Pro-homosexual polemicists have responded to this problem by asserting all the injunctions against homosexual relations are culturally or contextually bound or for other reasons cannot not universally apply today, and or that the Bible is not wholly inspired of God and provides no transcendent universal sexual ethic. In addition, advocates of homosexual relations often propose or assert that homoeroticism and even same-sex marriage can be seen in many close relationships between persons in the Bible.

Those within the former camp see the attempts by pro-homosexual polemicists as unwarranted, "revolutionary and revisionist", (James B. De Young, Homosexuality p. 135) with homosexual misinterpretations being a manifestation of the efforts 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 Biblical meanings, often by sophisticated forms of sophistry. Those within the latter camp often charge the former with ignorance, and or being motivated by homophobia. (Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion)

Note: This article deals with the phenomenon of pro-homosexual polemics (arguments) in the light of traditional/historical Biblical exegesis, that of the explanation of a text, based upon principals of hermeneutics, that of rules of interpretation. It is fairly abundantly referenced, and it should go without saying that referencing sources does not necessarily infer my agreement with such, and indeed, on the liberal side they are only provided simply for reference and not otherwise, as they work to deceive. It also should be stated that while my "sexual orientation" is most definitely toward the opposite gender, this is not written out of any personal animosity toward homosexuals, much less fear of them, rather this work is written out of esteem for the truth of the Bible, as well as for the holiness it calls and enables. Although those who manifestly manipulate the Bible move me to contend for the faith, I have compassion on those who are deceived into supposing that the Bible allows liberty for a sin, of which there are many, in heart and in flesh, as I myself have been sadly fooled by the "deceitfulness of sin", (Heb. 3:13) even as a Christian. May this web page work salvation and sanctification, and may I grow in the latter, to the glory of God. Amen

• Terms Defined

Semantical debate still exists regarding the term "homosexuality." The word "homosexual" itself 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. This word is understood to have entered English via a translation of Krafft-Ebing’s "Psychopathia Sexualis". Homo in Latin means "man", but in Greek it means "same", while the word "sexual" is from a late Latin word. This Greek and Latin hybrid annoyed H. Havelock Ellis, author of “Studies in Psychology” (1897) who protested, '''Homosexual''' is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it.” (http://www.dailywritingtips.com/words-beginning-with-homo)

This term, which was used within the field of personality taxonomy, and which could be used to denote any same gender environment, eventually came to be used almost exclusively in regards to same sex attraction and it's activity. This use 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, MSM ((clinically for male sex with men), denoting homosexual erotic activity, that of same gender sexual relations. The term "homosex" (as in man or same sex) is more rarely used, but is sometimes used in this article for same gender relations or homoeroticism. Sodomy might normally have been used, but this term (in the KJV, which is used herein) originally defined a male temple prostitute engagingly in homosexual relations. TOC^

Sexual morality in the Bible

From the beginning, God created the male and female as uniquely compatible and complimentary, and only joined them in the sanctified sexual union of marriage. (Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:8-12; Eph. 5:31) All sexual relations with others outside that bond are revealed to be fornication, which is unconditionally (regardless of motive or circumstance) prohibited and condemned. (Gn. 34:1-4,13,31; 38:15,18,24; Lv. 19:29; 21:9; Dt. 22:13-30; Num. 25:1; Jdg. 8:33; 2Chrn. 21:11; Prov. 7:10-12; Hos. 1:2; Ezek. 6:9; 16:17,36; 20:7,18; 23:7; Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Jn. 8:41; Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Cor. 5:1,11; 6:9,13,18; 7:2; 2Cor. 6:16; 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3; Rev. 9:21, etc.)

In the Bible, a ''harlot'' or ''whore'' (KJV) was a women who had sex before marriage, and included prostitutes. (Gn. 34:1-4,13,31; 38:15,18,24 Num. 25:1) If a man engaged in such with a single women, he was required to marry her for life, while the death penalty was mandated for the man (or both if consensual) for engaging in sexual relations with a women who was betrothed (contracted to marry) to another, or for a women who married under the false pretense of being a virgin, and her husband objected upon discovering otherwise. (Dt. 22:13-29) Likewise, spiritual fornication was that of infidelity to God in making an idol to be one's god, (Ezek. 6:9; 23:30; 37:23) with Israel being covenantally "married" to God. (Jer. 3:14; Ezek. 16:8)

In the Gospel of Mark 7:20-23 (cf. Mt. 15:19), Jesus declares that sin begins in the heart, and the iniquities that proceed out of the heart include fornications, which being plural, includes all sexual relations outside marriage. While broader descriptions exist (i.e. "the bed of love": Ezek. 23:17) sexual intercourse is what is usually indicated (by euphemisms) in laws against illicit sex, yet it is generally held that this is not limited to such, but prohibits all sexual eroticism outside marriage (in which it is exclusively sanctioned: Prov. 5:15-20: SoS), and which all "uncleanness" (Rm. 1:24; Eph. 5:3) covers. (Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry, John Wesley, Eph. 5:3; Albert Barnes, Rm. 1:24)

Though more than one wife was allowed in the Old Testament, and 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), the Lord Jesus restored that to the original standard of one man and one women, for life. though most understand the fornication clause as allowing divorce in the case of martial infidelity, as fornication can include adultery. (DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE UNDER GOD By L. S. Boardman) In so doing, (Mt. 19:4-9) Jesus defined the male and the female as constituting the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together", and which, along with other verses, excludes same-sex marriage or any other sexual unions.

• Interpretive Foundations

Lionel Windsor observes, "the fundamental contention is about hermeneutics, about the interpretation and use of Scripture, in which two views are basically manifest." (The Bible and Homosexuality The Current Debate, by Lionel Windsor (2005) In examining pro-homosexual polemics, it becomes abundantly evident 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) (Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"; Thomas E. Schmidt, THE hermeneutics of homosexuality: recent trends)

As James R. White and Jeffrey D. Niell state,

The net effect of this revisionist approach is a novel and destructive twisting of Scripture...The Bible is being reinterpreted according to urges that are "against nature" and then said to support the homosexual agenda...Despite the revisionists' protests to the contrary, their position is in actuality based upon human desire rather than upon biblical authority and interpretation. (The Unthinkable Has Become Thinkable)

• Traditional/historical position

Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoeroticism usually work from a strong adherence to the theological foundation of Divine Biblical inspiration and 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 on 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 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 are disallowed. By such exegesis, historically Christian theologians overall have also 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) (The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen)

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 sanction evidenced for heterosexual unions by marriage stands in stark contrast to the lack of any sanction for any sexual unions 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. (The Bible and Homosexuality by J. Glenn Taylor, Assoc. Prof. Of O.T. at Wycliff College. U. of Toronto)

In addition, and consistent with the understanding 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 moral, universal and transcendent from the time of their institution, and directly applicable to today's cultural contexts. In examining such, it is evidenced that from the beginning all sexual relations outside marriage were and are consistently categorized as fornication. (1Cor. 7:2). And in contrast to heterosexual unions, in the places where homoerotic relations are most explicitly dealt with (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Rm. 1:26,27) they are only condemned, with this condemnation also being universal in scope, and not restricted to certain cultural, behavioral or motivational conditions. (Should We Support Gay Marriage? NO! Wolfhart Pannenberg; Newsweek/Miler response, Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon; Straight or Narrow?,Thomas E.Schmidt; http://www.seekingtruth.co.uk/homosex.htm )

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." (Why Sodomy Can Never Depict the Relationship Between Christ and His Church, AgapePress)

The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality concludes that while all mankind is prone to sin, “the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin.” (Final Report of the Task Force on Human Sexuality, Baptist Union of Western Australia, July 1997, ref at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

Evangelical Bible scholar Greg Bahnsen (http://home.comcast.net/~webpages54/ap/biobahn.html) 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." (Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.) 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." (“Homosexuality and the Old Testament,” BSAC 140 (July 1983): 259.)

Rabbi Dr. Nachum Amsel states, "If not for the fact that homosexuality is prevalent in Western Society today, there would be little controversy about this Torah sin. It is clearly forbidden and never condoned anywhere in the Torah. (Homosexuality in Orthodox Judaism)

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. (Concluding remarks, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate)

Duncan Heaster comments, “In the light of all this evidence, the question must be asked: Why is there such a desire to twist the evidence? A related question is why so many studies aiming to prove the 'born gay' theory have been found to be faulty (see below); and why the surveys which aim to prove that a relatively high percentage are born gay have been demonstrably 'rigged'. It all indicates that the researchers and theologians are being driven to support their preconceived theories rather than being led empirically by genuine Biblical and psychiatric research.” Duncan Heaster, “Debating Bible Basics TOC^

• Revisionist/pro-homosexual position

Those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture typically view the Bible as a book that allows a much broader range of interpretation and denial of Biblical commands and their immutability, and many evidence that they allow a vast range of metaphorical interpretation within historical narratives. Fundamentally, such revisionists overall typically express a denial of the Bible as the ultimate authority on morals, viewing it more as the expression of a prescientific (ignorant) age, with its laws, in particular as regards homoerotic relations, being culture bound, and categorized as non-applicable for today. While some primary prohomosex scholars do confess that it appears, "Wherever the Bible clearly seems to refer to homosexual activity, we must recognize a judgment of condemnation", (McNeil, drawing from the word of Dutch scholar Herman van Spijker, referenced by By Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming, p. 83) or that "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1, (Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14) yet they contend that aggravating circumstances or other aspects provide reasons why injunctions against homosexual relations cannot apply to "loving, monogamous homosexual relationships." Much effort is expended in seeking to relegate Biblical injunctions (sometimes referred to as "clobber passages") against homosexual relations to only a formal cultic context, or only pertaining to pederasty, or to heterosexuals acting contrary to the orientation, while on the other hand they usually profess to see homosexuality within most any close heterosexual relationship in the Bible.

Another among the minority of pro homosexuals who affirm that the Bible does condemn homosexual relations while seeking to reject such is Walter Wink, who states "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 joins similar revisionists who disallow that the Bible offers a coherent sexual morality ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”. Instead, he joins others in asserting that people possess a right to sex that can supercede Biblical laws, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (Walter Wink, "To hell with gays" and "the Bible and homosexuality") Daniel Helminiak's theory of ethics is similar, which Olliff and Hodges notes "is, at its very foundation, self-refuting. While he professes Christianity, he has adopted the autonomous man's position for the basis of his ethics." A Further Look at Pro-Homosexual Theology, Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges

Likewise, pro-homosexual author Daniel Via states, "that Scripture gives no explicit approval to same-sex intercourse. I maintain, however, that the absolute prohibition can be overridden, regardless of how many times it is stated, for there are good reasons to override it." (Dan Otto Via, Robert A. J. Gagnon, "Homosexuality and the Bible: two views," pp. 38,94) This requires the same type of discredited reasoning as Wink, and Via's opposing co-author Robert Gagnon responds by noting that Via is an absolutist about no absolutes," and while Scripture clearly manifests otherwise, by arguing that nothing is intrinsically immoral no sexual act can be categorically considered as immoral, including the consensual incestuous relationship of a man with his mother, which was so sinful that it required severe spiritual discipline. (1Cor. 5) (http://www.robgagnon.net/2vrejoinder.htm) (Homosexuality and the Bible: A Real Debate)

While few pro homosexual writers concede 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.”(Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.) 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. John Boswell stated, regarding the Bible, that "one must first relinquish the concept of a single book containing a uniform corpus of writings accepted as morally authoritative." (John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980), 92) John Barton states that the Bible is "a big baggy compendium of a book, full of variety and inconsistency, sometimes mistaken on matters of fact and theology alike." (John Barton, "The Place of the Bible in Moral Debate," Theology 88 (May 1985), 206) Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, termed it "dangerous" to fail to condemn the apostle Paul's condemnation of homosexual relations, and advocated removing such from the canon. (Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43. http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid7) Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman contends, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.” (Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988) Christine E. Gudorf flatly denies that the Bible is the primary authority for Christian ethics. (Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121) 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 (Michael Bott and Jonathan Sarfati, "What’s Wrong With (Former) Bishop Spong?") and relegates the clear condemnation of homosexual relations in Romans 1 to being the product of the apostle Paul's “ill-informed, culturally biased prejudices.” (Spong, Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality, 149-52)

In addition, while contending about what the Bible says, few pro-homosexual writers believe that the Bible is Divinely inspired, and some use pagan stories and their interpretation of them to favor the practice they seek to justify, expecting that Israel would be like their pagan neighbors in this. The lack of any established sanction for homosexual relations in the Bible is often explained as being the result of editing by homophobic editors, (B.A. Robinson; Thomas Horner; Steven Greenberg) and by deeming that writers of holy writ were too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid. (Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: p. 85) Similar to one of the women in 1 Kings 3:17-27, they would rather effectively destroy the authority of the Bible than allow it to be used to prove them wrong.

In response, conservative scholars and writers writing in the field of homosexuality and the Bible have evidenced that such positions are contrary to demonstrable sound exegesis, with pro-homosex polemics being a manifest example of those who are even now "handling word of God deceitfully", (2Cor. 4:2) with the resultant inversion of Biblical morality by revisionists effectively negating immutable moral laws of the Bible, in favor of a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity. cf. 1Cor. 13:6) (cf. 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) Those who make reliance upon one's own inclinations as the basis for morality manifest a form of idolatry, that of making man the ultimate arbiter of what is right, rather than the Almighty. (Num. 15:19; cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6,25; Is. 5:21; Jer. 17:9) The basic injunctions against male homosexual partners are declared to have been penned under the inspiration of God, and which transcends human wisdom, (cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Prov. 12:15; Mt.4:4), in contrast to God ordaining morality according to majority vote. (James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality, p. 290) In addition, consistent use of certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosexual apologists could also work to disallow the immutability of most any moral command (as most had "aggravating circumstances" in their establishment, and often, as with illicit sex laws, motive is irrelevant), and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Like the harlot whose covetousness constrained her to assent to the destruction of a child rather than let her opposing claimant have it (1Ki. 3), the end result of pro-homosexual polemics is that they effectively reject the authority of the very source they seek to use for their own purposes. (Homosexuality and The Bible: Walter Wink refuted) This effect may be understood as a desired one, as consistent with a homosexual agenda , and a form of homosexual historical revisionism.

Dr. Albert Mohler (Master of Divinity and Ph.D. in "Systematic and Historical Theology;" president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky) 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.” (Fact Sheet on Homosexuality, http://www.lifeway.com)

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." (Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal)

Alex D. Montoya (Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at The Masters Seminary) prefaces his essay on the subject 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.” (The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 Fall 2000, Homosexuality and the church) TOC^

• Principal Sources

Sources of pro homosexual interpretations relevant to homosexuality and the Bible are abundant, (see Why the disagreement over the biblical witness on homosexual practice? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?, by A. J. Robert Gagnon, p. 29) such as Derrick Sherwin Bailey, (1910 - 1984), Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition) former Jesuit priest John J. McNeill, (Doctorate in Philosophy, Louvain University in Belgium; Former Jesuit priest) Robin Scroggs, (Professor of New Testament at Chicago Theological Seminary) Episcoplian Professor L. William Countryman, (Professor of New Testament, Church Divinity School of the Pacific) Roman Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak, (Assistant Professor of Psychology) 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 pro-homosexual polemicists (charged with "turning the grace of God into lasciviousness" (Jude 1:4) (http://www.takeheed.net/september2004.htm) are by souls who yet profess to be Christians. Such is 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, (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; "The Bible and Homosexual Practice") though he is not a full Biblical fundamentalist, and holds to the JEDP theory ('the 'Documentary Source Hypothesis'') as do most of his adversaries. In addition to his numerous and extensive reproofs (http://www.robgagnon.net/articlesonline.htm) of pro homosexual claims is Thomas E Schmidt (Professor of New Testament Greek at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California; "Straight and Narrow?"), James B. de Young (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon: "Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law"), David E. Malick (Assistant Professor of Field Education, Dallas Theological Seminary; "Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, and in 1 Corinthians 6:9"), Guenther Haas (Associate Professor of Religion and Theology at Redeemer College; "Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice), F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue (various degrees; "Homosexuality: Good and Right in the Eyes of God?"), Dave Miller Ph.D. (“Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?"), apologist James Patrick Holding (www.Tektonic.org,;"Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers", etc.), and other apologists. (See Gagnon, "Why the disagreement over the biblical witness on homosexual practice?", p. 28) TOC^

• Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women

As in the beginning, (Gn. 3:1-5) the attempts of pro-homosexual revisionism fall into two categories, that which prohibit or condemn homosexual relations, in principal or by precept, and those into which sanction for it is alleged. It is seen fitting that these attempts begin in Genesis, in seeking to disallow what is termed the ''complementarian position'', for which the traditional position lists at least seven reasons why "from the very beginning of the Bible we see that there is only one proper type of marriage: The union of a man and a woman." (http://www.layhands.com/ishomosexualityasin.htm)

(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.”

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 homosexual relations 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. (Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion; Procreation and the family, referring to such) 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."

However, Gn. 2 makes it evident 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. (Gordon J Wenham, The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality; Expository Times 1991)

Donald D. Binder also 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 (A Letter to the Bishops and Deputies of the 73rd General Convention, Chaplain Donald D. Binder, PhD Adjunct Professor of New Testament, Southern Methodist University)

The Lord Jesus Himself distinctly affirmed the Genesis union of 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."

These legal materials in Genesis establish boundaries for life as actually lived "outside the garden",(Fred J. Gaiser, "Homosexuality and the Old Testament," Word & World 10 (1990): 161-165) 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, and 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. “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." (Keil and Delitzsch)

Welch states that marriage is in essence "a covenant of companionship that is ordained by God. It is the bringing together as one flesh two people who are truly 'fit' for each other." In contrast, "Homosexual acts and homosexual desire, by either male or female, are a violation of this creation ordinance and are thus sinful." (Edward T. Welch, The Journal of Biblical Counseling)

Gagnon writes,

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.

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... Within the story line man and woman may (re-)unite into “one flesh” precisely because together they reconstitute the sexual whole. (Gagnon’s response to Prof. L. William Countryman’s review in Anglican theological review. And More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus Though Gagnon holds to the problematic JEDP theory, his analysis overall is good)

The physical compatibility of the male/female union, with her unique procreational ability, itself stands in clear contrast to same gender unions, (God, Marriage, and Family, p. 48, by Andreas J. Kostenberger, David W. Jones) and the procreational aspect is what Judaism's traditional opposition to homosexuality is primarily based upon. (Norman Lamm, Judaism and the Modern Attitude Towards Homosexuality, p. 197-98) 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. (cf. Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt) 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". ("That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, Genesis 1-2", by Joseph P. Gudel, Christian Research Institute Journal) 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.

As Gagnon also states, "Male-male intercourse puts a male in the category of female so far as sexual intercourse is concerned. Because sexual intercourse is about sexual completion it requires complementary sexual others. Anatomy and physiology provide two transparent clues to a broad range of discomplementary features in homoerotic unions." (Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views, p. 65)

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. (http://peacebyjesus.org/song_of_solomon.html) (cf. Prov. 5:15-19) This sanctity of sex within marriage without emphasis upon procreation is also indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:7,8,24-40), but marriage between man and women is presented as the primary 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. (Ketubot, 61b-62b; Feldman, 168)

Hilborn states, "the complementarity of woman and man is more than simply physical. Genesis 1:27 emphasises that God created human beings in His own image - male and female together. The context shows that this divine image is expressed in a relationship which may be sexual, but which is also spiritual, emotional and psychological." (Homosexuality and Scripture, Dr David Hilborn, Theological Adviser, Evangelical Alliance (UK))

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 when it concerns 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 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.” (http://www.robgagnon.net/nicholaskristofgodandsex.htm)

An attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage (which relationship is covered separately) but covenants were common in the Old Testament (the word occurs 285 times, and only once denotes marriage) and Jonathan and David made 3 of them, nor is there anything in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. Another attempt argues that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it. Using this hermeneutic, one could argue that marriage between man and certain animals is allowed, or cannibalism, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. However, not only is opposite genders declared to be what God joined together, but sexual relations ("cleaving") is part of marriage (Gn. 2:24; 1Cor. 7:2), and that is forbidden between same genders, as well as between man and animals.

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

Greg Bahnsen also points out that “homosexual lust is in a sense even worse [than heterosexual ones]; while heterosexual drives are God-given, promote the cultural mandate, and are fulfilled within marriage, homosexuality is always immoral in any context.” (Greg L. Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1978), 68)

TOC^

• 1 Corinthians 11

"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)

Another aspect of arguments seeking to disallow the uniqueness of the foundational union of the male and female, is that this, and the injunctions against homosexual relations which flow from it, are based upon outdated male headship. "Increasing numbers of scholars— influenced by the sexual deconstruction of M. Foucault and by the feminist critique of biblical sexuality—freely acknowledge a biblical condemnation of homosexuality, but dismiss this condemnation on the ground that it is an arbitrary expression of an obsolete patriarchalism. Since, they maintain, power creates truth, new power structures will create new sexual mores based on mutuality. (The hermeneutics of homosexuality: recent trends, Schmidt)

Opposing this is the abundant evidence that from the beginning, God is the author of male headship, and maintains it without abrogation in the New Testament. (Gn. 3:16; 1Tim. 2:12,13) 1Cor 11:1-16 deals with this doctrinally, and in which some attempt to make this positional distinction (not simply its expression) culturally caused. However, the context evidences that this difference is based upon the creational, ontological distinction between man and the women, in which the man is the head of the women, like as the Father is the head of the Son, and Christ is the head of the church. (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown; 1Cor. 11:3)

While positional distinctions themselves do not require opposite genders, the reason for the headship of the male over the women is presented as being 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) The next verse 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") The mutual interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in 1Cor. 11:11-12

In the light of these additional texts, to join man with man is further seen as being contrary to the 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.

Baker's states,

From the beginning it is acknowledged that humankind is created in two genders that together bear God's image (Gen 1:27) and together constitute a unity of flesh (Gen 2:24). The reaffirmation of these two notions in key New Testament passages on sexuality (Matt 19:1-12; 1 Cor 7:12-20) demonstrates the continuity and importance of sexual differentiation in the construction of a normative biblical sexuality. More simply put, humankind is created to find human completion only in the (marital) union of two sexes. (Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology) TOC^

Celibacy, Polygamy, and Procreation

Some revisionists see the complementarian position as one that makes single persons less human, (Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together? p. 109; Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, p. 106) while the conservative response is basically that what sexual union in marriage enables and sanctifies is sexual completeness, but that this is not required of all under the New Testament, and may be sacrificially forsaken, but which requires sexual abstinence.

Gagnon states, "First, to assert that male and female are two incomplete parts of a sexual whole is not the same as saying that all people must marry if they are to be whole persons. It is to say, rather, that if a person chooses to engage in sexual activity, that person always and only does so in his or her particularity as one part of a two-faceted sexual whole, as male or as female. Men and women have inherent integrity in their respective sexes: Men are wholly male and women are wholly female. They are not half-male and half-female, respectively (which, again, is the unfortunate logic of same-sex sexual bonds) The image in Gen 2:21-24 of a woman being formed from what is pulled from the man/human illustrates the point that the missing element from one sex is not another of the same sex but rather one from the only other sex."

Just as plant and animal food was specifically provided for man as his normal sustenance, (Gn. 9:2-6) so the women was for the man (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:9) and even more exclusively, but while food may be abstained from (Mt. 6:16; Acts 13:2; 2Cor. 6:5) - if only for a time due to necessity – and sex can be abstained from for a time in marriage, (1Cor. 7:5) yet marriage can be permanently abstained from if one so chooses. In other words, while sex within marriage is mandated, marriage and its sexual wholeness is not, and like fasting, it is a sacrifice made for spiritual good. But If one will be sexually whole, what God has ordained is that it must be to a women, and in marriage, and to engage in sexual relations contrary to the sanctified means for such (marriage), or to be joined in marriage with an unlawful partner, has less justification than cannibalism.

The exhortation to celibacy in singleness (1Cor 7:7,8,25-35) is shown to be based upon the spiritual nature of the believers relationship with Christ and His kingdom and the attention it is worthy of, and (if only partly) due to "the present distress", (v. 26) and perhaps a sense of imminent trials, (which surely did come, not only from opposition by Paul's own "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rm. 9:3; cf. 1Ths. 2:16), and the turmoil following the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., but from often intense persecutions from a procession of emperors, from Domitian (195) to Diocletian (284-305) and in no way abrogates the restriction of sexual relations to being only between opposite genders in marriage.

It is also argued by proponents of homosexual relations that the allowance of polygamous marriages 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) indicates a departure from the Genesis model, and thus sets a precedent that would allow same sex relations and marriages. (Walter Wink, ibid) However, in polygamy there is no structural change, as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5 Eph. 5:22-6:2) (Matthew Henry, Mt. 19:8-12; Albert Barnes, 1.Cor. 7:2) yet even an excess of wives is manifest as keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, with polygamy only differing from the Genesis model which Jesus affirmed in the number of female wives (as in too much of a good thing: Prv. 18:22), not their gender.

[That marriage is to be between one man and one wife is evidenced in the New Testament, as unlike children (Eph. 6:1), which is plural, when a individual husband is addressed, it is not "husband love your wives," but "let every one of you in particular so love his wife" (Eph. 5:33). Likewise "honor thy father and mother" is singular (Eph. 6:20) and presumes only one of each. A prime requirement for pastors, who are examples to be followed (2Ths. 3:7,9; Heb. 13:7), is that they only have one wife (1Tim. 3:2; Tts. 1:6; cf. 1Cor. 9:5). Likewise deacons (1Tim. 3:12) (See also God, Marriage, and Family, pp. 43-45) The reformist Essene sect at Qumran rejected ‘taking two wives in their lives’ because ‘the foundation of creation is “male and female he created them” Gen 1:27' and because ‘those who entered (Noah’s) ark went in two by two into the ark Gen 7:9’ (CD 4.20-5.1; Gagnon, http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexstacyjohnsonsjt2.pdf)]

McNeill (ref. by Richard Hasbany, The Church and the Homosexual, Cp. 2) and others attempt to force marriage under the New Testament to include homosexuals due to its lower priority upon procreation. However, the Bible explicitly magnifies romantic and erotic love between a man and his female spouse in places such as the Song of Solomon (cf. Prov. 5:15-19), and otherwise reveals the marriage bond as being far more than for procreation, with the women's uniqueness as the helpmeet of the man transcending that aspect. Yet the complementary aspect relative to procreation is also held as important by conservative Jews and Christians, and which itself excludes same sex unions).(http://peacebyjesus.org/homosexuality_and_the_bible_wink.html#old)

In addition, 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).

Faced with the solid evidence for the exclusiveness of the Biblical sexual union, and condemnation against homosexual relations, pro-homosexual relations proponents invoke Gal. 3:28 is seeking to negate the. (Walter Brueggemann, Lisa Miller, ref. in "More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus") However, while all believers are spiritually one in Christ regardless of sexual and racial distinctions, and in the spiritual age to come even sexual unions will not exist between the elect, (Lk. 20:34-36) yet it is also evident that this spiritual oneness does not negate positional/functional differences, (Heb. 13:17) including those based upon creational distinctions (1Cor. 11:1-3; Eph. 5:22-25; 1Pt. 3:1-7) or the effects of the Fall. (1Tim. 2:9-15) (Albert Barnes, John Gill, 1Cor. 11:3; 14:34; 1Tim. 2:8-11)

[Note: saved in childbearing" is generally held by traditionalists not as implying salvation due to works, but by obedient faith in Christ, which will saved her despite her travail of mothering (Gill, JFB), akin to being saved "as by fire". (1Cor. 3:15, Or as i see it, because saving faith was/is to be usually/generally expressed by women in raising children and maintaining the home. In other places Paul commends those women who helped Paul and others in the gospel work, (Rm. 16:1,2ff; Phil. 4:3) in addition to encouraging celibacy in singleness if so called. TOC^

• 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, (Gill comments that natural born eunuchs “were frequently called by the Jews, סריס המה, "an eunuch of the sun”; T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 75. 1. 79. 2. & 80. 1. Maimon. Hilch. Ishot, c. 2. sect. 14), that is, as their doctors (Maimon & Bartenora in Misn. Yebamot, c. 8. sect. 4) explain it, one that from his mother's womb never saw the sun but as an eunuch; that is, one that is born so ... The signs of such an eunuch, are given by the Jewish writers (Bartenora, ibid. & Maimon. Hilch. Ishot, ut supra). This sort is sometimes called סריס בידי שמים "an eunuch by the hands of heaven" (T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 80. 2) or God, in distinction from those who are so by the hands, or means of men.) 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 may 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 of this 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 it is believed there were examples of this. (Albert Barnes, p. Mat 19:12) But celibacy within marriage is actually forbidden in 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 betaken as an example. http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/glimpsef/glimpses/glmps054.shtml)

However, some homo apologists, in an extreme example of exegetical sophistry, postulate or assert that at least some some of the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals, and proceed to 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 (as they see abstinence as unreasonable), the pro homosexual apologist reasons that marriage must be allowed for them (Homosexual Eunuchs, Rick Brentlinger)

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

The pro homosexual polemic controverts this, asserting that what Jesus was referencing to (“this saying”) was the ''kind'' of marriage, that being between male and female, to negate it's exclusivity as a type, when instead Jesus was referring to the ''disciple's conclusion'' which had become the issue in response to the ''permanence'' of marriage, that being single was to be preferred. The homosexual polemic next supposes that the avocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must sanction same gender marriage, but fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage, it is only the male and female who can be joined in marriage here, and not to anyone or anything contrary to what God has joined, nor to unscripturally separate what He has. Sinful man may desire many things, but only that which is lawful may be sought. Not only in Scripture but every extant "piece of evidence that we have about Jewish views of same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond is unremittingly hostile to such behavior." (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83; http://www.robgagnon.net/2vonlinenotes.htm Gagnon, Notes to Gagnon’s Essay in the Gagnon-Via Two Views Book) 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 is also understood that the Hebrew word for "eunuch" can also refer to such men as the officer of Pharaoh who was married, or an officer over men of war. (http://www.themoorings.org/prophecy/daniel1/less1.html) (Gn. 39:1ff; 2King. 25:19) And while it may be possible that sometimes eunuchs who were considered to have been born that way could procreate, (Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young; Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1998, Book XXIII.3.39.1) and of which some, in pagan nations, may have been sexually active homosexuals, and not simply asexual, yet Israel was not to be like other nations (Lv. 18:24,27), and to suppose that Jesus is referring to congenitally determined homosexual behavior and sanctioning marriage of such is neither warranted here or elsewhere. (cf. Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D) Instead, having already affirmed male and female as "what" God joined together, He further requires that bound not to be broken, and rather than enlarging it to includes a radical new type of union between same genders, Jesus provides celibate singleness as the option for those who decide not be joined in the Genesis union. It is also seen that simply desiring sex is not the real issue in 1Cor. 7:9, and that celibacy can also be chosen by persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others, as like the passionate Paul, they can keep their body under subjection (1Cor. 9:27) as they seek and serve the LORD, who Himself was single and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15) This is contrary to some pro-homosexual writers who refuse to allow such self-denial, yet even pro-homosexual Anglican theologian D. S. Bailey, while wrongly assuming that sometimes persons cannot be responsible for homosexual orientation, yet states, "Like the normal condition of heterosexuality, however, it may find expression in specific sexual acts; and such acts are subject to moral judgement no less than those which may take place between man and woman. It must be made quite clear that the genuine invert is not necessarily given to homosexual practices, and may exercise as careful a control over his or her physical impulses as the heterosexual.” (D. S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition [London/New York: Longmans, Green, 1955], xi).

As the homosexual apologist cannot establish any sanction of same gender marriage in the Bible, another polemical tactic sometimes employed by some pro homosexual writers who equate eunuchs with homosexuals, is one which asserts that since that Jesus did not say that eunuchs must be celibate, then the door to homosexual marriage is open (some may even assert that they need not be married). However, in addition to countering the hermeneutic that subjects the validity of all morality to whether Jesus explicitly mentioned it or prohibited it, the Bible only evidences that eunuchs (Mt. 19:10) would be of those who would choose celibacy, while only Genesis type marriage is once again confirmed. (1Cor. 7:1-7,32-38) The homosexual argument here can be seen to have a validity similar to saying that since God never commanded that man cannot marry animals, then this may be a option. Or that as consensual (agreed to before hand) cannibalism is not explicitly forbidden, then it might be practiced. Certain texts such as Gn. 49:27; Est 9:24 cf. Jer. 15:3 might even possibly be contrived to approve such by extreme revisionists. While cannibalism may be seen as allowable by some in life or death circumstances, which sex is not, yet it could never be allowed as a practice, as it is contrary in principal to what God established, as is homoeroticism, for which the Bible does not even provide any type of conditional sanction. (using another law of purpose, God establishes in Gn. 9:3 and elsewhere that man's need for food (sustenance) was to be fulfilled by plants and animals, which is the only manner of feeding we see sanctioned in Scripture. This itself serves as a basis to eliminate a diet of the flesh of man - no matter how much one might crave it - though cannibalism is not explicitly forbidden.)

The specious nature of the pro homosexual argument is overall seen when one considers the manner of Biblical evidence needed for the radical new marriage they suppose is sanctioned. When the Bible does indeed establish what is approved basic moral behavior, or abrogate a major restriction on behavior, or modifies it, then that is made clear. Food laws and the physical sacrificial system are manifest examples, while treatment of slaves (which is not in the same class of laws as sex partners, or other basic moral laws) is further ameliorated, changes which pro homosexuals can only dream would be said regarding homoeroticism. Instead, laws regarding illicit sex partners are abundantly upheld, including the consistent explicit condemnation of homosexual relations, while heterosexual marriage is strengthened, with opposite genders being distinctly stated as regards what God joined. All this precludes any need for an explicit statement, such as “eunuchs are not to be married”, and instead, such an explicit statement and clear example sanctioning same sex marriage is what the pro-homosex polemic critically needs, but such cannot be seen or derived.

An related argument used in seeking to negate the exclusivity of opposite gender marriage, is to assert that different types of marriage are allowed in Scripture, and 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 all manifest cases of sanctioned marriage are between male and female counterparts, (even though Solomon had multitudes of the latter). In Mt. 19:3-8, Jesus revealed that in the Old Testament God allowed a degree of broadness as regards the number of wives and the permanence of it, in condescension to their carnality, yet in bringing it back to it's original standard Jesus distinctly stated it was male and female which God joined together.

Acts 8:26-40 shows that eunuchs could be saved through repentance and faith in the LORD Jesus, and such required repentance from all forms of fornication. In contrast, in the Old Testament being made a eunuch was demeaning, while under the New Covenant no amoral '''physical''' aspect excludes one from being part of the kingdom. But practicing immoral '''behavior''' does, as it denies the faith, and thus the redeemed included those were '''formerly''' “effeminate” (1Cor. 6:9-11).

In conclusion, traditional exegesis establishes that 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), with Jesus also restoring the permanence of that bond. 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) TOC^

• Proclivity and permission polemic

This homosexual argument is one that posits that some men are born homosexual, and thus marriage must be allowed for them. (cf. http://www.robgagnon.net/nicholaskristofgodandsex.htm) The premise for this is both unproven, (Homosexuality: Nature, Nurture and Compassion, by Dr. Robert A. Pyne; Homosexuality By Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse) (Neil and Briar Whitehead, My Genes Made Me Do It! A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation; Lafayette, Louisiana, Huntington House Publishers, 1999) 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 than another, with strong desire to pleasure, possession, and power/prestige being the three main areas mankind sins in. (1Jn. 2:16). However, the Biblical fact is that due to the result of the fall of man, (Gn. 3) and our inherited Adamic nature, all fallen mankind is born with an "orientation" or proclivity, to sin, (Ps. 58:3; Rm. 7) and this in no way justifies acting it out. (Rm. 6). As Dallas states, “...immoral behavior cannot be legitimized by a quick baptism in the gene pool.” (Joe Dallas, A Strong Delusion: Confronting the “Gay Christian Movement”; Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996, p. 117. See also Joe Dallas, Social Justice Arguments) Every day men must resist yielding to sexual desire if it would be immoral, as being contrary the Creator's laws, (1Jn. 3:4) and which laws are good and necessary. (Rm. 7:12) The Bible also affirms that desire to sin is itself sinful if we foster it, and can be overcome 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 the same and overcome it, and shows us how. Rm. 8; Gal. 5:16) (Brian Schwertley, Homosexuality: A Biblical Analysis, reformedonline.com, Rm. 8; 12)

In response to those who seek to justify acting out an orientation in behavior which God declares to be sin, Schmidt states,

"Adulterers, or pedophiles, or pornographers, will gain little sympathy from the claim that their genes made them do it. Why should the homosexual be considered in a different genetic light? No, however fascinating or apparently comforting it may be to explore how the patterns of genetic structure and social surroundings combine to create for each of us a moral context, we must nevertheless also recognize our responsibility to act obediently within that context. As moral agents we say yes or no to each potential sexual encounter." Thomas E. Schmidt, “Homosexuality: Establishing a Christian Backdrop for Pastoral Care,” Ministry, November 1996,

One can be guilty of a desire itself that is contrary to what God has ordained, if one fosters it, and in every case we are to be seeking to overcome such by the means of grace God enables, as entire sanctification is to be sought by the Christian. (2Cor. 7:1; 1Thes. 5:23; Ja. 4; Mt. 5:6; 6:22) TOC^

• Summary

In summary, Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24 with its relevant texts is foundational in regards to the issue of homosexuality and the Bible, which traditional exegesis reveals is the essential basis for the injunctions against homosexual relations, revealing it to be intrinsically contrary to the union God has established for man. 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, for procreational and non procreational sex, with distinctive positions patterned after the Divine order, which are also supremely designed for certain functions of their non-erotic union. 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, and is maintained in principle and by precept. As the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together" is exclusively defined as male and female, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4), this conclusion may be summed up as "What therefore God has placed (sexually) asunder, let no man join together." TOC^

• Genesis 19

This story really begins in Genesis 13, in which Abraham and his nephew 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 simply that forced manner of sexual relations is what is best evidenced, but also the perverse homosexual nature of it, which defines the practice from whence the term "sodomy" was derived, and accentuates the Sodomites worthiness of judgment. In the light of cultural attitudes toward homosexual relations, Gordon J Wenham concludes that the demand to know Lot's guest was sexual, and while this was a most grievous manner of inhospitality, yet "...undoubtedly the homosexual intentions of the inhabitants of Sodom adds a special piquancy to their crime. In the eyes of the writer of Genesis and his readers it showed that they fully deserve to be described as 'wicked, great sinners before the LORD' (13:13) and that the consequent total overthrow of their city was quite to be expected." (The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality, Gordon J Wenham, Expository Times 102 (1991): 259-363) Jewish Ethics and Halakhah For Our Time (2002), comments, “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.)

As this story evidences for traditionalists that the most notable physical sin of Sodom had to do with homoerotic relations, (Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 73-74, and Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice, pp. 46-50; What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Gregory Koukl) and which “filthy” lifestyle resulted in Sodom becoming the foremost example of the judgment of God, and a warning to “those that after should live ungodly” (Pet. 2:6), pro-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 being "inhospitality”. (D S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Tradition, p. 8; John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 93.; John J. McNeil, the Church and the Homosexual, pp. 50, 93) Scroggs, while seeking to justify homosexual relations, states he finds it “difficult to deny the sexual intent of the Sodomites”, and that he believes “the traditional interpretation to be correct.” (The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs; p. 73) In addition, conservative apologist James Holding states, "I know of no evidence for the claim that Lot violated a custom by not getting permission to have a guest. ("On Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis", James Patrick Holding) While Sodom certainly manifested “inhospitality,” it is the specific expression of it which is the issue.

• Grammatical contentions

Two words focused upon in the attempt to remove homosexual abuse from Gn. 19 are ''men'' as in "the men of Sodom", and "know" as in ''know them'', which the men demanded Lot allow them to do regarding his guests. The first assertion is that the word for men used in Genesis 19:4, "'ĕnôsh" (Strong's, #582), is not gender specific, but simply indicates mortals or people, and instead the word ''îysh'' (or ''eesh'') (Strong's, #376), would have been used in Gn. 19:4 if it specifically meant men. (knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Sodom_and_Gomorrah) Actually Gn. 19:4 does state both "the men of Sodom" and "all the people", yet 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; Ruth 1:11; Jer. 29:6; Ezek. 16:45; 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 book (Gn. 18:2,16,22; Gn. 19:5,8,10-12,16). 'ĕnôsh is used as the plural for “ish” ("man," #375) in contexts in Genesis, and elsewhere it 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). Bruce L. Gerig notes the Hebrew word “am” ("people," #5971), in v. 4 ("all the people from every quarter"), is used through Genesis to refer either to mixed groups (e.g., ancestors, descendents, citizens) or to groups of men only (e.g., troops, male attendants, male emissaries), as in Gn. 26:10. In addition, when Abraham and Lot entertain and converse with their male guests in Gen 18-19, the women folk are not present. http://epistle.us/hbarticles/sodom2.html

As for “Iyish” (H376), this word is most often used 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 for man is "'âdâm" (H120), but which is used for mankind in general (Gn. 6:1; 2Ch. 6:18,30; Job 7:20), and thus 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, but it is not the only word used to denote a crowd of men.

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, and indeed, that it is focusing on males is what is best inferred. In addition, in the continuing context, Lot goes outside and entreats his ''brethren'', which word, "âch,'' (H251) 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). Thus Lot's address and the nature of his appeal and their violent reaction best indicates men in particular.

The next word in contention is the Hebrew word ''yâda‛'' (H3045), for ''know'', in "that we may know them", and "I have two daughters which have not known man". (Gn. 19:5-8) This word is more critical as to determining the particular nature of the inhospitality of Sodom. To those familiar with the Biblical use of yâda‛ as a primary verb to sexually know a human, the meaning should be clear enough, “Know a person carnally, of sexual intercourse...man subj. and obj. (of sodomy) Gn 19:5).” Brown, Driver and Briggs, (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody ME: 1996), p. 394.) but homosexual apologists contend that since yâda‛ is used over 930 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 yâda‛ is clearly used 14 times in the Old Testament to denote ''knowing'' someone sexually, in addition to Gn. 19:4, and an equivalent word 2 times in the New: Gn. 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26 (premarital); Num. 31:17,18,35; Jdg. 11:39; 19:25; 21:11,12; 1Sam. 1:19; 1Ki. 1:4; cf. Mt. 1:25; Lk. 1:34. Another possible instance of such, and of a non-consensual homosexual act, is in Gn. 9:20-27 (v. 24) (Holding, Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis)

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", etc. Ancient languages which also used this allegorical use of “know” included Egyptian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic, (Botterweck, 1986, 5:455-456,460) as well as Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek (Gesenius, 1979, p. 334). The Egyptian equivalent is "rh" and the Ugaritic is "yd." Both may mean " to know sexually" in certain contexts. The Aramaic yeda has the same breadth of meaning as the Hebrew." (James de Young, Biblical Sanctions Against Homosexuality, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 34 No. 2, June 1991 pp157-177.). Hebrew scholars, in defining 'know' as used in Genesis 19:5, used terminology like 'sexual perversion' (Harris, et al., 1980, p. 366), 'homosexual intercourse' (Botterweck, 5:464) and 'crimes against nature', (Gesenius, p. 334; Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Additionally, Lot's offer of his two daughters who “have not known [yâda'] man” (Lot had married daughters also, not at home) to the Sodomites in response to their demanded to “known” his guests, best indicates that Lot was offering substitute bodies for them to know sexually, rather than being sacrificed in pagan idolatry, as some homosexual apologists assert. The latter position is untenable in the light of actions of the men in the parallel story in 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. (Derek Kidner, "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1963), p. 137; http://www.biblebb.com/files/homosex.htm)

Another misleading argument that the less ambiguous word ''shakhabh'' (H7901) would have been used instead of the word "yâda if sexual knowing was meant, (G. A. Barton) 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.

In their quest to render yâda to be non-sexual, some point to the Greek Septuagint translation which renders yâda' in Gen 19:5 as ''synginomai'', which they suppose only means becoming acquainted, while v. 8 it translates yâda' as ginosko ("know), which is clearly is sexual in that verse. Besides possible problems with the Septuagint (which apparently has Methuselah dying after the flood in Gn. 9, etc,. (http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/2444/chronology.html) and the incongruity of the men of Sodom merely wanting to get acquainted with the strangers, that synginomai can have a sexual meaning is evidenced by Gen 39:10, in which synginomai is used to refer to Joseph's refusal to sleep with the wife of Potiphar. It also occurs in three places in the Apocrypha (Judith 12:16; Susanna 11, 39), with 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. (Dr. James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality, pp. 118-122)

It is noteworthy that pro-homosexual polemicists who disallow a sexual meaning here are often not reluctant to read homosexual relations 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, etc.

As yâda is often used as a verb to refer to sex narratives, another attempt is made to disallow homosexual relations in Gn. 19 based upon the absence of yâda when the Bible mentions homosexual acts (in Lv. 18:22; 20:13; 23:17) (Julie M. Smith, Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar) 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). In addition, none of the laws against illicit sex in Lv. 18 and 20 use yâda. TOC^

• 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. However, 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 the 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. (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). As for “abused” (“‛âlal,” H5953) as in “they knew her and abused her all the night”, (v. 25) this 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 pro-homosexual 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. (The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs, pp. 73-75)

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. TOC^

• Jude 1:7

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 then Jude 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. The verb ekporneuo refers to sexual immorality with the preposition ek explaining that it means that "they gave themselves up fully, without reserve, thoroughly, out and out, utterly. (Richard Wolff, "A Commentary on the Epistle of Jude", Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960), p. 75.)

In response, most homosexual apologists propose or contend 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” beings, meaning angels, (Bailey, pp. 11-16; Boswell, p. 97) perhaps referring to Genesis 6 and or the apocryphal book of Enoch. Besides the fact that there are sound reasons for the Book of Enoch being rejected from the Jewish canon, the Septuagint and Vulgate, and the Apocrypha, including its tales of approx. 443 foot height angelic offspring, or angels (stars) procreating with oxen to produce elephants, camels and donkeys, (86:1-5) (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/book_of_enoch.htm), 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 that if homosex advocates would give the Book of Enoch more veracity above the portion which Jude uses, (who would be following the Biblical practice of quoting an inspired utterance from a source that is not wholly inspired, just as Paul did in quoting a pagan prophet in Acts 17:28) then Enoch's condemnation of "sodomitic" sex (10:3; 34:1) (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/enoch/2enoch01-68.htm) would provide further testimony that homosexual relations was the prevalent "physical" sin of Sodom. And as Jude connects the judgment of Sodom with their going after strange flesh, then the connection to Gn. 19 is intimated. Additional evidence which indicates that Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6-7,10 possesses a homoerotic dimension is found in the nearest parallels in early extra Biblical Jewish texts, that of Philo of Alexandria, (Abraham 133-41; Questions on Genesis 4.37) and Josephus. (Antiquities 1.194-95, 200-201; Jewish War 4.483-5; 5.566) and the Testament of Naphtali (3:4); Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice pp. 87-89)

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, pertaining to that which is contrary to God's law and design. 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; Dave Miller, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480)

Some assert that Jude is referring to the Sodomites seeking sex with angels, (W. Countryman) which Jude deals with in v. 6. However, it is first seen that the structure of Jude shows he is using different examples of the rebellion of sinners in the Christian realm, which he likens to apostates in Israel, (v. 5) to angels, (v. 6) to the pagans of Sodom, in v.7, whom v. 8 likens to dreamers which "defile the flesh". The idea the sin was knowingly seeking sex with angels is further militated against by the fact that both Gn. 18 and Jude 1:7 reveals that fornication was an ongoing and regional issue of fornication, and extraordinarily so, that of a homosexual nature, (Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible; ;Vincent's Word Studies) (What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?, Gregory Koukl) "out of the order of nature." (Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown). The angels appearance as men was in order to find out whether the great cry of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn. 18:20) was true, and it is certain that this cry was not that of men seeking sex with angels. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the Sodomites knew that the men were angels. (cf. Gill, Gn. 19)

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, [but] there are also at least six indications that ekporneusasai alludes, at least in part, to attempted male-male intercourse." (response to prof. l. William Countryman’s review in anglican theological review; On Careless Exegesis and Jude 7)

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. TOC^

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 that Ezekiel and Jesus condemn it for inhospitality to strangers. (Bailey, Homosexuality and Western Tradition, pp. 1-28; McNeil, Church and the Homosexual, pp. 42-50; Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, pp. 92-97)

However, while Ezek 16:49 states, "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", yet widespread promotion of sensuality and homoeroticism in particular, tends to be a product of and concomitant with, pride, abundance of food, idleness, and selfishness. In addition, while verse 49 states overall sins, the next verse 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 contextually this chapter is much about fornication by Israel. 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 the foundation sin of idolatry they had violated their covenant with God and thus faced certain judgment. (cf. Straight & Narrow?: Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate, Thomas E. Schmidt)

In addition, Sodom is associated more with sexual sins than with inhospitality or any other physical type of sin.

Sins to which Sodom is linked to elsewhere include,

#adultery and lies (Jer. 23:14);

#unrepentance (Mt. 11:20-24; Mk. 6:11, 12);

#careless living (Lk. 17:29);

#shameless sinning (Is. 3:9);

#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).

As for the claim that Jesus condemned Sodom for inhospitality, in reality Jesus did not invoke Sodom as a warning to cities because they were 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.

• Extra Biblical historical sources

These sources do not have the authority of the Bible, and are of varying historical value, but for textual and cultural reasons they can be relevant. These references include historians, extra Biblical books (apocryphal and pseudepigraphical) and Jewish commentary, as well as the Quran. Excluding the latter source, some reference is sometime made to these in prohomsex polemics, to which traditionalists such as James B. De Young respond. (Young, A Critique of Prohomosexual Interpretations of the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha)

Historians

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).

Early commentators

The famous Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC to AD 50), famous Jewish philosopher, theologian, and a contemporary of Jesus and Paul, described Sodom and its people.

The country of the Sodomites was a district of the land of Canaan, which the Syrians afterwards called Palestine, a country full of innumerable iniquities, and especially of gluttony and debauchery, and all the great and numerous pleasures of other kinds which have been built up by men as a fortress, on which account it had been already condemned by the Judge of the whole world. (134) And the cause of its excessive and immoderate intemperance was the unlimited abundance of supplies of all kinds which its inhabitants enjoyed.

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 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; (136) 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 made also their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of man, as far as depended on them. Philo, On Abraham, 133b-136a

Methodius, bishop of Olympus and Patara (AD 260-312).

But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature, or of any unlawful practice; for such are enmity to God. For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature, as is also that with brute beasts. But adultery and fornication are against the law; the one whereof is impiety, the other injustice, and, in a word, no other than a great sin. But neither sort of them is without its punishment in its own proper nature. For the practicers of one sort attempt the dissolution of the world, and endeavor to make the natural course of things to change for one that is unnatural; but those of the second son — the adulterers — are unjust by corrupting others’ marriages, and dividing into two what God hath made one, rendering the children suspected, and exposing the true husband to the snares of others. And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they have wrought abomination. (Commentary on the sin of Sodom)

Basil, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (circa AD 330-379).

They who have committed sodomy with men or brutes, murderers, wizards, adulterers, and idolaters, have been thought worthy of the same punishment; therefore observe the same method with these which you do with others. We ought not to make any doubt of receiving those who have repented thirty years for the uncleanness which they committed through ignorance; for their ignorance pleads their pardon, and their willingness in confessing it; therefore command them to be forthwith received, especially if they have tears to prevail on your tenderness, and have [since their lapse] led such a life as to deserve your compassion. (first canonical epistle)

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (AD 347-407),

All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that “'they changed the natural use.” For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfill their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, “They changed the truth of God for a lie.” And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, “Leaving the natural use of the woman.” …For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical. (Commentary on Romans 1:26-27)

Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430),

“Can it ever, at any time or place, be unrighteous for a man to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and his neighbor as himself? Similarly, offenses against nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and should be punished. Such offenses, for example, were those of the Sodomites; and, even if all nations should commit them, they would all be judged guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which has not made men so that they should ever abuse one another in that way. For the fellowship that should be between God and us is violated whenever that nature of which he is the author is polluted by perverted lust.” (Confessions. Commenting on the story of Sodom from Genesis 19)

Alsop, John Calvin, Protestant reformer and theologian (1509-1564), John Wesley, Protestant evangelist, theologian and founder of Methodism (1703-1791), likewise attributed the specific sin of Sodom to being homosexual relations. (http://bibleprobe.com/earlyteach.htm)

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://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.iii.xiv.html )

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.) (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.iii.x.html)

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.; http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe117.htm)

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) (http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/sodomy.txt)

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.

The Quran

The Quran (circa 600 A.D.) references many Biblical characters and stories, though usually with distortions and or additions (http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/fisher/topical/index.htm#contents) (likely due to Muhammad's own illiteracy and that of others, and contact with religious factions who added to the Scriptures), and thus it is of limited value in affirming Biblical truth. But it often does contain key aspects of notable stories seen in the Bible, and in four different Suras it records the sin of Sodom to be homosexual relations.

"(We also sent) Lut (as a messenger): behold, He said to his people, "Do ye do what is shameful though ye see (its iniquity)? Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!" (sura 27:54,55: Yusufali)

"And his people came unto him, running towards him - and before then they used to commit abominations - He said: O my people! Here are my daughters! They are purer for you. Beware of Allah, and degrade me not in (the person of) my guests. Is there not among you any upright man? They said: Well thou knowest that we have no right to thy daughters, and well thou knowest what we want." (sura 1I: 78,79: Pickthal)

"The folk of Lot denied the messengers (of Allah),... What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, And leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are froward folk." (sura 26.160: Pickthal:)

"And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: "Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?" But his people gave no answer but this: they said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth." (sura 29:28,29: Yusufali)

• Summation

An examination of both grammar and context in Gn. 19 best indicates a homoerotic intent on the part of the Sodomites. The sexual connotation in this story is further evidenced in the parallel story of the Levite and his concubine in Judge 19, whom men of Belial “knew” and abused all the night. (Derek Kidner, "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1963), p. 137.) To this is added the confirmation in the Book of Jude that Sodom's most notable physical sin was fornication, culminating in a perverse kind. While prohomsex polemicists attempt to render this as referring to Sodomites knowingly seeking sex with angels, Jude 1:7 reveals that fornication was a regional issue which preceded the angelic visit, and Gn. 18:20-22 indicates that Sodom was practicing their damnable sin prior to the arrival of Lot's angelic guests. In addition, it is most unlikely that the Sodomites knew then what manner of men his guests were (or that they would go after angels if they did), until the angels smote them with blindness and pulled Lot inside and shut the door. This would have been impossible for ordinary men, and the Sodomites would then have realized that the men whom they sought were no ordinary men. TOC^

• Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

See also Leviticus 18

(Lev 18:22) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

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

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

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

• Universal, Cultural and Ceremonial laws

As the arguments on both sides manifests, proper exegesis of these texts requires consideration of different categories of laws. The Bible is generally recognized as evidencing three broad types of Mosaic Law: moral, civil/judicial, and ceremonial/ritual. (The Bible As Law, Gerald R. Thompson http://www.lonang.com/foundation/1/f17.htm' Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1977, p. 214; Ceremonies and the ceremonial law, Kaufmann Kohler) Bahnsen points out that the early third century church document Didascalia Apostolorum clearly distinguished between the Decalogue and the temporary ceremonies.) (http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/law.htm) Christians usually clearly differ with Jews as regards the transcendence of the latter as concerns the requirement of literal obedience. (Ceremonies and the ceremonial law http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid303&letterC)

Within the first category are those which deal with basic human actions and heart attitudes which are directly applicable to mankind in general. Idolatry is the first command, (Ex. 20:2,3) and whatever holds our ultimate allegiance, or is our ultimate object of affect or source of security is our god, at least at that time. (Dt. 10:20; Ezek. 6:9; 14:3-7; 20:16; Rm. 6:16; 14:4; 1Cor. 10:31; 16:22) All willful sin against what one knows God has ordained is idolatry. (Rm. 6:16) Within this first category are moral laws which deal with mans behavior toward others, and which are shown in the whole of Scripture to transcend historical and cultural boundaries, such as honoring parents, unjust killing, illicit sexual unions, etc.

The second category are civil laws and judicial penalties (judgments), which laws which are based upon foundational moral laws. Both the judgments and certain aspects of laws are often culture specific, yet what they enjoin can usually be literally applicable to all cultures and times, by way of modification in accordance with the principal behind them, though some controversy exists regarding details of such. (Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, For Whom Was God's Law Intended?) (Moses' Law for Modern Government) Every culture may not need a law against being gored by an ox, (Ex. 21:28-36) but the jurisprudence behind such is easily applied to contemporary culture. While the exact penalties may not always be exacted today, that they have penalties testifies to their sinfulness. However, laws in this category sometimes are later evidenced as not necessarily setting the highest standard, yet they can be seen as moving in that direction. Such things as "a eye for an eye" is a restriction of restitution, moving toward the benevolence seen in the New Testament, where loving one's neighbor is also expanded. (Mt. 6:38-48) Laws ameliorating the accompaniment cultural practice of slavery can be seen as moving towards an original ideal, (1Cor. 7:21-23; Philemon 1), (God Against Slavery, by George B. Cheever, D.D) towards the charitableness seen in the genesis of the church, while divorce laws became stricter, (Mt. 19:4-9) in conformity to their Genesis original.

A final distinct category is that of ceremonial laws, which mainly deal with practices which are not inherently moral, and which the New Testament reveals were typological, serving as physical examples of Christ and realities realized under the promised (Jer. 31:31-34) New Covenant instituted in Christ's blood (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:16). These consist of laws on sacrifices, the liturgical calendar, diet and washings (Lv. 1-16,25; Is. 53; Jn. 1:29; 1Pt. 1:18,19; Col. 2:16,17; Heb. 4:3; 9:10; 10:1-22; Gal. 4:10). These laws overall do not target pagan cultic activity, but together with the other laws they served to make Israel distinctive by supplying them with superior standards in every respect. Though unlike moral laws, literal obedience to ceremonial laws for moral purposes is not enjoined upon Christians, and literal obedience to many of these laws was made impossible by the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.), yet these ordinances do contain edifying qualities which can serve as a guide to good diet and cleanliness, etc.

However, a crossover between categories may be discerned, being part of what has been referred to as “culturally applied laws,” (Does Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Flat-Out Condemn Homosexuality?, J. P Holding) these being religiously based laws which target certain practices that were a direct expression of formal idolatry and superstition, from temple prostitution (Dt. 23:17), to child sacrifices to a specific idol, to cutting oneself for the dead. (Lv. 19:28) In addition were certain practices which had become distinctive of paganism, such as strange ways of cutting one's hair or beard, (Lv. 19:27) or planting trees near the tabernacle. (Dt. 16:21) These prohibitions are not typological in nature, yet not all of them are unconditionally morally wrong, as is determined by by how such are treated in the whole of Scripture, and their foundational. While the practice of prostitution is wrong in any context, as is child sacrifice to any false god, things such as how one cuts his beard has little to warrant it being more only contextually wrong. Boswell's error in this regard is that he lists temple prostitution in Dt. 23:17 and 1Ki. 14:24, as well as child sacrifice to idols (2Ki. 16:3) as being merely violations of "ritual impurity. (ibid pg. 100; The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective, 1979) However, both practices are wrong in any context (nor could mortal man now literally sacrifice his son as the pagans did, even for the true God. (Gn. 22:2 was a case in which Abraham had clear warrant that he had received another revelation from God, in addition to ones that promised the miraculously conception of Issac, and which son he never did slay. Judges 11 is another relevant text, but is open to interpretation, and if literal, it cannot sanction such as a practice. Finally, Jesus willingly allowed Himself to be crucified for us.)

The Bible makes these basic categories of law discernible, as it lists the type of sins which were ceremonial, (Gal. 4:10; Col. 16,17; Heb. 9:10) while explicitly reincorporating many of its basic moral commands into the New Testament code, (Homosexuality and the Old Testament, P. Michael Ukleja, ref. Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124, July-September 1967: 246) upholding basic universal moral laws by type and often individually. While Christians are "not under the law" because they are justified by faith in Christ and His blood, rather than by the merit of our works, (Rm. 3:25-5:1) yet true faith compels pursuit of the morality of the law, which is holy, just and good, (Rm. 7:12) with Christians being mandated and rightly motivated and enabled to fulfill “the righteousness of the law.” (Rm. 8:4) Obedience to which goes beyond the letter of the law (so that sin is of the heart, not simply in the act), though it is evident that this usually requires keeping the letter of basic universal moral laws as well, (Rm. 13:8-10; Heb. 10:28; Ja. 4:11; 1Cor. 10:7; 2Cor. 6:16,17; 1Jn. 5:21; Rv. 9:20; 13:14,15 14:11; 1Tim. 6:1; Eph. 6:1-3; 1Cor. 9:8,9) with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being abundantly prohibited in 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 homosexual relations clearly fit in this category by type, and it is condemned in the New Testament, (Rm. 1:16,27) while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8,10) Gudel concludes, "The Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the New Testament (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and the like, are still abominations before God." ( That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture by Joseph P. Gudel, on ICR)

The distinction between different kinds of laws may be seen by analogy. Principled parents may forbid their children from dressing, in clothing or haircuts, etc., like a certain notorious gang of drug dealers, etc., in order to guard against assimilation of their destructive culture, and uphold standards, though there may be the latter's appearance may not be exactly immodest or otherwise immoral. The parents may also restrict their offspring from certain places, which, while not being immoral in themselves, are not truly needful and would serve as an undue temptation to immorality. Yet they may also forbid them from acting as the gang examples in committing acts that are evidenced as being are universally immoral, based on underlying principles and censure in outside gang life, though the example of the gang is what is explicitly invoked.

The primary argument made against the condemnation of homosexual relations here is that, due to the cultural setting of the institution of these laws, it only referred to homosexual relations as part of pagan religious ceremonies, and had priestly or religious ritual purity (ceremonial law) in mind, and which were given simply to make Israel a distinctive people. It is thus asserted that there is no prohibition of “loving, committed homosexual partnerships”. However, injunctions against homosexual relations are not joined by type with outlawed practices which can be shown to have been effected simply in reaction to pagan corruptions, such as worshiping in groves, (Dt. 16:21) nor is sanction for homosexual unions established anywhere in Scripture (unlike for instance, eating pork, etc.). Rather, Leviticus 18 is part of the body of laws which overall deal with basic sexual practices, which laws are overall manifest in Scripture as transcendent, and which have their moral foundation in the establishment of marriage by God between the male and female. Moreover, unlike Leviticus 16 and 17, which is directed toward the priests, chapter 18 is directed toward the children of Israel, and while its laws were given against the backdrop of cultic pagan worship, it is evident that practices which were a manifest fruit of idolatry (though ultimately all sin is, and can be an informal kind) often served as negative illustrations of moral (versus ceremonial) behavior which is universally sinful, with proscriptions in both Testaments against such being not restricted to the the context which exampled them. (Lv. 18:3; 24; Dt. 20:18; 1Kg. 14:24; 2Kg. 16:3,21:2; 17:15; Ezek. 20:7-11; 23:8; Rm. 12:2; Eph. 2:1-13; 4:17; 5:7-11; 1Cor. 6:9-11; Col. 3:5-7; 1Pt. 4:2-4). As seen, this includes the 10 commandments to laws against immorality in the New Testament. The law against prostituting one's daughter in Lv. 19:29 is in the immediate context of ceremonial law, but is not restricted to that context. Other examples of unlawful sexual partners in Lv. 18 are not simply wrong in a religious context, but are universally wrong. However, the consistent use of the pro-homosexual hermeneutic operative in their attempt to negate the universality of Lev. 18:22, would also allow the negation of all such accompanying laws, from adultery to bestiality, as well as any proscriptions against immorality in which idolatry served as an example to avoid, but which are clearly disallowed by Scripture, as evidenced by the condemnation of such in other places, and their lack of sanction.

Moreover, motive is not a factor in outlawing illicit sexual partners, and such are nowhere sanctioned by love or commitment, except as manifested by the social contract of marriage, and which is instituted by God to specifically join male and female, as confirmed by Jesus Christ. (Gn. 1:16,27; 2:24; Mt. 19:4)

Incest

It is argued that since incest was once allowed, then its later prohibition in Lv. 18 is a contradiction, and thus the prohibition against homosexual relations is invalid. However, it was incestuous marriage that was sanctioned early on, and its later prohibition is not a contradiction of Scriptural morality or jurisprudence, as it allows that a prohibition of a freedom that was once allowed in the beginning can later be mandated if necessary. In the beginning there was only one law, which man broke and as a consequence restrictions were necessary which he did not need previously, (Gn. 2:9,16,17; 3:33-24; 9:3,4) while later rebellion necessitated more laws. (Gal. 3:19)

And as described above, there is a difference in types of laws which relates to their permanence. In the case of incest, unlike homosexual relations which are condemned in principle from the beginning and then unconditionally and perpetually in precept, with incestuous marriage we have something that was sanctioned in the beginning, and the reason for its later unconditional prohibition can easily be understood as being due to the effects of sin being progressively realized.

Prior to the Fall, there was no decay and death, (Rm. 5:12) but not all that would result from that primal sin was immediately realized, which would include its detrimental effects upon the DNA pool, and thus approx. 1500 years after Adam we have the prohibition against incest. And which is never abrogated, nor are any of these basic moral laws, with an incestuous relationship being treated as a major sin, (Mk. 6:17,19; 1Cor. 5:1-5) while prohibitions against sexual immorality as a whole are manifestly upheld, along with marriage being between opposite genders being affirmed. (Mt. 19:4,5)

Linguistical, categorical and cultural polemics

Tô‛êbah and zimmâh

As Lv. 18:22 declares homosexual relations between men to be an "abomination", Boswell and most other polemicists promoting this contend that the Hebrew word "tô‛êbah" (or "tow`ebah") usually translated ''abomination'' seldom refers to something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft, but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or printing marks on one's flesh, or against mixed fabrics. Helminiak claims that tô‛êbah means "dirty" or "impure", and was wrong merely "because it offended sensitivities". (Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, pp. 51; cf. A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology)

Rather than prohibiting same gender sex in general like other laws against illicit partners, Boswell and like revisionists generally assert that these Levitical injunctions against homosexual relations (and even all the sins of Lv. 18 and 20) were only given to make Israel distinctive (akin to “team colors”), and only prohibit pagan temple prostitution. Or that they were concerned with the wasting of reproductive seed,(Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Pp 100-01; Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality By Jack Bartlett Rogers, p. 72; Horner, David loved Jonathan, p.73,85) though even pro-homosexual author Robin A. Scroggs thinks these latter ideas are conjecture which is best not to speculate about. (The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73)

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

However, examination of the use of tô‛êbah in the original language text reveals that it 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, and in contrast, tô‛êbah is the word most often used for abomination in reference to grave moral sins, including those which are unmistakably universally sinful. Collectively it is used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20. (Lv. 18:27,29) As idolatry is the mother of all sins, tô‛êbah is often used for such. (Dt. 32:16) (http://ariyl.com/abominationofdesolation.swf Anchor Bible Dictionary, Abomination of Desolation)

The word, which, when used, always denotes ceremonial abominations is sheqets (Lev. 7:21; 11:10-13,20,23,41,42; Is. 66:17; Ezek. 8:10), while the word from which it is derived, "shâqats," is only used in Leviticus for dietary violations, (Lev. 11:11,13,43; 20:25) and a "cursed thing in Dt. 7:26, and an abhorred cry in Prv. 22:24.

The word, which, when used, always denotes ceremonial abominations is sheqets (Lev. 7:21; 11:10-13,20,23,41,42; Is. 66:17; Ezek. 8:10), and then shâqats, from which it is derived, which itself is only used in Leviticus for dietary violations, (Lev. 11:11,13,43; 20:25) and a "cursed thing in Dt. 7:26, and an abhorred cry in Prv. 22:24.

Majority of specific sins which are said to be tô‛êbah

*1. idolatry or idols (Dt. 7:25,26; 13, 2Kg. 21:2-7; 23:13; 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; 21:2,11)

*9. offerings from the above (Dt. 23:18)

*10. cross-dressing (Dt. 22:5)

*11. child sacrifice to idols (2Ki. 16:3; 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 regards ''zimmâh'', when used sexually, it is usually used in a general manner to describe the vile nature of universally sinful sexual immorality, such as are also specifically or broadly categorized as tōʻēḇā, (Lv. 18:17, 19:29; Jer. 13:27; Ezek. 22:9,11; 23:21,27,29,35,44,48,49) yet the use of the latter shows that the list of universal sinful things extends to more than those referred to as being zimmâh. Paradoxically, zimmâh also works to confirm the sexual nature of the sin of Sodom in Gn. 19, due to it's use in the parallel story to describe the offense of the men of Gibeah. (Judges 20:6)

Use in the Septuagint

Boswell and Helminiak look to the Greek LXX (Septuagint), an interpretive work of many translators of the Hebrew texts into Greek, for support here, arguing that its use of ''βδέλυγμα'' (''bdelygma'' or ''bdelugma'') in translating tô‛êbah in Lv. 18:22 and other places, (studylight.org; abomination) indicates that the Leviticus passage should be interpreted as a violation of ceremonial impurity. They further postulate that a Greek word, ''anomia'', (http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_618-20.htm) would likely be used if it were a violation of moral law (Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp. 100-102) (What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak, pp. 64-65) In response, James B. De Young and others show the inconsistency of this argument in the light of more extensive research, and that the use of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:10 (to which this polemic is related), works to evidence that the Levitical injunctions were not simply targeting temple sex, but (at least male) homosexual relations in general.(Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, pp. 65-69; The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9, David E. Malick; “Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10)”, Vigiliae Christianae 38 1984 125-53; I Cor 6:9: What is really meant by these terms?)

That Hellenistic Jewish translators of the LXX (for whom all the Levitical laws were always to be literally obeyed, if possible) used both bdelygma and derivatives mainly for specific violations of the Holiness Code, while giving it a broader use in wisdom and literature, (Prov. 11:1,20; 12:22; 15:8; 15:9,26; 16:12; 20:23; 21:27; 27:20; 29:27); including using for cheating in the market under Moasic law (Dt. 25:13-19) However, only part of the holiness code is ceremonial, and that by type, Lv. 18:22 belongs within the moral category. (What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Gregory Koukl)

The Hebrew word ''sheqets'', when it occurs in the original language text (the Masoretic), is used exclusively for dietary laws, or (once) for touching that which is unclean. Likewise ''shâqats'' is only used for diet in Leviticus, while tô‛êbah is primarily used for moral abominations. The LXX does not always translate those words consistently, as comparison shows, (http://peacebyjesus.org/toevah+lxx.html) such as using βδέλυγμά for sheqets in Lev. 11:10,13,23 (dietary), and for tô‛êbah in Dt. 24:4 (morally illicit marriage).

There are variants of βδέλυγμα (bdelygma) which do only occur as denoting ceremonial abomination/s, (βδελύγματος (bdelugmatov) in Lev 7:21; Βδελύξεσθε (bdelucesqe) in Lev. 11:11b and Lev. 11:13a; βδελύξητε/bdeluchte in Lev 11:43; βδελύξετε (bdelucete) in Lev. 20:25. The LXX uses different four variations of bdelugma in Lv. 18 for abomination/abominations/abominable: βδέλυγμα (bdelugma) in Lv. 18:22; βδελύγματα (bdelugmata) in Lv. 18:27; βδελυγμάτων (bdelugmatwn) in Lv. 18:26; 18:29) Ἐβδελυγμένων (ebdelugmenwn) in Lv. 18:30, with versus 26,27,29,30 collectively condemning all the forbidden practices of Lv. 18 as "abomination." We see by that the pro-homosexual grammatical attempt to make illicit sex partners, of which Lv. 18 almost entirely consists, to be part of ceremonial law fails.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia comments,

Three distinct Hebrew words are rendered in the English Bible by “abomination,” or “abominable thing,” referring [except in Gen_43:32; Gen_46:34] to things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements of His religion. It would be well if these words could be distinguished in translation, as they denote different degrees of abhorrence or loathsomeness.

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

Zakhar

Another attempt to relegate Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to a unique cultic context is one that strives to attach a radical significance to the use of zakhar (H2145), which is the Hebrew word normally translated male/males throughout the OT, or the lesser used word for such, zekhur (H2138), by noting that in 90% of the occurrences it signifies those who have a special sacred significance (newborn sons, circumcised males, Levites, soldiers, sacrificial animals, returning exiles, etc.). By which he concludes that this signifies that the Levitical injunctions against homosexual relations only pertain to sex with priests! (Uses of Zakhar/Zekhur (“Male”) in the to, by Bruce L. Gerig)

However, this conclusion derived from the use of zakhar/zekhur within special classes of creatures is easily shown to be unwarranted, when one realizes that all Israelite males fell into a special class of people, while zakhar/zekhur are strictly gender specific words which are used most often to differentiate between male and females in general, and which is the only special significance it provides, and therefore it is used for males within certain classes. 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) and 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). This is a case of a grammatical distinction which makes no difference in whom the Levitical condemnation of homosexual relations applies to. Moreover, in no place in Scripture are these words used to distinctly signify pagan male priests: in fact the common word for men ('îysh H376) is used for such. (Jdg 6:28,30; 1Ki 18:22)

• Other grammatical and categorical attempts

Others contend or postulate that the grammar in Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 indicates only a prohibition of actual male intercourse, and only condemns the active party, not the passive one, with procreation being causative of the injunction, and or being due to the need for male dominance, but not forbidding lesbian eroticism. (Wrestling with God and Men, pp. 80-93, by Steven Greenberg) Or that it only targets coercive male intercourse, (A Time to Embrace, Stacy Johnson; cf. http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexstacyjohnsonmorereasonscritique.pdf) none of which distinctions are made by the Law Giver.

The focus here is on the words, ''îysh'' (man) ''shâkab'' (lieth) ''êth'' (with) ''zâkâr'' (mankind) ''mishkâb'' (lieth) "ishshâh'' ''nâshîym'' (women), with mishkâb, usually meaning ''bed'', being said to be restricted to only intercourse. But while that specific action (cf. Num. 31:17–18,35; Judges 21:11–12) is prohibited, yet to restrict "the "bed of love" (Ezek. 23:17; cf. 7:17) to only actual intercourse would appear to be too narrow. It is inconceivable that euphemisms such as "uncover the nakedness, or "lieth (''shâkab'' ) with" (''‛im''), which phrase occurs 160 times, and with one exception (Hos. 2:18) is always used for sex, or for dying, only forbid adulterous or incestuous intercourse while allowing all else, even if they may be seen as a lesser degree of eroticism. Though the sin of Reuben was that he went up to his father's bed (Gn. 49:4) inferring adultery/incest with his mother, certainly lesser forms of eroticism would not be sanctioned. Gagnon concludes that the idea that ancient Israel would have accepted other aspects of male with male erotic sex is preposterous, which apparently even Johnson is compelled to admit. (More Reasons Why Stacy Johnson’s A Time to Embrace Should Not Be Embraced: Part II) ("God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"? , by Robert Gagnon)

As regards the idea that only the active partner is targeted in 18:22, simply because the man is specified does not mean the recipient is not culpable, and a distinction is made in jurisprudence when the latter is not. (Dt. 23:23-29) Likewise in verses before and after 20:13 the male is specified though it addresses a consensual act. (Lv. 20:10-12,14)

Regarding this, David Hilborn (Theological Adviser to the UK Evangelical Alliance) notes that "the same root text also deploys the generic term ‘male’ rather than any more specific word for ‘man’ or ‘youth’ - a detail which also points to a more comprehensive understanding of homoerotic activity. Furthermore, the death penalty in Leviticus 20:13 applies equally to the active and the passive partner: there is no implication of rape, in which case the rapist alone would have been executed (cf. Deut. 22:22-5). Nor is there any hint of coercion. The context, rather, would seem to include homosexual intercourse by mutual consent. Comparative literary study has revealed that the Assyrians outlawed forcible same-sex intercourse; it has also shown that the Egyptians banned pederasty; Israel, however, appears to have stood alone in viewing homosexual acts in general with this degree of severity, or even outlawing them in general. (Rowan Williams and Homosexuality.These points are based on Wright, David F. ‘Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The meaning of arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10), Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984), pp. 125-53, Wenham, Gordon, ‘Homosexuality in the Bible’, in Higton, Tony (ed.) Sexuality and the Church. Hawkwell: ABWON, 1987, and Hays, Richard B., The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, pp.382-3; Gagnon, Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 44–56).

As for procreation being the cause of the Levitical prohibition against homosexual relations, this argument requires that procreation was the sole or determining basis of the original Genesis union of male a female. However, the Bible in its entirety evidences as that the basis for the complementary nature of the union of opposite genders transcends simply procreation, (Gn. 2:18; Prov. 5:15-19) and that even when that is not a critical issue, then sex is enjoined only between male and female, due to the nature of their marital union, and of human nature. (1Cor. 7:2-5) And that in no place is marriage afforded between same genders, with Jesus and the N.T. distinctly affirming "what God hath joined" as being male and female.

It also may be postulated that if wasting of seed is the real reason for prohibitions against homosexual relations, then the Bible would have also explicitly addressed spilling of semen by sexual self stimulation, often called ''onanism'' by Orthodox Judaism, relating it to the Divine execution of Onan (Gn. 38:4-10) for ''coitus interruptus''. However, Onan's most evident sin appears to be his selfishness and disobedience in refusing to raise up seed to his brother, which requirement would later become codified in Mosaic law (Dt. 25:5-10). The Talmud has a passage (b. Niddah 13b) which links self stimulation and pederasty together as violations of marriage. The issue of man's seed of copulation going out from him is addressed in Lv. 15:16, but the manner is not evident, and for which the penalty was being unclean until the evening. While some disagree, self sexual release is usually held by conservative Bible believers as being contrary in principle to precepts concerning sexual joining, (1Cor. 7:2; 1Thes. 4:4) lust, (Mt. 5:8) and temperance, (1Cor. 9:7) and would be included in prohibitions against sexual uncleanness, as well as for the sake of one's testimony. (Eph. 5:3; 1Cor. 10:31,32) (http://www.cfcnb.org/docs/sexual_purity.pdf)(http://ldolphin.org/mast.shtml) The point here is that as this would likely have been the occasion of wasting seed among Jews more than male homosexual relations, then explicit regulations would be expected if wasting the seed were the reason for laws against the latter.

In response to the argument that male dominance was the cause for 18:22, it is evidenced that it is God, not society, that established and upholds the headship of the male, and this functional distinction is an intrinsic part of his unique union with the women, based upon creational distinctions, (1Cor. 11:1-12) and which exclude same gender marriage.

As regards the issue of lesbian sexual relations, it is likewise seen that to presuppose that condemnation of same-sex relations between males does not apply to same gender female sexual unions lacks Scriptural warrant, as such are also contrary in nature to the union of opposite genders originally established and uniquely affirmed throughout Scripture, with no principal or precept affording the contrary. In addition, though a phrase like "women lying with women with womenkind" is not specified in the Old Testament, commands and texts which are given to the ''male'' ('îysh) in Lv. 20:13 also can include women, such as in Lv. 20:9; Is. 53:6,11; Jer. 11:8; 16:12; 18:12. It is understood that most likely sexual relations between females was not a known (or a prevalent) practice then, and thus did not warrant a specific injunction. However, under the New Covenant, both male and female consensual homosex is condemned in Romans 1 as being contrary to the creational design of God, and ordained normality, and thus is a manifestation of idolatry.

Seeing the universal nature of the other laws against illicit partners, some seek to create a categorical division between Lv. 18:20, which prohibits adultery, and the next verse, and the next verse, which forbids child sacrifice to Molech, with this signifying a new division rendering the next law (v. 22) as only forbidding homosexual relations in that type of idolatrous context. In response it is argued that, as most interpreters in both camps hold v. 19 to be ceremonial (sex during menstruation), this same logic would relegate adultery (v. 20) to that category. In addition, only Molech in v. 21 is seen as being a culture-specific aspect of that law, while being universally applicable otherwise. In regard to this, today children are regularly sacrificed to destructive ideals as well as to the lusts of the flesh, as to a god.

An early and ongoing attempt (such as by David Bartlett, professor at Yale Divinity School) to negate the Levitical condemnation of homosexual relations is based upon the texts which invoke the surrounding pagan culture as examples of behavior which is forbidden to Israel. (Lv. 18:3,27,28) It then concludes that the Holiness Code was not about personal morality, but about "forming community definition" (by way of cultural distinction). However, the specious nature of this "team colors" argument is easily seen in examining it in the light of the whole of Scripture, in which unbelievers are often used, in both Testaments, as behavioral examples who are contrary to the laws on heart attitude and actions which God is instituting. (Exo. 23:24; Lev. 20:23; Dt. 12:4; 12:30-31; Jer. 10:2-3; Acts 17:30; Rm. 1:20-32; 1Cor. 6:11; Eph. 2:2-3; 4:17-19; 1Thes. 4:5; Titus 3:3; 1Pet. 1:14; 3:4,5) Considering the nature of such, (Psa. 106:35-38) and their being often given in the immediate context of moral laws, but not clearly ceremonial ones, and the reiteration of such in the New Testament - in particular those against fornications - (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) it is simply untenable to relegate such laws, and in particular those against illicit sexual partners, to being for purposes of establishing cultural distinction.

Another polemic by pro-homosexual proponents is to assign a radical significance to (what is stated to be) only one prescription for the death penalty in the Old Testament for homosexual relations, in contrast to most of the other sins of Lv. 20 being repeated elsewhere, mainly in Dt. 27:15-26. Upon which basis they restrict Lv. 18:22 to only prohibiting male homosexual temple prostitutes. (A Defense Theory, by Royce Buehler) These are mentioned as working in Judah, under Rehoboam (1Ki. 14:24), whom Asa largely purged (1Ki. 15:12), and which job his son Jehoshaphat finished (1Ki. 22:46), but was later needed to be repeated under king Josiah)

The errors of this argument are multiple, in that

• 1. The sentence of death for homosexual relations is essentially listed twice (collectively with all laws in Lv. 18:29, and specifically in 20:13), while elsewhere death is not mandated for some forms of incest. (Lev 18:12,14,16,18; Lv. 20:19,20,21) In addition, it is doubtful that ''cursed'' in Dt. 27 always denotes death, (Dt. 28:19ff; cf. Gn. 9:25) which further negates the disparities between reiterative quantities. Conversely, if ''cursed'' does always denote death, then it increases the number of moral offenses for which death is apparently assigned only once (Dt. 27:17,18). Or twice, as all infractions of the law of Moses would be capital sins. (Dt. 27:26)

• 2. No certain conclusion can be arrived at as to what category a law belongs based upon the number of times the death penalty is mentioned for it. Some forms of incest have no capital punishment individually mandated for them, nor do all violations of the ten commandments, while the death penalty for breaking the sabbath, which most pro-homosexual advocates would categorize as ceremonial, is thrice mentioned (Ex. 31:14,15; 35:2; Num.16:32-36) (The Death Penalty in the Old Testament) (It appears the sin for which death is most mentioned in the Old Testament is unholy presumption, that of approaching holy things which only sanctified Levites were allowed to do, and for which there are eight occurrences of the capital penalty being attached to it,: Num. 1:51; 3:10,38; 4:20; 18:3,7,15,22, with three examples of this consequence: 1Sam. 6:19; 1Chr. 13:9,10; cf. 2Chr. 26:16-20; but which examples indicate capital punishment was always death by supernatural execution, as it was for unjustly afflicting a widow or fatherless child: Ex. 22:22-24)

• 3. The number of repetitions of the death penalty for a sin is not a consistent criteria by which its severity is determined. According to the principal behind Gal. 3:19, the greater the need, then the more likely a law should be expected to be reiterated in the recorded Mosaic code. Cannibalism is not even specifically outlawed, but unlike homosexual relations, it could be only conditionally wrong, it is contrary to foundational law. (Gn. 9:2,3) Gagnon comments, "The only form of consensual sexual behavior that was regarded by ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity as more egregious than same-sex intercourse was bestiality. It is no accident that bestiality receives even less attention in the Bible than same-sex intercourse—it is mentioned only in Exod 22:19; Lev 18:23 and 20:15-16; and Deut 27:21. (Gagnon, Zenit Interview)

• 4. The phrase, ''put to death'' or similar explicit phrase is used for manifestly moral sins, (Ex. 21:29; Lev.20:2,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,27; 24:16,17; Dt. 17:6; 13:5,9; 17:12; 21:21) sometimes in combination with ''cut off'' (Lv. 18:29; 20:17), and only for the most serious ceremonial sins (Ex. 35:2; Num. 1:51), while "cut off" is used by itself for most of the ceremonial sins (Exo 12:15; 30:33; Lev 7:20,21,25,27; 17:3-4; 19:8,13; 20:18; 22:3; 23:29; Num 9:13; 15:30-31)(http://peacebyjesus.org/thedeathpenalty.html )

• 5. homosexual relations are not only included with other capital sins, but is seen as distinguished as a first-tier sexual offense in Lev 20:10-16, along with adultery, incest with one's stepmother or daughter-in-law, and bestiality. As such, it is distinguished from lesser capital sexual offenses in 20:17-21.(Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"? The "Irrelevance of Levitical Prohibitions" Argument)

• 6. Lv. 18:22 is contrary in type to mere ceremonial/typological laws, such as deal with ritual cleansing, while restricting it only to the specific religious application of Dt. 23:17 ignores the distinction made between the two, and that the foundation for the religiously targeted law is based upon the general command of Lv. 18:22. And which itself is based upon foundational design and decrees. The pro-homosexual attempt here is seen as akin to limiting the like general prohibition against prostitution in Lv. 19:29 only to its religious practice. (See Keil & Delitzsch on Dt. 23:17,18) (Dt. 23:17,18; 2Chrn. 21:11; Jer. 3:6; Ezek. 23:44; Hos. 4:13-15)

• 7. It is duplicitous for pro-homsoexual polemicists to assert more repetitions of the death penalty are expected if it were inherently sinful, while seeking to justify homosexuality despite the utter absence of the establishment of homosexual marriage, in stark and consistent contrast to heterosexual relations. It is inconceivable that no evident sanction would not be given in the law for homosexual relations if only a religious prostitutional practice was proscribed.

• Psychologically based polemics

Bailey (p. 37) rightly perceives that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 "condemns such practices in the strongest possible terms", but seeks to negate these prohibitions as being against those who are homosexual by nature, (p. 157) but which is simply untenable, as the Bible recognizes that man possess sinful "inversions" or "orientations," and manifest that some realize such more in one way more than another. But it equally manifests that man is required and enabled to repent, and can find victory over such. (Gn. 4:7; Ezek. 18:27, 30-32; Jn. 8:31,32)

As Kinder notes, "the doubt created by Dr. Bailey has traveled more widely than the reasons he suggests for it", (Kinder, p. 137) an an more imaginative psychologically based argument is advanced by Rabbi Arthur Waskow, who imagines that Lv. 20:13 only forbids male with male intercourse when one pretends he is a women, but postulates that this verse is mandating a parallel set of institutions for positively dealing with male with male sex. (in Homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22, by B. A. Robinson) That this is a egregious example of "wresting" of Scriptures (cf. 2Pet. 3:16) should be obvious, but such is evidenced elsewhere in pro-homosexual apologetics. In no place do emotions or imaginations, motives or mental attitude play a part in the prohibitions of sex with illicit partners, whereas when it does within laws regarding marriage (Dt. 24:3; Num. 6:12-31) or killing, (Dt. 19:11,12) then that is made evident. Likewise, the idea that a fundamental prohibition against male homosexual relations, which is manifestly contrary to what God has sanctioned and established by design and decree, is somehow mandating a means of sanction for it, is utterly without warrant, and makes a mockery of the Bible as a coherent authority for even basic human behavior.

Nor is it indicated that "as he lieth with a woman" is making a distinction between an effeminate versus masculine internal disposition of the partner. Instead, the simile and euphemism serves to identify the sexual nature (intercourse) of laying down, and would distinguish it from simply sharing the same real estate to lay down on, as with women.

• Dt. 23:17,18: Sodomites

"There shall be no whore [qedêshâh] of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite [qâdêsh] of the sons of Israel. {18} Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Rather than this passage being the specifically religious application of the general Levitical injunctions against homosexual relations, those who favor that practice usually contend that the former is what Lv. 18:22; 20:13 only refers to. The key word at issue here is ''qâdêsh'' (H6945), the basic meaning of which is ''sacred'', or "set apart", contextually referring to a temple prostitute, which the translators of the King James Version rendered as "sodomite", due to its perceived denotation of men whose manner of sex was like that of dogs. (John Barclay Burns, Devotee or Deviate)

Keil and Delitzsch comment that "the price of a dog” is not the price paid for the sale of a dog, but is a figurative expression used to denote the gains of the kadesh, who was called κίναιδος by the Greeks, and received his name from the dog-like manner in which the male kadesh debased himself.(Keil and Delitzch)

Boswell states that the LXX uses six different words to translate qâdêsh, once mistranslating the gender, (1Ki. 15:12) and seeks to disallow Dt. 23:17,18 from meaning male homosexual prostitutes, as pagan fertility rites would include male/female prostitutional couplings. (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality p. 99) Scroggs is also adverse to the use of the word "sodomite" here, and thinks that Dt. 13:17,18 likely refers to cultic prostitution by both genders, but that the LXX indicates a prohibition against secular male homosexual prostitutes, which is how the Palestinian Targum renders it, making prostitution the real offense. (New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 23,86,87)

Young, who deals extensively with pertinent linguistic and historical/cultural aspects here, and the language of LXX in particular, (James B. De Young, Homosexuality, pp. 122-137) points out the problems of Boswell relegating Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to homosexual relations as p[art of pagan worship, as well as denying that Dt. 20:13 refers to homosexual temple prostitution. In the Hebrew qâdêsh is masculine here, and v. 18 references this qâdêsh as a "dog," a description also found in Mesopotamian texts. (Reallexicon der Assyriologie 4, 465) In the Bible the term "dog" is used metaphorically and twice literally in various but usually unspecified derogatory ways. (Psa. 22:16; Prov. 26:11; Isa. 56:10; 56:11; Mat. 7:6; Phil. 3:2; 2Pet. 2:22) Its general meaning is that of an immoral person(s), and as the Gentiles overall illustrated the immorality that Israel was to avoid, so the term "dog" was often applied to them. (cf. Mt. 15:26. Dr. John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible; Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge) Likewise, the New Testament sometimes applies the term to the morally unclean, (Mk. 7:27; Rev. 22:15) perhaps even equating the Judaizers with such. (Phil. 3:2,3)

Young and others also reference that homosexual relations and religious temple prostitution existed throughout many ancient societies, including the Ancient Near East, and in many centuries. According to the historian Eusebius, Constantine destroyed a temple in which certain priests were, "men who are women, not men, denying the dignity of nature. Wenham states, "in that homosexual male prostitution was well established in the ancient orient, it is not surprising that there are a number of laws in Mespotamian texts aimed at this particular phenomenon and its associated practices." (The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality, The Old Testament Picture, Gordon J Wenham)

The Bible further indicates such a practice in 1Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46 and 2Ki. 23:7, with the last referring to them having houses by the temple of Israel, out of which they could practice their craft in times of Israel's spiritual and moral declension. An additional reference to qâdêsh is in Job 36:14, which refers those that "die in youth, and their life is among the unclean (qâdêsh") (KJV), which even today could easily refer to those who engage in regular promiscuous sexual activity. James B. De Young concludes that "both historical-comparative and linguistic-contextual studies show that the Hebrew qâdês used in Deuteronomy 23:17-18 bears both religious and sexual overtones." (Young, ibid. p. 133)

The issue then becomes the originally argument of Boswell and company, that the Levitical laws against male homosexual relations only pertain to a cultic context. However, this requires relegating only one of many laws against illicit sex to a cultic context, when the language and structure is general, and and thus distinctively religious injunction against homosexual relations are later added, as is done for heterosexual prostitution. (Lv. 21:9 ) In addition, if only the prostitutional or idolatrous aspect is wrong, this would postulate that physical ceremonial temple sex is contextually allowable, if done as part of Israel's worship, rather than such ceremonial sex always being an expression of idolatry. Yet Scripture offer no support for this, must less for ceremonial homosexual relations, despite specious attempts by certain authors. Nor does the Bible provide the sanction of homosex marriage, which it desperately requires, considering the depth of the exclusivity of the male/female union consistently established in the Bible, which homosexual relations intrinsically opposes.

As for the choice of the word ''Sodomite'' to denote homosexual prostitutes, this is itself fitting, as often words both come from and or are translated into terms that denote what they are associated with. The name ''Sodom'' itself means "scorched" or ''burnt'', evidently referring to the judgment of the city, while the word ''harlot'' (KJV) is thought to be derived from a European girl, named Arlotta (or Arletta, also known as Arlette, Herlève and Herleva) who fornicated with Robert, duke of Normandy, and to whom William The Conqueror is believed to have been born (Adam Clarke, commentary, Gn. 34:31;http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579147/william_i_(of_England).html) Likewise homosexuals themselves have appropriated "gay and "queer" to refer to themselves. TOC^

• Leviticus Summation

As Young concludes, on the basis of linguistic study, context and history, the "reinterpretation" of modern critics is fairly termed revolutionary and revisionist." (Young, ibid pp. 133-135) The following summation, while not exhaustive, provides reasons for the position that no grammatical, categorical, cultural or motivation argument warrants relegating the Levitical injunctions against homosexual relations to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosexual relations, or belonging to the class of ceremonial laws (which are not the same), or are only motive-specific, but that instead they are universal and immutable. As Hilborn states, the homosexual acts here "are deemed wrong not simply because pagan Caananites indulged in them, but because God has pronounced them wrong as such. (Response to Rowan Williams and Homosexuality and Scripture, by David Hilborn, Former head of The Evangelical Alliance)

• 1. The reasons why literal obedience to ceremonial laws is not enjoined now is based upon like evidence for why the laws against homosexual relations are upheld. While the New Testament defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it even more abundantly 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 mention of homosexual relations only finds unconditional condemnation therein.

• 2. The injunctions against homosexual relations are based upon creational, not cultural differences, as is manifest by design and decrees, and are upheld in principle and by precepts, in which only the women is 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. All sex outside marriage is classed as fornication, and outlawed marriage partners are determined by a violation of marriage bond (adultery), or of nearness of kin (incest), or of nearness of kind (homosex), as well as being other than humankind (bestiality). These prohibitions are based upon what God has joined together, (Mt. 19:4-6), with incest being added later, and are upheld in the N.T. (1Cor. 5:1) showing a progression toward greater strictness, not lesser.

• 4. 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; Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight & Narrow? p. 90) nor whetE. E. E. her 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 motive establishes a factor which may sanctify an otherwise illicit union (adultery, incest etc, and all fornications are unequivocally sinful: cf. Gn. 34; Mk. 7:21-23).

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

• 6. 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). Ritually “uncleanness” is not in view in 18:22, anymore than it is for sex with an illicit partner in adultery or incest or in bestiality. Rather, any form of fornication makes one morally defiled. (Lv. 18:24; Mk. 7:21-23)

• 7. Attempts to relegate 18:22 and 20:13 to only temple idolatry are unwarranted, as the grammar of Lv. 18:22 is universal, and entirely consistent with other transcultural immutable commands given here which forbid sex with the spouse of another, or near kin, that of the flesh of one's own flesh. Homosex is structurally similar, that of sex with an illicit partner, one's own gender. (Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"?) To restrict v. 22 to only targeting male temple prostitution is unwarranted, like as doing the same to Lv. 19:29 would be. As here, (Lv. 18:27-30) pagan behavior was culturally religiously linked, as even the later Roman gladiator and chariot contests were, (Anthony J. Blasi, Paul-André Turcotte, Jean Duhaime; Handbook of early Christianity, p. 562) and thus many other texts dealing with unconditionally forbidden vices are similarly given against the backdrop of idolatry, (Exo. 20:2; 23:24; Lev. 18:27-30; 20:23; Dt. 12:4; 12:30-31; Jer. 10:2-3; Exo. 20:2; 23:24; Lev. 18:27-30; 20:23; Dt. 12:3,4; 12:30-31; Jer. 10:2-3; 1Co_5:1; Eph_2:2-3; 4:17,18; 1Thes. 4:5; Titus 3:3; 1Pe_1:14; 4:3,4) but which do not restrict the prohibitions of such things as fornication to a religious context, nor are they sanctified by a proper motive.

• 8. Jewish tradition has historically unequivocally condemned homosexuality. (Rabbi Yoel H. Kahn, "Judaism and homosexuality", in journal of homosexuality 18, nos, 3-4 (1989-90): pp. 40-42) Yet, as the history of homosexuality documents, (Wayne R. Dynes, Stephen Donaldson; "Homosexuality in the ancient world") same-gender sexual behavior was common in pagan societies, and it is inconceivable that this would only be addressed as regards temple sex, or that Israel would be distinctive by its historical lack of approved homosexual relations, except that it was universally prohibited.

• 9. When homosexual relations or illicit heterosexual sex as a formal part of idolatrous activity is possibly targeted, then the context makes that evident (Dt. 23:17,18), (“with dogs” likely referring to the manner of homosex relations). The historical fact is that in Canaanite culture, homosexuality was practiced as both a religious rite and a personal perversion...Israel's pagan neighbours knew both secular and sacred homosexuality." (Greg Bahnsen p 45) Others argue that these texts do not even refer to Canaanite cultic practices (http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate, by Calvin Smith)

• 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, consistent with the hermeneutic behind their categorical argument, v.19 (intercourse during menstruation, which is more akin to ceremonial law) would disallow the intrinsic sinfulness of the next verse (adultery).

• 11. While the sentence of death for homosexual relations is listed twice (collectively in Lv. 18:29, and specifically in 20:13), (and which is only prescribed once for some moral sins, if "cursed" does or does not mandate death in Dt. 27), yet there is no radical significance to the lack of more mandates for the death penalty for homosexual relations that would lessen its severity, contrary to pro-homosex statements. Rather according to the principal behind Gal. 3:19, the more likelihood of a capital transgression occurring, then the more likely the reiteration of its prohibition and penalty. Thus the absence of a law against cannibalism, and sparse mention of some other sins. The duplicity of prohomsoex polemicists here is manifested by their assertion that more repetitions of the death penalty would be expected if it were inherently sinful, while it is the establishment of homosexual marriage that is what would be most expected, but which is no where established, in stark contrast to the heterosexual union which God originally and consistently decreed.

• 12. Lv. 18:22 is substantially evidenced as being based upon foundational design and decree (as is the forbiddance of bestiality is in the next verse), and in principal its application is not restricted to only male homosex but all 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. The injunctions against homosex physically parallel laws against idolatry. The latter forbids worship of and spiritual union with an illicit god, which is not created to be such, or able to truly be as God. The former forbids union with a same gender object of sexual union, which was not created for that purpose, or able to truly fulfill their God designed and decreed union.

• 13. The forbiddance of idolatry is itself a universal and immutable command, which is manifest not only in formal worship of idols, but by any deliberate act contrary to the laws of God (Mt. 6:24; Rm. 6:16). Homosex by nature, not simply context, is an expression of idolatry, not simply an abuse by it.

• 14. Restricting the Levitical laws (or others) prohibiting male homosex to a idolatrous religious context could postulate that physical ceremonial temple sex is contextually allowable (if Judaized or Christianized), rather than ceremonial sex always being an expression of idolatry. Yet Scripture offer no support for this, despite specious attempts by certain authors.

• 15. 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 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. The term usually used by itself for punishment for ritual purity offenses by Israel, such as dietary violations, (Lv. 7:21,25,27) is “cut off” though it is used in combination which "put to death" for grave moral sins, such as in Lv. 18:29 for all the sins of that chapter.

• 16. Hermeneutics are employed by those seeking to negate the Levitical injunctions, 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, and 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.

• 17. 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.” (Gagnon, Why the disagreement over the Biblical witness on homosexual practice?)

• 18. 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 does not stop with graven images.)

• 19. Attempts to extrapolate other linguistic differences in favor of the pro-homosex 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.

• 20. Both the Greek LXX and the Hebrew condemn homosexual behavior. Young concludes that on the basis of linguistic study (particularly the LXX in his work), context and history, the "reinterpretation" of modern critics has strayed too far and and is fairly termed revolutionary and revisionist." (Young, ibid pp. 133-135)

• 21. Lv. 18:22 is seen as being appropriated by the New Testament. The term arsenokoitai (“men who lie with a male”) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 corresponds to 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 24 times in Lev 18:6-19; 20:11, 17-21). (Gagnon, Why the disagreement over the Biblical witness on homosexual practice?)

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." (Bailey, Homosexuality, p. 30)

In response to the prevalent pro-homosex polemic that that "if the Israelite Holiness Code is to be invoked against twentieth-century homosexuals, it should likewise be invoked against such common practices as eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the menstrual period." (Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott) Joseph P. Gudel states,

Much effort need not be expended answering these objections. First, 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). ("That Which is Unnatural", Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, Leviticus 18 and 20, by Joseph P. Gudel, Christian Research Institute Journal) TOC^

• Sex Laws versus Slavery

An argument is sometimes made which attempts to disallow the Biblical injunctions against slavery on the basis that Christians no longer allow slavery, which the Bible sanctions. However, this argument, which is dealt with more extensively here and here, is one that is based upon misapprehension of the nature of these class of laws, as well as of slavery itself. For an overview of slavery in the Bible, see here.

1. Unlike laws regarding sexual partners and homosex in particular, legislation regarding slavery is not part of the basic laws on moral behavior, but deals with civil issues and jurisprudence, regulating behavior within an established institution.

2. Unlike basic laws regarding male and female sexual partners, slavery does not find its basis in creational distinctions. Nor is slavery commanded from the beginning, nor presented as a transcendent mandate, but is regulated as an established economic means of dealing with debt, and for service, as well for subjection of enemies. And under the full requirements of the New Testament, that form of servitude could yet again be tolerated, if culturally required.

3. Unlike laws regarding unlawful sexual partners, laws regarding slavery were only counter-cultural in being more humane than was culturally typical (owners could even be put to death for murder of a servant). Slavery was not an monolithic institution, and included different types (permanent, temporary, etc.) and in Biblical slavery even foreigners could even own Hebrew slaves, and such was critically different in other ways than it is commonly remembered as today (see here).

4. Unlike laws regarding unlawful sexual partners, slavery was further ameliorated in the New Testament, in which the same heart attitude was required of masters as servants, and in which just and equal pay and treatment was mandated, and abuse was forbidden by masters, as they also had a master in Heaven, who will reward or punish justly. ( Eph. 4:5-9; Col. 4:1) Slavery is further seen as being transformed with the requirement that an escaped slave be received back by his owner, "Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved," even as the apostle Paul himself. (Philemon 1:16,17) In addition, while the priority in the New Testament is upon maintaining a Christian heart no matter what the difficulties of life are, the counsel given to slaves is that they obtain freedom if lawfully possible. (1Cor. 7:21) In contrast, laws regarding illicit sexual partners became progressively more restrictive in both breadth and scope, and are not abrogated under the New Covenant.

5. The primitive New Testament church was birthed in a slave state (Rome), and had no slavery as an organic community, (Acts 2-4) while the full requirements of the New Testament not only required radical change in the treatment and status of slaves (who made up much of the church) but worked toward the abolition of the basic institution of slavery (due to the effects of 2 Great Awakenings, and political conditions that allowed the evangelical church to effect such change). In contrast, the full requirements of the New Testament do not allow for the abrogation of laws regarding illicit sexual partners, which are abundantly upheld as a class (with homosex being explicitly condemned), and obedience to them required.

6. While the New Testament works toward an end of involuntary subjection (except in certain cases (such as criminal punishment by the State, or child rearing), it upholds "bond service" (as in commitment to Christ, and in marriage or in the military, etc.) and positional submission, which in the case of marriage is based upon creational, not societal, distinctions, (1Cor. 11:3-16; 1Tim. 2:11-15) and which transcendent purposeful and complementary distinctions are the primary basis upon which homosex is forbidden and condemned.

7. The significance of these distinctions are such that if they were reversed, prohomosex proponents would and could use them, as they would be viable for their argument. However, the reality is that just opposite is the case. TOC^

• Silence of Jesus argument and love hermeneutic

An argument presented by many pro-homosex writers contends that the absence of any specific censure of homosexual relations by Jesus, with his emphasis upon love, works to disallow any Biblical prohibitions against homosex and to sanction such as long as it is consistent with love, though that itself is left to be defined rather subjectively. (Wink, Homosexuality and Bible; Troy Perry, Don’t Be Afraid Anymore; John J. McNeil, The Church and the Homosexual; Roger Shinn, “Homosexuality: Christian Conviction and Inquiry,” in Homosexuality) Walter Wink is one whose emphasis upon this is most pronounced, and who much depends upon the upon the hermeneutics (rules of interpretation) behind it, especially as he rather uniquely concurs with traditionalists, in that, "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." But he advocates that while sexual conventions are necessary, we are, "in the name of love, to "choose for ourselves what is right," which he states Jesus meant in Luke 12:57. ("To hell with gays," by Walter Wink)

Besides the fact that pro-homosexual apologists such as Daniel Helminiak hold to a historical-critical position which understands the Gospels "not as factual reports on the historical Jesus himself but rather as evocative expressions of normative Christian faith about Jesus", (Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges, "A Further Look at Pro-Homosexual Theology") the spurious nature of the hermeneutics involved with this polemic is readily apparent.

First, determining what is moral based upon whether Jesus explicitly condemned it would also allow one to sanction the practice of wife beating, drug pushing, consensual incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or even cannibalism. Gagnon asks, "shall we claim that Jesus had weaker convictions about bestiality and incest than marriage on the grounds that he said not a word about these subjects?" (Notes to Gagnon’s Essay in the Gagnon-Via Two Views Book) Consistent with the principal of Galatians 3:19, Jesus silence is also understood as being expected due to the extreme unlikelihood that homosexual relations would have been a prevalent problem among the Jews who Jesus came to first minister to, (Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming, p. 61) nor would incest have been, and that Jesus clearly upheld Old Testament moral laws, (http://www.robgagnon.net/homoauthorityscripture.htm) and highly esteemed John the Baptist who rebuked Herod for an incestuous marriage. (Mk. 6:18; cf. Lv. 18:16; 20:21)

It is also seen that while Jesus did not specify every expression of sin, He dealt with the foundational issue behind them, and their primary expressions. Sin is stated to begin in the heart, and the iniquities that come out of the heart including fornications, (Mk. 7:20-23) which being plural, includes all sexual relations outside marriage, as well as adultery. .(http://peacebyjesus.org/homosexuality_and_the_bible.html ; "Are There Universally Valid Sex Precepts? A Critique of Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexuality"; Gagnon, why the disagreement over the Biblical witness on homosexual practice? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?) In dealing with the latter, Jesus is shown to have instituted stricter requirements for marriage, based upon its original establishment, and in invoking such the man and the women are specified as what constitutes the "what" of "what God hath joined together (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24)

Hilborn states that Jesus "condemnations of porneia or 'sexual immorality' in Matt 15:19 and Mark 7:21 would almost definitely have been meant, and been taken, to include homoerotic sexual activity. Certainly, as Michael Saltlow has shown, such activity was typically condemned by the rabbis of the time whenever they considered it. Having said this, at least following the exile, there is very little evidence of, or extant comment on, such activity among Jewish men - so Jesus' not mentioning it in specific terms is hardly surprising. (Hilborn vs. Rowan Williams and Homosexuality)

Gagnon adds,

It is not mere coincidence that when Jesus dealt with an issue of sexual behavior in Mark 10:2-12 he cited the same two texts from Genesis, 1:27 and 2:24, that lie behind Paul’s critique of homosexual practice. Jesus adopted a “back-to-creation” model of sexuality. He treated Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as normative and prescriptive for the church (Mark 10:6-9). In contending for the indissolubility of marriage, Jesus clearly presupposed the one explicit prerequisite in Gen 1:27 and 2:24; namely, that there be a male and female, man and woman, to effect the “one flesh” reunion. (Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.)

In addition, Jesus also promised further inspired revelation, under which laws against sexual sins (in particular) are clearly upheld. (Rm. 1:29; 2:22; 13:9, 1Co. 5:1; 6:13, 8; 7:2, 2Co. 12:21, Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:3, Col. 3:5, 1Th. 4:3, Jam. 2:11; Rev. 2:22 21:25; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4; 18:3; 19:2)

Furthermore, while love must be the motive, motive by itself does not determine the validity of an action, and by using the "love justifies" hermeneutic, one could easily justify consensual premarital fornication, polyamory, wife swapping and prostitution, and any practice which an individual can perceive as permissible. The commandment sometimes invoked to support homosexual relations, "thou shalt shall love thy neighbor as thyself", (Lv. 19:18) is placed after the command to love God, with the other laws providing the details of how. And among which laws are those which universally condemn homosex. It is because the heart of man is (demonstrably) untrustworthy, that God commanded, "remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring". (Num. 15:39; Dt. 12:8) And it is by treasuring the law of God and having it dwell within us that we are to make moral judgments in issues not directly dealt with in the Bible, rather than a rather subjective idea of what love would do being the basis, which is the effective end of Wink's premise.

The proof text (Lk. 12:57) which Wink invokes as advocating subjective judgment, which needs not be bound by the letter of Biblical injunctions against illicit sexual partners, actually manifests the corrupt nature of Wink's judgment, as the text is not about making moral judgment, but about discerning the Messianic time, in which repentance and salvific decisions must be made. (Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible) (Gays and the Bible: A Response to Walter Wink by Robert A. J. Gagnon) And which words were a rebuke of souls who, like Wink, suffered from a lack judgment by not taking the Scriptures as literally as they were written, (Is. 53) which Jesus exampled by upholding the moral law. (http://peacebyjesus.org/homosexuality_and_the_bible_wink.html) TOC^

Despite such abundant testimony, some contend that Jesus (and Paul) categorized sexual sin to be merely ceremonially unclean, based upon Mark 7:23. However, it is clearly manifest there and under elsewhere the New Covenant that such refers to moral uncleanness. (1Cor. 3:17; 1Tim. 1:10; Jude 1:8; Ja. 3:6; Rv. 21:27)

It is thus evident that Jesus upheld the moral law which also forbids homosexual relations, and that contrasting the laws of God on such things as sexual partners with love is a false dichotomy. D. J. Atkinson argues that such manifest "a misconception of the relationship between love and law in the Bible. The Biblical understanding of the nature of love is always related to the description or expression of God's character in Himself on the one hand, and the character of life appropriate to the people of God, on the other hand. (D. J. Atkinson, Homosexuals in the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 69-70.)

• Romans 1

See Romans 1 (seperate link)

In this chapter it is manifest that the exchange of the opposite sexual partner for that of one's own gender proceeds from the exchange of the one true God as the object of worship for a false God, with both being unconditionally sinful, regardless of context. As with all willful sin, this is a product of idolatry, whether formal or informal, in the case of pro-homosexual apologists, that of making God into an image more to their own liking, one that sanctions homosexual relations, though they are only condemned wherever they are explicitly dealt with, as well as in principal. As the condemnation of homoeroticism is this chapter is dealt with extensively in the linked page, only a summation of reproofs of arguments by Boswell and company will be included here.

*1. The theme leading up to the two verses at issue is not that of acting contrary one's own "orientation," but contrary to what is ordained of God, as a result of perverted desire. The Gentile idolaters are not condemned because they were worshiping idols while being actually being monotheists, but because idolatry is wrong in and of itself. Likewise homoeroticism is presented as a perverted practice, acting contrary to to what God revealed, by design and decree, as ordained by Him, and thus is unconditionally condemned, as are the other iniquities which are also listed as a fruit of this spiritual declension. (Rm. 1:29-32) Regarding the latter, Kyle Butt states, "No scholar would remotely contend that “unloving,” “unforgiving,” and “unmerciful” were cultural traits that do not transcend the passage of earthly time and culture. (Apologetics Press, Scripturally Speaking: Homosexuality—Sin, or a Cultural Bad Habit?)

*2. What Paul describes is not simply worship as a product of ignorance, but of changing what they did know, referring to an original monotheism (for which there is even more evidence of late), to idolatry. Responding to pro-homosexual Anglican Primate Alan Harper of Ireland, Gagnon states,

Nothing in the language of Rom 1:24-27 suggests "homosexuality" is a chosen condition of constitutional heterosexuals. The "exchange" that Paul portrays is not the "willful" exchange of felt heterosexual desires for manufactured homosexual feelings, as Harper contends. Rather, the exchange is that of (1) the truth which God has revealed in creation concerning what is natural intercourse for (2) the gratification of preexisting desires for unnatural intercourse between members of the same sex. (http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/print.php?storyid=8562)

*3. Paul was indeed using a form of “natural law,” that of what God has revealed by design and originally by innate knowledge. The invisible God was manifest by His visible creation (Rm. 1:20) and it was obvious by such that mere corruptible men (by nature, as opposed to the incarnated Christ) or animals did not create the cosmos, and that such were worthy to be worshiped. But what Paul further describes is not simply worship as a product of ignorance, but of changing what they did know, referring to an original monotheism (for which there is even more evidence of late), to idolatry. As creation does not represent the moral authority the Creator is, it is seen today that such an exchange of worship of God for worship of nature is taking place, in order to escape moral conviction of personal sin, which is also manifest in making God into an image more in conformity to contemporary immorality in order to justify it. Write comments, "while Paul may be describing something in the remote past in presenting a Decline of Civilization narrative, the pattern may be repeated: whenever humans opt for idolatry they are abandoned to their lusts." (Wright, N.T. “The Letter to the Romans,” The New Interpreter’s Bible. Leander E. Keck, ed. Vol X. Nashville: Abingdon, 393-770.)

*4. In addition, evidence indicates that the concept of "natural law" existed among the Greeks in Paul's time. Stoic-Cynic philosopher Dio Chrysotom referred to Aphrodite as one "whose name stands for the natural intercourse and union of the male and female."(Discourse 7:135) Also in Plutarch, Daphnaues contrasts a "union contrary to nature with males" with the natural love between a man and a women," and goes on to disparage homosexuals as "acting contrary to nature" when they "allow themselves to be covered and mounted like cattle."(Dialogue on Love, 751C, E) furthermore, Plato is seen using "according to" and "contrary to" nature argumentation, and describes sexual aberrations as the latter. (Plato, On Abraham, 135-36)

*5. It is almost certain that Paul would have indeed been culturally enlightened regarding Greek culture, having been born and educated in Tarsus in the region of Cilicia, one of the three centers of Greek culture in his day (Acts 21:39). E. M. Blaiklock states that Tarsus "became the Athens of the eastern Mediterranean, the ancient equivalent of a university city, the resort of men of learning, the home town of Athenodorus (74 B.C.-A.D. 7), the respected teacher of Augustus himself, the seat of a school of Stoic philosophers, a place of learning and disputation, and the very climate in which a brilliant mind might grow up in the midst of stimulus and challenge and learn to think and to contend." (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, s.v. Tarsus, by E. M. Blaiklock, 5:602). Also see P. Michael Ukleja, "The Bible and Homosexuality; Part 2: Homosexuality in the New Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (October-December 1983): 354.) And that Paul manifested extensive awareness of Greek culture, as "He could talk and think like a Gr. and quote his native Cilician poets to the intellectuals of Athens. He could write strong Gr. in closely argued documents."(Blaiklock ibid.) Malick notes that Paul was hardly an isolated Jew in a Greek world, and would thus be well aware of the homosexual activities of his time without depending on "Jewish rumor mills." (David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 327-340.) Luke, Paul companions, describes the Athenians in Acts 17.

*6. Among other prohomosexual authors, the ignorance/nature argument is opposed by O.T. Finnish scholar Martti Nissinen, whom many of that school selectively reference, who acknowledges that, “Paul does not mention tribades or kinaidoi, that is, female and male persons who were habitually involved in homoerotic relationships, but if he knew about them (and there is every reason to believe that he did), it is difficult to think that, because of their apparent ‘orientation,’ he would '''not''' have included them in Romans 1:24-27. . . . For him, there is no individual inversion or inclination that would make this conduct less culpable. . . . Presumably nothing would have made Paul approve homoerotic behavior” (Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Fortress, 1998)

Likewise, homosexual researcher Louis Crompton, whose work is also advocated by homosexuals, states, “According to [one] interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian.” (Homosexuality and Civilization, 114)

*7. In no place does the New Testament deal with laws regarding sex between illicit partners as part of the ceremonial law, and as Paul does in other places, here he would be affirming the morals laws in condemning homosexual relations. All forms of homosexual activity were considered sin by Jewish writers in Paul’s day. Josephus wrote to his Roman readers, “The law of Moses recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman…. But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199).

*8. Further refuting the idea that Paul was condemning only one kind of homosexual relationship,even Louis Crompton, a modern homosexual scholar, acknowledges that “However well-intentioned", the interpretation that "Paul’s words were not directed at 'bona fide'homosexuals in committed relationships…. seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian." (Crompton, ''Homosexuality and Civilization'') (http://www.robgagnon.net/newsweekmillerhomosexresp.htm) Gagnon adds, "Committed homoerotic relationships lay within the conceptual field of the ancient world (even Via concedes this), as did the idea of some congenitally connected and relatively exclusive homoerotic desire. These contextual factors did not make any difference to some Greco-Roman moralists and physicians. Why, then, should they have made any difference to Paul, who incidentally was aware of the malakoi (often lifelong participants in homoerotic practice), rejected same-sex intercourse on the basis of the structural incongruity of homoerotic unions, and viewed sin generally as a powerful, innate impulse?" (http://www.robgagnon.net/2vrejoinder.htm)

*9. As we are all born with sinful nature and its affections, but are called to resist sin, (Gn. 4:7; Col. 3:15) we cannot justify actions that are contrary to the Bible based upon our desires. As Schmidt notes, Boswell's solution “shifts the meaning of 'natural' from Paul's notion of 'that which is in accord with creation' to the popular notion of 'that which one has a desire to do.' But deeply ingrained anger does not justify murder, nor does deeply ingrained greed justify theft or materialism, nor does the deeply ingrained desire of many heterosexuals for multiple partners justify promiscuity.” (Thomas E. Schmidt, Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Homosexuality, Romans 1:26-27) This recourse in pro-homosexual polemics to making one's own inclinations the basis for morality, is seen as being exactly contrary to the commands of God, and to actually be a form of idolatry, making man the ultimate arbiter of what is right rather than the almighty who commands, "that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring" (Num. 15:19; cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6,25; Is. 5:21; Jer. 17:9)

• 1Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

1Co 6:10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, ''malakos'' nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ''arsenokoitai'' Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

1Ti 1:9,10 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, ''arsenokoitai'' for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

The controversy here focuses upon two obscure words, ''malakos'' (''soft'') and ''arsenokoitai'' (''male beds''), which pro-homosex advocates have much labored with to disallow them as referring to homosexuals or homosex in general, and which attempts and their nature can be seen in traditionalist responses. (The source and nt meaning of arsenokoitai, with implications or christian ethics and ministry, James B. De Young; The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 David E. Malick; Paul, homosexuality, and 1 corinthians 6:9-11; Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate by Calvin Smith; Linguistic Grounds for Translating Arsenokoitai as “Homosexuals” De Young, J. B. (2000); The malakoi and arsenokoitai (1 cor 6:9): what is really meant by these terms? ;http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homobalchhbtreview2.pdf)

Schreiner states that “what Wright argues, and other scholars have followed him here, is that the Pauline term arsenokoitai is a Pauline innovation deriving from the phrase, arsenos in the two texts from Leviticus. The term refers, then, to those who bed other males. In other words, it is a vivid way of denoting same sex intercourse between males. The other word used to designate same sex relations in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is malakoi. This word refers to the passive partner sexually, an effeminate male who plays the role of a female. Thomas R. Schreiner, “A New Testament perspective on homosexuality”

Scroggs perceives arsenokoitai as referring to pederasty, while Boswell believed that it referred to “active male prostitutes. . . capable of the active role with either men or women” (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality University of Chicago Press, 1980, 344)

Wright questions both Boswell’s arguments and his linguistic abilities, and notes that Boswell is almost the only one taking this position. (Wright, `Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible p. 296)

Guenther Haas (http://www.phc.edu/gj_haas_hermen.php) states,

As noted in D.F. Wright's response to Boswell's explanation of the Greek term, it is much more likely that this compound term developed under the direct influence of the two parts of the compound used in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. Wright repeats this point in his review of Scroggs' book. The significance of this is that Paul's usage of arsenokoites is informed by the two passages of Leviticus, which are certainly not confined to pederasty. Wright drives the point home with two pointed questions:

If Paul had wanted to condemn (a kind) of pederasty, why did he not use one of the several Greek words or phrases for it current in Hellenistic Jewish writings e.g., paidophthoreseis? Why did he (create or) adopt a (relatively) new, certainly unusual term inspired by a Levitical prohibition and therefore one which prima facie has a broader meaning than pederasty? (D.F. Wright, "Review of The New Testament and Homosexuality by Robin Scroggs," Scottish Journal of Theology 38 (March 1985): 119-20)

Scroggs knew that the coined term arsenokoitai Paul used in 1 Cor. 6:9 for “abusers of themselves with mankind” was made up of two parts found in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, and believes the compound word is a literal translation of the Hebrew term mishkav zakur ("bed with a male" as with a women: Lv. 20:13). But he believes, without providing any sources, that the rabbis used this term in their condemnations of pederasty, to which application Scroggs restricts it, though as seen together in Lv. 20:13 no such restriction (to pederasty) is made. However, the Bible distinguishes between men and young men when needed, while even though some sources do use arsenokoitai to censure pederasty, it presumes much to hold that such a general term can be restricted to simply one form of homosex. Rather, it is far more conceivable that Paul is condemning both in Romans. Moreover, the culpability of both persons is shown by the penalties against the condemned practice in Lv. 20:13, evidencing that this condemnation was not directed toward a victim/perpetrator case, but a consensual practice.

Gagnon also sees that arsenokoitai is formed from the Greek words for “lying” (koite) and “male” (arsen) which appear in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Levitical prohibitions of men “lying with a male” in Lv. 18:22; 20:13), but that it intentionally applies to the same absolute Levitical prohibitions against male-male intercourse. Among other reasons he gives for this is that "the rabbis used the corresponding Hebrew abstract expression mishkav zakur, “lying of/with a male,” drawn from the Hebrew texts of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, to denote male-male intercourse in the broadest sense." And that "the appearance of arsenokoitai in 1 Tim 1:10 makes the link to the Mosaic law explicit, since the list of vices of which arsenokoitai is a part are said to be derived from “the law.” (Does Jack Rogers’s Book “Explode the Myths” about the Bible and Homosexuality and “Heal the Church”?, Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.)

James B. DeYoung states,

ARSENOKOITAI (lit. "male beds") does not occur prior to Paul because Paul likely coined it as he coined other terms. He almost certainly derived it from two words that occur together in the LXX of Lv. 20:13 (aresenos koiten) "whoever shall lie with a male a bed as a women"). This suggests that Paul had in mind the prohibition of adult homosexuality in Leviticus. Support for this position comes from the list of vices in 1Cor. 6:9-11 and 1Tim. 1:10, which correspond, even in word order, to the 10 commandments. In both lists, Paul adds "homosexuals" to adulterers in expanding the range of prohibited sex, as he does with other commands. (cf. pp. 195-99) Homosexuality By James B. DeYoung)

Calvin Smith adds,

Wright has highlighted a major problem here. If Paul simply borrowed an existing vice list referring to very general sexual vices, including widespread and very general forms of pederasty, how can Scroggs then suggest Paul is identifying a very precise form of this vice? (Wright, `Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible’ (op. cit.), 296.) A number of other exegetes concur. .... example, malakos could mean `call-boy', or something similar, and both words together could be referring to the active and passive roles in the homosexual act (thus malakos would be the male But Malick argues the terms clearly mean more than this, that linguistically they cannot be limited to this understanding alone (other traditionalists agree). (Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate).

Michael Ukleja also has identified these terms in several examples of classical Greek literature, which clearly refer to homosexuals. (P. Michael Ukleja, `Homosexuality in the New Testament' in Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (1983)

Gagnon concludes, "the term arsenokoitai is not restricted to homosexual prostitution. Boswell was clearly wrong. Robin Scroggs back in 1983 (The New Testament and Homosexuality) acknowledged these two points, though Scroggs himself was wrong in other ways." (On Boswell and “Men who lie with a male” in 1 Corinthians 6:9: A Response to Harwood and Porter, Robert A. J. Gagnon TOC^

• Postulations or assertions of approved homosex

As in the original work of deception, (Gn. 31-13ff) prohomosex proponents first seek to cast doubt as to what God has forbidden, and then to deny it. In addition to seeking to disallow any universal condemnation of homoeroticism, pro homosex advocates speculate or assert that homosexual relationships and homosex between virtuous persons is sanctioned in the Bible. The interpretive foundation (Homosexuality, by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 210-14) here, consistent with other prohomsex polemics which precede it, is one that depends upon conspiratorial theory, in which the homosex which proponents mine the Bible to find is asserted to have been covered up, (Greenberg, ref. in "Welcoming But Not Affirming, Stanley J. Grenz, p. 60; cf.) due to homophobia, but which polemics also require other solutions which effectively deny the Divine inspiration and authority of the Bible they seek to invoke on their behalf, as well as allowing a vast range of allegorical interpretations of historical narratives. An additional necessary basis for their speculations or assertions is that, rather being morally distinct from surrounding pagan culture, honorable Israelis would engage in homosex behavior like as they did. TOC^

• Ruth and Naomi

"And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother's house: the LORD deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me. {9} The LORD grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept."

"And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her. {15} And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law. {16} And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:" (Ruth 1:8-9; 14-16)

The context here is that of the family of Elimelech, his wife Naomi, and their two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, who flee from a famine in the land of Israel, and go to sojourn in Moab, Rth_1:1, Rth_1:2. Elimelech's two sons marry; and, in the space of ten years, both their father and they die, Rth_1:3-6. Naomi sets out on her return to her own country, accompanied by her daughters-in-law Orpah and Ruth; whom she endeavors to persuade to return to their own people, Rth_1:7-13. Orpah returns, but Ruth accompanies her mother-in-law, Rth_1:14-18. They arrive at Beth-lehem, the former residence of Naomi, in the time of the barley harvest, Rth_1:19-22. Naomi was taken notice of there by her old friends and acquaintance, to whom she related her present circumstances. (Ruth 1:19: Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., (1715-1832; Dr. John Gill (1690-1771)

Thomas Horner Horner sees the oriental customary displays of affection, and expressions of commitment and close family relationship, as well as pagan homosex in surrounding cultures, and spends much time speculating that Ruth and Naomi were engaged in a homosexual relationship, and infers it would have involved eroticism.

Horner (quoting E. M. Good) and others do not stop there, as they also see the love of God for man being erotic and supporting homosex, (Ken Stone, Queer commentary and the Hebrew Bible) and that the Tree of Knowledge may be associated with sex, and expects Israelite women would do as the Greeks did, as he infers that it was unlikely that Old Testament women, being "inventive" and having free time, would not become sexual involved with each other. (Tom Horner, Jonathan loved David, p. 40-46)

Greenberg, while seeing no hint of an erotic bond in this story, sees the word ''cleave'' in Ruth 1:14, and the similarity of Ruth's forceful language in expressing the willingness to stay, as indicating an "erotic pull." (Steven Greenberg, Wrestling with God and men, p. 105)

In contrast, familiarity with the Bible shows this account as evidencing anything more than platonic love, manifest in the context of a more deeply expressive culture, such as is seen elsewhere seen in the Bible (Gn. 45:14,15) and which can be seen in more expressive culture today. (Regan, P. C; Jerry, D; Narvaez, M; Johnson, D. Public displays of affection among Asian and Latino heterosexual couples. Psychological Reports. 1999;84:1201–1202)

The depth and language of Ruth's commitment in expressing her decision to stay may be indeed likened to marriage commitment, but the Bible substantiates that love and commitment itself is not marriage, and that faith in God and the non-marital commitment to another such as Ruth expressed is akin to what Jesus required of His disciples, (Lk. 9:57-62; 14:33; Jn. 21:18,19) and which they expressed to Him (Mk. 10:28; 14:31; Jn. 11:16), who would never leave them, (Mt. 28:20) and which draws upon that which Elisha stated toward his fellow prophet Elijah. (2Kg. 2:2-6) In contrast, when marriage is in view then the Bible makes it evident, with descriptions and evident elements, (Albert Barnes, Judges 14:10; Sketches of Jewish Social Life. Cp. 9 (Edersheim) which set it in contrast to platonic commitments. (Grenz, ibid. p. 138) As Gagnon notes, "Sexual bonds have their own distinct set of requirements". (Gagnon, A Book Not To Be Embraced: A Critical Review Essay on Stacy Johnson’s A Time to Embrace 2008 Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd.)

In addition to the lack of any sanction for sexual relations outside marriage, or of continual celibacy within marriage if both are able, (Prov. 5:15-19; 1Cor. 7:2-5) the story here lacks the phrases that the Bible elsewhere uses to describe sexual relations. Out of the many euphemisms used for such ("know/knew/known, "in unto her", "bed of love" "lay with her", etc.) only the Hebrew word ''dâbaq'' (cleave) occurs here, but as with multitude other single words, it requires context for its meaning. In its sixty occurrences in the old Testament, dâbaq is only used sexually three times, with a clear description denoting such a use. (Gn. 2:24; 34:3; 1Ki. 11:2) Moreover, if dâbaq is held as being sexual in 1:14, then it could also be held as such in Ruth 2:8,21,28, which, along with the proposed homosex perception of Ruth and Naomi, would render her utterly contrary to the ''virtuous women'' Boaz declares her to be. (Ruth 3:11) It may also be considered that if Naomi was married to Ruth, then she would not only be committing incest, (Lv. 18:6,15; 20:13) but possibly adultery or polyandry when later marrying Boaz, further rendering any such idea untenable. TOC^

• David and Jonathan

See David and Jonathan for a fuller examination of these two brothers in the service of God, which is helpful to understand the context of the issue at hand.

Responses to pro-homosexual polemics: chapter 18

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants." (1Sam. 8:1-5).

In 1Sam. 18:1 the word "knit" (qâshar) is seen as by pro-homosex advocates as signifying homosexual attraction, but rather than being used for human sexual bonding in the Bible, it denotes being of one heart and soul, with “loved him as his own soul” correlating to Gen 44:30.

In v. 2, Saul not letting David go any more home to his father's house is consistent with his practice previously, in which "when Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him" (1Sam. 14:52) as part of his army. While Horner sees Jonathan being homosexually attracted David by the sight of him, and even entertains the idea that Jonathan became naked, it is far more reasonable to surmise that Jonathan, who (contrary to Horner) also is manifested to be a daring warrior of faith, and who evidenced he valued those of like mind (1Sam. 13:3; 14:1-14), sees David as the bold yet humble hero that he was, whose love for God was showed in action. Knowing of his father's loss of the kingdom, (1Sam. 13:13; 15:17-29) Jonathan was likely not only yearning for such a fellow soldier as David showed himself to be, but also a chosen successor to Saul. Due to the kinship they find as like-minded warriors of faith, Jonathan not only enlists him in the household, but ensures a committed bond of friendship, and David's future place as the head of the kingdom (evidenced in the divestiture of Jonathan's royal attire and amour upon David). And as such David shows zeal to uphold the laws of God, which is abundantly evidenced as forbidding illicit sex, which manifests David's notable failure, as well ss it being of a purely heterosexual nature. Their bond would thus be spiritual and platonic, nor erotic.

In v. 3, the idea that Jonathan entered into a covenant of marriage with David is dismissed in the light of the fact that covenants were common in that world, the word occurring 285 times in the Old Testament, such as in assuring present and future alliances ([http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/c/covenant%2c+in+the+old+testament/, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Covenant, in the Old Testament]) , and only once in reference to marriage, (Mal. 2:14) with the Bible again being faithful manifest what moral manner these are of. What is manifest here in this regard is not marriage but commitments that both political and brotherly alliances require And the fact that Jonathan and David made three covenants (1Sam. 18:3, 20:16 and 23:18) testifies to this form. Early Christians are said to have entered into a covenant daily with each other, never to lie, or betray one another, etc., and by which each party pledged mutual trust. ([http://books.google.com/books?id=zvycaaaamaaj&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=early+christians++pliny+never+to+betray+a+trust&source=bl&ots=TWI_1jo127&sig=Hh2WvMjRFPzoa8aAzqxaAsb1_gY&hl=en&ei=XszTSb7eN-DrlQf96MDODA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA52,M1 The Early Christians in Rome, by Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones; p. 52]) Moreover, it is inconceivable that if this purported marriage existed, that Jonathan would not go with David when it was made clear that he must depart, and Jonathan indicated he would not see him again. (1Sam. 20:15)

Gagnon notes that this description here can also be compared to formulaic treaty language in the ancient Near East, such as the address of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal to his vassals ("You must love [me] as yourselves") and the reference in 1 Kings 5:1 to King Hiram of Tyre as David's "lover.” (Gagnon, ibid.)

In regard the words for ''love'' ('âhab 'âhêbor or its feminine form, 'ahabâh) in 18:3, these can denote platonic (the most common), or romantic, or erotic love, as there is no specific word for each, but like today, in the Bible such is manifest by its context or phraseology (as in Gn. 24:67; 29:18,30; 34:2-4; Dt. 21:15,16; Jdg. 16:4; 1Sam. 18:20,28; 2Sam. 13:1,4,15; 1Ki. 11:1; 11:21; Est. 2:17; Ps. 88:18; SoS. 1:16; 2:7; 3:1-5; 5:8; 7:6; Is. 57:8; Lam. 1:2.19; Ezek. 16:33,36,37; 23:5,9,22; Hos. 2:5,7,10,12,13; 3:1; 4:18; 9:1,10)

In regards to sexual relations, examination of the Bible shows them to be evident, but none of the specific descriptions and or their euphemisms seen so often elsewhere therein to denote such is used for David and Jonathan's relationship. ("know/knew/known": Gn. 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:17,18,35; Jdg. 11:39; 19:25; 21:11,12; 1Sam. 1:19; 1Ki. 1:4; Mt. 1:25; Lk. 1:34; "in unto her": Gn. 29:21,23,cf. v.30; 30:3,4; 38:2; 38:18; Dt. 21:13; 22:13; 25:5; Jdg. 16:1; Ruth 4:13; 2Sam. 12:24; Ezek. 23:44; “lie/lay,laid, with”: Gn. 19:32-34; 26:10; 30:15; 34:2; 39:7,12,14; Ex. 22:16,19; Lv. 15:18,24; 18:22,23; 19:20; 20:11,12,15,18; Num. 5:13; Dt. 22:22,23,25,28,29; 27:20-23; 28:30; 2Sam. 11:4,11; 12:11,24; 13:11,14; "bed of love": Ezek. 23:17; miscl: Gn. 24:67)

In v. 4, the notable divestiture by Jonathan of his garments, “even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle” to place them on David, is first evidenced as being a partial disrobing (especially in the Hebrew), limiting it to his robe and outer garments, his sword, bow and “girdle," the latter denoting part of a soldiers armor (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, 1Sam. 18:4) in such places as 2Samuel 20:8 and 2Kings 3:21. Besides such acts being a soldierly token of respect and friendship, as is seen in stories by Homer and other ancient writers (Clarke), and an unselfish providence to the lowly shepherd of clothing fit for the royal household, this ceremony is shown to have a clear ceremonial significance and precedent in Numbers 20:26, (cf. Gn. 41:42; Ex. 29:5,29; Is. 22:21; Esther 6:8-9) in which God commanded Moses, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son", in transference of the office of the former upon the latter. Likewise, Jonathan, who most likely knew of Samuel's discharge of Saul as king, would be symbolically and prophetically transferring the kingship of himself (as the normal heir) to David, and which would come to pass. (Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 146-54) (Markus Zehnder, “Observations on the Relationship between David and Jonathan and the Debate on Homosexuality,” Westminster Theological Journal 69.1 [2007]: 127-74) (Thomas E Schmidt, “Straight or Narrow?”) Jonathan later evidences he know David was to be king. (1Sam. 20:15)

In 1Sa 18:21, an attempt is made by some to render “thou shalt this day [yôm] be my son in law [châthân] in ''the one of'' the twain [shenayim / shettayimto]” (KJV: words in italics are not in original) to mean David was married to Jonathan and would become Saul's son in law again by his marriage to Michal. However, besides the unwarranted and absurd idea that Saul would recognize a homosexual marriage, or would not use such a time to get rid of David once for all, (Lv. 18:22; 20:13) and the ambiguity of the passage due to the sparsity of words, the context here is not that of Saul's son but his daughters Merab and Michal. (1Sa 18:17-20) As Saul had promised a daughter to the slayer of Goliath (1Sam. 17:25), so he promised Merab to David, but consistent with his guile and changeable spirit he gave her to Adriel (Michal would end up raising her children: 2Sam. 21:8) It is thus understood that by a second offer (cf. Job. 33:14) David may become the king's son in law by marriage with Michal, or as David had become the king's son in law by when he was betrothed to Merab, which was basically considered marriage, so once again he would be son in law to Saul by his marriage to his youngest daughter. ([http://www.layhands.com/ishomosexualityasin.htm Were Jonathan and David "Married"?, layhands.com]) (Albert Barnes, Dr. John Gill, 1Sa 18:21)

1 Samuel 19 and 20: brotherly love

Other passages invoked are 1 Sam 19:2,8; 20:4,16-17, 30,31;

The word in 1Sam. 19:2 for “delight” (châphêts) is invoked as favoring homosexuality, but this word is also used with the word love in 1Sam. 18:22 for Saul's delight in David, whom everyone loved, (vs. 16) and in 2Sam. 24:3 for David (wrongly) delighting in numbering Israel, and Ps. 119:70 for the Psalmist delighting in the the law of God, (which forbids homosex). When used for romantic delight, (Gn. 34:2,3,19; Dt. 21:13,14) as usual the descriptive context makes that meaning possible, in contrast to here.

Pro-homosex proponents also attempt to use 1Sam. 20:3, where David states he found grace in Jonathan's eyes. However, this word denotes kindness or favor and contextually the situation is that Jonathan is David's necessary ally against Saul, who seeks his life. This is entirely fitting here without any erotic denotation, as seen by its common use in the Biblical such as in 1Sam. 17:5, where in a similar situation David states he had found grace in the eyes of Achish, or 2Sam. 14:22, where Joab finds grace in David's eyes, and Gen 32:5 of Jacob and Essau, etc.

In relation to Jonathan's friendship with David, which Saul reacts to with anger in chapter 20:30,31, Horner, (ibid. p. 29, 30) labors to negate the idea that David was only Jonathan's friend, and instead construes Saul's anger toward Jonathan to be due to a homosexual affair, and not to his friendship with David placing him closer to the throne. Horner denies that Jonathan would be in line to be king, and never even shows awareness of the prophetic significance of the divestiture by Jonathan of his garments to place them upon David. (Numbers 20:26) Instead, he both supposes Jonathan and David would take after pagan nations in a homosexual relationship, and that Israel's means of determining kings would also be after their manner, which only sometimes chose the husband of the king's daughter as such.

In this regard however, it was not the manner of Israel to choose kings (or priests) through the son in law, but sons of kings became the heir. (1Ki. 11:43; 14:20,31; 15:8,24; 16:6,28; 22:40,50; 2Ki. 18:4; 10:35; 13:9; 14:16,29; 15:7,22,38; 16:20; 20:21; 21:18; 24:6) Originally kings were (manifestly) Divinely appointed. Under Samuel the prophet, Israel asked for a king because Samuel's sons were corrupt. (1Sam. 8:5,6) In condescension to the people, Samuel was commanded by God to anoint Saul as king, (1Sam. 9:15,16) but due to his consequent failures he was told he had lost the kingdom, (1Sam. 13) As a consequence, David was chosen by God through Samuel, to be his successor. (1Sam. 16) Jonathan indicates he was aware of his father's failure and loss of kingdom, and of David's anointing to be king. (1Sam. 20:15) For his part, Saul yet hoped for Jonathan to be his successor. (1Sa. 20:31) But perhaps fearing an insurrection due to David popularity, or that David's ascension might by the more directly Divine means, Saul sought to kill David while he was still (evidently) single. (1Sam. 18:8) In seeking to do so, he betroths David to his daughter Michal (1Sam. 18:17-27), requiring a dowry that required great risk to his life. After that plan to kill David failed, then Saul did marry him to his daughter Michal, but later gave her to another man. (David would later require her return: 2Sam. 3:13-16.)

The preceding directly relates to Horner's rendering of the next passage of interest, 1 Sam 20:30-31: "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen [bâchar] the son of Jesse to thine own confusion [bôsheth], and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? {31} For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die."

Here, an angry Saul warns Jonathan that due to his friendship and political alliance with his (Saul's) enemy instead of him, then Saul will not advance him in power or to be king. While the word ''women'' is added by translators (in italics in the KJV), and might allow the verse may read, "thou son of perverse rebellion”, yet like today, “son of a b....” is seen as an expression of contempt (Job. 30:8), (Albert Barnes, 1Sam. 12:30) like that of “cursed children” (2Pt. 2:14) “Thy mother's nakedness” does indeed Biblically denote something sexual, but here it is the shame of his mother's intercourse by which she normally would have conceived a future king. (John Gill, 1Sam. 12:30)

Though these verses are contrary to Horner's idea that the kingly successor would be chosen from a son in law, Horner attempts to enlist it for his homo-theology, Seeking to extrapolate an inference of sexual involvement between Jonathan and David, Horner asserts textual corruption exists, and finds an alternative meaning for the Hebrew word for "chosen", '''bâchar''' (or bocher), and an equivalent word in the Greek LXX (µ?t???? metoxov) which can mean '''participation in''', and then alters the phrase, "you have chosen the son of Jesse" to "you are an intimate companion to the son of Jesse.” However, the Hebrew uses a different word here, and is used to describe Israel choosing Saul to be king, (1Sam. 12:13) and similarly in almost all of its 150 occurrences, and in no place refers to sexual intimacy. The Greek word in the LXX is used in Ps. 119:63 to denote Godly companions who fear God, which intimates nothing sexual, while in Hos. 4:17 it does have a sexual inference, but one that is spiritual.

Horner then sees “son of Jesse” as also inferring eroticism, but this is a common title for David (used 18 times), just as “Saul the son of Kish” is. Moreover, the context here clearly defines that the shame that Saul was referring to was Jonathan's loss of the kingdom, while any erotic or marital union would be all Saul would need to exclude David from ever being king — and alive. (Lv. 20:13) Horner seems to utterly ignore the ramifications of what he is proposing, while requiring that such strong platonic love between same genders must be homosexual.

Horner next attempt can also be seen as also as “wresting” Scripture, (2Pt. 3:16) as he asserts that the word ''bôsheth'' in 1Sam. 20:30 and translated "confusion" (or most usually "shame") "is associated in the mainstream of Israelite society patriarchal society with sex, as illustrated in the Garden of Eden story (Gn. 3) and numerous other passages." However, examination shows bôsheth is not used in the Garden story (a different word is used in Gn. 2:25) nor in all its twenty nine occurrences is it ever used to denote sexual shame. It is not (nor is its root) the word used for “confusion” (tebel) in Lv. 18:23; 20:12.

The only word left for Horner here is ''nakedness'', but the reference is to Jonathan's mother, and specifically the shame of Jonathan's mother's conception due to his loss of the kingship, which usually would have been his by heredity, and which "shame" is akin to that which may cause toward against one's own house, such as is spoken of in Hab. 2:10. ([http://www.layhands.com/ishomosexualityasin.htm Were Jonathan and David "Married"?])

1Sam 20:41 is also focused upon :

"And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded."

Here, akin to the apostle Paul's departure in Acts 20:38, Jonathan and David shall see each other's face no more. And thus it is like this and some other emotional meetings the Bible, being marked by tears and kisses of non-sexual brotherly affection: "And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him" (Acts 20:37). "And he fell upon his brother Benjamin's neck, and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck. Moreover he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them: and after that his brethren talked with him." (Gen 45:14-15) This was a fairly common but nonsexual sign of affection in that culture, as it is may be today. ([http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers? James Patrick Holding]) Christians are exhorted, "Greet one another with an holy kiss" (2Cor. 13:12). Kissing is mentioned 35 times in the Old Testament but is not evident as sexual, except between a man and a women in an erotic context, place or manner, which is very rare. (Prov. 7:13; SOS 1:2; 8:1) Here again the story lacks these descriptions.

2 Samuel 1: David's lament

The poetic expression of 2 Sam 1:19-27 and 1:26 in particular is asserted or postulated by pro-homosexual proponents as being homoerotic, but “pleasant” also fails to be used in a sexual context elsewhere, and describes both Saul and Jonathan, and can even describe land (Gn. 49:15). And while “love” can be used to denote erotic love, here it again lacks the necessary context and or euphemisms seen elsewhere that manifests when it is. Horner (Horner, ibid. pp. 34,38) resorts to labeling the platonic understanding homophobic, and asserts this is homoerotic as he also perceives such in pagan stories, utterly ignoring that Israel was distinctly enjoined not be like such pagan nations, (Lev. 20:23; Ex. 23:24; Dt. 12:4; 12:30,31; Jer. 10:2,3) particularly as regard sexual practices, (Lv. 18) which laws Israel as yet was still largely faithful to, and David and Jonathan most especially would have been.

Rather than denoting a better form of erotic love, the phrase that Jonathan's love surpassed that of women best conveys the opposite, that the platonic love as manifested by Jonathan in helping David escape Saul's wrath on his way to replacing him was far superior to the erotic or romantic “love of women,” as true sacrificial love is manifested and realized in a far more comprehensive and deeper manner than simple sexual love, and the latter may often fail to even qualify as true love. Moreover, David and Jonathan's battle-proven and loyalty-tested love in a very close friendship would easily be far more rare, needful and appreciated than of the women we see that David had known. As Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary and a team of theologians (including some pro homosexuals) state (in "What the Bible Really Says About Sex"), "After Jonathan has been killed in battle, David does indeed lament that 'his love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.' But . . . David's whole point in this text is that Jonathan was his 'blood brother' with a loyalty that surpassed that which mere eroticism creates."

Finally, the fact that both Jonathan (who had a child) and David were both married to women (David many times), and had children by such testifies to their heterosexual sexuality, and in David's case it is further affirmed not only by his many wives, 1Sam. 30:5; 2Sam. 5:13) but also (in a negative context) by his adulterous affair with Bathsheba. Thus, while pro-homosex polemicists must strive and contrive to make David and Jonathan sexually involved, the Bible makes that sexual relations evident when they do occur, and that it was not men that David that he was sexually attracted to, but woman (2Sam. 11). Moreover, if Jonathan and David were in a homosexual relationship through the years, then they would have been adulterous bisexuals, and which have been scandalous in the household of Saul and kingdom of Israel.

Summation

*1. The story of Jonathan and David lacks the euphemisms (“knew”, “lay with” “went into” etc.) and or manner of descriptions which the Bible abundantly evidences in revealing erotic or romantic love, as well as marriage.

*2. While pro-homosex polemicists focus on words like “knit, “love,” “soul,” “delight”, “grace”, “covenant”, “chosen,” yet context describes what is meant but these words, and which here does not evidence anything more than platonic brotherly affection and esteem. None of the grammatical attempts to favor a homoerotic or homoromantic interpretation are found to merit such, and rely upon inferring homosexuality based upon phrases or words which are used for non-sexual love in many, most or all places elsewhere, and which are contextually defined.

*3. If the word ''covenants'' is allowed to mean marriage in this story - though is commonly used for mutual commitments among among leaders, in contrast to marriages, and Jonathan and David made 3 of them - then it is incongruous that Jonathan, who demonstrated sacrificial love toward David and for his coming kingdom, would not leave the house of Saul when it was made evident David must. (2Sam. 20) By his father's own words Jonathan had no real future in the house of Saul, and with only one child he could have rather easily left. Even more in-credible would be the alternative idea that eroticism could be allowed outside marriage, which is contrast to Scripture, as well as the manner of evidence here.

*4. Rather than being a homoerotic “love at first sight,” Jonathan and David's strong kinship and love is easily understood as the result of their shared faith and selfless commitment to God and Israel, humble and honest heart, and courageous daring spirit in battle, which stood in contrast to other soldiers. David's slaying of the blasphemer Goliath, whom even Jonathan evidently dared not stand up to, along with his zealous but overall genuineness and demeanor, exampled him to be the kind of man of God a soldier of like heart should want to be in fellowship with.

*5. Strong, non-sexual emotive expressions (Gn. 45:13,14) or language as well as hyperbole (Ps. 37) is shown to be a characteristic of the Hebrews, of David, and certain other cultures.

*6 The expression that the love of Jonathan's surpassed the “love of women” best conveys that the platonic love manifested by Jonathan was far superior to the erotic or romantic “love of women.”

*7. Pro-homosex proponents typically manifest that they rely upon an erroneous premise that strong platonic love must indicate homoerotic or homo-romantic love, as well as an unwarranted premise that the Bible doctrinally sanctions such, and would not make such sanction clear if it did. In addition, Biblically, romantic love includes the possibility it can and most likely will be expressed erotically, (Song of Solomon) and which makes even a homo-romantic perception of Jonathan and David's relationship even more problematic. It is the “way of a man with a maid” that is one of the things David's son Solomon marveled at. (Prov. 30:19)

*8. All the evidence of Israel's and Judaism's historic teaching shows that that any kind of homosexual eroticism would always have been scandalous in Israel when overall in obedience to God, and such would have accomplished Saul's goal of eliminating David as a future king, and perhaps from living.

*9. Pro-homosex polemical assertions are shown to also depend upon making Israel morally akin to pagan nations which they were to be distinctly morally separate from, especially in regards to sexual relations.

*10. The attempt to interpret David as becoming king by becoming Saul's son-in-law through marriage (to Jonathan or Michal), or that Saul's anger towards his son was based upon an erotic relationship with David are evidenced to be erroneous.

*11. The Bible clearly manifests David's sexual “orientation” as toward women, with him being married many times (all to women), once after being captivated by the beauty of married Bathsheba, (2Sam. 11) and perhaps attracted to the promise of marriage to Saul's daughter for slaying Goliath, (1Sa 17:25,36) while Jonathan evidently had also married. (2Sam. 4:4) All of which is contrary to assertions of homosexuality between them, or that the Bible (which is manifestly counter-cultural) would not make such evident if there were.

*12. The divestiture by Jonathan of his garments is evidenced as being partial, and to have a clear ceremonial significance and precedent, (Numbers 20:26; cf. Gn. 41:42; Ex. 29:5,29; Is. 22:21; Esther 6:8-9) in which Moses stripped Aaron of his garments to put them upon in transference of the office of the former upon the latter. Likewise, Jonathan would be symbolically and prophetically transferring the kingship of himself (as the normal heir) to David, and which would come to pass. (Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 146-54) (Markus Zehnder, “Observations on the Relationship between David and Jonathan and the Debate on Homosexuality,” Westminster Theological Journal 69.1 [2007]: 127-74)) (Thomas E Schmidt, “Straight or Narrow?”)

*13. The homosexual hypothesis relies upon the political premise that the text is basically a work of “homophobic” scribes, and who would have edited out what the pro-homosex advocates seek to establish, but which premise negates any moral authority of it. Yet if the text were the work of such men, then it is hardly reasonable that they would use even use descriptions which homosexuals might see as erotic or romantic.

*14. Taking the Bible as the Word of God, and consistent with the means of establishment of other major doctrines, an interpretation of a historical narrative itself does not establish moral doctrine, nor is it reasonable when the descriptions of the interpreted activity and related aspects are unclear, and the derived conclusion is radically contrary to the explicit basic moral laws or treatment mentioned elsewhere, and its foundational principle.

• Daniel and Ashpenaz

"Now God had brought Daniel into favourH2617 and tender loveH7356 with the prince of the eunuchs." (Dan 1:9)

A far less popular attempt by a popular pro-homosex web writer, B.A. Robinson (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, same-sex relationships in the Bible) and who is known for presenting extremes, is one which argues that the Hebrew words for ''favour'' and ''tender love'', ''chesed'' ''v'rachamim'', is more reasonably translated "mercy" and "physical love", thus having the eunuch "Ashpenaz engaging in physical love with Daniel the eunuch. Robinson deals with the problem of presumed eunuchs (the Hebrew word for "eunuch" can also refer to such men as the officer of Pharaoh who was married, or an officer over men of war: Gn. 39:1ff; 2King. 25:19) engaging in sex by assuming that they were both castrated after puberty, and also retained their sex drive.

However, grammatically the combination of the two Hebrews words used for ''favor'' and ''tender love'' is not exclusive to here, but are used many times elsewhere to describe the lovingkindness (KJV) of the LORD, as in Psa 25:6: “Remember, O LORD, thy tender mercies7356 and thy lovingkindnesses2617,” or Psa 103:4: “....who crowneth thee with lovingkindness2617 and tender mercies7356.” (cf. Ps. 40:11; 51:1; 69:16; Ps. 103:4; Is. 63:7; Jer. 16:5; Lam. 3:22; Hos. 2:19; Zec. 7:9)

Moreover, in it's 42 occurrences the word for "tender love" almost always means mercies in the general sense, and is never used to describe strictly physical love, let alone in the erotic sense. Nor is it used as part of a reciprocal action, as between two persons engaging in such. The idea that it describes physical love might be derived from the fact that in a minority of times it denotes the womb, (Gen. 49:25, Prov. 30:16, Isa. 46:3, Eze. 20:26) yet the subject in such cases is not being physically loved. The context of Daniel 1:9 is that of other texts in which kindness and mercy is shown, and fits perfectly with the usual combination of chesed with v'rachamim, that of non erotic lovingkindness and mercies.

In addition, studies show that castration after the onset of puberty typically reduces sex drive considerably or altogether eliminates it .(The case for castration, part 2, Washington Monthly , May, 1994 by Fred S. Berlin)(The Unkindest Cut: A Czech Solution for Sex Offenders, Timemagazine, By Leo Cendrowicz / Brussels Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2009)

Therefore, the pro-homosex polemic here is one which not only

1. requires reading oblique sexual meanings into words which do not warrant such, and in a Book which abundantly evidences it makes sexual activity manifest when such place (one exception might be, Gn. 9:20-24, but if so it shows homosex so shameful as to make it most veiled), but which

2. imagines that a most righteous man (Ezek. 4:14,20) would not only engage in homoeroticism which is only condemned wherever it is explicitly dealt with, but also do so in an unmarried state, which is also always condemned.

In summation, the assertion that Daniel 1:9 is more reasonably rendered as “mercy and engaged in physical love” is not reasonable, but is unwarranted, and demonstrates the extremes which pro-homosex polemicists can go to in attempting to force text into passages it does not belong in. TOC^

• 1 and 2 Kings

More Old Testament examples of extreme attempts to read homosex into Scripture where it is not warranted, are the stories of Elijah and Elisha raising dead boys to life, as well as the story of King Jehu inviting Jehonadab to join him in battle. Attempts to use these to favor homosex are fairly unique, but as Wikipedia and some others yet offer them as a viable possibilities, so they are included here.

In 1 Kings 17:1-24 is the story of Elijah raising a dead boy to life, and in 2 Kings 4:8-37 a similar story is recorded of Elisha doing the same. In the first instance, after telling wicked King Ahab that, as punishment from God, it would not rain until he said, Elijah, was told by God to proceed the residence of a widows women, through whom God would sustain him during that time of drought. The women had a son, and was blessed with food due to her faith and obedience in this matter. But it came to pass that the widow's son died. In response to the women's cry for her son, Elijah carried him up into a loft and laid him upon his own bed, and made earnest intercession to God. He then "stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived". (1Kg. 17: 19-22) He then returned the boy to his mother, who now had more assurance that Elijah was a man of God and a true prophet.

In the second instance, a man and his wife had made a "prophets chamber", thought to be a type of annexed room, used for the custom of housing strangers (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown; Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., Jdg. 3:20) at their house for the traveling prophet Elisha to stay in as needed. After a time Elisha sought to find out what he could do in response, with the answer being that the women was childless, and with an old husband. Elisha then told her that she would shortly have a child, and which came to pass. The child grew, but one day cried to his father about his head, and shortly thereafter died on his mother's knees. The women herself then laid her child upon the bed of the prophet, and journeyed to where the prophet was staying. Upon perceiving his distress, Elisha told his servant Gehazi to lay his staff upon the face of the child, and which he went and did, but the child did not awaken. Elisha then went himself, and performed a resuscitation ritual similar to Elijah's , (2Kg. 4:32-35) with the result being that "the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes." He then called for the grateful mother to take her son.

Koch (Timothy R., A Homoerotic Approach to Scripture.) sees these as homoerotic, with the staff representing a reproductive organ and the sneezing of the boy meaning ejaculation. However, such assertions are manifest as being unwarranted on any ground. John Barclay Burns (Associate Professor of Religious Studies, George Mason University) call's Koch's conclusions "sheer fantasy", being a highly individualistic construction which is imposed on the text.

Besides the fact that Koch has an holy prophet engaging in premarital sex and pedophilia, which allowance is not shown to have any Scriptural basis, and is instead evidenced to be contrary to what is stated in this area, to be consistent with Koch's staff metaphor, Gehazi would have had to castrate Elisha first in order to first use the "staff." (2Kg. 4:29) Elijah's raising of the dead boy also provides nothing viably erotic, which activity is something the Bible makes manifest elsewhere when it is such. While the resuscitation ritual would seem strange in today's world, many such acts were common in the ancient one, as we see by examples in Isaiah 20, Ezekiel 4, John 9:6. The context in both these stories is that of a holy prophet doing a miracle of mercy in raising the dead, not of having homosex. Jesus referenced Elijah's ministry to the widows as an example of showing mercy, (Lk. 4:25) and in Acts 20:10 the apostle Paul acted somewhat similar to the prophets in raising Eutychus up. Few if any other pro-homosex authors attempt to use these stories to favor their cause, and traditional exegesis manifest Kock's conclusions as being utterly untenable, leaving them to be an example of eisegetical extremism, with an over-active carnal homosexual imagination being forced into Scripture.

Another interpretation of Koch is that of 2 Kings 10:15-16, which he sees as a homosexual pick up, though again, there is nothing erotic or homosexual in this story. In 2Kg. 9, Jehu was anointed king of Israel by Elisha, and is commanded to cut off all the house of wicked King Ahab, which he proceeds to do. On his mission to do so in Samaria, he meets with Jehonadab, who was traveling to meet him, and Jehu inquires whether he has the same heart as him, and if so, to give him his hand. As he does so, therefore Jehu takes him with him to ride in his chariot, "see my zeal for the LORD. So they made him ride in his chariot."

The context quite obviously is that of a political alliance. Jehonadab is evidenced in the Bible as being an honorable man, and married, with children, (Jer. 35:6) and as such he would have assented to the destruction of the idolatrous family of the wicked king Ahab, and so he sought out Jehu and greeted him on his God-ordained (2Kg. 9:1-10) mission. In response to Jehu's query as to his heart, Jonadab gave Jehu his hand as a token of fellowship, as was a Biblical custom. (cf. Ezra 10:19; Ezek. 17:18; Gal. 2:9) For Jehu's part, Jehonadab's presence in the chariot would have likely given him favor among the people, and provide evident sanction to what he did. (Dr. John Gill (1690-1771) The next verse proceeds to state that Jehu slew all that remained unto Ahab in Samaria, further showing that judgment of a wicked people was on Jehu's mind, not homosex. Here again, the idea that holy people would be engaged in homosex is seen to require imposing an external and wicked morality on the text, that of an erotic imagination. TOC^

Jesus, the Centurion and his Servant.

Another attempt to find sanction for homosex is one in which it is asserted that Jesus approved of a homosexual relationship between a Roman Centurion and his servant, in Matthew 8: 5-13; Lk. 7:1-10).

Jack Clark Robinson (Jesus, the Centurion, and His Lover) and others attempt to support this assertion, in which it is supposed that,

A. Since a slave had no rights, "why on earth should he refrain from sodomizing his houseboys?" (citing prohomosex author Eva Cantarella).

B. Centurions were not allowed to marry during their military service, and thus he assumes the ones Robinson mentions were homosexuals.

C. The word translated “servant” is the Greek word "pais", which can denote a boy, But it could refer to a fully adult male as black slaves were in America. And pais is sometimes used to "denote a complicated relationship of unusual intimacy in the New Testament".

D. In Acts 10:1–11:18, a presumably homosexual centurion was accepted into the Christian community, thus making it "unmistakably clear" that both Christ and the Holy Spirit opened the doors of the Christian community to homosexuals and their partners.

The conclusions of such "scholarship" is easily shown to be an example of those who "wrest" the Biblical texts, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2Pt. 3:16)

The presumptions of the homosexual construct are evident from the outset.

1. The question as to whether a marriage ban applied to centurions, or to what extent or for how long is a subject of contention. As Phang writes,

...the survival and transmission of of Roman legal sources is highly problematic. It [the ban] is not found in the main collection of juristic excerpts before A.D. 240, or in Gaius' Institutes (c. 160) or in the Gnomon of the Idios Logos. There is no direct evidence as to what ranks where affected by the marriage ban. Cassius Dio 60:24:3 Herodian 3.8.5, Libanius Or. 2:39-40 refer to generic soldiers; there is no mention of higher-ranking officers such as Centurions and principales. It is certain that equestrian and senatorial officers were not included in the ban, which would have contravented the Augustan legislation promoting marriage of the upper orders.

There is no direct evidence about whether centurions who were affected by the marriage ban. Most modern authors have assumed that they were permitted legal marriage. (P. Meyer (1895) pp, 103-4; Renz (1976) 55, Chery, marriage of equestrain oficers (1997) p. 113) Allason (1989) p. 58, states that "Below the rank of centurions soldiers were forbidden by law to marry", with Hassall (1999; pp. 35-40), giving 35 as the age which centurions could marry. (The marriage of Roman soldiers (13 B.C.-A.D. 235), by Sara Elise Phang, pp. 129-133)

2. In addition, to claim that the all centurions were homosexuals or the ones Robinson mentions is presumptuous. The Bible evidences that it makes noteworthy aspects of the subjects of interest manifest, as a study of even the individual recipients of healing will show, and if the Holy Spirit is showing homosexuality being favored, as Robinson asserts He is, then we can expect that this aspect would be included, as well as sanction for it being made evident, as with the case of heterosexuals. As the opposite is done for homoeroticism, promoters of such must resort to asserting that the Bible was much a work of homophobic editors.

3. The word word translated “servant”, "pais", most predominately means servant, someone in subjection, and sometimes refers to God's servant Jesus or David, and others (Mat. 12:18; 14:2; Luk. 1:54; 1:69; 7:7; 15:26; Act. 4:25) or child (Mat. 17:18, Luk. 2:43; 9:42; Act. 4:27,30) It is not used in a gender exclusive way, as it can refers to a female. (Luk. 8:51,54). Apart from Robinson's imagination, its use nowhere in Scripture denotes a complicated relationship of sexual intimacy, and its use in non-Biblical literature is exceedingly rare. What might be possible is that the "pais" here was a son (cf. Acts 3:13,26) of the centurion (through a maid servant wife), as is the case in the parallel story of John 4:46-53. (Fred Butler, http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2007/02/centurions-servant.html; Gagnon, Did Jesus Approve of a Homosexual Couple in the Story of the Centurion at Capernaum?, though the "Q" document aspect is a theory)

4. There is absolutely nothing in the story of Acts 10:1–11:18 that indicates the centurion there was a homosexual, and instead it indicates how men must resort to imagination force a text to say what they wish.

In addition to the presumption that centurions, and this one in particular, were not married, and that this meant he was engaging in homosex, other aspects render Robinson's rendition of this story untenable:

A. Robinson has Jesus sanctioning homosexual relationship's. However, Jesus is not seen overthrowing the moral law of the Old Testament, and instead He actually reinforced and expanded its depth, and in so doing He explicitly stated what constitutes the "what" of what God joined together, (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24) and to suppose that Jesus actions support the sodomizing of a servant, or even that He would sanction any homosexual relationship without expressly making that evident, is absurdity. Laws regarding sexual partners are manifest in Scripture as belonging to the primary category of moral laws regarding man's relationship with each other, and are not simply part of civil legislation, and nowhere are these abrogated in the gospels or under the New Covenant. Instead such are often reiterated. (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)

B. Homosexual relations are condemned wherever they are explicitly dealt in the Bible, and to sanction a homosexual relationship would be a radical new revelation, even more so than making all food clean, which the New Testament makes clear did not apply to moral laws such as regarding sexual partners.

C. Robinson depends upon the theory that all centurion were forbidden to marry, and thus his construct has Jesus sanctioning sex outside marriage.

D. As homosexual relations were universally condemned by the Jews, and if what Robinson imagines was the case, then we can be sure that the adversaries of Jesus would have made this radical departure from the law a specifically manifest issue. However, this was never the case.

In summation, the heresy of Robinson and company evidences again that as the Bible offers absolutely nothing that manifests sanction for homosex and the necessary providence of marriage for it, and instead it explicitly condemns such, prohomosex polemicists are forced into reading sex into such passages as the one at issue here. TOC^

• Jesus and John

The height of homosexual blasphemy and striving to force sex into passages it does not belong, is that which insolently portrays the LORD Jesus and the apostle John as being involved in a homosexual relationship. Roman Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak, whose pro sodomy theology Olliff and Hodges (and others) refute (A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology, by Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges) actually sees Jesus as having a "rather negative attitude towards the traditional family." (Sex and the sacred, by Daniel A. Helminiak, p. 192) This is another case which manifests the unholy imagination of prohomosex authors, who see homosexuality wherever the Bible describes close brotherly or even Divine love, and into which they proceed to read modern homosexual imaginations into ancient customs. As in Romans 1:25, these idolaters fashion Jesus Christ into an image like unto their liking, to their own damnation. Due to the outrageous nature and the extreme degree of eisegesis (versus exegesis) this fantasy requires, it barely warrants reproof, but in today's Biblically illiterate and morally confused world some are deceived by them. In response see "Was Jesus in a Sexual Relationship with the Beloved Disciple?", by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. A briefer response can also be seen by Patrick Holding, Does John 21:20 Show That Jesus Was Gay? TOC^

Was Paul gay?

Certain souls like the spurious Ret. Bishop Spong, ("Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism") who reveals he has no moral absolutes, and denies the supernatural and the plenary inspirational of Scripture Bible, (http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/spongwrong2.htmreraly) strive to to make the Jewish apostle a poor, struggling repressed homosexual, due to his expressed inner spiritual struggle, his thorn in the flesh, and perceived bias against women. And this, we are to expected to believe, is the result of objective and informed spiritual exegesis, for somehow we are to believe the insolent imagination and indignation of Spong (against "fundamentalism") over the Bible, which reveals that,

1. Paul expressed the same inner war between his fallen sinful nature and the Spirit of Christ (Rm. 7) as true Christians in the Bible and throughout history have realized, but which, as Paul did, found victory insofar as they obeyed the provided solution. (Rm. 8). If one is gay because of such conflict then so are all serious Christians.

(Gal 5:17) "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh [which works include adultery, fornication..]: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." (cf. vv. 18-23)

(Gal 5:24-25) "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."

2. Paul's particular "thorn in the flesh", (2Cor. 12:7) was something he was "given" for spiritual growth, indicating a more recent affliction. And which was an "infirmity", (cf. 2Cor. 11:30; 12:5,9,10) which is elsewhere revealed as physical affliction, or general physical weakness, including that which the sinless Christ suffered, (2Cor. 13:4) rather than a sinful desire, which God dos not "give" to holy souls. And which Paul actually rejoiced in, by exchanging his weakness for Christ's power, when he realized its higher purpose. (v. 9)

3. This "thorn" is best evidenced as an eyesight condition, or perhaps headaches from such, based upon such evidence as Acts 23:5 and Gal. 4:15. While by no means conclusive, it stands in viable contrast to the idea of this being a sinful desire, which Paul would not have ceased seeking deliverance from, even as he required this seeking of others, and of spiritual perfection. (1Cor. 9:27; Col. 3:1-10ff; Phil. 3)

4. Paul clearly demonstrated that he was not fearful of opposing religious tradition when it was not in line with God's revelation norms, yet he abundantly evidenced he upheld the moral law of the Tanach, especially regarding illicit sexual partners, as did Jesus and the other N.T. writers (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)

5. Paul strongly and unconditionally condemned both male and female homoeroticism, (Rm. 1:24-27), while upholding the uniquely compatible and complementary union of the male and female, which alone is sanctioned, by marriage (see Romans_1). Thus, even if Spong's fantasy is allowed, it is irrelevant as concerns sanction of homosex. And if Paul's condemnation of this is to be dismissed as "homophobic," which the homosexiual movement typically but in-credibly applies to all opposition, rather than being based on God's design and decrees, then the rejection of the latter can be labeled "heterophobic."

6. Rather than being a "women hater," Paul upheld the O.T. laws regarding female ordination (if one is gay because of such, then so were all Jews), and the positional distinction between the male and female, while proclaiming their spiritual equality. (1Cor. 11:1-3ff, Gal. 3:28; see also WOMENPASTORS)

7. Paul actually commanded sex between married men and women, and not for the need for procreation. (1Cor. 7:2-5)

8. Commanded help for the women which labored with him in the gospel, (Phil. 4:3) and with others, lodged in the house of Lydia, (Act 16:13-16.40) and otherwise evidenced friendship and appreciation of women. (Rm. 16:1-5)

9. Commanded that husbands love their wives as as their own bodies, and even as Christ loved the church, (Eph. 5:25,28,32) which was that of complete sacrificial love.

10. Portrayed the Genesis martial union between the male and female as picturing the union of the church and Christ. (Eph. 5:31,32)

11. Included himself as those who were gifted to be single, and counseled marriage for those who could not be celibate, which was the higher call in the light of spiritual concerns and coming persecution. (1Cor. 7:6-8, 26-35)

12. Similarity, Paul also advocated going without food for a time, (1Cor. 7:5; 2Cor. 6:5; 11:27) for spiritual purposes, thus according to the logic of Spong, he must have been "foodophobic."

As there is no real Biblical case favoring homosexual relations, it is no surprise that most every pro homosexual polemicist rejects the Bible as being the Word of God, and blithely declare the condemnation of homosex and lack of desired evidence of sanction for such as the result of homophobic redactors, while duplicitously seeking to use its authority for its cause. TOC^

• Conclusion

Despite the many and often contradictory attempts to disallow the Biblical injunctions against homosex and to find sanction for it, the Bible consistently affirms that by design and decree only opposite genders are to be joined sexually, and that only in marriage, and its prohibitions of unlawful sexual partners transcends time and culture. As this is the evident teaching of the Scriptures of God, the homosexual apologist must resort to negating the Divine authority of the Bible, expressly or effectively, by asserting "homophobic" editors censored the texts which proponents of homosex long to see. Such prohomosex efforts often require linguistical leaps, in which certain words, if opposed to homosex, are disallowed from meaning what they most plainly declare, while others are said to mean what prohomosex polemicists seek them to say, though they are never used that way. Or they depend upon context and other descriptions in order to denote eroticism, as seen elsewhere in Scripture, but which are absent in the texts at issue, in addition to facing insurmountable theological problems. Moreover, in seeking to find sanction for homosex, a foreign morality is imposed upon texts, effectively requiring that Israel and Christians were to learn the way of the way of unbelievers (contra Jer. 10:4). There are certain additional prohomosex polemicists who concede that the Bible is unequivocally anti-homosex, but who disallow the Bible from being a coherent moral authority in sexual matters, as they seek to justify rebellion to God based upon how they feel.

While prohomosex polemicists insist that homosexuals ought to enjoy the same sanction of marriage as heterosexuals are given, yet homosex is not only condemned, and never affirmed, wherever the Bible explicitly deals with it, but any establishment of homosexual marriage is utterly absent. Their extreme but vain efforts in this matter effectively charge God with being unwilling or unable to provide evident sanction for same sex unions, while distinctly stating and explicitly affirming that opposite genders are what He joined together, with the blessed provision of marriage for heterosexuals being clearly, uniquely and abundantly established, and which is the necessary Divine sanction for sexual relations.

In addition is the issue of the many promoters of homosexuality who demand that they also be called Christians. However, this is a title that originally was given to those who believed Scripture as God's coherent spiritual and moral authority. (Acts 11:26) And which is a title no one can earn, but one that can only be had upon "repentance from dead works" and "faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Heb. 6:1; Acts 20:21). But which redemption by grace souls spurn as long as they remain obstinate in positively affirming homosexuality (or any sin). Yet God declares "I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye" (Ezk. 18:32). It is my prayer that every homosexual, and indeed all souls – by the grace of God – will turn from "darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me [Jesus] (Acts 26:18). For help in doing that, PLEASE read the accompanying message "Jesus can set you free" that will follow below. All have sinned, there is none righteous, and nothing that defileth shall enter the Holy City of God, Hell is forever, all must be saved. And which salvation can not be had on the basis of any merit we suppose, nor any sacrifice we make, but only the blood of the sinless Jesus can truly atone for sin and save sinners. And not only save but transform hearts. May all who read this know "so great salvation, " by "the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ"(Heb. 2:3; Titus 2:13). Praise ye the Lord!

Finally, a word toward Christians is that, although proponents of homosexuals can be very harsh toward those who oppose homosexual activity, a Christian cannot love homosexuals if he does not warn them of a willful sin which most flagrantly dishonors God, and will send them likely to an early grave, and most surely to eternal punishment, and compassionately seek to help them find repentance and faith in the LORD Jesus. And let those who oppose homosexuality also take heed to their spirit, for though the practice of sodomy is perversely unholy and sinful, yet the Scripture states “and such were some of you” (1Cor. 16:11), and thus we must both hate iniquity (in ourselves first) and love righteousness (Heb. 1:9), yet have compassion on the lost, “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) in the holy fear of God.

External links

* Robert A. J. Gagnon Articles Available Online

* Straight & Narrow? By Thomas E. Schmidt

* Homosexuality, by James B. De Young

* The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, David E. Malick

*Homosexuality, Good and right in the eyes of God? by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue (560 pages )

* Gay Christian Arguments Considered

* A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology, by Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges

* Marriage and Family in the Biblical World By Ken M. Campbell

*God, Marriage, and Family, By Andreas J. Kostenberger, David W. Jones

*Hope for the Homosexual, by Travis Allen

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Only Jesus save sinners (and all have sinned)

There is a God, your Creator, who has created you to know Him and who has given us both good things and good laws. Yet "All have sinned" (Rm. 3:23), breaking His good laws and misusing the good things which He has given us for our benefit.

Sin has separated you from God, the Source of Life, resulting in Spiritual Death (Gen. 2:17; Eph. 2:1). Man tries to satisfy the emptiness in his soul by making created things or persons his god. Whether it be the "lust of the flesh" [sensual pleasure], "the lust of the eyes" [possessions] or "the pride of life" [prestige or power] (1 Jn. 2:16), it is all a vain and sinful attempt to find security and fulfillment apart from the True and Living God. Neither can we justify sinful choices by saying "I was born that way."

You were created to be able to enjoy God in Heaven, but nothing sinful will be, or should be, allowed into Heaven (Is. 59:1, 2; Rv. 21:27), If you die in your sins you will not rejoice in Heaven, but will end up in a place that is just the opposite of Heaven, a real place called the Lake of Fire (Mt. 25:41 ; Rev. 20:15; 21:8).

The Only Way you can have your sins forgiven and know God is through the Lord JESUS CHRIST, whom the Father sent to save you (Acts 4:12; 10:43; 13:39; 1Jn. 4:10, 14).

It is this JESUS, the Son of God, who came down from Heaven to live a completely sinless and perfect life, revealing God's grace, truth, love and righteousness,.. Yet after doing everything "right," it is He who took responsibility for all we have done wrong, paying for our sins with His own sinless blood on the cross of His death. Having done all, it is this JESUS who rose from the dead to Heaven as Savior and Judge (Act 10:39-43). God now calls you to turn to Him from sin and receive His Son, Whom He "hath made both Lord and Christ". ( Act 2:36-47; 13:16-41).

What you do with Jesus, "God manifest in the flesh," reveals what you ultimately love and where you will spend ETERNITY. If you die without Christ - if you have not turned to God from sin and cast all your faith upon the Risen Lord Jesus to save you, and had all your sins washed away by His precious blood - then you must face the just punishment which your sins require.

I pray that instead of sin and a sure Hell you will choose Christ and His Life today! Humble yourself as a sinner before God, decide you want Jesus instead of sin and honestly call upon Him to save you. Then be baptized and follow Him. Those who have truly received Christ are made spiritually alive (born again) by the Spirit of God and want to serve Him (despite persecutions). Praise the Lord!

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen"(Jude 21-25). Praise the Lord. TOC^

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This page is an extended and modified version of my edits of a Conservapedia article, and as such should be considered subject, in part, to its licensing.

www.peacebyjesus.org

Email: saved2serve@gmail.com

Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless HIS holy name. Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all HIS benefits (Ps. 103:1, 2).

Web Design Tools