Changes

The interpretive conflict regarding [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is a relatively recent one, between two fundamentally different positions.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> Those who hold most strongly to the traditional position see the issue of homosex (also referred to as homoeroticism)<ref> homosexual erotic activity; same gender sexual relations</ref> being dealt with as part of the laws and doctrines on sexual partners which are universally and directly applicable in all cultural contexts from the time they were given. And in which the Bible establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was made for man (1Cor. 11:9), as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet," which no other physical creation could fulfill, with purposefully created complementary physical and positional distinctions which preclude fulfillment by same gender marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:1-12). And which sexual union God explicitly sanctioned by establishing marriage for (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 6:31), which is never established for same gender unions. But that such are excluded by design and by decrees, with gender unions being only condemned in places where they are explicitly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27)<ref>[http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/ THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY, by Kevin L. Howard]</ref>   In contrast, proponents of homosex and [[same-sex marriage]] render these laws and principals as being culturally or contextually bound, and perceive homoeroticism within close same gender relationships, such as between David and Jonathan. (1Sam. 18; 2Sam. 1) Many within the former camp see the revisionism of prohomosex polemicists as a manifestation of the attempts made from the beginning (Gn. 3:1-5) to both negate what God has commanded in the [[Bible]], as well as to otherwise drastically misconstrue it's meanings, often by  sophisticated forms of sophistry, while those within the latter camp often charge the former with ignorance, and being motivated by [[homophobia]]. 

The subject of [[homosexuality]] and the [[Bible]] is one which historically saw no controversy, as regards the universality of its injunctions against, and condemnation of, homosexual relations. However, beginning shortly before the sexual revolution of the 1960's and following, attempts have been made to negate the commands against homosexual relations, and to find sanction for the same. This interpretive conflict is one which is between two fundamentally different positions, these being the traditional/historical position and the latter revisionist, pro-homosexual view.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, "The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> Principal texts are [[Genesis]] 1:26,27;; 2:18-24; [[Leviticus 18]], and [[Romans 1]]. The religious conflict between the two positions by churches or individuals is typically manifest as correlating to their beliefs about the Bible, and usually parallels their positions on other issues which divide [[conservatives]] from [[liberals.]]<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec4 Revealing Statistics: Differences Between Denominations]</ref> {{Main|Homosexuality and Christianity}}

The study of homosexual apologetics progressively evidences that its revisionist school overall operates out a radically different exegetical basis than which enduring historical Biblical scholarship has evidenced as a whole, and which sees such revisionism as foundationally destructive (Psa 11:2-3). Alex D. Montoya<ref>Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at The Masters Seminary</ref> prefaces his essay on the subject at hand by stating,   

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

Abundant evidence exists which manifests that the revisionist school of homosexual [[apologetics]] operates out a radically different exegetical basis than which enduring historical Biblical scholarship has evidenced as a whole, and which sees such revisionism as foundationally faulty and aberrant. (Psa 11:2-3).<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoAuthorityScripture.pdf Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"]</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/211schmidt.html Thomas E. Schmidt, THE HERMENEUTICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: RECENT TRENDS]</ref>  As Lionel Windsor observes, the fundamental contention is about hermeneutics, about the interpretation and use of Scripture, in which two views are basically manifest.<ref>[http://www.lionelwindsor.net/bibleresources/topical/Bible_Homosexuality.htm The Bible and Homosexuality The Current Debate, by Lionel Windsor (2005])</ref>

 

 

Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoeroticism usually work from a strong adherence to the theological foundation of Biblical infallibility, in which God, as the author of [[Holy Scripture]], made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws for attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the consistent use of proven rules of interpretation ([[hermeneutics]]), and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that in particular it's spiritual and [[moral]] laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary forms, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed. In addition, historically Christian theologians have overall seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications were made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colossians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)<ref>The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen</ref>

 

In regards to the issue of sexual unions, this historical or traditional position, especially as substantiated by conservative Christians, holds that the Bible establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was created from man and for man, as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet". And that only this joining of two opposites halves is shown to be what God designed and decreed to make man (for those who so choose to marry) sexually complete, and which no other physical creation could fulfill. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6; 1Cor. 11:9; Eph. 5:31) And which purposefully created physical and positional complementary distinctions (1Cor. 11:1-12) precludes fulfillment by same gender unions. In addition, the explicit and abundant evidenced for the establishment of marriage for heterosexuals, by which sexual union is sanctified by God, is seen to stand in stark contrast to the lack of any establishment of marriage between "homosexuals". This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to the aforementioned foundational design and decrees of God.<ref>[http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/21.1_Taylor.pdf The Bible and Homosexuality by J. Glenn Taylor (Assoc. Prof. Of to at Wycliff College. U. of Toronto]</ref>

 

 

German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg stated, "[T]he biblical statements on this subject merely represent the negative corollary to the Bible's positive views on the creational purpose of men and women in their sexuality."<ref>[http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/32003b.asp One Flesh: Why Sodomy Can Never Depict the Relationship Between Christ and His Church, Agape Press]</ref>

 

 

Evangelical Bible scholar Greg Bahnsen<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~webpages54/ap/biobahn.html</ref> sums up the position of traditional Biblical exegesis in stating, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref>  In P. Michael Ukleja's summation, “Only towering cynicism can pretend that there is any doubt about what the Scriptures say about homosexuality. The Bible has not even the slightest hint of ambiguity about what is permitted or forbidden in this aspect of sexual conduct."<ref>“Homosexuality and the Old Testament,” BSAC 140 (July 1983): 259.</ref> Calvin Smith  concludes, "the  weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals,  have  led me  to  affirm  the traditional  view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>

Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoeroticism usually work from a strong adherence to the theological foundation of Biblical infallibility, in which God, as the author of [[Holy Scripture]], made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws for attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the use of proven rules of interpretation ([[hermeneutics]]), and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that it's [[moral]] laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed. In addition, historically Christian theologians have overall seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications are made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colossians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)<ref>The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen</ref> 

===Revisionist/pro-homosexual position===

As relates to homosexuality, and in particular homoerotic relations, consistent with the [[conservative]] position that God  made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are seen as universal and transcendent. In examining such they are able to abundantly and consistently evidence that from the beginning all sexual relations outside marriage were and are categorized as fornication (1Cor. 7:2). And as regards homosexuality, that the explicit sanction of '''heterosexual''' relations by marriage stands in contrast to the lack of any establishment for such sanction between '''homosexuals'''. This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to God's design and decrees, in which only the women was created from man and for man, in order to make man sexually complete, being uniquely complementary and compatible to that end, and is alone sexually joined to him in marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6 1 Cor. 11:8-9). In addition, in the places where homoerotic relations are explicitly dealt with, it is only condemned, with these injunctions being universal in scope not simply applicable to certain cultural conditions or behavioral conditions.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon]</ref><ref>Straight or Narrow? Sexuality from the Beginning, Thomas E.Schmidt</ref>  As evangelical Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref> Calvin Smith objectively concludes, "the weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals,  have  led me  to  affirm  the  traditional  view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>

Pro-homosexual seeking to negate the universally enjoined Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations most attempt to relegate such to only a formal cultic context, or to [[pederasty]], or to heterosexuals acting contrary to the orientation. In addition, the homosexual intent of the Sodomites in Gn. 19 (cf. Jdg. 19) and Jude 1:7 are usually contended against, while homosexuality is asserted to be taking place in the stories of most any close heterosexual relationship in the Bible.

In contrast, those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture must view the Bible as a book that allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, and allows a much broader range of interpretation of basic moral commands and their immutability, even to the point of such being determining by contemporary cultural morality. Pastor Joseph P. Gudel notes, "It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God...Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject - or even ridicule - the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture."<ref>Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref> While the issue of homosexuality and the Bible does involve certain texts which  necessitate some deep examination, in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism and to wrest sanction for the same, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists would also effectively work to negate most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Much effort is expended seeking to relegate the universally enjoined Biblical injunctions against homosex to only a formal cultic context, or pederasty, or to heterosexuals acting contrary to the orientation, while forcing homosexuality into most any close heterosexual relationship. Writers of holy writ are sometimes essentially deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid, thus impugning the Divine inspiration of Scripture, as well as demonstrable sound exegesis.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref>  This effect may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism.]]

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

Primary homosexual apologists, such as Professor Walter Wink, view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic, especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”.  Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that supersedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) This requires that the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible must yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm "No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon]</ref> Likewise, pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs concludes, “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, advocated removing them from the canon as "dangerous".<ref>http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman concludes, “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> This inversion of Biblical morality is evidenced as being contrary to how the Bible was written and reads, and is commanded to be obeyed, with homosex being revealed to be a manifestation of idolatry, that of spiritually making the God of the Bible into an image more to one's own liking. (cf. Rm. 1:23)

Another solution to the problem of the universal condemnation of and lack of sanction for homosexual relations is that of Professor Walter Wink, who concedes, "I have long insisted that the issue is one of  hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are  deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is  negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." And that "Paul wouldn't accept [a loving homosexual] relationship for a minute." However, he and similar revisionists view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”.  Instead,such hold that people possess a right to sex that supersedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love..<ref>Walter Wink, "To hell with gays" and "the Bible and homosexuality"</ref>  (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) It is understood that this enables the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible to yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm "No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon]</ref>  

== Principal Sources ==

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>

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 lesser know writers who usually reiterate their polemics. The revisionist scholar who is primarily noted for first advancing their novel view (1955), was the Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey. In addition to him, perhaps the basic primary source for most of the main pro homosexual polemics 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, with one of his last books being, "Dante and the Sodomites" (1994). Boswell died of complications from AIDS on December 24, 1994, at age 47. 

In response to the various forms of pro-homosexual revisionism, Pastor Joseph P. Gudel notes, "It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God...Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject - or even ridicule - the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture."<ref>Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref>

It is noted that most of the prohomosex 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. Conservatives see 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)

Likewise, Dr. Albert Mohler<ref>Master of Divinity and Ph.D. in "Systematic and Historical Theology;" president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky</ref> describes pro-homsex polemics as contending that “either the biblical texts do not proscribe homosexuality...or the texts do proscribe homosexuality, but are oppressive, heterosexist, and patriarchal in themselves, and thus must be rejected or radically re-interpreted in order to remove the scandal of oppression.” He goes on to conclude that, “The passages are not merely re-interpreted in light of clear historical-grammatical exegesis - - they are subverted and denied by implication and direct assault.”<ref>Fact Sheet on Homosexuality, http://www.lifeway.com</ref>

Among evangelical responses to the above the foremost contributor is Robert A. J. Gagnon,<ref>Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. B.A. degree from Dartmouth College; M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School; Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. http://www.robgagnon.net</ref> ("The Bible and Homosexual Practice") though he is neither a full Biblical fundamentalist or inerrantist, and in that regard is somewhat like his counterparts. Adding to his numerous and extensive reproofs of pro homosexual claims<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm</ref> is Thomas E Schmidt<ref>Professor of New Testament Greek at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California</ref> ("Straight and Narrow?"),  Guenther Haas<ref>Associate Professor of Religion and Theology at Redeemer College</ref> ("Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice),  James B. de Young <ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon</ref> (Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law), Dave Miller Ph.D. (“Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?"), apologist James Patrick Holding<ref>Tektonic.org</ref> ("Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?", and other apologists.

Alex D. Montoya<ref>Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at The Masters Seminary</ref> concurs, prefacing his essay on the subject at hand by stating,   

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, which was used within the field of personality taxonomy, and which could be used to denote any same gender environment, in now used almost exclusively in regards to sexual attraction and it's activity. This is as yet unsatisfactory, as such use lacks the distinction between nonsexual 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. As most of this article deals with the sexual practice of homosexuals, the term homoeroticism or  homoerotic activity will usually be used. Sodomy might normally have been, but this originally defined a temple prostitute. ("Sodom" itself is derived from the word "scorch," or "burnt".)

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.

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

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

(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."'

(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 primarily subjected to prohomosexual revisionism fall into two categories, that of those which prohibit or condemn homosex, in principal or by precept, and those into which sanction for it is alleged, and aptly enough, (Gn. 3:1-5) this begins in Genesis. Beginning in Gn. 2, attempts are made by pro homosexual apologists to negate God's choice to uniquely join man and women together, in order to read into Scripture an allowance for marriage between same genders (and which, by implication, would also include animals). However, it is evident that the specific cause for creating opposite genders was to join them sexually in marriage. 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>  

The Biblical texts which are primarily the subject of homoerotic 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>

 

 

 

 

 

The Lord Jesus affirmed this opposite gender union in Matthew 19:  

(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."''''

(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, with the ''what'' of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 being distinctly stated as being the union of the male with his female counterpart. It is therefore seen that it is only this union which is established and consistently confirmed and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God. "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>

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is specified only as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently stated and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God, being based upon the creational foundation of Genesis.  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. “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 and Delitzsch</ref> 

Robert J. Gagnon argues

In contrast to the explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage,  proponents of homosex contend that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists 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."  To which Donald D. Binder responds, "Absent entirely from his discussion, is the point that Jesus himself did not interpret the passage etiologically, but normatively (Mark 10:5-9, Matt 19:4-6), providing an ethical basis for the institution of monogamous, heterosexual marriage in the subsequent teachings of the Church<ref>[http://www.pohick.org/gc2000letter.html A Letter to the Bishops and Deputies of the

Genesis 2:18-24 portrays an originally binary human split down the side into two sexually differentiated counterparts. Clearly, marriage is imaged as a reconstitution, into “one flesh,” of the two constituent parts, male and female, that were the products of the splitting. One’s sexual “other half” can only be a person of the other sex. Men and women are complementary sexual beings whose (re-)merger brings about sexual wholeness in the sphere of erotic interaction.<ref>Gagnon’s response to Prof. L. William Countryman’s review in Anglican theological review: on careful scholarship. Though Gagnon holds to the problematic JEDP theory, his analysis is overall good</ref>

73rd General Convention] Chaplain Donald D. Binder, PhD Adjunct Professor of New Testament, Southern Methodist University</ref>

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>  To suppose that the Designer created man to be sexually joined with one of his own, and with the life giving seed being deposited into the orifice of man designed only for waste to come out is itself a supreme insult to God and His power, and His precepts.<ref> Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt https://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45768</ref> However, to relegate the purpose of opposite gender marriage to being simply for procreation is found to be 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> This joining is 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 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>

That the women is not only supremely and uniquely designed to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html</ref> This sanctity of sex within marriage without emphasis upon procreation is also indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:7,8,24-43), but marriage between man and women is presented as the alternative to fornication, and conjugal relations are 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 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>  To suppose that the Designer created man to be sexually joined with one of his own, and with the life giving seed being deposited into the orifice of man designed only for waste to come out, is itself seen to be a supreme insult to God and His power, and His precepts.<ref> Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt https://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45768</ref> Yet it is also held that relegating 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> This joining is seen 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 transcendent exclusivity of marriage being between male and female is seen from beginning of the Bible and throughout, 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, in all of the Bible there exists no evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “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>

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>

An attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage, though that word is never used for marriage between humans, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. The attempt to argue that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it is readily seen as possessing the same amount of legitimacy as saying that marriage between man and certain animals, or between man and rocks must be allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. The reality is that they need not be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly, and consistently specifies who is joined together in marriage, and designed them that way, and abundantly confirms only the union between the male and female as sanctified, and unconditionally prohibits men laying with men as with women (Lv. 18:22), which “cleaving” is intractably part of God's description of marriage.

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>

Jame B. De Young,<ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon,</ref> in “Homosexuality,” writes, “ 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.”

Jame B. De Young, in “Homosexuality,” writes, “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.”

Robert J. Gagnon states, 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>

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 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 intractably part of God's description of marriage.  

=== 1 Corinthians 11 ===

=== 1 Corinthians 11 ===