Changes

The term "homosexual" is a relatively recent one, with it's first know occurrence apparently being in an 1869 pamphlet in the German language, and attributed to native Austrian Karl-Maria Kertbeny. Over time, this term, which was used within the field of personality taxonomy, and which could be used to denote any same gender environment, in now used almost exclusively in regards to sexual attraction and it's activity. This is as yet unsatisfactory, as such use lacks the distinction between nonsexual homosexual social activity, denoted by the term "homosociality," versus same gender love, "homophilia," and which may be romantic, and that of homoeroticism (clinically MSM), denoting  homosexual erotic activity, that of same gender sexual relations. As most of this article deals with the sexual practice of homosexuals, the term homoeroticism or  homoerotic activity will usually be used. Sodomy might normally have been, but this originally defined a temple prostitute. ("Sodom" itself is derived from the word "scorch," or "burnt".)

The term "homosexual" is a relatively recent one, with it's first know occurrence apparently being in an 1869 pamphlet in the German language, and attributed to native Austrian Karl-Maria Kertbeny. Over time, this term, which was used within the field of personality taxonomy, and which could be used to denote any same gender environment, in now used almost exclusively in regards to sexual attraction and it's activity. This is as yet unsatisfactory, as such use lacks the distinction between nonsexual homosexual social activity, denoted by the term "homosociality," versus same gender love, "homophilia," and which may be romantic, and that of homoeroticism (clinically MSM), denoting  homosexual erotic activity, that of same gender sexual relations. As most of this article deals with the sexual practice of homosexuals, the term homoeroticism or  homoerotic activity will usually be used. Sodomy might normally have been, but this originally defined a temple prostitute. ("Sodom" itself is derived from the word "scorch," or "burnt".)

== Genesis and union of man and women ==

== Genesis: the unique union of man and women ==

The Biblical texts relative to this subject fall into two categories, that of those which prohibit or condemn homosex, and those into which sanction for it is alleged, and aptly enough, (Gn. 3:1-5) this begins in Genesis. (An overview of the primary prohomosex polemics and brief responses from the traditional position may be seen in Ganon's responses in a Zenit News Agency Interview<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/ZenitInterview.htm</ref>)   

The Biblical texts relative to this subject fall into two categories, that of those which prohibit or condemn homosex, and those into which sanction for it is alleged, and aptly enough, (Gn. 3:1-5) this begins in Genesis. (An overview of the primary prohomosex polemics and brief responses from the traditional position may be seen in Ganon's responses in a Zenit News Agency Interview<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/ZenitInterview.htm</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.   

1 Cor. 11:1-12 explicitly confirms the unique bond of man and women in marriage, which in every aspect is contrary to a man to man union:

Jame B. De Young,<ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon,</ref> in “Homosexuality,” writes, “ The creation of humans as male and female (Gn. 1) and the heterosexual union that constitutes marriage (Gn. 2) lie at the at the basis of the rest of Scripture and its comments about sexuality and marriage. A proper understanding of, and submission to, the record of Creation will guide the inquirer to the truth about homosexuality and heterosexuality. Genesis 1 — 3 clearly is foundational to other Bible texts.”

 

Robert J. Gagnon states, 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>

 

(1 Cor 11:3)  "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

1Cor. 11:1-12 explicitly confirms the unique bond of man and women in marriage, which is contrary to same sex unions:

While some attempt to make this positional distinction  culturally caused, the context reveals that this is a creational, ontological distinction between man and the women, in which the man is the head of the women, as it is based upon the Divine order between the Father and the Son. This is directly related to the creation of women for the man, as we next read,   

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1Cor 11:3)

(1 Cor 11:8,9) "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 'Neither was the man created for the woman; but '''the woman for the man.'''"  

While some attempt to make this positional distinction culturally caused, the context reveals that this is based upon a 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. While positional distinctions themselves do not require opposite genders (and sexual unions do not exist in the spiritual realm, nor can any absence of sexual distinctions therein negate those established by God in the physical realm), the reason for the male headship over the women is directly due to her being created from the man: 

 

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man." (1Cor 11:8)

 

 

"Neither was the man created for the woman; but '''the woman for the man.'''" (v.9)

    

    

Here again it is explicitly stated that the women was created for the man. This hearkens back to Gn. 2:18-24, in which the women was created to be man's “helpmeet”, and as we see beginning in Genesis, by design and decree she is his uniquely compatible and complementary mate, in more ways than just the procreative aspect.

This statement of purpose hearkens back to Gn. 2:18-24, in which, after making it apparent that no other earthly creation was fitting, the women was created out of to be man's “helpmeet”, that as is uniquely abundantly manifest throughout the Bible, by design and decree she is his uniquely compatible and complementary mate in marriage, in more ways than only the procreative aspect.

The mutual interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in vs. 11-12  

The mutual interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in vs. 11-12  

To join man with man in contrary to this unique union in marriage between opposite genders, in which both genders hold distinctive roles due to their creation differences, both in position, overall paracletal purpose and procreation.  

To join man with man in contrary to this unique union in marriage between opposite genders, in which both genders hold distinctive roles due to their creation differences, both in position, overall paracletal purpose and procreation.  

Jame B. De Young,<ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon,</ref> in “Homosexuality,” writes, “ The creation of humans as male and female (Gn. 1) and the heterosexual union that constitutes marriage (Gn. 2) lie at the at the basis of the rest of Scripture and its comments about sexuality and marriage. A proper understanding of, and submission to, the record of Creation will guide the inquirer to the truth about homosexuality and heterosexuality. Genesis 1 — 3 clearly is foundational to other Bible texts.”

=== Celibacy, Polygamy, and Procreation ===

Robert J. Gagnon states, 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>

While is it not a command that all men be sexually joined, the only other alternative is celibacy, as seen in the only alternative to fornication being marriage:  

While is it not a command that all men be sexually joined, the only other alternative is celibacy, as seen in the only alternative to fornication being marriage:  

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1Cor 7:2)

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Cor 7:2) .  

Note that here again only man and women are joined in marriage, with "husband" and "wife" denoting just that. The exhortation to celibacy in singleness (1Cor 7:7,8,25-35) is based upon the spiritual nature of the believers relationship with Christ and His kingdom and the attention it is worthy of, and perhaps (if partly) an 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> and in no way abrogates the restriction of sexual relations to being only between opposite genders in marriage.      

Note that here again only man and women are joined in marriage.

Nor does the fact that polygamous marriages were allowed 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) in any way allow same sex marriages, as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife,<ref>(Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5 Eph. 5:22-6:2. 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" (5:33). Likewise "honor thy father and mother" are singular (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)</ref> yet even an excess of wives is in keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, and only violates it in the number of female wives, not their gender.

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.

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, and emphasis upon essential oneness of all races in Christ. (Gal. 3:28) However, the Bible explicitly honors romantic and erotic love between a man and his female spouse in the Song of Solomon, and otherwise reveals the marriage bond as being far more than for procreation, as 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 excludes same sex unions). And 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 affirmed, and that sexual union only, 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).  

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.

As regards the principal behind Gal. 3:28, while all believers are one in Christ regardless of sexual and racial distinctions, and in the spiritual age to come even sexual unions will not exist between the elect, (Lk. 20:34-36) it is also evident that this spiritual oneness does not negate positional/functional differences, (Heb. 13:17) including those based upon creational distinctions (1Cor. 11:1-3; Eph. 5:22-25; 1Pt. 3:1-7) or the effects of the Fall (1Tim. 11-15)<ref>"saved in childbearing" does not imply salvation due to works, but by obedient faith in Christ, which was/is to be generally expressed by women in raising children and maintaining the home. In other places Paul commends those who helped Paul and others in the gospel work, (Rm. 16:1,2ff; Phil. 4:3) in addition to encouraging celibacy in singleness if so called.</ref>

   

   

=== Eunuchs and exegesis ===

=== Eunuchs and exegesis ===