Changes

Homosexuality and biblical interpretation (view source)

Revision as of 19:03, August 5, 2009

314 bytes added , 19:03, August 5, 2009

homosex to homosexual relations or similar; edit link

Line 11: Line 11:

== Principal Sources ==

−

Sources of pro homosexual interpretations are abundant, such as former Jesuit priest John J. McNeill,<ref>Doctorate in Philosophy, Louvain University in Belgium; Former Jesuit priest</ref> Robin Scroggs,<ref>Professor of New Testament at Chicago Theological Seminary</ref> Episcopalian Professor L. William Countryman,<ref>Professor of New Testament, Church Divinity School of the Pacific</ref> Roman Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak,<ref>Assistant Professor of Psychology</ref> and other writers who usually reiterate their polemics. The revisionist scholar who is primarily noted for first (1955) advancing their novel view was the Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey. In addition to him, perhaps the basic primary source for most of the main pro homosexual arguments represented here is John Eastburn Boswell. Born in Boston in 1947, and educated at Harvard, he was later made a full professor at Yale, where he founded the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center. Described as a devout Roman Catholic, Boswell was yet an openly announced homosexual. He wrote a number of books seeking to negate Biblical injunctions against homosexuality and to justify it. One of his last books was, "Dante and the Sodomites" (1994). After that Boswell died of complications from AIDS on December 24, 1994, at age 47.

+

Sources of pro homosexual interpretations are abundant, such as former Jesuit priest John J. McNeill,<ref>Doctorate in Philosophy, Louvain University in Belgium; Former Jesuit priest</ref> Robin Scroggs,<ref>Professor of New Testament at Chicago Theological Seminary</ref> Episcopalian Professor L. William Countryman,<ref>Professor of New Testament, Church Divinity School of the Pacific</ref> Roman Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak,<ref>Assistant Professor of Psychology</ref> and other writers who usually reiterate their polemics. The revisionist scholar who is primarily noted for first (1955) advancing their novel view was the Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey. In addition to him, perhaps the basic primary source for most of the main pro-homosexual arguments represented here is John Eastburn Boswell. Born in Boston in 1947, and educated at Harvard, he was later made a full professor at Yale, where he founded the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center. Described as a devout Roman Catholic, Boswell was yet an openly announced homosexual. He wrote a number of books seeking to negate Biblical injunctions against homosexuality and to justify it. One of his last books was, "Dante and the Sodomites" (1994). After that Boswell died of complications from AIDS on December 24, 1994, at age 47.

It is noted that most of the pro-homosexual polemicists (charged with "turning the grace of God into lasciviousness": Jude 1:4<ref>http://www.takeheed.net/SEPTEMBER2004.htm</ref>) are by souls who yet profess to be Christians. Conservative Christians tend to such as a manifestation of that which the apostle Paul foretold, "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:30)

Line 19: Line 19:

== Terms Defined ==

−

The term ''homosexual'' is a relatively recent one, with it's first know occurrence apparently being in an 1869 pamphlet in the German language, and attributed to native Austrian Karl-Maria Kertbeny. Over time, this term, scorned by H. Havelock Ellis in ''Studies in Psychology'', in 1897 as a "a barbarously hybrid word"<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=homosexual]</ref> and which was used within the field of personality taxonomy, and could be used to denote any same gender environment, is now used almost exclusively in regards to sexual attraction as well as it's activity. This is as yet unsatisfactory, as such use lacks the distinction between homosexual social activity, denoted by the term "homosociality," versus same gender love, "homophilia," and which may be romantic, and that of homoeroticism (clinically MSM), denoting homosexual erotic activity, that of same gender sexual relations (also known as homo-genital relations, or more rarely, ''homosex''). As most of this article deals with the sexual practice of homosexuals, the term homosexual relations or homoeroticism will usually be used. ''Sodomy'' is also sometimes referred to as denoting the same, though this originally defined a temple prostitute. (''Sodom'' itself is derived from the word "scorch," or "burnt".) Some former homosexuals, such as Larry Houston, argue that homosexuality is what one does,<ref>[http://banap.net/ Behavior and Not a Person]</ref> while in the Bible, the motive or "orientation" of a person is not what determines the illicit nature of sex with an unlawful partner, and as since [[the Fall]], all humans are born with sinful proclivities, for which God gives grace to overcome, (Gn. 4:7; Rm. 8) inner inclinations are not allowed to justify such.

+

The term ''[[homosexual]]'' is a relatively recent one, with it's first know occurrence apparently being in an 1869 pamphlet in the German language, and attributed to native Austrian Karl-Maria Kertbeny. Over time, this term, scorned by H. Havelock Ellis in ''Studies in Psychology'', in 1897 as a "a barbarously hybrid word"<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=homosexual]</ref> and which was used within the field of personality taxonomy, and could be used to denote any same gender environment, is now used almost exclusively in regards to sexual attraction as well as it's activity. This is as yet unsatisfactory, as such use lacks the distinction between homosexual social activity, denoted by the term "homosociality," versus same gender love, "homophilia," and which may be romantic, and that of homoeroticism (clinically MSM), denoting homosexual erotic activity, that of same gender sexual relations (also known as homo-genital relations, or more rarely, ''homosex''). As most of this article deals with the sexual practice of homosexuals, the term homosexual relations or homoeroticism will usually be used. ''Sodomy'' is also sometimes referred to as denoting the same, though this originally defined a temple prostitute. (''Sodom'' itself is derived from the word "scorch," or "burnt".) Some former homosexuals, such as Larry Houston, argue that homosexuality is what one does,<ref>[http://banap.net/ Behavior and Not a Person]</ref> while in the Bible, the motive or "orientation" of a person is not what determines the illicit nature of sex with an unlawful partner, and as since [[the Fall]], all humans are born with sinful proclivities, for which God gives grace to overcome, (Gn. 4:7; Rm. 8) inner inclinations are not allowed to justify such.

==Interpretive foundations and positions==

Line 67: Line 67:

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>

−

While few pro homosexual writers concede with Wink that the Bible is contrary to same sex behavior, virtually all reject any Biblical censure of it. Author Robin Scroggs states, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”<ref>Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.</ref> William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, termed it "dangerous" to fail to condemn the apostle Paul's condemnation of ~~homosex~~, and advocated removing such from the canon.<ref>Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43. http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman contends, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”<ref>Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)</ref> Christine E. Gudorf flatly denies that the Bible is the primary authority for Christian ethics.<ref>Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121</ref> Bishop (Ret.) John Shelby Spong denies all miracles, including the virgin conception and literal bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the Divine inspiration of Scripture, and denies that there are any moral absolutes<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/spongwrong2.htm Michael Bott and Jonathan Sarfati, "What’s Wrong With (Former) Bishop Spong?"]</ref>

+

While few pro-homosexual writers concede with Wink that the Bible is contrary to same sex behavior, virtually all reject any Biblical censure of it. Author Robin Scroggs states, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”<ref>Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.</ref> William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, termed it "dangerous" to fail to condemn the apostle Paul's condemnation of homoeroticism, and advocated removing such from the canon.<ref>Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43. http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman contends, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”<ref>Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)</ref> Christine E. Gudorf flatly denies that the Bible is the primary authority for Christian ethics.<ref>Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121</ref> Bishop (Ret.) John Shelby Spong denies all miracles, including the virgin conception and literal bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the Divine inspiration of Scripture, and denies that there are any moral absolutes<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/spongwrong2.htm Michael Bott and Jonathan Sarfati, "What’s Wrong With (Former) Bishop Spong?"]</ref>

In response to the various forms of pro-homosexual revisionism, Pastor Joseph P. Gudel notes,

Line 83: Line 83:

:Developments in the secular society in its acceptance of the [[homosexual lifestyle]] have put pressure on the [[evangelical]] church to respond in some way. [[Homosexual]] spokespersons have advocated varying principles of interpretation to prove from the Bible the legitimacy of their lifestyle. They have resorted to either subjectivism, historic-scientific evolving of society, or cultural biases of the Biblical writers to find biblical backing for their position. Scripture condemns homosexuality is such passages as Genesis 19; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; 2 Pet 2:7; and Jude 7. The true biblical teaching on the subject requires the church to condemn the sin of homosexuality, convert the homosexual, confront erroneous teaching, and cleanse itself. The church must be careful not to adopt the customs of the world.<ref>The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), Homosexuality and the church,</ref>

−

It may be noted that homosexuals in general tend to have have a different view of God than the Biblical one, often indicated to be that of a pantheistic nature of deity which can refer to any of a variety of perspectives.<ref>http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights</ref> A few homosexual apologists do present themselves as evangelical Christians, yet as with homosexual apologetics in general, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by them are seen as effectively allowing the negation of most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. (See [[Leviticus 18]].)

+

It may be noted that homosexuals in general tend to have have a different view of God than the Biblical one, often indicated to be that of a pantheistic nature of deity which can refer to any of a variety of perspectives.<ref>http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights</ref> A few pro-homosexual apologists do present themselves as evangelical Christians, yet as with homosexual apologetics in general, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by them are seen as effectively allowing the negation of most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. (See [[Leviticus 18]].)

== Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women ==

Line 91: Line 91:

(Gen 2:18-24) "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that '''the man''' should be '''alone'''; I will make him an '''help meet''' for him. {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. {20} And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but '''for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.''' {21} And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; {22} '''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.''' {23} And Adam said, This is now '''bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman''', because '''she was taken out of Man'''. {24} '''Therefore''' shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall '''cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."'

−

The Biblical texts which are primarily the subject of homosexual revisionism fall into two categories: those which prohibit or condemn homoeroticism, in principal or by precept, and those into which sanction for it is alleged. It is seen fitting<ref>Pastor Toby Brown, classicalpresbyterian.blogspot.com</ref>(Gn. 3:1-5) that these attempts begin in Genesis. In dealing with Gn. 1:27 and 2:18-24, efforts are made by pro homosexual apologists to negate the uniqueness of God's choice to join man and women together, in order to read into Scripture an allowance for marriage between same genders (which, by implication, may be seen to also include animals). While the Bible only evidences explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, this being heterosexuals, proponents of homoeroticism contend that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate the exclusivity of Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some proponents of homoeroticism that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions, as procreation is longer a primary need for the human race.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref><ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, Procreation and the family</ref> Countryman supposes that the Genesis 2:24 passage "can equally well be read simply as an etiological story, telling how the institution of marriage came into being."

+

The Biblical texts which are primarily the subject of homosexual revisionism fall into two categories: those which prohibit or condemn homoeroticism, in principal or by precept, and those into which sanction for it is alleged. It is seen fitting<ref>Pastor Toby Brown, classicalpresbyterian.blogspot.com</ref>(Gn. 3:1-5) that these attempts begin in Genesis. In dealing with Gn. 1:27 and 2:18-24, efforts are made by pro-homosexual apologists to negate the uniqueness of God's choice to join man and women together, in order to read into Scripture an allowance for marriage between same genders (which, by implication, may be seen to also include animals). While the Bible only evidences explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, this being heterosexuals, proponents of homoeroticism contend that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate the exclusivity of Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some proponents of homoeroticism that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions, as procreation is longer a primary need for the human race.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref><ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, Procreation and the family</ref> Countryman supposes that the Genesis 2:24 passage "can equally well be read simply as an etiological story, telling how the institution of marriage came into being."

In response, the context of Gn. 2:18-23 is invoked as showing that it was only after other created beings were found unsuitable for Adam that the women was created. "The lonely Adam is provided not with a second Adam, but with Eve. She is the helper who corresponds to him. She is the one with whom he can relate in total intimacy and become one flesh.<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html Gordon J Wenham, The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality; Expository Times 1991]</ref>

Line 111: Line 111:

(Mat 19:4-6) "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them '''male and female''', And said, For '''this cause''' shall a man leave '''father and 'mother''', and shall cleave to '''his wife''': and '''they twain shall be one flesh'''? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. '''What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."''''

−

Gaiser adds that the legal materials in Genesis established boundaries for life as actually lived "outside the garden",<ref>Fred J. Gaiser, "Homosexuality and the Old Testament," Word & World 10 (1990): 161-165</ref> and here in the New Testament Jesus references both Gn. 1:27 and 2:14, in being distinctly stating that the union of the male with his female counterpart is what God sexually joins, and which union Scripture elsewhere establishes and consistently confirmes. "It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with man, sexually, in marriage."<ref name=peacebyjesus>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html</ref> As Keil and Delitzsch state, “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." <ref>Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament; Johann (C.F.) Keil (1807-1888) & Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)</ref>

+

Gaiser adds that the legal materials in Genesis established boundaries for life as actually lived "outside the garden",<ref>Fred J. Gaiser, "Homosexuality and the Old Testament," Word & World 10 (1990): 161-165</ref> and here in the New Testament Jesus references both Gn. 1:27 and 2:14, in being distinctly stating that the union of the male with his female counterpart is what God sexually joins, and which union Scripture elsewhere establishes and consistently confirmes. "It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with man, sexually, in marriage."<ref name=peacebyjesus>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html ''Homosexual relations and the Bible'', peacebyjesus.com]</ref> As Keil and Delitzsch state, “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." <ref>Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament; Johann (C.F.) Keil (1807-1888) & Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)</ref>

Robert J. Gagnon explains,

Line 119: Line 119:

: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 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 126: Line 126:

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</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 134: Line 134:

:The creation of humans as male and female (Gn. 1) and the heterosexual union that constitutes marriage (Gn. 2) lie at the at the basis of the rest of Scripture and its comments about sexuality and marriage. A proper understanding of, and submission to, the record of Creation will guide the inquirer to the truth about homosexuality and heterosexuality. Genesis 1 — 3 clearly is foundational to other Bible texts.

−

In response to the need for a marriage precedent, pro homosexual proponents attempt to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage, (see [[David and Jonathan]]) to which it is responded that covenants were common in in the Old Testament (the word occurs 285 times, and only once in regard to marriage) and Jonathan and David made 3 of them, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. It is also contended that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it. In response, it is stated that this polemic possesses the same amount of legitimacy as saying that marriage between man and certain animals is allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. Under traditional exegesis, ~~homosex~~ marriage does needs to be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly specifies, and consistently confirms who is joined together in marriage, and unconditionally prohibits men laying with men as with women (Lv. 18:22), which “cleaving” is part of God's description of marriage. (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4)

+

In response to the need for a marriage precedent, pro-homosexual proponents attempt to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage, (see [[David and Jonathan]]) to which it is responded that covenants were common in in the Old Testament (the word occurs 285 times, and only once in regard to marriage) and Jonathan and David made 3 of them, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. It is also contended that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it. In response, it is stated that this polemic possesses the same amount of legitimacy as saying that marriage between man and certain animals is allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. Under traditional exegesis, homosexual marriage does needs to be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly specifies, and consistently confirms who is joined together in marriage, and unconditionally prohibits men laying with men as with women (Lv. 18:22), which “cleaving” is part of God's description of marriage. (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4)

=== 1 Corinthians 11 ===

Line 142: Line 142:

:But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1Cor 11:3)

−

An argument by pro homosexual writers against this, is one which asserts that the injunctions against homoeroticism are based upon outdated male headship. "Increasing numbers of scholars— influenced by the sexual deconstruction of M. Foucault and by the feminist critique of biblical sexuality—freely acknowledge a biblical condemnation of homosexuality, but dismiss this condemnation on the ground that it is an arbitrary expression of an obsolete patriarchalism. Since, they maintain, power creates truth, new power structures will create new sexual mores based on mutuality.<ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/211schmidt.html THE HERMENEUTICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: RECENT TRENDS]</ref>

+

An argument by pro-homosexual writers against this, is one which asserts that the injunctions against homoeroticism are based upon outdated male headship. "Increasing numbers of scholars— influenced by the sexual deconstruction of M. Foucault and by the feminist critique of biblical sexuality—freely acknowledge a biblical condemnation of homosexuality, but dismiss this condemnation on the ground that it is an arbitrary expression of an obsolete patriarchalism. Since, they maintain, power creates truth, new power structures will create new sexual mores based on mutuality.<ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/211schmidt.html THE HERMENEUTICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: RECENT TRENDS]</ref>

Opposing this is the traditionalist's argument that from the beginning, God is the author of male headship, and maintains it without abrogation in the New Testament. (Gn. 3:16; 1Tim. 2:12,13) 1 Cor 11:1-16 is a primary text in this regard, in response to which a modern argument contends that this positional distinction (not simply its expression) is culturally caused. This is traditionally dealt with by contextually showing that this distinction is based upon the creational, ontological distinction between man and the women, in which the man is the head of the women, like as the Father is the head of the Son, and Christ is the head of the church.<ref>Jamieson, Fausset and Brown; 1Cor. 11:3</ref><ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html ARE WOMEN PASTORS BIBLICAL?]</ref>

Line 176: Line 176:

: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.

Line 212: Line 212:

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</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 218: Line 218:

The prior homosexual argument relates to one that posits that some men are born homosexual, and thus marriage must be allowed for them.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref> This is countered by the traditional response which holds that premise for this is both unproven,<ref>Homosexuality By Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse</ref> and that it's logic is Biblically untenable. Traditionalist argue that that no sound evidence exists that proves that homosexuals were born that way, and though this may be possible, and certainly one individual may be more prone to one type of sin that another, yet this is irrelevant as the Biblical fact is that all mankind is born with a proclivity to sin, but this in no way justifies acting it out. (Romans 6, 7; 1John 2:6). Every day men must resist sexual desire if it would be immoral as contrary the Creator's laws, which are good and necessary. (Rm. 7:12) The logical end of the homosexual argument is also seen as allowing all innate proclivity to sin to justify acting it out, yet God commands man to resist sin and overcome it. (Gn. 4:7; Rm. 8; Gal. 5; Col. 3)

−

In summary, traditionalists evidence that all marriage in Scripture is based upon it's foundation in Genesis, in which God purposely created two different genders to be joined in a uniquely complementary and compatible sexual union, with distinctive positions patterned after the Divine order, for both procreational purposes as well as in sexual and non-sexual ways which transcend this. In contrast to homosexual attempts at eisegesis (2Pet. 3:16) nowhere is same-sex marriage evident or sanctioned, in principal or by precept. Rather, to join Adam (man) with one of his own (or an animal), is manifestly radically contrary to what God has specifically and transcendently ordained, by both design and decree. In the words of one apologist, as the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together" is exclusively defined as male and female, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4), this conclusion may be summed up as, "What therefore God has placed (sexually) asunder, let no man join together."<ref name=peacebyjesus>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html</ref>

+

In summary, traditionalists evidence that all marriage in Scripture is based upon it's foundation in Genesis, in which God purposely created two different genders to be joined in a uniquely complementary and compatible sexual union, with distinctive positions patterned after the Divine order, for both procreational purposes as well as in sexual and non-sexual ways which transcend this. In contrast to homosexual attempts at eisegesis (2Pet. 3:16) nowhere is same-sex marriage evident or sanctioned, in principal or by precept. Rather, to join Adam (man) with one of his own (or an animal), is manifestly radically contrary to what God has specifically and transcendently ordained, by both design and decree. In the words of one apologist, as the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together" is exclusively defined as male and female, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4), this conclusion may be summed up as, "What therefore God has placed (sexually) asunder, let no man join together."<ref name=peacebyjesus>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html]</ref>

== Genesis 19 ==

Line 238: Line 238:

===Grammatical contentions===

−

Two words focused upon in the attempt to remove homosexual abuse from Gn. 19 are "men" as in "the men of Sodom", and "know" as in "know them", which the men demanded Lot allow them to do regarding his guests. The first assertion is that the word for men used in Genesis 19:4, "'ĕnôsh" (Strong, #582), is not gender specific, but simply indicates mortals or people, and instead the word "'îysh" (or "eesh") (Strong, #376), would have been used in Gn. 19:4 if it specifically meant men.<ref>http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Sodom_and_Gomorrah</ref> However, upon examination of this and other word used for men, it is concluded that while 'ĕnôsh may often denote a multitude of people irrespective of gender, yet as it is used in cases where men are clearly the subject, it's use in Gn. 19:4 to denote men as the particular subject cannot be disallowed. In the continuing context, Lot goes outside and entreats his "brethren" (a word ("'âch," H251) that most often denotes males), saying, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly", and proceeds to offer them his two daughters "which have not known man" (v. 8). This they refuse, and they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door." But the men ('ĕnôsh) angels rescue him (vs. 4-11). Lot's address and the nature of his appeal and their violent reaction best indicates men in particular.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#19 Homosexual relations and the Bible Genesis 19]</ref>

+

Two words focused upon in the attempt to remove homosexual abuse from Gn. 19 are "men" as in "the men of Sodom", and "know" as in "know them", which the men demanded Lot allow them to do regarding his guests. The first assertion is that the word for men used in Genesis 19:4, "'ĕnôsh" (Strong, #582), is not gender specific, but simply indicates mortals or people, and instead the word "'îysh" (or "eesh") (Strong, #376), would have been used in Gn. 19:4 if it specifically meant men.<ref>http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Sodom_and_Gomorrah</ref> However, upon examination of this and other word used for men, it is concluded that while 'ĕnôsh may often denote a multitude of people irrespective of gender, yet as it is used in cases where men are clearly the subject, it's use in Gn. 19:4 to denote men as the particular subject cannot be disallowed. In the continuing context, Lot goes outside and entreats his "brethren" (a word ("'âch," H251) that most often denotes males), saying, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly", and proceeds to offer them his two daughters "which have not known man" (v. 8). This they refuse, and they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door." But the men ('ĕnôsh) angels rescue him (vs. 4-11). Lot's address and the nature of his appeal and their violent reaction best indicates men in particular.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#19 Homosexual relations and the Bible, Genesis 19]</ref>

The next word in contention, ''yâda‛'' (H3045) is more critical in determining the particular nature of the inhospitality of Sodom. While yâda‛ is used in many places in the Bible as a primary verb to denote sexually knowing a human, and its context here very strongly indicates a sexual knowing, most pro-homosexual apologists contend that since yada is used over 940 times to denote non-sexual knowing, then it's use here only denotes interrogation, albeit of a violent nature. Countering this is the response that states that both violent interrogation as well as the use of yâda‛ to denote gaining information by such means is absent in the Bible (though some assert that this is what "knew her, and abused her all the night" means in Jdg. 19:25, which is examined below). And in addition, that the use of "yâda” to denote gaining non-sexual personal knowledge by close contact with another person is exceedingly rare (Gn. 45:1), while "yada" is clearly used 14 times in the Old Testament, besides Gn. 19:4, and an equivalent word 2 times in the New, to denote knowing sexually: Gn. 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26 (premarital); Num. 31:17,18,35; Jdg. 11:39; 19:25; 21:11,12; 1Sam. 1:19; 1Ki. 1:4; cf. Mt. 1:25; Lk. 1:34. Another possible instance is one in which a non-consensual homosexual act is perceived by some, in Gn. 9:20-27 (v. 24)<ref>[http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html Holding, Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis]</ref>

Line 278: Line 278:

Jude is a book dealing with the manifestations and consequences of spiritual and moral declension, in contrast to the purity and power of the holy love of God. Verse 7 come after examples of men and angels who went backwards in rebellion against God, and suffered certain judgment, and which then declares, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (KJV)

−

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 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 ~~homosex~~ 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>

+

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 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>

Line 350: Line 350:

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

−

While most ~~prohomosex~~ polemicists admit that sexual moral codes are transcultural and transhistorical, attempts are made to find grammatical, categorical, cultural and motivatonal aspects that would disallow the injunctions which prohibit ~~homosex~~. These attempts here, as others, manifest a foundational position on the Bible contrary to its own statements relative to both its Divine inspiration and transcendent coherent moral relevance and authority. As stated by prohomsex author Richard Hasbany,

+

While most pro-homosexual polemicists admit that sexual moral codes are transcultural and transhistorical, attempts are made to find grammatical, categorical, cultural and motivatonal aspects that would disallow the injunctions which prohibit homosexual relations. These attempts here, as others, manifest a foundational position on the Bible contrary to its own statements relative to both its Divine inspiration and transcendent coherent moral relevance and authority. As stated by prohomsex author Richard Hasbany,

"Here again, two interpretive foundations are opposed, that of traditional Judaism which holds that the law of God as understood through the Talmudic literature is immutable, and ultimately higher than man's full comprehension (Ps. 40:5; 92:5), and those who hold that present Western values should influence man's moral interpretation of the Bible."<ref>Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, p. 50,51</ref> (cf. Dt. 12:8)

Line 399: Line 399:

As Lv. 18:22 declares homosexual relations between men to be an "abomination", Boswell and most other polemicists promoting such contend that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'', usually translated ''abomination'', seldom refers to something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft, but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or printing marks on one's flesh, or against mixed fabrics. Helminiak for instance, claims that tōʻēḇā, means "dirty" or "impure", and was wrong merely "because it offended sensitivities".<ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframehttp://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html Quoted in ''A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology'']</ref>

−

Rather than prohibiting same gender sex in general like other laws against illicit partners, Boswell and like revisionists generally assert that these Levitical injunctions against ~~homosex~~ (and even all the sins of Lv. 18 and 20) were only given to make Israel distinctive (akin to “team colors”), and only prohibit pagan temple prostitution. Or that they were concerned with the wasting of reproductive seed,<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> though even pro-homosexual author Robin A. Scroggs thinks these latter ideas are conjecture which is best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</ref>

+

Rather than prohibiting same gender sex in general like other laws against illicit partners, Boswell and like revisionists generally assert that these Levitical injunctions against homosexual relations (and even all the sins of Lv. 18 and 20) were only given to make Israel distinctive (akin to “team colors”), and only prohibit pagan temple prostitution. Or that they were concerned with the wasting of reproductive seed,<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> though even pro-homosexual author Robin A. Scroggs thinks these latter ideas are conjecture which is best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</ref>

Instead of tô‛êbah, Boswell asserts that the the Hebrew word ''zimmâh'' would have been used if the prohibitions of Lv. 18:22; were not a mere form of "ethnic contamination,",<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. p. 100</ref> like laws against unclean foods, or that of strange haircuts.

Line 433: Line 433:

Boswell and Helminiak look to the Greek [[Septuagint]] (LXX), an interpretive work of many Greek translators, for support here, arguing that its use of ''βδέλυγμα'' (''bdelygma'' or ''bdelugma'') in translating tōʻēḇā in Lv. 18:22 and other places,<ref>[http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=abomination&section=0&it=kjv&oq=Jer. 16:18&ot=lxx&nt=tr&new=1&nb=jer&ng=16&ncc=16 studylight.org; abomination]</ref> indicates that the Leviticus passage should be interpreted as a violation of ceremonial impurity. They further postulate that a Greek word, ''anomia'',<ref>[http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_618-20.htm preceptaustin.org]</ref> would likely be used if it were a violation of moral law<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp. 100-102</ref><ref>What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak, pp. 64-65</ref>

−

Countering this, James B. De Young and others show the inconsistency and invalidity of this argument in the light of more extensive research.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&printsec=toc&dq=online+lxx+bdelygma&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, pp. 65-69]</ref><ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#~~Linguistical~~ Homosexual relations and the Bible~~] See ''~~The Septuagint''</ref><ref>http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/homosexuality-an-abomination</ref>

+

Countering this, James B. De Young and others show the inconsistency and invalidity of this argument in the light of more extensive research.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&printsec=toc&dq=online+lxx+bdelygma&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, pp. 65-69]</ref><ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Septuagint1 Homosexual relations and the Bible; The Septuagint]</ref><ref>http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/homosexuality-an-abomination</ref>

Regarding ''anomia,'' 24 Hebrew words are seen to be variously rendered in the LXX as this, and while is a word that describes violations of law, it is most always used in a general sense, often like the Hebrew word ‛âvôn, and is rarely used to specify a particular sin, which in contrast is often the case with tōʻēḇā in the Torah. Yet anomia is used in many verses where tōʻēḇā later occurs in the Hebrew, and which iniquity is usually of a moral nature, such as illicit sex partners. (Eze. 8:6,9,13,17; 12:16; 16:2,47,51,58; 18:13,24; 20:4; 22:2; 23:36) As it is normally used in a general sense, when anomia is used in passages as Lv. 16:21; Is. 53:5, anomia is referring to all the transgressions of Israel, not simply those in the moral class. Yet in passages such as Lev. 22:16 it refers to things which Boswell and most traditionalists classify as mere ceremonial purity. To support his polemic, Boswell classifies idolatry, such as making idols to worship, or offering one's child as a literal sacrifice to a false god (Jer. 32:35; Boswell cites 2Ki. 16:3), as merely being part of ceremonial laws of separation, rather than being practices which are universally and immutably evil and forbidden, which the whole of the Bible testifies to. (1Cor. 10:20,21; Rv. 14:11) In contrast to prohomosex proponents, the traditionalist argument manifests that homosexual relations are not a corruption of a practice such as eating, for whereas the latter is contextually sanctioned, the sanctioned context for homosexual relations is (conspicuously) never established. As right worship is seen as being established by having the God of the Bible as its object, so likewise sanctified sexual relations is also seen to be established as being between eligible opposite genders, while homosexual relation is revealed as a consequence of making God into an image of one's own liking, formal or informal. (see [[Romans 1]])

Line 440: Line 440:

Another attempt to relegate Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to a unique cultic context is one that strives to attach a radical significance to the use of zakhar [H2145], which is the Hebrew word normally translated male/males throughout the OT, or the lesser used word for such, zekhur [H2138], by noting that in 90% of the occurrences it signifies those who have a special sacred significance (newborn sons, circumcised males, Levites, soldiers, sacrificial animals, returning exiles, etc.). By which he concludes that this signifies that the Levitical injunctions against homosex only pertains to sex with priests!<ref>http://epistle.us/hbarticles/zakhar1.html</ref>

−

+

−

In support of the traditional position,<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Zakhar</ref> it is evidenced that all Israelite males fell into a special class of people, while the only special significance the strictly gender specific words zakhar/zekhur most often provides is to differentiate between male and females in general, and, and therefore they are used for those in special classes of people. It is seen that the reason for the most prevalent use of zakhar within special classes of males is simply because that is most often the subject, from sacrificed animals to Jews returning from exile. While zakhar is used for the descendants of Levi, (Lv. 6:18,29) it is also used for Adam, (Gn. 1:27) and in contrast with Eve, (Gn. 5:2) and for all the men of Shechem, (Gn. 34:22,24,25) for Midianite males, (Num. 31:7,17,18,35; Jdg. 21:11) for idolatrous male images, (Ezek. 16:17) for male men of Manasseh, (Josh. 17:2) for slain male Edomites (1Ki. 11:15) for male children, (Lv. 12:2; Is. 66:7; Jer. 20:15) for fearful men, (Jer. 30:6) for circumscribed males, (Gn. 17:23), and for all the men of Israel, (Num. 1:2), as does zekhur (Ex. 23:17; Dt. 16:16) and for male enemies (Dt. 20:13) or male children (Ex. 34:23). Thus the pro-homosexual distinction is manifest as one which makes no difference in what the Levitical injunctions apply to. Moreover, in no place in Scripture are these words used to distinctly signify pagan male priests, with the common word for men ('îysh [H376]) being used for such. (Jdg 6:28,30; 1Ki 18:22)

+

In support of the traditional position,<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Zakhar Homosexual relations and the Bible; Zakhar ]</ref> it is evidenced that all Israelite males fell into a special class of people, while the only special significance the strictly gender specific words zakhar/zekhur most often provides is to differentiate between male and females in general, and, and therefore they are used for those in special classes of people. It is seen that the reason for the most prevalent use of zakhar within special classes of males is simply because that is most often the subject, from sacrificed animals to Jews returning from exile. While zakhar is used for the descendants of Levi, (Lv. 6:18,29) it is also used for Adam, (Gn. 1:27) and in contrast with Eve, (Gn. 5:2) and for all the men of Shechem, (Gn. 34:22,24,25) for Midianite males, (Num. 31:7,17,18,35; Jdg. 21:11) for idolatrous male images, (Ezek. 16:17) for male men of Manasseh, (Josh. 17:2) for slain male Edomites (1Ki. 11:15) for male children, (Lv. 12:2; Is. 66:7; Jer. 20:15) for fearful men, (Jer. 30:6) for circumscribed males, (Gn. 17:23), and for all the men of Israel, (Num. 1:2), as does zekhur (Ex. 23:17; Dt. 16:16) and for male enemies (Dt. 20:13) or male children (Ex. 34:23). Thus the pro-homosexual distinction is manifest as one which makes no difference in what the Levitical injunctions apply to. Moreover, in no place in Scripture are these words used to distinctly signify pagan male priests, with the common word for men ('îysh [H376]) being used for such. (Jdg 6:28,30; 1Ki 18:22)

===Additional arguments===

Daniel1212

Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit

2,414

edits