A1) Ananel believes that the Torah is purely ceremonial laws, which is his belief. If the Torah is purely ceremonial then it would make the Ten Commandments ceremonial law. I believe that the Torah (the Law) is divided into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. Moral laws (e.g., the Decalogue), based on the unchanging character of God, are eternally binding. Civil laws (e.g., Exod. 21-23), although they may illustrate moral law, were limited historically to the theocratic state of Israel and are not binding on the church. Ceremonial laws (e.g., sacrifices) were intended to prefigure Christ, and ceased to be applicable upon his first advent. However, these categories "moral, civil, and ceremonial" are artificial.
I'm guessing your wondering how can this position be biblical, I'll show ya... Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8 ), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). When Paul states that women are to be in submission "as the Law says" (1 Cor 14:34) or quotes parts of the Decalogue (Rom 13:9), and when James quotes the law of love (2:8 from Lev 19:18 ) or condemns partiality, adultery, murder, and slander as contrary to the law (2:9, 11; 4:11), and when Peter quotes Leviticus, "Be holy, because I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16; from Lev 19:2), the implication is that the law, or at least part of it, remains authoritative.
There are those who oppose to such teachings, such as Martin Luther. However, I agree with the great reformer, John Calvin on the subject. "What Pauls says, as to the abrogation of the Law [Gal 3:10] evidently applies not to the Law itself, but merely to its power of constraining the conscience. For the Law not only teaches, but also imperiously demands .... We must be freed from the fetters of the law, ... those of rigid and austere exaction .... Meanwhile, ... the law has lost none of its authority, but must always receive from us the same respect and obedience." [S1] Accordingly, the church has tended to divide into two different positions, even while it continued to affirm with Paul in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 that the law is indeed most useful and profitable for Christians.
The New Testament writers also apply the principles in the law. From Deuteronomy 25:4 ("Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out grain"
wink , Paul derives a principle that workers ought to be rewarded for their labors and applies that principle in the case of Christian workers (1 Cor 9:9-14). In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul again quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, this time in parallel with a saying of Jesus (Matt 10:10) as if both are equally authoritative. Likewise, the principle of establishing truth by two or three witnesses (Deut 19:15), originally limited to courts, is applied more broadly to a church conference (2 Cor 13:1). The principle that believers are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers is derived from a law concerning the yoking animals (2 Cor 6:14; cf. Deut 22:10).
In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 13, Paul affirms on the basis of Leviticus 18:29 that incest, a capital offense in the Old Testament, is immoral and deserves punishment. A person practicing incest in the church must be excommunicated to maintain the church's practical holiness. Paul maintains the law's moral principle, yet in view of the changed redemptive setting, makes no attempt to apply the law's original sanction.
No one can receive eternal salvation by works of the law (Ga 2:16) because none perfectly keeps the law (Rom 3:23), and violation of any part of it makes one guilty of the whole (James 2:10; cf. Rom 2:25; Gal 3:10). Instead, salvation is a gift obtained by faith, not works (Rom 4:4-5; Eph 2:8-10; Php 3:9). Nonetheless, the law was meant to lead us to Christ (Ga 3:24). It makes the sinner conscious of sin (Rom 3:20; 7:7; 1 John 3:4). It provokes and incites rebellion (Rom 5:20; 7:13), thereby making one fully accountable before God for violation of God's moral requirements (Rom 3:19; 4:15; 5:13; 7:8-10). By this means, the law shows sinners their need for a mediator to redeem them from the law's condemnation (Ga 3:13). Hence, the law is an essential prerequisite in preparing sinners for the gospel.
The believer, through the Spirit, keeps the righteousness requirements of the law (Rom 8:3-4), following the principle of love which is the fulfillment of the law (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Mark 12:31, ; cf. Lev 19:18 ). As the New Testament use of Old Testament laws shows, the moral aspect of the law continues to define proper and improper behavior for Christians. Old Testament laws supplement New Testament morality by addressing some issues not directly treated in the New Testament. God's commandments were intended to bring life (Rom 7:10), and the promises of life associated with the law remain applicable (Eph 6:2-3; cf. Exod 20:12).
A2) Homosexuality also carried strong disapproval of Scripture. It is labelled an "abomination" five times in Leviticus 18 (vv. 22, 26, 27, 29, 30) and in Leviticus 20:13. The root meaning of "abomination" is "to detest," "to hate," or "abhor." It is that which is hated and detested by God and is therefore degrading and offensive to the moral sense.
Some would attempt to classify the prohibition against homosexuality along with the other parts of the ceremonial law which were dispelled in Christ's death and resurrection. To prohibit homosexuality today, some would argue, would be like forbidding unclean meats. It is admitted, of course, that there is a category of temporary ceremonial laws, but I do not agree that homosexuality is among them. Nothing in its proscription points to or anticipates Christ, and the death penalty demanded for its violation places it in the moral realm and not in predominate character of the law of holiness is moraland its content is still binding today (e.g., prohibiting incest, adultery, child scrifice, idolatry, oppression of the poor, slander, hatred, unjust weights and measures). Greg L. Bahnsen states:
"Christ himself appealed [to the contents of Lev. 18-20] as summarizing all the law and the prophets (Lev 19:18; cf. Matt 22:29,40 .... The defender of homosexuality must produce a viable criteria for distinguishing between moral and ceremonial laws, or else consistently reject them all (contrary to the emphatic word of Christ). We have the New Testament warrant for discontinuing obedience to the sacrificial system (Heb 10:1-10), ... However, the Scriptures never alter God's revealed law regarding homosexuality, but leave us under its full requirement (cf. Deut. 8:3; 12:32; Matt 4:4). Indeed, the Bible repeatedly condemns homosexuality, the New Testament itself stressing that it is contrary to God's law (1 Tim 1:9,10), bringing God's judgement and exclusion from the kingdom (Rom 1:24ff.; 1 Cor 6:9,10). Therefore, the prohibition against homosexuality cannot be viewed as part of the ceremonial system prefiguring Christ or as a temporary in its obligation. [S2]
Neither will it solve the problem by attempting to associate homosexuality with ancient cultic fertility rites or the like as if they were actually warning about avoiding procreation, dishonoring the superior [?] male gender, or contact with idolatrous religions that had this act as part of their ritual. Such a circumstantial or cultic interpretation seeks to place homosexuality in the same class as the prohibition against boiling a goat in its mother's milk (Exo 23:19). The problem with this suggestion is that there are no references to the cult or prostitutes. Its setting is in a context of holiness of life; only in Leviticus 21 does the text resume the ceremonial and ritual legislation observed in Leviticus 1-16. When the New Testament arguments are added to these hermeneutical observations, it is extremely difficult to deny that the prohibition against homosexuality is based on moral reasons and not ceremonial or circumstantial ones.
B) The interpretations/perspectives about the story of the city of Sodom can be a complicated one. However, I see that Ananel limits possibilities about what happen in the city. Traditionally, Jewish Orthodox position holds that homosexuality was part of Sodom's wickness, which I agree with. Sodom was not only "complete lack of hospitality" but they also practiced abominations (Eze 16:46-47). Ananel's position is that "It is reading too far into the text to say that this passage says anything about homosexual sex. It is speaking of extreme cases that do not apply to homosexual sex." But I find that to be quite misleading for there are many possibilities and even the attempt of homosexual rape in the story. Here is an interesting discussion on the subject:
LINK
C) I have no problem with Ananel's comments about Adam and Steve argument. However, I do have a problem with this statement, "If the Bible has not declared homosexual sex or marriage as sinful, then we have done a vast disservice in refusing homosexual couples the right to marriage. We are, in effect, trying to force them into sinful relationships out-of-wedlock." It appears to me that Ananel is quite liberal on his definition of marriage. The problem is that we must separate modern ideology and biblical ideology apart to have a correct biblical theology on the subject. Biblically, marriage is between man and woman (Gen 2:24), because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband (1 Cor 7:2), the husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband (1 Cor 7:3). This was a small example of what marriage is and its purpose. God brings a man and a woman together in marriage (Matt 19:6; cf. Eve to Adam, Rebecca to Isaac). It is not humankind's prerogative to separate what God has chosen to put together (Matt 19:6). The woman was created as "a helper suitable" for the man (ezer kenegdo) (Gen 2:18 ). The English "complement" best conveys the meaning of neged. A wife is a "helper" who "complements" her husband in every way. A helper always subordinates self-interests when helping another, just as Paul reminds us in Philippians 2:1-11. A helping role is a worthy one, not implying inferiority. The wife, therefore, helps the husband to lead their family to serve and glorify God. The husband also complements his wife so that together they become a new balanced entity that God uses in an enhanced way.
"Cleaving" in Genesis 2:24 pictures a strong bond between the members of this union. The marriage bond was to be permanent. Separation or termination of the marriage union was not an option before sin entered the world and death with it (Gen 3). All later revelation shows that separation/divorce was because of sin (Deut 24:1-4; Ezra 9-10; Mal 2:14; Matt 5:31-32; 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor 7:1-16, 39). God's ideal was for marriage to be permanent and exclusive.
Same-sex marriage was not designed by God nor is it defined as marriage in the Bible. Surprisingly, Ananel tried to make his position biblical by pointing out 1 Corinthians 7:9, which states "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Ananel has now twisted the scripture for his own ideology. To say that Paul support any type of marriage is way out of context, even Paul says, "each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband" (1 Cor 7:3). Ananel is ignoring what scripture has to say on the subject and ignoring the correct exegesis method. The truth is same-sex marriage is not marriage accordingly to the Bible because its man-made and it doesn't follow scripture.
D1) Finally the criticism of Arsenokoites. My position, two brief references in Paul's letters, where same-gender sex is mentioned in lists of prohibited activities, are important especially for their link to the Old Testament. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 [arsenokoites] are condemned. The word, a compound of "male" and "coitus" or "intercourse, " does not occur prior to the New Testament. Some modern writers have attempted to narrow its meaning from homosexual Acts in general to male prostitution, solicitation of male prostitutes, or (coupled in 1 Cor 6:9; with malakoi, another obscure word possibly meaning "the effeminate" ) the active partners in homosexual relationships. These suggestions, however, ignore the Greek Old Testament (LXX) versions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which use both arsenos and koiten, the latter passage placing them side-by-side; literally, "whoever lies with a male, having intercourse (as with) a female." This is the obvious source of the compound word. [S3] Perhaps Paul himself, who knew and used the Septuagint extensively, or some other Hellenistic Jew not long before Paul's time, derived from the passages in Leviticus a compound word that described homosexual Acts in general. This drawing in of Leviticus to Paul's letters is also significant in that it provides further demonstration that he perceived a moral and not merely purity-based prohibition of homosexual Acts in the Old Testament.
D2) About Romans 1:26-27. The remaining passage appears to be an unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality. While many modern revisionists simply disagree with Paul or discount his proscription as applying only to prostitution or pederasty, some have attempted to reinterpret the passage as tacit approval of homosexuality. The argument is that Paul portrays homosexual Acts as impure but carefully avoids the language of sin; he intends merely to distinguish a Gentile practice considered by Jews to be "unclean" in order to draw Jews (or "weaker brethren"
wink into his subsequent explanation of the gospel. Careful investigation of the passage, however, shows this explanation to be untenable.
Paul's general purpose in the context (Rom 1:18-32) is to show the need for the gospel in the Gentile world. As a result of idolatry, God "gave them over" to all kinds of sinful behavior. The trifold structure of the passage is a rhetorical device to drive home the point: a general complaint (vv. 24-25), consideration of a specific vice (vv. 26-27), and a culminating list of various vices (vv. 28-32). The distinction between the second and third sections may follow another Greek-styled distinction of sins of passion and sins of the unfit mind.
Paul is accused of everything from extreme prejudice to repressed homosexual urges for choosing same-gender sex as his focus in verses 26-27. But the scarcity of other references and the use of impersonal, rhetorical language here suggests, on the contrary, considerable detachment. The choice of homosexuality in particular is due to Paul's need to find a visible sign of humankind's fundamental rejection of God's creation at the very core of personhood. The numerous allusions to the creation account in the passage suggest that creation theology was foremost in Paul's mind in forming the passage.
Paul's terminology in the passage clearly denotes sin and not mere ritual impurity. The context is introduced by the threat of wrath against "godlessness and wickedness" (v. 18 ). Those in view in verses 26-27 have been given over to "passions, " a word group that elsewhere in Romans and consistently in Paul's writings connotes sin. Words like "impurity" (v. 24) and "indecent" (v. 27; cf. "degrading, " v. 24) had in Paul's time extended their meaning beyond ritual purity to moral and especially sexual wrongdoing. To do that which is "unnatural" (vv. 26-27) or "contrary to nature" was common parlance in contemporary literature for sexual perversion and especially homosexual Acts. Paul uses several expressions here that are more typical of Gentile moral writers not because he is attempting to soften his condemnation but because he wishes to find words peculiarly suited to expose the sinfulness of the Gentile world in its own terms.
The substance of Paul's proscription of homosexuality is significant in several respects. First, he mentions lesbian relations first and links lesbianism to male homosexuality. This is unusual if not unique in the ancient world, and it demonstrates that Paul's concern is less with progeniture than with rebellion against sexual differentiation or full created personhood. Second, Paul speaks in terms of mutual consent (e.g., "inflamed with lust for one another, " v. 27), effectively including Acts other than rape and pederasty in the prohibition. Third, the passage describes corporate as well as individual rebellion, a fact that may have implications for modern discussions of "orientation." In other words, although Paul does not address the question here directly, it is reasonable to suppose that he would consign the orientation toward homosexual Acts to the same category as heterosexual orientation toward adultery or fornication. The "natural" or "fleshly" proclivity is a specific byproduct of the corporate human rebellion and in no way justifies itself or the activity following from that proclivity. On the basis of any of these three implications, it is legitimate to use the word "homosexuality" as it is conceived in the modern world when speaking of Romans 1 and, by cautious extension, when speaking of the related biblical passages.
(S1): John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 2.7.13.
(S2): Greg L. Bahnsen, Homosexuality, 40-41
(S3): Thomas Schmidt, Arsenokoites
