This is part of a sectioned series. For other sections see table of contents at end; for the entire documentary (the most recent version) as one web page, see here. For a PDF download of the complete document (57 pages), right click here and save.

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^

"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^

See David and Jonathan

"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^

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,; 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^

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, ( 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^

Table of Contents


Part 4

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Leviticus Summation

Part 1


Sexual morality in the Bible

Interpretive Foundations

Principal Sources

Part 5

Sex Laws versus Slavery

Silence of Jesus Argument and Love Hermeneutic

Part 2

Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women

1 Corinthians 11

Celibacy, Polygamy, and Procreation

Eunuchs and Exegesis

Proclivity and Permission Polemic (Social Justice) Summary

Part 6

Romans 1

1Corinthians 6:9 and

1 Timothy 1:10

Part 7

False postulations or assertions of approved homosex:

Ruth and Naomi

David and Jonathan

Daniel and Ashpenaz

1 and 2 Kings

Jesus, the centurion and his servant

Jesus and John

Was Paul gay?

Part 3

Genesis 19

Judges 19

Jude 1:7

Ezekiel 16:49 and Inhospitality Texts

Extra Biblical historical sources