Changes

Homosexuality and biblical interpretation (view source)

Revision as of 14:04, July 13, 2016

26 bytes removed , 14:04, July 13, 2016

clean up & uniformity

Line 1: Line 1: −

The subject of [[~~Homosexuality and the Bible|~~homosexuality and the Bible]] is one in which the Biblical condemnation of homosexual relations has historically been upheld. However, beginning shortly before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, continued attempts have been made to negate the universal injunctions against homosexual relations, and to find sanction for the same. This interpretive conflict is one which is between two fundamentally different positions, these being the traditional/historical position and the latter revisionist, pro-homosexual view.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, "The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> Principal texts are [[Genesis]] 1:26,27; 2:18-24; [[Leviticus 18]], and [[Romans 1]]. The religious conflict between the two positions by churches or individuals is typically manifest as correlating to their beliefs about the Bible, and usually parallels their positions on other issues which divide [[conservatives]] from [[liberals]].<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html Revealing Statistics]</ref> {{Main|Homosexuality and Christianity}}

+

The subject of [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is one in which the Biblical condemnation of homosexual relations has historically been upheld. However, beginning shortly before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, continued attempts have been made to negate the universal injunctions against homosexual relations, and to find sanction for the same. This interpretive conflict is one which is between two fundamentally different positions, these being the traditional/historical position and the latter revisionist, pro-homosexual view.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, "The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> Principal texts are [[Genesis]] 1:26,27; 2:18-24; [[Leviticus 18]], and [[Romans 1]]. The religious conflict between the two positions by churches or individuals is typically manifest as correlating to their beliefs about the Bible, and usually parallels their positions on other issues which divide [[conservatives]] from [[liberals]].<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html Revealing Statistics]</ref> {{Main|Homosexuality and Christianity}}

This article primarily deals with the phenomenon of pro-homosexual polemics regarding homosexuality in the Old Testament, and the examination of its conclusions in the light of traditional/historical Biblical [[exegesis]], that of the explanation of a text, based upon proven principals of [[hermeneutics]],<ref>[http://www.theologue.org/HERMENEUTICS-DMERKEL.html Hermeneutics - A Guide To Basic Bible Interpretation By Darryl M. Erkel]</ref> or rules of interpretation. See also [[New Testament and homosexuality]]

Line 65: Line 65:

Faced with the biblical establishment of the exclusive sanction of male and female sexual unions, and condemnation of homosexual relations, homosexuals almost seriously impugn the reliability of Scripture, most particularly when it conflicts with their desired conclusions. Countering this, conservative Christians contend for the reliability of the Bible,<ref>The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, by Bruce M. Metzger</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=wWDSR8y911kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inerrancy+of+the+bible Inerrancy By Norman L. Geisler]</ref> and the meaning of those related to homosexuality,<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=WcyqvWfJnyYC&dq=Marriage+and+Family+in+the+Biblical+World+By+Ken+M.+Campbell&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=tdP-w02BMG&sig=JTDKQfOh_7OF_DO5Ejw7ZOZ12kQ&hl=en&ei=xClXSrrCFoGZtgfGrLzdCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 Marriage and Family in the Biblical World By Ken M. Campbell]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Zeotd-ylKtwC&dq=Straight%2Band%2BNarrow%3F%2BCompassion%2Band%2BClarity%2Bin%2Bthe%2BHomosexuality%2BDebate&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=WOY_52R5Bm&sig=BUMeUZv6ocyWnysyKH5OUPoDLb4&hl=en&ei=8ClXSvKYKtWktwe_tLjdCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3 Straight & Narrow? By Thomas E. Schmidt]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PT1&lpg=PT1&dq=Homosexuality++By+James+B.+De+Young&source=bl&ots=ZjVJVYi9Fb&sig=NAf_HeY1mb2l2fwdAj5lxnUx_Mw&hl=en&ei=GypXSonvK5mltgeVns3jDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 Homosexuality By James B. De Young]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm Robert A. J. Gagnon Articles Available Online]</ref> and see the diminishing of the authority of the Bible by many homosexual authors as being ideologically driven.<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html Authority of Scripture, by Joseph P. Gudel]</ref>

−

Those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture typically view the Bible as a book that was not wholly inspired of God, and which allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, as well as tolerating a much broader range of interpretation of basic moral commands and their immutability, even to the point of such being determined by contemporary cultural morality. The Bible is almost universally held by them to be partly the work of ''[[homophobic]]'' editors.<ref>B.A. Robinson; Thomas Horner; Steven Greenberg</ref> Those who penned the Bible are sometimes essentially deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid, thus impugning the Divine inspiration of Scripture, as well as demonstrable sound exegesis.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref> This effect may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[Homosexual Historical Revisionism |homosexual historical revisionism]].

+

Those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture typically view the Bible as a book that was not wholly inspired of God, and which allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, as well as tolerating a much broader range of interpretation of basic moral commands and their immutability, even to the point of such being determined by contemporary cultural morality. The Bible is almost universally held by them to be partly the work of ''[[homophobic]]'' editors.<ref>B.A. Robinson; Thomas Horner; Steven Greenberg</ref> Those who penned the Bible are sometimes essentially deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid, thus impugning the Divine inspiration of Scripture, as well as demonstrable sound exegesis.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref> This effect may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[Homosexual Historical Revisionism|homosexual historical revisionism]].

−

Another solution to the problem of the universal condemnation of and lack of sanction for homosexual relations is that of Professor Walter Wink, who concedes, "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 similar revisionists view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”. Instead,such hold that people possess a right to sex that supersedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, 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> (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) It is understood that this enables the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible to yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref><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>

+

Another solution to the problem of the universal condemnation of and lack of sanction for homosexual relations is that of Professor Walter Wink, who concedes, "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 similar revisionists view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”. Instead,such hold that people possess a right to sex that supersedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, 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> (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) It is understood that this enables the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible to yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref><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>

Daniel Helminiak's theory of ethics is similar, which Olliff and Hodges notes "is, at its very foundation, self-refuting. While he professes Christianity, he has adopted the autonomous man's position for the basis of his ethics." <ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/response_to_helminiak_2.html A Further Look at Pro-Homosexual Theology], Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges</ref>

Line 125: Line 125:

: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 traditional position<ref name=peacebyjesus>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html]</ref> thus sees that 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> Even on the basis of anatomical engineering, homosexual intercourse is seen to be a supreme insult to God and His power and wisdom, with unnecessary deleterious consequences.<ref> Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt</ref>

+

The traditional position<ref name=peacebyjesus>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html]</ref> thus sees that 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> Even on the basis of anatomical engineering, homosexual intercourse is seen to be a supreme insult to God and His power and wisdom, with unnecessary deleterious consequences.<ref>Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt</ref>

Yet it is also seen that the purpose of opposite gender marriage to being simply for procreation is 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> Hilborn adds,

Line 132: Line 132:

This joining is manifest as 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 Song of Solomon is sometimes invoked as revealing that the women is uniquely designed to be man's compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html Song of Solomon</ref> (cf. Prov. 5:15-19) In addition, the sanctity of sex within marriage but apart from emphasis upon procreation also seen as being indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:7,8,24-43), and marriage between man and women is presented as the primary alternative to fornication, with conjugal relations being 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 Song of Solomon is sometimes invoked as revealing that the women is uniquely designed to be man's compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html Song of Solomon]</ref> (cf. Prov. 5:15-19) In addition, the sanctity of sex within marriage but apart from emphasis upon procreation also seen as being indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:7,8,24-43), and marriage between man and women is presented as the primary alternative to fornication, with conjugal relations being 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>

In addition, the transcendent exclusivity of marriage being between male and female is seen as being throughout the Bible, 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, it is pointed out that 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>

Line 182: Line 182:

: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."

−

It is also argued that 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.<ref name=peacebyjesus>]http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html]</ref>

+

It is also argued that 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.<ref name=peacebyjesus>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html]</ref>

−

In support of the traditional position it is understanding that 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> but which in no way abrogates the restriction of sexual relations to being only between opposite genders in marriage.

+

In support of the traditional position it is understanding that 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> but which in no way abrogates the restriction of sexual relations to being only between opposite genders in marriage.

Proponents of homoeroticism also argue that the allowance of polygamous marriages in the Old Testament (even concubines 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, with polygamy only differing from the Genesis model which Jesus affirmed in the number of female wives (as in too much of a good thing: Prv. 18:22), not their gender.

Line 208: Line 208:

However, here some more extreme pro-homosexual apologists, 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 sexual active, as in pagan nations.<ref>Faris Malik, "Eunuchs are Gay Men" (pro-homosexual)</ref> They then controvert “all cannot receive this saying” (v. 11) to refer to the uniqueness of the male/female union of Gn. 2, in order to 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 holding that abstinence is unreasonable for such eunuchs, the pro-homosexual apologist reasons that marriage must be allowed for them.<ref>Homosexual Eunuchs, Rick Brentlinger (pro-homosexual)</ref>

−

Is response it is argued that while it may be true that sometimes eunuchs 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> as the Hebrew word for "eunuch" can also refer to such men as the officer of Pharaoh who was married, yet this does not require that such were homosexuals.<ref>http://www.themoorings.org/prophecy/Daniel1/less1.html</ref> (Gn. 39:1ff; 2King. 25:19) And that the existence of sexually active homosexual eunuchs in pagan nations cannot provide sanction for such among the children of God, as both Israel and Christians are distinctly commanded not to like the pagans and unbelievers in practicing such behavior. (Lv. 18:24,27; 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) And which moral laws Jesus upheld, except to further intensify the Genesis marriage bond as regards is permanence. Therefore, it is held that to suppose that Jesus is referring to congenitally determined homosexual behavior as well as radically contradicting O.T. moral law and instituting homosexual marriage, is neither found warranted here or elsewhere.<ref>[http:www.robgagnon.net/articles/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D]</ref> As Gagnon notes, Not only in Scripture but ""every 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>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref>

+

Is response it is argued that while it may be true that sometimes eunuchs 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> as the Hebrew word for "eunuch" can also refer to such men as the officer of Pharaoh who was married, yet this does not require that such were homosexuals.<ref>http://www.themoorings.org/prophecy/Daniel1/less1.html</ref> (Gn. 39:1ff; 2King. 25:19) And that the existence of sexually active homosexual eunuchs in pagan nations cannot provide sanction for such among the children of God, as both Israel and Christians are distinctly commanded not to like the pagans and unbelievers in practicing such behavior. (Lv. 18:24,27; 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) And which moral laws Jesus upheld, except to further intensify the Genesis marriage bond as regards is permanence. Therefore, it is held that to suppose that Jesus is referring to congenitally determined homosexual behavior as well as radically contradicting O.T. moral law and instituting homosexual marriage, is neither found warranted here or elsewhere.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D]</ref> As Gagnon notes, Not only in Scripture but ""every 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>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref>

Using established means of exegesis, it is further argued that the untenable nature of the pro homosexual argument is evident from the beginning and throughout.

Line 218: Line 218:

The pro-homosexual argument next proposes that the advocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must also sanction same gender marriage. Countering this it is held that, fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage in the Bible, it is only opposite genders who can be joined in marriage, and not to anyone or anything contrary to what God has joined, nor to unscripturally separate what He has joined. The traditional argument holds that it is evidenced that the sanction of marriage in 1Cor. 7 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 is also held that simply desiring sex is not the real issue in 1Cor. 7:9, and in any case celibacy can also be chosen by persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others, as like the passionate Paul, they 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).

−

Other aspects of this pro-homosexual polemic are further responded to,<ref> [http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Eunuchs Homosexual relations and the Bible; Eunuchs ]</ref> with the conclusion that sanction for a radical new concept of marriage cannot be derived from the words of Jesus and Paul, and that instead the LORD reaffirmed the original unique union of opposite genders, in restoring the permanence of that bound. And that 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).

+

Other aspects of this pro-homosexual polemic are further responded to,<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Eunuchs Homosexual relations and the Bible; Eunuchs ]</ref> with the conclusion that sanction for a radical new concept of marriage cannot be derived from the words of Jesus and Paul, and that instead the LORD reaffirmed the original unique union of opposite genders, in restoring the permanence of that bound. And that 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).

=== Sexual orientation argument ===

Line 240: Line 240:

The issue here is not the forced manner of sexual relations that is evidenced, but the homosexual nature of it, which defines the practice from whence the term "sodomy" was derived. Jewish Ethics and Halakhah For Our Time (2002) states, “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> In the light of cultural attitudes toward homosexual relations, Gordon J Wenham concludes that the demand to know Lot's guest was sexual, and while this was a most grievous manner of inhospitality, yet "...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.htmlThe Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality, Gordon J Wenham], Expository Times 102 (1991): 259-363)</ref>

−

As this story evidences that the most notable physical sin of Sodom had to do with homoerotic relations,<ref>Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 73-74</ref> <ref>Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice, pp. 46-50</ref><ref>[http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn3 What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Gregory Koukl</ref> 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-homosexual apologists most typically seek to disallow that the "very grievous" sin of Sodom here had anything to do with homoeroticism. Instead, they usually 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 homosexual relations, states he finds it “difficult to deny the sexual intent of the Sodomites”, and that he believes “the traditional interpretation to be correct.”<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs; p. 73</ref> In addition, conservative apologist 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 that the most notable physical sin of Sodom had to do with homoerotic relations,<ref>Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 73-74</ref><ref>Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice, pp. 46-50</ref><ref>[http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702#fn3 What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Gregory Koukl]</ref> 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-homosexual apologists most typically seek to disallow that the "very grievous" sin of Sodom here had anything to do with homoeroticism. Instead, they usually 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 homosexual relations, states he finds it “difficult to deny the sexual intent of the Sodomites”, and that he believes “the traditional interpretation to be correct.”<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs; p. 73</ref> In addition, conservative apologist 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===

Line 256: Line 256:

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>

−

Another misleading argument that the less ambiguous word ''shakhabh'' (H7901) would have been used instead of the word "yâda if sexual knowing was meant, <ref>G. A. Barton</ref> yet shakhabh even more often means sleep or rest, while (again) yâda is used instead of shakhabh to gain sexual knowledge 13 times in the Old Testament Bible, besides the disputed verses in Gn. 19.

+

Another misleading argument that the less ambiguous word ''shakhabh'' (H7901) would have been used instead of the word "yâda if sexual knowing was meant,<ref>G. A. Barton</ref> yet shakhabh even more often means sleep or rest, while (again) yâda is used instead of shakhabh to gain sexual knowledge 13 times in the Old Testament Bible, besides the disputed verses in Gn. 19.

In the 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>

Line 264: Line 264:

As yâda is often used as a verb to refer to sex narratives, but in forbidding illicit sex, another attempt is made to disallow homoeroticism 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.

−

===Judges 19===

+

===Judges 19===

Jdg. 19: "Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, ''that we may know him''. {23} And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, ''do not so wickedly''; seeing that this man is come into mine house, ''do not this folly''. {24} Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and ''humble ye them'', and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man ''do not so vile a thing''. {25} But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and ''they knew her, and abused her'' all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go."

Line 286: Line 286:

Here, it is explicitly stated that not only Sodom but also Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner “gave themselves over to fornication.” with a specific form of it being the culmination of such surrender to sensuality. The Greek (which the New Testament was written in) word from which the emphasized phrase comes from, is “ekporneuō” (G1608), and is only Biblically used here, but it is a combination of “ek,” denoting motion, as in “giving themselves,” and “porneuō,” meaning fornication. Ekporneuō also occurs in the [[Septuagint]] to denote whoredom in Genesis 38:24 and Exodus 34:15. Realizing this, most homosexual apologists again seek to deny homoeroticism from being the primary physical sin of Sodom by proposing or contending that as the word for “strange” basically means “another,” “other,” “altered” or even “next,” then the meaning is unclear, and if the condemnation of Sodom was sexual, then it is likely that it was because women sought to commit fornication with “other than human” angels,<ref>Bailey, pp. 11-16; Boswell, p. 97</ref> perhaps referring to Genesis 6 and or the apocryphal book of Enoch. However, if the “sons of God” in Gn. 6 are fallen angels, or if Enochian legends are being alluded to,<ref>there are sound reasons for the Book of Enoch being rejected from the Jewish canon, the Septuagint and Vulgate, and the Apocrypha (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/book_of_enoch.htm), including tales of approx. 443 foot height angelic offspring, or angels (stars) procreating with oxen to produce elephants, camels and donkeys, (86:1-5) if taken literally</ref> then it is about them going after the daughters of men, not the other way around. And if homosexual advocates must give the Book of Enoch more veracity above the portion which Jude uses,<ref>or simply Enoch. Jude would be following the Biblical practice of quoting an inspired utterance from a source that is not wholly inspired, just as Paul did in quoting a pagan prophet (Acts 17:28)</ref> then its condemnation of "sodomitic" sex (10:3; 34:1)<ref>http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/enoch/2enoch01-68.htm</ref> indicates that was the prevalent sin of Sodom. As Jude connects the judgment of Sodom with their going after strange flesh, then the connection to Gn. 19 is intimated. Additional evidence indicative of Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6-7,10 possessing a homoerotic dimension is found in the nearest parallels in early extra Biblical Jewish texts: Philo of Alexandria (Abraham 133-41; Questions on Genesis 4.37), Josephus (Antiquities 1.194-95, 200-201; Jewish War 4.483-5; 5.566) and the Testament of Naphtali (3:4).<ref>Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice pp. 87-89.</ref>

−

As for “other,” as in “strange flesh,” the Greek for the phrase, “strange flesh” is “heteros” and “sarx,” with the former basically meaning “other/another,” while “sarx” denotes the nature of man, or (once) a class of laws from God which deal with earthly matters as washings (Heb. 9:10). Heteros could easily refer to "other than normal, lawful or right," as in Rm. 7:3 or Gal. 1:6, that being contrary to God's law and design, and rebellion has been the context prior to this, and is the real issue, not angels, as some suppose. Dave Miller states this pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p. 393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7).<ref>Dave Miller, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>

+

As for “other,” as in “strange flesh,” the Greek for the phrase, “strange flesh” is “heteros” and “sarx,” with the former basically meaning “other/another,” while “sarx” denotes the nature of man, or (once) a class of laws from God which deal with earthly matters as washings (Heb. 9:10). Heteros could easily refer to "other than normal, lawful or right," as in Rm. 7:3 or Gal. 1:6, that being contrary to God's law and design, and rebellion has been the context prior to this, and is the real issue, not angels, as some suppose. Dave Miller states this pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p. 393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7).<ref>Dave Miller, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>

Some assert that Jude is referring to the Sodomites seeking sex with angels,<ref>W. Countryman</ref> but that is further militated against by the fact that the fornication was an ongoing and regional issue, not simply isolated to Sodom, and in Gn. 19 it is highly unlikely that the Sodomites knew that the men were angels. The angels appearance as men was in order to find out whether the cry of Sodomy was true, and it is certain that this cry was not that of seeking sex with angels. Gagnon contends, "Not only is it not required by the wording of the Greek text that ekporneusasai (“having committed sexual immorality”) refer exclusively to copulation with angels, there are also at least six indications that ekporneusasai alludes, at least in part, to attempted male-male intercourse.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/RevCountryman.htm RESPONSE TO PROF. L. WILLIAM COUNTRYMAN’S REVIEW IN ANGLICAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW; On Careless Exegesis and Jude 7]</ref> Taken together, it is unreasonable to hold that that the particular primary physical sin of Sodom, leading to their destruction, was not sexual, while the most warranted understanding is that it was widespread regional fornication, including that of a most perverse manner, that of men seeking to sexually “know” men, albeit unknowingly it was with angels, and but which attempt positively confirmed the investigation of their grievous sin.

Line 304: Line 304:

In regards to this, homosexual apologists also claim Jesus did not invoke Sodom as an warning to cities because they were merely generally inhospitable, rather He foretold that cities which would not repent would be judged more severely than Sodom (Mt. 10:14; 11:20-24), as that was the cause behind their specific “inhospitality” toward His disciples, who “went out, and preached that men should repent” (Mk. 6:11,12), which rejection Biblically was and is the ultimate sin of damnation.

−

Jewish Ethics and Halakhah For Our Time (2002), confirms, “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) (Cf. Genesis Rabbah 50:5, on Gen. 9:22 ff. More generally see M.Kasher, Torah Shlemah, vol. 3 to Gen 19:5.)<ref> http://www.jonahweb.org/sections.php?secId=183</ref>

+

Jewish Ethics and Halakhah For Our Time (2002), confirms, “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) (Cf. Genesis Rabbah 50:5, on Gen. 9:22 ff. More generally see M.Kasher, Torah Shlemah, vol. 3 to Gen 19:5.)<ref>http://www.jonahweb.org/sections.php?secId=183</ref>

−

====Extra Biblical historical sources====

+

====Extra Biblical historical sources====

These sources do not have the authority of the Bible, and are of varying historical value, but which. serve to provide historical opinion. These references include historians, extra Biblical books (apocryphal and pseudepigraphical) and Jewish commentary.

Line 322: Line 322:

The apocryphal Testament of Benjamin, part of Books of Twelve Patriarchs (circa 2nd century BC) warned in regard to Sodom,

−

"that ye shall commit fornication with the fornication of Sodom," (Concerning a Pure Mind, 9:1) http://<ref>www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.iii.xiv.html</ref>

+

"that ye shall commit fornication with the fornication of Sodom," (Concerning a Pure Mind, 9:1) http://<ref>http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.iii.xiv.html</ref>

Anther book within the same collection, the Testament of Naphtali, states,

Line 330: Line 330:

The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch, warned:

−

"And those men said to me: This place, O Enoch, is prepared for those who dishonour God, who on earth practise sin against nature, which is child-corruption after the ''sodomitic fashion'', magic-making, enchantments and devilish witchcrafts, and who boast of their wicked deeds, stealing, lies, calumnies, envy, rancour, fornication, murder, ...." (10:4; in J recension Ch. I.118); Late 1st cent. AD.)<ref> http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe117.htm</ref>

+

"And those men said to me: This place, O Enoch, is prepared for those who dishonour God, who on earth practise sin against nature, which is child-corruption after the ''sodomitic fashion'', magic-making, enchantments and devilish witchcrafts, and who boast of their wicked deeds, stealing, lies, calumnies, envy, rancour, fornication, murder, ...." (10:4; in J recension Ch. I.118); Late 1st cent. AD.)<ref>http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe117.htm</ref>

The Old Testament apocrypha, Testament of Isaac. Probably originally from Egyptian Judaism, but shows pronounced Christian elements. "The angel said to me, 'Look at the bottom to observe those whom you see at the lowest depth. They are the ones who have committed the sin of Sodom; truly, they were due a drastic punishment." (5.27. Ch. I.909; Second century AD) <ref>http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SODOMY.TXT</ref>

Line 371: Line 371:

The final category is that of ceremonial laws, which mainly deal with practices which are not inherently moral, and which the New Testament reveals were typological, serving as physical examples of Christ and realities realized under the promised (Jer. 31:31-34) New Covenant instituted in Christ's blood (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:16). These consist of laws on sacrifices, the liturgical calendar, diet and washings (Lv. 1-16,25; Is. 53; Jn. 1:29; 1Pt. 1:18,19; Col. 2:16,17; Heb. 4:3; 9:10; 10:1-22; Gal. 4:10).

−

In contrast to ceremonial laws, the New Testament is seen explicitly reincorporating many basic moral commands of the Mosaic code into the New Covenant code,<ref>Homosexuality and the Old Testament, P. Michael Ukleja]</ref> upholding basic universal moral laws by type and often individually.<ref>[http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/03-Leviticus/Text/Articles/Ukleja-Homsex-BS.htm Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July-September 1967):246</ref>Unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage is particularly abundantly 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 relations are seen to clearly fit in this category by type, and are condemned in the New Testament where they are explicitly mentioned in [[Romans 1]]:24-27. In contrast, accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8,10) Gudel concludes,

+

In contrast to ceremonial laws, the New Testament is seen explicitly reincorporating many basic moral commands of the Mosaic code into the New Covenant code,<ref>Homosexuality and the Old Testament, P. Michael Ukleja]</ref> upholding basic universal moral laws by type and often individually.<ref>[http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/03-Leviticus/Text/Articles/Ukleja-Homsex-BS.htm Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July-September 1967):246]</ref> Unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage is particularly abundantly 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 relations are seen to clearly fit in this category by type, and are condemned in the New Testament where they are explicitly mentioned in [[Romans 1]]:24-27. In contrast, accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8,10) Gudel concludes,

: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>

Line 385: Line 385:

*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

+

*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 Old Testament]</ref> (It appears the sin for which death is most mentioned in the Old Testament 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> (It appears the sin for which death is most mentioned in the Old Testament 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)

−

*3. The number of repetitions of the death penalty for a sin is not a consistent criteria by which its severity is determined. According to the principal behind Gal. 3:19, the greater the need (when the law was being given), for Israel to be deterred by a law and its capital offenses, then the more likely it should be expected to be reiterated in the recorded Mosaic code. Cannibalism is not even specifically outlawed, but like homosexual relations, and perhaps even less unconditionally wrong, it is contrary to foundational law. (Gn. 9:2,3) Likewise, Gagnon notes, "The only form of consensual sexual behavior that was regarded by ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity as more egregious than same-sex intercourse was bestiality. It is no accident that bestiality receives even less attention in the Bible than same-sex intercourse—it is mentioned only in Exod 22:19; Lev 18:23 and 20:15-16; and Deut 27:21<ref> Gagnon, Zenit Interview http://www.robgagnon.net/ZenitInterview.htm</ref>

+

*3. The number of repetitions of the death penalty for a sin is not a consistent criteria by which its severity is determined. According to the principal behind Gal. 3:19, the greater the need (when the law was being given), for Israel to be deterred by a law and its capital offenses, then the more likely it should be expected to be reiterated in the recorded Mosaic code. Cannibalism is not even specifically outlawed, but like homosexual relations, and perhaps even less unconditionally wrong, it is contrary to foundational law. (Gn. 9:2,3) Likewise, Gagnon notes, "The only form of consensual sexual behavior that was regarded by ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity as more egregious than same-sex intercourse was bestiality. It is no accident that bestiality receives even less attention in the Bible than same-sex intercourse—it is mentioned only in Exod 22:19; Lev 18:23 and 20:15-16; and Deut 27:21<ref>Gagnon, Zenit Interview http://www.robgagnon.net/ZenitInterview.htm</ref>

−

*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</ref>

+

*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]</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)

+

*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.

Line 514: Line 513:

*17. Lev. 18:22 is “part of an interconnected Old Testament witness.” “There is no evidence to suggest that ancient Israelite society, acting in fidelity to Yahweh, would ever have approved of any form of homosexual practice.”

−

*18. Lv. 18:22 is 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?</ref>

+

*18. Lv. 18:22 is 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?</ref>

Joseph P. Gudel states, Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott assert that "consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the Israelite Holiness Code is to be invoked against twentieth-century homosexuals, it should likewise be invoked against such common practices as eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the menstrual period." Much effort need not be expended answering these objections. First, God did not condemn certain behavior for the Israelites only because Israel was to be kept separate from Canaanite practice. Otherwise, if the Canaanites did not practice child sacrifice and bestiality, would these then have been all right for the Israelites? Of course not! Having sexual relations with an animal and killing one's child are inherently wrong and evil, even when they are not related to pagan worship; they are abominations before God. And yet, these specific prohibitions also are listed in this passage, both immediately before and after the condemnation of homosexuality (Lev. 18:21-23).<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, Leviticus 18 and 20, by Joseph P. Gudel, Christian Research Institute Journal]</ref>

Line 542: Line 541:

*[[New Testament and homosexuality]]

−

== References ==

+

== References ==

DavidB4-bot

Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt

59,335

edits