Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + − Prohomosex polemicists have responded to this problem by asserting the injunctions against homosex are culture or contextually bound and do not apply today, or even that the Bible provides no transcendent universal sexual ethic. In addition, advocates of homosex propose or assert that homosexuality or perhaps [[same-sex marriage]] is seen in many close relationships between heterosexual persons in the Bible.+ − + − + − + − This historical or traditional position, especially as substantiated by [[conservative Christians]], holds that the Bible establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was created from man and for man, as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet", which joining of two halves alone makes man (for those who so choose) sexually complete, and which no other physical creation could fulfill, (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6; 1Cor. 11:9; Eph. 5:31), but which purposefully created complementary physical and positional distinctions (1Cor. 11:1-12) precludes fulfillment by same gender unions. And that only the union of opposite genders is sanctified by marriage, and which explicit providence stands in contrast to the lack of any establishment of marriage between '''homosexuals'''. This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to the aforementioned foundational design and decrees of God.<ref>[http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/21.1_Taylor.pdf The Bible and Homosexuality by J. Glenn Taylor (Assoc. Prof. Of to at Wycliff College. U. of Toronto]</ref> + − + − ===Revisionist/prohomosex position===+ − Those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture typically view the Bible as a book that allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation within historical narratives, and or allows a much broader range of interpretation and denial of moral commands and their immutability. Fundamentally such revisionists overall typically express a denial of the Bible as the ultimate authority on morals, viewing it more as the expression of a prescientific (ignorant) age, with its laws, in particular as regards homoerotic relations, being culture bound, and categorized as non applicable for today. While some primary prohomoex scholars do confess that it appears, "Wherever the Bible clearly seems to refer to homosexual activity, we must recognize a judgment of condemnation",<ref>McNeil, drawing from the word of Dutch scholar Herman van Spijker, referenced by By Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming, p. 83 </ref> or that "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1,<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref> they believe aggravating circumstances provide reasons why injunctions against homosex cannot apply to loving homosexual relationships. Much effort is expended seeking to relegate Biblical injunctions against homosex to only a formal cultic context, or pederasty, or to heterosexuals acting contrary to the orientation, while many often see homosexuality in most any close heterosexual relationship. Writers of holy writ are sometimes deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref> + − More forward in this regard is Professor Walter Wink, who states "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 other revisionists view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”. Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that can supercede Biblical laws, 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> Pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs, who preceded Wink, likewise states, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”<ref>Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.</ref> William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, termed it "dangerous" to fail to condemn the apostle Paul's condemnation of homosex, and advocated removing such from the canon.<ref>Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43. http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman contends, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”<ref>Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)</ref> Christine E. Gudorf flatly denies that the Bible is the primary authority for Christian ethics.<ref>Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121</ref>, while Bishop (Ret.) John Shelby Spong denies all miracles, including the virgin conception and literal bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the Divine inspiration of Scripture, and that there are moral absolutes<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/spongwrong2.htm Michael Bott and Jonathan Sarfati, "What’s Wrong With (Former) Bishop Spong?"]</ref>+ − + + + Line 35:
Line 37: − + − + − + − Otherwise knows as the ''complementarian position'', for which the traditional position lists at least seven reasons why "from the very beginning of the Bible we see that there is only one proper type of marriage: The union of a man and a woman."<ref>http://www.layhands.com/IsHomosexualityASin.htm</ref> (See also [[Complementarity]].)+ − The Biblical texts primarily subjected to prohomosexual revisionism fall into two categories, that of those which prohibit or condemn homosex, in principal or by precept, and those into which sanction for it is alleged, and fitingly, (Gn. 3:1-5) these attempts begin in Genesis. In dealing with Gn. 1:27 and 2:18-24, efforts are made by pro homosexual apologists to negate God's choice to uniquely join man and women together, in order to read into Scripture an allowance for marriage between same genders (which, by implication, could also include animals). However, it is evident that the specific cause for creating opposite genders was to join them sexually in marriage. It was only after other created beings were found unsuitable for Adam that the women was created. "The lonely Adam is provided not with a second Adam, but with Eve. She is the helper who corresponds to him. She is the one with whom he can relate in total intimacy and become one flesh.<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html Gordon J Wenham, The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality; Expository Times 1991]</ref> + + + + + − + − + − − In contrast to the explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, proponents of homosexs contend 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, as procreation is longer a primary need for the human race.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref><ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, Procreation and the family</ref> Countryman supposes that the Genesis 2:24 passage "can equally well be read simply as an etiological story, telling how the institution of marriage came into being." To which Donald D. Binder responds, "Absent entirely from his discussion, is the point that Jesus himself did not interpret the passage etiologically, but normatively (Mark 10:5-9, Matt 19:4-6), providing an ethical basis for the institution of monogamous, heterosexual marriage in the subsequent teachings of the Church<ref>[http://www.pohick.org/gc2000letter.html A Letter to the Bishops and Deputies of the − 73rd General Convention] Chaplain Donald D. Binder, PhD Adjunct Professor of New Testament, Southern Methodist University</ref> − + − + − + Line 80:
Line 83: − + − + − + Line 92:
Line 95: − In addition, while sexual unions do not exist in the spiritual realm, the absence of sexual distinctions therein cannot negate those established by God in the physical realm.+ − + − + − Traditional exegesis sees 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 (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> and in no way abrogates the restriction of sexual relations to being only between opposite genders in marriage. + + + − + − + Line 110:
Line 115: − + − + − + − + − Mt. 19:3-12 reveals Jesus restoring the original standard for marriage, referencing back to it's institution in Gn. 2, and in which He affirms that the “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” is the unique union of one man for one women for life, except that the fornication clause may negate it's permanence, but which clause itself reaffirms that sex outside marriage is sin (cf. 1Cor. 7:2). The explicit exclusivity of this uniquely sanctioned marriage is what the homosexual apologist labors to negate. Hearing the narrowness of the original standard, the disciples react that it is not good to get married. Jesus response is an implicit affirmation of this statement (cf. Mt. 16:13-17; Mk. 7:28,29; 15:2), in that not all men can receive (or submit) to their expressed alternative to the narrow way of marriage, but only those to whom it is given, whom Jesus calls eunuchs, which refers to both physical and spiritual ones. This perfectly correlates to what the Holy Spirit establishes under the New Covenant, in which “every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that” (1Cor. 7:7), in context referring to being either married or single and celibate. "Although marriage was normally expected of Jewish people, Jesus here acknowledged the value of a single life that includes abstinence, without making celibacy the norm for Christians."<ref>[http://www.augsburgchurches.org/Library/BibleSexualBoundaries.htm, The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester] See also Robert H. Smith, Matthew (Augsburg New Testament Commentary; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 229-230</ref> + − The pro homosexual polemic controverts this, asserting that what Jesus was referencing to (“this saying”) was the '''kind''' of marriage, that being between male and female, to negate it's exclusivity as a type, when instead Jesus was referring to the '''disciple's conclusion''' that being single was to be preferred, which had become the issue, in the light of the high standard of marriage commitment, that being it's '''permanence'''. The homosexual polemic next supposes that the avocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must sanction same gender marriage, but fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage, it is only male and female who are to be joined in marriage here, and who are legally free to marry, and not to anyone who so desires. The sanction of marriage here 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 should be added here that, as many Christians who have chosen that state can testify, this does not necessarily infer that this condition does not pertain to persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others in regards to union, but that, like the passionate Paul, these can happily keep their body under subjection (1Cor. 9:27) as they seek and serve the LORD, who Himself was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).+ − + − Another tactic used in seeking to negate the exclusivity of opposite gender marriage, is to assert that different types of marriage are allowed in Scripture, which is true, such as polygamy and concubines (a type of an economical wife, but a wife nonetheless). However, these were types of the original union, and they actually stand as an argument against same gender marriage, as in all manifest cases of sanctioned marriage, these are all between male and female counterparts, even though Solomon had 700 of the latter. In Mt. 19:3-8, Jesus revealed that in the Old Testament God allowed Moses a degree of broadness as regards to the number of wives and the permanence of it, in condescension to their carnality, yet in bringing it back to it's original standard Jesus distinctly stated it was male and female which God joined together, and it is that union which alone is explicitly and abundantly affirmed throughout Scripture. + + + − + − + Line 134:
Line 141: − + + + − + Line 152:
Line 161: − + Line 164:
Line 173: − + Line 172:
Line 181: − + Line 188:
Line 197: − + Line 276:
Line 285: − + Line 302:
Line 311: − + Line 344:
Line 353: − + Line 368:
Line 377: − + Line 374:
Line 383: − + Line 389:
Line 398: − + Line 434:
Line 443: − + Line 450:
Line 459: − + Line 465:
Line 474: − + Line 490:
Line 499: − + Line 504:
Line 513: − + − + Line 524:
Line 533: − + Line 570:
Line 579: − +
Homosexuality and biblical interpretation (view source)
Revision as of 23:32, April 3, 2009
, 23:32, April 3, 2009no edit summary
The interpretive conflict regarding [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is a relatively recent one, between two fundamentally different positions and interpretive foundations. The Bible contains laws which prohibit homosex (same gender sexual relations, also referred to as homoeroticism or homogenital relations), and which traditionally and normally would be seen as being just as universal and immutable as laws against illicit heterosexual partners, as belonging in the same class. In addition, the positive sanction of marriage which is provided explicitly for opposite genders is not established for homosexual unions.
The interpretive conflict regarding [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is a relatively recent one, between two fundamentally different positions and interpretive foundations. Historical/traditional scholarship evidences that the Bible contains laws which prohibit homosex (same gender sexual relations, also referred to as homoeroticism or homogenital relations), and which are as universal and immutable as laws against illicit heterosexual partners are shown to be (or even more so), as belonging in the same class. In addition, the necessary positive sanction of marriage, which is provided explicitly for opposite genders, is nowhere established for homosexual unions.
Pro-homosex polemicists have responded to this problem by asserting the injunctions against homosex are culture or contextually bound and do not apply today, and or that the Bible is not inspired of God and provides no transcendent universal sexual ethic. In addition, advocates of homosex often propose or assert that homosexuality or perhaps [[same-sex marriage]] can be seen in many close relationships between heterosexual persons in the Bible. This article deals with the phenomenon of pro-homosex polemics in the light of traditional/historical Biblical [[exegesis]].
Those within the former camp typically see the attempts by prohomosex polemicists as unwarranted, "revolutionary and revisionist",<ref> James B. De Young, Homosexuality p. 135</ref> being a manifestation of the efforts made from the beginning (Gn. 3:1-5) to both negate what God has commanded in the [[Bible]], as well as to otherwise drastically misconstrue it's meanings, often by sophisticated forms of sophistry. Those within the latter camp often charge the former with ignorance, and or being motivated by [[homophobia]].<ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion</ref>
Those within the former camp typically see the attempts by pro-homosex polemicists as unwarranted, "revolutionary and revisionist",<ref> James B. De Young, Homosexuality p. 135</ref> being a manifestation of the efforts made from the beginning (Gn. 3:1-5) to both negate what God has commanded in the [[Bible]], as well as to otherwise drastically misconstrue it's meanings, often by sophisticated forms of sophistry. Those within the latter camp often charge the former with ignorance, and or being motivated by [[homophobia]].<ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion</ref>
== Interpretive Foundation ==
== Interpretive Foundation ==
It is generally evidenced that the revisionist school of homosexual apologetics operates out a radically different exegetical basis than which enduring historical Biblical scholarship has evidenced as a whole, and which sees such revisionism as foundationally faulty and aberrant (Psa 11:2-3).<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoAuthorityScripture.pdf Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"]</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/211schmidt.html Thomas E. Schmidt, THE HERMENEUTICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: RECENT TRENDS]</ref> As Lionel Windsor observes, the fundamental contention is about hermeneutics, about the interpretation and use of Scripture, in which two views are basically manifest.<ref>[http://www.lionelwindsor.net/bibleresources/topical/Bible_Homosexuality.htm The Bible and Homosexuality The Current Debate, by Lionel Windsor (2005])</ref>
It is abundantly evidenced that the revisionist school of homosexual apologetics operates out a radically different exegetical basis than which enduring historical Biblical scholarship has evidenced as a whole, and which sees such revisionism as foundationally faulty and aberrant (Psa 11:2-3).<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoAuthorityScripture.pdf Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"]</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/211schmidt.html Thomas E. Schmidt, THE HERMENEUTICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: RECENT TRENDS]</ref> As Lionel Windsor observes, the fundamental contention is about hermeneutics, about the interpretation and use of Scripture, in which two views are basically manifest.<ref>[http://www.lionelwindsor.net/bibleresources/topical/Bible_Homosexuality.htm The Bible and Homosexuality The Current Debate, by Lionel Windsor (2005])</ref>
===Traditional/historical position===
===Traditional/historical position===
Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoeroticism usually work from a strong adherence to the theological foundation of Divine Biblical inspiration and infallibility, in which God, as the author of [[Holy Scripture]], made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws for attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the consistent use of proven rules of interpretation ([[hermeneutics]]), and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that it's [[moral]] laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed. By such exegesis, historically Christian theologians have overall seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications are made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colossians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)<ref>The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen</ref>
Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoeroticism usually work from a strong adherence to the theological foundation of Divine Biblical inspiration and infallibility, in which God, as the author of [[Holy Scripture]], made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws on attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the consistent use of proven rules of interpretation ([[hermeneutics]]), and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that it's [[moral]] laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives are disallowed. By such exegesis, historically Christian theologians overall have also seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications are made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colossians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)<ref>The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen</ref>
In regards to the issue of sexual union, this historical or traditional position, especially as substantiated by [[conservative Christians]], holds that the Bible establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was created from man and for man, as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet". And which joining of two halves alone makes man (for those who so choose to marry) sexually complete, and which no other physical creation could fulfill, (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6; 1Cor. 11:9; Eph. 5:31) but which purposefully created physical and positional complementary distinctions (1Cor. 11:1-12) precludes fulfillment by same gender unions. And that only the union of opposite genders is sanctified by marriage, and which explicit providence stands in contrast to the lack of any establishment of marriage between '''homosexuals'''. This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to the aforementioned foundational design and decrees of God.<ref>[http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/21.1_Taylor.pdf The Bible and Homosexuality by J. Glenn Taylor (Assoc. Prof. Of to at Wycliff College. U. of Toronto]</ref>
In addition, and consistent with the understanding that God made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are seen as universal and transcendent from the time of their institution, being directly applicable in all cultural contexts. In examining such, it is evidenced that from the beginning all sexual relations outside marriage were and are consistently categorized as fornication. (1Cor. 7:2). In contrast, in the places where homoerotic relations are most explicitly dealt with (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Rm. 1:26,27) it is only condemned, with this condemnation being universal in scope, and not restricted to certain cultural, behavioral or motivational conditions.<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/pannenberg1.htm Should We Support Gay Marriage? NO! Wolfhart Pannenberg]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon]</ref><ref>Straight or Narrow? Sexuality from the Beginning, Thomas E.Schmidt</ref> As evangelical Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref> In P. Michael Ukleja's summation, “Only towering cynicism can pretend that there is any doubt about what the Scriptures say about homosexuality. The Bible has not even the slightest hint of ambiguity about what is permitted or forbidden in this aspect of sexual conduct."<ref>“Homosexuality and the Old Testament,” BSAC 140 (July 1983): 259.</ref> Calvin Smith concludes, "the weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals, have led me to affirm the traditional view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>
In addition, and consistent with the understanding that God made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are seen as moral, universal and transcendent from the time of their institution, and directly applicable to today's cultural contexts. In examining such, it is evidenced that from the beginning all sexual relations outside marriage were and are consistently categorized as fornication. (1Cor. 7:2). And in contrast to heterosexual unions, in the places where homoerotic relations are most explicitly dealt with (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Rm. 1:26,27) they are only condemned, with this condemnation also being universal in scope, and not restricted to certain cultural, behavioral or motivational conditions.<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/pannenberg1.htm Should We Support Gay Marriage? NO! Wolfhart Pannenberg]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon]</ref><ref>Straight or Narrow? Sexuality from the Beginning, Thomas E.Schmidt</ref>
Evangelical Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] sums up the position of traditional Biblical exegesis in stating, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref> In P. Michael Ukleja's summation, “Only towering cynicism can pretend that there is any doubt about what the Scriptures say about homosexuality. The Bible has not even the slightest hint of ambiguity about what is permitted or forbidden in this aspect of sexual conduct."<ref>“Homosexuality and the Old Testament,” BSAC 140 (July 1983): 259.</ref> Calvin Smith concludes, "the weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals, have led me to affirm the traditional view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>
===Revisionist/pro-homosex position===
Those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture typically view the Bible as a book that allows a much broader range of interpretation and denial of Biblical commands and their immutability, and many evidence that they allow a vast range of metaphorical interpretation within historical narratives. Fundamentally, such revisionists overall typically express a denial of the Bible as the ultimate authority on morals, viewing it more as the expression of a prescientific (ignorant) age, with its laws, in particular as regards homoerotic relations, being culture bound, and categorized as non-applicable for today. While some primary prohomoex scholars do confess that it appears, "Wherever the Bible clearly seems to refer to homosexual activity, we must recognize a judgment of condemnation",<ref>McNeil, drawing from the word of Dutch scholar Herman van Spijker, referenced by By Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming, p. 83 </ref> or that "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1,<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref> they believe aggravating circumstances provide reasons why injunctions against homosex cannot apply to loving homosexual relationships. Much effort is expended in seeking to relegate Biblical injunctions against homosex to only a formal cultic context, or pederasty, or to heterosexuals acting contrary to the orientation, while many also often see homosexuality in most any close heterosexual relationship. Writers of holy writ are also sometimes deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref>
In response, conservative scholars and writers have evidenced that such positions are contrary to demonstrable sound exegesis, with the resultant inversion of Biblical morality by revisionists effectively allowing the immutable moral laws of the Bible to yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (cf. 1Cor. 13:6)<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> The basic injunctions against male homosexual partners are held to have been penned under the inspiration of God, and which transcends human wisdom. (cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Prov. 12:15; Mt.4:4)), and that God does not ordain morality according to majority vote.<ref>James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality, p. 290</ref> Some note certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists can also effectively work to disallow the immutability of most any moral command (as most had "aggravating circumstances" in their establishment, and or do not address motive), and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Like the harlot whose covetousness constrained her to assent to the destruction of a child rather than let her opposing claimant have it (1Ki. 3), the end result of prohomosex polemics is seen as effectively negating the authority of the very source they seek to claim for their own. <ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref> This effect may be understood as a desired one, as consistent with a [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism]].
More forward in this regard is Professor Walter Wink, who states "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 other revisionists view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”. Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that can supercede Biblical laws, 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> Pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs, who preceded Wink, likewise states, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”<ref>Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.</ref> William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, termed it "dangerous" to fail to condemn the apostle Paul's condemnation of homosex, and advocated removing such from the canon.<ref>Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43. http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman contends, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”<ref>Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)</ref> Christine E. Gudorf flatly denies that the Bible is the primary authority for Christian ethics.<ref>Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121</ref> Bishop (Ret.) John Shelby Spong denies all miracles, including the virgin conception and literal bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the Divine inspiration of Scripture, and denies that there are any moral absolutes<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/spongwrong2.htm Michael Bott and Jonathan Sarfati, "What’s Wrong With (Former) Bishop Spong?"]</ref>
In response, conservative scholars and writers have evidenced that such positions are contrary to demonstrable sound exegesis, with the resultant inversion of Biblical morality by revisionists effectively allowing the immutable moral laws of the Bible to yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (cf. 1Cor. 13:6)<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> The basic injunctions against male homosexual partners are held to have been penned under the inspiration of God, and which transcends human wisdom. (cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Prov. 12:15; Mt.4:4)), and that God does not ordain morality according to majority vote.<ref>James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality, p. 290</ref> Some note certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists can also effectively work to disallow the immutability of most any moral command (as most had "aggravating circumstances" in their establishment, and or do not address motive), and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Like the harlot whose covetousness constrained her to assent to the destruction of a child rather than let her opposing claimant have it (1Ki. 3), the end result of pro-homosex polemics is seen as effectively negating the authority of the very source they seek to claim for their own. <ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref> This effect may be understood as a desired one, as consistent with a [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism]].
Pastor Joseph P. Gudel notes, "It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God...Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject - or even ridicule - the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture."<ref>Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref>
Pastor Joseph P. Gudel notes, "It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God...Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject - or even ridicule - the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture."<ref>Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref>
Sources of pro homosexual interpretations are abundant,<ref>[http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf Why the disagreement over the biblical witness on homosexual practice? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?, by A. J. Robert Gagnon] p. 29</ref> such as Derrick Sherwin Bailey,<ref>(1910 - 1984), Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition</ref> former Jesuit priest John J. McNeill,<ref>Doctorate in Philosophy, Louvain University in Belgium; Former Jesuit priest</ref> Robin Scroggs,<ref>Professor of New Testament at Chicago Theological Seminary</ref> Episcoplian Professor L. William Countryman,<ref>Professor of New Testament, Church Divinity School of the Pacific</ref> Roman Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak,<ref>Assistant Professor of Psychology</ref> and lesser know writers who usually reiterate their polemics. The revisionist scholar who is primarily noted for first advancing their novel view (1955), was the Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey. In addition to him, perhaps the basic primary source for most of the main pro homosexual polemics represented here is John Eastburn Boswell. Born in Boston in 1947, and educated at Harvard, he was later made a full professor at Yale, where he founded the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center. Described as a devout Roman Catholic, Boswell was yet an openly announced homosexual. He wrote a number of books seeking to negate Biblical injunctions against homosexuality and to justify it, with one of his last books being, "Dante and the Sodomites" (1994). Boswell died of complications from AIDS on December 24, 1994, at age 47.
Sources of pro homosexual interpretations are abundant,<ref>[http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf Why the disagreement over the biblical witness on homosexual practice? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?, by A. J. Robert Gagnon] p. 29</ref> such as Derrick Sherwin Bailey,<ref>(1910 - 1984), Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition</ref> former Jesuit priest John J. McNeill,<ref>Doctorate in Philosophy, Louvain University in Belgium; Former Jesuit priest</ref> Robin Scroggs,<ref>Professor of New Testament at Chicago Theological Seminary</ref> Episcoplian Professor L. William Countryman,<ref>Professor of New Testament, Church Divinity School of the Pacific</ref> Roman Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak,<ref>Assistant Professor of Psychology</ref> and lesser know writers who usually reiterate their polemics. The revisionist scholar who is primarily noted for first advancing their novel view (1955), was the Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey. In addition to him, perhaps the basic primary source for most of the main pro homosexual polemics represented here is John Eastburn Boswell. Born in Boston in 1947, and educated at Harvard, he was later made a full professor at Yale, where he founded the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center. Described as a devout Roman Catholic, Boswell was yet an openly announced homosexual. He wrote a number of books seeking to negate Biblical injunctions against homosexuality and to justify it, with one of his last books being, "Dante and the Sodomites" (1994). Boswell died of complications from AIDS on December 24, 1994, at age 47.
It is noted that most of the prohomosex polemicists (charged with "turning the grace of God into lasciviousness": Jude 1:4<ref>http://www.takeheed.net/SEPTEMBER2004.htm</ref>) are by souls who yet profess to be Christians. Conservatives see such as a manifestation of that which the apostle Paul foretold, "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:30)
It is noted that most of the pro-homosex polemicists (charged with "turning the grace of God into lasciviousness": Jude 1:4<ref>http://www.takeheed.net/SEPTEMBER2004.htm</ref>) are by souls who yet profess to be Christians. Conservatives see such as a manifestation of that which the apostle Paul foretold, "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:30)
Among evangelical responses to the above, the foremost contributor is Robert A. J. Gagnon,<ref>Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. B.A. degree from Dartmouth College; M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School; Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. http://www.robgagnon.net</ref> ("The Bible and Homosexual Practice") though he is not a full Biblical fundamentalist, or errantist, and holds to the JEDP theory<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm THE 'DOCUMENTARY SOURCE HYPOTHESIS']</ref> as do most of his adversaries. Adding to his numerous and extensive reproofs of pro homosexual claims<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm</ref> is Thomas E Schmidt<ref>Professor of New Testament Greek at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California</ref> ("Straight and Narrow?"), James B. de Young <ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon</ref> (Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law), David E. Malick<ref>Assistant Professor of Field Education, Dallas Theological Seminary</ref> (Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, and in 1 Corinthians 6:9), Guenther Haas<ref>Associate Professor of Religion and Theology at Redeemer College</ref> ("Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice), Dave Miller Ph.D. (“Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?"), apologist James Patrick Holding<ref>Tektonic.org</ref> ("Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?"), and other apologists.<ref>[http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf See Gagnon, "Why the disagreement over the biblical witness on homosexual practice?", P. 28]</ref>
Among evangelical responses to the above, the foremost contributor is Robert A. J. Gagnon,<ref>Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. B.A. degree from Dartmouth College; M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School; Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. http://www.robgagnon.net</ref> ("The Bible and Homosexual Practice") though he is not a full Biblical fundamentalist, and holds to the JEDP theory<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm THE 'DOCUMENTARY SOURCE HYPOTHESIS']</ref> as do most of his adversaries. Adding to his numerous and extensive reproofs of pro homosexual claims<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm</ref> is Thomas E Schmidt<ref>Professor of New Testament Greek at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California</ref> ("Straight and Narrow?"), James B. de Young <ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon</ref> (Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law), David E. Malick<ref>Assistant Professor of Field Education, Dallas Theological Seminary</ref> (Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, and in 1 Corinthians 6:9), Guenther Haas<ref>Associate Professor of Religion and Theology at Redeemer College</ref> ("Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice), Dave Miller Ph.D. (“Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?"), apologist James Patrick Holding<ref>Tektonic.org</ref> ("Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?"), and other apologists.<ref>[http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf See Gagnon, "Why the disagreement over the biblical witness on homosexual practice?", P. 28]</ref>
== Terms Defined ==
== Terms Defined ==
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, is now used almost exclusively in regards to sexual attraction and it's activity. This use 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 homosex will usually be used. Sodomy might normally have been used, but this originally defined a temple prostitute.
The term "homosexual" itself 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, is now used almost exclusively in regards to sexual attraction and it's activity. This use 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 homosex or homoeroticism is usually used. Sodomy might normally have been used, but this term (in the [[KJV]], which is used herein) originally defined a male temple prostitute engagingly in homosex
== Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women ==
== Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women ==
The Biblical texts primarily subjected to pro-homosexual revisionism fall into two categories, that of those which prohibit or condemn homosex, in principal or by precept, and those into which sanction for it is alleged. It is seen fitting (Gn. 3:1-5) that these attempts begin in Genesis, in seeking to disallow what is termed the ''complementarian position'', for which the traditional position lists at least seven reasons why "from the very beginning of the Bible we see that there is only one proper type of marriage: The union of a man and a woman."<ref>http://www.layhands.com/IsHomosexualityASin.htm</ref> (See also [[Complementarity]].)
(Gen 2:18-24) "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that '''the man''' should be '''alone'''; I will make him an '''help meet''' for him. {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. {20} And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but '''for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.''' {21} And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; {22} '''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.''' {23} And Adam said, This is now '''bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman''', because '''she was taken out of Man'''. {24} '''Therefore''' shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall '''cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."'
(Gen 2:18-24) "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that '''the man''' should be '''alone'''; I will make him an '''help meet''' for him. {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. {20} And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but '''for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.''' {21} And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; {22} '''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.''' {23} And Adam said, This is now '''bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman''', because '''she was taken out of Man'''. {24} '''Therefore''' shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall '''cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."'
In dealing with Gn. 1:27 and 2:18-24, efforts are made by pro homosexual apologists to negate the uniqueness of God's choice to join man and women together, in order to read into Scripture an allowance for marriage between same genders (which, by implication, may be seen to also include animals). While the Bible only evidences explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, this being heterosexuals, proponents of homosex contend 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, as procreation is longer a primary need for the human race.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref><ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, Procreation and the family</ref> Countryman supposes that the Genesis 2:24 passage "can equally well be read simply as an etiological story, telling how the institution of marriage came into being."
However, it is made evident it was only after other created beings were found unsuitable for Adam that the women was created. "The lonely Adam is provided not with a second Adam, but with Eve. She is the helper who corresponds to him. She is the one with whom he can relate in total intimacy and become one flesh.<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html Gordon J Wenham, The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality; Expository Times 1991]</ref>
Donald D. Binder also responds, "Absent entirely from his discussion, is the point that Jesus himself did not interpret the passage etiologically, but normatively (Mark 10:5-9, Matt 19:4-6), providing an ethical basis for the institution of monogamous, heterosexual marriage in the subsequent teachings of the Church<ref>[http://www.pohick.org/gc2000letter.html A Letter to the Bishops and Deputies of the 73rd General Convention] Chaplain Donald D. Binder, PhD Adjunct Professor of New Testament, Southern Methodist University</ref>
The Lord Jesus affirmed this opposite gender union in Matthew 19:
The Lord Jesus distinctly affirmed the Genesis union of opposite gender union in Matthew 19:
(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."'
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 Jesus references both Gn. 1:27 and 2:14, with the ''what'' of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 being distinctly stated as being the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is established and consistently confirmed and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God. 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. “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 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, with the ''what'' of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 being distinctly stated as being the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is established and consistently confirmed and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God. 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. “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>
Robert J. Gagnon states, Genesis 2:18-24 portrays an originally binary human split down the side into two sexually differentiated counterparts.Clearly, marriage is imaged as a reconstitution, into “one flesh,” of the two constituent parts, male and female, that were the products of the splitting. One’s sexual “other half” can only be a person of the other sex. Men and women are complementary sexual beings whose (re-)merger brings about sexual wholeness in the sphere of erotic interaction.<ref>Gagnon’s response to Prof. L. William Countryman’s review in Anglican theological review: on careful scholarship. Though Gagnon holds to the problematic JEDP theory, his analysis is correct</ref>
Robert J. Gagnon states, Genesis 2:18-24 portrays an originally binary human split down the side into two sexually differentiated counterparts.Clearly, marriage is imaged as a reconstitution, into “one flesh,” of the two constituent parts, male and female, that were the products of the splitting. One’s sexual “other half” can only be a person of the other sex. Men and women are complementary sexual beings whose (re-)merger brings about sexual wholeness in the sphere of erotic interaction.<ref>Gagnon’s response to Prof. L. William Countryman’s review in Anglican theological review: on careful scholarship. Though Gagnon holds to the problematic JEDP theory, his analysis is correct</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 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 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> To suppose that the Designer created man to be sexually joined with one of his own, and with the life giving seed being deposited into the orifice of man designed only for waste to come 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> However, to relegate the purpose of opposite gender marriage to being simply for procreation is found to be 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> This joining is 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 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> To suppose that the Designer created man to be sexually joined with one of his own, and with the life giving seed being deposited into the orifice of man designed only for waste to come 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> However, to relegate the purpose of opposite gender marriage to being simply for procreation is found to be 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> This joining is 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.
That the women is not only supremely and uniquely designed to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, 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. 7:7,8,24-43), 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>
That the women is not only supremely and uniquely designed to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html</ref> (cf. Prov. 5:15-19) This sanctity of sex within marriage without emphasis upon procreation is also indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:7,8,24-43), but marriage between man and women is presented as the primary 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>
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 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 attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage, 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. 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 certain animals, or between man and rocks must be allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. The reality is 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.
An attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage, but covenants were common in in the Old Testament (the word occurs 285 times) and Jonathan and David made 3 of them, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. In addition, the attempt to argue that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it, may be seen as possessing the same amount of legitimacy as saying that marriage between man and certain animals is allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. Under traditional exegesis, homosex marriage does needs to be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly specifies, and consistently confirms who is joined together in marriage, and unconditionally prohibits men laying with men as with women (Lv. 18:22), which “cleaving” is intractably part of God's description of marriage.
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.”
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.”
Another aspect of arguments seeking to disallow the uniqueness of the foundational union of the male and female is that this, and the injunctions against homosex upon which flow from it, 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>
Another aspect of arguments seeking to disallow the uniqueness of the foundational union of the male and female is that this, and the injunctions against homosex upon which flow from it, 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 traditional evidence 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) 1Cor 11:1-16 deals with this doctrinally, in which some attempt to make this positional distinction (not simply its expression) culturally caused. However, the context evidences that this 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.
Opposing this is the evidence 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) 1Cor 11:1-16 deals with this doctrinally, in which some attempt to make this positional distinction (not simply its expression) culturally caused. However, the context evidences that this 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>
While positional distinctions themselves do not require opposite genders, the reason for the headship of the male over the women is presented as being 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) The next verse explicitly stated that it was the women who was created for the man: "Neither was the man created for the woman; but '''the woman for the man.'''" (v.9)
While positional distinctions themselves do not require opposite genders, the reason for the headship of the male over the women is presented as being 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) The next verse explicitly stated that it was the women who was created for the man: "Neither was the man created for the woman; but '''the woman for the man.'''" (v.9)
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. "It is only in the heterosexual union of marriage that we find the fulfillment of God's intended order, both procreative and unitive."<ref>Gudel,"That Which is Unnatural"</ref> The mutual interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in vs. 11-12
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. "It is only in the heterosexual union of marriage that we find the fulfillment of God's intended order, both procreative and unitive."<ref>Gudel,"That Which is Unnatural"</ref> The mutual interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in vs. 11-12
In the light of which additional texts, to join man with man is further seen 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.
In the light of these additional texts, to join man with man is further seen contrary to the 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.
Baker's states,
Baker's states,
From the beginning it is acknowledged that humankind is created in two genders that together bear God's image (Gen 1:27) and together constitute a unity of flesh (Gen 2:24). The reaffirmation of these two notions in key New Testament passages on sexuality (Matt 19:1-12; 1 Cor 7:12-20) demonstrates the continuity and importance of sexual differentiation in the construction of a normative biblical sexuality. More simply put, humankind is created to find human completion only in the (marital) union of two sexes.<ref>[http://www.studylight.org/dic/bed/view.cgi?number=T348 Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology]</ref>
From the beginning it is acknowledged that humankind is created in two genders that together bear God's image (Gen 1:27) and together constitute a unity of flesh (Gen 2:24). The reaffirmation of these two notions in key New Testament passages on sexuality (Matt 19:1-12; 1 Cor 7:12-20) demonstrates the continuity and importance of sexual differentiation in the construction of a normative biblical sexuality. More simply put, humankind is created to find human completion only in the (marital) union of two sexes.<ref>[http://www.studylight.org/dic/bed/view.cgi?number=T348 Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology]</ref>
While some seek to use the essential spiritual equality of genders, (Gal. 3:28) or the fact that sexual unions will not exist after believers resurrection (Mt. 22:30) to allow for a radical new union between same genders, the Bible clearly shows that such realities in the spiritual realm do not negate basic moral laws established by God for the physical realm, which are upheld under the new Testament.
=== Celibacy, Polygamy, and Procreation ===
=== [[Celibacy]], [[Polygamy]], and [[Procreation]] ===
Some revisionists see the complementarian position as one that makes single persons less human,<ref>Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together? p. 109</ref><ref>Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, p. 106</ref> while conservatives respond that such is not case, but that just as it is evident under the New Testament that marriage is not universally mandated, it is clear that what is joined together in marriage is opposite genders, which makes man sexually complete, while singleness is a holy option in it's own right, but which requires celibacy. Gagnon states, "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."
Some revisionists see the complementarian position as one that makes single persons less human,<ref>Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together? p. 109</ref><ref>Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, p. 106</ref> while the conservative response is basically that what sexual union in marriage enables and sanctifies is sexual completeness, but that this is not required of all under the New Testament, and may be sacrificially forsaken, but which requires sexual abstinence. Gagnon states, "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."
Just 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.
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> and in no way abrogates the restriction of sexual relations to being only between opposite genders in marriage.
It is also argued that the allowance of [[polygamy|polygamous]] marriages in the Old Testament (even [[concubine]]s 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, only differing from it in the number of female wives (as in too much of a good thing: Prv. 18:22), not their gender.
It is also argued that the allowance of [[polygamy|polygamous]] marriages in the Old Testament (even [[concubine]]s 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, only differing from it 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, and emphasis upon essential oneness of all races in Christ. (Gal. 3:28) However, 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, 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> It is additionally contended 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 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 its lower priority upon procreation, and emphasis upon essential oneness of all races in Christ. (Gal. 3:28) However, 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> It is additionally contended 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 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).
Gal. 3:28 is used in prohomosex argumentation, to negate the ontological argument against homomarriage,<ref>Walter Brueggemann, Lisa Miller, ref. in "More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus", (Gagnon) http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm</ref> while historical exegesis has held that while all believers are spiritually 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) yet 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. 2:9-15)<ref>Albert Barnes, John Gill, 1Cor. 11:3; 14:34; 1Tim. 2:8-11</ref><ref>"saved in childbearing" does not imply salvation due to works, but by obedient faith in Christ, which was/is to be usually/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>
Gal. 3:28 is used in pro-homosex argumentation, to negate the ontological argument against homomarriage,<ref>Walter Brueggemann, Lisa Miller, ref. in "More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus", (Gagnon) http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm</ref> while historical exegesis has held that while all believers are spiritually 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) yet 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. 2:9-15)<ref>Albert Barnes, John Gill, 1Cor. 11:3; 14:34; 1Tim. 2:8-11</ref><ref>"saved in childbearing" does not imply salvation due to works, but by obedient faith in Christ, which was/is to be usually/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 ===
(Mt. 19:9-12) "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. {10} His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. {11} But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. {12} For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
(Mt. 19:9-12) "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. {10} His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. {11} But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. {12} For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
Here Jesus refers to three ways in which men become eunuchs. From the Jewish perspective the first would be those who were born without the ability to procreate, exhibiting a mutilation of human nature,<ref>Gill comments that natural born eunuchs “were frequently called by the Jews, סריס המה, "an eunuch of the sun” (T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 75. 1. 79. 2. & 80. 1. Maimon. Hilch. Ishot, c. 2. sect. 14), that is, as their doctors (Maimon & Bartenora in Misn. Yebamot, c. 8. sect. 4) explain it, one that from his mother's womb never saw the sun but as an eunuch; that is, one that is born so ... The signs of such an eunuch, are given by the Jewish writers (Bartenora, ibid. & Maimon. Hilch. Ishot, ut supra) . This sort is sometimes called סריס בידי שמים "an eunuch by the hands of heaven" (T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 80. 2) or God, in distinction from those who are so by the hands, or means of men.</ref> and possibly those who were asexual. The second were those who likewise could not procreate due to men making them that way. Mathew is writing to the Jews, and these eunuchs find their Old Testament reference in Dt. 23:1, where such persons were forbidden from (at least) the Temple service (cf. Lv. 21:17-24). The second means is also confirmed in Isaiah 39:7, which foretells some Israelites being made eunuchs by the Babylonians, as part of Israel's punishment.
Here Jesus refers to three ways in which men become eunuchs. From the Jewish perspective the first would be those who were born without the ability to procreate, exhibiting a mutilation of human nature,<ref>Gill comments that natural born eunuchs “were frequently called by the Jews, סריס המה, "an eunuch of the sun” (T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 75. 1. 79. 2. & 80. 1. Maimon. Hilch. Ishot, c. 2. sect. 14), that is, as their doctors (Maimon & Bartenora in Misn. Yebamot, c. 8. sect. 4) explain it, one that from his mother's womb never saw the sun but as an eunuch; that is, one that is born so ... The signs of such an eunuch, are given by the Jewish writers (Bartenora, ibid. & Maimon. Hilch. Ishot, ut supra). This sort is sometimes called סריס בידי שמים "an eunuch by the hands of heaven" (T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 80. 2) or God, in distinction from those who are so by the hands, or means of men.</ref> and possibly those who were asexual. The second were those who likewise could not procreate due to men making them that way. Mathew is writing to the Jews, and these eunuchs may find their Old Testament reference in Dt. 23:1, where such persons were forbidden from (at least) the Temple service. (cf. Lv. 21:17-24) The second means is also confirmed in Isaiah 39:7, which foretells some Israelites being made eunuchs by the Babylonians, as part of Israel's punishment.
The last case of eunuchs are those who purposely choose to be single and celibate, as referred to in 1 Cor. 7:7,32-35, in order to better attend to the things that most directly pertain to the kingdom of God. Among the Essenes there were examples of this. But celibacy within marriage is actually forbidden by 1Cor. 7:5. (Note: The early church leader Origen castrated himself, literally following Matthew 19:12, perhaps to remove any hint of scandal as he taught young women their catechism. He later came to see his action as ill-advised and not to be taken as an example.)<ref>http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps054.shtml</ref>
The last case of eunuchs are those who purposely choose to be single and celibate, as referred to in 1 Cor. 7:7,32-35, in order to better attend to the things that most directly pertain to the kingdom of God. Among the Essenes it is believed there were examples of this.<ref>Albert Barnes, p. Mat 19:12</ref> But celibacy within marriage is actually forbidden in 1Cor. 7:5. (Note: The early church leader Origen castrated himself, literally following Matthew 19:12, perhaps to remove any hint of scandal as he taught young women their catechism. He later came to see his action as ill-advised and not to be taken as an example.)<ref>http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps054.shtml</ref>
However, here some homo apologists, in what is seen as an extreme example of egregious exegetical sophistry, postulate or assert that at least some some of the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals, and controvert “all cannot receive this saying” (v. 11) to refer to the uniqueness of the male/female union of Gn. 2, and so conclude, “Jesus did not prohibit same sex marriage for born eunuchs”, asserting they are “exempt from the Adam and Eve style, heterosexual marriage paradigm”. Then, enlisting 1Cor. 1:8,9, and subjecting Scripture to man's wisdom (stating abstinence is unreasonable), the pro homosexual apologist reasons that marriage must be allowed for them <ref>Homosexual Eunuchs, Rick Brentlinger</ref>
However, some homo apologists here , in what may be seen as an extreme example of exegetical sophistry, postulate or assert that at least some some of the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals, and controvert “all cannot receive this saying” (v. 11) to refer to the uniqueness of the male/female union of Gn. 2, and so conclude, “Jesus did not prohibit same sex marriage for born eunuchs”, asserting they are “exempt from the Adam and Eve style, heterosexual marriage paradigm”. Then, enlisting 1Cor. 1:8,9, and subjecting Scripture to man's wisdom (stating abstinence is unreasonable), the pro homosexual apologist reasons that marriage must be allowed for them <ref>Homosexual Eunuchs, Rick Brentlinger</ref>
While it may be true that sometimes eunuchs who were considered to have been born that way could procreate,<ref>Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young</ref><ref>Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1998, Book XXIII.3.39.1</ref> of which some, in pagan nations, were sexually active homosexuals,<ref>Faris Malik, Eunuchs are Gay Men</ref> not simply asexual, yet Israel was not to be like other nations (Lv. 18:24,27), and to suppose that Jesus is referring to congenitally determined homosexual behavior and sanctioning such is neither warranted here or elsewhere.<ref>Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D [http:www.robgagnon.net/articles/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf]</ref> Not only in Scripture but in every other extant piece of evidence about Jewish views on same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond shows them to be consistently hostile to such behavior.<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref> Yet even the presumed homosexuality of eunuchs will be shown to be irrelevant, and the absurdity and invalidity of the pro homosexual apologist argument is evident from the outset and throughout.
While it may be true that sometimes eunuchs who were considered to have been born that way could procreate,<ref>Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young</ref><ref>Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1998, Book XXIII.3.39.1</ref> and of which some, in pagan nations, may have been sexually active homosexuals,<ref>Faris Malik, Eunuchs are Gay Men</ref> and not simply asexual, yet Israel was not to be like other nations (Lv. 18:24,27), and to suppose that Jesus is referring to congenitally determined homosexual behavior and sanctioning such is neither warranted here or elsewhere.<ref>Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D [http:www.robgagnon.net/articles/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf]</ref> Not only in Scripture but every extant "piece of evidence that we have about Jewish views of same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond is unremittingly hostile to such behavior.<ref>The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref><ref>[ http://www.robgagnon.net/2VOnlineNotes.htm Gagnon, Notes to Gagnon’s Essay in the Gagnon-Via Two Views Book]</ref>
In addition, traditional exegesis shows the idea of homosexual eunuchs itself to be irrelevant, and the untenable nature of the pro homosexual apologist argument to be evident from the beginning and throughout.
Mt. 19:3-12 reveals Jesus restoring the original standard for marriage, referencing back to it's institution in Gn. 2, and in which He affirms that the “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” is the unique union of one man for one women for life, except that the fornication clause may negate it's permanence, but which clause itself reaffirms that sex outside marriage is sin (cf. 1Cor. 7:2). Hearing the narrowness of the original standard, the disciples react that it is not good to get married. Jesus response is in recognition of the validity this statement, insofar as not all men can receive (or submit) to the disciples expressed conclusion, but only those to whom it is given, whom Jesus calls eunuchs, which refers to both physical and spiritual ones. This perfectly correlates to what the Holy Spirit establishes under the New Covenant, in which “every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that” in 1Cor. 7:7, in context referring to being either married or single and celibate. "Although marriage was normally expected of Jewish people, Jesus here acknowledged the value of a single life that includes abstinence, without making celibacy the norm for Christians."<ref>[http://www.augsburgchurches.org/Library/BibleSexualBoundaries.htm, The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester] See also Robert H. Smith, Matthew (Augsburg New Testament Commentary; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 229-230</ref>
The homosexual apologist knows that there no avocation of any same gender marriage, and thus employs another specious polemical tactic, which asserts that since that Jesus did not say that eunuchs must be celibate, that door is still open. Such an argument is seen to have a validity similar to saying that since God never commanded that man cannot marry a gorilla, than that may be a option. Also similar is an example using another law of purpose, that as Gn. 9:3 God states man's need for food (sustenance, not medicine) was to be fulfilled by plants and animals, and then this eliminates substances such as cement for sustenance, no matter how much one might hypothetically crave it, though it is not expressly forbidden. Or as “Christian cannibalism” is not explicitly forbidden (as long as the subjects preconsented, (and the blood was drained, and were well cooked),<ref>even this may be seen as allowable by some in life or death circumstances, as unlike homosexuality, there is no explicit injunction against it, but such could never be allowed as a practice, as it is contrary in principal to what God established.</ref> then to be consistent, pro homosexual polemicists could argue for this as a lifestyle. The facts are that the Bible only establishes marriage as between opposite genders, and wherever it explicitly deals with same gender sex then it condemns it. And when the New Testament deals with those whom the disciples saying (Mt. 19:10) applies, then it evidences it only as celibacy. (1Cor. 7:2,7,32-37) The precludes any need for an explicit statement such as “eunuchs are not to be married.” Rather, it is such an explicit statement sanctioning same sex marriage is what is needed, but such cannot be seen anywhere, or derived by forcing sex into passages it does not belong.
The pro homosexual polemic controverts this, asserting that what Jesus was referencing to (“this saying”) was the ''kind'' of marriage, that being between male and female, to negate it's exclusivity as a type, when instead Jesus was referring to the ''disciple's conclusion'' which had become the issue in response to the ''permanence'' of marriage, that being single was to be preferred. The homosexual polemic next supposes that the avocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must sanction same gender marriage, but fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage, it is only the male and female who can be joined in marriage here, and not to anyone or anything contrary to what God has joined, nor to unscripturally separate what He has. The sanction of marriage here 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 should be added here that this does not necessarily infer that this condition does not pertain to persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others, but that, like the passionate Paul, these, once cognizant of the truth regarding such, 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 homosexual apologist knows that there is no advocation of any same gender marriage, and thus employs another specious polemical tactic, which asserts that since that Jesus did not say that eunuchs must be celibate, that door is still open. Such an argument is seen to have a validity similar to saying that since God never commanded that man cannot marry a gorilla, than that may be a option. Also similar is an example using another law of purpose, that as Gn. 9:3 God states man's need for food (sustenance) was to be fulfilled by plants and animals, and then this eliminates a diet of the flesh of man, no matter how much one might crave it, though it is not expressly forbidden. Hypothetically one might argue that as pre-consensual cannibalism is not explicitly forbidden, then it might be practiced. And words (Gn. 49:27; Est 9:24 cf. Jer. 15:3) might possibly be contrived to approve such by extreme revisionists. But while cannibalism may be seen as allowable by some in life or death circumstances, which sex is not, yet it could never be allowed as a practice, as it is contrary in principal to what God established.</ref> The pro-homosex polemic does not negate the fact that the Bible only establishes marriage as between opposite genders, and wherever it explicitly deals with same gender sex then it condemns it. And that when the New Testament deals with those whom the disciples saying (Mt. 19:10) applies, then it evidences it only as celibacy. (1Cor. 7:2,7,32-37) This precludes any need for an explicit statement such as “eunuchs are not to be married.” Rather, it is such an explicit statement and clear example sanctioning same sex marriage that the pro-homosex polemic needs, but such cannot be seen anywhere, or derived by forcing sex into passages that it does not belong in.
An additional argument used in seeking to negate the exclusivity of opposite gender marriage, is to assert that different types of marriage are allowed in Scripture, which is true, such as polygamy and concubines (a type of an economical wife, but a wife nonetheless). However, these were types of the original union, and they actually stand as an argument against same gender marriage, as in all manifest cases of sanctioned marriage, they are all between male and female counterparts, even though Solomon had 700 of the latter. In Mt. 19:3-8, Jesus revealed that in the Old Testament God allowed a degree of broadness as regards the number of wives and the permanence of it, in condescension to their carnality, yet in bringing it back to it's original standard Jesus distinctly stated it was male and female which God joined together.
In conclusion, rather than introducing a radical new concept of marriage, to which the rest of Scripture nowhere attests, the LORD instead reaffirmed the original unique union of opposite genders, with the women being distinctively created for the man (1Cor. 11:9), physically and otherwise, with differing but complementary positions based upon creational (not cultural) distinctions (1Cor. 11:3, 8-12), the with Jesus also restoring the permanence of that bound. 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).
In conclusion, traditional exegesis establishes that rather than introducing a radical new concept of marriage, to which the rest of Scripture nowhere attests, the LORD instead reaffirmed the original unique union of opposite genders, with the women being distinctively created for the man (1Cor. 11:9), physically and otherwise, with differing but complementary positions based upon creational (not cultural) distinctions (1Cor. 11:3, 8-12), with Jesus also restoring the permanence of that bound. 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).
As seen in Acts 8:26-40, eunuchs could be saved through repentance and faith in LORD Jesus, but this does not sanction homoeroticism, rather it requires repentance from all forms of fornication. Under the Old Testament one who was castrated was an outcast, and being made a eunuch was demeaning, while under the New Covenant nothing '''physical''' excludes one from being part of the kingdom. But practicing immoral '''behavior''' does (1Jn) as it denies the faith, and thus the redeemed included those were '''formerly''' “effeminate” (1Cor. 6:9-11).
As seen in Acts 8:26-40, eunuchs could be saved through repentance and faith in the LORD Jesus, but this does not sanction homoeroticism, rather it requires repentance from all forms of fornication. Under the Old Testament one who was castrated was an outcast, and being made a eunuch was demeaning, while under the New Covenant nothing '''physical''' excludes one from being part of the kingdom. But practicing immoral '''behavior''' does, as it denies the faith, and thus the redeemed included those were '''formerly''' “effeminate” (1Cor. 6:9-11).
=== Proclivity and permission polemic ===
=== Proclivity and permission polemic ===
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> The premise for this is both unproven,<ref>Homosexuality By Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse</ref> and it's logic is untenable. No sound evidence exists to prove that homosexuals were born that way, though this may be possible, and certainly one individual may be more prone to one type of sin that another. However, 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 that all innate proclivity to sin justifies acting it out, but God told Cain that he could resist sin. (Gn. 4:7), and commands us to resist sin and overcome it, and shows us how. (Rm. 8; 12)
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> The premise for this is both unproven,<ref>Homosexuality By Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse</ref> and it's logic is untenable. No sound evidence exists to prove that homosexuals were born that way, though this may be possible, and certainly one individual may be more prone to one type of sin that another. However, 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 that all innate proclivity to sin justifies acting it out, but God told Cain that he could resist sin. (Gn. 4:7), and commands us to resist sin and overcome it, and shows us how. (Rm. 8; 12)
It also may be postulated that if wasting of seed is the real reason for prohibitions against homosex, then the Bible would have also explicitly addressed spilling of semen by self sexual stimulation, often called ''onanism'' by Orthodox Judaism, relating it to the Divine execution of Onan (Gn. 38:4-10) for ''coitus interruptus''. However, Onan's most evident sin appears to be his selfishness and disobedience in refusing to raise up seed to his brother, which requirement would later become codified in Mosaic law (Dt. 25:5-10). The Talmud has a passage (b. Niddah 13b) which links self stimulation and pederasty together as violations of marriage. The issue of man's seed of copulation going out from him is addressed in Lv. 15:16, but the manner is not evident, and for which the penalty was being unclean until the evening. While some disagree, self sexual release is now best evidenced by conservative Bible believers as being contrary in principle to precepts concerning sexual joining, (1Cor. 7:2; 1Thes. 4:4) lust, (Mt. 5:8) and temperance, (1Cor. 9:7) and included in prohibitions against sexual uncleanness, as well as for testimony sake.(Eph. 5:3; 1Cor. 10:31,32)<ref>http://www.cfcnb.org/docs/Sexual_Purity.pdf</ref><ref>http://ldolphin.org/Mast.shtml</ref> But as this would likely have been more the occasion of wasting seed than male homosex, then explicit regulations would be expected if wasting the seed were the reason for laws against the latter.
It also may be postulated that if wasting of seed is the real reason for prohibitions against homosex, then the Bible would have also explicitly addressed spilling of semen by self sexual stimulation, often called ''onanism'' by Orthodox Judaism, relating it to the Divine execution of Onan (Gn. 38:4-10) for ''coitus interruptus''. However, Onan's most evident sin appears to be his selfishness and disobedience in refusing to raise up seed to his brother, which requirement would later become codified in Mosaic law (Dt. 25:5-10). The Talmud has a passage (b. Niddah 13b) which links self stimulation and pederasty together as violations of marriage. The issue of man's seed of copulation going out from him is addressed in Lv. 15:16, but the manner is not evident, and for which the penalty was being unclean until the evening. While some disagree, self sexual release is usually held by conservative Bible believers as being contrary in principle to precepts concerning sexual joining, (1Cor. 7:2; 1Thes. 4:4) lust, (Mt. 5:8) and temperance, (1Cor. 9:7) and included in prohibitions against sexual uncleanness, as well as for testimony sake.(Eph. 5:3; 1Cor. 10:31,32)<ref>http://www.cfcnb.org/docs/Sexual_Purity.pdf</ref><ref>http://ldolphin.org/Mast.shtml</ref> But as this would likely have been more the occasion of wasting seed than male homosex, then explicit regulations would be expected if wasting the seed were the reason for laws against the latter.
====Summary====
In summary, traditional exegesis evidences that the warranted essential basis for the injunctions against homosex is that it is intrinsically contrary to the union God has established for man. All marriage in Scripture is based upon it's 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, and is maintained in principle and by precept. What therefore God has placed (sexually) asunder, let no man join together.
In summary, traditional exegesis of Gn. 1:27,27; 2:18-24 with its relevance texts, evidences that the warranted essential basis for the injunctions against homosex is that it is intrinsically contrary to the union God has established for man. All marriage in Scripture is based upon it's 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. 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, and is maintained in principle and by precept. This conclusion may be summed up as "What therefore God has placed (sexually) asunder, let no man join together."
== Genesis 19 ==
== Genesis 19 ==
The issue here is not simply that forced manner of sexual relations is what is best evidenced, but also the perverse homosexual nature of it, which defines the practice from whence the term "sodomy" was derived, and accentuates the Sodomites worthiness of judgment. Gordon J Wenham states, "...undoubtedly the homosexual intentions of the inhabitants of Sodom adds a special piquancy to their crime. In the eyes of the writer of Genesis and his readers it showed that they fully deserve to be described as 'wicked, great sinners before the LORD' (13:13) and that the consequent total overthrow of their city was quite to be expected."<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html, The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality Expository Times 102 (1991): 259-363]</ref> Jewish Ethics and Halakhah For Our Time (2002), comments, “The paradigmatic instance of such aberrant behavior is found in the demand of the men of Sodom to “know” the men visiting Lot, the nephew of Abraham, thus lending their name to the practice of “sodomy” (homosexuality)<ref>(Cf. Genesis Rabbah 50:5, on Gen. 9:22 ff. More generally see M.Kasher, Torah Shlemah, vol. 3 to Gen 19:5.) http://www.jonahweb.org/sections.php?secId=183</ref>
The issue here is not simply that forced manner of sexual relations is what is best evidenced, but also the perverse homosexual nature of it, which defines the practice from whence the term "sodomy" was derived, and accentuates the Sodomites worthiness of judgment. Gordon J Wenham states, "...undoubtedly the homosexual intentions of the inhabitants of Sodom adds a special piquancy to their crime. In the eyes of the writer of Genesis and his readers it showed that they fully deserve to be described as 'wicked, great sinners before the LORD' (13:13) and that the consequent total overthrow of their city was quite to be expected."<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html, The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality Expository Times 102 (1991): 259-363]</ref> Jewish Ethics and Halakhah For Our Time (2002), comments, “The paradigmatic instance of such aberrant behavior is found in the demand of the men of Sodom to “know” the men visiting Lot, the nephew of Abraham, thus lending their name to the practice of “sodomy” (homosexuality)<ref>(Cf. Genesis Rabbah 50:5, on Gen. 9:22 ff. More generally see M.Kasher, Torah Shlemah, vol. 3 to Gen 19:5.) http://www.jonahweb.org/sections.php?secId=183</ref>
As this story evidences for traditionalists that the most notable physical sin of Sodom had to do with homoerotic relations, and which “filthy” lifestyle resulted in Sodom becoming the foremost example of the judgment of God, and a warning to “those that after should live ungodly” (Pet. 2:6), prohomosex apologists most typically seek to disallow that the "very grievous" sin of Sodom here had anything to do with homoeroticism. Instead, they seek to attribute it to simply being "inhospitality,” albeit of a violent nature.<ref>D S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Tradition, p. 8; John J. McNeil, the Church and the Homosexual, p. 50; Daniel Helminiak, http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/</ref> Scroggs, while seeking to justify homosex, states he finds it “difficult to deny the sexual intent of the Sodomites”, and states he believes “the traditional interpretation to be correct.”<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs; p. 73</ref> Holding states, "I know of no evidence for the claim that Lot violated a custom by not getting permission to have a guest.<ref>"[http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html On Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis", James Patrick Holding]</ref> While Sodom certainly manifested “inhospitality,” it is the specific expression of it which is the issue.
As this story evidences for traditionalists that the most notable physical sin of Sodom had to do with homoerotic relations, and which “filthy” lifestyle resulted in Sodom becoming the foremost example of the judgment of God, and a warning to “those that after should live ungodly” (Pet. 2:6), pro-homosex apologists most typically seek to disallow that the "very grievous" sin of Sodom here had anything to do with homoeroticism. Instead, they seek to attribute it to simply being "inhospitality,” albeit of a violent nature.<ref>D S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Tradition, p. 8; John J. McNeil, the Church and the Homosexual, p. 50; Daniel Helminiak, http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/</ref> Scroggs, while seeking to justify homosex, states he finds it “difficult to deny the sexual intent of the Sodomites”, and states he believes “the traditional interpretation to be correct.”<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs; p. 73</ref> Holding states, "I know of no evidence for the claim that Lot violated a custom by not getting permission to have a guest.<ref>"[http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html On Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis", James Patrick Holding]</ref> While Sodom certainly manifested “inhospitality,” it is the specific expression of it which is the issue.
===Grammatical contentions===
===Grammatical contentions===
The Bible, as in many languages and cultures, makes abundant use of euphemisms for sex, such as "know" or "lie with" or "uncover the nakedness of" or "go in into." Ancient languages which also used this allegorical use of “know” included Egyptian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic,<ref>(Botterweck, 1986, 5:455-456,460),</ref> as well as Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek <ref>(Gesenius, 1979, p. 334).</ref> Hebrew scholars defining 'know' as used in Genesis 19:5, used terminology like 'sexual perversion'<ref>(Harris, et al., 1980, p. 366),</ref> 'homosexual intercourse'<ref>(Botterweck, 5:464),</ref> and 'crimes against nature',<ref>(Gesenius, p. 334).</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>
The Bible, as in many languages and cultures, makes abundant use of euphemisms for sex, such as "know" or "lie with" or "uncover the nakedness of" or "go in into." Ancient languages which also used this allegorical use of “know” included Egyptian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic,<ref>(Botterweck, 1986, 5:455-456,460),</ref> as well as Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek <ref>(Gesenius, 1979, p. 334).</ref> Hebrew scholars defining 'know' as used in Genesis 19:5, used terminology like 'sexual perversion'<ref>(Harris, et al., 1980, p. 366),</ref> 'homosexual intercourse'<ref>(Botterweck, 5:464),</ref> and 'crimes against nature',<ref>(Gesenius, p. 334).</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>
Additionally, Lot's offer of his two daughters who “have known [yâda] man” (Lot had married ones also, not with him) to the Sodomites in response to their demanded to “known” his guests, in the light of the Biblical use of [yâda] in sexual descriptions, especially narratives, this best indicates that Lot was offering substitute bodies for them to know sexually, rather than being sacrificed in pagan idolatry, as many homosexual apologists usually assert. The latter position is untenable in the light of the response of the men to the same offer in the parallel story in Judges 19. However, Bailey cannot see any sexual connection between Lot's offer and the Sodomites demand to know the men, while the prohomosexual author Scroggs sees the traditional interpretation of Gn. 19 being correct. (See under Judges 19.)
Additionally, Lot's offer of his two daughters who “have known [yâda] man” (Lot had married ones also, not with him) to the Sodomites in response to their demanded to “known” his guests, in the light of the Biblical use of [yâda] in sexual descriptions, especially narratives, this best indicates that Lot was offering substitute bodies for them to know sexually, rather than being sacrificed in pagan idolatry, as many homosexual apologists usually assert. The latter position is untenable in the light of the response of the men to the same offer in the parallel story in Judges 19. However, Bailey cannot see any sexual connection between Lot's offer and the Sodomites demand to know the men, while the pro-homosexual author Scroggs sees the traditional interpretation of Gn. 19 being correct. (See under Judges 19.)
As one commentator states, “In narrative literature of this sort it would be very unlikely to use one verb with two different meanings so close together unless the author made the difference quite obvious. In both verses 5 and 8 "yada" should be translated "to have sexual intercourse with." The context does not lend itself to any other credible interpretation.”<ref>Derek Kidner, "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1963), p. 137. http://www.biblebb.com/files/HOMOSEX.HTM</ref>
As one commentator states, “In narrative literature of this sort it would be very unlikely to use one verb with two different meanings so close together unless the author made the difference quite obvious. In both verses 5 and 8 "yada" should be translated "to have sexual intercourse with." The context does not lend itself to any other credible interpretation.”<ref>Derek Kidner, "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1963), p. 137. http://www.biblebb.com/files/HOMOSEX.HTM</ref>
In their quest to render yâda to be non-sexual, some point to the Greek [[Septuagint]] translation which renders yâda' in Gen 19:5 as ''synginomai'', which they suppose only means becoming acquainted, while v. 8 translates yâda' as ginosko ("know), which is clearly is sexual in that verse. Besides possible problems with the Septuagint<ref>which apparently has Methuselah dying after the flood in Gn. 9, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2444/chronology.html</ref> and the incongruity of the men of Sodom merely wanting to get acquainted with the strangers, that synginomai can have a sexual meaning is evidenced by Gen 39:10, in which synginomai is used to refer to Joseph's refusal to sleep with the wife of Potiphar. It also occurs in three places in the Apocrypha (Judith 12:16; Susanna 11, 39), with all conveying a sexual meaning. Among secular sources, synginomai is used to denote a sexual meaning in Xenophon's "Anabasis" 1.212, Plato's Republic 329c (5th to 4th century B.C.), and, among others, in writings of Epidaurus (4th cenury B.C), which indicates that the translators of the Septuagint knew of the use of the term for sexual meanings, which use preceded their translation.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=synginomai&source=bl&ots=ZjUG-_ibCa&sig=yx964LqkQifvfeU83dlUpqBLeMo&hl=en&ei=ZEOaSZ2RHJa5twf_oKi9Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result Dr. James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality, pp. 118-122]</ref>
In their quest to render yâda to be non-sexual, some point to the Greek [[Septuagint]] translation which renders yâda' in Gen 19:5 as ''synginomai'', which they suppose only means becoming acquainted, while v. 8 translates yâda' as ginosko ("know), which is clearly is sexual in that verse. Besides possible problems with the Septuagint<ref>which apparently has Methuselah dying after the flood in Gn. 9, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2444/chronology.html</ref> and the incongruity of the men of Sodom merely wanting to get acquainted with the strangers, that synginomai can have a sexual meaning is evidenced by Gen 39:10, in which synginomai is used to refer to Joseph's refusal to sleep with the wife of Potiphar. It also occurs in three places in the Apocrypha (Judith 12:16; Susanna 11, 39), with all conveying a sexual meaning. Among secular sources, synginomai is used to denote a sexual meaning in Xenophon's "Anabasis" 1.212, Plato's Republic 329c (5th to 4th century B.C.), and, among others, in writings of Epidaurus (4th cenury B.C), which indicates that the translators of the Septuagint knew of the use of the term for sexual meanings, which use preceded their translation.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=synginomai&source=bl&ots=ZjUG-_ibCa&sig=yx964LqkQifvfeU83dlUpqBLeMo&hl=en&ei=ZEOaSZ2RHJa5twf_oKi9Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result Dr. James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality, pp. 118-122]</ref>
It is noteworthy that prohomosex polemicists who disallow a sexual meaning here are often not reluctant to read homosex or a homosexual relationship into stories such as Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz, the centurion and his servant, Jesus and John, and (some) Elijah and the son of the widow of Zarephath, and even resort to asserting that Paul was a repressed homosexual, while even more extreme examples can be seen.
It is noteworthy that pro-homosex polemicists who disallow a sexual meaning here are often not reluctant to read homosex or a homosexual relationship into stories such as Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz, the centurion and his servant, Jesus and John, and (some) Elijah and the son of the widow of Zarephath, and even resort to asserting that Paul was a repressed homosexual, while even more extreme examples can be seen.
As yâda is often used as a verb to refer to sex narratives, but in forbidding illicit sex, another attempt is made to disallow homosex in Gn. 19 based upon the absence of yâda when the Bible mentions homosexual acts (in Lv. 18:22; 20:13; 23:17)<ref>Julie M. Smith, Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar</ref> However, this argument fails, as it would also disallow yâda from denoting premarital sex, (Gn. 38:26) or forced sex, (Jdg. 19:25) which, like Gn. 19, is described in narratives by using the euphemism yâda, but when proscribed as a sin, it uses the euphemism “lie/lay” (Dt. 22:25-29). None of the laws against illicit sex use yâda.
As yâda is often used as a verb to refer to sex narratives, but in forbidding illicit sex, another attempt is made to disallow homosex in Gn. 19 based upon the absence of yâda when the Bible mentions homosexual acts (in Lv. 18:22; 20:13; 23:17)<ref>Julie M. Smith, Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar</ref> However, this argument fails, as it would also disallow yâda from denoting premarital sex, (Gn. 38:26) or forced sex, (Jdg. 19:25) which, like Gn. 19, is described in narratives by using the euphemism yâda, but when proscribed as a sin, it uses the euphemism “lie/lay” (Dt. 22:25-29). None of the laws against illicit sex use yâda.
Grammatically, the Hebrew word used for humble (“‛ânâh” , H6031), as in “humble ye them” (19:24), usually means afflict, but it is also often used for humbling someone sexually (Gn. 34:2; Ex. 22:10,11; Dt. 21:14; 22:21,24;29;. 2Sam.13:12,14,32), while “folly” and "vile", as in “do not this folly”, and “do not so vile a thing” (Jdg. 19:23,24), are from the same Hebrew word (“nebâlâh,” H5039), which is mostly used in sexual sense when referring to a specific sin of action (Gn. 34:7; Dt. 22:21;. 2Sam.13:12; Jer. 29:23). Likewise, “lewdness” (“zimmâh/zammâh,” H2154), as in “they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel” (20:6), is used more in a sexual sense than for any other type of sin (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; 20:14; Jer. 3:27; Ezek. 16:43,58; 22:11; 23:21,27,29,3544,,48). “Abused” (“‛âlal,” H5953) as in “they knew her and abused her all the night” (v. 25) offers no other precise meaning other here than what the context indicates.
Grammatically, the Hebrew word used for humble (“‛ânâh” , H6031), as in “humble ye them” (19:24), usually means afflict, but it is also often used for humbling someone sexually (Gn. 34:2; Ex. 22:10,11; Dt. 21:14; 22:21,24;29;. 2Sam.13:12,14,32), while “folly” and "vile", as in “do not this folly”, and “do not so vile a thing” (Jdg. 19:23,24), are from the same Hebrew word (“nebâlâh,” H5039), which is mostly used in sexual sense when referring to a specific sin of action (Gn. 34:7; Dt. 22:21;. 2Sam.13:12; Jer. 29:23). Likewise, “lewdness” (“zimmâh/zammâh,” H2154), as in “they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel” (20:6), is used more in a sexual sense than for any other type of sin (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; 20:14; Jer. 3:27; Ezek. 16:43,58; 22:11; 23:21,27,29,3544,,48). “Abused” (“‛âlal,” H5953) as in “they knew her and abused her all the night” (v. 25) offers no other precise meaning other here than what the context indicates.
Taken together, it is most evident that the abuse the women suffered was violently sexual, and which best defines the type of “knowing that “certain sons of Belial” (a term used for fornicators in 1Sam. 2:12, cf. v.22) sought to have, and which would result in death. And which serves to define the manner of “knowing” which was sought in Gn. 19. The only real difference between this and Gn. 19 is that these men finally took the substitute offer of the women (which was also sin). And though both Gn. 19 and Jdg. 19 specifically show homosexual rape itself to be sin, it was not simply the manner in which they sought relations (such as the women suffered) that was called vile, but the homosexual aspect of it. Even prohomosex author Robin Scroggs also concurs that in Jdg. 19 "the verb [yada] almost surely refers to a sexual desire for homosexual rape", and that the traditional interpretation of Gn. 19 is correct.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs, pp. 73-75</ref>
Taken together, it is most evident that the abuse the women suffered was violently sexual, and which best defines the type of “knowing that “certain sons of Belial” (a term used for fornicators in 1Sam. 2:12, cf. v.22) sought to have, and which would result in death. And which serves to define the manner of “knowing” which was sought in Gn. 19. The only real difference between this and Gn. 19 is that these men finally took the substitute offer of the women (which was also sin). And though both Gn. 19 and Jdg. 19 specifically show homosexual rape itself to be sin, it was not simply the manner in which they sought relations (such as the women suffered) that was called vile, but the homosexual aspect of it. Even pro-homosex author Robin Scroggs also concurs that in Jdg. 19 "the verb [yada] almost surely refers to a sexual desire for homosexual rape", and that the traditional interpretation of Gn. 19 is correct.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs, pp. 73-75</ref>
Finally, that the sin of Sodom was attempted homosexual rape hardly needs any of the above for confirmation, as Jude 7 (see below) clearly tells us that not only was Sodom and company given to fornication, but that this included a perverse kind.
Finally, that the sin of Sodom was attempted homosexual rape hardly needs any of the above for confirmation, as Jude 7 (see below) clearly tells us that not only was Sodom and company given to fornication, but that this included a perverse kind.
==Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13==
==Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13==
While most prohomosex polemicists admit that sexual moral codes are transcultural and transhistorical, attempts are made to find grammatical, categorical, cultural and motivatonal aspects that would disallow the injunctions which prohibit homosex. These attempts here, as others, manifest a foundational position on the Bible contrary to its own statements relative to both its Divine inspiration and transcendent coherent moral relevance and authority. As stated by prohomsex author Richard Hasbany,
While most pro-homosex polemicists admit that sexual moral codes are transcultural and transhistorical, attempts are made to find grammatical, categorical, cultural and motivatonal aspects that would disallow the injunctions which prohibit homosex. These attempts here, as others, manifest a foundational position on the Bible contrary to its own statements relative to both its Divine inspiration and transcendent coherent moral relevance and authority. As stated by prohomsex author Richard Hasbany,
"Here again, two interpretive foundations are opposed, that of traditional Judaism which holds that the law of God as understood through the Talmudic literature is immutable, and ultimately higher than man's full comprehension (Ps. 40:5; 92:5), and those who hold that present Western values should influence man's moral interpretation of the Bible."<ref>Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, p. 50,51</ref> (cf. Dt. 12:8)
"Here again, two interpretive foundations are opposed, that of traditional Judaism which holds that the law of God as understood through the Talmudic literature is immutable, and ultimately higher than man's full comprehension (Ps. 40:5; 92:5), and those who hold that present Western values should influence man's moral interpretation of the Bible."<ref>Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, p. 50,51</ref> (cf. Dt. 12:8)
Instead, Boswell asserts that the the Hebrew word ''zimmâh'' would have been used if the prohibitions of Lv. 18:22; was not a mere form of "ethnic contamination,",<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. p. 100</ref> like laws against unclean foods, or that of strange haircuts.
Instead, Boswell asserts that the the Hebrew word ''zimmâh'' would have been used if the prohibitions of Lv. 18:22; was not a mere form of "ethnic contamination,",<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. p. 100</ref> like laws against unclean foods, or that of strange haircuts.
Rather than prohibiting same gender sex in general like other laws against illicit partners, Boswell and like revisionists generally assert that these Levitical injunctions against homosex (and even all the sins of Lv. 18 and 20) were only given to make Israel distinctive (“team colors”), and only prohibit pagan temple prostitution. Or that they were concerned with the wasting of reproductive seed,<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp 100-01</ref><ref>Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality By Jack Bartlett Rogers, p. 72</ref><ref>Horner, David loved Jonathan, p.73,85</ref> though even prohomosex author Scroggs thinks these latter ideas are conjecture which is best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</ref>
Rather than prohibiting same gender sex in general like other laws against illicit partners, Boswell and like revisionists generally assert that these Levitical injunctions against homosex (and even all the sins of Lv. 18 and 20) were only given to make Israel distinctive (“team colors”), and only prohibit pagan temple prostitution. Or that they were concerned with the wasting of reproductive seed,<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp 100-01</ref><ref>Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality By Jack Bartlett Rogers, p. 72</ref><ref>Horner, David loved Jonathan, p.73,85</ref> though even pro-homosex author Scroggs thinks these latter ideas are conjecture which is best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</ref>
However, in support of the traditional position, examination of the use of tōʻēḇā in the original language text reveals that it is 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 (versus the Egyptians), and in contrast, tōʻēḇā is the word most often used for abomination in reference to grave moral sins, including those which are unmistakably universally sinful. Collectively it is used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20. As idolatry is the mother of all sins, tōʻēḇā can be directly used for such. (Dt. 32:16)<ref>[http://ariyl.com/AbominationOfDesolation.swf Anchor Bible Dictionary, Abomination of Desolation]</ref>
However, in support of the traditional position, examination of the use of tōʻēḇā in the original language text reveals that it is 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 (versus the Egyptians), and in contrast, tōʻēḇā is the word most often used for abomination in reference to grave moral sins, including those which are unmistakably universally sinful. Collectively it is used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20. As idolatry is the mother of all sins, tōʻēḇā can be directly used for such. (Dt. 32:16)<ref>[http://ariyl.com/AbominationOfDesolation.swf Anchor Bible Dictionary, Abomination of Desolation]</ref>
Three distinct Hebrew words are rendered in the English Bible by “abomination,” or “abominable thing,” referring (except in Gen_43:32; Gen_46:34) to things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements of His religion. It would be well if these words could be distinguished in translation, as they denote different degrees of abhorrence or loathsomeness.
Three distinct Hebrew words are rendered in the English Bible by “abomination,” or “abominable thing,” referring (except in Gen_43:32; Gen_46:34) to things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements of His religion. It would be well if these words could be distinguished in translation, as they denote different degrees of abhorrence or loathsomeness.
As regards anomia, 24 Hebrew words are variously rendered by this, and while anomia 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. Likewise, 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) Likewise, in contrast to prohomosex proponents, traditional exegesis manifests that homosex is 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 established by the same manner of traditional exegesis as being between eligible opposite genders, while homosex is revealed as a consequence of making God into an image of one's own liking, formal or informal. (Rm. 1)
As regards anomia, 24 Hebrew words are variously rendered by this, and while anomia 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. Likewise, 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) Likewise, in contrast to pro-homosex proponents, traditional exegesis manifests that homosex is 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 established by the same manner of traditional exegesis as being between eligible opposite genders, while homosex is revealed as a consequence of making God into an image of one's own liking, formal or informal. (Rm. 1)
====Zakhar====
====Zakhar====
Seeing the universal nature of the other laws against illicit partners, some seek to create a categorical division between Lv. 18:20, which prohibits adultery, and the next verse, which forbids child sacrifice to Molech, which is supposed to render the next law (v. 22) as only forbidding homosex in that type of idolatrous context. However, as most hold v. 19 to be ceremonial (sex during menstruation), this same logic would relegate adultery to that category. In addition, only Molech in v. 21 is culture specific, while being universally applicable otherwise.
Seeing the universal nature of the other laws against illicit partners, some seek to create a categorical division between Lv. 18:20, which prohibits adultery, and the next verse, which forbids child sacrifice to Molech, which is supposed to render the next law (v. 22) as only forbidding homosex in that type of idolatrous context. However, as most hold v. 19 to be ceremonial (sex during menstruation), this same logic would relegate adultery to that category. In addition, only Molech in v. 21 is culture specific, while being universally applicable otherwise.
Another attempt by prohomosex proponents is to assign a radical significance to (what is stated to be) only one prescription for the death penalty for homosex, in contrast to most of the other sins of Lv. 20 being repeated elsewhere, mainly in Dt. 27:15-26. Upon which basis they restrict Lv. 18:22 to only prohibiting male temple homosex<ref>A Defense Theory, by Royce Buehler</ref>(Dt. 23:17)<ref>which prostitutes are mentioned as working in Judah, under Rehoboam (1Ki. 14:24), whom Asa largely cleaned out (1Ki. 15:12), and which job his son Jehoshaphat finished (1Ki. 22:46), but was later needed to be done again under king Josiah</ref>
Another attempt by pro-homosex proponents is to assign a radical significance to (what is stated to be) only one prescription for the death penalty for homosex, in contrast to most of the other sins of Lv. 20 being repeated elsewhere, mainly in Dt. 27:15-26. Upon which basis they restrict Lv. 18:22 to only prohibiting male temple homosex<ref>A Defense Theory, by Royce Buehler</ref>(Dt. 23:17)<ref>which prostitutes are mentioned as working in Judah, under Rehoboam (1Ki. 14:24), whom Asa largely cleaned out (1Ki. 15:12), and which job his son Jehoshaphat finished (1Ki. 22:46), but was later needed to be done again under king Josiah</ref>
The error of this argument is multiple, in that
The error of this argument is multiple, in that
*1. the sentence of death for homosex 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 homosex 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 prohomosex 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
*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-homosex 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> (The sin for which death is most mentioned 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)
Old Testament]</ref> (The sin for which death is most mentioned 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)
===Psychologically based polemics===
===Psychologically based polemics===
An even more imaginative psychologically based argument on Lv. 20:13 is advanced by Rabbi Arthur Waskow, who renders that to only forbid male with male intercourse when they pretend one is a women, and or that this verse is really mandating a parallel set of institutions for dealing with male with male sex.<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm</ref> That this is a egregious example of "wresting" of Scriptures (cf. 2Pet. 3:16) should be obvious, but such is evidenced elsewhere in prohomosex apologetics. In no place do emotions or imaginations, motives or mental attitude play a part in the prohibitions of sex with illicit partners, whereas when it does within laws regarding marriage (Dt. 24:3; Num. 6:12-31) or killing (Dt. 19:11,12) then it is made explicit. Likewise, the idea that a fundamental prohibition against male homosex, which is manifestly contrary to what God has sanctioned and established by design and decree, is somehow mandating a like means of sanction for it, is seen as utterly without warrant. And that is makes a mockery of the Bible as a coherent authority for even basic human behavior.
An even more imaginative psychologically based argument on Lv. 20:13 is advanced by Rabbi Arthur Waskow, who renders that to only forbid male with male intercourse when they pretend one is a women, and or that this verse is really mandating a parallel set of institutions for dealing with male with male sex.<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm</ref> That this is a egregious example of "wresting" of Scriptures (cf. 2Pet. 3:16) should be obvious, but such is evidenced elsewhere in pro-homosex apologetics. In no place do emotions or imaginations, motives or mental attitude play a part in the prohibitions of sex with illicit partners, whereas when it does within laws regarding marriage (Dt. 24:3; Num. 6:12-31) or killing (Dt. 19:11,12) then it is made explicit. Likewise, the idea that a fundamental prohibition against male homosex, which is manifestly contrary to what God has sanctioned and established by design and decree, is somehow mandating a like means of sanction for it, is seen as utterly without warrant. And that is makes a mockery of the Bible as a coherent authority for even basic human behavior.
Nor is it indicated that "as he lieth with a woman" is making a distinction between an effeminate versus masculine internal disposition of the partner. Rather the simile and euphemism serves to identify the sexual nature (intercourse) of laying down, and would distinguish it from simply sharing the same real estate to lay down on, as with women.
Nor is it indicated that "as he lieth with a woman" is making a distinction between an effeminate versus masculine internal disposition of the partner. Rather the simile and euphemism serves to identify the sexual nature (intercourse) of laying down, and would distinguish it from simply sharing the same real estate to lay down on, as with women.
* 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).
* 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. While the sentence of death for homosex is listed twice (collectively in Lv. 18:29, and specifically in 20:13), (and which is only prescribed once for some moral sins, if "cursed" does or does not mandate death in Dt. 27), yet there is no radical significance to the lack of more mandates for the death penalty for homosex that would lessen its severity, contrary to prohomosex statements<ref>A Defense Theory, by Royce Buehler</ref> Rather according to the principal behind Gal. 3:19, the more likelihood of a capital transgression occurring then the more likely the reiteration of its prohibition and penalty. Thus the absence of a law against cannibalism, and sparse mention of some other sins. The duplicity of prohomsoex polemicists here is manifested by their assertion that more repetitions of the death penalty would be expected if it were inherently sinful, while it is the establishment of homosex marriage that is what would be most expected, but which is no where established, in stark contrast to the that which God originally and consistently decreed.
* 10. While the sentence of death for homosex is listed twice (collectively in Lv. 18:29, and specifically in 20:13), (and which is only prescribed once for some moral sins, if "cursed" does or does not mandate death in Dt. 27), yet there is no radical significance to the lack of more mandates for the death penalty for homosex that would lessen its severity, contrary to pro-homosex statements<ref>A Defense Theory, by Royce Buehler</ref> Rather according to the principal behind Gal. 3:19, the more likelihood of a capital transgression occurring then the more likely the reiteration of its prohibition and penalty. Thus the absence of a law against cannibalism, and sparse mention of some other sins. The duplicity of prohomsoex polemicists here is manifested by their assertion that more repetitions of the death penalty would be expected if it were inherently sinful, while it is the establishment of homosex marriage that is what would be most expected, but which is no where established, in stark contrast to the that which God originally and consistently decreed.
* 11. As Lv. 18:22 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 Lv. 18:22 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.
* 17. 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 does it not stop with graven images.)
* 17. 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 does it not stop with graven images.)
* 18. Attempts to extrapolate other linguistic differences in favor of the prohomosex position critically fall short. Zakhar (mankind) in Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 only distinguishes between genders, and does not signify idolatrous priests are targeted here, while mishkâb (lieth) is a metaphor for sexual intercourse, using the place or manner in which it usually takes place, (Ezek. 23:17) And as 20:13 shows, both are guilty.
* 18. Attempts to extrapolate other linguistic differences in favor of the pro-homosex position critically fall short. Zakhar (mankind) in Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 only distinguishes between genders, and does not signify idolatrous priests are targeted here, while mishkâb (lieth) is a metaphor for sexual intercourse, using the place or manner in which it usually takes place, (Ezek. 23:17) And as 20:13 shows, both are guilty.
* 19. Both the Greek LXX and the Hebrew condemn homosexual behavior. Young concludes that on the basis of linguistic study (particularly the LXX in his work), context and history, the "reinterpretation" of modern critics has strayed too far and and is fairly termed revolutionary and revisionist."<ref>Young, ibid pp. 133-135</ref>
* 19. Both the Greek LXX and the Hebrew condemn homosexual behavior. Young concludes that on the basis of linguistic study (particularly the LXX in his work), context and history, the "reinterpretation" of modern critics has strayed too far and and is fairly termed revolutionary and revisionist."<ref>Young, ibid pp. 133-135</ref>
==Silence of Jesus argument and love hermeneutic==
==Silence of Jesus argument and love hermeneutic==
An argument presented by many prohomosex writers contends that the absence of any specific censure of homosexual relations by Jesus, with his emphasis upon love, works to disallow any Biblical prohibitions against homosex and to sanction such as long as it is consistent with love, though that itself is left to be defined rather subjectively.<ref>Wink, Homosexuality and Bible</ref><ref>Troy Perry, Don’t Be Afraid Anymore (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), 40</ref><ref>John J. McNeil, The Church and the Homosexual (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and
An argument presented by many pro-homosex writers contends that the absence of any specific censure of homosexual relations by Jesus, with his emphasis upon love, works to disallow any Biblical prohibitions against homosex and to sanction such as long as it is consistent with love, though that itself is left to be defined rather subjectively.<ref>Wink, Homosexuality and Bible</ref><ref>Troy Perry, Don’t Be Afraid Anymore (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), 40</ref><ref>John J. McNeil, The Church and the Homosexual (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and
McMeel, 1976); Roger Shinn, “Homosexuality: Christian Conviction and Inquiry,” in Homosexuality</ref> Walter Wink is one whose emphasis upon this is most pronounced, and who much depends upon the upon the hermeneutic behind it, as he readily concurs with traditionalists, in that "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." But he advocates that while sexual conventions are necessary, we are, "in the name of love, to "choose for ourselves what is right," which he states Jesus meant in Luke 12:57.<ref>"To hell with gays," by Walter Wink</ref>
McMeel, 1976); Roger Shinn, “Homosexuality: Christian Conviction and Inquiry,” in Homosexuality</ref> Walter Wink is one whose emphasis upon this is most pronounced, and who much depends upon the upon the hermeneutic behind it, as he readily concurs with traditionalists, in that "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." But he advocates that while sexual conventions are necessary, we are, "in the name of love, to "choose for ourselves what is right," which he states Jesus meant in Luke 12:57.<ref>"To hell with gays," by Walter Wink</ref>
===Overview===
===Overview===
As with the Levitical texts, prohomosex revisionists labor to restrict Romans 1 to a specific context, and or to otherwise disallow it from condemning all forms of homosex. Scroggs confesses, that "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1. This has, however, occasionally been attempted."<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref> Though Scroggs himself will attempt to restrict the homosex of 1:26,27 to a certain form of it, extreme attempts at “grammatical gymnastics” and eisegesis accompany him in seeking to change the condemnation of homosex to allowance. Hanks and others disallow Romans 1 from being a moral indictment of homosex, but attribute Paul's words to [[homophobia]], insecurity, repressed anger, and or largely being a polemic designed to reprove the arrogance of self righteous Jews or a Jew, with an act “against nature” being Gentiles not having the Law by birth. And in which Jews oppress the Gentiles homosexuality, which they see Paul's gospel justifying as being part of the ceremonial purity code (like not eating bacon), which the New Covenant does not enjoin upon Christians.<ref>Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation)</ref><ref>Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123</ref><ref>Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102</ref> Scroggs also sees the condemnation of homosex but supposes that Paul's condemnation of homosex only targets pederasty,<ref>Pederasty involves a voluntary relationship between an adult male and a pre-puberty boy</ref> due to Paul being culturally ignorant of Greek homosexuality, he though he concedes he would have opposed it<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18</ref> More akin to Scroggs, Boswell and others assert that an ignorant Paul condemned “contrary to nature” (Rm. 1:26,27) in refering to heterosexuals acting as homosexuals (the “sin” of choosing one's orientations, as Daniel Via argues<ref>Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views</ref>), and that the Catholic church did not condemn homosex, especially female homoeroticism, until much later in history<ref>Boswell, ibid. pp. 108-113</ref>) New Testament scholar and self-identified lesbian Bernadette Brooten substantiates Boswell was wrong about the amount of early church censure, and that homosexuality as an orientation was recognized (and treated as such), and sees female homoeroticism (which she supports) as widespread among women of ancient times, and thinks Scrogg's theory is doubtful, and recognizes Paul as universally condemning female and male homosex as a violation of the social order created by God. But rejects the prohibition of female homosex due it its perceived basis upon male headship (while wrongly stating that an Israelite could have sexual relations with his own daughter without penalty).<ref>Brooten, Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, pp. 253 n. 106, 248-252, 257, 302, 361</ref>
As with the Levitical texts, pro-homosex revisionists labor to restrict Romans 1 to a specific context, and or to otherwise disallow it from condemning all forms of homosex. Scroggs confesses, that "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1. This has, however, occasionally been attempted."<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref> Though Scroggs himself will attempt to restrict the homosex of 1:26,27 to a certain form of it, extreme attempts at “grammatical gymnastics” and eisegesis accompany him in seeking to change the condemnation of homosex to allowance. Hanks and others disallow Romans 1 from being a moral indictment of homosex, but attribute Paul's words to [[homophobia]], insecurity, repressed anger, and or largely being a polemic designed to reprove the arrogance of self righteous Jews or a Jew, with an act “against nature” being Gentiles not having the Law by birth. And in which Jews oppress the Gentiles homosexuality, which they see Paul's gospel justifying as being part of the ceremonial purity code (like not eating bacon), which the New Covenant does not enjoin upon Christians.<ref>Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation)</ref><ref>Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123</ref><ref>Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102</ref> Scroggs also sees the condemnation of homosex but supposes that Paul's condemnation of homosex only targets pederasty,<ref>Pederasty involves a voluntary relationship between an adult male and a pre-puberty boy</ref> due to Paul being culturally ignorant of Greek homosexuality, he though he concedes he would have opposed it<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18</ref> More akin to Scroggs, Boswell and others assert that an ignorant Paul condemned “contrary to nature” (Rm. 1:26,27) in refering to heterosexuals acting as homosexuals (the “sin” of choosing one's orientations, as Daniel Via argues<ref>Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views</ref>), and that the Catholic church did not condemn homosex, especially female homoeroticism, until much later in history<ref>Boswell, ibid. pp. 108-113</ref>) New Testament scholar and self-identified lesbian Bernadette Brooten substantiates Boswell was wrong about the amount of early church censure, and that homosexuality as an orientation was recognized (and treated as such), and sees female homoeroticism (which she supports) as widespread among women of ancient times, and thinks Scrogg's theory is doubtful, and recognizes Paul as universally condemning female and male homosex as a violation of the social order created by God. But rejects the prohibition of female homosex due it its perceived basis upon male headship (while wrongly stating that an Israelite could have sexual relations with his own daughter without penalty).<ref>Brooten, Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, pp. 253 n. 106, 248-252, 257, 302, 361</ref>
Countering such renderings is traditional means of exegesis of Romans 1, in which both Jews and Gentiles are shown to be in need of salvation by grace through faith, by the gift of imputed righteousness, and not merited by works, but requiring heart repentance and resulting in obedience to God by faith, (Rm. 4ff; Acts 26:20)<ref>Adam Clarke, Rm. 1:17; Acts 26:20</ref> including forsaking all sexual immorality. Paul works to show Gentiles as sinners by how idolaters rejected the “natural revelation” of God's creation given them, (Rm. 1:18-23) the “material shape of the created order,” which enlightens man as to “the nature of God and God's will.”<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67</ref> This declension results in judgment by God in deliverance up unto progressive moral degeneration, which is particularly manifested in female and (“likewise”) male homosex. Contextually, this is seen as a particular expression of acting contrary to natural revelation, which testifies to the existence of God as the Supreme Designer, including the compatibility and complementarity of the male/female union. While idolatry corrupts this, homosex itself is a manifestation of idolatry (or ignorance) as it is inconsistent with obedience to God. And which is revealed more precisely in His word.
Countering such renderings is traditional means of exegesis of Romans 1, in which both Jews and Gentiles are shown to be in need of salvation by grace through faith, by the gift of imputed righteousness, and not merited by works, but requiring heart repentance and resulting in obedience to God by faith, (Rm. 4ff; Acts 26:20)<ref>Adam Clarke, Rm. 1:17; Acts 26:20</ref> including forsaking all sexual immorality. Paul works to show Gentiles as sinners by how idolaters rejected the “natural revelation” of God's creation given them, (Rm. 1:18-23) the “material shape of the created order,” which enlightens man as to “the nature of God and God's will.”<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67</ref> This declension results in judgment by God in deliverance up unto progressive moral degeneration, which is particularly manifested in female and (“likewise”) male homosex. Contextually, this is seen as a particular expression of acting contrary to natural revelation, which testifies to the existence of God as the Supreme Designer, including the compatibility and complementarity of the male/female union. While idolatry corrupts this, homosex itself is a manifestation of idolatry (or ignorance) as it is inconsistent with obedience to God. And which is revealed more precisely in His word.
=== Uncleanness and Nature ===
=== Uncleanness and Nature ===
These words in Rm. 1:24,26,27 are the subject of conflict between different prohomosex interpretations, as well as being contrary to the basic traditional position.
These words in Rm. 1:24,26,27 are the subject of conflict between different pro-homosex interpretations, as well as being contrary to the basic traditional position.
Hank's radical and complicated compiled attempt is one which reasons that since God is said to have grafted the Gentiles into Israel, contrary to nature, and by circumcising Jews is acting contrary to nature, then Paul is actually sanctifying Gentiles who practice homosex, as part of a psychologically driven polemic against Jews. This idea also depends upon categorizing the “uncleanness” in Rm. 1:24 to that of ceremonial laws which Christians need not observe, (Col. 2:16,27)<ref>Hanks, ibid.</ref> and which “uncleanness argument” Countryman also attempts, and which looks to Rm. 14:14,20 and the absence of sexual sins in the list of Rm. 1:28-32 as indications of Paul's” deconstruction” of his condemnation of Gentile homosex, so as to allow such.
Hank's radical and complicated compiled attempt is one which reasons that since God is said to have grafted the Gentiles into Israel, contrary to nature, and by circumcising Jews is acting contrary to nature, then Paul is actually sanctifying Gentiles who practice homosex, as part of a psychologically driven polemic against Jews. This idea also depends upon categorizing the “uncleanness” in Rm. 1:24 to that of ceremonial laws which Christians need not observe, (Col. 2:16,27)<ref>Hanks, ibid.</ref> and which “uncleanness argument” Countryman also attempts, and which looks to Rm. 14:14,20 and the absence of sexual sins in the list of Rm. 1:28-32 as indications of Paul's” deconstruction” of his condemnation of Gentile homosex, so as to allow such.
This polemic is evidenced as being contrary to the traditional exegesis in every level. The first is that the word uncleanness in v. 24 (akatharsia) as used in the New Testament always denotes, not ceremonial, but moral uncleanness, (Mt. 23:37; Rom. 6:19, 2Cor. 12:21, Eph.4:19; 5:3; Col. 3:5, 1Ths. 2:3; 4:7) and which category sex with illicit sexual partners always falls into, and which fornication is abundantly condemned. At the outset this works to contextually define the morality of acting contrary to “nature.” In Rm. 1:26 it is stated that God gave them up unto “vile affections”, which word (vile) denotes dishonor and shame in all its uses, as does unseemly. In a brief statement but similar in principal as seen in Rm. 1, Paul lists lasciviousness and uncleanness in Eph 4:17-19, both of which terms infers sexual sins, as being a result of a darkened mind. Therefore both the tenor and the grammar of 1:24 shows that “to dishonour their own bodies between themselves” and what follows is moral iniquity. And as can be seen in the proceeding verses, Paul is showing a progression of degeneration, and not simply seeking to enrage some Jew(s) by listing ceremonial sins which Paul will later sanctify, as the prohomosex polemic imagines.
This polemic is evidenced as being contrary to the traditional exegesis in every level. The first is that the word uncleanness in v. 24 (akatharsia) as used in the New Testament always denotes, not ceremonial, but moral uncleanness, (Mt. 23:37; Rom. 6:19, 2Cor. 12:21, Eph.4:19; 5:3; Col. 3:5, 1Ths. 2:3; 4:7) and which category sex with illicit sexual partners always falls into, and which fornication is abundantly condemned. At the outset this works to contextually define the morality of acting contrary to “nature.” In Rm. 1:26 it is stated that God gave them up unto “vile affections”, which word (vile) denotes dishonor and shame in all its uses, as does unseemly. In a brief statement but similar in principal as seen in Rm. 1, Paul lists lasciviousness and uncleanness in Eph 4:17-19, both of which terms infers sexual sins, as being a result of a darkened mind. Therefore both the tenor and the grammar of 1:24 shows that “to dishonour their own bodies between themselves” and what follows is moral iniquity. And as can be seen in the proceeding verses, Paul is showing a progression of degeneration, and not simply seeking to enrage some Jew(s) by listing ceremonial sins which Paul will later sanctify, as the pro-homosex polemic imagines.
The idea that Paul is simply seeking to trap Jews in their hypocrisy, or is motivated by vengeance against them, is itself negated by Paul's confirmation of the esteem he shows toward being part of the circumcised, and his Moses-like heart toward Israel as expressed so deeply in the same letter. (Rm. 9:1-5; and 20:1ff.) In a more minor aspect, some see "O man" in Rm. 2:1,3 as referring to a particular Jewish hypocrite, but this is evidenced to be a rhetorical means of addressing a group as individuals. (Rm. 9:20; 1Cor. 7:16; 1Tim. 6:11)
The idea that Paul is simply seeking to trap Jews in their hypocrisy, or is motivated by vengeance against them, is itself negated by Paul's confirmation of the esteem he shows toward being part of the circumcised, and his Moses-like heart toward Israel as expressed so deeply in the same letter. (Rm. 9:1-5; and 20:1ff.) In a more minor aspect, some see "O man" in Rm. 2:1,3 as referring to a particular Jewish hypocrite, but this is evidenced to be a rhetorical means of addressing a group as individuals. (Rm. 9:20; 1Cor. 7:16; 1Tim. 6:11)
De Young reports that word occurred often in secular Greek literature, changing meanings in different times and contexts, though no one applied it to homosexual desires. It is thus evidenced that the word itself depends upon context for any moral meaning. Hayes defines it contextual use here as appealing to “an intuitive knowledge of what ought to be, of the world as designed by God. Those who indulge in sexual practices “para physin” are defying the Creator and demonstrating their own alienation from Him.”And that in sometimes Greek Stoic philosophers sometimes thought of physin as a an ideal norm or correct reason, and in general, approved ''kata physin'' (natural) and condemned ''para physin'' (unnatural). However, this is shown to be still too subjective, and the higher authority is presented to be the Scriptures. (Rm. 2:17-20; Acts 17:3)
De Young reports that word occurred often in secular Greek literature, changing meanings in different times and contexts, though no one applied it to homosexual desires. It is thus evidenced that the word itself depends upon context for any moral meaning. Hayes defines it contextual use here as appealing to “an intuitive knowledge of what ought to be, of the world as designed by God. Those who indulge in sexual practices “para physin” are defying the Creator and demonstrating their own alienation from Him.”And that in sometimes Greek Stoic philosophers sometimes thought of physin as a an ideal norm or correct reason, and in general, approved ''kata physin'' (natural) and condemned ''para physin'' (unnatural). However, this is shown to be still too subjective, and the higher authority is presented to be the Scriptures. (Rm. 2:17-20; Acts 17:3)
The prohomosex polemic at issue attempts to use Rm. 2:27 and 11:24 to claim that as God acted contrary to nature there, so He also sanctified the Gentiles practice of homosex (thereby shocking the Jews). The first text is a misappropriation due to a misunderstanding of the text. It is thought that “circumcision” in Rm. 2:27 refers to the act, while in reality it is simply a term for those who are Gentiles by nature, just as Jews are referred to be so in Gal. 2:15. The second text does refer to God acting contrary to nature, that of grafting the “branch” of Gentles into the “vine” of Israel. However, this analogous attempt is shown to be specious in multiple ways.
The pro-homosex polemic at issue attempts to use Rm. 2:27 and 11:24 to claim that as God acted contrary to nature there, so He also sanctified the Gentiles practice of homosex (thereby shocking the Jews). The first text is a misappropriation due to a misunderstanding of the text. It is thought that “circumcision” in Rm. 2:27 refers to the act, while in reality it is simply a term for those who are Gentiles by nature, just as Jews are referred to be so in Gal. 2:15. The second text does refer to God acting contrary to nature, that of grafting the “branch” of Gentles into the “vine” of Israel. However, this analogous attempt is shown to be specious in multiple ways.
*1. Analogies can work both ways. God violates normal rules of nature every time He works a miracle, but such does not sanctify demonic miracles. (Ex. 7:11,22; 8:7; 2Ths. 2:9)
*1. Analogies can work both ways. God violates normal rules of nature every time He works a miracle, but such does not sanctify demonic miracles. (Ex. 7:11,22; 8:7; 2Ths. 2:9)
1Ti 1:9,10 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, ''[arsenokoitai]'' for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"
1Ti 1:9,10 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, ''[arsenokoitai]'' for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"
The controversy here focuses upon two obscure words, ''malakos'' (''soft'') and ''arsenokoitai'' (''male beds''), which prohomosex advocates have much labored with to disallow them as referring to homosexuals or homosex in general, and which attempts and their nature can be best seen in traditionalist responses.<ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS OR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY, James B. De Young]</ref><ref>[ http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 David E. Malick</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html PAUL, HOMOSEXUALITY, AND 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11]</ref><ref>[http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate 1by Calvin Smith]</ref><ref>[http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/linguistic-grounds-for-translating-arsenokoitai-as-homosexuals Linguistic Grounds for Translating Arsenokoitai as “Homosexuals”] De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications</ref><ref>[http://www.nwnet.org/~prisca/THE%20MALAKOI%20AND%20ARSENOKOITAI.htm THE MALAKOI AND ARSENOKOITAI (I COR 6:9): WHAT IS REALLY MEANT BY THESE TERMS?]</ref><ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoBalchHBTReview2.pdf</ref>
The controversy here focuses upon two obscure words, ''malakos'' (''soft'') and ''arsenokoitai'' (''male beds''), which pro-homosex advocates have much labored with to disallow them as referring to homosexuals or homosex in general, and which attempts and their nature can be best seen in traditionalist responses.<ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS OR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY, James B. De Young]</ref><ref>[ http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 David E. Malick</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html PAUL, HOMOSEXUALITY, AND 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11]</ref><ref>[http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate 1by Calvin Smith]</ref><ref>[http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/linguistic-grounds-for-translating-arsenokoitai-as-homosexuals Linguistic Grounds for Translating Arsenokoitai as “Homosexuals”] De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications</ref><ref>[http://www.nwnet.org/~prisca/THE%20MALAKOI%20AND%20ARSENOKOITAI.htm THE MALAKOI AND ARSENOKOITAI (I COR 6:9): WHAT IS REALLY MEANT BY THESE TERMS?]</ref><ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoBalchHBTReview2.pdf</ref>
Scroggs perceives arsenokoitai as referring to pederasty. Boswell believed that it referred to “active male prostitutes. . . . capable of the active role with either men or women”<ref>Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality [University of Chicago Press, 1980], 344</ref>
Scroggs perceives arsenokoitai as referring to pederasty. Boswell believed that it referred to “active male prostitutes. . . . capable of the active role with either men or women”<ref>Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality [University of Chicago Press, 1980], 344</ref>