Changes

*(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, {5} 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? {6} 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, {5} 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? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

The uniquely compatible and complimentary union of the male and female, with the latter being distinctly made for the former, after others creations failed (Gn. 2:18-20),  and which joining of opposite genders Jesus affirmed as the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together",  has historically been understood by Christians as being that which God sanctified by marriage. In contrast, in no place is marriage seen being established for homosexuals, rather it is only condemned wherever it is explicitly dealt with.  Liberal Christianity typically responds to this problem by relegating this exclusivity to being caused by the need for procreation, and by reading sex into relations between heterosexuals (or by denying it when it is in a bad light). Counter it is shown that the union of opposite genders was for more than procreation, (Song; Prv. 5:18,19; 1Cor. 7:2-5; 11:1-11) and that the radically new marriage pro homosexual writers seek lacks the necessary Biblical warrant, which even their best efforts cannot find. <ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women, also Eunuchs and Exegesis]</ref>

The uniquely compatible and complimentary union of the male and female, with the latter being distinctly made for the former, after others creations failed (Gn. 2:18-20),  and which joining of opposite genders Jesus affirmed as the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together",  has historically been understood by Christians as being that which God sanctified by marriage. In contrast, in no place is marriage seen being established for homosexuals, rather it is only condemned wherever it is explicitly dealt with.  Liberal Christianity typically responds to this problem by relegating this exclusivity to being caused by the need for procreation, and by reading sex into relations between heterosexuals (or by denying it when it is in a bad light). In countering this, it is shown that the union of opposite genders was for more than procreation, (Song; Prv. 5:18,19; 1Cor. 7:2-5; 11:1-11) and that the radically new marriage pro homosexual writers seek lacks the necessary Biblical warrant, which even their best efforts cannot find. <ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women, also Eunuchs and Exegesis]</ref>

*(Gen 19:5-8)  "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. {6} And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, {7} And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. {8} Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

*(Gen 19:5-8)  "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. {6} And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, {7} And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. {8} Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

This text has generally being understood by Christians and certain first century Jews as manifesting attempted homosexual rape, which while being rape, the homosexual intentions of the inhabitants of Sodom added "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, Gordon Wenham, In addition, from it the term "sodomy" was derived. 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.)</ref> Most pro homosexuals in liberal Christianity seek to disallow a sexual meaning in Gn. 19 based upon the relative rare use of the Hebrew word "know" for sex,  though the offer of Lot's virgin daughters as well as the parallel story in Judges 19 best indicates a sexual meaning, while Jude 1:7 states fornication was an ongoing regional iniquity, including that of a perverse kind, culminating in catastrophic judgment. <ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html #19 Homosex versus the Bible, Genesis 19; Jude 1:7]</ref>   

This text has generally being understood by Christians and certain first century Jews as manifesting attempted homosexual rape, with the homosexual intentions of the inhabitants of Sodom adding, in the words of Gordon Wenham, "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, Gordon Wenham, In addition, from it the term "sodomy" was derived. 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.)</ref> Most pro homosexuals in liberal Christianity seek to disallow a sexual meaning in Gn. 19 based upon the relative rare use of the Hebrew word "know" for sex,  though the offer of Lot's virgin daughters as well as the parallel story in Judges 19 best indicates a sexual meaning, while Jude 1:7 states fornication was an ongoing regional iniquity, including that of a perverse kind, culminating in catastrophic judgment.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html #19 Homosex versus the Bible, Genesis 19; Jude 1:7]</ref>   

*(Lev 18:22)  "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

*(Lev 18:22)  "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

*(Lev 20:13)  "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

*(Lev 20:13)  "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Historically these texts have been held as universal condemnations of homosexual relations,  in distinction to being restricted to a religious context (Dt. 23:17,18) or as part of ceremonial law, while certain revisionists in liberal Christianity seek to relegate them to either to the latter two contexts, with traditionalists refuting such attempts.<ref>Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, pp. 46 - 47</ref><ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology]</ref>  <ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"? The "Irrelevance of Levitical Prohibitions" Argument]</ref>.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&printsec=toc&dq=online+lxx+bdelygma&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, pp. 65-69]</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>(“Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae 38 [1984] 125-53)</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> See [[Leviticus 18]]  

Historically these texts have been held as universal condemnations of homosexual relations,  in distinction to being restricted to a religious context (Dt. 23:17,18) or as part of ceremonial law, while certain revisionists in liberal Christianity seek to relegate them to one of the latter two contexts, with traditionalists refuting such attempts.<ref>Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, pp. 46 - 47</ref><ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology]</ref>  <ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"? The "Irrelevance of Levitical Prohibitions" Argument]</ref>.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&printsec=toc&dq=online+lxx+bdelygma&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, pp. 65-69]</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>(“Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae 38 [1984] 125-53)</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> See [[Leviticus 18]]  

*(Rom 1:26-27)  "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: {27} And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

*(Rom 1:26-27)  "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: {27} And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

[[Romans 1]] was written to both Jewish and Gentile Christians, and as such that is what would  hold to. The apostle Paul here is seen appealing to both natural revelation, that of their Creator being manifest by what He made (cf. Ps. 19:1-6), as well as the account of creation in His word, which is a two fold approach he uses elsewhere. (Acts 13:16-41; 14:6-18; 17:2,22-31) In Roman 1 Paul reveals that as men exchanged the the true and living God for one made after their own desires, so God delivered up to unclean desires, by which they exchanged that natural (as related to God's design and sanctification) sexual partner for that which is against nature,  and received in their own bodies the just reward for what they did with their bodies.  The various theories pro homosexual polemicists contend for range from asserting that Paul was ignorant of homosexuality as an orientation, and thus was only condemning heterosexuals acting as homosexuals, to supposing that Paul was only condemning pederasty, the of man/boy sex, which was common at both Greek and Roman cultures, to more complicated attempts that have Paul justifying homoeroticism to get back at the Jews.<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14; Heliminiak, What the Bible really says homosexuality (pro gay), p. 76; Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation);  Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123; Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102; Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18; Boswell, ibid. pp. 108-113</ref>  However, traditionalists respond by pointing out that "nature" best refers to as pertaining to creation , not the aberrant desires of fallen man, and that Divine inspiration transcends human limitations, while  in any case Paul was most likely quite aware of what was going on in contemporary Greek culture as well as Roman, while [[Greek homosexuality]] evidenced that it was aware of homosexual "orientation." And that the [[history of homosexuality]] manifests that homosexual affections and conduct was not limited to man/boy relations in ancient idolatrous cultures.<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67;  Richard B. Hays, "Awaiting the redemption of our bodies." pp. 6, 7-21; Hays, "Natural and unnatural: A response to John Boswell's exegesis of Romans 1." Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1986), pp. 184-215);  Greg L. Bahnsen, Homosexuality" A Biblical View, pp. 47-61; The Bible Knowledge Commentary, by John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, Louis A. Barbieri Jr., Dallas; The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester; David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 327-340.</ref><ref>[http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/32003b.asp One Flesh

[[Romans 1]] was written to both Jewish and Gentile Christians, and the apostle Paul appeals to both natural revelation, that of their Creator being manifest by what He made (cf. Ps. 19:1-6), as well as the account of creation in His word, which is a two fold approach he uses elsewhere. (Acts 13:16-41; 14:6-18; 17:2,22-31) In Roman 1 Paul reveals that as men exchanged the the true and living God for one made after their own desires, so God delivered them up to unclean desires, by which they exchanged their natural (as related to God's design and sanctification) sexual partner for that which is against nature,  and received in their own bodies the just reward for what they did with them.  The various theories which pro homosexual polemicists contend for range from asserting that Paul was ignorant of homosexuality as an orientation, and thus was only condemning heterosexuals acting as homosexuals, to supposing that Paul was only condemning pederasty, the of man/boy sex, which was common at both Greek and Roman cultures, to more complicated attempts that have Paul justifying homoeroticism to get back at the Jews.<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14; Heliminiak, What the Bible really says homosexuality (pro gay), p. 76; Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation);  Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123; Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102; Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18; Boswell, ibid. pp. 108-113</ref>   

 

Traditionalists respond by pointing out that "nature" best pertains to creation, not the aberrant desires of fallen man, and that Divine inspiration transcends human limitations. In addition,   Paul was most likely quite aware of what was going on in contemporary Greek culture as well as Roman, and [[Greek homosexuality]] evidenced that it was aware of homosexual "orientation." The [[history of homosexuality]] also manifests that homosexual affections and conduct was not limited to man/boy relations in ancient idolatrous cultures.<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67;  Richard B. Hays, "Awaiting the redemption of our bodies." pp. 6, 7-21; Hays, "Natural and unnatural: A response to John Boswell's exegesis of Romans 1." Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1986), pp. 184-215);  Greg L. Bahnsen, Homosexuality" A Biblical View, pp. 47-61; The Bible Knowledge Commentary, by John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, Louis A. Barbieri Jr., Dallas; The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester; David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 327-340.</ref><ref>[http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/32003b.asp One Flesh

Why Sodomy Can Never Depict the Relationship Between Christ and His Church]</ref><ref>Gagnon, How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture</ref><ref>[ http://www.ovrlnd.com/FalseDoctrine/Gay_Christians.html A Response to the 'Gay Christian' Movement, Vincent McCann, Spotlight Ministries]</ref><ref>[http://www.phc.edu/gj_haas_hermen.php Guenther Haas, Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice]</ref> <ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/theology/paulandsexuality.html Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Apostle Paul on Sexuality: A Response]</ref>

Why Sodomy Can Never Depict the Relationship Between Christ and His Church]</ref><ref>Gagnon, How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture</ref><ref>[ http://www.ovrlnd.com/FalseDoctrine/Gay_Christians.html A Response to the 'Gay Christian' Movement, Vincent McCann, Spotlight Ministries]</ref><ref>[http://www.phc.edu/gj_haas_hermen.php Guenther Haas, Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice]</ref> <ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/theology/paulandsexuality.html Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Apostle Paul on Sexuality: A Response]</ref>

(1 Tim 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, {10} For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

(1 Tim 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, {10} For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

As this is the obscure term in the Greek, homosexual writer labor much on this in order in the hope of disallowing it from universally applying to  homosexuals, and and which attempts and their nature can be best seen in traditionalist responses which counter them.<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>.

As this is the obscure term in the Greek, homosexual writers labor much on this in order in the hope of disallowing it from universally applying to  homosexuals, and and which attempts and their nature can be best seen in traditionalist responses which counter them.<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>.

==Historical teaching==

==Historical teaching==