Changes

Gal. 3:28 is used in pro-homosex argumentation, to negate the ontological argument against homomarriage,<ref>Walter Brueggemann, Lisa Miller, ref. in "More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus", (Gagnon) http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm</ref> while historical exegesis has held that while all believers are spiritually one in Christ regardless of sexual and racial distinctions, and in the spiritual age to come even sexual unions will not exist between the elect, (Lk. 20:34-36) yet it is also evident that this spiritual oneness does not negate positional/functional differences, (Heb. 13:17) including those based upon creational distinctions (1Cor. 11:1-3; Eph. 5:22-25; 1Pt. 3:1-7) or the effects of the Fall. (1Tim. 2:9-15)<ref>Albert Barnes, John Gill, 1Cor. 11:3; 14:34; 1Tim. 2:8-11</ref><ref>"saved in childbearing" does not imply salvation due to works, but by obedient faith in Christ, which was/is to be usually/generally expressed by women in raising children and maintaining the home. In other places Paul commends those who helped Paul and others in the gospel work, (Rm. 16:1,2ff; Phil. 4:3) in addition to encouraging celibacy in singleness if so called.</ref>

Gal. 3:28 is used in pro-homosex argumentation, to negate the ontological argument against homomarriage,<ref>Walter Brueggemann, Lisa Miller, ref. in "More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus", (Gagnon) http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm</ref> while historical exegesis has held that while all believers are spiritually one in Christ regardless of sexual and racial distinctions, and in the spiritual age to come even sexual unions will not exist between the elect, (Lk. 20:34-36) yet it is also evident that this spiritual oneness does not negate positional/functional differences, (Heb. 13:17) including those based upon creational distinctions (1Cor. 11:1-3; Eph. 5:22-25; 1Pt. 3:1-7) or the effects of the Fall. (1Tim. 2:9-15)<ref>Albert Barnes, John Gill, 1Cor. 11:3; 14:34; 1Tim. 2:8-11</ref><ref>"saved in childbearing" does not imply salvation due to works, but by obedient faith in Christ, which was/is to be usually/generally expressed by women in raising children and maintaining the home. In other places Paul commends those who helped Paul and others in the gospel work, (Rm. 16:1,2ff; Phil. 4:3) in addition to encouraging celibacy in singleness if so called.</ref>

=== Eunuchs and exegesis ===

=== Eunuchs and Exegesis ===

(Mt. 19:9-12)  "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. {10} His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. {11} But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. {12} For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

(Mt. 19:9-12)  "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. {10} His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. {11} But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. {12} For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

However, some homo apologists here , in what may be seen as an extreme example of exegetical sophistry, postulate or assert that at least some some of the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals, and controvert “all cannot receive this saying” (v. 11) to refer to the uniqueness of the male/female union of Gn. 2, and so conclude, “Jesus did not prohibit same sex marriage for born eunuchs”, asserting they are “exempt from the Adam and Eve style, heterosexual marriage paradigm”. Then, enlisting 1Cor. 1:8,9, and subjecting Scripture to man's wisdom (stating abstinence is unreasonable), the pro homosexual apologist reasons that marriage must be allowed for them <ref>Homosexual Eunuchs, Rick Brentlinger</ref>  

However, some homo apologists here , in what may be seen as an extreme example of exegetical sophistry, postulate or assert that at least some some of the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals, and controvert “all cannot receive this saying” (v. 11) to refer to the uniqueness of the male/female union of Gn. 2, and so conclude, “Jesus did not prohibit same sex marriage for born eunuchs”, asserting they are “exempt from the Adam and Eve style, heterosexual marriage paradigm”. Then, enlisting 1Cor. 1:8,9, and subjecting Scripture to man's wisdom (stating abstinence is unreasonable), the pro homosexual apologist reasons that marriage must be allowed for them <ref>Homosexual Eunuchs, Rick Brentlinger</ref>  

While it may be true that sometimes eunuchs who were considered to have been born that way could procreate,<ref>Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young</ref><ref>Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1998, Book XXIII.3.39.1</ref> and of which some, in pagan nations, may have been sexually active homosexuals,<ref>Faris Malik, Eunuchs are Gay Men</ref> and not simply asexual, yet Israel was not to be like other nations (Lv. 18:24,27), and to suppose that Jesus is referring to congenitally determined homosexual behavior and sanctioning such is neither warranted here or elsewhere.<ref>Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D [http:www.robgagnon.net/articles/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf]</ref> Not only in Scripture but every  extant "piece of evidence that we have about Jewish views of same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond is unremittingly hostile to such behavior.<ref>The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref><ref>[ http://www.robgagnon.net/2VOnlineNotes.htm Gagnon, Notes to Gagnon’s Essay in the Gagnon-Via Two Views Book]</ref>  

In favor of the traditional position, it is understood that the Hebrew word for "eunuch" can also refer to such men as the officer of Pharaoh who was married, or an officer over men of war.<ref>http://www.themoorings.org/prophecy/Daniel1/less1.html</ref> (Gn. 39:1ff; 2King. 25:19) But while it may be possible that sometimes eunuchs who were considered to have been born that way could procreate,<ref>Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young</ref><ref>Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1998, Book XXIII.3.39.1</ref> and of which some, in pagan nations, may have been sexually active homosexuals,<ref>Faris Malik, Eunuchs are Gay Men</ref> and not simply asexual, yet Israel was not to be like other nations (Lv. 18:24,27), and to suppose that Jesus is referring to congenitally determined homosexual behavior and sanctioning such is neither warranted here or elsewhere.<ref>Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D [http:www.robgagnon.net/articles/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf]</ref> Not only in Scripture but every  extant "piece of evidence that we have about Jewish views of same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond is unremittingly hostile to such behavior.<ref>The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref><ref>[ http://www.robgagnon.net/2VOnlineNotes.htm Gagnon, Notes to Gagnon’s Essay in the Gagnon-Via Two Views Book]</ref>  

In addition, traditional exegesis shows the idea of homosexual eunuchs itself to be irrelevant, and the untenable nature of the pro homosexual apologist argument to be evident from the beginning and throughout.   

Using established means of exegesis, it is argued that the idea of homosexual eunuchs itself is irrelevant, and the untenable nature of the pro homosexual apologist argument is evident from the beginning and throughout.   

Mt. 19:3-12 reveals Jesus restoring the original standard for marriage, referencing back to it's institution in Gn. 2, and in which He affirms that the “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” is the unique union of one man for one women for life, except that the fornication clause may negate it's permanence, but which clause itself reaffirms that sex outside marriage is sin (cf. 1Cor. 7:2). Hearing the narrowness of the original standard, the disciples react that it is not good to get married. Jesus response is in recognition of the validity this statement, insofar as not all men can receive (or submit) to the disciples expressed conclusion, but only those to whom it is given, whom Jesus calls eunuchs, which refers to both physical and spiritual ones. This perfectly correlates to what the Holy Spirit establishes under the New Covenant, in which “every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that” in 1Cor. 7:7, in context referring to being either married or single and celibate. "Although marriage was normally expected of Jewish people, Jesus here acknowledged the value of a single life that includes abstinence, without making celibacy the norm for Christians."<ref>[http://www.augsburgchurches.org/Library/BibleSexualBoundaries.htm, The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester] See also Robert H. Smith, Matthew (Augsburg New Testament Commentary; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 229-230</ref>  

Mt. 19:3-12 reveals Jesus restoring the original standard for marriage, referencing back to it's institution in Gn. 2, and in which He affirms that the “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” is the unique union of one man for one women for life, except that the fornication clause may negate it's permanence, but which clause itself reaffirms that sex outside marriage is sin (cf. 1Cor. 7:2). Hearing the narrowness of the original standard, the disciples react that it is not good to get married. Jesus response is in recognition of the validity this statement, insofar as not all men can receive (or submit) to the disciples expressed conclusion, but only those to whom it is given, whom Jesus calls eunuchs, which refers to both physical and spiritual ones. This perfectly correlates to what the Holy Spirit establishes under the New Covenant, in which “every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that” in 1Cor. 7:7, in context referring to being either married or single and celibate. "Although marriage was normally expected of Jewish people, Jesus here acknowledged the value of a single life that includes abstinence, without making celibacy the norm for Christians."<ref>[http://www.augsburgchurches.org/Library/BibleSexualBoundaries.htm, The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester] See also Robert H. Smith, Matthew (Augsburg New Testament Commentary; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 229-230</ref>  

The pro homosexual polemic controverts this, asserting that what Jesus was referencing to (“this saying”) was the ''kind'' of marriage, that being between male and female, to negate it's exclusivity as a type, when instead Jesus was referring to  the ''disciple's conclusion'' which had become the issue in response to the ''permanence'' of marriage, that being single was to be preferred. The homosexual polemic next supposes that the avocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must sanction same gender marriage, but fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage, it is only the male and female who can be joined in marriage here, and not to anyone or anything contrary to what God has joined, nor to unscripturally separate what He has. The sanction of marriage here 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 should be added here that this does not necessarily infer that this condition does not pertain to persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others, but that, like the passionate Paul, these, once cognizant of the truth regarding such, 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).

The pro homosexual polemic controverts this, asserting that what Jesus was referencing to (“this saying”) was the ''kind'' of marriage, that being between male and female, to negate it's exclusivity as a type, when instead Jesus was referring to  the ''disciple's conclusion'' which had become the issue in response to the ''permanence'' of marriage, that being single was to be preferred. The homosexual polemic next supposes that the avocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must sanction same gender marriage, but fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage, it is only the male and female who can be joined in marriage here, and not to anyone or anything contrary to what God has joined, nor to unscripturally separate what He has. The sanction of marriage here 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 should be added here that this does not necessarily infer that this condition does not pertain to persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others, but that, like the passionate Paul, these, once cognizant of the truth regarding such, 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).

The homosexual apologist knows that there is no advocation of any same gender marriage, and thus employs another specious polemical tactic, which asserts that since that Jesus did not say that eunuchs must be celibate, that door is still open. Such an argument is seen to have a validity similar to saying that since God never commanded that man cannot marry a gorilla, than that may be a option. Also similar is an example using another law of purpose, that as Gn. 9:3 God states man's need for food (sustenance) was to be fulfilled by plants and animals, and then this eliminates a diet of the flesh of man, no matter how much one might crave it, though it is not expressly forbidden. Hypothetically one might argue that as pre-consensual cannibalism is not explicitly forbidden, then it might be practiced. And words (Gn. 49:27; Est 9:24 cf. Jer. 15:3) might possibly be contrived to approve such by extreme revisionists. But while cannibalism may be seen as allowable by some in life or death circumstances, which sex is not, yet it could never be allowed as a practice, as it is contrary in principal to what God established.</ref> The pro-homosex polemic does not negate the fact that the Bible only establishes marriage as between opposite genders, and wherever it explicitly deals with same gender sex then it condemns it. And that when the New Testament deals with those whom the disciples saying (Mt. 19:10) applies, then it evidences it only as celibacy. (1Cor. 7:2,7,32-37) This precludes any need for an explicit statement such as “eunuchs are not to be married.”  Rather, it is such an explicit statement and clear example sanctioning same sex marriage that the pro-homosex polemic needs, but such cannot be seen anywhere, or derived by forcing sex into passages that it does not belong in.   

While the homosexual apologist cannot provide any establishment of any same gender marriage, another polemical tactic is sometimes employed, which asserts that since that Jesus did not say that eunuchs must be celibate, that door is still open. To a traditionalist such an argument can be seen to have a validity similar to saying that since God never commanded that man cannot marry gorillas, then this may be a option. Or in a example using another law of purpose, that as Gn. 9:3 God states man's need for food (sustenance) was to be fulfilled by plants and animals, then this eliminates a diet of the flesh of man, no matter how much one might crave it. But consistent with the pro-homosex hermeneutic used here, hypothetically one might argue that as consensual (agreed to before hand) cannibalism is not explicitly forbidden, then it might be practiced. (Certain texts (Gn. 49:27; Est 9:24 cf. Jer. 15:3) might even possibly be contrived to approve such by extreme revisionists). But while cannibalism may be seen as allowable by some in life or death circumstances, which sex is not, yet it could never be allowed as a practice, as it is contrary in principal to what God established.</ref> Likewise homosex, which offers to conditional sanction. As the Bible only establishes marriage as between opposite genders, and wherever it explicitly deals with same gender sex then it condemns it, and as the New Testament, when dealing with those whom the disciples saying (Mt. 19:10) applies, evidences it only as celibacy, (1Cor. 7:2,7,32-37) then this precludes any need for an explicit statement such as “eunuchs are not to be married.”  Rather, it is such an explicit statement and clear example sanctioning same sex marriage that the pro-homosex polemic needs, but such cannot be seen anywhere, or derived by forcing sex into passages that it does not belong in.   

An additional argument used in seeking to negate the exclusivity of opposite gender marriage, is to assert that different types of marriage are allowed in Scripture, which is true, such as polygamy and concubines (a type of an economical wife, but a wife nonetheless). However, these were types of the original union, and they actually stand as an argument against same gender marriage, as in all manifest cases of sanctioned marriage, they are all between male and female counterparts, even though Solomon had 700 of the latter. In Mt. 19:3-8, Jesus revealed that in the Old Testament God allowed a degree of broadness as regards the number of wives and the permanence of it, in condescension to their carnality, yet in bringing it back to it's original standard Jesus distinctly stated it was male and female which God joined together.

An additional argument used in seeking to negate the exclusivity of opposite gender marriage, is to assert that different types of marriage are allowed in Scripture, which is true, such as polygamy and concubines (a type of an economical wife, but a wife nonetheless). However, these were types of the original union, and they actually stand as an argument against same gender marriage, as in all manifest cases of sanctioned marriage, they are all between male and female counterparts, even though Solomon had 700 of the latter. In Mt. 19:3-8, Jesus revealed that in the Old Testament God allowed a degree of broadness as regards the number of wives and the permanence of it, in condescension to their carnality, yet in bringing it back to it's original standard Jesus distinctly stated it was male and female which God joined together.