A Biblical response to the pernicious Professor Wink, who wily works "wresting" (2 pT. 3:16) words of God, while whispering, “Yea, hath God said..” (Gn. 3:1).

(Rom 1:22) "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..”

Walter Wink is a United Methodist (liberal) minister and Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, and has also taught at Union Theological Seminary and Hartford Seminary, and as a visiting professor at Columbia and Drew universities. As such he seems to have become the main “theologian” at (sinful) soulforce, which is a non-violent homosexual organization dedicated to attacking churches and Christian ministries who do not sanction homosexual relations, including those who hold to the sound teaching of the word of God that homosexuality is sinful, and that homosexuals therefore must repent in their heart from this as well as sin in general (just as heterosexuals must from theirs), and turn to Christ to receive and follow Him.

“The way of a fool is right in his own eyes” (Prv. 12:15).

Unlike some “homoapologists,” Professor Wink does not attempt to use the Bible as an authority to support homosexual relationships, rather he strives to negate the Bible as a moral authority altogether. Though he makes some vain attempts to explain away a few of the clear Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations, Wink's real objective is to disallow the moral authority of the Bible itself by rendering it as morally incoherent! Though he only seek to do so here in regards to sexual moral laws, his spurious hermeneutics and reasoning away of the Scriptures would negate the Bible in general as the immutable moral and spiritual authority is it manifested to be by sound exegesis. By constantly ignoring such the Professor Winks works to to misrepresent Biblical teaching, and to confuse basic unchanging moral laws with cultural laws (which have modifiable aspects), and to equate tolerated practices (i.e. slavery) with New Testament intent, and to radically redefine it's teaching under grace to allow sexual immorality, with morality ultimately being determined according to the word of souls like Wink.

Like the original deceiver, Wink whispers, “hath God said...” (Gn. 3:1) in regards to sexual injunctions, depending upon basic ignorance and exegetical errors and his own imagination to cast doubt upon the most basic of Gods moral laws and so deceive the simple. His demonic goal becomes increasingly evident as his polemic proceeds, that of establishing a supreme authority over the Word of God, that of post-Christian sexualized sectarian society and it's ever morphing morality. The professor ultimately proclaims a hermeneutic that holds dominion (man over women) in reproach, by which his unwanted sexual prohibitions are disallowed. This is all necessary if Wink's world is to take place, in which sexual morality is ultimately determined by what seems “loving” according to one's own reasoning, but which easily sanctions sexual sin. Both Wink's desired sexual practices and his carnal moral reasoning are manifestly contrary to the Bible which commands, “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ., and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof" (Rom 13:14), and “..seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring” (Num. 15:390.

The reader will notice my frequent rebukes of Mr. Wink''s works, which are not done lightly but because he is eminently worthy of such. Mr. Wink's page ranks as one the most extensive displays of exegetical sophistry on this subject that i have ever read, by a man who evidently supposes he is a Christian (i have no delusion that he is). If Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees of his day, who like Wink, added to and subtracted from the Scriptures, “fools and blind,” and who made souls twofold more the children of hell than themselves (Mt. 23:15, 17), then Wink is likewise worthy of such rebuke.

While page this responds to most all of what Wink wrote, it can only contain portions of Winks actual text (which are in red italics), but the original article can be seen here.

“Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did a hundred and fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretative quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?“

Like other “men of corrupt minds,” who “withstood Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8), in like rebellion to his authority Mr. Wink will seek to sink readers into his spinning apologetical quicksand, which negates the Bible as being the coherent moral authority such as God declares it to be. Mr Wink begins his apologetic as one sympathetic to the need for unity, and with that pretext he will work to promote unity based upon error. Wink's statement is that “Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before,” but by “our” he means between those that hold the Bible as the ultimate and coherent immutable authority versus those who, like Walter, want wiggle room for the allowance of homosexuality and other illicit practices. Wink then offers a fallacious parallel situation that equates rights based upon amoral aspects such as race and skin color, with an immoral, perverse practice that militates against life, and in fact is primarily responsible to the death of millions.

And rather than enabling unity, Wink's frequent specious comparisons illustrates why there actually must a split between those who love the truth and thus practice proven methods of sound exegesis, versus those who are found “handling the word of God deceitfully” (2 Cor. 4:2). Wink's comparison here does not support his polemic, as the very return to the evangelical faith and it's Biblical literacy and it's (usual) literal meaning that substantiated Christian support for abolition is what excludes acceptance of homosexuality. The evangelical great awakenings and political freedom enabled social change that was more consistent with Biblical morality under the New Testament. In which the primitive (model) church as an organic community had no slavery (Acts 2:41-47; 4:32, 33), while the later exhortation to slaves (who made up most of the early Gentile church) to act as Christians was not an advocation of slavery or unconditional sanction of such (Christians in Communist prisons are also to act Godly), while the requirement to masters to give unto slaves just and equal pay and good treatment in the fear of God, and even to accept them as brothers (Col. 4:1; Eph. 5-8; Philemon . 16) — and all that such entails — effectively disemboweled classical slavery, and would reduce it to more of an employer - employee type relationship, with the liberty to obtain freedom (which even non-Christian wives were allowed), as this what the apostle Paul exhorted (1 Cor. 7:21). The typical practice of modern slavery was already much in deleterious contrast to that which was regulated under the Old Testament, and a true and obedient, Biblically literate Christian would not justify such in the light of the New Testament delineation of what constitutes brotherly love (yet this does not exclude Biblical positional authority, which Wink will reveal is his great enemy).

Finally, in contrast to Wink's comparison, while God does not judge a man by the color of his skin, and punishing one for such is wrong, yet God does judge according to one's heart and obedience to His laws, and the Bible makes it clear that sexual relations outside marriage, or with those of the same gender, or with animals or close kin is sin, and that those who commit such things must be disciplined, and if unrepentant they will have their part in the Lake of Fire.

Knowing this, Wink charges that rather than finding guidance in the Bible, churches find “interpretative quicksand,” yet that is just what he offers, not the Bible! Walter then whispers the question, “Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?” In other words, and in a different setting, this question was “Hath God said” (Gn. 3:1) that you really must obey His command? While Wink was not there to negate the original command, his demonic attempt and method in seeking to join together what God has (sexually) placed asunder will progressively become more evident. The Biblical response to Wink's question is yes, as the Bible does indeed speak on this issue and overall remains a sure foundation and immutable, self interpreting spiritual and moral guide for those who know it's author, abounding with clear precepts and principals. ^

“Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29).”

(Gen 19:4-9) "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."

Wink here pronounces certain texts that place homosexuality in a bad light as irrelevant or ambiguous, the first being Gn. 19. While Wink does not seek to defend the typical specious argument that the “knowing” which the men of Sodom sought was non-sexual interrogation, yet it is too much for him to allow them to be homosexuals (perhaps because he cannot conceive of them being driven by lust), so he asserts that they were heterosexuals, even though they preferred men over women. While this and it's parallel (Jdg. 19) are about homosexual rape, not simply consensual homosexual relations, they are relevant because their manner of relations define the meaning of the term “sodomite,” and help confirm that the condemnation of Sodom was not that of the hostile manner by which they sought sexual relations, but because they went after “strange [other] flesh” (Jude. 7) — “other” than lawful, and perverse (cf. Rm. 7:3; Gal. 1:6). ^

“Likewise Deut. 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites ...; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a "sodomite.”

(Deu 23:17-18) "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite 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."

Wink next seeks to disallow Deut. 23:17-18 from possessing any relevance, as without substantiation he declares that “sodomite” “most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites,” and that the KJV “inaccurately labeled such a "sodomite.” It seems the professor has forgotten that context is indispensable in exegesis, as perhaps the word “dog”(in the next verse) would give him a clue as to what manner of prostitute this is. But in the world of Wink, only heterosexuals rape men and engage in dog like sexual behavior. In the Bible, as in real life, sometimes a word is not understood by it's exact meaning but according to it it's later contextual employment, especially when used as a euphemism. A “grunt” need not be a vocal utterance but can denote an unskilled hard laborer, as such are known for such sounds, and here “dog” is used to denote a homosexual and defines “sodomite.” The Hebrew word translated "sodomy," (qâdêsh) basically describes a dedicated person, and is related to a word meaning “sanctify”(qâdash), but is used as an antiphrasis in all it's occurrences, signifying a class of unholy person(s) dedicated to practicing homosexual acts as part of temple activity (the male version of a female prostitute). The use of the word “sodomite” derives it's meaning from the practice of the people with whom it is associated, and is far more valid a term than “gay.”

While the Levitical commands outlaw homoeroticism in general as it does illicit heterosexual sex, Dt. 23:17 specifically forbids those who work either abomination as an religious occupation , as well as the giving of their price as a temple offering. That this was their occupation is further indicated by the fact that they had houses by the Temple in 2 Ki. 23:7. Further instances (1Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46) testify to their sinful occupation. ,

Wink next proceeds to dismiss 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 as “too ambiguous,” which most everything is to Wink. See here on that objection. ^

“Putting these texts to the side, we ^are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexual behavior [Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rm. 1:26-27]. ...male homosexual acts, or male masturbation--was considered tantamount to abortion or murder...such values are rendered questionable in a world facing uncontrolled overpopulation.”

(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."

With these, Wink is not so bold as to completely deny that these texts forbid homo-eroticism, but instead engages in a demonic attempt to attribute their occurrence to superstitions (that only the sperm was sacred, being like a fertilized egg that just needed a container) thereby charging the author of Scripture, who gave them advanced laws on hygiene , etc., with biological ignorance! This type of thing may work in explaining the superstitions of the Quran, but it will not work with the Bible, and the evidence is lacking for his premise that the Jews regarded semen as symbolic of life, nor did the Orthodox take Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 as having anything less than unconditional applicability. The context of these Levitical commands is that of illicit sex fornication, not wasting seed, which the Bible never explicitly deals with (the only judgment relative to that, of Onan in Gn. 38:9, 10, is contextually better understood as being against selfishness, and depriving a women, not waste). Illicit sex most basically has to do with laying with the wrong person (unmarried, another's wife, close kin, or same gender or animal), which basis laws are transcendent of culture.

Yet Wink is correct about homosexuality helping population control, with, with 25 million tragically dead in approx. 25 years (and approx. 39 million living with HIV) due to a radical virus (first called GRID: Gay Related Immune Deficiency Disease) that initially flourished due to male homosexual lust. As Wink will use ecology as a pretext for perversion again, this will be mentioned again. ^

“The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females.” ^

Once a soul has rejected the righteous foundation that will one day judge him, there is no limit to the unrighteousness he may do. Wink next attributes the Levitical injunctions against homosexuals to cultural considerations, to patriarchalism and bigotry, when in fact it is God who established the male as the head, and His laws express that, while the Bible forbids and condemns homosexual relations based upon creative distinctions, not cultural ones. Of course, the same cultural factors argument that Wink employs in order to negate what he seeks to defend must also allow the negation of similar injunctions against others forms of sexual immorality. Which (we shall see) is the Hell his hermeneutical horse is headed to.

As for the lack of a corresponding injunctions against women laying with women, as God uses the male as he is the head, it is generally recognized that when a sin is forbidden that both genders are able to do, then it applies to both genders (“If a man shall steal an ox”). The other factor is that usually the degree of commonality of a sin mandates it's degree of mention, and it is quite likely that lesbianism was far rarer than male homosexuality at that time, or even bestiality. And in the fuller revelation of the New Testament we see that Romans 1:26 specifically and unconditionally condemns lesbian relationships as well as male homosexual ones . ^

“The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts.”

Next, Wink employs a form of “argument by outrage,” as the professor asserts that Jews or Christians who uphold the authority of the Old Testament moral law must contend for the physical penalties that were based upon such. For Wink such penalties must be unthinkable, for in the world of Wink, how can anyone determine what is right and wrong? As regards the text at hand, Wink's premise is that Christians are to demand of the State the same penalties for sins as under the Old Testament theocracy, and indeed the State does act wisely when it adapts Biblical civil laws according to their intent (and which requires the eye witness of 2 or 3 persons for capital crimes — and the death of false witness that led to wrong executions), yet it is also consistent with Jesus to say to the penitent ”Go and sin no more” (Jn. 8:11).  And for those who are not, they are worthy of Old Testament penalties, though a Christian need not contend for the same degree of punishment for all sins as was enjoined under a theocracy when men were more accountable and justice was more assured, though such penalties for sexual sins would certainly save more lives in the long run.  In any case, Christians not demanding the full degree of punishment for homosexual relations does not require them to accept the sinful practice of homosexual relations, any more than it does for the capital crime of adultery, etc. ^

“Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently, Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.”

(Rom 1:26-27) "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: {27} And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." ^

“Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature...”

“Hath God said?” continued. Coming to Romans 1:26-27 Wink again removes the Bible from being wholly God — inspired revelation, and continues on his specious broad way of exegetical extenuation, assuring us poor Paul was ignorant of modern psychosexual theory, of supposed innate proclivity to homosexuality, and thus Paul's condemnation of sin here only had to do with those who acted contrary to their “normal inclination,” rather than them acting contrary to what is normal (and healthy) in design and behavior in nature. Yet as even a cursory reading will reveal, what Paul condemns here is men who did act out their depraved nature, forsaking the natural use of the women in preference to men, while women likewise choose their own gender, contrary to the Creator's design, the rebellion against whom Paul shows homosexuality to be a result of.

Indeed they were acting according to their own nature in acting contrary to nature, as manifest in design and God's decree. The fact that they were “given over” to such depravity also was a result of choice, that of choosing a false gods, like today, making the living and true God into an image more to their own liking ( as Wink does), in order to serve the god of pleasure). Nor can we justify acting out perverse proclivities that are a result of the fall of man, and continued rebellion Neither is it proven that homosexuality is inbred, yet it is evident that all humans have an innate tendency to sin (even babies are selfish), and sinful behavior cannot be justified on that basis. And rather than justify acting according to such, this is the very thing Paul proceeds to deal with, showing the way to victory in Christ (Rm. 6-8). Wink provides for just the opposite, as here again, he invokes a rationale that would justify any behavior, as long as one can claim an inner proclivity for it!

“Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple.”

Rather than being a servant Christ whose words are God-inspired Scripture (2 Pt. 3:16), the apostle Paul becomes a prisoner, of Wink this time, that of being an uninspired old scribe, locked into cell of first century ignorance where homosexuals had not advanced to their high degree of lust free relationships! And which defined “normal” by whatever one felt mostly inclined to do, rather than what design, normality and what the Scriptures decree! The reality is homosexuality was alive and prospering in the Roman world where Paul ministered, and he was not only quite aware of it's forms but more critically he was inspired in his writings by the Holy Spirit of God, not the unholy one of Wink. Paul clearly affirms that the homoerotic attraction and activity here was consensual, as men “burned in their lust one toward another;” while the fact that it was driven by sexual lusts (the word denotes earnest desire), as is much evidenced today, does not allow for a more “loving” eroticism, any more than it does for “loving” illicit heterosexual sex (which Wink will shortly seek to justify). And if you want an example of condemned homosexuality without lust being mentioned, then we have that the lust part is applied toward men, while lesbianism is also condemned as “even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature” (Rm. 1:26).

“We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since nonpromiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.”

Wink's attempt to disallow the remarkable statement of stating that because lesbians are seldom at risk for AID's then that is not a Divine punishment. However, this ignores the fact that v. 27 distinctly refers to men receiving in their own bodies a just penalty (call it AIDS or whatever) for the sins they committed with their bodies. As the case today, God has cursed sex out of marriage, with men being held more accountable (and their perversion may be considered even more unnatural). Meanwhile, all STD's would be virtually non-existent in time if mankind obeyed God's laws regarding sexual activity.

“And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species,..and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevant to the case.”

Homosexual behavior is seen as more concomitant with “pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness” and sensuality, than overpopulation, which concern Wink supposes favors homosexuality. Meanwhile, Paul is arguing from nature as obviously designed, in which the pump does not go in the exhaust, as the professor might notice, and by normality (homosexuality is very rare in the animal world). But in Wink's world the perverse becomes what determines approved normality, even as his evident attempts at eisegesis seems to be natural to him. But again, the Creator is the One who decided what constitutes “normal,” not the deviations produced by fallen man.

The Bible has already laid down (no pun intended) the universal, unconditional injunctions against homosexual relations, Wink's wobbling spin notwithstanding, and no where is marriage of any Biblical sort provided for homosexuals, as it is explicitly and abundantly for heterosexuals, and attempts to find such are exposed as fallacious. ^

Hebrew Sexual Mores

“Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, ... But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:

1. Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period”

(Lev 18:19; cf. 15:24) "Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness."

Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should.

Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should.

Wink next invokes Lv. 18:19; in seeking to disallow the immutable Levitical laws against homosexual relations by invoking the present lack of punishment for another forbidden practice. By such a hermeneutic he would also have to allow adultery since Jesus did not stone the adulterer in John 8. Moreover, as the penalty in Lev. 15:24 is for the male to be unclean for 7 days, and capital punishment for most other sins in Lev. 20 is made clear by the term “be put to death,” it is not certain that the “cutting of” of Lev. 2O:18 was by death, though that seems to be the case, if deliberate, whereas the 15:24 might be if it was accidental. In either case, it would be hard to prove, but would work as a deterrent.

While the same penalty for sins may or may not be physically meted out today, the real issue is the transcendence of this law itself. While the category other laws belong to is rather easily seen by their nature, and this one at least partly falls into the category of the purity laws given for the physical health of Israel (which shows advanced medical understanding), yet it also seems to deal with more than that. The health principal is observed today in the practice of feminine hygiene, and as such the violation of this would result in physical uncleanness but not necessarily moral uncleanness under the New Covenant, as touching blood is not the same as shedding it, nor is laying with your wife during her menstruation the same as laying with someone who is not your wife, or with a beast or another man. Yet it also possible that violation of this showed a type of disrespect to the women. But in regards to issue of homosexuality, the sexual prohibition here is only is only in respect to time, in contrast to the transcendent moral laws that deal with the type of sexual partner, which unconditionally excludes not only unmarried unions but with those of the same gender or animals.

For further clarification here and for future examples, notice there are different classifications of laws which are manifest under the Old Testament.

1. Transcendent moral laws, which deal with fundamental human behavior and tendencies, which basically are directly applicable to all cultures and current times (honoring parents, murder, stealing, fornications, etc.).

2. Culturally applied moral laws, such as related to appearance and practices that were uniquely (versus common things like prayer) part of the worship of idols: weird haircuts or cuttings in their flesh, etc. While these laws were enacted is response to idolatrous practices, that does not disallow them from being applicable today to the church in accordance with the immutable moral law they are based upon. Witchcraft as well as temple prostitutes were pagan practices of Israel's neighbors, yet the injunctions against them are culturally and historically transcendent, in spiritual ways as well as physical.

Some laws in this category deal with practices that may not necessarily be sinful in themselves, but are applicable according to the principal behind them. While a strange haircut today may not signify formal worship of demons, Christians are to “avoid all appearance of evil” (1 Thes. 5:22), which would include imitating distinctly demon-influenced pagan behavior (such as wearing the Hindu Tilaka). And while the cutting of one's flesh may be necessary in surgery, needless self-mutilation can often be an manifestation of demonic influence which would be contrary to the Spirit of Christ.

3. Civil laws, which are based upon purely moral law, and like the preceding, can be adaptable to any culture according to their underlaying principal (put a fence around your roof = thou shalt not kill by negligence = present safety laws ). These also include laws of jurisprudence, such as the requirement for eyewitnesses and punishment for perjury.

Certain laws within this category of civil laws are regulatory in nature, that of a cultural practice allowed for the time but modified in order to bring it more into line toward an original standard, such as laws regarding concubines as well as slavery.

4. Typological laws, such as related to the sacrificial system (Heb. 9), which are manifest under the New Covenant, such as the ritual observance of Jewish “days, and months, and times, and years” (Gal,. 4:10) and dietary laws (Col. 2:16) and various “washings imposed on them until the time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10), as well as the entire sacrificial system (Heb. 10:1-18). Christians observe these by looking to the reality which they represented, and thus they are to act in accordance with the holiness they enjoined: “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1Cor. 5:8). The forbidden foods under the dietary laws were a type of the Gentiles, now made clean under the New covenant (Acts 10:1-17), while the physical defilement of touching such things as lepers under the Old Covenant represented moral defilement under the New (Mk. 7:18-23; 2 Cor. 6:14-18), of which illicit sex (fornications: Mk. 7:21) is still a part. While Christians are edified if they observe the health benefits that such things as dietary and sanitary regs provided, yet apart from an overall unhealthy diet, it is not necessary a sin to eat a hot dog much less touch a leper. But sexual immorality is still sin. "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Heb 13:4). “Flee fornication..” (1 Cor. 6:18). ^

2. “The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22),...It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity.”

Wink next seeks to use the lack of enforcement of stoning for adulterers as justification for acceptance of homosexuality, which he states causes less problems. But besides the fact that the the New Testament does not allow the church civil powers over those without (rather it sanctions the civil powers use of physical force in “the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well” Mt. 22:21; 1 Cor. 5:12, 13; 1 Pt. 2:13, 14), the current lack of much of a penalty for adultery by the civil powers does not negate the immorality of it according to God's Word, nor of homosexual relations. Neither does the fact that some churches wrongly ordain adulterers justify ordaining homosexuals. Except according to Mr. Wink's reasoning.

Nor would adultery create more havoc than homosexuality, if the later were as widely practiced, especially as even “married” homosexuals are typically adulterous. And on a medical level it has created far more havoc the last few decades, as homosexuals (and bisexuals) are in-deed primarily to blame for the initial spread of AIDS and much for it's continuance, especially in the U.S. (44%) and Canada, as well as for numerous other diseases attributable to their unnatural and unhealthy sex.

(Jude 1:4) "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." ^

3. “Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah's sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed (Gen. 9:20-27). ..are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room ..as an accursed sin? The Bible does. ...”

Consistent with the liberal mind, Wink finds the laws made necessary by the fall of man repulsive, and here he further displays his ignorant scorn for the moral authority of the Bible, and that he is unqualified to engage in Biblical exegesis. Since the fall of man public nudity is indeed manifested in the Bible as shameful (thus mandating clothes), but there is no evidence that it was necessarily considered sinful among those of the same gender in an unavoidable (non-sexual) setting. It is certain when men bathed in the Bible that they often had to do so when other men could see them (especially in armies), and there is no record of anyone being punished for such necessity. It is quite possible Jesus was crucified naked, befitting the shame of one upon whom the LORD laid “the iniquity of us all” (Is. 53:6).

Meanwhile, the context of Ham's punishment (Gn. 9) indicates that it was for irreverently gazing upon his father's sad condition and unnecessarily, irreverently telling of his father's nakedness to his kin (1 Cor. 13:5), who in contrast to Ham honored their father by carefully covering him without seeing his nakedness. It is also quite possible that the phrase that Noah “knew [yada] what his younger son had done unto him” (v. 24) can indicate a type of homosexual carnal knowledge.

Finally, as for Wink's worry that the Biblically shameful condition of nudity may hinder intimacy between husbands and wives (though studies show evangelicals are not), the prodigious procreation of the patriarchs and indicates the opposite, while the the Song of Solomon honors erotic marital love. The only problem for Wink is that it is between two heterosexuals. ^

4. “Polygamy (many wives) and concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament....So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?”

Wink next asks why we don't allow polygamy today when the Old Testament did, and asserts the New does not reprove it, and even supposes that concubinage was just a woman living with a man to whom she is not married. The fact that he does not know the answer as to why the west does not (yet!) allow these today further evidences Wink's woeful ignorance. The concubines of men those of Abraham was not that of “woman living with a man to whom she is not married,” as is the case today, but it was a type of secondary (versus strictly a second) wife. This was an economical form of marriage, as no dowry was mandated, but their children were not illegitimate. That they were a type of wife, not harlots (unless they were unfaithful, as concubine of the Levite of Jdg. 19:2 was) or just live-in girlfriends is evidenced by the fact that Abraham's concubines, Hagar and Keturah, were also called wives (Gen 25:1; 1Ch 1:32), as was Bilhah, Jacob's concubine: "And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."(Gen 30:4), "And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine" (Gen 35:22). The marriage commitment to them appears to be the same as primary wives, and it was an act of supreme iniquity for another man to lay with them, and after David's rebel son did so (2 Sam. 16:21, 22), David cared for them the rest of his life, but would no longer have relations with them, and which women the Bible calls widows (2 Sam. 20:3).

As for polygamy, this also is abundantly evident in Scripture, and served the same main purpose of concubines, that of increasing the tribe. And as child bearing was next to life itself for women, a concubine assured many women of being mothers, and as this seems to have been a practice of the wealthy, it could assure many of a more royal upbringing — none of which things makes it the original standard of marriage . However, just as Jesus stated God allowed more liberty in the marriage commitment due to the hardness of Israel's hearts, which He restored to it's original standard, so He also restores the original intent, as in the marriage of Adam and Eve, that of leaving his father and mother (singular), and cleaving unto his wife (singular). Adam, who had a whole planet to populate, was never married to more than one wife. Israel's overall failure to recognize monogamy as the ideal is part of spiritual blindness, which later was even more shown toward Christ (Rm. 11). This original intent became a primary requirement for church leaders (1 Tim. 3:2; 12l Titus 1:6), and it is after the example of good leaders that believers are to follow (Heb. 13:7). And that all believers were to have one wife is evidenced by the fact that the New Testament only deals with individual Christian husbands as having one wife, as in “let every one of you in particular so love his wife,” and by the example of Christ's marriage to His church after which the marriage relationship is patterned (Eph. 5:25-33; cf. 1 Cor. 7:1-5; Col. 3:19 1 Pt. 3:7). Thus Wink's question as to why (in a Christian influenced culture) we do not allow polygamy and concubinage is answered, which stands in contrast to Wink's superficial regard for the Bible and his corresponding fostering of a lower standard of morality.

And in regards to his main promotion, the fact that polygamy and concubinage are made so evident reproves the premise of approved homosexuality by way of contrast, as lacking any manner of clear sanction of homosexual relations, they must labor to wrest inferences for such out of context, and force homosexual relations into the Bible which explicitly condemns it. And in which sex is only sanctioned between a man and a women in marriage (Gn. 2:24: and “wife” always means female). ^

5. “...When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir...Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?”

Again, Wink misrepresents a Biblical practice, given in Dt. 25:5-10 and which was a prior practice (Gn. 38:8, 9), but is not as Wink words it, but that a brother who dwelt with the clan (possibly indicating he was single) was to marry — not just have intercourse in turn as Wink words it — his deceased brother's barren wife in order to enable her to bear children (which was very important to her and the security of the clan and society). In the unlikely case that he died before she bore children, then possibly another brother who dwelt there could marry her, and in the extremely hypothetically case that he died and left her barren, the same sequence could be repeated. There is no record i can recall of such happening past a second marriage, and the hypothetical question of the Sadducees (the more doctrinally aberrant major sect) was not in regards to the legality of this, rather as unbelievers in the resurrection they had a question that made the Pharisees (who believed in such) look foolish (with a women that had 7 husbands in the resurrection), and so they sought Jesus position on it. The LORD Jesus reproved their major fallacious premise, which was that “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Mt. 22:30), which revealed that the Sadducees did “err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.” (v. 30). This sad condition is also true of Mr. Wink, as his question as to why is this law is ignored today by Christians is answered by the Scriptures which reveals that Christians are under the New Covenant, and in a spiritual kingdom (Col. 1:13), not fighting for a physical one (Jn. 18:36), and their main priority is no longer physical procreation and it's security but holiness and spiritual procreation via the new birth (Acts 1:8; 8:4; 1 Thes. 1:8-10). While the New Testament clearly upholds marriage and sanctifies the marriage bed (Heb. 13:4) and forbids constant abstaining of marital conjugal relations (1 Cor. 7:5), and would not forbid the practice of Dt. 22:5 (if the single brother was free to marry), yet it's primary mission is not to build a physical nation but add to a spiritual “holy nation, a peculiar people” (1 Pt. 2:9). It therefore can even recommend (not enforce) celibacy for those single persons who are so called (1 Cor. 7:8, 17-35), while marriage is commanded for those who will not abstain (1 Cor. 7:2).

The main issue is that the the law of Dt. 22:5-10 was not part of the basic transcendent moral laws that forbade regarding illicit sex with others, though it was based upon Gn. 1:28 (which homosexuals cannot obey), and is part of the cultural universal laws that are adaptable to modern cultures (in this case the womens right and societal need to bear children, as well as enjoy martial relations). In contrast, while the Levitical commands of 18:22 and 20:13 were part of the first category of laws, and which is affirmed in Romans 1:24-27 and other texts.

Dt. 22:5-10, like abundant other texts, also affirms the necessity of marriage, and that it is only between a man and a women (unless Wink can make a women out of a brother), even as it only deals with a man and a women as the partners in marriage. Thus not only does the absence of this Old Testament cultural practice in the New Testament allow any negation of the Levitical law against homoeroticism, but the New Testament only condemns it while continuing to affirm heterosexual relations in marriage. ^

6. “The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults, as long as the woman's economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. ....Both views are Scriptural. Which is right?”

Wink again displays his unrelenting antagonism toward the Bible (as the coherent moral authority), and his ignorance of it. Only a person as confused (or more likely, seeking to confuse others) could make the statement “both views are Scriptural.” It is evident Wink not only willfully views the Bible as an incoherent moral authority, but he likewise has little clue as to what Biblically constitutes a Christian (in his full text he even asserts that some “Christian” communities require a bride to be pregnant before marriage).

The determination of Wink to disallow anything he does not want to see is evident in his first statement that “the Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibit sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults.” But as the Old Testament explicitly calls a women “whore” who is not an virgin when she marries (Deut. 22:13-21), and for which the death penalty is mandated, then Wink (wrongly supposing her “virgin value” is the real issue) must set up a qualifier for his statement, that as long as the women is not a virgin, then premarital sex is not explicitly condemned! Yet as is evident in the above reference, if a women is not a virgin then she is a whore (harlot), and relations with which are condemned (Prv. 23:26-28; Jer. 5:7). But in Wink's mind such condemnation is not explicit enough. Perhaps Wink also supposes that the Biblical statement that Shechem treated unmarried Dinah as a harlot because they had consensual sex (Gn. 34) is not explicit disapproval. Or going back even further, that when Gn. 2:24 commands that a man is to “leave and cleave” to his WIFE that God also had premarital sex in mind! In addition, the requirement of Dt. 22:28-29 is that a man who seduces a virgin who is not betrothed must marry her — not continue to engage in carnal relations. And (unlike marrying a virgin) he can never put her away. So according to Wink, who also assumes that a record of sinful behavior (Gn. 38) constitutes sanction of it, if a women has premarital sex and escapes stoning or marriage to her first partner then a man can lawfully have relations with such a harlot, though men are warned against such a women! And which prohibition the New Testament makes even clearer, while the Jews (who Wink has elsewhere invoked as an authority) likewise would condemn Wink's fantasy. Thus the professor's repeated whisper, “hath God said” is once again clearly answered in the affirmative.

Next Wink imagines that a love affair between two unmarried persons in Song of Songs must mean sex, which “commentators have often conspired to cover up.” Apart from the conspiratorial Da Vince code type nonsense that homosexual “commentators” must sometimes resort to, it is not traditional commentators who are covering up the truth here but Wink. The Song of Solomon is poetic, and not of many poems but essentially one, and is written like a theatrical play, with the characters speaking in turn. It is definitely not about two unmarried persons engaging in sex, rather it is about a romance and a royal wedding and martial love and relations between Solomon (who counted heterosexual courtship and romance among one of the most wondrous things: Prov. 30:19), and a Shulamite maiden, and which very peom easily lends itself to allegorical application, that of Christ and His bride, the church (Eph. 5:23-32).

Here, with just a few verses of allegorical interpretation cited, is my analysis of this unique book of the Bible. Song chapter one is mostly about the longing of the bride for her husband to be, and expresses martial desire not yet realized (cf. Mt. 5:6). In chapter two the bride expresses what the bridegroom is to her, and about the wedding feast and consummation (cf. 1 Cor. 6:16, 17), of how he "He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love." (2:4), and a night of love making which made her feel weak. Later he calls her to follow him (cf. Mt. 4:19; Jn. 10:27). In chapter 3 she tells us that her beloved was missing, and that she earnestly sought him (Heb. 11:6), and that having found him whom her soul loved, “I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother's house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me." This is not a description of unmarried relations, but of married, as the culture (and it's morals) reveals, just as Isaac brought Rebekah “into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her" (Gen 24:67). The text goes on to describe Solomon's royal bed, and (v. 11) how his mother had “crowned him in the day of his espousals” (chăthûnnâh — from H2859; a wedding).

In most of chapter 4 the groom describes the beauty of object of his love, calling her my “spouse” in vs. 10+12 (cf. Eph. 5:27). Chapter 5 tells of the bride hearing her husband at the door and calling her to open (cf. Rv. 3:20; Jn. 10:3; 21:4-6 ), but she is not ready and when she opens he is gone (cf. Is. 45:15). When she goes searching she is beaten by civil authorities who scorn her attraction to her beloved (cf. Jn. 16:33; Act 5:40). She responds by extolling her spouses beauty (cf. 1 Pt. 1:8; Rv. 5:9). In chapter 6 others (daughters of Jerusalem) inquire about the bridegroom (Jn. 12:21, 22), and she tells them where he may be found, and testifies of her security in his love (cf. 1 Pt. 3:5) . The bridegroom responds with praise for her, his “undefiled” (v. 9), then a call is given for her, the Shulamite (feminine of Solomon) to return (cf. 1 Thes. 5:23, 24). In chapter 7 the bridegroom extols the beauty of his beloved (cf. Eph. 5:27; Jn. 1:12-17), and she in turn expresses her great delight in him, and her desire to get away and commune with him (cf. Ps. 27:4), and to engage in love making, that would result in conception (cf. Mt. 28:19; inferred by the mandrakes: Gn. 30:14-16). In chapter 8 she continues to express her yearning for him, like as she has done before, and her longing for uninterrupted intimate relations to bless him in her earnest thankful love. He responds (vs. 7-5) by affirming she was chosen for him, and appeals to her to make sure her heart is fully committed to him, as such love endures all things, though hell fire attack it (cf. 1 Cor. 13:7; cf. 2 Pt. 1:10). The daughters (it seems), now make intercession for their little sister, who then speaks of the grace she came to realize in response (vs. 8-10; cf. Eph. 3:6; Rm. 15:9). The book nears it's closing with subject of the vineyard of Solomon, which the bride is in charge of (1 Pt. 5:1, 2), and the request that she hear his voice (cf. Jn. 5:24; Mk. 13:35-37; 1 Ths. 4:16). And finally that he come quickly (f. Rv. 22:20). "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church"(Eph 5:32).

And so it is easily seen as such, and even without the allegorical application it revealed that this is not about premarital sex, but a poetic story of a man and his spouse, which he is called, and of the wonder of heterosexual relations which God gives clear evident honors to. As for Wink, not only has he clearly attempted to distort every Scripture text he has gotten a hold of here, but he also radically redefines the Biblical definition of what a Christian is, to include those who engage in one of the most explicitly condemned sins of the New Testament, that of fornication (1 Cor. 5:11; 6:9, 13, 18; 7:2; 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; Heb. 12:16, Heb. 13:4; 1Pt. 4:3). Of course, Wink must recognize that it is (or can he?), which is why he only vainly attempted to pass off the Old Testament as not explicitly (for him) condemning such, yet not only is unmarried sex condemned there as sin, but the abundant unconditional New Testament prohibitions have their foundation in the Old and serve to confirm them. Moreover, it is the New Testament that originates the term “Christian” (Acts 17:11), and manifests what such believed and did. And which absolutely excludes the practice of any manner of premarital sex from being part of the Christian faith. Thus it is written, “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Co 7:2), or stay single (v. 8). There is no middle ground, and thus Wink's wishful idea that unmarried sex is Scriptural is exposed as pure deception and fantasy, which is why his goal is actually to disallow Scripture as The authority and to redefine Christian according to his perversity! ^

7. The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms ....as 'he knew her.' Today most of us regard such language as 'puritanical' and contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don't follow Biblical practice."

Resorting to another but rather novel desperate attempt, Wink now invokes the Bible's use of euphemism's as a reason to disallow the moral absolutes that he hates. His premise is that since we do not use such euphemisms today to describe private acts then it is hypocritical to regard the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations as binding! This polemic is so ludicrous that it hardly needs a response, suffice to say that to be consistent this hermeneutic would likewise disallow the prohibitions using euphemisms against adultery, incest, bestiality, etc. Which of course, is Wink's objective, and that of exalting his subjective morality as the supreme authority. In contrast, the Bible's choice of euphemisms is more evidence that Biblical propriety is mandated, and shows how fallen man is to best respect God's creation. In regard to the latter aspect, ancient laws as well as contemporary language make abundant use of euphemisms (perhaps Wink has heard of “gays”) and such need not convey any disrespect for the object, and often conveys just the opposite (“Golden Ager”). Wink has “struck out” again. ^

8. Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). ....Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times "messy," not "unclean."

Now the professor seeks to use the modern acceptance of semen in contrast to the Old Testament purity laws as reason to dispense with it's laws against homosexuality, yet this argument depends upon more of the type of ignorance and confusion that Wink relies upon. His type of example here is irrelevant as it confuses external religious purity laws with immutable moral laws, the latter class being what Lev. 18:22 is demonstrably in, and upon which Lv. 20:13 and Dt. 23:17 and similar laws (witchcraft, adultery, etc.) are based. Meanwhile, as AIDS and other STD's evidence, semen and blood are potent (and especially dangerous when mixed after the unnatural manner of sodomites), and if the modern enlightened world acted in accordance with the laws of the Bible more people would be healthier, happier — and richer. ^

“...in the Old Testament ....a man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9).”

Once again the professor displays (or depends on) needful ignorance and selective use of Scripture, which he seeks to distort for his own deviant purposes. Here his unholy presuppositions lead him to conclude that God somehow approves of a man going into a prostitute, even though from the beginning He ordained marriage as the place for sex (Gn. 2:24), and required a man enter into a irrevocable marriage with a women he had consensual sex with (Dt. 22:28, 29), and mandated death for a women who was not a virgin (Dt. 22:13-21), while the New Testament makes it clear as a whole that no premarital sexual relations were sanctioned at all, marriage being the only provision for such (1 Cor. 7:2, 9), and which laws were based upon God's transcendent moral laws beginning in Genesis. Wink must attempt to equate the record (Gn. 38) of an immoral act as that of sanctioning it, which is not sound exegesis. He must then seek to negate the teaching of the New Testament that explicitly forbids joining oneself with a prostitute, by inferring that it is baseless, when in reality Paul includes prostitution as a type of fornication (v. 9), from which the word is derived! It is the New Testament which fully interprets the Old and it's condemnation of prostitution is as authoritative as the moral laws of the 10 commandments of the Old Testament, and Wink's assertion that Paul cannot lump prostitution into the category of adultery is like saying one cannot include contract killers under the category of murder. ^

9. “Today we are moving, with great social turbulence and at a high but necessary cost, toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. ...We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution...”

Having, with much effort, rationalized his rejection of the moral authority of the Bible, Wink now expresses his alternative vision of the world, where prostitution could be a career choice, and upon which loose morals he no doubt imagines great nations came to be, rather than such things being causative of and concomitant with their demise. First, as he must continue to distort and demean the Bible, he charges that the principal of male headship (patriarchalism) makes women mere chattel. While there are certainly negative examples (Lot's daughters, the Levites concubine, etc.) of how women were often treated in the ancient world, these do not establish God's standard, and Wink ignores the examples and commands of Scripture that refute his cherished caricature. Such accounts as Abraham and Sarah, and Jacob and Rachel, and Solomon and the Shulamite wife show they did not consider their principal wives as mere servants, but as objects of love. And in Wink's least favorite book, the New Testament, women are declared to be spiritually equal with men (Gal. 3:28), with consistent teachings on how husbands are to love their wives “even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). The lack of this “so great salvation” (Heb. 2:3) is Winks biggest problem.

Yet in this context Wink's underlying issue seems to be that of male headship itself, as consistent with most liberal minds he is in rebellion against legitimate moral authority in general, that ultimately being God, which in the Bible is represented by the male (though that alone does not establish legitimacy). From Genesis (2+3) onward, and in Israel's basic laws (Dt. 22, 24, etc.), man is rightly recognized as the head, while still establishing protection for the women (though still being in condescension to cultural practices such as concubinage). The Old Testament also commends many remarkable Godly women, not simply as industrious wives (Prv. 31) but courageous women of faith. None of which militates against the headship of the male, which is clearly doctrinally affirmed in the New Testament (1 Cor. 11:1-3; 1 Tim. 2:9-15). This further establishes a positional and functional difference, with the man being required to lead, and being held to overall greater accountability. Rather than a two headed entity, or a master/slave relationship, this best enables men and women to work together as a team under Christ, who Himself is under the Father, thereby exampling that such submission is not an inglorious thing (as Wink seems to suppose) to souls who are “accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6), and “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Pt. 3:7).

Finally, Wink would have us believe that society is moving forward by dispensing with such Biblical principles as the headship of men, and to which he would add the injunctions against the perverse practice of homosexuality, but quite the opposite is true, as the morality that Wink espouses is manifestly detrimental to society, in souls, lives and money. And his comparison of freedom for homosexual behavior to that civil rights based upon skin color is equally perverse. Any beneficial societal moral change that has occurred (or will) has only been as it has been consistent with the Bible, (the abolition of slavery itself was an outgrowth of revived Christian faith), and thus the answer is not to make the Bible conformable to a supposedly enlightened society, but to make society conformable to the Bible as applied under the New Testament. ^

10. “Jews were supposed to practice endogamy--...We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us, the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage ...Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.”

Wink again attempts to use a certain perceived abandonment of a cultural applied law that he supposes would justify a change of basic transcendent moral laws, but this is a specious hermeneutic, nor is there any essential change in application of this law under the New Testament (in contrast to the “Christianity” of Mr. Wink). While Dt. 7:3+4 forbids intermarriage with the Canaanites, in other places marrying foreigners is allowed (Dt. 21:10-13), under the condition (it is assumed) that they become converts (like Ruth). And contrary to Ezra (10), the New Testament does not allow divorce simply because one is an unbeliever (1 Cor. 7:12-14; 1 Pt. 3:1, 2). The New Testament explicitly declares all races essentially equal in God's sight (Acts 10:1-20; Gal. 3:28), but entering into a spiritual union (which marriage is) with unbelievers (in the Biblical gospel) is forbidden (1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Cor. 6:14-18). This is the application of the Old Testament intermarriage injunctions, and which therefore would actually forbid marrying an unbeliever.

Like the sin Wink seeks to sanction, Wink's latest attempt to confuse of laws based upon race (which is an amoral factor) with laws based upon behavior is perverse. ^

11. “The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it. .... Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce... we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?”

Wink again seek to use a type of current non-compliance to obey the Bible as grounds for justifying homosexuality, which he supposes must not be an in issue since Jesus (personally) never specifically mentioned it. It should first be noted that when Wink says “we,” he is referring to modern culture and it's liberal church, which he looks to as more of an authority than the Bible. The validity of his argument is at first disallowed simply by the fact that the failure of many churches to obey the Bible in one thing does not justify disobeying it in another, and by the logic of Wink one could justify committing crime because some corrupt justice officials do so. And while he seeks to point out hypocrisy, the same churches that are liberal in the area of divorce are usually the same ones that allow homosexuality. As for the issue of divorce itself, there are only at the most two possible clauses that allow (not mandate) divorce, these being fornication by one partner (Matt. 19:9) and possibly abandonment (1 Cor. 7:15). To allow more is not justified, nor is acceptance of homosexual relations.

In regards to the “"red letter" hermeneutic Wink invokes here and which is often used by homoapologists, that the silence of Jesus on a specific form of sin, in this case fornication (which would include rape, etc.) equals allowance, this hermeneutic would also allow any other sin that Jesus did not explicitly condemn, and which reveals the desperate polemics homosexual apologist must engage in. This argument also presupposes that Jesus was not including homosexuality (etc.) under the category of “fornications” (plural: Mk. 7:21; Rev. 21:27), and that the same Holy Spirit by whom He spoke did not inspire the rest of Scripture, though Jesus promised more would come by Him (Jn. 16:12, 13) and affirmed that which already did (Mt. 4:4; Jn. 10:35). Any lack of mention of a specific sin by Jesus while on earth is explained by the observation that Jesus did not always mention every subcategory of sin, but He included their major families, and by condemning fornications (plural) He condemned all forms of it, and which forms are further specified within the whole of the Old and New Testaments, and in which homosexuals relations are condemned.

As for the “argument from emphasis” (that homosexuality is mentioned somewhat less than divorce), this is in keeping with the principal that the more common sins need to be mentioned more, we usually see more mention of sins that affect the immediate hearers the most.

As regards which is the greater sin, homosexual relations are supremely wicked in their own way, as they exceptionally insult the Creator who made man and women uniquely compatible and complementary. And which heterosexuals He alone joined in marriage and enabled to naturally reproduce, which is further evidence of God's design. The complementary nature of the two genders also extends to the balance in child raising as well (the polemic that seeks to negate this by invoking the example of bad heterosexual parents suffers from the error as the divorce argument). Homosexuals also typically seek to justify acting out their sinful desires, whereas adultery (which is even more prevalent in so-called homosexual “marriages”) is most always acknowledged to be wrong.

Adultery itself is also an exceedingly wicked sin, and also is a capital crime, and being far more prevalent than homosexuality, thus we see might more of it's delirious social results. Both sins are usually causative of and concomitant with the demise of a nation. And as far as health effects both are deleterious, though the spread of AIDS was initially primarily via homosexual activity, and is far more wide spread among them even today. ^

12. “The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal, and 1 Tim. 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy....Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation....And are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single?”

It is amazing how Wink can discern an aberrant teaching when he needs to, in order to promote his own, while using specious arguments to do so. Here he points out disagreement regarding the issue of celibacy, but the compulsory celibacy he invokes is a result of doing the very thing that the professor practices, that of exalting another authority over the the Bible! The Biblical fact is any requirement that mandates celibacy by profession, especially of the clergy, is indeed heretical, and Rome's mandated (except for Eastern Orthodox converts) priestly celibacy (and her priesthood itself) is a result of her exalting her autocratic Caesario-papacy above Scripture, which also makes another “revelation” (Roman “church tradition”) equal to the Bible. Yet God also reveals that there is no sin in being celibate, except in marriage (1 Cor. 7:3-5), and the actual sin of homosexuals is that of sexual relations with those of the same gender.

Wink's interest in celibacy is not because he would advance it, rather he seeks to disallow the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it cannot produce offspring. However, the Creator not did not simply enable men and women to be able to procreate, He very uniquely designed men and women to be able to have sex (unlike men with men), and for more reasons than just procreation (Sos; Prv. 5:19). God also declared that it was heterosexuals that were to be about it (Gn. 2:24), while prohibiting homosexuals from doing the same (Lv. 18:22). Wink even invokes Jesus singleness in advocating homosexuality for the present overpopulated planet, but Jesus was not simply single but completely celibate, and He upheld the laws which define lawful sexual relations, rejection of which are detrimental to both persons and planet! ^

“Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative....In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!”