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 explicitly condemn male homosex and are presented as general commands, and given to all Israel, these commands have relatively recently become the subject of 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 prohibited homosex.  

While these commands explicitly condemn male homosex and are presented as general commands given to all Israel, relatively recently these have become the subject of 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 homosex.  

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 be used if the prohibitions of Lv. 18:22; was not intrinsically evil.

Such revisionists generally conclude that these Levitical injunctions against homosex 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 form of conjecture which are best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</ref>, rather being a universal and transcedent injunction such as the other laws against illicit partners are.  

Such revisionists generally conclude that these Levitical injunctions against homosex 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 being universal and transcedent injunctions such as the other laws against illicit partners are.  

   

   

In the aforementioned attempts, many also seek 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.

A 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.

Examining these claims first manifests that the usual initial basis for 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 abominable for Israel, (Dt. 14:3; Jer. 16:18) while it is the word most often used denoting to 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) 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 it's 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 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 it's 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 practices which evidently are a direct expression of idolatry - formal or of the heart - such as sex with illicit partners, 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, with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being prohibited under 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 homosex clearly fit in this category by type, while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8)  

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><ref>Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July-September 1967):246</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 fulfil 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 homosex 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, and belonging to the class of ceremonial laws, which (they delight to point out) Christians do not typically keep.<ref>Townsley, Homosexuality and the Bible</ref> Rather, the reasons why literal obedience to these is not enjoined now is the very reason why the laws against homosex are upheld, as just as the New Testament clearly defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it just as clearly upholds laws against illicit sexual partners as a class and ofte idividually. While literal obedience to the former is not mandated under the New Covenant, sex with illicit partners and any possible mentions of homosex only find unconditional condemnation therein.

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

As part of extensive substantive documentation evidencing that the prohibitions against homosex are immutable and universal,<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm</ref> scholar Robert  A. H. Gagnon,<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/Index.html</ref> provides seven reasons for their contemporary relevance of the Leviticus 18:22.   

As part of extensive substantive documentation evidencing that the prohibitions against homosex are immutable and universal,<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm</ref> scholar Robert  A. H. Gagnon,<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/Index.html</ref> provides seven reasons for their contemporary relevance of the Leviticus 18:22.   

*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 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, consistently 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 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.

D. Sherwin Bailey, whose primary revisionary work is looked to by succeeding prohomsoex polemicists, while yet seeking to justify homosex, himself stated, "It is hardly open to doubt that both the laws in Leviticus relate to ordinary homosexual acts between men, and not to ritual or other acts performed in the name of  religion."<ref>Bailey, "Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition p. 30.</ref>  

 

D. Sherwin Bailey, whose primary revisionary work seeking to justify homosex is looked to by succeeding prohomsoex polemicists, himself stated, "It is hardly open to doubt that both the laws in Leviticus relate to ordinary homosexual acts between men, and not to ritual or other acts performed in the name of  religion."<ref>Bailey, "Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition p. 30.</ref>  

Another grammatical argument to relegate Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to a unique cultic context, is one that sees  a radical significance in the use of zakhar [Strong's, H2145] the Hebrew word normally translated male/males, or the lesser used word for such, zekhur [H2138]

Another grammatical argument to relegate Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to a unique cultic context, is one that sees  a radical significance in the use of zakhar [Strong's, H2145] the Hebrew word normally translated male/males, or the lesser used word for such, zekhur [H2138]

However, as v. 22 is substantially evidenced as being based upon foundational design and decree, just as the forbiddance of bestiality is in the next verse is, in principal its application is not restricted to only male homosex but same gender sex as well. Male sex with another male represents an illicit partner, contrary to all Biblical marriages, just as Molech represents an illicit object of worship, contrary to all statements relative to such, and the respective injunctions against both are universal based upon inherent qualities which disallow the forbidden functions.   

However, as v. 22 is substantially evidenced as being based upon foundational design and decree, just as the forbiddance of bestiality is in the next verse is, in principal its application is not restricted to only male homosex but same gender sex as well. Male sex with another male represents an illicit partner, contrary to all Biblical marriages, just as Molech represents an illicit object of worship, contrary to all statements relative to such, and the respective injunctions against both are universal based upon inherent qualities which disallow the forbidden functions.   

More psychological attempts seeking to make these Levitical laws motive or disposition dependent, however motive (love, hate, consensuality) does not play a part in determining the forbiddance of homosex,<Homosexuality in the Church, Richard B. Hays, Lev. 18:22; 20:13)</ref> nor whether sex outside marriage or with any unlawful partner is valid in either Testament, in contrast with sexual legislation  which stipulates such, (Dt. 22:13; 24:3; Num. 35:20; Dt. 22:23-29). Neither the mention of such or lack of mention of it establishes a factor which may sanctify  an otherwise illicit union (adultery, incest etc, and all fornications are unequivocally sinful: cf. Gn. 34).

More psychological attempts seeking to make these Levitical laws motive or disposition dependent. However motive (love, hate, consensuality) does not play a part in determining the forbiddance of homosex,<Homosexuality in the Church, Richard B. Hays, Lev. 18:22; 20:13)</ref> nor whether sex outside marriage or with any unlawful partner is valid in either Testament, in contrast with sexual legislation  which stipulates such, (Dt. 22:13; 24:3; Num. 35:20; Dt. 22:23-29). Neither the mention of such or lack of mention of it establishes a factor which may sanctify  an otherwise illicit union (adultery, incest etc, and all fornications are unequivocally sinful: cf. Gn. 34).

===Punishments===

===Punishments===