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 beginning, (Gn. 3:1-5) the attempts of pro-homosexual revisionism fall into two categories, that which prohibit or condemn homosex, 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 homosex contend that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions, as procreation is longer a primary need for the human race. (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.witnesstoday.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^

"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 homosex 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 homosex 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.witnesstoday.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 homosex, pro-homosex 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^

(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 homosex, 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^

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^

In summary, Gn. 1:27,27; 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 homosex, 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^



Table of Contents

Introduction

Part 4

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Leviticus Summation

Part 1

Terms

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

 

Conclusion