Homosexuality and biblical interpretation

The interpretive conflict regarding homosexuality and the Bible is a relatively recent one, between two fundamentally different positions. Those who hold most strongly to the traditional position see the issue of homosex (also referred to as homoeroticism) 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) 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.

Foundational Issues

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 prefaces his essay on the subject at hand by stating,

“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.”

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. (Colosians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)

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. 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." 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.

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." 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. 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 supercedes 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) Likewise, pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs concludes, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.” 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". Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman concludes, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . . bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.” 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)

Principal Sources

Sources of pro homosexual interpretations are abundant, such as former Jesuit priest John J. McNeill, Robin Scroggs, Episcoplian Professor L. William Countryman, Roman Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak, 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.

It is noted that most of the prohomosex polemicists (charged with "turning the grace of God into lasciviousness": Jude 1:4) 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)

Among evangelical responses to the above the foremost contributor is Robert A. J. Gagnon, ("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 is Thomas E Schmidt ("Straight and Narrow?"), Guenther Haas ("Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice), James B. de Young (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 ("Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?", and other apologists.

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, 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".)

Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women

Otherwise knows as complementarian position.

(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.

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."'

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."

In contrast to the preceding and other explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, is the homosexual proponent's idea 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. However, this relegation of the purpose of marriage to being simply for procreation, or dependent upon such, and it's desired conclusions are found to be untenable. Instead, what Scripture reveals is that God 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", the joining of which is God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20). The physical compatibility of the female with her unique procreational ability itself stands in clear contrast to same gender unions, and is what Judaism's traditional opposition to homosexuality is primarily based upon. To suppose that the Designer created man to be sexually joined with one of his own, and with the life giving seed being injected into the orifice of man designed only for waste to comes out, is itself a supreme insult to God and His power, and his precepts. That women are not only revealed to be supremely and uniquely designed for sexual union with the male and the life-giving purpose of procreation within marriage, but to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, to the glory of God, is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon. 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 .

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.” An attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage (dealt with later), 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 animals, or between man and rocks must be allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. The facts are 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.

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.

1 Corinthians 11

1Cor. 11:1-12 explicitly confirms the unique bond of man and women in marriage, which is contrary to same sex unions:

"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)

While some attempt to make this positional distinction culturally caused, the context reveals that this is based upon a 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. While positional distinctions themselves do not require opposite genders (and sexual unions do not exist in the spiritual realm, nor can any absence of sexual distinctions therein negate those established by God in the physical realm), the reason for the male headship over the women is directly due to her being created from the man:

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man." (1Cor 11:8)

Same gender unions are foundationally contrary to this, while it is next explicitly stated that it was the women who was created for the man:

"Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (v.9)

This statement of purpose hearkens back to Gn. 2:18-24, in which, after making it apparent that no other earthly creation was fitting, the women was created out of to be man's “helpmeet”, that as is uniquely abundantly manifest throughout the Bible, by design and decree she is his uniquely compatible and complementary mate in marriage, in more ways than only the procreative aspect. "It is only in the heterosexual union of marriage that we find the fulfillment of God's intended order, both procreative and unitive." Gudel,"That Which is Unnatural"

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."

To join man with man in contrary to this unique union in marriage between opposite genders, in which both genders hold distinctive roles due to their creation differences, both in position, overall paracletal purpose and procreation.

Celibacy, Polygamy, and Procreation

While is it not a command that all men be sexually joined, the only other alternative is celibacy, as seen in the only alternative to fornication being marriage:

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1Cor 7:2)

Note that here again only man and women are joined in marriage, with "husband" and "wife" denoting just that. The exhortation to celibacy in singleness (1Cor 7:7,8,25-35) is 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, and in no way abrogates the restriction of sexual relations to being only between opposite genders in marriage.

Some seek to render the complementarian position to make single persons less human, but such is not case. Rather, just as it is evident under the New Testament that marriage is not universally mandated, it is clear that what is joined together in marriage is opposite genders, which makes man sexually complete, while singleness is an holy an option in it's own right, but which requires celibacy.

Nor does the fact that polygamous marriages were allowed in the Old Testament (even concubines were wives: Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3) in any way allow same sex marriages, as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife, yet even an excess of wives is in keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, and only violates it in the number of female wives, not their gender.

McNeill and others attempt to force marriage under the New Testament to include homosexuals due to its lower priority upon procreation, and emphasis upon essential oneness of all races in Christ. (Gal. 3:28) However, the Bible explicitly honors romantic and erotic love between a man and his female spouse in the Song of Solomon, and otherwise reveals the marriage bond as being far more than for procreation, as the women's uniqueness as the helpmeet of the man transcends that aspect (although again, this is by no means a minor one, and which itself excludes same sex unions). And while under the New Covenant, physical procreation is not seen as having the priority evidenced in the Old Testament, yet not only is the unique union of man and women in marriage affirmed, and that sexual union only, but rather than long term sexual abstinence in marriage being promoted (or sex only as part of procreation), regular benevolent conjugal relations are actually enjoined, which are based upon to the depth of the ordained marriage union (1Cor. 7:3-5; Heb. 13:4).

As regards the principal behind Gal. 3:28, while all believers are 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) 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. 11-15)

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."

Here Jesus refers to three ways in which men become eunuchs. From the Jewish perspective the first would be those who were born without the ability to procreate, exhibiting a mutilation of human nature, and possibly those who were asexual. The second were those who likewise could not procreate due to men making them that way. Mathew is writing to the Jews, and these eunuchs find their Old Testament reference in Dt. 23:1, where such persons were forbidden from (at least) the Temple service (cf. Lv. 21:17-24). The second means is also confirmed in Isaiah 39:7, which foretells some Israelites being made eunuchs by the Babylonians, as part of Israel's punishment.

The last case of eunuchs are those who purposely choose to be single and celibate, as referred to in 1 Cor. 7:7,32-35, in order to better attend to the things that most directly pertain to the kingdom of God. Among the Essenes there were examples of this. But celibacy within marriage is actually forbidden by 1Cor. 7:5. (Note: The early church leader Origen castrated himself, literally following Matthew 19:12, perhaps to remove any hint of scandal as he taught young women their catechism. He later came to see his action as ill-advised and not to be taken as an example.)

However, here some homo apologists, in an evident and extreme example of egregious 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

While it may be true that sometimes eunuchs who were considered to have been born that way could procreate, of which some, in pagan nations, were sexually active homosexuals, 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. Not only in Scripture but in every other extant piece of evidence about Jewish views on same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond shows them to be consistently hostile to such behavior. Yet even the presumed homosexuality of eunuchs will be shown to be irrelevant, and the absurdity and invalidity of the pro homosexual apologist argument is evident from the outset and throughout.

In the broader context of Mt. 19:3-12, Jesus has just restored 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). The explicit exclusivity of this uniquely sanctioned marriage is what the homosexual apologist labors to negate. Hearing the narrowness of the original standard, the disciples react that it is not good to get married. Jesus response is an implicit affirmation of this statement (cf. Mt. 16:13-17; Mk. 7:28,29; 15:2), in that not all men can receive (or submit) to their expressed alternative to the narrow way of marriage, 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” (1Cor. 7:7), in context referring to being either married or single and celibate.

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 that being single was to be preferred, which had become the issue, in the light of the high standard of marriage commitment, that being it's permanence. 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 male and female who are to be joined in marriage here, and who are legally free to marry, and not to anyone who so desires. 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, as many Christians who have chosen that state can testify, 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 in regards to union, but that, like the passionate Paul, these can happily keep their body under subjection (1Cor. 9:27) as they seek and serve the LORD, who Himself was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).

The homosexual apologist knows that there no avocation 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. Yet such an argument has about as much validity as saying that God never said you cannot marry a gorilla. Or, in another example of the law of purpose, in Gn. 9:3 God states man's need for food (sustenance, not medicine) was to be fulfilled by plants and animals, which eliminates cement as sustenance, no matter how much one might hypothetically crave it, though it is not expressly forbidden. But as this also does not explicitly forbid “Christian cannibalism” as a way of life (as long as the subjects consented, the blood was drained, and were well cooked), then to be consistent, pro homosexual polemicists could argue for this as a lifestyle. The facts are that the Bible only establishes marriage as between opposite genders, and wherever it explicitly deals with same gender sex then it condemns it. And 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) The precludes any need for an explicit statement such as “eunuchs are not to be married.” Rather, it is such an explicit statement sanctioning same sex marriage is what is needed, but such cannot be seen anywhere, or derived by forcing sex into passages it does not belong.

Another tactic 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, these 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 Moses a degree of broadness as regards to 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, and it is that union which alone is explicitly and abundantly affirmed throughout Scripture.

In conclusion, rather than introducing a radical new concept of marriage, to which the rest of Scripture nowhere attests, the LORD instead reaffirmed the original unique union of opposite genders, with the women being distinctively created for the man (1Cor. 11:9), physically and otherwise, with differing but complementary positions based upon creational (not cultural) distinctions (1Cor. 11:3, 8-12), the with Jesus also restoring the permanence of that bound. 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).

As seen in Acts 8:26-40, eunuchs could be saved through repentance and faith in LORD Jesus, but this does not sanction homoeroticism, rather it requires repentance from all forms of fornication. Under the Old Testament one who was castrated was an outcast, and being made a eunuch was demeaning, while under the New Covenant nothing physical excludes one from being part of the kingdom. But practicing immoral behavior does (1Jn) as it denies the faith, and thus the redeemed included those were formerly “effeminate” (1Cor. 6:9-11).

Proclivity and permission polemic

The prior homosexual argument relates to one that posits that some men are born homosexual, and thus marriage must be allowed for them. The premise for this is both unproven, and it's logic is untenable. No sound evidence exists to prove that homosexuals were born that way, though this may be possible, and certainly one individual may be more prone to one type of sin that another. However, 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 that all innate proclivity to sin justifies acting it out, but God told Cain that he could resist sin. (Gn. 4:7), and commands us to resist sin and overcome it, and shows us how. (Rm. 8; 12)

In summary, 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. What therefore God has placed (sexually) asunder, let no man join together.

Genesis 19

The story really begins in Genesis 13, in which Abraham and Lot have too many livestock for their present land, and Abraham, seeking peace, offers Lot the first pick as to what land he shall choose. Lot sees and chooses the then verdant plain of Sodom. But the sober note of Scripture is, "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly." (Gen 13:13). Later in chapter 18, the LORD and two angels visit Abraham in the plains of Mamre, appearing as men, with the two angels being sent on a mission of investigation and judgment to Sodom. Understanding the nature of judgment, Abraham most reverently intercedes for Lot and his kin, and is assured by God that even if there remains at little as 10 righteous souls in the city then God will not destroy it. The verdict of the investigation of the "very grievous" (or heavy) sin of Sodom is revealed in what happens to the angels appearing as men.

Gn. 18: "And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; {21} I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. {22} And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD."

Gn. 19: "And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; {2} And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. {3} And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

{4} But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: {5} And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. {6} And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, {7} And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. {8} Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. {9} And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. {10} But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. {11} And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

{12} And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: {13} For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it."

The issue here is not the forced manner of sexual relations that is evidenced, but the homosexuality nature of it, which defines the practice from whence the term "sodomy" was derived. However, as this story would evidence that the most notable sin of Sodom had to with homoerotic relations, and which “filthy” lifestyle resulted in Sodom becoming the foremost example of the judgment of God, and upon “those that after should live ungodly” (Pet. 2:6), therefore homosexual apologists most typically seek to disallow that the "very grievous" sin of Sodom here had anything to do with homoeroticism. Instead, they seek to attribute it to simply "inhospitality,” albeit of a violent nature. Scroggs, while seeking to justify homosexuality, states he finds it “difficult to deny the sexual intent of the Sodomites.” And thus believes “the traditional interpretation to be correct.” Holding states, I know of no evidence for the claim that Lot violated a custom by not getting permission to have a guest. While Sodom certainly manifested “inhospitality,” it is the specific expression of it which is the issue.

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. Actually, Gn. 19:4 does state both "the men of Sodom" and "all the people", but the use of enosh need not exclude the men from being the more particular subject, as 'ĕnôsh is often used elsewhere where the subjects are specifically male (Gn. 6:4; 17:27; 26:7; 34:7; 43:15-18,24,33; Ex. 2:13; Josh. 2:2-5, etc.), and is sometimes used in distinction to women (Ex. 35:22; Dt. 31:12; Jdg. 9:51; Neh. 8:3), as well as for all the references to the angels in this chapter (Gn. 18:2,16,22; Gn. 19:5,8,10-12,16). The word 'ĕnôsh is often used to denote man in plurality, including both men and women (Josh. 8:25) and when men only are indicated (Jdg. 8:17; 2Sam 11:17; 2 Ki. 10:6; 6:30; 8:17), and in such places as Josh. 8:14 for all the people when men in particular are preeminent (in such Biblical times, it was the men who did the actually fighting and were usually targeted for killing). As for “Iyish” [H376] this word is most often for singular males, but it is not necessarily always gender specific (Ex. 11:7; 16:18; Jer. 51:43; Hos. 11:9, etc.), and can also denote what would seem to be a mixed multitude (Num. 9:10; Josh. 10:21). Another word is "'âdâm" (H120), which is used for mankind in general (Gn. 6:1; 2Ch. 6:18,30; Job 7:20), but it also is not gender specific (Ex. 4:11; 8:17,18; 9:9,10,19,22; 30:32; 33:20) The Hebrew word which is strictly gender specific is "zâkâr" (H2145), and is used in such cases as Gn. 7:10 and Lv. 18:22; 20:13 in specific use, but it is not the only word used to denote a crowd of men. Also, the word used for people ("‛am," H5971) in Gn. 19:4, as in "all the people from every quarter", can be used when it would apply to males in particular, as in Gn. 26:10.

Thus, 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.

The next word in contention, "yâda‛" (H3045) is more critical as to determining the particular nature of the inhospitality of Sodom. To those familiar with the Biblical use of yada as a primary verb to sexually know a human, the meaning is clear enough, but 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. However, while forced sex is mentioned elsewhere (2 Sam. 13:1-14), violent interrogation itself is not evident in the Scriptures, and "yâda‛" is never used to denote gaining information by such means, unless Jdg. 19:25 (the parallel account to Gn. 19) is made to convey such, but interrogation is hardly conveyed by “they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning”. (Jdg. 19:25). Even the use of "yâda” to denote gaining non-sexual personal knowledge by close contact with another person is exceedingly rare (Gn. 45:1), but "yada" is clearly used 14 times in the Old Testament, in addition to 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 likely instance, and of a non-consensual homosexual act, is in Gn. 9:20-27 (v. 24)

The Bible, as in many languages and cultures, makes abundant use of euphemisms for sex, such as "know" or "lie with" or "uncover the nakedness of" or "go in into." Ancient languages which also used this allegorical use of “know” included Egyptian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic, as well as Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek Hebrew scholars defining 'know' as used in Genesis 19:5, used terminology like 'sexual perversion' 'homosexual intercourse' and 'crimes against nature',

Additionally, Lot's offer of his two daughters who “have known [yâda] man” (Lot had married ones also, not with him) to the Sodomites in response to their demanded to “known” his guests, in the light of the Biblical use of [yâda] in sexual descriptions, especially narratives, this best indicates that Lot was offering substitute bodies for them to know sexually, rather than being sacrificed in pagan idolatry, as many homosexual apologists usually assert. The latter position is untenable in the light of the response of the men to the same offer in the parallel story in Judges 19. However, Bailey cannot see any sexual connection between Lot's offer and the Sodomites demand to know the men, while the prohomosexual author Scroggs sees the traditional interpretation of Gn. 19 being correct. (See under Judges 19.)

As one commentator states, “In narrative literature of this sort it would be very unlikely to use one verb with two different meanings so close together unless the author made the difference quite obvious. In both verses 5 and 8 "yada" should be translated "to have sexual intercourse with." The context does not lend itself to any other credible interpretation.”

Another misleading argument that the less ambiguous word shakhabh (H7901) would have been used instead of the word "yâda if sexual knowing was meant, yet shakhabh even more often means sleep or rest, while (again) "yâda is used instead of shakhabh to gain sexual knowledge 13 times in the Old Testament Bible, besides the disputed verses in Gn. 19.

Related to the above, some point to the Septuagint's (LXX) translation of yâda' in Gen 19:5 as synginomai, which they suppose is non-sexual, while v. 8 translates it as ginosko, which is the equivalent word for "know." But Gen 39:10 it is used to refer to Joseph's refusal to sleep with the wife of Potiphar, evidencing that synginomai is used in the LXX to refer to sexual conduct. It also occurs in three places in the Apocrypha (Judith 12:16; Susanna 11, 39), all conveying a sexual meaning. Among secular sources, synginomai is used to denote a sexual meaning in Xenophon's "Anabasis" 1.212, Plato's Republic 329c (5th to 4th century B.C.), and, among others, in writings of Epidaurus (4th cenury B.C), which indicates that the translators of the Septuagint knew of the use of the term for sexual meanings, which use preceded their translation.

It is noteworthy that prohomosex polemicists who disallow a sexual meaning here are often not reluctant to read homosex or a homosexual relationship into stories such as Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz, the centurion and his servant, Jesus and John, and (some) Elijah and the son of the widow of Zarephath, and even resort to asserting that Paul was a repressed homosexual, while even more extreme examples can be seen.

As yâda is often used as a verb to refer to sex narratives, but in forbidding illicit sex, another attempt is made to disallow homosex in Gn. 19 based upon the absence of yâda when the Bible mentions homosexual acts (in Lv. 18:22; 20:13; 23:17) However, this argument fails, as it would also disallow yâda from denoting premarital sex, (Gn. 38:26) or forced sex, (Jdg. 19:25) which, like Gn. 19, is described in narratives by using the euphemism yâda, but when proscribed as a sin, it uses the euphemism “lie/lay” (Dt. 22:25-29). None of the laws against illicit sex use yâda.

An argument is also made in response to the Book of Jude's confirmation that Sodom's most notable sin was fornication, that the Sodomite's sin was knowingly seeking sex with angels. However, not only was Sodom evidently practicing their damnable sin prior to the arrival of Lot's angelic guests (Gn. 18:20-22), but it is most unlikely that they, nor even Lot, knew then what manner of men his guests were. It should also be noted that at the time of Lot's immigration to that city, the men of Sodom were already said to be “wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly” (Gn. 13:13), and likely had gotten worse since Lot first arrived. Heb. 13:2 most likely refers to Abraham and or Lot's angels incognito. We see beginning in 19:10 that the men then refused Lot's offer of virgins, and threatened to do worse to Lot then with his guests, and pressed sore against him, almost breaking the door, until the angels smote them with blindness and pull Lot inside and shut the door. This would be impossible for ordinary men, and the Sodomites would then have realized that the men whom they sought were no ordinary men.

The sexual connotation in this story is further confirmed in the parallel story of the Levite and his concubine in Judge 19, whom men of Belial “knew” and abused all the night.

Judges 19

Jdg. 19: "Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. {23} And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. {24} Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. {25} But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go."

Judg 20: "And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead. {6} And I took my concubine, and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel: for they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel."

In this episode, beginning in Jdg. 19:1, a Levite (who is no model of virtue himself) is traveling back home after fetching his departed concubine (a wife: Jdg. 20:4; Gn. 30:4; 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22), who played the whore against him and ran away. On his way back, and finding no one that would receive him in a strange city (Gibeah), he is taken in by an old man, a resident of the town. No sooner had they eaten, then "certain sons of Belial" came and demanded of the old man, "Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know [yada] him" (v. 22). Like unto Lot, the host beseeches them “do not so wickedly” (v. 23), adding, “do not this folly”, and then offers his own virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine to them to “humble, saying "unto this man do not so vile a thing." At first it appears they refused, hoping for the man, but being given the concubine by the man, "they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go."

Homosexual apologists sometimes contend that this abuse also was non-sexual, and they only wanted to kill the man by violent interrogation, but here again, that the crowd's desire to "know" the guest(s) was sexual is best indicated by the context and language. The only two choices for the manner of “knowing” are that the men wanted to non-sexually interrogate the men, or that they desired to know them sexually, both being in a violent way that could or would lead to death. Again, rather than the word “know” (yâda‛) meaning gaining intimate personal knowledge by interrogation, it is clearly used is many places for gaining sexual knowledge by physical intimacy, as shown under the Gn. 19 section. And as there, the offer of virgins by the resident host (who like Lot, would know what his fellow countrymen were after) is best understood as an offer of substitute bodies for immediate gratification by sex, even if it was abusively. This is in contrast to the idea that the offer of the women was for a pagan sacrifice, which is contrary to their response and th fact that the men of the city were Benjaminites (19:14; 20:4; cf. Josh. 18:24; 21:17). The Levite did fear they would kill him (Jdg. 20:5), and the concubine did die, but not until after they “knew her, and abused her” and let her go (vs. 25-28). The Levite further stated that they “forced” (KJV) her, that she was dead (Jdg. 20:5). He then states that they “committed lewdness and folly (same word as vile) in Israel" (Jdg. 20:6).

Grammatically, the Hebrew word used for humble (“‛ânâh” , H6031), as in “humble ye them” (19:24), usually means afflict, but it is also often used for humbling someone sexually (Gn. 34:2; Ex. 22:10,11; Dt. 21:14; 22:21,24;29;. 2Sam.13:12,14,32), while “folly” and "vile", as in “do not this folly”, and “do not so vile a thing” (Jdg. 19:23,24), are from the same Hebrew word (“nebâlâh,” H5039), which is mostly used in sexual sense when referring to a specific sin of action (Gn. 34:7; Dt. 22:21;. 2Sam.13:12; Jer. 29:23). Likewise, “lewdness” (“zimmâh/zammâh,” H2154), as in “they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel” (20:6), is used more in a sexual sense than for any other type of sin (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; 20:14; Jer. 3:27; Ezek. 16:43,58; 22:11; 23:21,27,29,3544,,48). “Abused” (“‛âlal,” H5953) as in “they knew her and abused her all the night” (v. 25) offers no other precise meaning other here than what the context indicates.

Taken together, it is most evident that the abuse the women suffered was violently sexual, and which best defines the type of “knowing that “certain sons of Belial” (a term used for fornicators in 1Sam. 2:12, cf. v.22) sought to have, and which would result in death. And which serves to define the manner of “knowing” which was sought in Gn. 19. The only real difference between this and Gn. 19 is that these men finally took the substitute offer of the women (which was also sin). And though both Gn. 19 and Jdg. 19 specifically show homosexual rape itself to be sin, it was not simply the manner in which they sought relations (such as the women suffered) that was called vile, but the homosexual aspect of it. Even prohomosex author Robin Scroggs also concurs that in Jdg. 19 "the verb [yada] almost surely refers to a sexual desire for homosexual rape", and that the traditional interpretation of Gn. 19 is correct.

Finally, that the sin of Sodom was attempted homosexual rape hardly needs any of the above for confirmation, as Jude 7 (see below) clearly tells us that not only was Sodom and company given to fornication, but that this included a perverse kind.

The book of Jude

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, 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, 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, then its condemnation of "sodomitic" sex (10:3; 34:1) 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).

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).

Some assert that Jude is referring to the Sodomites seeking sex with angels, but that is further militated against by the fact that the fornication was an ongoing and regional issue, not simply isolated to Sodom, and in Gn. 19 it is highly unlikely that the Sodomites knew that the men were angels. The angels appearance as men was in order to find out whether the cry of Sodomy was true, and it is certain that this cry was not that of seeking sex with angels. Gagnon contends, "Not only is it not required by the wording of the Greek text that ekporneusasai (“having committed sexual immorality”) refer exclusively to copulation with angels, there are also at least six indications that ekporneusasai alludes, at least in part, to attempted male-male intercourse. Taken together, it is unreasonable to hold that that the particular primary physical sin of Sodom, leading to their destruction, was not sexual, while the most warranted understanding is that it was widespread regional fornication, including that of a most perverse manner, that of men seeking to sexually “know” men, albeit unknowingly it was with angels, and but which attempt positively confirmed the investigation of their grievous sin.

Ezekiel 16:49 and inhospitality texts

A final attempt by homosexual apologists to disallow the most particular sin of Sodom from being sexual is to assert that other summations of the iniquity of Sodom do not mention sexual sin but shows it to be inhospitality to strangers, for which cause they invoke Ezek 16:49: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." However, widespread promotion of sensuality and homoeroticism in particular, tends to be a product of and concomitant with, pride, abundance of food, idleness, and selfishness. And as will be shown, Sodom is associated more for sexual sins than with inhospitality or any other physical type of sin. But first we should notice that while verse 49 states overall sins, the next verse He states, "And they [Sodomites] were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." The word for “abomination” here is tô‛êbah, and (contrary to many homosexual assertions) it is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 22:11; 33:26), including in this chapter (vs. 22, 58). And that the context in this chapter is that of fornication by Israel, and while the Hebrew is sparse in vs. 47-48, contextually the LORD was comparing Israel with Sodom (even calling it “thy sister”), and yet revealing that Israel was different, not in the sense that Sodom's physical sins were different, or those of Samaria, but that the Israelites went beyond them in scope and degree, and by idolatry violated their covenant with God and thus faced certain judgment. Thus Sodom is once again listed in connection with sexual sins.

Sins to which Sodom is linked to elsewhere include,

1. adultery and lies (Jer. 23:14);
2. unrepentance (Mt. 11:20-24; Mk. 6:11, 12);
3. careless living (Lk. 17:29);
4. shameless sinning (Is. 3:9);
5. and overall “filthy conversation” (G766), which means sexual sins (lasciviousness: 2Pet. 2:7; cf. Mk. 7:22; 2Co_12:21; Eph. 4:19; 1Pet. 4:3; Jud_1:4; or wantonness: Rm. 13:13, 2Pe_2:18).

In regards to this, homosexual apologists also claim Jesus did not invoke Sodom as an warning to cities because they were merely generally inhospitable, rather He foretold that cities which would not repent would be judged more severely than Sodom (Mt. 10:14; 11:20-24), as that was the cause behind their specific “inhospitality” toward His disciples, who “went out, and preached that men should repent” (Mk. 6:11,12), which rejection Biblically was and is the ultimate sin of damnation.

Jewish Ethics and Halakhah For Our Time (2002), confirms, “The paradigmatic instance of such aberrant behavior is found in the demand of the men of Sodom to “know” the men visiting Lot, the nephew of Abraham, thus lending their name to the practice of “sodomy” (homosexuality) (Cf. Genesis Rabbah 50:5, on Gen. 9:22 ff. More generally see M.Kasher, Torah Shlemah, vol. 3 to Gen 19:5.)

Extra Biblical historical sources

These sources do not have the authority of the Bible, and are of varying historical value, but which. serve to provide historical opinion. These references include historians, extra Biblical books (apocryphal and pseudepigraphical) and Jewish commentary.

Historians

Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC - 50 AD) described the inhabitants of Sodom,

"As men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after other women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature, and though eager for children, they were convicted by having only an abortive offspring; but the conviction produced no advantage, since they were overcome by violent desire; and so by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they also made their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of men, as far as depended on them" [133-34; ET Jonge 422-23] (The Sodom tradition in Romans Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring, 2004 by Philip F. Esler).

In summarizing the Genesis 19 account, the Jewish historian Josephus stated: “About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, in so much that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices” “Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence” (Antiquities 1.11.1 — circa A.D. 96).

Pseudepigrapha

The apocryphal Testament of Benjamin, part of Books of Twelve Patriarchs (circa 2nd century BC) warned in regard to Sodom,

"that ye shall commit fornication with the fornication of Sodom," (Concerning a Pure Mind, 9:1) http://

Anther book within the same collection, the Testament of Naphtali, states,

"But ye shall not be so, my children, recognizing in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made all things, that ye become not as Sodom, which changed the order of nature." (3.5.)

The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch, warned:

"And those men said to me: This place, O Enoch, is prepared for those who dishonour God, who on earth practise sin against nature, which is child-corruption after the sodomitic fashion, magic-making, enchantments and devilish witchcrafts, and who boast of their wicked deeds, stealing, lies, calumnies, envy, rancour, fornication, murder, ...." (10:4; in J recension Ch. I.118); Late 1st cent. AD.)

The Old Testament apocrypha, Testament of Isaac. Probably originally from Egyptian Judaism, but shows pronounced Christian elements. "The angel said to me, 'Look at the bottom to observe those whom you see at the lowest depth. They are the ones who have committed the sin of Sodom; truly, they were due a drastic punishment." (5.27. Ch. I.909; Second century AD)

Mishnah

The "Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer" compilation of the Mishnah, portrays the sin of Sodom as being crass inhospitality, including that of fencing in the top of trees so that even birds could not eat of their fruit.

The Babylonian Talmud (which contains many odd fables) also does not explicitly mention sexual sins in regards to Sodom, but attributes cruelty and greed to it, including that if one cut off the ear of his neighbor's donkey, they would order, “Give it to him until it grows again.” — Sanhedrin 109b

However, it also clearly condemns homoeroticism:

“He Who commits sodomy with a male or a beast, and a woman that commits bestiality are stoned. — Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 54a Soncino 1961 Edition, page 367

Several texts in the Midrashic literature written in the early Christian centuries, such as Beresheth Rabbah 26:5 commenting on Genesis 6:2, also asserted that God is patient with all sins except fornication, and which included homoeroticism. To be continued

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

See also: Leviticus 18

While most admit that sexual moral codes are transcultural and transhistorical, attempts are made to find grammatical, categorical and cultural aspects that would disallow the injunctions which prohibit homosex. 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." (cf. Dt. 12:8)

Boswell and most other polemicists promoting homoeroticism contend that the Hebrew word tōʻēḇā, which is used to describe men laying with men as with women, usually translation abomination, does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft,... but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like like eating pork...”, or printing marks on one's flesh Helminiak for instance, claims that tōʻēḇā, means "dirty" or "impure" and that this therefore supports his position. .

In this attempt, many seek to create a division between Lv. 18:20, which prohibits adultery, and the next verse, which forbids child sacrifice to Molech, which is supposed to render the next law (v. 22) as only forbidding homosex in the that type of idolatrous context.

However, upon examination it has been manifest that the often repeated initial basis for the attempt to relegate 18:22 to ceremonial law is found to be in misleading, as in the original language the Hebrew word tōʻēḇā is not used in Leviticus for dietary violations, and is only used 2 or 3 times elsewhere to refer to such things as abominable for Israel, while tōʻēḇā is the word most often used in reference to grave moral abominations, including those which are unmistakably universally sinful, and it is used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20 collectively. In contrast, the word most used, and only used for ceremonial violations, is “sheqets” (Leviticus 7:21; 11:10-13,20,23,41,42; Is. 66:17; Ezek. 8:10), and then “shâqats,” from which it is derived, which is only used in Leviticus for dietary violations (Leviticus 11:11,13,43; 20:25; Dt. 7:26; Prv. 22:24).

Majority of specific sins which are said to be tōʻēḇā

• 1. idolatry or idols (Dt. 7:25; 13, 2Kg. 21:2-7; 2Chr. 33:2,3; Is. 44:19)
• 2. empty, vain worship (Is. 1:13)
• 3. witchcraft; occultism (Dt. 18:9-12)
• 4. illicit sex (Ezek. 16:22,58; 22:11; 33:26)
• 5. remarrying divorced women (Dt. 24:2-4)
• 6. marriage with unbelievers (Ezra 9:1,2)
• 7. male homosexual and (collectively) heterosexual immorality (Lv. 18:22; 18:27-30; 20:13; )
• 8. temple prostitution (1Kg. 14:24; 2Ki. 16:3; 21:2,11)
• 9. offerings from the above (Dt. 23:18)
• 10. cross-dressing (Dt. 22:5)
• 11. child sacrifice to idols (Jer. 32:35)
• 12. cheating in the market by using rigged weights (Dt. 25:13-19, Prov. 11:1)
• 13. dishonesty (Prov. 12:22)
• 14. dietary violations (Dt. 14:3; Jer. 16:18)
• 15. stealing, murder, and adultery, breaking covenants, (Jer. 7:10),
• 16 violent robbery, murder, oppressing the poor and needy, etc. (Ezek. 18:10-13)
• 17. bringing unbelievers into the holy sanctuary of God, and forsaking the holy charge (Ezek. 44:78)

As for zimmâh, when used sexually, it is another word to describe the vile nature of many clearly universally sins which are also categorized as tōʻēḇā, (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; Jer. 13:27; Ezek. 22:11: adultery=tōʻēḇā, incest= zimmâh ), though it is not used for An examination of the use of these words reveals that the absence of zimmâh in relation to a sexual sin cannot necessarily negate the intrinsic evil of it's nature, while sins which tōʻēḇā refers to include such. Thus, rather than the injunctions against homosex being in the class of ceremonial laws based upon the use of tōʻēḇā, just the opposite is indicated.

In addition to ceremonial dietary and ritual cleansing laws, which overall do not target pagan cultic activity, a further and necessary distinction is between practices which are a direct expression of idolatry, formal or of the heart, such as sex with illicit partners, versus amoral things which merely accompany idolatry activity, such as a grove of trees in worship (Dt. 16:21). The Bible makes these categories discernible, with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being prohibited as a class under the N.T., (Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mk. 7:21; Jn. 8:41; Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Co_5:1; 1Co. 6:9,13, 18; 7:2; 2Co. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Ths. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3; Rev. 9:21; 14:8, 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2) The prohibitions against homosex clearly fit in this category by type, while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8)

Secondly, neither the grammar nor any categorical division or cultural context warrants relegating these Levitical commands to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex, and belonging to the class of ceremonial laws (which are not the same), which (they point out) Christians do not typically keep. Rather, the reasons why literal obedience to these is not enjoined now are the very reason why the laws against homosex are upheld:

• 1. While the New Testament clearly defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it just as clearly upholds laws against illicit sexual partners as a class. While literal obedience to the former is not mandated under the New Covenant, sex with illicit partners and any possible mentions of homosex only find unconditional condemnation therein.

• 2. The injunctions against homosex are based upon creational, not cultural differences, as is manifest by design and decrees, which only has the women created for the man, with purposeful complementary physical, functional, and positional distinctions which, as decreed, only opposite opposite gender unions between humans could fulfill, in marriage. (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:3-15)

• 3. The issue of sexual unions (with valid partners) is dealt with from the beginning to the end of the Bible as part of moral separation (Gn. 20; 26; 34; 38; Rv. 21:8; 22:15), whereas ceremonial violations are different by nature than moral offenses, being basically that of defilement by touching, tasting, or handling unclean things, including diseased persons (Col. 2:21), and do not deal with sex except insofar as contact with including blood or semen is involved, (Lv. 15:24,33). There is nothing ritually “unclean” about the males in 18:22, anymore than an illicit partner in adultery or incest, rather, any form of fornication makes one morally defiled. (Lv. 18:24; Mk. 7:21-23)

• 4. The grammar of Lv. 18:22 is universal, and entirely consistent with other transcultural commands given here which forbid sex with the spouse of another, or near kin, that of the flesh of one's own flesh, with homosex being structurally similar, that of sex with an illicit partner, that of one's own gender.

• 5. Lv. 18:22 finds no abrogation elsewhere, nor is any context (marriage) established in which the practice of homosex is sanctified, as is clearly provided for heterosexual relations, but which is likewise absent illicit unions such as adultery and bestiality. Nor does allowance or use of polygamy, concubines or Levirate marriage set a precedent for homosexual marriage, as the only structural variance with the Genesis original is in the number of times as man takes a wife, not the gender of the wife, which is what is explicitly specified.

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

• 7. Ceremonial violations are stated to “be an abomination [sheqets] unto you” (Lv. 11:10), male homosex is stated to be tô‛êbah itself (Lv. 18:22), as other illicit sex sins are, (vs. 27,29,30), and contrary to prohomsex arguments concerning tô‛êbah, that is the word most translated as “abomination” to denote grave moral offenses of universal sins, and is rarely used for ceremonial offenses. (Note: idolatry itself is not a ceremonial sin, nor does it not stop with graven images.)

• 8. Attempts to extrapolate other grammatical differences in favor of the prohomosex position critically fall short. Zakhar (mankind) in Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 only distinguishes between genders, and does not signify idolatrous priests are targeted here, while mishkâb (lieth) is a metaphor for sexual intercourse, using the place or manner in which it usually takes place, (Ezek. 23:17) And as 20:13 shows, both are guilty.

• 9. Male homosex is classified as a first tier offense requiring the death penalty, that stipulates that they shall “be put to death”, which wording is used for other immutable grave sins (though the penalties may require Israel's theocracy), and not for ceremonial/purity laws, except for unholy presumption, and for breaking the Sabbath, the gravest of such (including in principal under the New Covenant: Gal. 1:6-8), while the punishment for ritual purity offenses, such as eating while unclean, is usually to be “cut off ” (which is rarely used by itself for grave most sins).

• 10. While types of laws are grouped often together, ancient laws codes are not strict categories of laws. The attempt to negate the universality and transcendence v. 22 due to the culturally specific aspect of v.21 (child sacrifice to Molech) fails, as that law is not restricted to child sacrifice to only one specific idol, and cannot be relegated to merely being ceremonial. Rather, it is based upon foundational moral law (Gn. 9:5,6; Ex. 20:2; 34:15) and is literally applicable in principal and by modification to all cultures and times. In addition, consistently with the prohomosex hermeneutic behind their attempt, v.19 (intercourse during menstruation, which is more akin to ceremonial law) would disallow the intrinsic sinfulness of the next verse (adultery).

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

• 12. When homosex or illicit heterosexual sex as a formal part of idolatrous activity is targeted, then the context makes that evident (Dt. 23:17,18), (“dogs” likely to refer to the manner of homosex relations). The historical fact is that in Canaanite culture, homosexuality was practices as both a religious rite and a personal perversion...Israel's pagan neighbours knew both secular and sacred homosexuality"

• 13. In seeking to negate the Levitical injunctions hermeneutics are employed which,if applied consistently, would effectively disallow a coherent sexual ethic in the Bible, yet the laws on sexual partners are presented as universal commands and reiterated as a class in a way that presumes they can be understood and obeyed by all, without being open to a vast degree of interpretation which effectively allows them to be negated.

• 14. Lev. 18:22 is “part of an interconnected Old Testament witness.” “There is no evidence to suggest that ancient Israelite society, acting in fidelity to Yahweh, would ever have approved of any form of homosexual practice.”

• 15. Appropriated by the New Testament. The term arsenokoitai (“men who lie with a male”) in 1

Corinthians 6:9 is formulated from the Septuagint translation of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, which refers to not ‘lying’ (koite) with a ‘male’ (arsen). Paul’s critique of homosexual relations in Romans 1:24-27 also echoes Lev 18 and 20 by using two terms that appear in Septuagint translation of these chapters: akatharsia (“uncleanness, impurity” in Romans 1:24 and Lev 18:19; 20:21, 25) and aschemosune (“indecency, indecent exposure” in Rom 1:27 and twenty-four times in Lev 18:6-19; 20:11, 17-21).

Joseph P. Gudel states, “God did not condemn certain behavior for the Israelites only because Israel was to be kept separate from Canaanite practice. Otherwise, if the Canaanites did not practice child sacrifice and bestiality, would these then have been all right for the Israelites? Of course not! Having sexual relations with an animal and killing one's child are inherently wrong and evil, even when they are not related to pagan worship; they are abominations before God. And yet, these specific prohibitions also are listed in this passage, both immediately before and after the condemnation of homosexuality (Lev. 18:21-23).”

Bailey, while seeking to justify homosex, stated, "It is hardly open to doubt that both the laws in Leviticus relate to ordinary homosexual acts between men, and not to ritual or other acts performed in the name of religion."

Another attempt to relegate Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to a unique cultic context, in contrast to what the grammar or the context will bear, is one that strives to attach a radical significance to the use of zakhar [H2145] which is the Hebrew word normally translated male/males, or the lesser used word for such, zekhur [H2138] throughout the OT, by noting that in a 90% of the occurrences (by his classification) it signifies a special sacred significance. And with his imagination running wild he concludes that this signifies that the Levitical injunctions against homosex only pertain to sex with priests!

However, this conclusion derived from the use of zakhar/zekhur within special classes of creatures is shown to be unwarranted when one realizes that zakhar/zekhur are strictly gender specific words which are used most often to differentiate between male and females in general, as well as those in special classes of people, and that is the only special significance it provides. The reason for their most prevalent use being within special classes of males is simply because that is most often the subject, from sacrificed animals to Jews returning from exile (part of his list). 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). In no place in Scripture are these words used to signify pagan male priests, in fact the common word for men ('îysh [H376]) is used for such. (Jdg 6:28,30; 1Ki 18:22) The prohomosex polemicists has simply imagined words which makes a distinction between genders without signifying a difference in what the Levitical injunctions proscribe.

See also

• http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexuality_and_the_bible.html

External links

• Robert A. J. Gagnon Articles Available Online
• The Bible and Homosexual Practice: An Overview of Some Issues Dr. Robert Gagnon
• Gay Christian Arguments Considered
• Marriage and Family in the Biblical World By Ken M. Campbell
• http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html A Reformed Response to

Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology, by Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges

• Straight & Narrow? By Thomas E. Schmidt
• Homosexuality By James B. De Young
• The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 David E. Malick
• God, Marriage, and Family, By Andreas J. Kostenberger, David W. Jones]