Changes

=== Summation ===

=== Summation ===

As the following summation details, the traditional position contends that neither any grammatical aspect, categorical division or cultural context warrants relegating the Levitical injunctions against homosex to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex, or belonging to the class of ceremonial laws (which are not the same), or only motive-specific.   

The following summation, while not inclusive, provides reasons for the position that no grammatical, categorical, cultural or motivation argument warrants relegating the Levitical injunctions against homosex to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex, or belonging to the class of ceremonial laws (which are not the same), or are only motive-specific but that instead they are universal and immutable.   

* 1. The reasons why literal obedience to ceremonial laws is not enjoined now is based upon like evidence for why the laws against homosex are upheld. While the New Testament defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it even more clearly and abundantly 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 finds unconditional condemnation therein.  

* 1. The reasons why literal obedience to ceremonial laws is not enjoined now is based upon like evidence for why the laws against homosex are upheld. While the New Testament defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it even more abundantly 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 mention of homosex only finds unconditional condemnation therein.  

* 2. The injunctions against homosex are based upon creational, not cultural differences, as is manifest by design and decrees, and are upheld in principle and by precepts, in which only the women is created for the man, with purposeful complementary physical, functional, and positional distinctions. Which, as decreed, only opposite opposite gender unions between humans could fulfill, in marriage. (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:3-15)

* 2. The injunctions against homosex are based upon creational, not cultural differences, as is manifest by design and decrees, and are upheld in principle and by precepts, in which only the women is created for the man, with purposeful complementary physical, functional, and positional distinctions. Which, as decreed, only opposite opposite gender unions between humans could fulfill, in marriage. (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:3-15)

*3. All sex outside marriage is classed as fornication, and outlawed marriage partners are determined by nearness of kind (homosex), nearness of relation (incest), and  as well as being other than humankind (bestiality).  

*3. All sex outside marriage is classed as fornication, and outlawed marriage partners are determined by a violation of marriage bond (adultery), or of nearness of kin (incest), or of nearness of kind (homosex), as well as being other than humankind (bestiality). These prohibitions are based upon what God has joined together, (Mt. 19:4-6), which incest being added later, and upheld in the N.T. (1Cor. 5:1) showing a progression toward greater strictness, not lesser. 

* 4. Motive (love, hate, consensuality) does not play a part in determining the forbiddance of homosex,<ref>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; Mk. 7:21-23).  

* 4. Motive (love, hate, consensuality) does not play a part in determining the forbiddance of homosex,<ref>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; Mk. 7:21-23).  

* 5. Lv. 18:22 finds no abrogation elsewhere, nor is the Biblical context (marriage) established in which the practice of homosex is sanctified, as is explicitly provided for heterosexual relations, but which provision is likewise absent for illicit unions such as adultery and bestiality. Nor does the allowance or the use of polygamy, concubines or Levirate marriage set a precedent for homosexual marriage, as the only variance with the Genesis original is in the number of times a man takes a wife, not the gender of the wife, which is clearly manifest

* 5. Lv. 18:22 finds no abrogation elsewhere, nor is the Biblical context (marriage) established in which the practice of homosex is sanctified, as is explicitly provided for heterosexual relations, but which provision is likewise absent for illicit unions such as adultery and bestiality. Nor does the allowance or the use of polygamy, concubines or Levirate marriage set a precedent for homosexual marriage, as the only variance with the Genesis original is in the number of times a man takes a wife, not the gender of the wife, which is clearly manifest

* 6. The issue of sexual unions (with valid partners) is dealt with from the beginning to the end of the Bible as part of moral separation (Gn. 20; 26; 34; 38; Rv. 21:8; 22:15), whereas ceremonial violations are different by nature than moral offenses, being basically that of defilement by touching, tasting, or handling unclean things, including diseased persons (Col. 2:21), and do not deal with sex except insofar as contact with including blood or semen is involved, (Lv. 15:24,33). There is nothing ritually “unclean” about the males in 18:22, anymore than an illicit partner in adultery or incest, rather, any form of fornication makes one morally defiled. (Lv. 18:24; Mk. 7:21-23)

* 6. The issue of sexual unions (with valid partners) is dealt with from the beginning to the end of the Bible as part of moral separation (Gn. 20; 26; 34; 38; Rv. 21:8; 22:15), whereas ceremonial violations are different by nature than moral offenses, being basically that of defilement by touching, tasting, or handling unclean things, including diseased persons (Col. 2:21), and do not deal with sex except insofar as contact with including blood or semen is involved, (Lv. 15:24,33). There is nothing ritually “unclean” about the males in 18:22, anymore than an illicit partner in adultery or incest, rather, any form of fornication makes one morally defiled. (Lv. 18:24; Mk. 7:21-23)

* 7. Attempts to relegate 18:22 and 20:13 to only temple idolatry are unwarranted, as the grammar of Lv. 18:22 is universal, and entirely consistent with other transcultural commands given here which forbid sex with the spouse of another, or near kin, that of the flesh of one's own flesh, with homosex being structurally similar, that of sex with an illicit partner, that of one's own gender.<ref>Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"?</ref>

* 7. Attempts to relegate 18:22 and 20:13 to only temple idolatry are unwarranted, as the grammar of Lv. 18:22 is universal, and entirely consistent with other transcultural immutable commands given here which forbid sex with the spouse of another, or near kin, that of the flesh of one's own flesh. Homosex is structurally similar, that of sex with an illicit partner, one's own gender.<ref>Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"?</ref>

* 8. When homosex or illicit heterosexual sex as a formal part of idolatrous activity is targeted, then the context makes that evident (Dt. 23:17,18), (“with dogs” likely referring  to the manner of homosex relations). The historical fact is that in Canaanite culture, homosexuality was practiced as both a religious rite and a personal perversion...Israel's pagan neighbours knew both secular and sacred homosexuality."<ref>Greg Bahnsen p 45</ref> Though some argue that there is no evidence to suggest these texts even refer to Canaanite cultic practices<ref>Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate, by Calvin Smith http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf</ref>

* 8. When homosex or illicit heterosexual sex as a formal part of idolatrous activity is possibly targeted, then the context makes that evident (Dt. 23:17,18), (“with dogs” likely referring  to the manner of homosex relations). The historical fact is that in Canaanite culture, homosexuality was practiced as both a religious rite and a personal perversion...Israel's pagan neighbours knew both secular and sacred homosexuality."<ref>Greg Bahnsen p 45</ref> Though some argue that there is no evidence to suggest these texts even refer to Canaanite cultic practices<ref>Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate, by Calvin Smith http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf</ref>

* 9. While types of laws are grouped often together, ancient laws codes are not strict categories of laws. The attempt to negate the universality and transcendence v. 22  due to the culturally specific aspect of v.21  (child sacrifice to Molech) fails, 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).

* 9. While types of laws are grouped often together, ancient laws codes are not strict categories of laws. The attempt to negate the universality and transcendence v. 22  due to the culturally specific aspect of v.21  (child sacrifice to Molech) fails, 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, consistent with the hermeneutic behind their categorical argument, v.19 (intercourse during menstruation, which is more akin to ceremonial law) would disallow the intrinsic sinfulness of the next verse (adultery).

* 10. "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>  

* 10. There is no radical significance to the lack more than two mandates (Lv. 18:29; 20:13) for the death penalty for homosex (which some forms of incest also lack) that would lessen its severity. Rather according to the principal behind Gal. 3:19, more common capital offenses would receive more warnings. "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>

* 11. 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. The injunctions against homosex physically parallel laws against idolatry. The latter forbids worship of and spiritual union with an illicit god, which is not created to be such, or able to truly be as God. The former forbids union with a same gender object of sexual union, which was not created for that purpose, or able to truly fulfill their God designed and decreed union.  

* 11. 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. The injunctions against homosex physically parallel laws against idolatry. The latter forbids worship of and spiritual union with an illicit god, which is not created to be such, or able to truly be as God. The former forbids union with a same gender object of sexual union, which was not created for that purpose, or able to truly fulfill their God designed and decreed union.  

* 12. The forbiddance of idolatry is itself a universal and immutable command, which is manifest not only in formal worship of idols, but by any deliberate act contrary to the laws of God (Mt. 6:24; Rm. 6:16). Homosex by nature, not context, is an expression of idolatry.  

* 12. The forbiddance of idolatry is itself a universal and immutable command, which is manifest not only in formal worship of idols, but by any deliberate act contrary to the laws of God (Mt. 6:24; Rm. 6:16). Homosex by nature, not context, is an expression of idolatry, not simply an abuse of it.  

* 13. Ceremonial violations are stated to “be an abomination [sheqets] unto you” (Lv. 11:10),  male homosex is stated to be tô‛êbah itself (Lv. 18:22), as other illicit sex sins are, (vs. 27,29,30), and contrary to prohomsex arguments concerning tô‛êbah, that is the word most translated as “abomination” to denote grave moral offenses of universal sins, and is rarely used for ceremonial offenses. (Note: idolatry itself is not a ceremonial sin, nor does it not stop with graven images.)

* 13. Ceremonial violations are stated to “be an abomination [sheqets] unto you” (Lv. 11:10),  male homosex is stated to be tô‛êbah itself (Lv. 18:22), as other illicit sex sins are, (vs. 27,29,30), and contrary to prohomsex arguments concerning tô‛êbah, that is the word most translated as “abomination” to denote grave moral offenses of universal sins, and is rarely used for ceremonial offenses. (Note: idolatry itself is not a ceremonial sin, nor does it not stop with graven images.)