Changes

(Lev 20:13)  "If a man ['îysh] also lie [shâkab] with mankind [zâkâr], as he lieth [mishkâb] with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination [tô‛êbah]: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

(Lev 20:13)  "If a man ['îysh] also lie [shâkab] with mankind [zâkâr], as he lieth [mishkâb] with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination [tô‛êbah]: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

While these commands explicitly condemn homosexual intercourse between males and are presented as general commands  given to all Israel, relatively recently these have become the subject of an intense attack by prohomosex polemicists. While most admit that sexual moral codes are transcultural and transhistorical, attempts are made to find grammatical, categorical and cultural aspects that would disallow the injunctions which prohibit homosexual intercourse.  

While these commands explicitly condemn homosexual intercourse between males and are presented as general commands  given to all Israel, relatively recently these have become the subject of an intense attack by pro-homosex [[polemicist]]s. While most admit that sexual moral codes are transcultural and transhistorical, attempts are made to find grammatical, categorical and cultural aspects that would disallow the injunctions which prohibit homosexual intercourse.  

Most of these prohomosex writers usually first assert that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'' for ''abomination'', which describes male sex with men here, does not usually signify something inherently evil, like adultery or theft,  but something which is ceremonially unclean for Jews, such as the dietary laws. (Lv. 11).<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><ref>Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, pp. 46 - 47 http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html</ref>  The Hebrew word “zimmâh” (Lv. 19:29) is instead sometimes suggested as the word which would be used if the prohibitions of Lv. 18:22; was not intrinsically evil.

Most of these prohomosex writers usually first assert that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'' for ''abomination'', which describes male sex with men here, does not usually signify something inherently evil, like adultery or theft,  but something which is ceremonially unclean for Jews, such as the dietary laws. (Lv. 11).<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><ref>Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, pp. 46-47, http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html</ref>  The Hebrew word “zimmâh” (Lv. 19:29) is instead sometimes suggested as the word which would have been used if the prohibitions, of Lv. 18:22, were not intrinsically evil.

Such revisionists generally conclude that these Levitical injunctions against homosexual intercourse only prohibit pagan temple prostitution, or were only concerned with the waste of sperm, though even noted prohomosex author Robin Scroggs  thinks the latter explanations to be conjecture which are best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</ref>, rather than being universal and transcendent injunctions such as the other laws against illicit partners are.  

Such revisionists generally conclude that these Levitical injunctions against homosexual intercourse only prohibit pagan temple prostitution, or were only concerned with the waste of sperm, though even noted prohomosex author Robin Scroggs  thinks the latter explanations to be conjecture which are best not to speculate about,<ref>''The New Testament and Homosexuality'', p. 73.</ref> rather than being universal and transcendent injunctions, such as the other laws against illicit partners are.

   

   

An attempt is also made to create a 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 the that type of idolatrous context.

An attempt is also made to create a 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.

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

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

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

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

In addition, ceremonial dietary and ritual cleansing laws overall do not target pagan cultic activity. However, there are practices which evidently are a direct expression of formal idolatry, such as temple prostitution (Dt. 23:17), versus amoral things which merely accompany idolatry activity, such as a grove of trees in worship (Dt. 16:21). The Bible makes these categories discernible, as it lists the type of sins which were ceremonial, (Gal. 4:10; Col. 16,17; Heb. 9:10) while explicitly reincorporating many basic moral commands in the Mosaic code into the New Testament code,<ref>Homosexuality and the Old Testament, P. Michael Ukleja  http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/03-Leviticus/Text/Articles/Ukleja-Homsex-BS.htm</ref> upholding basic universal moral laws by type and often individually. <ref>Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July-September 1967):246</ref><ref>By this it is not meant that Christians are "under law" as though being saved on account of his works, in contrast to imputed righteousness by faith, (Rm. 3-5), or that we look to the letter of the law as the standard, over its intent and foundational basis, but because of faith in the Lord Jesus, Christian are mandated and rightly motivated and enabled to fulfill the righteous intent of the law (Rm. 8:4), which goes beyond the letter of it (though it is evident that this results in keeping the letter of basic universal moral laws as well)</ref> (Rm. 13:8-10; Heb. 10:28; Ja. 4:11; 1Cor. 10:7; 2Cor. 6:16,17; 1Jn. 5:21; Rv. 9:20; 13:14,15 14:11; 1Tim. 6:1; Eph. 6:1-3; 1Cor. 9:8,9) with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being prohibited in the N.T. (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) The prohibitions against homosexual intercourse clearly fit in this category by type,<ref>"That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture by Joseph P. Gudel -ICR http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html</ref> and are only condemned where explicitly mentioned (Rm. 1:16,27) while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8,10)  

In addition, ceremonial dietary and ritual cleansing laws overall do not target pagan cultic activity. However, there are practices which evidently are a direct expression of formal idolatry, such as temple prostitution (Dt. 23:17), versus amoral things which merely accompany idolatry activity, such as a grove of trees in worship (Dt. 16:21). The Bible makes these categories discernible, as it lists the type of sins which were ceremonial, (Gal. 4:10; Col. 16,17; Heb. 9:10) while explicitly reincorporating many basic moral commands in the Mosaic code into the New Testament code,<ref>Homosexuality and the Old Testament, P. Michael Ukleja  http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/03-Leviticus/Text/Articles/Ukleja-Homsex-BS.htm</ref> upholding basic universal moral laws by type and often individually. <ref>Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July-September 1967):246.</ref><ref>By this it is not meant that Christians are "under law" as though being saved on account of his works, in contrast to imputed righteousness by faith, (Rm. 3-5), or that we look to the letter of the law as the standard, over its intent and foundational basis, but because of faith in the Lord Jesus, Christian are mandated and rightly motivated and enabled to fulfill the righteous intent of the law (Rm. 8:4), which goes beyond the letter of it (though it is evident that this results in keeping the letter of basic universal moral laws as well)</ref> (Rm. 13:8-10; Heb. 10:28; Ja. 4:11; 1Cor. 10:7; 2Cor. 6:16,17; 1Jn. 5:21; Rv. 9:20; 13:14,15 14:11; 1Tim. 6:1; Eph. 6:1-3; 1Cor. 9:8,9) with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being prohibited in the N.T. (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) The prohibitions against homosexual intercourse clearly fit in this category by type,<ref>"That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture by Joseph P. Gudel -ICR http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html</ref> and are only condemned where explicitly mentioned (Rm. 1:16,27) while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8,10)  

Secondly, neither the grammar nor any categorical division or cultural context warrants relegating these Levitical commands to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex.   

Secondly, neither the grammar nor any categorical division or cultural context warrants relegating these Levitical commands to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex.   

*Contains the marks of moral impurity. Contrary to those who dismiss these prohibitions as antiquated ritual purity law, the prohibition bears the marks of a moral purity issue. Unlike impurity of a merely ritual sort (e.g., corpse impurity, genital discharges, scale disease), moral impurities such as the prohibitions of incest, adultery, male-male intercourse, and bestiality are not (a) contagious through physical contact and (b) rectified by ritual bathing; moreover, (c) moral impurities concern only intentional acts. They also do not involve merely an exchange of fluid (as does menstrual impurity)  

*Contains the marks of moral impurity. Contrary to those who dismiss these prohibitions as antiquated ritual purity law, the prohibition bears the marks of a moral purity issue. Unlike impurity of a merely ritual sort (e.g., corpse impurity, genital discharges, scale disease), moral impurities such as the prohibitions of incest, adultery, male-male intercourse, and bestiality are not (a) contagious through physical contact and (b) rectified by ritual bathing; moreover, (c) moral impurities concern only intentional acts. They also do not involve merely an exchange of fluid (as does menstrual impurity)  

*Adopts a creation/nature model. The prohibition leads the hearer back to a foundational creation/nature model (cf. also the prohibition of bestiality as illicit "mixing" of creation boundaries)  

*Adopts a creation/nature model. The prohibition leads the hearer back to a foundational creation/nature model (cf. also the prohibition of bestiality as illicit "mixing" of creation boundaries)  

*Appropriated by the New Testament. The term arsenokoitai ("men who lie with a male") in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is formulated from the Septuagint translation of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, which refers to not 'lying' (koite) with a 'male' (arsen). Paul's critique of homosexual relations in Romans 1:24-27 also echoes Lev 18 and 20 by using two terms that appear in Septuagint translation of these chapters: akatharsia ("uncleanness, impurity" in Romans 1:24 and Lev 18:19; 20:21, 25) and aschemosune ("indecency, indecent exposure" in Rom 1:27 and twenty-four times in Lev 18:6-19; 20:11, 17-21).  <ref>Gagnon, Why the disagreement over the Biblical witness on homosexual practice? http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf</ref>  

*Appropriated by the New Testament. The term ''arsenokoitai'' ("men who lie with a male") in 1 Corinthians 6:9, is formulated from the [[Septuagint]] translation of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, which refers to not 'lying' (koite) with a 'male' (arsen). Paul's critique of homosexual relations in Romans 1:24-27 also echoes Lev 18 and 20 by using two terms that appear in Septuagint translation of these chapters: ''akatharsia'' ("uncleanness, impurity" in Romans 1:24 and Lev 18:19; 20:21, 25) and ''aschemosune'' ("indecency, indecent exposure" in Rom 1:27 and twenty-four times in Lev 18:6-19; 20:11, 17-21).  <ref>Gagnon, Why the disagreement over the Biblical witness on homosexual practice? http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf</ref>

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

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

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

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