality By Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse</ref> and that its logic is Biblically untenable. Traditionalist argue that that no sound evidence exists that proves that homosexuals were born that way, and though this may be possible, and certainly one individual may be more prone to one type of sin that another, yet this is irrelevant as the Biblical fact is that all mankind is born with a proclivity to sin, but this in no way justifies acting it out. (Romans 6, 7; 1John 2:6). Every day men must resist sexual desire if it would be immoral as contrary the Creator's laws, which are good and necessary. (Rm. 7:12) The logical end of the homosexual argument is also seen as allowing all innate proclivity to sin to justify acting it out, yet God commands man to resist sin and overcome it. (Gn. 4:7; Rm. 8; Gal. 5; Col. 3)  

The prior homosexual argument relates to one that posits that some men are born homosexual, and thus marriage must be allowed for them.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref> This is countered by the traditional response which holds that premise for this is both unproven,<ref>Homosexuality By Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse</ref> and that its logic is Biblically untenable. Traditionalist argue that that no sound evidence exists that proves that homosexuals were born that way, and though this may be possible, and certainly one individual may be more prone to one type of sin that another, yet this is irrelevant as the Biblical fact is that all mankind is born with a proclivity to sin, but this in no way justifies acting it out. (Romans 6, 7; 1John 2:6). Every day men must resist sexual desire if it would be immoral as contrary the Creator's laws, which are good and necessary. (Rm. 7:12) The logical end of the homosexual argument is also seen as allowing all innate proclivity to sin to justify acting it out, yet God commands man to resist sin and overcome it. (Gn. 4:7; Rm. 8; Gal. 5; Col. 3)  

In summary, traditionalists evidence that all marriage in Scripture is based upon its foundation in Genesis, in which God purposely created two different genders to be joined in a uniquely complementary and compatible sexual union, with distinctive positions patterned after the Divine order, for both procreational purposes as well as in sexual and non-sexual ways which transcend this.  In contrast to homosexual attempts at eisegesis (2Pet. 3:16) nowhere is same-sex marriage evident or sanctioned, in principal or by precept. Rather, to join Adam (man) with one of his own (or an animal), is manifestly radically contrary to what God has specifically and transcendently ordained, by both design and decree. In the words of one apologist, as the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together" is exclusively defined as male and female, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4), this conclusion may be summed up as, "What therefore God has placed (sexually) asunder, let no man join together."<ref name=peacebyjesus>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html]</ref>

In summary, traditionalists evidence that all marriage in Scripture is based upon its foundation in Genesis, in which God purposely created two different genders to be joined in a uniquely complementary and compatible sexual union, with distinctive positions patterned after the Divine order, for both procreational purposes as well as in sexual and non-sexual ways which transcend this.  In contrast to homosexual attempts at eisegesis (2Pet. 3:16) nowhere is same-sex marriage evident or sanctioned, in principal or by precept. Rather, to join Adam (man) with one of his own (or an animal), is manifestly radically contrary to what God has specifically and transcendently ordained, by both design and decree. In the words of one apologist, as the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together" is exclusively defined as male and female, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4), this conclusion may be summed up as, "What therefore God has placed (sexually) asunder, let no man join together."<ref name=peacebyjesus>[http://peacebyjesus.net/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html]</ref>

== Genesis 19 ==

== Genesis 19 ==

===Grammatical contentions===

===Grammatical contentions===

Two words focused upon in the attempt to remove homosexual abuse from Gn. 19 are "men" as in "the men of Sodom", and "know" as in "know them", which the men demanded Lot allow them to do regarding his guests. The first assertion is that the word for men used in Genesis 19:4, "'ĕnôsh" (Strong, #582), is not gender specific, but simply indicates mortals or people, and instead the word "'îysh" (or "eesh") (Strong, #376), would have been used in Gn. 19:4 if it specifically meant men.<ref>http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Sodom_and_Gomorrah</ref> However, upon examination of this and other word used for men, it is concluded that while 'ĕnôsh may often denote a multitude of people irrespective of gender, yet as it is used in cases where men are clearly the subject, its use in Gn. 19:4 to denote men as the particular subject cannot be disallowed. In the continuing context, Lot goes outside and entreats his "brethren" (a word ("'âch," H251) that most often denotes males), saying, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly", and proceeds to offer them his two daughters "which have not known man" (v. 8). This they refuse, and they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door." But the men ('ĕnôsh) angels rescue him (vs. 4-11). Lot's address and the nature of his appeal and their violent reaction best indicates men in particular.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#19 Homosexual relations and the Bible, Genesis 19]</ref>

Two words focused upon in the attempt to remove homosexual abuse from Gn. 19 are "men" as in "the men of Sodom", and "know" as in "know them", which the men demanded Lot allow them to do regarding his guests. The first assertion is that the word for men used in Genesis 19:4, "'ĕnôsh" (Strong, #582), is not gender specific, but simply indicates mortals or people, and instead the word "'îysh" (or "eesh") (Strong, #376), would have been used in Gn. 19:4 if it specifically meant men.<ref>http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Sodom_and_Gomorrah</ref> However, upon examination of this and other word used for men, it is concluded that while 'ĕnôsh may often denote a multitude of people irrespective of gender, yet as it is used in cases where men are clearly the subject, its use in Gn. 19:4 to denote men as the particular subject cannot be disallowed. In the continuing context, Lot goes outside and entreats his "brethren" (a word ("'âch," H251) that most often denotes males), saying, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly", and proceeds to offer them his two daughters "which have not known man" (v. 8). This they refuse, and they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door." But the men ('ĕnôsh) angels rescue him (vs. 4-11). Lot's address and the nature of his appeal and their violent reaction best indicates men in particular.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.net/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#19 Homosexual relations and the Bible, Genesis 19]</ref>

The next word in contention, ''yâda‛'' (H3045) is more critical in determining the particular nature of the inhospitality of Sodom. While yâda‛ is used in many places in the Bible as a primary verb to denote sexually knowing a human, and its context here very strongly indicates a sexual knowing, most pro-homosexual apologists contend that since yada is used over 940 times to denote non-sexual knowing, then its use here only denotes interrogation, albeit of a violent nature. Countering this is the response that states that both violent interrogation as well as the use of yâda‛ to denote gaining information by such means is absent in the Bible (though some assert that this is what "knew her, and abused her all the night" means in Jdg. 19:25, which is examined below). And in addition, that the use of  "yâda” to denote gaining non-sexual personal knowledge by close contact with another person is exceedingly rare (Gn. 45:1), while "yada" is clearly used 14 times in the Old Testament, besides Gn. 19:4, and an equivalent word 2 times in the New, to denote knowing sexually: Gn. 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26 (premarital); Num. 31:17,18,35; Jdg. 11:39; 19:25; 21:11,12; 1Sam. 1:19; 1Ki. 1:4; cf. Mt. 1:25; Lk. 1:34. Another possible instance is one in which a non-consensual homosexual act is perceived by some, in Gn. 9:20-27 (v. 24)<ref>[http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html Holding, Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis]</ref>  

The next word in contention, ''yâda‛'' (H3045) is more critical in determining the particular nature of the inhospitality of Sodom. While yâda‛ is used in many places in the Bible as a primary verb to denote sexually knowing a human, and its context here very strongly indicates a sexual knowing, most pro-homosexual apologists contend that since yada is used over 940 times to denote non-sexual knowing, then its use here only denotes interrogation, albeit of a violent nature. Countering this is the response that states that both violent interrogation as well as the use of yâda‛ to denote gaining information by such means is absent in the Bible (though some assert that this is what "knew her, and abused her all the night" means in Jdg. 19:25, which is examined below). And in addition, that the use of  "yâda” to denote gaining non-sexual personal knowledge by close contact with another person is exceedingly rare (Gn. 45:1), while "yada" is clearly used 14 times in the Old Testament, besides Gn. 19:4, and an equivalent word 2 times in the New, to denote knowing sexually: Gn. 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26 (premarital); Num. 31:17,18,35; Jdg. 11:39; 19:25; 21:11,12; 1Sam. 1:19; 1Ki. 1:4; cf. Mt. 1:25; Lk. 1:34. Another possible instance is one in which a non-consensual homosexual act is perceived by some, in Gn. 9:20-27 (v. 24)<ref>[http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html Holding, Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis]</ref>  

*1. The sentence of death for homosexual relations is essentially listed twice (collectively with all laws in Lv. 18:29, and specifically in 20:13), while elsewhere death is not mandated for some forms of incest. (Lev 18:12,14,16,18; Lv. 20:19,20,21) In addition, it is doubtful that ''cursed'' in Dt. 27 always denotes death, (Dt. 28:19ff Gn. 9:25) which would further negate disparities between reiterative quantities. Conversely, if ''cursed'' does always denote death, then it increases the number of moral offenses for which death is apparently assigned only once (Dt. 27:17,18). Or twice, as all infractions of the law of Moses would be capital sins. (Dt. 27:26)

*1. The sentence of death for homosexual relations is essentially listed twice (collectively with all laws in Lv. 18:29, and specifically in 20:13), while elsewhere death is not mandated for some forms of incest. (Lev 18:12,14,16,18; Lv. 20:19,20,21) In addition, it is doubtful that ''cursed'' in Dt. 27 always denotes death, (Dt. 28:19ff Gn. 9:25) which would further negate disparities between reiterative quantities. Conversely, if ''cursed'' does always denote death, then it increases the number of moral offenses for which death is apparently assigned only once (Dt. 27:17,18). Or twice, as all infractions of the law of Moses would be capital sins. (Dt. 27:26)

*2. No certain conclusion can be arrived at as to what category a law belongs based upon the number of times the death penalty is mentioned for it. Some forms of incest have no [[Capital punishment]] individually mandated for them, nor do all violations of the [[ten commandments]],  while the death penalty for breaking the sabbath, which most pro-homosexual advocates would categorize as ceremonial, is thrice mentioned (Ex. 31:14,15; 35:2; Num.16:32-36)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/TheDeathPenalty.html The Death Penalty in the  Old Testament]</ref> (It appears the sin for which death is most mentioned in the Old Testament is unholy presumption, that of approaching holy things which only sanctified Levites were allowed to do, and for which there are eight occurrences of the capital penalty being attached to it,: Num. 1:51; 3:10,38; 4:20; 18:3,7,15,22, with three examples of this consequence: 1Sam. 6:19; 1Chr. 13:9,10; cf. 2Chr. 26:16-20; but which examples indicate capital punishment was always death by supernatural execution, as it was for unjustly afflicting a widow or fatherless child: Ex. 22:22-24)

*2. No certain conclusion can be arrived at as to what category a law belongs based upon the number of times the death penalty is mentioned for it. Some forms of incest have no [[Capital punishment]] individually mandated for them, nor do all violations of the [[ten commandments]],  while the death penalty for breaking the sabbath, which most pro-homosexual advocates would categorize as ceremonial, is thrice mentioned (Ex. 31:14,15; 35:2; Num.16:32-36)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.net/TheDeathPenalty.html The Death Penalty in the  Old Testament]</ref> (It appears the sin for which death is most mentioned in the Old Testament is unholy presumption, that of approaching holy things which only sanctified Levites were allowed to do, and for which there are eight occurrences of the capital penalty being attached to it,: Num. 1:51; 3:10,38; 4:20; 18:3,7,15,22, with three examples of this consequence: 1Sam. 6:19; 1Chr. 13:9,10; cf. 2Chr. 26:16-20; but which examples indicate capital punishment was always death by supernatural execution, as it was for unjustly afflicting a widow or fatherless child: Ex. 22:22-24)

*3. The number of repetitions of the death penalty for a sin is not a consistent criteria by which its severity is determined. According to the principal behind Gal. 3:19, the greater the need  (when the law was being given), for Israel to be deterred by a law and its capital offenses, then the more likely it should be expected to be reiterated in the recorded Mosaic code. Cannibalism is not even specifically outlawed, but like homosexual relations, and perhaps even less unconditionally wrong, it is contrary to foundational law. (Gn. 9:2,3) Likewise, Gagnon notes, "The only form of consensual sexual behavior that was regarded by ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity as more egregious than same-sex intercourse was bestiality. It is no accident that bestiality receives even less attention in the Bible than same-sex intercourse—it is mentioned only in Exod 22:19; Lev 18:23 and 20:15-16; and Deut 27:21<ref>Gagnon, Zenit Interview http://www.robgagnon.net/ZenitInterview.htm</ref>  

*3. The number of repetitions of the death penalty for a sin is not a consistent criteria by which its severity is determined. According to the principal behind Gal. 3:19, the greater the need  (when the law was being given), for Israel to be deterred by a law and its capital offenses, then the more likely it should be expected to be reiterated in the recorded Mosaic code. Cannibalism is not even specifically outlawed, but like homosexual relations, and perhaps even less unconditionally wrong, it is contrary to foundational law. (Gn. 9:2,3) Likewise, Gagnon notes, "The only form of consensual sexual behavior that was regarded by ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity as more egregious than same-sex intercourse was bestiality. It is no accident that bestiality receives even less attention in the Bible than same-sex intercourse—it is mentioned only in Exod 22:19; Lev 18:23 and 20:15-16; and Deut 27:21<ref>Gagnon, Zenit Interview http://www.robgagnon.net/ZenitInterview.htm</ref>  

*4. The phrase, ''put to death'' or similar explicit phrase is used for manifestly moral sins,<ref>Ex. 21:29; Lev.20:2,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,27; 24:16,17; Dt. 17:6; 13:5,9; 17:12; 21:21</ref>  sometimes in combination with ''cut off'' (Lv. 18:29; 20:17), and only for the most serious ceremonial sins (Ex. 35:2; Num. 1:51), while "cut off" is used by itself for most of the ceremonial sins Exo 12:15; 30:33; Lev 7:20,21,25,27; 17:3-4; 19:8,13; 20:18; 22:3; 23:29; Num 9:13; 15:30-31)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/TheDeathPenalty.html]</ref>

*4. The phrase, ''put to death'' or similar explicit phrase is used for manifestly moral sins,<ref>Ex. 21:29; Lev.20:2,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,27; 24:16,17; Dt. 17:6; 13:5,9; 17:12; 21:21</ref>  sometimes in combination with ''cut off'' (Lv. 18:29; 20:17), and only for the most serious ceremonial sins (Ex. 35:2; Num. 1:51), while "cut off" is used by itself for most of the ceremonial sins Exo 12:15; 30:33; Lev 7:20,21,25,27; 17:3-4; 19:8,13; 20:18; 22:3; 23:29; Num 9:13; 15:30-31)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.net/TheDeathPenalty.html]</ref>

*5. Homosexual relations is not only included with other capital sins, but is seen as distinguished as a first-tier sexual offense in Lev 20:10-16, along with adultery, incest with one's stepmother or daughter-in-law, and bestiality. As such, it is distinguished from lesser capital sexual offenses in 20:17-21.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"? The "Irrelevance of Levitical Prohibitions" Argument]</ref>

*5. Homosexual relations is not only included with other capital sins, but is seen as distinguished as a first-tier sexual offense in Lev 20:10-16, along with adultery, incest with one's stepmother or daughter-in-law, and bestiality. As such, it is distinguished from lesser capital sexual offenses in 20:17-21.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"? The "Irrelevance of Levitical Prohibitions" Argument]</ref>

Boswell and Helminiak look to the Greek [[Septuagint]] (LXX), an interpretive work of many Greek translators, for support here, arguing that its use of ''βδέλυγμα'' (''bdelygma'' or ''bdelugma'') in translating tōʻēḇā in Lv. 18:22 and other places,<ref>[http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=abomination&section=0&it=kjv&oq=Jer. 16:18&ot=lxx&nt=tr&new=1&nb=jer&ng=16&ncc=16 studylight.org; abomination]</ref> indicates that the Leviticus passage should be interpreted as a violation of ceremonial impurity. They further postulate that a Greek word, ''anomia'',<ref>[http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_618-20.htm preceptaustin.org]</ref> would likely be used if it were a violation of moral law<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp. 100-102</ref><ref>What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak, pp. 64-65</ref>  

Boswell and Helminiak look to the Greek [[Septuagint]] (LXX), an interpretive work of many Greek translators, for support here, arguing that its use of ''βδέλυγμα'' (''bdelygma'' or ''bdelugma'') in translating tōʻēḇā in Lv. 18:22 and other places,<ref>[http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=abomination&section=0&it=kjv&oq=Jer. 16:18&ot=lxx&nt=tr&new=1&nb=jer&ng=16&ncc=16 studylight.org; abomination]</ref> indicates that the Leviticus passage should be interpreted as a violation of ceremonial impurity. They further postulate that a Greek word, ''anomia'',<ref>[http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_618-20.htm preceptaustin.org]</ref> would likely be used if it were a violation of moral law<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp. 100-102</ref><ref>What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak, pp. 64-65</ref>  

Countering this, James B. De Young and others show the inconsistency and invalidity of this argument in the light of more extensive research.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&printsec=toc&dq=online+lxx+bdelygma&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, pp. 65-69]</ref><ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Septuagint1 Homosexual relations and the Bible; The Septuagint]</ref><ref>http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/homosexuality-an-abomination</ref>  

Countering this, James B. De Young and others show the inconsistency and invalidity of this argument in the light of more extensive research.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&printsec=toc&dq=online+lxx+bdelygma&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, pp. 65-69]</ref><ref>[http://peacebyjesus.net/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Septuagint1 Homosexual relations and the Bible; The Septuagint]</ref><ref>http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/homosexuality-an-abomination</ref>  

Regarding ''anomia,'' 24 Hebrew words are seen to be variously rendered in the LXX as this, and while is a word that describes violations of law, it is most always used in a general sense, often like the Hebrew word ‛âvôn, and is rarely used to specify a particular sin, which in contrast is often the case with tōʻēḇā in the Torah. Yet anomia is used in many verses where tōʻēḇā later occurs in the Hebrew, and which iniquity is usually of a moral nature, such as illicit sex partners. (Eze. 8:6,9,13,17; 12:16; 16:2,47,51,58; 18:13,24; 20:4; 22:2; 23:36)  As it is normally used in a general sense, when anomia is used in passages as Lv. 16:21; Is. 53:5, anomia is referring to all the transgressions of Israel, not simply those in the moral class. Yet in passages such as Lev. 22:16 it refers to things which Boswell and most traditionalists classify as mere ceremonial purity. To support his polemic, Boswell classifies idolatry, such as making idols to worship, or offering one's child as a literal sacrifice to a false god (Jer. 32:35; Boswell cites 2Ki. 16:3), as merely being part of ceremonial laws of separation, rather than being practices which are universally and immutably evil and forbidden, which the whole of the Bible testifies to. (1Cor. 10:20,21; Rv. 14:11) In contrast to prohomosex proponents, the traditionalist argument manifests that homosexual relations are not a corruption of a practice such as eating, for whereas the latter is contextually sanctioned, the sanctioned context for homosexual relations is (conspicuously) never established. As right worship is seen as being established by having the God of the Bible as its object, so likewise sanctified sexual relations is also seen to be established as being between eligible opposite genders, while homosexual relation is revealed as a consequence of making God into an image of one's own liking, formal or informal. (see [[Romans 1]])

Regarding ''anomia,'' 24 Hebrew words are seen to be variously rendered in the LXX as this, and while is a word that describes violations of law, it is most always used in a general sense, often like the Hebrew word ‛âvôn, and is rarely used to specify a particular sin, which in contrast is often the case with tōʻēḇā in the Torah. Yet anomia is used in many verses where tōʻēḇā later occurs in the Hebrew, and which iniquity is usually of a moral nature, such as illicit sex partners. (Eze. 8:6,9,13,17; 12:16; 16:2,47,51,58; 18:13,24; 20:4; 22:2; 23:36)  As it is normally used in a general sense, when anomia is used in passages as Lv. 16:21; Is. 53:5, anomia is referring to all the transgressions of Israel, not simply those in the moral class. Yet in passages such as Lev. 22:16 it refers to things which Boswell and most traditionalists classify as mere ceremonial purity. To support his polemic, Boswell classifies idolatry, such as making idols to worship, or offering one's child as a literal sacrifice to a false god (Jer. 32:35; Boswell cites 2Ki. 16:3), as merely being part of ceremonial laws of separation, rather than being practices which are universally and immutably evil and forbidden, which the whole of the Bible testifies to. (1Cor. 10:20,21; Rv. 14:11) In contrast to prohomosex proponents, the traditionalist argument manifests that homosexual relations are not a corruption of a practice such as eating, for whereas the latter is contextually sanctioned, the sanctioned context for homosexual relations is (conspicuously) never established. As right worship is seen as being established by having the God of the Bible as its object, so likewise sanctified sexual relations is also seen to be established as being between eligible opposite genders, while homosexual relation is revealed as a consequence of making God into an image of one's own liking, formal or informal. (see [[Romans 1]])

Another attempt to relegate Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to a unique cultic context is one that strives to attach a radical significance to the use of zakhar [H2145], which is the Hebrew word normally translated male/males throughout the OT, or the lesser used word for such, zekhur [H2138], by noting that in 90% of the occurrences it signifies those who have a special sacred significance (newborn sons, circumcised males, Levites, soldiers, sacrificial animals, returning exiles, etc.). By which he concludes that this signifies that the Levitical injunctions against homosex only pertains to sex with priests!<ref>http://epistle.us/hbarticles/zakhar1.html</ref>  

Another attempt to relegate Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to a unique cultic context is one that strives to attach a radical significance to the use of zakhar [H2145], which is the Hebrew word normally translated male/males throughout the OT, or the lesser used word for such, zekhur [H2138], by noting that in 90% of the occurrences it signifies those who have a special sacred significance (newborn sons, circumcised males, Levites, soldiers, sacrificial animals, returning exiles, etc.). By which he concludes that this signifies that the Levitical injunctions against homosex only pertains to sex with priests!<ref>http://epistle.us/hbarticles/zakhar1.html</ref>  

   

   

In support of the traditional position,<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Zakhar Homosexual relations and the Bible; Zakhar ]</ref> it is evidenced that all Israelite males fell into a special class of people, while the only special significance the strictly gender specific words zakhar/zekhur most often provides is to differentiate between male and females in general, and, and therefore they are used for those in special classes of people. It is seen that the reason for the most prevalent use of zakhar within special classes of males is simply because that is most often the subject, from sacrificed animals to Jews returning from exile. While zakhar is used for the descendants of Levi, (Lv. 6:18,29) it is also used for Adam, (Gn. 1:27) and in contrast with Eve, (Gn. 5:2) and for all the men of Shechem, (Gn. 34:22,24,25) for Midianite males, (Num. 31:7,17,18,35; Jdg. 21:11) for  idolatrous male images, (Ezek. 16:17) for male men of Manasseh, (Josh. 17:2) for slain male Edomites (1Ki. 11:15) for male children, (Lv. 12:2; Is. 66:7; Jer. 20:15) for fearful men, (Jer. 30:6) for circumscribed males, (Gn. 17:23), and for all the men of Israel, (Num. 1:2), as does zekhur (Ex. 23:17; Dt. 16:16) and for male enemies (Dt. 20:13) or male children (Ex. 34:23). Thus the pro-homosexual distinction is manifest as one which makes no difference in what the Levitical injunctions apply to. Moreover, in no place in Scripture are these words used to distinctly signify pagan male priests, with the common word for men ('îysh [H376]) being used for such. (Jdg 6:28,30; 1Ki 18:22)

In support of the traditional position,<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.net/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Zakhar Homosexual relations and the Bible; Zakhar ]</ref> it is evidenced that all Israelite males fell into a special class of people, while the only special significance the strictly gender specific words zakhar/zekhur most often provides is to differentiate between male and females in general, and, and therefore they are used for those in special classes of people. It is seen that the reason for the most prevalent use of zakhar within special classes of males is simply because that is most often the subject, from sacrificed animals to Jews returning from exile. While zakhar is used for the descendants of Levi, (Lv. 6:18,29) it is also used for Adam, (Gn. 1:27) and in contrast with Eve, (Gn. 5:2) and for all the men of Shechem, (Gn. 34:22,24,25) for Midianite males, (Num. 31:7,17,18,35; Jdg. 21:11) for  idolatrous male images, (Ezek. 16:17) for male men of Manasseh, (Josh. 17:2) for slain male Edomites (1Ki. 11:15) for male children, (Lv. 12:2; Is. 66:7; Jer. 20:15) for fearful men, (Jer. 30:6) for circumscribed males, (Gn. 17:23), and for all the men of Israel, (Num. 1:2), as does zekhur (Ex. 23:17; Dt. 16:16) and for male enemies (Dt. 20:13) or male children (Ex. 34:23). Thus the pro-homosexual distinction is manifest as one which makes no difference in what the Levitical injunctions apply to. Moreover, in no place in Scripture are these words used to distinctly signify pagan male priests, with the common word for men ('îysh [H376]) being used for such. (Jdg 6:28,30; 1Ki 18:22)

===Additional arguments===

===Additional arguments===