Changes

Sources of pro homosexual interpretations are abundant, such as 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>  Episcopalian 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 other writers who usually reiterate their polemics. The revisionist scholar who is primarily noted for first (1955) advancing their novel view was the Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey. In addition to him, perhaps the basic primary source for most of the main pro homosexual arguments 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. One of his last books was, "Dante and the Sodomites" (1994). After that Boswell died of complications from AIDS on December 24, 1994, at age 47.   

Sources of pro homosexual interpretations are abundant, such as 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>  Episcopalian 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 other writers who usually reiterate their polemics. The revisionist scholar who is primarily noted for first (1955) advancing their novel view was the Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey. In addition to him, perhaps the basic primary source for most of the main pro homosexual arguments 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. One of his last books was, "Dante and the Sodomites" (1994). After that 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. Conservative Christians tend to 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-homosexual 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. Conservative Christians tend to 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") although he is not a full Biblical inerrantist, and holds to the ''Documentary Source Hypothesis''<ref>http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm</ref> in that regard is somewhat like his counterparts. 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?"),  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), 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<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?idZXAVf8m_HKgC&pgPA244&lpgPA244&dqsodom+in+Mishnah&sourceweb&otsZjUCW3j8F9&sigF5r2UCKKoWPAAbUnK3kYO-VdgVE&hlen&saX&oibook_result&resnum4&ctresult#PPA245,M1]</ref>), Dave Miller Ph.D. (“Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?"), F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue (Homosexuality, Good and right in the eyes of God?<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&dq=Homosexuality,+Good+and+right+in+the+eyes+of+God+F.+Earle+Fox</ref>), apologist James Patrick Holding<ref>Tektonic.org</ref> ("Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?", and other apologists.

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") although he is not a full Biblical inerrantist, and holds to the ''Documentary Source Hypothesis''<ref>http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm</ref> in that regard is somewhat like his counterparts. 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?"),  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), 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<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?idZXAVf8m_HKgC&pgPA244&lpgPA244&dqsodom+in+Mishnah&sourceweb&otsZjUCW3j8F9&sigF5r2UCKKoWPAAbUnK3kYO-VdgVE&hlen&saX&oibook_result&resnum4&ctresult#PPA245,M1]</ref>), Dave Miller Ph.D. (“Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?"), F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue (Homosexuality, Good and right in the eyes of God?<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&dq=Homosexuality,+Good+and+right+in+the+eyes+of+God+F.+Earle+Fox</ref>), apologist James Patrick Holding<ref>Tektonic.org</ref> ("Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?", and other apologists.

== Terms Defined ==

== Terms Defined ==

==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 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,  

{{See also|Leviticus 18}}

{{See also|Leviticus 18}}

In approaching these arguments, it is necessary to understand that in traditional Christian doctrine the Bible is recognized as evidencing three types of [[Mosaic Law|laws]]: moral, civil/judicial, and ceremonial/ritual.<ref>[The Bible As Law, Gerald R. Thompson http://www.lonang.com/foundation/1/f17.htm]</ref><ref>Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1977), p. 214.</ref> (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 9:10; Gal. 4:10) Bahnsen points out that the early third century church document Didascalia Apostolorum clearly distinguished between the Decalogue and the temporary ceremonies.<ref>http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/law.htm</ref>   

Arguments against the Levitical injunctions  being universal and transcendent almost always attempt to relegate them to being ceremonial in nature, and therefore not binding upon Christians.  In approaching these arguments therefore, it is necessary to understand that in traditional Christian doctrine the Bible is recognized as evidencing three types of [[Mosaic Law|laws]]: moral, civil/judicial, and ceremonial/ritual.<ref>[The Bible As Law, Gerald R. Thompson http://www.lonang.com/foundation/1/f17.htm]</ref><ref>Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1977), p. 214.</ref> (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 9:10; Gal. 4:10) Bahnsen points out that the early third century church document Didascalia Apostolorum clearly distinguished between the Decalogue and the temporary ceremonies.<ref>http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/law.htm</ref>   

Within the first category are those which deal with basic human actions and heart attitudes which are directly applicable to mankind in general. Idolatry is the first command, (Ex. 20:2,3) and whatever holds our ultimate allegiance, or is our ultimate object of affect or source of security is our god, at least at that time,(Dt. 10:20; Ezek. 6:9; 14:3-7; 20:16; Rm. 6:16; 14:4; 1Cor. 10:31; 16:22) and all willful sin against what one knows God has ordained is idolatry. (Rm. 6:16) Also within this first category are moral laws which deal with mans behavior toward others which likewise transcend historical and cultural boundaries, such as honoring parents, unjust killing, illicit sexual unions, etc. as seen in the [[10 Commandments]].  

Within the first category are those which deal with basic human actions and heart attitudes which are directly applicable to mankind in general. Idolatry is the first command, (Ex. 20:2,3) and whatever holds our ultimate allegiance, or is our ultimate object of affect or source of security is our god, at least at that time,(Dt. 10:20; Ezek. 6:9; 14:3-7; 20:16; Rm. 6:16; 14:4; 1Cor. 10:31; 16:22) and all willful sin against what one knows God has ordained is idolatry. (Rm. 6:16) Also within this first category are moral laws which deal with mans behavior toward others which likewise transcend historical and cultural boundaries, such as honoring parents, unjust killing, illicit sexual unions, etc. as seen in the [[10 Commandments]].  

:The Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the New Testament (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and the like, are still abominations before God.<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 by Joseph P. Gudel (ICR)]</ref>

:The Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the New Testament (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and the like, are still abominations before God.<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 by Joseph P. Gudel (ICR)]</ref>

===Grammatical, categorical and cultural  polemics===

===Contextual and categorical arguments===

 

An early and ongoing attempt<ref>such as by David Bartlett, professor at Yale Divinity School</ref> to negate the Levitical condemnation of homosexual relations is based upon the texts which invoke the surrounding pagan culture as examples of behavior which is forbidden to Israel. (Lv. 18:3,27,28) It then concludes that the Holiness Code was not about personal morality,  but about forming community definition. In response it is evidenced that the whole of Scripture reveals unbelievers are often used, in both Testaments, as behavioral examples who are contrary to the laws on heart attitude and actions which God is instituting.  (Exo. 20:2; 23:24;  Lev. 20:23; Dt. 12:4; 12:30-31; Jer. 10:2-3; Acts 17:30; Rm. 1:20-32; 1Cor. 6:11; Eph. 2:2-3; 4:17-19; 1Thes. 4:5; Titus 3:3; 1Pet. 1:14; 3:4,5) Moreover, such admonitions were often given in the immediate context of moral laws, but not clearly ceremonial ones. And that, considering their nature, (Psa. 106:35-38)  and the reiteration of such in the New Testament, in particular those against fornications,<ref>Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mk. 7:21; Jn. 8:41; Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Co_5:1; 1Co. 6:9,13, 18; 7:2; 2Co. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Ths. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3; Rev. 9:21; 14:8, 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2</ref>  to relegate such laws, and in particular those against illicit sexual partners, to being for purposes of establishing cultural distinction is held to be untenable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*4. The phrase, ''put to death'' or similar explicit phrase is used for manifestly moral sins,<ref>Ex. 21:29; Lev.20:2,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,27; 24:16,17; Dt. 17:6; 13:5,9; 17:12; 21:21</ref> sometimes in combination with ''cut off'' (Lv. 18:29; 20:17), and only for the most serious ceremonial sins (Ex. 35:2; Num. 1:51), while "cut off" is used by itself for most of the ceremonial sins Exo 12:15; 30:33; Lev 7:20,21,25,27; 17:3-4; 19:8,13; 20:18; 22:3; 23:29; Num 9:13; 15:30-31)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/TheDeathPenalty.html The Death Penalty in the Old Testament]</ref>

 

 

 

====Tōʻēḇā and zimmâh====  

 

 

=====Tōʻēḇā and zimmâh=====

As Lv. 18:22 declares homosexual relations between men to be an "abomination", Boswell and most other polemicists promoting such contend that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'', usually translated ''abomination'', seldom  refers to something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft, but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or printing marks on one's flesh, or against mixed fabrics.  Helminiak for instance, claims that tōʻēḇā, means "dirty" or "impure", and was wrong merely "because it offended sensitivities".<ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframehttp://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html Quoted in ''A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology'']</ref>  

As Lv. 18:22 declares homosexual relations between men to be an "abomination", Boswell and most other polemicists promoting such contend that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'', usually translated ''abomination'', seldom  refers to something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft, but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or printing marks on one's flesh, or against mixed fabrics.  Helminiak for instance, claims that tōʻēḇā, means "dirty" or "impure", and was wrong merely "because it offended sensitivities".<ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframehttp://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html Quoted in ''A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology'']</ref>  

As regards ''zimmâh'', when used sexually, it is usually used in a general manner to describe the vile nature of universally sinful sexual immorality, such as are also specifically or broadly categorized as tōʻēḇā, (Lv. 18:17, 19:29; Jer. 13:27; Ezek. 22:9,11; 23:21,27,29,35,44,48,49) yet the use of the latter shows that the list of universal sinful things extends to more than those referred to as being zimmâh. Paradoxically, zimmâh also works to confirm the sexual nature of the sin of Sodom in Gn. 19, due to it's use in the parallel story to describe the offense of the men of Gibeah. (Judges 20:6)

As regards ''zimmâh'', when used sexually, it is usually used in a general manner to describe the vile nature of universally sinful sexual immorality, such as are also specifically or broadly categorized as tōʻēḇā, (Lv. 18:17, 19:29; Jer. 13:27; Ezek. 22:9,11; 23:21,27,29,35,44,48,49) yet the use of the latter shows that the list of universal sinful things extends to more than those referred to as being zimmâh. Paradoxically, zimmâh also works to confirm the sexual nature of the sin of Sodom in Gn. 19, due to it's use in the parallel story to describe the offense of the men of Gibeah. (Judges 20:6)

=====Use in the Septuagint=====  

*Use in the Septuagint   

Boswell and Helminiak look to the Greek [[Septuagint]] (LXX), an interpretive work of many Greek translators, for support here, arguing that its use of ''βδέλυγμα'' (''bdelygma'' or ''bdelugma'') in translating tōʻēḇā in Lv. 18:22 and other places,<ref>[http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=abomination&section=0&it=kjv&oq=Jer. 16:18&ot=lxx&nt=tr&new=1&nb=jer&ng=16&ncc=16 studylight.org; abomination]</ref> indicates that the Leviticus passage should be interpreted as a violation of ceremonial impurity. They further postulate that a Greek word, ''anomia'',<ref>[http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_618-20.htm preceptaustin.org]</ref> would likely be used if it were a violation of moral law<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp. 100-102</ref><ref>What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak, pp. 64-65</ref>  

Boswell and Helminiak look to the Greek [[Septuagint]] (LXX), an interpretive work of many Greek translators, for support here, arguing that its use of ''βδέλυγμα'' (''bdelygma'' or ''bdelugma'') in translating tōʻēḇā in Lv. 18:22 and other places,<ref>[http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=abomination&section=0&it=kjv&oq=Jer. 16:18&ot=lxx&nt=tr&new=1&nb=jer&ng=16&ncc=16 studylight.org; abomination]</ref> indicates that the Leviticus passage should be interpreted as a violation of ceremonial impurity. They further postulate that a Greek word, ''anomia'',<ref>[http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_618-20.htm preceptaustin.org]</ref> would likely be used if it were a violation of moral law<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp. 100-102</ref><ref>What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak, pp. 64-65</ref>  

Regarding ''anomia,'' 24 Hebrew words are seen to be variously rendered in the LXX as this, and while 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. To support his polemic, 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) In contrast to prohomosex proponents, the traditionalist argument manifests that homosexual relations are 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 seen to be established as being between eligible opposite genders, while homosexual relation is revealed as a consequence of making God into an image of one's own liking, formal or informal. (see [[Romans 1]])

Regarding ''anomia,'' 24 Hebrew words are seen to be variously rendered in the LXX as this, and while 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. To support his polemic, 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) In contrast to prohomosex proponents, the traditionalist argument manifests that homosexual relations are 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 seen to be established as being between eligible opposite genders, while homosexual relation is revealed as a consequence of making God into an image of one's own liking, formal or informal. (see [[Romans 1]])

====Zakhar====

=====Zakhar=====

Another attempt to relegate Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to a unique cultic context is one that strives to attach a radical significance to the use of zakhar [H2145], which is the Hebrew word normally translated male/males throughout the OT, or the lesser used word for such, zekhur [H2138], by noting that in 90% of the occurrences it signifies those who have a special sacred significance (newborn sons, circumcised males, Levites, soldiers, sacrificial animals, returning exiles, etc.). By which he concludes that this signifies that the Levitical injunctions against homosex only pertains to sex with priests!<ref>http://epistle.us/hbarticles/zakhar1.html</ref>  

Another attempt to relegate Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to a unique cultic context is one that strives to attach a radical significance to the use of zakhar [H2145], which is the Hebrew word normally translated male/males throughout the OT, or the lesser used word for such, zekhur [H2138], by noting that in 90% of the occurrences it signifies those who have a special sacred significance (newborn sons, circumcised males, Levites, soldiers, sacrificial animals, returning exiles, etc.). By which he concludes that this signifies that the Levitical injunctions against homosex only pertains to sex with priests!<ref>http://epistle.us/hbarticles/zakhar1.html</ref>  

In support of the traditional position,<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Zakhar</ref> it is evidenced that all Israelite males fell into a special class of people, while the only special significance the strictly gender specific words zakhar/zekhur most often provides is to differentiate between male and females in general, and, and therefore they are used for those in special classes of people. It is seen that the reason for the most prevalent use of zakhar within special classes of males is simply because that is most often the subject, from sacrificed animals to Jews returning from exile. While zakhar is used for the descendants of Levi, (Lv. 6:18,29) it is also used for Adam, (Gn. 1:27) and in contrast with Eve, (Gn. 5:2) and for all the men of Shechem, (Gn. 34:22,24,25) for Midianite males, (Num. 31:7,17,18,35; Jdg. 21:11) for  idolatrous male images, (Ezek. 16:17) for male men of Manasseh, (Josh. 17:2) for slain male Edomites (1Ki. 11:15) for male children, (Lv. 12:2; Is. 66:7; Jer. 20:15) for fearful men, (Jer. 30:6) for circumscribed males, (Gn. 17:23), and for all the men of Israel, (Num. 1:2), as does zekhur (Ex. 23:17; Dt. 16:16) and for male enemies (Dt. 20:13) or male children (Ex. 34:23). Thus the pro-homosexual distinction is manifest as one which makes no difference in what the Levitical injunctions apply to. Moreover, in no place in Scripture are these words used to distinctly signify pagan male priests, with the common word for men ('îysh [H376]) being used for such. (Jdg 6:28,30; 1Ki 18:22)

In support of the traditional position,<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Zakhar</ref> it is evidenced that all Israelite males fell into a special class of people, while the only special significance the strictly gender specific words zakhar/zekhur most often provides is to differentiate between male and females in general, and, and therefore they are used for those in special classes of people. It is seen that the reason for the most prevalent use of zakhar within special classes of males is simply because that is most often the subject, from sacrificed animals to Jews returning from exile. While zakhar is used for the descendants of Levi, (Lv. 6:18,29) it is also used for Adam, (Gn. 1:27) and in contrast with Eve, (Gn. 5:2) and for all the men of Shechem, (Gn. 34:22,24,25) for Midianite males, (Num. 31:7,17,18,35; Jdg. 21:11) for  idolatrous male images, (Ezek. 16:17) for male men of Manasseh, (Josh. 17:2) for slain male Edomites (1Ki. 11:15) for male children, (Lv. 12:2; Is. 66:7; Jer. 20:15) for fearful men, (Jer. 30:6) for circumscribed males, (Gn. 17:23), and for all the men of Israel, (Num. 1:2), as does zekhur (Ex. 23:17; Dt. 16:16) and for male enemies (Dt. 20:13) or male children (Ex. 34:23). Thus the pro-homosexual distinction is manifest as one which makes no difference in what the Levitical injunctions apply to. Moreover, in no place in Scripture are these words used to distinctly signify pagan male priests, with the common word for men ('îysh [H376]) being used for such. (Jdg 6:28,30; 1Ki 18:22)

===Other grammatical and categorical attempts===

===Additional arguments===

Some pro-homosexuals apologists, such as Stacy Johnson, contend or postulate that the grammar in Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 indicates only a prohibition of actual male intercourse, and only condemns the active party, not the passive one, with procreation being causative of the injunction, and or being due to the need for male dominance, but not forbidding lesbian eroticism.<ref>Wrestling with God and Men, pp. 80-93, by Steven Greenberg</ref> Or that it only targets coercive male intercourse<ref>A Time to Embrace, Stacy Johnson</ref>

Some pro-homosexuals apologists, such as Stacy Johnson, contend or postulate that the grammar in Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 indicates only a prohibition of actual male intercourse, and only condemns the active party, not the passive one, with procreation being causative of the injunction, and or being due to the need for male dominance, but not forbidding lesbian eroticism.<ref>Wrestling with God and Men, pp. 80-93, by Steven Greenberg</ref> Or that it only targets coercive male intercourse<ref>A Time to Embrace, Stacy Johnson</ref>

"the same root text also deploys the generic term ‘male’ rather than any more specific word for ‘man’ or ‘youth’ - a detail which also points to a more comprehensive understanding of homoerotic activity. Furthermore, the death penalty in Leviticus 20:13 applies equally to the active and the passive partner: there is no implication of rape, in which case the rapist alone would have been executed (cf. Deut. 22:22-5). Nor is there any hint of coercion. The context, rather, would seem to include homosexual intercourse by mutual consent. Comparative literary study has revealed that the Assyrians outlawed forcible same-sex intercourse; it has also shown that the Egyptians banned pederasty; Israel, however, appears to have stood alone in viewing homosexual acts in general with this degree of severity.<ref>[http://www.eauk.org/articles/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=29093 Hilborn vs. Rowan Williams and Homosexuality] These points are based on Wright, David F. ‘Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The meaning of arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10), Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984), pp. 125-53, Wenham, Gordon, ‘Homosexuality in the Bible’, in Higton, Tony (ed.) Sexuality and the Church. Hawkwell: ABWON, 1987, and Hays, Richard B., The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, pp.382-3.)</ref>  

"the same root text also deploys the generic term ‘male’ rather than any more specific word for ‘man’ or ‘youth’ - a detail which also points to a more comprehensive understanding of homoerotic activity. Furthermore, the death penalty in Leviticus 20:13 applies equally to the active and the passive partner: there is no implication of rape, in which case the rapist alone would have been executed (cf. Deut. 22:22-5). Nor is there any hint of coercion. The context, rather, would seem to include homosexual intercourse by mutual consent. Comparative literary study has revealed that the Assyrians outlawed forcible same-sex intercourse; it has also shown that the Egyptians banned pederasty; Israel, however, appears to have stood alone in viewing homosexual acts in general with this degree of severity.<ref>[http://www.eauk.org/articles/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=29093 Hilborn vs. Rowan Williams and Homosexuality] These points are based on Wright, David F. ‘Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The meaning of arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10), Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984), pp. 125-53, Wenham, Gordon, ‘Homosexuality in the Bible’, in Higton, Tony (ed.) Sexuality and the Church. Hawkwell: ABWON, 1987, and Hays, Richard B., The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, pp.382-3.)</ref>  

Countering the polemic that procreation is the only cause of the prohibition against homosexual relations, it is argued that reproduction is not the sole or determining basis for the foundational premise which 18:22 is based upon, as the Bible in its entirety evidences as that the basis for the complementary nature of the union of opposite genders transcends simply procreation, (Gn. 2:18; Prov. 5:15-19) and that even when that is not a critical issue, then sex is enjoined only between male and female, due to the  nature of their marital union, and of human nature. (1Cor. 7:2-5) Additionally, in no place is marriage afforded between same genders, with Jesus and the N.T. distinctly affirming "what God hath joined" as being male and female.

 

Countering the aspect of the above polemic which charges that procreation is the only cause of the prohibition against homosexual relations, it is argued that reproduction is not the sole or determining basis for the foundational premise which 18:22 is based upon, as the Bible in its entirety evidences as that the basis for the complementary nature of the union of opposite genders transcends simply procreation, (Gn. 2:18; Prov. 5:15-19) and that even when that is not a critical issue, then sex is enjoined only between male and female, due to the  nature of their marital union, and of human nature. (1Cor. 7:2-5) Additionally, in no place is marriage afforded between same genders, with Jesus and the N.T. distinctly affirming "what God hath joined" as being male and female.

As regards the issue of lesbian sexual relations, it is likewise seen that to presuppose that condemnation of same-sex relations between males does not apply to same gender female sexual unions lacks Scriptural warrant, as these are also contrary in nature to the union of opposite genders originally established and uniquely affirmed throughout Scripture, with no principal or precept affording the contrary. In addition, though a phrase like "women lying with women with womenkind" is not specified in the Old Testament, commands and texts which are given to the ''male'' ('îysh) in Lv. 20:13 also can include women, such as in Lv. 20:9; Is. 53:6,11; Jer. 11:8; 16:12; 18:12. It is also understood that most likely sexual relations between females was not a known (or a prevalent) practice then, and thus did not warrant a specific injunction. However, under the New Covenant, both male and female consensual homoeroticism is condemned in [[Romans 1]], as being contrary to the creational design of God, and ordained normality, and thus is a manifestation of idolatry ("the mother of all sins").  

As regards the issue of lesbian sexual relations, it is likewise seen that to presuppose that condemnation of same-sex relations between males does not apply to same gender female sexual unions lacks Scriptural warrant, as these are also contrary in nature to the union of opposite genders originally established and uniquely affirmed throughout Scripture, with no principal or precept affording the contrary. In addition, though a phrase like "women lying with women with womenkind" is not specified in the Old Testament, commands and texts which are given to the ''male'' ('îysh) in Lv. 20:13 also can include women, such as in Lv. 20:9; Is. 53:6,11; Jer. 11:8; 16:12; 18:12. It is also understood that most likely sexual relations between females was not a known (or a prevalent) practice then, and thus did not warrant a specific injunction. However, under the New Covenant, both male and female consensual homoeroticism is condemned in [[Romans 1]], as being contrary to the creational design of God, and ordained normality, and thus is a manifestation of idolatry ("the mother of all sins").  

Seeing the universal nature of the other laws against illicit partners, some pro-homosexuals seek to create a categorical division between Lv. 18:20, which prohibits adultery, and the next verse, which forbids child sacrifice to Molech, with this signifying a new division rendering the next law (v. 22) as only forbidding homosexual relations in that type of idolatrous context. In response it is argued that, as most in both camps hold v. 19 to be ceremonial (sex during menstruation), this same logic would relegate adultery (v. 20) to that category. In addition, only Molech in v. 21 is seen as being a culture-specific aspect of that law, while being universally applicable otherwise. In regard to this, it is understood by conservative Christians that children are sacrificed today to destructive ideals and selfish lusts, as to a god.<ref>The Sin of Silence, by Dr. Laurence White</ref>

In response to the argument that male dominance was the cause for 18:22, it is evidenced that it is God, not society, that established and upholds the headship of the male, and this functional distinction is an intrinsic part of his unique union with the women, based upon creational distinctions, (1Cor. 11:1-12) and which also excludes same gender marriage.  

 

An early and ongoing attempt<ref>such as by David Bartlett, professor at Yale Divinity School</ref> to negate the Levitical condemnation of homosexual relations is based upon the texts which invoke the surrounding pagan culture as examples of behavior which is forbidden to Israel. (Lv. 18:3,27,28) It then concludes that the Holiness Code was not about personal morality,  but about forming community definition. In response it is evidenced that the whole of Scripture reveals unbelievers are often used, in both Testaments, as behavioral examples who are contrary to the laws on heart attitude and actions which God is instituting.  (Exo. 20:2; 23:24;  Lev. 20:23; Dt. 12:4; 12:30-31; Jer. 10:2-3; Acts 17:30; Rm. 1:20-32; 1Cor. 6:11; Eph. 2:2-3; 4:17-19; 1Thes. 4:5; Titus 3:3; 1Pet. 1:14; 3:4,5) Moreover, such admonitions were often given in the immediate context of moral laws, but not clearly ceremonial ones. And that, considering their nature, (Psa. 106:35-38)  and the reiteration of such in the New Testament, in particular those against fornications,<ref>Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mk. 7:21; Jn. 8:41; Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Co_5:1; 1Co. 6:9,13, 18; 7:2; 2Co. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Ths. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3; Rev. 9:21; 14:8, 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2</ref>  to relegate such laws, and in particular those against illicit sexual partners, to being for purposes of establishing cultural distinction is held to be untenable.

 

Another argument by pro-homosexual proponents is to assign a radical significance to (what is stated to be) only one prescription in the Old Testament for the death penalty for homosexual relations, 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 homosexual temple prostitutes.<ref>A Defense Theory, by Royce Buehler</ref> (Dt. 23:17)

 

 

*1. The sentence of death for homosexual relations 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 pro-homosexual 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

 

 

*4. The phrase, ''put to death'' or similar explicit phrase is used for manifestly moral sins,<ref>Ex. 21:29; Lev.20:2,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,27; 24:16,17; Dt. 17:6; 13:5,9; 17:12; 21:21</ref>  sometimes in combination with ''cut off'' (Lv. 18:29; 20:17), and only for the most serious ceremonial sins (Ex. 35:2; Num. 1:51), while "cut off" is used by itself for most of the ceremonial sins Exo 12:15; 30:33; Lev 7:20,21,25,27; 17:3-4; 19:8,13; 20:18; 22:3; 23:29; Num 9:13; 15:30-31)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/TheDeathPenalty.html The Death Penalty in the Old Testament]</ref>

 

*5. Homosexual relations is not only included with other capital sins, but is seen as distinguished as a first-tier sexual offense in Lev 20:10-16, along with adultery, incest with one's stepmother or daughter-in-law, and bestiality. As such, it is distinguished from lesser capital sexual offenses in 20:17-21.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"? The "Irrelevance of Levitical Prohibitions" Argument]</ref>

 

*6. Lv. 18:22 is contrary in type to mere ceremonial/typological laws, such as deal with ritual cleansing. The purely religious practice of male homosexual relations is dealt with separately in Dt. 23:17,<ref> and are mentioned as working in Judah, under Rehoboam (1Ki. 14:24), whom Asa largely purged (1Ki. 15:12), and which his son Jehoshaphat finished (1Ki. 22:46), but was later needed to be repeated under king Josiah</ref> and is based upon the general command of Lv. 18:22, which itself is evidenced as being based upon foundational design and decrees. The pro-homosexual attempt here is seen as akin to limiting the like general prohibition against prostitution in Lv. 19:29 only to its religious practice.<ref>See Keil & Delitzsch on Dt. 23:17,18</ref> (Dt. 23:17,18; 2Chrn. 21:11; Jer. 3:6; Ezek. 23:44; Hos. 4:13-15)

 

*7. It is duplicitous for pro-homsoexual polemicists to assert more repetitions of the death penalty are expected if it were inherently sinful, while seeking to justify homosexuality despite the utter absence of the establishment of homosexual marriage, in stark and consistent contrast to heterosexual relations. It is inconceivable that no evident sanction would not be given in the law for homosexual relations if only a religious prostitutional practice was proscribed.

===Psychologically based polemics===

===Psychologically based polemics===