Changes

As part of extensive substantive documentation the prohibitions against homosex are immutable and universal, the most noted scholar on this subject, Robert  A. H. Gagnon, provides seven reasons for their contemporary relevance of the Leviticus 18:22.   

As part of extensive substantive documentation the prohibitions against homosex are immutable and universal, the most noted scholar on this subject, Robert  A. H. Gagnon, provides seven reasons for their contemporary relevance of the Leviticus 18:22.   

*Part of an interconnected Old Testament witness

*Part of an interconnected Old Testament witness  

*Grouped with incest, adultery, and bestiality,  

*Grouped with incest, adultery, and bestiality.  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.

*A first-tier sexual offense.

*A first-tier sexual offense. Male homosexual practice is listed among first- tier sexual offenses in Lev 20:10-16, which incur a capital sentence.  

*Framed absolutely Like the prohibitions of incest and adultery, it takes in all acts of intercourse of the type specified, not merely intentionally oppressive or coercive forms.

*Framed absolutely. Like the prohibitions of incest and adultery, it takes in all acts of intercourse of the type specified, not merely intentionally oppressive or coercive forms.  

*Contains the marks of moral 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  

*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)  

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.robgagnon.net/articles/homoReformedReviewTableCont.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 v.21 (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 grouped often together, ancient laws codes are not strict categories of laws, but are more manifest by type and foundational principals.

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.

D. Sherwin Bailey, whose primary revisionary work is looked by succeeding prohomsoex polemicists, while 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 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>  

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, extensive examination reveals that zakhar/zekhur are strictly gender specific words which are primarily used to differentiate between male and females in general, as well as those in special classes of people, and that is the only  special significance it provides. These word provide a distinction between genders without signifying a difference in what the Levitical injunctions proscribe. The reason for their most prevalent use being within special classes of males is simply because that is most often the subject, from sacrificed animals to Jews returning from exile.

However, extensive examination reveals that zakhar/zekhur are strictly gender specific words which are primarily used to differentiate between male and females in general, as well as those in special classes of people, and that is the only  special significance it provides. These word provide a distinction between genders without signifying a difference in what the Levitical injunctions proscribe. The reason for their most prevalent use being within special classes of males is simply because that is most often the subject, from sacrificed animals to Jews returning from exile.

Other prohomosex polemicists contend that Lev. 20:13 only prohibits actual male intercourse, while also not forbidding lesbian eroticism.<ref>Wrestling with God and Men, pp. 80-93;  by Steven Greenberg</ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, Palestinian Judaism Scroggs</ref>  

Some prohomosex polemicists argue that Lev. 20:13 only prohibits actual male intercourse, while also not forbidding lesbian eroticism.<ref>Wrestling with God and Men, pp. 80-93;  by Steven Greenberg</ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, Palestinian Judaism Scroggs</ref>  

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 this Levitical law 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===