|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:13 am
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/15547-arsenokoites-1-corinthians-69-1-timothy-110-homosexuality/page__st__20_____ Just so everyone knows beforehand, I totally didn't write any of this. I just copied it from that site. It appears Fortigurn isn't even the original writer, but that maybe he just quoted it? Though, maybe he just quoted someone and sent that to them in the quote? Either way, I'm not sure who wrote it all yet but I'd like to look more into it. It seems rather solid, though. _____ As regards the meaning of arsenokoitai (literally, “men lying [koitē] with a male [arsēn]”) note: 1. Clear connections to the Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse. The word is formed from the Greek words for “lying” (koitē) and “male” (arsēn) that appear in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Levitical prohibitions of men “lying with a male” (18:22; 20:13). The intentional link to the absolute Levitical prohibitions against man-male intercourse is self-evident from the following points: (1) The rabbis used the corresponding Hebrew abstract expression mishkav zakūr, “lying of/with a male,” drawn from the Hebrew texts of Lev 18:22 and 20:13. (2) The term or its cognates does not appear in any non-Jewish, non-Christian text prior to the sixth century C.E. This way of talking about male homosexuality is a distinctly Jewish and Christian formulation. It was undoubtedly used as a way of distinguishing their absolute opposition to homosexual practice, rooted in the Torah of Moses, from more accepting views in the Greco-Roman milieu. (3) The appearance of arsenokoitai in 1 Tim 1:10 makes the link to the Mosaic law explicit, since the list of vices of which arsenokoitai is a part are said to be derived from “the law” (1:9). 2. The implications of the context in early Judaism. That Jews of the period construed the Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse absolutely and against a backdrop of a male-female requirement is beyond dispute. For example, Josephus explained to Gentile readers that “the law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman. . . . But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199). There are no limitations placed on the prohibition as regards age, slave status, idolatrous context, or exchange of money. The only limitation is the sex of the participants. According to b. Sanh. 54a, the male with whom a man lays in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 may be “an adult or minor,” meaning that the prohibition of male-male unions is not limited to pederasty. Indeed, there is no evidence in ancient Israel, Second Temple Judaism, or rabbinic Judaism that any limitation was placed on the prohibition of man-male intercourse. 3. The choice of word: arsenokoitai not pederasts. Had a more limited meaning been intended—for example, pederasts—the terms paiderastai (“lover of boys”), paidomanai (“men mad for boys”), or paidophthoroi (“corrupters of boys”) could have been chosen. 4. The meaning of arsenokoitai and cognates in extant usage. The term arsenokoites and cognates after Paul (the term appears first in Paul) are applied solely to male-male intercourse but, consistent with the meaning of the partner term malakoi, not limited to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes. [7] This includes the translations of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. 5. Implications of the parallel in Rom 1:24-27. It is absurd to interpret the meaning of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 without consideration of the broad indictment of male-male intercourse expounded in Rom 1:27 (“males with males”). 6. Implications from the context of 1 Cor 5-7. This absolute and inclusive sense is further confirmed by the broader context of 1 Cor 5-7: (1) the parallel case of incest in ch. 5, which gives no exceptions for committed, loving unions and echoes both Levitical and Deuteronomic law; (2) the vice list in 6:9-10, where sexual offenders are distinguished from idolaters, consent is presumed, and a warning is given to believers not to engage in such behavior any longer; (3) the analogy to sex with a prostitute in 6:12-20, where Gen 2:24 is cited as the absolute norm (about a man being joined to a woman and “the two shall become one flesh”) and the Christian identity of the offender is presumed (so it cannot be said that Paul is opposed only to pagan homosexual practice); and (4) the issue of marriage in ch. 7, which presumes throughout that sex is confined to male-female marriage. 7. The relevance of 1 Cor 11:2-16. If inappropriate hairstyles or head coverings were a source of shame because they compromised the sexual differences of men and women, how much more would a man taking another man to bed be a shameful act, lying with another male “as though lying with a woman”? Paul did not make head coverings an issue vital for inclusion in God’s kingdom, but he did put same-sex intercourse on that level. 8. Implications of 1 Tim 1:9-10 corresponding to the Decalogue. At least the last half of the vice list in 1 Tim 1:8-10 (and possibly the whole of it) corresponds to the Decalogue. Why is that important? In early Judaism and Christianity the Ten Commandments often served as summary headings for the full range of laws in the Old Testament. The seventh commandment against adultery, which was aimed at guarding the institution of marriage, served as a summary of all biblical sex laws, including the prohibition of man-male intercourse. The vice of kidnapping, which follows arsenokoitai in 1 Tim 1:10, is typically classified under the eighth commandment against stealing (so Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides, the rabbis, and the Didache).[8] This makes highly improbable the attempt by some to pair arsenokoitai with the following term andrapodistai (kidnappers, men-stealers), as a way of limiting its reference to exploitative acts of man-male intercourse,[9] rather than with the inclusive sexual term pornoi (the sexually immoral) that precedes it. 9. The implication of the meaning of malakoi. If the term malakoi is not limited in its usage to boys or to men who are exploited by other men, then arsenokoitai certainly cannot be limited to men who have sex with boys or slaves. 10. Sex with adult males as worse than sex with adolescent boys. In the Greco-Roman world homosexual intercourse between an adult male and a male youth was regarded as a less exploitative form of same-sex eros than intercourse between two adult males. The key problem with homosexual intercourse—behaving toward the passive male partner as if the latter were female—was exacerbated when the intercourse was aimed at adult males who had outgrown the “softness” of immature adolescence. Consequently, even if arsenokoitai primarily had in mind man-boy love (and from all that we have said above, there is no evidence that it does), then, a fortiori, it would surely also take in man-man love. Although lacking the degree of documentation that I supply above, Dan O. Via, a New Testament scholar supportive of homosexual unions, rightly states: The Pauline texts . . . do not support this limitation of male homosexuality to pederasty. Moreover, some Greek sources suggest that—at least in principle—a relationship should not be begun until the boy is almost grown and should be lifelong. . . . I believe that [Richard] Hays is correct in holding that arsenokoites [in 1 Cor 6:9] refers to a man who engages in same-sex intercourse. . . . True the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts ([Dale] Martin 119). But in this case I believe the evidence suggests that it does. . . . First Cor[inthians] 6:9-10 simply classifies homosexuality as a moral sin that finally keeps one out of the kingdom of God.[10] Even Walter Wink, in his otherwise mean-spirited review of my book The Bible and Homosexual Practice, had to admit: Gagnon exegetes every biblical text even remotely relevant to the theme [of homosexual practice]. This section is filled with exegetical insights. I have long insisted that . . . efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it. . . . Gagnon imagines a request from the Corinthians to Paul for advice [about how they should respond to a man in a loving and committed union with another man], based on 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. “. . . . When you mentioned that arsenokoitai would be excluded from the coming kingdom of God, you were not including somebody like this man, were you?” . . . No, Paul wouldn’t accept that relationship for a minute.[11] A great irony in the attempt to remove mention of homosexual practice in the Heidelberg Catechism is that it treats the clear witness of Scripture as secondary to the confessions. Recent works on the Bible and homosexual practice by two Presbyterian professors have completely ignored the arguments and evidence that I have put forward in several publications: Jack Rogers’s Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006) and William Stacy Johnson’s A Time to Embrace: Same-Gender Relationships in Religion, Law, and Politics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). Neither is a biblical scholar and both clearly the lack the expertise necessary to evaluate the matter. In treating 1 Cor 6:9 (Rogers: pp. 73-75; Johnson: pp. 131-33) both are entirely beholden to the work of previous biblical scholars whose work I have already extensively rebutted (Rogers relying on Martti Nissinen, Dale Martin, and Victor Furnish; Johnson relying on Robin Scroggs).[12] Rogers and Johnson make no attempt to respond to any of my critiques of the work of these scholars or any of the other arguments that I put forward. __________________ [7] See specifics in Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 317-23. [8] See Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 335-36. [9] Contra Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 119-20. [10] Via, Homosexuality and the Bible, 11, 13. [11] Walter Wink, “To Hell with Gays?” Christian Century 119.13 (2002): 33; for my rebuttal of his review see “Gays and the Bible: A Response to Walter Wink,” Christian Century 119.17 (2002): 40-43; “Are There Universally Valid Sex Precepts? A Critique of Walter Wink’s Views on the Bible and Homosexuality,” HBT 24 (2002): 72-125 (also online: http://www.robgagnon...WinkHBTResp.pdf ) [12] Rogers also cites Brian Blount but Blount has done no critical work on the subject of any importance. Finally, Rogers cites Prof. Marion Soards of Louisville Seminary as someone from the anti-homosex side who allegedly thinks that 1 Cor 6:9 has “no direct application to faithful, God-loving, twenty-first-century Christians who are homosexual” (75-76). However, Prof. Soards communicated to me in an email dated 6/10/06: “Rogers does not seem to read my intentions with clarity. . . but if anything I am more than ever persuaded of the relevance of the range of OT/NT texts for the current discussion of homosexual behavior. Actually to put it succinctly, I find your own analysis/exegesis persuasive.”
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:21 am
Now, this is my writing. Haha. Anyway, here are some links to check out as well: _____ 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God._____ 1 Timothy 1:8-11
But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted._____ Romans 1:26, 27
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error._____ Leviticus 18:22
'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination._____ Leviticus 20:13
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them._____ http://concordances.org/greek/733.htmhttp://biblos.com/1_corinthians/6-9.htmhttp://concordances.org/hebrew/7901.htmhttp://biblos.com/leviticus/18-22.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:10 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:35 pm
I have heard the argument that Leviticus 18:22 is condemning in the context of Molech worship. Basically, that the homosexual acts themselves were not wrong, but because they are in the context of idol ritual worship. Okay, first, let's look at the entire chapter:
_
Leviticus 18:1-30
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
“Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘I am the LORD your God.
‘You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.
‘You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God.
‘So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.
‘None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD.
‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness.
‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.
‘The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover.
‘The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours.
‘The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, born to your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s blood relative.
‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s blood relative.
‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother; you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.
‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.
‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness.
‘You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.
‘Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity.
‘You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her.
‘You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
‘Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
‘But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you
(for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled);
so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.
‘For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.
‘Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.’”
_
Interesting to note that my Bible says "Laws On Immoral Relations" at the top of this chapter. Anyway, reading through this list of immoralities, what makes one come to the conclusion that they are only in the context of Molech worship? It seems to me that, because homosexuality here is next to Molech worship, that people try to twist it and fit it into some context that isn't there. Reading through this, what I get from this is that these are all just laws against immorality period. There is a section against Molech, of course, yet it seems to have it's own context, just like homosexuality and bestiality also have their own contexts.
Okay, so now we have two different sides both claiming the context is saying something different. Now, I'll provide support for why I think my interpretation is the correct interpretation. Let's check out Leviticus 20:
_
Leviticus 20:1-27
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
“You shall also say to the sons of Israel:
‘Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
‘I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name.
‘If the people of the land, however, should ever disregard that man when he gives any of his offspring to Molech, so as not to put him to death,
then I Myself will set My face against that man and against his family, and I will cut off from among their people both him and all those who play the harlot after him, by playing the harlot after Molech.
‘As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people.
‘You shall consecrate yourselves therefore and be holy, for I am the LORD your God.
‘You shall keep My statutes and practice them; I am the LORD who sanctifies you.
‘If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.
‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
‘If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
‘If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
‘If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
‘If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.
‘If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal.
‘If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
‘If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt.
‘If there is a man who lies with a menstruous woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow, and she has exposed the flow of her blood; thus both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
‘You shall also not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for such a one has made naked his blood relative; they will bear their guilt.
‘If there is a man who lies with his uncle’s wife he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they will bear their sin. They will die childless.
‘If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They will be childless.
‘You are therefore to keep all My statutes and all My ordinances and do them, so that the land to which I am bringing you to live will not spew you out.
‘Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I will drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.
‘Hence I have said to you, “You are to possess their land, and I Myself will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples.
‘You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean.
‘Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.
‘Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.’”
_
Notice that Leviticus 20 also condemns some of the same acts as Leviticus 18 does, however, the order is different (we also see punishments put in place for these acts, such as capital punishment, like we have today for certain crimes, in the form of lethal injection). So, now we see Molech worship all the way at the top (starting at verse 2) and homosexuality nowhere near it (starting at verse 13). In Leviticus 20, there is no logical reason to think any of these other things are in context with Molech worship. I also suggest the same in Leviticus 18: I think it is just as plain that they are not in the same context there. The Molech verse just happens to be near the homosexual verse in Levitucus 18, that's all; nothing to link the two together.
So, I have suggested that they are indeed not in the context of idol worship, though others may claim otherwise. I have also shown another place in Scripture to back up my claim, thus currently, my claim seems to have more support than theirs does. The only thing I've heard of for support on their end would be history, things people did in Molech worship. They have no verses to back them that I have seen and frankly, I have no evidence to begin with that they even did these things as Molech worship (I'm not saying they didn't, I'm simply saying I have only ever heard claims that they did; I have never been given evidence to support the claim).
So, let's assume they did indeed do these things as Molech worship. Some problems with this argument would be:
1). This still doesn't mean the context has to be talking about this. It is totally plausible that this area is still plainly talking about the actual act: there is still nothing other than the placing of Molech worship next to homosexuality that would even hint that the homosexuality is wrong as Molech worship only. Basically, even if they did do homosexual acts as Molech worship, it still isn't plainly ONLY against homosexuality as Molech worship, but instead can well be against the actual act of homosexuality altogether.
2). This argument doesn't stand against Leviticus 20, because we no longer see Molech worship near homosexuality, so how can homosexuality be in the context of Molech worship? This list has many, if not all, of the same things being condemned, so what reason do we have to believe they are completely unrelated to each other?
_
Anyway, it should be rather plain, looking at the Hebrew, that homosexuality here is condemned. You should be able to catch that in one of the links in my earlier posts. I don't believe it is only in the context of idol worship, as there isn't enough evidence that I have seen to support that claim and honestly the context seems rather plain that it's just homosexuality and just Molech worship. So, if it isn't in Molech worship only, but just the act itself, we can certainly say homosexuality is wrong, in the Levitical law.
Okay, so what? We're not under the law anymore, right? I mean, the law says we can't eat shellfish or wear clothing made of two different kinds of material, so do you follow those? Why does this matter?
If you read the article up above, the first thing that's posted, I think you may understand why. It actually covers some of this, too, probably better than I can. I just wanted to add some Scriptural backing; some of my own points. To give a quick answer as to why, we can link this OT prohibition to the New Covenant: this means it is still prohibited!
I also wanted to point out that we see, Biblically, that marriage is between a man and a woman. All of the marriage instructions are for males and females; husband and wife. We see no instructions for male and male or female and female, and actually, such a thing would totally throw off comparisons that are made. For example, when the husband is compared to Christ and the wife compared to the church. If a woman is to submit to the man; the wife to the husband, as the church also submits to Christ, how do relationships with male/male or female/female work? Who submits and who is the head in the relationship? The reasoning for a woman submitting to a man is explained Biblically, but how would you come to such reasoning with male/male or female/female relationships?
If you want to look through the marriage instructions, here are some, if not all of them, as well as some interesting things concerning gender roles to add to them:
_
1 Corinthians 7; 1 Peter 3:1-7; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18, 19; Titus 2:2-8; 1 Timothy 2:8-15; and 1 Corinthians 11:3-16
_
I also wanted to point out that, in the beginning (Genesis), God made them male and female. The woman was made as a helper for man; the very first marriage which God ordained and which is our model for marriage was between a man and a woman. God made the man's wife from his rib and He made her as a helper for him.
There are no examples Scripturally of male/male or female/female models of relationships. We are given the model of Adam and Eve, the first marriage, and all of the instructions for marriage we have from the Scriptures are for male and female.
Oh, and I also wanted to address, I have seen people try to twist relationships in the Bible into homosexual relationships. One great example would be Jonathan and David. This is because Jonathan and David were very close, there are passages such as 2 Samual 1:26 and David and Jonathan kissed (1 Samuel 20:41).
First of all, where does it ever say, in any of this, that they were homosexual? They were certainly very close, David loving Jonathan even as his own soul, for example, but still, this doesn't say they were homosexual. What about the kissing then? Okay, let me give you a modern day example. I know a guy who came from Nigeria and he and his brother would take showers together. Now, over here? That sounds very homosexual, however, over there? There was nothing wrong with it: no homosexuality intended. Just taking showers. They could even hold hands walking together down the street, that wasn't seen as homosexual either.
We're talking about differences with a culture here. In the American culture, yes, it would seem very odd for a male and male or a female and female to kiss. However, just like in my friend's culture, things were different. What could be interpreted as homosexuality here wouldn't have even been given a second glance there. How many cultures in modern times kiss on the cheek or on the lips even? Does this mean they are homosexual, or is it instead that this is a way of saying hello or even showing affection (though not having to be romantic affection)?
Another supposed relationship I have heard would be Ruth and Naomi. Naomi was the mother of Ruth's husband, who died. Ruth, Naomi's daughter-in-law, was very loyal and wanted to remain with Naomi, who had no husband. They were two widows who lived together, Ruth going out and working in the field to help her mother, Naomi. Nothing homosexual is ever suggested in this story, which is found in the Book of Ruth. In fact, Ruth gets married to a male, Boaz.
Something to point out about both of these supposedly homosexual relationships would be that the Scriptures do not teach that David and Jonathan or Ruth and Naomi were married. On the contrary, David did have wives and Naomi had a husband before he died, while Ruth had a husband who died and she even ends up getting married to yet again another male. Sex outside of marriage is a sin; homosexuality is also a sin.
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if people would try to suggest more supposed homosexual relationships in the Bible, but really, if you come across them? Just look at the context. You'll find out that they weren't homosexual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
