Changes

Examining these claims first manifests that the usual initial basis for this argument is not substantiated by the original language, as the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'' is actually not used in Leviticus for dietary violations, and is only used 2 or 3 times elsewhere to refer to such things as abominable for Israel, (Dt. 14:3; Jer. 16:18) while it is the word most often used denoting to grave moral ''abominations'', including clearly universally sinful practices, (Dt. 7:25; 18:9-12 13, 2Kg. 21:2-7;  2Chr. 33:2,3; Is. 1:13; 44:19; Jer. 7:10; 32:35) which includes illicit sexual unions. (Dt. 24:2-4; 1Kg. 14:24;  2Ki. 16:3; 21:2,11; Ezek. 16:22,58; 18:10-13; 22:11; 33:26) As such, it is also used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20 collectively. (Lv. 18:27-30) In contrast, the word most used, and only used for ceremonial violations, is “sheqets” (Leviticus 7:21; 11:10-13,20,23,41,42; Is. 66:17; Ezek. 8:10), and then “shâqats,” from which it is derived, which is only used in Leviticus for dietary violations (Leviticus 11:11,13,43; 20:25; Dt. 7:26; Prv. 22:24).

Examining these claims first manifests that the usual initial basis for this argument is not substantiated by the original language, as the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'' is actually not used in Leviticus for dietary violations, and is only used 2 or 3 times elsewhere to refer to such things as abominable for Israel, (Dt. 14:3; Jer. 16:18) while it is the word most often used denoting to grave moral ''abominations'', including clearly universally sinful practices, (Dt. 7:25; 18:9-12 13, 2Kg. 21:2-7;  2Chr. 33:2,3; Is. 1:13; 44:19; Jer. 7:10; 32:35) which includes illicit sexual unions. (Dt. 24:2-4; 1Kg. 14:24;  2Ki. 16:3; 21:2,11; Ezek. 16:22,58; 18:10-13; 22:11; 33:26) As such, it is also used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20 collectively. (Lv. 18:27-30) In contrast, the word most used, and only used for ceremonial violations, is “sheqets” (Leviticus 7:21; 11:10-13,20,23,41,42; Is. 66:17; Ezek. 8:10), and then “shâqats,” from which it is derived, which is only used in Leviticus for dietary violations (Leviticus 11:11,13,43; 20:25; Dt. 7:26; Prv. 22:24).

As regards zimmâh, unlike ''tōʻēḇā'', this word is not not often used for specific sexual sins, but is generally seen in reference to sexual "lewdness," (Jdg_20:6; Jer_13:27, Eze_16:43, 58; 22:9; 23:21,27,29,35,48-49; Eze_24:13; Hos_6:9). It  often is another word to describe the vile nature of many clearly universally sins which are also categorized as tōʻēḇā, (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; Jer. 13:27; Ezek. 22:11: adultery=tōʻēḇā, incest= zimmâh ). Yet is not always used for all universal sexual sins, and the absence of zimmâh in relation to a sexual sin cannot necessarily negate the intrinsic evil of it's nature, while sins which tōʻēḇā refers to include such.   

As regards zimmâh, unlike ''tōʻēḇā'', this word is not not often used for specific sexual sins, but is generally seen in reference to sexual "lewdness," (Jdg. 20:6; Jer.13:27, Eze. 16:43, 58; 22:9; 23:21,27,29,35,48-49; Eze. 24:13; Hos. 6:9). It  often is another word to describe the vile nature of many clearly universally sins which are also categorized as tōʻēḇā, (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; Jer. 13:27; Ezek. 22:11: adultery=tōʻēḇā, incest= zimmâh ). Yet is not always used for all universal sexual sins, and the absence of zimmâh in relation to a sexual sin cannot necessarily negate the intrinsic evil of it's nature, while sins which tōʻēḇā refers to include such.   

In addition, ceremonial dietary and ritual cleansing laws overall do not target pagan cultic activity. However, there practices which evidently are a direct expression of idolatry - formal or of the heart - such as sex with illicit partners, versus amoral things which merely accompany idolatry activity, such as a grove of trees in worship (Dt. 16:21). The Bible makes these categories discernible, with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being prohibited as a class under the N.T.  (Mat_5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mar_7:21; Joh_8:41; Act_15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Co_5:1; 1Co_6:9,13, 18; 7:2; 2Co_12:21; Gal_5:19; Eph_5:3; Col_3:5; 1Th_4:3; Heb_12:16; 13:4; 1Pe_4:3;  Rev_9:21; 14:8, 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2) The prohibitions against homosex clearly fit in this category by type, while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8)  

In addition, ceremonial dietary and ritual cleansing laws overall do not target pagan cultic activity. However, there practices which evidently are a direct expression of idolatry - formal or of the heart - such as sex with illicit partners, versus amoral things which merely accompany idolatry activity, such as a grove of trees in worship (Dt. 16:21). The Bible makes these categories discernible, with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being prohibited as a class under the N.T.  (Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mar. 7:21; Joh. 8:41; Act. 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Co_5:1; 1Co. 6:9,13, 18; 7:2; 2Co. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Ths. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3;  Rev. 9:21; 14:8, 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2) The prohibitions against homosex clearly fit in this category by type, while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8)  

Secondly, neither the grammar nor any categorical division or cultural context warrants relegating these Levitical commands to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex, and belonging to the class of ceremonial laws, which (they delight to point out) Christians do not typically keep.<ref>Townsley, Homosexuality and the Bible</ref> Rather, the reasons why literal obedience to these is not enjoined now is the very reason why the laws against homosex are upheld, as just as the New Testament clearly defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it just as clearly upholds laws against illicit sexual partners as a class. While literal obedience to the former is not mandated under the New Covenant, sex with illicit partners and any possible mentions of homosex only find unconditional condemnation therein.

Secondly, neither the grammar nor any categorical division or cultural context warrants relegating these Levitical commands to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex, and belonging to the class of ceremonial laws, which (they delight to point out) Christians do not typically keep.<ref>Townsley, Homosexuality and the Bible</ref> Rather, the reasons why literal obedience to these is not enjoined now is the very reason why the laws against homosex are upheld, as just as the New Testament clearly defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it just as clearly upholds laws against illicit sexual partners as a class. While literal obedience to the former is not mandated under the New Covenant, sex with illicit partners and any possible mentions of homosex only find unconditional condemnation therein.

*Framed absolutely  Like the prohibitions of incest and adultery, it takes in all acts of intercourse of the type specified, not merely intentionally oppressive or coercive forms.

*Framed absolutely  Like the prohibitions of incest and adultery, it takes in all acts of intercourse of the type specified, not merely intentionally oppressive or coercive forms.

*Contains the marks of moral impurity.

*Contains the marks of moral impurity.

*Adopts a creation/nature model. the prohibition leads the hearer back to a foundational  

*Adopts a creation/nature model. the prohibition leads the hearer back to a foundational creation/nature model (cf. also the prohibition of bestiality as illicit “mixing” of  

creation/nature model (cf. also the prohibition of bestiality as illicit “mixing” of  

creation boundaries)

creation boundaries)

*Appropriated by the New Testament. The term arsenokoitai (“men who lie with a male”) in 1  

*Appropriated by the New Testament. The term arsenokoitai (“men who lie with a male”) in 1  

aschemosune (“indecency, indecent exposure” in Rom 1:27 and twenty-four times  

aschemosune (“indecency, indecent exposure” in Rom 1:27 and twenty-four times  

in Lev 18:6-19; 20:11, 17-21).  <ref>Gagnon, Why the disagreement over the Biblical witness  

in Lev 18:6-19; 20:11, 17-21).  <ref>Gagnon, Why the disagreement over the Biblical witness  

on homosexual practice?http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoReformedReviewTableCont.pdf</ref>  

on homosexual practice?http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoReformedReviewTableCont.pdf</ref>

As regard the attempts to negate the universality and transcendence v. 22  by creating a divisional break from universal laws to culturally bound laws, beginning in v. 21 due to the culturally specific aspect of v.21  (child sacrifice to Molech), this also cannot be established, as that law is not restricted to child sacrifice to only one specific idol, and cannot be relegated to merely being ceremonial. Rather, it is based upon foundational moral law (Gn. 9:5,6; Ex. 20:2; 34:15) and is literally applicable in principal and by modification to all cultures and times. In addition, consistently with the prohomosex hermeneutic behind their attempt, v.19 (intercourse during menstruation, which is more akin to ceremonial law) would disallow the intrinsic sinfulness of the next verse (adultery). While types of laws are grouped often together, ancient laws codes are not strict categories of laws, but are more manifest by type and foundational principals.

As regard the attempts to negate the universality and transcendence v. 22  by creating a divisional break from universal laws to culturally bound laws, beginning in v. 21 due to the culturally specific aspect of v.21  (child sacrifice to Molech), this also cannot be established, as that law is not restricted to child sacrifice to only one specific idol, and cannot be relegated to merely being ceremonial. Rather, it is based upon foundational moral law (Gn. 9:5,6; Ex. 20:2; 34:15) and is literally applicable in principal and by modification to all cultures and times. In addition, consistently with the prohomosex hermeneutic behind their attempt, v.19 (intercourse during menstruation, which is more akin to ceremonial law) would disallow the intrinsic sinfulness of the next verse (adultery). While types of laws are grouped often together, ancient laws codes are not strict categories of laws, but are more manifest by type and foundational principals.

However, as v. 22 is substantially evidenced as being based upon foundational design and decree, just as the forbiddance of bestiality is in the next verse is, in principal its application is not restricted to only male homosex but same gender sex as well. Male sex with another male represents an illicit partner, contrary to all Biblical marriages, just as Molech represents an illicit object of worship, contrary to all statements relative to such, and the respective injunctions against both are universal based upon inherent qualities which disallow the forbidden functions.   

However, as v. 22 is substantially evidenced as being based upon foundational design and decree, just as the forbiddance of bestiality is in the next verse is, in principal its application is not restricted to only male homosex but same gender sex as well. Male sex with another male represents an illicit partner, contrary to all Biblical marriages, just as Molech represents an illicit object of worship, contrary to all statements relative to such, and the respective injunctions against both are universal based upon inherent qualities which disallow the forbidden functions.   

More psychological attempts seeking to make this Levitical law motive or disposition dependent, however motive (love, hate, consensuality) does not play a part in determining the forbiddance of homosex,<Homosexuality in the Church, Richard B. Hays, Lev. 18:22; 20:13)</ref> nor whether sex outside marriage or with any unlawful partner is valid in either Testament, in contrast with sexual legislation  which stipulates such, (Dt. 22:13; 24:3; Num. 35:20; Dt. 22:23-29). Neither the mention of such or lack of mention of it establishes a factor which may sanctify  an otherwise illicit union (adultery, incest etc, and all fornications are unequivocally sinful: cf. Gn. 34).

More psychological attempts seeking to make this Levitical law motive or disposition dependent, however motive (love, hate, consensuality) does not play a part in determining the forbiddance of homosex,<Homosexuality in the Church, Richard B. Hays, Lev. 18:22; 20:13)</ref> nor whether sex outside marriage or with any unlawful partner is valid in either Testament, in contrast with sexual legislation  which stipulates such, (Dt. 22:13; 24:3; Num. 35:20; Dt. 22:23-29). Neither the mention of such or lack of mention of it establishes a factor which may sanctify  an otherwise illicit union (adultery, incest etc, and all fornications are unequivocally sinful: cf. Gn. 34).

===Punishments===

===Punishments===