Changes

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is only specified as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently explicitly stated and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God, being based upon the creational foundation of Genesis.  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 him sexually, in marriage “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 and Delitzsch</ref>   

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is only specified as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently explicitly stated and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God, being based upon the creational foundation of Genesis.  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 him sexually, in marriage “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 and Delitzsch</ref>   

In contrast to the preceding and other explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, is the homosexual proponent's idea that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref> This idea is based upon a prior and extra Biblical assumption that homosexual marriage is implicitly sanctioned in Scripture, and is not explicitly forbidden. However, but this is shown to be without warrant, and it's logical conclusions untenable.  Instead, what Scripture reveals is that God uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, the joining of which is God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20). The physical compatibility of the female with her unique procreational ability stands in clear contrast to same gender unions, and is what Judaism's traditional opposition to homosexuality was primarily based upon,<ref>Norman Lamm, Judaism and the Modern Attitude Towards Homosexuality, p. 197-98</ref> Yet women here and in other places are not only revealed to be supremely and uniquely designed for sexual union with the male and the life-giving purpose of procreation within marriage, but to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, to the glory of God. This latter aspect is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html</ref> This sanctity of sex within marriage without emphasis upon procreation is indicated in the New Testament, where marriage between man and women is presented as the alternative to fornication, and conjugal relations are enjoined due to what their marriage union entails (1Cor. 7:1-5), and the marriage bed is undefiled (Heb. 13:4), with celibate singleness being esteemed as the only other option: 1Cor. 7:6-11). Jewish tradition also recognizes the importance of love and companionship <ref>Ketubot, 61b-62b; Feldman, 168</ref>.

In contrast to the preceding and other explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, is the homosexual proponent's idea that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref><ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, Procreation and the family</ref> This idea is based upon a prior and extra Biblical assumption that homosexual marriage is implicitly sanctioned in Scripture, and is not explicitly forbidden. However, but this is shown to be without warrant, and it's logical conclusions untenable.  Instead, what Scripture reveals is that God uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, the joining of which is God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20). The physical compatibility of the female with her unique procreational ability itself stands in clear contrast to same gender unions, and 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> To suppose that the Designer created man to be sexually joined with one of his own, and with the life giving seed being injected into the orifice of man designed only for waste to comes out is itself a supreme insult to God and His power, and his precepts.<ref> Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt https://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45768</ref> In addition, women here and in other places are not only revealed to be supremely and uniquely designed for sexual union with the male and the life-giving purpose of procreation within marriage, but to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, to the glory of God. This latter aspect is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html</ref> This sanctity of sex within marriage without emphasis upon procreation is also indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:6-11), but marriage between man and women is presented as the alternative to fornication, and conjugal relations are 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 transcendent exclusivity of marriage being between male and female is seen from beginning of the Bible and throughout, 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, in all of the Bible there exists no evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “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 attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage (dealt with later), though that word is never used for marriage between humans, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. And to suppose sanction for a radical new type of marriage without legal legislation is untenable. The attempt to argue that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it is readily seen as possessing the same amount of legitimacy as saying that marriage between man and animals, or between man and rocks must be allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. The facts are that they need not be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly, and consistently specifies who is joined together in marriage, and designed them that way, and abundantly confirms only the union between the male and female as sanctified, and unconditionally prohibits men laying with men as with women (Lv. 18:22), which “cleaving” is intractably part of God's description of marriage.   

The transcendent exclusivity of marriage being between male and female is seen from beginning of the Bible and throughout, 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, in all of the Bible there exists no evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “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 attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage (dealt with later), though that word is never used for marriage between humans, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. And to suppose sanction for a radical new type of marriage without legal legislation is untenable. The attempt to argue that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it is readily seen as possessing the same amount of legitimacy as saying that marriage between man and animals, or between man and rocks must be allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. The facts are that they need not be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly, and consistently specifies who is joined together in marriage, and designed them that way, and abundantly confirms only the union between the male and female as sanctified, and unconditionally prohibits men laying with men as with women (Lv. 18:22), which “cleaving” is intractably part of God's description of marriage.   

Nor does the fact that polygamous marriages were allowed (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),  as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife (unlike children, when as individual husband is addressed, it is not love your wives, but wife, and as seen above), even this excess, is in keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, and it is they which are uniquely sexually joined in marriage.   

Nor does the fact that polygamous marriages were allowed (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),  as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife (unlike children, when as individual husband is addressed, it is not love your wives, but wife, and as seen above), even this excess, is in keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, and it is they which are uniquely sexually joined in marriage.   

A more subtle attempt to read allowance of homosexual marriage into the Bible is made by homosexual apologist John J. McNeill <ref>The Church and the Homosexual, Cp. 2</ref> This polemic attempts to forces marriage under the New Testament to included homosexuals due to it's lower priority upon procreation, and emphasis upon essential oneness of all races in Christ. (Gal. 3:28)  However, as noted aforetime, the bond of marriage is not simply for procreation, and the women's uniqueness as the helpmeet of the man transcends that aspect (although this is by no means a minor one, and which itself is contrary to same sex unions). And under the New Covenant, marriage is only reaffirmed as the union of opposite genders, with this unique union being evident in their complementary positional differences, which are based upon creational distinctions after the Divine order. Furthermore, just as under the Old Testament, marriage is dealt with under the New only as being between the man and the women, and rather than long term sexual abstinence, conjugal relations are actually enjoined (1Cor. 7:4,5).  In addition, while they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain the resurrection of the just  shall “neither marry, nor are given in marriage"  (Luke 20:35), even the church is metaphorically a female, as it also is based upon marriage in Genesis with it's union of different but complementary genders, purposely made to be so.  

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 it's lower priority upon procreation, and emphasis upon essential oneness of all races in Christ. (Gal. 3:28)  However, as noted aforetime, the bond of marriage is not simply for procreation, and the women's uniqueness as the helpmeet of the man transcends that aspect (although again, this is by no means a minor one, and which itself is contrary to same sex unions). And under the New Covenant, marriage is also only reaffirmed as the union of opposite genders, with this unique union being evident in their complementary positional differences, which are based upon creational distinctions after the Divine order. And as previously noted, rather than long term sexual abstinence being promoted (or sex only as part of procreation), conjugal relations are actually enjoined due to the depth of the ordained marriage union (1Cor. 7:4,5; Heb. 13:4).  In addition, even the church is metaphorically female, as it also is based upon marriage in Genesis with it's union of distinctively different but complementary genders, purposely uniquely made to be so, with their union being uniquely consistently affirmed. Only opposite genders are sanctified to become "one flesh" in marriage.

   

   

(Eph 5:30-32)  "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

(Eph 5:30-32)  "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones [Gn. 2:23].  For this '''cause''' shall a '''man''' leave his father and mother, and shall be '''joined''' unto his '''wife''', and '''they two''' shall be '''one flesh'''.  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

=== Eunuchs and exegesis ===

=== Eunuchs and exegesis ===