The Genuine Biblical Wedding

        A foundational truth expressed in these scriptures is that God created male and female for each other. And they were created equally, but complementary as Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam. (It was not until after the fall that God instituted a new order for them.) They were given a command by God to: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Being fruitful and multiplying can only be accomplished by sexual union of a man and a woman, male and female. Any other combination man’s fanciful imagination can think of simply does not qualify. Do they?

        OK, now stop your brain. And listen. This article is not about “gay-bashing” or “politically incorrect” or about hatred. This article is about biblical correctness and if you feel condemned or unjustly accused, then that’s your problem because I’m only stating Bible truth as best I can. It is condemning and accusing to those to whom it applies, and who don’t intend to do anything about it. That includes not only homosexuals, but also heterosexuals who have sexual intercourse with someone who is not their spouse, and/or commit incest, adultery or sex with animals.
        I have no agenda, no axe to grind, nor do I feel anything but empathy (sometimes sympathy) for those who have been caught up in the passions of this day and hour.
        I am simply attempting to present the Bible facts about this marvelous thing we call “sex.” The Bible is your judge. Its pages speak to your conscience. If you hear it speaking to you, pay attention. What I have to say is, ultimately, unimportant if you fail to listen to and obey the Bible. Only God can judge you. And God will speak to you through your conscience. Unless you turn Him off.

A Progression

        dabaq: “a primitive root; properly, to impinge, i.e. cling or adhere; figuratively, to catch by pursuit.” It’s variously translated in the King James Version of the Bible as “abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take.”

        “Cleave, Cling–dabaq “to cling, cleave, keep close.” Used in modern Hebrew in the sense of “to stick to, adhere to,” dabaq yields the noun form for “glue” and also the more abstract ideas of “loyalty, devotion.” Occurring just over 60 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, this term is found very early in the text, in (Gen. 2:24): “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” This usage reflects the basic meaning of one object’s (person’s) being joined to another. In this sense, Eleazar’s hand “cleaved” to the sword as he struck down the Philistines (2 Sam. 23:10). Jeremiah’s linen waistcloth “clung” to his loins, symbolic of Israel’s “clinging” to God (Jer. 13:11). In time of war and siege, the resulting thirst and famine caused the tongue “to cleave” to the roof of the mouth of those who had been so afflicted.
        The literal statement, “My soul cleaveth unto the dust” (Ps. 119:25); RSV, “cleaves”, is better understood as one consults the other English versions: “I lie prone in the dust” (NEB); “Down in the dust I lie prostrate” (JB); “I lie prostrate in the dust” (NAB); “I lie defeated in the dust” (TEV).
        The figurative use of dabaq in the sense of “loyalty” and “affection” is based on the physical closeness of the persons involved, such as a husband’s closeness to his wife (Gen. 2:24), Shechem’s affection for Dinah (Gen. 34:3), or Ruth’s staying with Naomi (Ruth 1:14). “Cleaving” to God is equivalent to “loving” God (Deut. 30:20).”

        basar “... flesh (from its freshness); by extension, body, person; also (by euphem.) the pudenda of a man.” It’s variously translated in the King James Version as “body, [fat, lean] flesh [-ed], kin, [man-] kind, + nakednessself, skin.”

        basar—“flesh; meat; male sex organ.” Cognates of this word appear in Ugaritic, Arabic, and Aramaic. Biblical Hebrew attests it about 270 times and in all periods.”

A Logical Fallacy

Marriage To Be Exclusive And Permanent

        The phrase “the tokens of virginity” in verses 17 and 20 are italicized, meaning they are not in the original text and were inserted by the translators. This was probably done because of the use of the word “cloth” in verse 17, the assumption being it was the bed sheet which would be blood-stained because of the woman’s broken hymen.
        We, of course, know that this is not proof positive of virginity because of many variables. Some have provided alternative meanings to this passage, all of which I have read fail to be satisfactory. Probably the most intelligent thing to be said is that we, today, don’t fully understand what this passage means in the original language or how to correctly understand it.
        However, in the “then” of yesterday, apparently it was understood by the hearers of that time and whatever forensic method was utilized, that it was satisfactory to them all.
        If the woman was determined by those parties involved in the “then” scene to not be a virgin, whether it was evidenced by blood upon the marriage sheet, or some other method, she was to be killed.
        This has many ramifications. One is that any man who had sexual relationships with a single woman jeopardized her very life when she married. The woman knew this and would certainly exercise restraints upon herself.
        Another thing to be seen here is that the breaking of a single woman’s hymen by a man’s penis was considered to be a token of her virginity, which was not necessarily the sum total of all methods used at that time to determine her virginity. Hymen’s are found only in a woman’s vagina. And yes, I understand that “proof of the girl’s virginity” may not rest exclusively with blood on the marriage sheet, but the principle is clear.
        This completely dispels any notion that people of the same sex can be “married” doesn’t it? A man doesn’t have a hymen and a woman doesn’t have a penis. (As the anecdotal Frenchman is reported to have said: “Vive la difference!”)
        This also adds a new element to the act of sexual intercourse: it is a blood covenant. While not specifically developed by scripture, this fact can’t be ignored.
        We have to expand our description of the progression in Genesis 2:24 to involving a man adjusting his economic and emotional priorities to focus upon the woman to where he has a sense of closeness, loyalty and devotion towards the woman, and then, lastly, a sexual union with the woman, which, in essence is a blood covenant with her.
        God’s priority on sexual purity in regard to preserving the family line and name is seen in the instructions concerning a man having to marry his brothers widow, so that the deceased brothers name was preserved in Israel through their child: “And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.”

        Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary on verse 8:

        8. Judah said unto Onan . . . marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother—The first instance of a custom, which was afterwards incorporated among the laws of Moses, that when a husband died leaving a widow, his brother next of age was to marry her, and the issue, if any, was to be served heir to the deceased (compare De 25:5).

        Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary on Deuteronomy 25:5-10:

        5-10. the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother . . . shall take her to him to wife—This usage existed before the age of Moses (Ge 38:8). But the Mosaic law rendered the custom obligatory (Mt 22:25) on younger brothers, or the nearest kinsman, to marry the widow (Ru 4:4), by associating the natural desire of perpetuating a brother’s name with the preservation of property in the Hebrew families and tribes. If the younger brother declined to comply with the law, the widow brought her claim before the authorities of the place at a public assembly (the gate of the city); and he having declared his refusal, she was ordered to loose the thong of his shoe—a sign of degradation—following up that act by spitting on the ground— the strongest expression of ignominy and contempt among Eastern people. The shoe was kept by the magistrate as an evidence of the transaction, and the parties separated.

The Prescriptive And The Descriptive

        We discussed that verse and the ramifications and impact upon sexual relationships between husbands and wives.
        God’s descriptive: The Bible records that:

        1. Men took unto themselves multiple wives, and in addition to that, multiple concubines.
        2. Instead of leaving and cleaving, men simply “took” women as their “wives” with certain restrictions as given in Exodus 22:16,17, Leviticus, chapters 18 through 22; and Deuteronomy 22.
        3. Instead of allowing their sons to “leave” so they could “cleave” the patriarchs short-circuited the process and selected “wives” for their sons themselves.
        4. Women were considered to be property. First, her fathers property and then, when she married, her husbands property.
        5. Those who married young remained under the authority of their parents.

Multiple wives and concubines:

        Eventually humankind ignored all of God’s instructions on such a wide-scale basis that God destroyed His creature:

        Apparently this didn’t deter mankind from disobedience on the subject of multiple wives and concubines:

        Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary on this passage:

        1. Abraham took a wife—rather, “had taken”; for Keturah is called Abraham’s concubine, or secondary wife (1Ch 1:32); and as, from her bearing six sons to him, it is improbable that he married after Sarah’s death; and also as he sent them all out to seek their own independence, during his lifetime, it is clear that this marriage is related here out of its chronological order, merely to form a proper winding up of the patriarch’s history.
        5, 6. Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac . . . unto the sons of the concubines . . . Abraham gave gifts—While the chief part of the inheritance went to Isaac; the other sons (Ishmael included) migrated to “the East country,” that is, Arabia, but received each a portion of the patrimony, perhaps in cattle and other things; and this settlement of Abraham’s must have given satisfaction, since it is still the rule followed among the pastoral tribes.

No leaving and cleaving, men simply “took” women as their “wives” with the restrictions given in Exodus 22:16,17, Leviticus, chapters 18 through 22; and Deuteronomy 22.

        Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary on this passage:

        10-14. When thou goest to war . . . and seest among the captives a beautiful woman . . . that thou wouldest have her to thy wife—According to the war customs of all ancient nations, a female captive became the slave of the victor, who had the sole and unchallengeable control of right to her person. Moses improved this existing usage by special regulations on the subject. He enacted that, in the event that her master was captivated by her beauty and contemplated a marriage with her, a month should be allowed to elapse, during which her perturbed feelings might be calmed, her mind reconciled to her altered condition, and she might bewail the loss of her parents, now to her the same as dead. A month was the usual period of mourning with the Jews, and the circumstances mentioned here were the signs of grief—the shaving of the head, the allowing the nails to grow uncut, the putting off her gorgeous dress in which ladies, on the eve of being captured, arrayed themselves to be the more attractive to their captors. The delay was full of humanity and kindness to the female slave, as well as a prudential measure to try the strength of her master’s affections. If his love should afterwards cool and he become indifferent to her person, he was not to lord it over her, neither to sell her in the slave market, nor retain her in a subordinate condition in his house; but she was to be free to go where her inclinations led her.

Sons did not “leave”and “cleave;” the fathers selected “wives” for their sons themselves:

        The Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary on this passage:

        1. And Abraham was old . . . take a wife—His anxiety to see his son married was natural to his position as a pastoral chief interested in preserving the honor of his tribe, and still more as a patriarch who had regard to the divine promise of a numerous posterity.
        2. said unto his eldest servant—Abraham being too old, and as the heir of the promise not being at liberty to make even a temporary visit to his native land, was obliged to intrust this delicate mission to Eliezer, whom, although putting entire confidence in him, he on this occasion bound by a solemn oath. A pastoral chief in the present day would follow the same course if he could not go himself.
        3. thou shalt not take a wife, &c.—Among pastoral tribes the matrimonial arrangements are made by the parents, and a youth must marry, not among strangers, but in his own tribe—custom giving him a claim, which is seldom or never resisted, to the hand of his first cousin. But Abraham had a far higher motive—a fear lest, if his son married into a Canaanitish family, he might be gradually led away from the true God.

Women were property of fathers and husbands:

Those Who Married Young Remained Under The Authority Of Their Parents

        Marriages between Israelites were directed by law, and all incestuous relationships were outlawed (Lev. 18:6-8; 20:19-21). In addition, priests were forbidden to marry prostitutes and divorced women (Lev. 21:7,13-14). Daughters who inherited their father’s possessions had to marry within their tribe or lose their inheritance (Num. 27:8; 36:2-4).
        Choosing the Bride. In Old Testament times, the parents chose the mate for their son. The primary reason for this was that the bride became part of the clan. Although they were married and became “one flesh,” the couple remained under the authority of the bridegroom’s father. The parents chose someone who would best fit into their clan and work harmoniously with her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law.
        Sometimes the parents consulted with their children to see if they approved of the choice of mates being made for them. For example, Rebekah was asked if she wanted to marry Isaac (Gen. 24:58). Samson demanded that a certain girl be acquired for him. Although his parents protested, they completed the marriage contract for Samson (Judg. 14:1-4).
        Frequently people married at a young age, a fact which made the parents’ choice a practical matter. By New Testament times, the Jewish leaders had decided to establish minimum ages for which a marriage contract could be drawn up. The age was set at 13 for boys and 12 for girls.
        Even if the young wife lost her husband in war or accident, she remained within the clan and was wed to her brother-in-law or next of kin. This arrangement is known as LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. It is the basis for the story of Ruth and Boaz (Deut. 25:5-10; Ruth 3:13; 4:1-12).

        Temporary Reactions. At an early period the original law, as made known to Adam, was violated through the degeneracy of his descendants, and concubinage and polygamy became common. The patriarchs themselves took more than one wife. Abraham, at the instigation of Sarah, took her maid as his subordinate wife. Jacob was tricked, through the duplicity of Laban, into taking Leah first, and then Rachel, to whom he had been betrothed. Afterward, through the rivalry of the sisters, he took both their handmaids. From these facts it has been inferred that polygamy was not wrong in ancient times, nor at all opposed to the divine law as revealed to the Jews. But this is an unwarranted conclusion. It is indeed true (respect being had to the state of religious knowledge, the rude condition of society, and the views prevalent in the world) that the practice could not infer, in the case of individuals, the same amount of criminality as would necessarily adhere to it now, amid the clear light of gospel times. But still, all along it was a departure from the divine law.
        For the reasons given above it was tolerated but never with God’s approval. Jesus told the Jews, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way” (Matt. 19:3-8). The Mosaic law aimed at mitigating, rather than removing, evils that were inseparable from the state of society in that day. Its enactments were directed to the discouragement of polygamy; to prevent the injustice frequently consequent upon the exercise of the rights of a father or a master; to bring divorce under some restriction; and to enforce purity of life during the maintenance of the matrimonial bond.

On Looking Back ...

        The Old Testament clearly subjected woman to the will and protection of her husband. She was extolled for performing her important roles as wife and mother. On occasion she rose above those roles and led the Jewish nation in times of crisis.
        The New Testament brings a different picture of woman into focus. Jesus, and later Paul, elevated the status of woman so that she could be a full participant in the kingdom of God. However, she is urged to use her responsibility as well as her freedom to find her place in the body of Christ. The spirit of freedom and love in Christ is woman’s as well as man’s.

On Looking Around At Ourselves Today

        Where are the restrictive safeguards of Leviticus, chapter 18?
        Where are the restrictive safeguards of Deuteronomy 22?
        Why, today, do some still think a married woman is her husband’s “property?” This idea was done away with by Jesus and the New Testament writers. A woman, married, or unmarried, is a “... full participant in the kingdom of God ...” free and responsible “.. to find her place in the body of Christ ...”
        Young people today get married and opt out of any personal responsibility for emotional maturity and/or financial planning. Neither do they remain “... under the authority of their parents.” Instead they go for the sexual intercourse until they begin to understand that they don’t even like each other and then they run away from the situation (and any children born of their sexual union) and dump all their problems upon society. So government agencies attempt to pick up whatever pieces are still alive and bring some type of justice to the situation. Some such attempts are successful, but most are not. However, successful or not, society pays the bill. Don’t we?
        By comparison, Israel may have implemented some things contrary to God’s stated laws, but at least they made a pro-active attempt to exercise their free will and create solutions to real life problems. Didn’t they?

Yes, But ... Isn’t There A Way Out Of This Binding Restriction Of God’s Prescriptives?

        There are those pseudo-theological “experts” who state that Jesus quoted a certain Rabbi Hillel, not only on the Matthew 5:28 verse, but also many other Hillel quotes. Hillel, however, quoted oral tradition as authoritative. Jesus quoted the Torah as authoritative. Jesus also interpreted biblical texts, Hillel was not known for this although his later disciples attempt to exalt him as an interpreter of scripture. There are many other reasons why this isn’t so, however, the only reason needed to negate that argument is a simple and historical one. All of the quotes of Jesus were made within 50 years after His ministry. The Babylonian Talmud, which quotes Hillel, however, was edited and revised some 500 years after the death of Rabbi Hillel. Question: Who “quoted” who?
        The point of all this is to simply reiterate that Jesus confirms and explains the biblical text, not oral tradition.
        In the Greek, “adultery” moicheuo is sexual relationships with the spouse of another. “Fornications” porneia is sexual relationships with someone who is not a spouse, but sometimes includes adulteries. “Looketh” blepo, implies special contemplation, not a casual look or glance.
        Since the Greek word for “woman” and “wife” is one and the same, then, it could be argued that since “adultery” refers to married persons, that Jesus was saying that if anyone looked upon a married woman that they committed adultery with her in their heart and the word is mistranslated “woman” rather than “wife.”
        Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary on Matthew 5:27,28:

        27. Ye have heard that it was said—The words “by,” or “to them of old time,” in this verse are insufficiently supported, and probably were not in the original text.
        Thou shall not commit adultery—Interpreting this seventh, as they did the sixth commandment, the traditional perverters of the law restricted the breach of it to acts of criminal intercourse between, or with, married persons exclusively. Our Lord now dissipates such delusions.
        28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her—with the intent to do so, as the same expression is used in Mt 6:1; or, with the full consent of his will, to feed thereby his unholy desires.
        hath committed adultery with her already in his heart—We are not to suppose, from the word here used—“adultery”—that our Lord means to restrict the breach of this commandment to married persons, or to criminal intercourse with such. The expressions, “whosoever looketh,” and “looketh upon a woman,” seem clearly to extend the range of this commandment to all forms of impurity, and the counsels which follow—as they most certainly were intended for all, whether married or unmarried—seem to confirm this. As in dealing with the sixth commandment our Lord first expounds it, and then in the four following verses applies His exposition (Mt 5:21-25), so here He first expounds the seventh commandment, and then in the four following verses applies His exposition (Mt 5:28-32).

        ADULTERER (-ESS), ADULTEROUS, ADULTERY
        A. Nouns.
        1. moichos denotes one “who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another,” (Luke 18:11; 1 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 13:4). As to (Jas. 4:4), see below.
        2. moichalis, “an adulteress,” is used (a) in the natural sense, (2 Pet. 2:14; Rom. 7:3); (b) in the spiritual sense, (Jas. 4:4); here the RV rightly omits the word “adulterers.” It was added by a copyist. As in Israel the breach of their relationship with God through their idolatry, was described as “adultery” or “harlotry” (e. g., (Ezek. 16:15), etc.; (23:43)), so believers who cultivate friendship with the world, thus breaking their spiritual union with Christ, are spiritual “adulteresses,” having been spiritually united to Him as wife to husband, (Rom. 7:4). It is used adjectivally to describe the Jewish people in transferring their affections from God, (Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38). In (2 Pet. 2:14), the lit. translation is “full of an adulteress” (RV, marg.).
        3. moicheia, “adultery,” is found in (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; John 8:3) (KJV only).
        B. Verbs.
        1. moichao, used in the middle voice in the NT, is said of men in (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11); of women in (Mark 10:12).
        2. moicheuo is used in (Matt. 5:27-28,32) (in (v. 32) some texts have No. 1); (19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 16:18; 18:20; John 8:4; Rom. 2:22; 13:9; Jas. 2:11); in (Rev. 2:22), metaphorically, of those who are by a Jezebel’s solicitations drawn away to idolatry.

        After leaving Egypt, in Exodus God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, which includes Exodus 20:14, the seventh commandment which states: “You shall not commit adultery.”
        In Leviticus God continued to gave His instructions as to what Israel was not to do relative to sexual activities, among many other things. He also included the punishment for doing those things He told Israel not to do.
        In Deuteronomy, after forty years in the wilderness and prior to entering Canaan, God expanded and restated what He had told the Israelites forty years previously, for the benefit of the younger generation who had grown up in the wilderness because all of the original adults had died.
        These were different forbidden practices, in different places, at different times.
        Before the Israelites entered Canaan, God’s warning to them in Leviticus included a list of sexual behaviors they were forbidden to practice. Included in this list was a warning not to practice homosexuality. Forty years later, after the Israelites had entered Canaan, God then warned them not to practice cult, or temple, prostitution in Deuteronomy 23:17.
        To attempt to relate the two as both meaning the same thing is a ridiculous attempt at stretching logic.
        This eliminates any attempt by the homosexual community to declare that only homosexual cult prostitute activity was condemned by God in the Bible. It’s a manufactured straw man built up as “fact” and then torn down in a futile attempt to prove how homosexuality is acceptable to God.
        The perpetrators of the illicit sexual activities listed are all acts for which the individuals, themselves, are responsible.
        From what Jesus says in the New Testament about adultery, while quoting the Old Testament with the same word, we must realize that the adultery spoken of involves every sexual relationship that occurs outside of heterosexual marriage, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
        This is why, in Deuteronomy, God doesn’t repeat all that is stated in Leviticus. The meaning of the term “adultery” was clearly understood by all.

The Law, Love And Lust

        Since all the law and the prophets hang on those two commandments Jesus mentioned, and the Seventh Commandment to not commit adultery is part of that same law, then we must look to see how not committing adultery expresses our love of and for God, and of our neighbor.
        I said elsewhere that love is a strong, complex feeling or emotion, causing a person to delight in, crave and appreciate the presence of another, and to please them and promote their welfare. Jesus expanded love to include laying down your life for another.
        If we truly love God and truly love our neighbor, there are certain things that we will do, and certain things that we won’t do.
        God insists upon sexual purity. Which means that there are some things we won’t do simply because we love God and love our neighbor. That includes not having heterosexual sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex outside of a heterosexual marriage. Homosexuality never was and still is not an option.
        When we commit adultery or homosexual “intercourse” we are bringing down a God mandated death penalty, under the law, not only upon ourselves, but also on our partner.
        Today, we are no longer under the law, but under grace. The response of Jesus in the New Testament to those guilty of adultery is far, far different that the Old Testament response.
        The law was given to Israel to reflect God’s attributes to Israel. The law reflects God’s character of love, His compassion, demonstrated by His grace and mercy, and His conscience, seen by His wisdom, judgment and justice. Above all is the will of God for humanity to be holy, as God is holy.
        Jesus came to fulfill the law, i.e., expand the law to its fullest meaning and intent.
        Paul, the apostle, says:

        What Paul is emphasizing is that we are not under the written law, but must incorporate the essence of that law into our spirits to enjoy a new liberty that comes from our freedom in Christ, Who has expanded the fullness of the law for us by His Spirit, rather than by written ordinances.
        We must understand then that Jesus, by “fulfilling” the law, continues to reflect God’s attributes to not only Israel, but to all of mankind. In the same way the law did, Jesus now reflects God’s character of love, His compassion, demonstrated by His grace and mercy, and His conscience, seen by His wisdom, judgment and justice. And in Jesus we continue to see the will of God for humanity to be holy,
        Within the protecting confines of heterosexual marriage of those we commit to, there is no fear, no censure and no penalties for our sexual activities with our partner.
        We will please them and promote their welfare. And in a very real sense, we are laying down part of our life for another.
        God did not create two Adams of the same sex. He created Adam as male and female, for men and women to complement each other. In this “leaving, cleaving and becoming one flesh” mandate and forbidding sexual intercourse outside of this relationship which we know today as heterosexual “marriage” God has established a pattern and a procedure in human relationships. This matrix mirrors His relationship with a humanity who obeys His laws, orders, statutes, commandments and precepts.
        All other sexual activities outside of this committed relationship of a man and a woman fail to reflect God’s intents and purposes for the humanity which He created and are an obvious sham, an ineffective pretense, and a direct insult to the God Who created us.
        Within the heterosexual marriage, we humans express our love for God and love for each the other. We also express our love for neighbor. We perpetuate this God-created matrix by becoming parents in having children and giving them a home where the entire family is included in this Godly expression of love.
        If we would but follow our Creator’s intents and purposes we would eliminate many emotional pains and abuses brought about by adultery, abortion, divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, ad infinitum. But like Israel of old, we humans much prefer to follow our own desires. Don’t we?
        Anybody reading this agree with that logic?
        How can we underestimate the wisdom of God? He has designed us to desire a person of the opposite sex, part of which desire constitutes a desire for sexual union. We are so created, aren’t we?
        A telephone is designed to ring when it’s number is dialed by a caller, isn’t it? Is there condemnation for the telephone because it rings? Of course not.
        However, the telephone is not designed to go around looking for dialers to dial its number so it can ring, i.e., respond, is it?
        If that goes over your head then get somebody to explain it to you ...
        With this understanding of the expansion of the meaning of the word “adultery” the statement by Paul in 1 Corinthians focuses upon the intent of his statement:

        In verse 1 note that Paul says “ ...the things whereof ye wrote unto me ...” not “ ...the things wherof ye asked me ...”
        Most probably, the Corinthians were asking for Paul’s approval concerning the practice of some married people in the assembly withholding sexual intercourse from each other, except to have children.
        Notice Paul’s reply: First, Paul throws out an empathy cushion: Oh, yeah, guys, it’s good not to have sex with a woman (the interpretation of not getting married is an incorrect one—sexual intercourse is the subject, not marriage). Having agreed with them, he now expands into a discussion of the subject to present a totally opposite view. “Nevertheless ...” Nevertheless in order to keep from fornicating with somebody than your spouse, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. The discussion continues: and let the husband and the wife make themselves sexually available each to the other when the other wants to have sexual intercourse. Paul then goes on to clinch his argument.
        In verses 2 and 3, the Greek words for “wife” is gune (a woman, or wife) and for “husband” is aner (a male, or husband).
        Clearly and plainly, Paul is emphasizing yet another aspect of God’s mandate concerning marriage as stated in Genesis 2:24:

        There is no male to male or female to female pairing in these biblical texts.
        In Hebrews 13:4, the contrast between the two words”whoremongers” and “adulterers” and the word “marriage” is confirmed (“whoremongers” is pornos in the Greek.)

        Vine’s Expository Dictionary says this about the word pornos:

        “fornication, fornicator: pornos denotes “a man who indulges in fornication, a fornicator,” (1 Cor. 5:9,10,11; 6:9; Eph. 5:5), RV; (1 Tim. 1:10), RV; (Heb. 12:16; 13:4), RV; (Rev. 21:8) and (22:15), RV (KJV, “whoremonger”).”

        In order to understand the Old Testament view of woman, one must turn to the Book of Genesis. When God created mankind, He created both “male and female” (Gen. 1:27; 5:2). Both were created in God’s image and both were given the responsibility of exercising authority over God’s creation. The man was created before the woman. Because the man needed companionship and a helper, God caused the man to sleep. From him He created a woman, “a helper comparable to him” (Gen. 2:18,20). Man is incomplete without woman. Because she is called a “helper” does not imply that she is inferior to man. The same Hebrew word translated as helper is used of God in His relationship to Israel (Ps. 33:20; 70:5).
        The culture that developed around the Israelites in ancient times did not always have this perspective of woman. Certain Old Testament passages tend to reflect an attitude that woman was little more than a thing and that a woman should be entirely subordinate to man. This tendency became pronounced before the coming of Christ. One of the Jewish prayers that dated from that era declared, “I thank Thee that I am not a woman.”
        Jesus lived and taught a better way—the way of love. He allowed women to accompany Him and His disciples on their journeys (Luke 8:1-3). He talked with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well and led her to a conversion experience (John 4). Jesus did not think it strange that Mary sat at His feet, assuming the role of a disciple; in fact, He suggested to Martha that she should do likewise (Luke 10:38-42). Although the Jews segregated the women in both Temple and synagogue, the early church did not separate the congregation by sex (Acts 12:1-17; 1 Cor. 11:2-16).
        The apostle Paul wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Within the writings of Paul, however, other statements restrict women from participating in church leadership as freely as men. Women were to keep silent in church; they were to be submissive to the male leaders (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-12).
        How does one reconcile these two seemingly opposing views? In Galatians Paul was stating a general principle that men and women were equal, just as the slave is equal to his master in the sight of God. However, Paul did not require or teach that the slaveholder had to release his slaves. In the same manner, Paul requested the women to be submissive to their husbands—to preserve order within the church and to be a witness to outsiders.

Variations Of The ... “Way Out Of This Binding Restriction”

        There are arguments—by both heterosexuals and homosexuals—attempting to advance private agendas. Typically, they not only take scriptural verses out of their contextual settings, they also take specific words within those verses and attempt to nit-pick their invalid point while totally and completely ignoring the basic, broad, clearly understood principles God has given us humans. Relative to the verse stating humankind is to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth ...” is the claim that “Well, some married couples can’t have children so it’s OK for us guys to marry each other, too.”
        Does it take much common sense to understand the general principle that “... be fruitful and multiply ...” very pointedly and forcefully excludes homosexuality?
        Does it take much common sense to understand the general principle that “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee ...” and “... as he lieth with a woman ...” very pointedly and forcefully excludes a male ruling over a male in the same sense that a husband “... shall rule over thee ...” (his wife)?
        In attempting to justify homosexuality, there are also some who try to imply that “cleave” dabaq means a sexual union. They then attempt to apply that meaning to Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan and Daniel and Ashpenaz as the word dabaq is used in describing their relationship.
        I covered the term dabaq previously.

        There is also semantical nit-picking of the word “abomination” in the above passages. The claim is made that the word refers only to religious idolatry, not homosexuality in general.
        If we attempt to apply that understanding to verse 22, then it would also apply to the whole of Leviticus, chapter 18. If that were so, then all of the practices prohibited therein would be permissible as long as they weren’t part of one’s religious idolatry. The same would hold true with verse 13 of Leviticus, chapter 20, wouldn’t it?
        Anybody reading this agree with that logic?
        The definition of the word “abomination” according to Strong’s Concordance:

        tow` ebah or to` ebah; feminine active participle of ta` ab; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol. It is variously translated in the King James Version of the Bible as abominable (custom, thing), abomination.

        Abomination:
        A. Noun.
        to`ebah “abomination; loathsome, detestable thing.” Cognates of this word appear only in Phoenician and Targumic Aramaic. The word appears 117 times and in all periods.
        First, to`ebah defines something or someone as essentially unique in the sense of being “dangerous,” “sinister,” and “repulsive” to another individual. This meaning appears in (Gen. 43:32) (the first occurrence): “...the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.” To the Egyptians, eating bread with foreigners was repulsive because of their cultural or social differences (cf. (Gen. 46:34; Ps. 88:8)). Another clear illustration of this essential clash of disposition appears in (Prov. 29:27): “An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked.” When used with reference to God, this nuance of the word describes people, things, acts, relationships, and characteristics that are “detestable” to Him because they are contrary to His nature. Things related to death and idolatry are loathsome to God: “Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing” (Deut. 14:3). People with habits loathsome to God are themselves detestable to Him: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 22:5). Directly opposed to to`ebah are such reactions as “delight” and “loveth” (Prov. 15:8-9).
        Second, to`ebah is used in some contexts to describe pagan practices and objects: “The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire; thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house...” (Deut. 7:25-26). In other contexts, to`ebah describes the repeated failures to observe divine regulations: “Because ye multiplied more than the nations that are round about you, and have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my judgments, neither have done according to the judgments of the nations that are round about you;... because of all thine abominations” (Ezek. 5:7, 9). To`ebah may represent the pagan cultic practices themselves, as in (Deut. 12:31), or the people who perpetrate such practices: “For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee” (Deut. 18:12). If Israelites are guilty of such idolatry, however, their fate will be worse than exile: death by stoning (Deut. 17:2-5).
        Third, to`ebah is used in the sphere of jurisprudence and of family or tribal relationships. Certain acts or characteristics are destructive of societal and familial harmony; both such things and the people who do them are described by to`ebah: “These six things doth the Lord hate; yea, seven are an abomination unto him:... a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,... and he that soweth discord among brethren” (Prov. 6:16-19). God says, “The scorner is an abomination to men” (Prov. 24:9) because he spreads his bitterness among God’s people, disrupting unity and harmony.

        In the first five verses God states very clearly that Israel is not to adopt the “doings” of Egypt (which they had left) or Canaan (which is where they were going to), or to “walk in their ordinances.” God then states that Israel is to do His judgments and ordinances “to walk therein,” and His statutes, and then repeats “my judgments.” God then makes it clear that if a man (person) obeys Him, then that person will live by them.
        Strong’s Concordance defines the word “defiled:”

        Defile, tame’; a primitive root; to be foul, especially in a ceremonial or moral sense (contaminated.
        The King James Version of the Bible variously translates it as: defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, makeself, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.

        Unclean:
        A. Verb.
        tame’, “to be unclean.” This root is limited to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. The verb occurs 160 times in biblical Hebrew and mainly in Leviticus, as in (Lev. 11:26): “The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.” Tame’ is the opposite of taher, “to be pure.”
        B. Noun.
        tum’ah, “uncleanness.” This noun is derived from tame’. Tum’ah occurs 37 times in biblical Hebrew. The word occurs in (Num. 5:19): “And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanliness with another instead of thine husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse.” Here the word refers to sexual “uncleanness.” Tum’ah occurs twice in (Lev. 16:16) and refers to ethical and religious “uncleanness.”
        C. Adjective.
        tame’, “unclean.” This adjective occurs 89 times in the Old Testament. The frequency of the word is high in Leviticus. Its first occurrence is also in Leviticus: “Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty” (5:2).
        The usage of tame’ in the Old Testament resembles that of tahor, “pure.” First, uncleanness is a state of being. The leper was compelled to announce his uncleanness wherever he went (Lev. 13:45); however, even here there is a religious overtone, in that his uncleanness was ritual. Hence, it is more appropriate to recognize that the second usage is most basic. Tame’ in the religio-cultic sense is a technical term denoting a state of being ceremonially unfit. Animals, carcases, unclean people, and objects conveyed the impurity to those who touched them: “And whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean; and the soul that toucheth it shall lie unclean until even” (Num. 19:22). The impurity could also be brought about by a seminal issue (Lev. 15:2) or a menstrual period (Lev. 15:25), and whatever the unclean touched was also rendered “unclean.”
        The Septuagint translations are: akathartos (“impure; unclean”) and miaino (“stain; defile”). The KJV gives these translations: “unclean; defiled; polluted.”

        The word “man” in the text is ish. An excerpt from Vine’s Expository Dictionary reads:

        Man—ish: “man; husband; mate; human being; human; somebody; each; every.” Cognates of this word appear in Phoenician, Punic, old Aramaic, and old South Arabic. This noun occurs about 2,183 times and in all periods of biblical Hebrew. The plural of this noun is usually ‘anashim, but 3 times it is ‘ishim (Ps. 53:3).
        Basically, this word signifies “man” in correspondence to woman; a “man” is a person who is distinguished by maleness. ...

        Man—zakar: “male.” Cognates of this word appear in Akkadian, Aramaic, and Arabic. It occurs 82 times and usually in early prose (Genesis through Deuteronomy), only 5 times in the biblical prophets, and never in biblical wisdom or poetical literature.
        Zakar emphasizes “maleness” as over against “femaleness”; this word focuses on the sex of the one so named. Thus, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27).

        Woman—ishshah; “woman; wife; betrothed one; bride; each.” This word has cognates in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic. It appears about 781 times in biblical Hebrew and in all periods of the language.
        This noun connotes one who is a female human being regardless of her age or virginity. Therefore, it appears in correlation to “man” (ish): “...she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen. 2:23). This is its meaning in its first biblical usage: “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man [‘adam], made he a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Gen. 2:22). The stress here is on identification of womanhood rather than a family role.

        Apparently it was assumed by the earlier Bible translators that the male qadash temple priests “holy ones” were homosexual and engaged in sex with each other and/or other males (and the female qedeshah temple priestess) as part of a fertility rite.
        Research about the religious practices of Canaan will reveal the absolute conviction of the people of that culture of the existence of their “gods” which blessed them agriculturally. And the practice of heterosexual sexual intercourse as a ritual which imitated and honored their “gods.”
        However, the pattern for sexual intercourse was established by what was known as the anointing of the sacred king. The queen-priestess had to unite in sexual intercourse with the king-priest to transmit her “goddess” power to him, thus causing him to become the official divine king in the sacred marriage ceremony, or hieros gamos. This sacred marriage routine officially made both the male and the female “gods.” This had implications of reproductive powers that extended to the land, through rain, as a type of semen, and included crops and livestock, etc.
        This was the model for the temple prostitution. The female qedeshah thus worshipped the female goddess through the fertility of her womb, while the male qadash was the instrument that utilized her reception of his penile penetration to bring about the desired fertility. In some magical way, this physical act was considered to be holy and somehow influenced the spiritual atmosphere to bring the blessing of fertile land, crops and livestock.
        Fertility, then, was the theme and thrust of their pagan practices.
        Baal worship was performed as an imitation of Baal himself as a god of fertility who controlled the rain, which increased their crops and maintained their livestock. Regular practice of sexual intercourse between the men and women who were temple prostitutes, as a fertility rite, not only pleased Baal, but they were also believed to provoke and arouse Baal, who would bring rain (symbolic of sperm in their minds).
        Droughts and lack of rain signified to these people that the gods were displeased and unhappy. By practicing the pagan religious rituals of heterosexual sex, they demonstrated their thanks and adoration and stimulated the passions of the gods so that the rain would enhance the productivity of crops and livestock.
        The significance of the phrase “their blood shall be upon them ...” is explained in this excerpt from Vine’s Expository Dictionary:

        Blood—dam “blood.” This is a common Semitic word with cognates in all the Semitic languages. Biblical Hebrew attests it about 360 times and in all periods. ...
        The phrase, “his blood be on his head,” signifies that the guilt and punishment for a violent act shall be on the perpetrator: “For everyone that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood [guiltiness] shall be upon him” (Lev. 20:9). This phrase bears the added overtone that those who execute the punishment by killing the guilty party are not guilty of murder. So here “blood” means responsibility for one’s dead ...

Prohibition, Progression and Prophecy

        Excerpted from the Holman Bible Dictionary:

        MOLECH (Mole; king) Transliteration of Hebrew word related to word for “king” but describing a foreign god or a practice related to foreign worship. The meaning of “Molech” is debated. Two views generally are proposed. One suggestion is that “Molech” denotes a particular type of offering—a votive sacrifice made to confirm or fulfill a vow. This viewpoint is supported by the fact that some Carthaginian-Phoenician (Punic) inscriptions from the period 400-150 B.C. imply that the word mlk is a general form for “sacrifice” or “offering.” Such a meaning is possible in some passages (Lev. 18:21; 20:3-5; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35).
        A second suggestion is that “Molech” is the name of a pagan deity to whom human sacrifices were made. This deity often is associated with Ammon (compare 1 Kings 11:7—) “the abomination of the children of Ammon.” Leviticus 20:5 condemns those who “commit whoredom with Molech” (see also Lev. 18:21; 20:3-5; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35). Some recent archaeological evidence points to child sacrifice in ancient Ammon. Many scholars contend that all the biblical texts referring to Molech can be understood by interpreting it as a divine name.
        The etymology of the term “Molech” is interesting. Scholars suggest that it is a deliberate misvocalization of the Hebrew word for king or for the related participle (molek), “ruler.” They propose that the consonants for the Hebrew word for king (mlk) were combined with the vowels from the word for shame (boshet). Thus, this title was a divine epithet expressing contempt for the pagan god.
        In times of apostasy some Israelites, apparently in desperation, made their children “go through the fire to Molech” (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; 2 Kings 23:10; compare 2 Kings 17:31; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35). It generally is assumed that references like these are to the sacrifices of children in the Valley of Hinnom at a site known as Topheth (“Topheth” probably means “firepit” in Syriac). ... Precisely how this was done is unknown. Some contend that the children were thrown into a raging fire. Certain rabbinic writers describe a hollow bronze statute in the form of a human but with the head of an ox. According to the rabbis, children were placed in the structure which was then heated from below. Drums were pounded to drown out the cries of the children.
        An alternate view contends that the expression “passed through Molech” refers not to human sacrifices but that parents gave up their children to grow up as temple prostitutes. Such a view appeals to Leviticus 18 where throughout the chapter the writer is concerned with sexual intercourse (especially vv. 19-23). Another view sees an original fire ceremony dedicating, but not harming children, that later was transformed into a burnt-offering ceremony.
        The practice of offering children as human sacrifice was condemned in ancient Israel, but the implication is clear in the Old Testament that child-sacrifice was practiced by some in Israel (2 Kings 21:6; 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3; Ps. 106:38; Jer. 7:31; 19:4-5; Ezek. 16:21; 23:37,39). The Exile seems to have put an end to this type of worship in Israel. However, it lingered on in North Africa and among the Carthaginian Phoenicians into the Christian era.

        21. thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, &c.—Molech, or Moloch, which signifies “king,” was the idol of the Ammonites. His statue was of brass, and rested on a pedestal or throne of the same metal. His head, resembling that of a calf, was adorned with a crown, and his arms were extended in the attitude of embracing those who approached him. His devotees dedicated their children to him; and when this was to be done, they heated the statue to a high pitch of intensity by a fire within, and then the infants were either shaken over the flames, or passed through the ignited arms, by way of lustration [read: purifying by ceremonial cleansing] to ensure the favor of the pretended deity. The fire-worshippers asserted that all children who did not undergo this purifying process would die in infancy; and the influence of this Zabian superstition was still so extensively prevalent in the days of Moses, that the divine lawgiver judged it necessary to prohibit it by an express statute.
        neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God—by giving it to false or pretended divinities; or, perhaps, from this precept standing in close connection with the worship of Molech, the meaning rather is, Do not, by devoting your children to him, give foreigners occasion to blaspheme the name of your God as a cruel and sanguinary deity, who demands the sacrifice of human victims, and who encourages cruelty in his votaries.

        Heb “And from your seed you shall not give to cause to pass over to Molech.” Smr (cf. also the LXX) has “to cause to serve” rather than “to cause to pass over.” For detailed remarks on Molech and Molech worship see N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (NCBC), 87-88; P. J. Budd, Leviticus (NCBC), 259-60; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 333-37, and the literature cited there. It could refer to either human sacrifice or a devotion of children to some sort of service of Molech, perhaps of a sexual sort (cf. Lev 20:2-5; 2 Kgs 23:10, etc.). The inclusion of this prohibition against Molech worship here may be due to some sexual connection of this kind, or perhaps simply to the lexical link between zera meaning “seed, semen” in v. 20 but “offspring” in v. 21.

        Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible translates those verses as:

        The emphasis on semen in those literal interpretations of those verses indicates that a broad overview of all the prohibited sexual practices appear to have a common denominator in that they all prohibit, ultimately, the deposit of semen in particular places, or in the case of a menstruating woman, a particular time.
        Verses 21-23 can then be seen as continuing the theme of prohibited sexual practices under the sub-theme of prohibited unnatural sexual relations.
        [A note on the “uncleanness” of women during their menstruation: While this is difficult to comprehend and appears to be an “impurity” charge heavily biased against women, for a natural function, the same “bias” is found elsewhere in Leviticus against men:

        In my opinion, there is also a prophetic aspect to be seen in these verses.

        The words “also” in verse 19, and “moreover” in verse 20 are the same word in the Hebrew, 'el.
        Strong’s Concordance Definition:

        'el; (but only used in the shortened constructive form 'el (el)); a primitive particle; properly, denoting motion towards, but occasionally used of a quiescent position, i.e. near, with or among; often in general, to.
        Variously translated in the KJV—about, according to after, against, among, as for, at, because (-fore, -side), both ... and, by, concerning, for, from, X hath, in (-to), near, (out) of, over, through, to (-ward), under, unto, upon, whether, with (-in).

        'el (but only used in the shortened constructive form 'el
        1) to, toward, unto (used of motion)
        2) into (limit is actually entered); in among
        3) toward (of direction, not necessarily physical motion)
        4) against (motion or direction of a hostile character)
        5) in addition to, to
        6) concerning, in regard to, in reference to, on account of
        7) according to (rule or standard)
        8) at, by, against (of one’s presence)
        9) in between, in within, to within, unto (idea of motion to)

        With the incorporation of 'el they may indicate a motion towards, or used in the sense of a latent, or potential (“quiescent”) position. A position made worse with continued violations of the prohibitions preceding those.
        God prohibited sexual relations with close relatives and also prohibitions between a married man and wife, and a prohibition outside of their relationship. These negatives were stated to establish a positive and affirming standard of sexual conduct. It may be that the unnatural sexual relations of verses 21 through 23 are the penalties for failing to adhere to God’s positive standard of sexual conduct.
        In other words, violations of these prohibited practices would bring about a worsening of the unnatural sexual relations in the same way that “God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves ...” and “God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature ...” and “God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient ...” in Roman, chapter one, verses 24, 26 and 28.
        Failure to avoid the negatively stated practices in Leviticus, chapter 18, would then bring about the practice of purposefully killing your own seed, or dedication, or a “baptismal” procedure of your children by demonic powers, or giving of your semen to pagan practices (verse 21). Next would be the acceptance of homosexuality (verse 22) and next the accepted practice of humans having sexual intercourse with animals (verse 23).
        In fact, these things are already among us. Abortion (killing) of babies is legal, fatherless children from illicit sexual unions and divorces, are “baptized” into criminality as noted by rising crime statistics, and semen is being offered up in pagan practices of selfish and lustful sexual activities of every sort. The homosexuals have come out of the closet and are demanding extra-special rights for themselves, cleverly calling those “rights” civil rights. And if you take the time to research it out, you will find that every sexual act possible between humans and humans and humans and animals is being committed. Everything in Leviticus, chapter 18 prohibited by God has been embraced by our contemporary society.
        The repercussions for these activities is clear. The following excerpt from the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary speaks to us today.
        Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary on Leviticus 18:24-30:

        24. Defile not yourselves in any of these things—In the preceding verses seventeen express cases of incest are enumerated; comprehending eleven of affinity [Le 18:7-16], and six of consanguinity [Le 18:17-20], together with some criminal enormities of an aggravated and unnatural character. In such prohibitions it was necessary for the instruction of a people low in the scale of moral perception, that the enumeration should be very specific as well as minute; and then, on completing it, the divine lawgiver announces his own views of these crimes, without any exception or modification, in the remarkable terms employed in this verse.
        in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you, &c.—Ancient history gives many appalling proofs that the enormous vices described in this chapter were very prevalent, nay, were regularly practised from religious motives in the temples of Egypt and the groves of Canaan; and it was these gigantic social disorders that occasioned the expulsion, of which the Israelites were, in the hands of a righteous and retributive Providence, the appointed instruments (Ge 15:16). The strongly figurative language of “the land itself vomiting out her inhabitants” [Le 18:25], shows the hopeless depth of their moral corruption.
        25. therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it; and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants—The Canaanites, as enormous and incorrigible sinners, were to be exterminated; and this extermination was manifestly a judicial punishment inflicted by a ruler whose laws had been grossly and perseveringly outraged. But before a law can be disobeyed, it must have been previously in existence; and hence a law, prohibiting all the horrid crimes enumerated above—a law obligatory upon the Canaanites as well as other nations—was already known and in force before the Levitical law of incest was promulgated. Some general law, then, prohibiting these crimes must have been published to mankind at a very early period of the world’s history; and that law must either have been the moral law, originally written on the human heart, or a law on the institution of marriage revealed to Adam and known to the Canaanites and others by tradition or otherwise.
        29. the souls that commit them shall be cut off—This strong denunciatory language is applied to all the crimes specified in the chapter without distinction: to incest as truly as to bestiality, and to the eleven cases of affinity [Le 18:7-16], as fully as to the six of consanguinity [Le 18:17-20]. Death is the punishment sternly denounced against all of them. No language could be more explicit or universal; none could more strongly indicate intense loathing and abhorrence.
        30. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs—In giving the Israelites these particular institutions, God was only re-delivering the law imprinted on the natural heart of man; for there is every reason to believe that the incestuous alliances and unnatural crimes prohibited in this chapter were forbidden to all men by a law expressed or understood from the beginning of the world, or at least from the era of the flood, since God threatens to condemn and punish, in a manner so sternly severe, these atrocities in the practice of the Canaanites and their neighbors, who were not subject to the laws of the Hebrew nation.

        This certainly appears to have eternal consequences, doesn’t it?

New Testament Confirmation Of Old Testament Sexual Purity Laws

        Again, the author (Paul, the apostle) uses words that emphasize gender. In verse 26, the word women is thelus, about which Vine’s Expository Dictionary says:

        thelus, an adjective (from thele, “a breast”), is used in the form thelu (grammatically neuter) as a noun, “female,” in (Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6; Gal. 3:28); in the feminine form theleia, in (Rom. 1:26), “women”; (v. 27) “woman.”

        arsen or arren is translated “men” in (Rom. 1:27) (three times); “man child” in (Rev. 12:5) (v. 13) in some mss.; “male” in (Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6; Luke 2:23; Gal. 3:28), “(there can be no) male (and female),” RV, i. e. sex distinction does not obtain in Christ; sex is no barrier either to salvation or the development of Christian graces.

        And if we read the preceding verse, we find we have a name for people who say and do stuff like that:

        Again, we have the same problem in that if we attempt to apply that understanding to verses 26 and 27, then it would indicate that those verses apply only to those men and women to whom homosexuality did not come “naturally?”
        Are you confused by this transparently illogical fallacy yet?
        So ... the activities outlined in the rest of the chapter would not apply to those who are homosexuals “by nature” but only to those who practiced homosexuality against their nature.
        Say what? You should be confused by now!

        God will give those “unnatural” practitioners of homosexuality a reprobate mind, they will be filled with unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit and malignity. They will be whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful. And they’ll keep on doing so, knowing they deserve death and encouraging and commending those who do likewise.
        But the “natural” practitioners of homosexuality are exempt from God’s death penalty!
        Do you hear the pseudo-logic here? “Hey, I didn’t change the truth of God into a lie, and I don’t worship and serve created things more than my Creator—and I continue to bless God.”

        Homosexuality is not defined by its motive, or the reasons for it. It’s defined by the sexual acts of an individual. Isn’t it?
        It’s little Johnny caught with his hand in the cookie jar, proclaiming that he didn’t try to eat any cookies, he just thought the jar was a glove and he was trying to see if it fit his hand.
        Anybody reading this agree with that logic?
        Paul, the apostle, also mentioned homosexuality in several of his other letters:

        In both these verses the phrases “abusers of themselves with mankind” and “for them that defile themselves with mankind” is the same Greek word, arsenokoites.
        Strong’s Definition:

        arsenokoites; from 730 (arrhen) and 2845 (koite); a sodomite:

        arsenokoites-one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite, a homosexual

        arrhen or arsen probably from 142; male (as stronger for lifting).

        BED—koite; primarily “a place for lying down” (connected with keimai, “to lie”), denotes a “bed,” (Luke 11:7); the marriage “bed,” (Heb. 13:4); in (Rom. 13:13), it is used of sexual intercourse. By metonymy, the cause standing for the effect, it denotes conception, (Rom. 9:10).

        These verses, as discussed above, clearly refer to homosexual activity and I made the statements:

        In verses 6 through 23, (of Leviticus, chapter 18) God gives clear instructions on how not to do disgusting and unclean things. Some of them so disgusting and so unclean that he mandated the death penalty for them.
        Homosexual “intercourse” between two men is an abomination and defiles those persons. Any arguments that those words apply only to idolatrous sexual intercourse, i.e., sexual intercourse done by temple prostitutes or other religious rituals fails to grasp the clear message conveyed in the text.
        Note the clear distinction here (in Leviticus 20:13) explicitly stating “man” and “woman,” plain and simple. If God had intended to limit His instructions to “temple prostitutes” he would have used the words qadash and qedeshah, mistranslated in the King James and other Bible translations as “sodomite” or “unclean” and “harlot” or “whore.”

Old Testament Sexual Death Penalty Sins

(1) adultery
(2) incest
(3) homosexuality
(4) sex with an animal
(5) a woman’s failure to maintain her virginity before marriage
(6) sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother
(7) a woman having sexual intercourse while engaged to another
(8) rape of a woman engaged to another
(9) prostitution by a daughter of a priest

        In the garden, Adam and Eve were created equal (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:18-23). The New Testament teaches that in Christ this Edenic complementariness is restored (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 5:21-33). Mates are equal in possessing one another (1 Cor. 7:4) and are interdependent (1 Cor. 11:11-12). The new creation in Christ makes this possible.
        Yet the Fall ruptured God’s plan for male/female equality. Sin produced male dominance and female submissiveness (Gen. 3:16). Many scholars believe that this is descriptive rather than prescriptive for all time. Much of the remainder of Scripture, therefore, describes a double standard of male superiority and female inferiority, a kind of “chain of command” of the husband ruling his wife and children. Various passages set forth women being subordinated to men (Num. 30:3-15; 1 Tim 2:11-15). Different standards of fidelity in marriage are found (Num. 5:11-31; Deut. 22:22-29) where unfaithful wives are more severely dealt with than husbands. The New Testament response to this was that of mutual equality and servanthood toward each other with the servanthood of Jesus as the basic criterion (Eph. 5:21-33). Some passages deal with specific problems that appear to be limited to the time and culture of the first-century place (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-15; 1 Pet. 3:1-7), though some Bible students see such passages as establishing social orders for all times.
        Sexual Deviations. Several deviations of sexual behavior are condemned in the biblical teachings: homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10); bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23); incest (Lev. 18:6-18; 1 Cor. 5); rape (Ex. 22:16-17; Deut. 22:23-29); adultery (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 22:22); prostitution (Prov. 7:1-27; 29:3); fornication (1 Cor. 6:9-10; compare Matt. 19:9). These are all declared to be outside of the will of God for man and woman who are called to live together in monogamous fidelity within the covenant of marriage. The only other option is the giftedness of celibacy (Matt. 19:12b; 1 Cor. 7:7). Incidentally, the Bible is silent on the subject of masturbation (compare Lev. 15:16). It is silent on physical techniques of sexual intercourse, referring only to marital rights or enjoyment (Ex. 21:10), erotic caresses (Song of Sol. 2:6; 7:1-9), fondling (Gen. 26:8), and pleasure in conceiving (Gen. 18:12). Yet these are set forth in the context of the behavior of married couples. Intimate sexual behavior outside of marriage is considered sexual immorality in the biblical perspective.
        Theology of sex. The Bible reveals an ethical God who gives humans the gift of sexuality whereby they image God when they join together to complement each other as “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). All nonmarital sex is outside the boundaries of the will of this ethical God (see Amos 2:6-8 where Israel was to reject sex at the pagan shrines). God’s people are expected to exercise self-control, not by asceticism (Col. 2:23; 1 Tim. 4:1-5), but by the power of the Holy Spirit overcoming sexual impulses (Gal. 5:16-25). For the noncelibate, marriage is the only approved outlet for sexual expression (1 Cor. 7:9; Titus 2:5-6). This view equates human wholeness with holiness of life (1 Thess. 4:3-5). One’s sexuality is a vital part of Christian holiness and not a necessary evil to be rejected. Within the limits of marriage, sex is for procreation of children, the enhancement of the one-flesh relationship, and the pleasure of the married couple whose love can be nourished thereby. Outside of the limits established by God, sex becomes an evil and destructive force in human life, calling for God’s redemptive power to deliver humans trapped therein. Marital sexual love is both a gift and a responsibility from God to be consecrated by the Word and prayer.

        Commandments, Ten
        7. “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14). Technically, this commandment refers to being sexually involved with a married person; but it is traditionally used to prohibit all sexual relationships outside of marriage. Again, this commandment involves a right relationship with God and with others. Adultery is possible only if people are prepared to hurt others, to enjoy themselves at the expense of other people. A right attitude toward keeping God first and not harming others is tied together in these commandments. A person who does not steal will not take another’s mate. And he does not allow covetous thoughts to grow in his mind. He wants God to have his total allegiance.

        OK, church, why are you ignoring the other eight Old Testament sexual death penalty sins?

        Where are the protest groups, organizations, activities, rallies, books, articles and movements against those who commit adultery?
        Where are the protest groups, organizations, activities, rallies, books, articles and movements against those who have sex with an animal?
        Where are the protest groups, organizations, activities, rallies, books, articles and movements against those women who have failed to maintain their virginity before marriage?
        Where are the protest groups, organizations, activities, rallies, books, articles and movements against those who have sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother?
        Where are the protest groups, organizations, activities, rallies, books, articles and movements against those who have sexual intercourse while engaged to another?
        Where are the protest groups, organizations, activities, rallies, books, articles and movements against those who rape a woman engaged to another?
        OK, you are exempt from protesting against prostitution by a daughter of a priest because there is no longer a Levitical system under a theocracy.
        As a matter of fact, we are not Israelites, we don’t live in Israel under a theocracy, and we don’t have the particular problems that Israel had when those commands were written, do we?
        Question: Why do we ignore the eight commands that warrant the death penalty for sexual misconduct—but we demand that the sexual misconduct of homosexuality be dealt with as God prescribed in the Old Testament?
        Under the law, all who were guilty of sexual death sins were killed. Weren’t they?
        Under grace, all who are guilty of sexual death sins of the Old Testament are not killed. Are they?
        Nowhere in the Bible does God focus exclusively on homosexuality. Much less as a “worse” sin that any other death penalty sin. It’s simply grouped in with other death penalty sins and dealt with in the same manner as those sins.
        What did Paul, the apostle continue to say about the subject:

What Is Your Message Or Whose Report Will You Believe?

        The clear message from the Bible is a simple one, huh? Heterosexual marriage, i.e. marriage between a man and a woman, is the place to have beautiful, bountiful and blessed sexual experiences.
        OK, then does that mean that this process of being mature, seeking to bond to a woman of your choice and then having sexual intercourse with her constitutes a “marriage?”
        Essentially, yes. However, because of our societal culture, as mentioned before, there is the necessity and desirability to publicly declare your intentions and have a civil ceremony that makes it official. This is more of a societal responsibility because of the laws which civil government has legislated.
        Yeah ... but ... today’s society has another totally different set of cultural values. Basically, it’s one of “recreational sex.” And since everybody’s doing it, having sex with one another whenever and however they feel like it, then what’s wrong with that?
        OK, I’ll explain it this way: when a person(s), skips the biblical progression of maturity, bonding and, lastly sexual intercourse, they have in God’s eyes become “one flesh” and have simply postponed the maturity and bonding processes that should have preceded that sexual intercourse. If you believe what God said, then by your act of “recreational sex” you two are now one. So you now have to drop back and punt, so to speak, and learn to mature to a responsible position in planning for a family and finances to support it. Especially if the “recreational sex” results in a new life, i.e., a child. You are also “stuck” with one another and will have to learn to bond to the other person, whether or not you “like” them. You put the horse before the cart and now have to make some very drastic changes to be obedient to God. Don’t you?
        The Bible makes it clear you are “one flesh” and are to be such for your entire lifetime.
        You may want to call your immature, non-bonded sexual intercourse “pre-marital sex.” However, in biblical reality there is no such thing. When you engaged in sexual intercourse, you were “one flesh,” i.e., married.
        The Bible says:

        Even if you have sexual intercourse with a harlot, a whore, you are one flesh for as long as you are on this earth. There is no marriage in heaven:

        Another thing, in the Old Testament, if a man died, his brother was to marry his widow:

        So, biblically, whether you marry a whore, or marry your dead brothers wife, you are married. Emotional involvement or “bonding” has nothing to do with it. So make certain you’ve followed the “maturity,” and “bonding” steps of the process before committing to sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex. Skipping them simply means that you’ll have to go through those steps in a painful rearrangement of your life, and the life of your sexual partner.
        Or, you can just walk away from your situation, thus proving your immaturity and lack of ability to emotionally bond to the member of the opposite sex you found attractive enough to have sexual intercourse with. And incur the wrath and penalty for disobedience as stated in the biblical record.
        Is that what you really want for your life?
        Of course, it’s a lot easier to ignore what God has told us humans and give in to our sexual desires, calling it “situational ethics” or whatever you want to. In fact, our entire contemporary culture has done just that. However, there is a penalty involved for not obeying God.
        What the eternal consequences of that penalty are for those who continue to persist in their disobedience of God’s laws, ordinances, statutes and commandments, I can’t say.
        For those who name the name of Christ, who are already in trouble with God by understanding what you have read here so far, just realize that there is available to you repentance and the forgiveness of sins. And you have the ability to walk in what you now know.
        Today’s societal values are totally at odds with what God says for us to do and not to do. With the desirability of sexual activities with no restrictions roaring at us from every possible source, it’s very difficult to compare what we’ve known all of our short lives with the eternal perspective of God. However, our Creator has our best interests in mind and puts limitations on certain things for our own safety and protection. So while it may be difficult to see God’s eternal point of view, for those who truly love God and are disciples of Jesus Christ, it’s not impossible.
        Those who seek to discredit the Bible don’t care what it says. Those who don’t truly love God and are not disciples of Jesus Christ—but continue to protest violently that they really, really are more holy than God Himself—these people don’t really care what the Bible says. They will continue to reinterpret the Bible according to their own agendas. “Their Jesus” would do this and this and this and “their Jesus” would not do this and this and this. But “their Jesus” is not the Jesus of the Bible. Is He?

What To Do Now?

        In fact, sexual intercourse is not the source of intimacy. Marital sexual intercourse is an expression of true intimacy of a husband and wife. Intimacy that has developed over a period of time by communication with each other in exchanging dialog on all the subjects of discussion that arise because of their genuine friendship with one another. This is another progression in relationships between a mature man and a mature woman that has come to be ignored in today’s contemporary society.