Christianity and Homosexuality

Biblaridion


	Sexual Ethics

For the PDF version of this article click here

“Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, where is the God of judgment?” (Mal.2:17)

Recently the Anglican Church has endured a period of controversy and turmoil provoked by issues concerning human sexuality, particularly over same sex relationships. The issue was temporarily resolved at the last synod by a hypocritical slight of hand; an artificial delineation was made between congregation and clergy. In other words it’s all right in the pews but not in the pulpit. It was obvious to everyone that this compromise would not last, and would eventually be challenged. A homosexual agenda is being ruthlessly promoted in the Christian church with pressure for “Christian gays” to out themselves – no one is immune even denominations as diverse as Methodists, Baptists, church of God, Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses and Christadelphians are being targeted. [1] Many of these anonymous sites purport to be from disenfranchised “gay Christians” but are possibly part of a wider “gay” media drive to destabilize Christianity by promoting immorality.

It is notable that both sides of the divide use the Bible to justify their actions. These arguments are important and should be critically examined, especially since human rights legislation may enforce anti-discrimination policies on churches. When the issue is examined three main arguments are presented:

(1) The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, condones slavery, sexism and homophobia. It is an anachronism and cannot be applied to “enlightened” humanity; the church must therefore adapt the “ethics” and “principles” of Scripture to the modern age.

(2) Certain passages are directly re-interpreted to justify deviant behavior.

(3) If some people are genetically programmed for same sex attraction how can they be held responsible?

This article will endeavor to examine each of these arguments critically, but first we must recognize that the Bible is neither an ethical treatise nor a handbook of morals. The ancient Israelites, like many believers today, would not be prone to distinguish sharply between morality and religion. What is morally right to do is so because God wills it or because it is consistent with the divinely ordained structure of the world. Consequently, it is especially important in biblical ethics to determine the theological warrant for morality. This includes the specific appeals made to God’s will as well as the general theological beliefs that serve to validate the content of the moral teachings. Using this approach we can distill the fundamental values in biblical ethics, rather than specific moral norms and directives that we meet on the surface level of the text. This is the approach that Jesus Christ always used. A good example of this is the divorce question, which was moved from a normative moral ruling to a fundamental ethical value in accordance with the divine will.

The abolition of slavery is a relatively recent phenomenon. In antiquity enslavement was common, and for millennia was accepted as normal by different cultures. Slaves were often regarded as property, but in more enlightened cultures they could purchase liberation or were manumitted, sometimes achieving the status of adopted family. Although the Bible does not condone slavery, it does however regulate the treatment of slaves. In the first instance this may seem like tacit approval of an oppressive and essentially degrading system, but this impression is only gained through a failure to recognize the theological motif. It has often been termed as liberation theology and is not confined to the Old Testament, but is also a major New Testament theme.

Essentially no one is free. Freedom is an illusion, for we are all slaves to our desires, slaves to sin and eventually enslaved by death. The nation of Israel was collectively God’s servant (slave), a holy nation chosen to do his will, to demonstrate his saving grace and righteousness, to act as his agent in liberating the surrounding nations. Israel failed in her calling, but the man Jesus Christ, who, although he was master of all, came in the form of a servant (slave), took upon himself the collective burden.

Slavery in Scripture becomes a metaphor for the natural human condition; in actuality the only freedom we have is the choice to serve sin or to serve God. The Bible does not advocate slavery; in fact it abhors the wretched condition. [2] The slavery or service the Bible advocates is entirely voluntary and liberating:

“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.” (Rom.6: 22)

Unfortunately we still live in a world where a billion people suffer poverty due to economic slavery, where children are exploited as sex slaves, where creation itself is subjected to the vanity of sin and death, and where “enlightened humanity” has the temerity to accuse Scripture of supporting injustice.

It is often stated that the Bible is patriarchal and portrays women in a subordinate position, as men’s chattels. [3] This criticism is caused by a failure to understand both the cultural setting and the theology, by imposing modern western values on ancient oriental societies.

Oriental societies practiced a different system of norms, and it must be remembered that divine grace is progressively revealed within the constraints of space and time; nevertheless, this does not imply divine approval. A good example of this is the practice of polygamy. Although the patriarchs were polygamists, and the practice is never expressly condemned, all the narratives concerning polygamy show it in a negative light, recording the dissension, jealousies and trouble caused by such relationships. This demonstrates that any deviation from the divine will as expressed at the very beginning leads to self-imposed hardship.

Attention is often drawn to the portrayal of the first woman as nothing more than man’s “spare rib” indicating an inferior status. This is not the intention of the text, nor would it have been understood as such by the ancients, rather the opposite is true – the woman is literally “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” and this union is only truly completed when they become “one flesh” again in the act of procreation. Eve becomes the “mother of the living” (the meaning of her name) and the vehicle through which salvation would be extended to her descendants. This theological motif is continued in the New Testament, where the church metaphorically emerges from the pierced side of the Messiah after he, like Adam, is put into a “deep sleep”.

In the Old Testament the relationship between a man and his wife is a paradigm for that between God and Israel, in the New Testament this becomes a metaphor for the relationship between Jesus and his church. Within this paradigm the act of adultery is equivalent to idolatry, and as it is impossible for God to be unfaithful it is always the woman (nation) who is portrayed as the adulterer. This is particularly the case in the Torah and can be observed in the waters of Jealousy, the test for an unfaithful wife (Num.5: 11-31), which was literally applied by Moses to the unfaithful nation (Ex.32: 20).

Scripture uses anthropomorphism to portray God as a loving Father and Husband, but the creator of all life is not limited by the concept of gender. Immortal beings do not need to procreate and therefore gender differences are unnecessary in the eschaton. The gender issue is therefore only theologically important in the present age, and only because it has something significant to teach us.

The Pauline epistles are often quoted out of context in order to support the charge of sexism, failing to recognize that the apostle is addressing specific problems regarding liturgical practice, or that he makes a clear distinction between the role of women in the church and the status of women in the church. Paul is unjustly accused of holding Jewish prejudices over the inferiority of women. A contemporary Jewish prayer was to thank God that one was born free and not a slave, a Jew and not a Gentile, a man and not a woman. The apostle was well aware of this attitude and reversed the sentiments:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal.3: 28).

The attitude of the apostle Paul towards women was far more progressive than his contemporaries, for he was following the lead of his master, who even conversed with Gentile women, a most unusual practice for a Jewish rabbi. Uniquely, Jesus had a following of faithful women, who were privileged to see the risen Christ, even before the apostles!

Not only did Israel fail to realize her evangelizing mission but her religion became nationalistic and exclusivist. This was never the divine intention, the Bible is not sexist or racist, in fact the opposite is true; the Gospel message preached by Paul is about breaking down barriers and granting all people access to divine mercy. God is no respecter of persons. The apostle Peter has the following to say about Paul’s epistles:

“He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Pet.3: 15-17).

His comments are as valid today, as when they were written.

The argument used is often stated as follows:

“The rules against sodomy in Leviticus 19 are not legislating for normal human affairs. Throughout, the authors of Leviticus are chiefly concerned with temple ritual. The practices forbidden in these chapters featured prominently in the idolatrous religions of the near east, which, as we know from the Bible, the people of Israel found extremely alluring: ritual bestiality (as practiced in Egypt), child sacrifice, and the cultic use of menstrual blood in sorcery. The verses against sodomy (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) forbid temple prostitution: in the late seventh century, there had been a house of sacred male prostitutes in God’s temple in Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:7). It is this kind of worship, which defiles the land that concerns Leviticus.”

(Karen Armstrong –The Guardian 30-06-2003)

According to this interpretation child sacrifice, bestiality and sodomy are not intrinsically evil, but only when combined with false worship. Although the text has been placed within its cultural background, scant attention has been paid to exercising rigid hermeneutic principles. The textual context is the condemnation of incestuous and inappropriate relationships. The lesson for Israel was that they were a Holy nation (because they served a Holy God) and therefore they had to keep themselves separate from the practices of the surrounding nations. The idea of “holiness” or separateness extended to every aspect of life, even agricultural practices were regulated to demonstrate and reinforce this principle.

“Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material” (Lev.19:19).

For the ancient Israelite there was no distinction between worshiping God and living daily life, this should be the same for Christians. The Israelite was not allowed to “mix different kinds” nor were they allowed to intermarry with the surrounding nations, or adopt their sexual and cultic practices.

To state that the rules in Leviticus 19 are “not legislating for normal human affairs” is mere sophistry, are we to believe that the prohibition on lying, stealing, oppression of the poor and disabled, slander, revenge, adultery, incest and homosexuality (all mentioned in 19 and 20) are only pertinent in a “cultic setting”? [4]

“The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 condemns homosexual rape and the violation of the sacred rules of hospitality rather than homosexuality per se. It has nothing to say about the open, stable gay relationships that are essentially a feature of modern western society, and did not exist in their current form in the biblical world”

(Karen Armstrong –The Guardian 30-06-2003)

The ancient orient valued hospitality very highly; this is understandable as travelers often crossed harsh and barren territory. It was customary to provide for the travelers needs and to feed and rest their animals, in the certainty that the favor would someday be returned. This unspoken reciprocal agreement between society and the individual (to offer hospitality to strangers) benefited everyone. The way the strangers (angels) were received in Genesis 19 contrasts starkly with the hospitable and gracious reception of “strangers” by Abraham in chapter 18. The city of Sodom was apparently infamous for its vile treatment of strangers, which is why Lot sat in the gate hoping to intercept any visitors in order to offer them protection. A similar incident occurred in the city of Gibeah in the territory of Benjamin, but in that case the ultimate humiliation (in a patriarchal society) of homosexual rape was avoided by the sacrifice of a concubine (Judges 19). It is therefore entirely true that Genesis 19 represented the violation of sacred hospitality, and is not per se about the condemnation of homosexuality. But the homosexual act is not merely incidental to the story, it is included in order to demonstrate the complete degeneration of that society; it deviated not only from acceptable religious, cultural, and social practices of the day, but also from any sexual norms. Sodom became a paradigm for pride and materialism (Ezek.16:49) for blatant sin (Isa.3:9) persecution (Rev.11:8), and immorality (Jude7).

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrah…giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7).

The term strange (other) flesh is probably a reference to the angels, (the men of Sodom attempted to force the angels) the biblical Greek and Hebrew knows no word for homosexuality, it is usually described as “lying with mankind as with womankind” (Lev.18:20), the Greek word porneia (fornication or immorality) includes promiscuity, adultery and (in this case) homosexuality. (The rare word arsenokoitai [literally "men lying with men," NRSV "sodomites"] used in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 may have been coined by Hellenistic Jews from the language of Leviticus as they found it in Greek translation). Every mention of homosexuality in the Bible is in a negative light. The reason that stable gay relationships did not exist in the biblical world is because they were forbidden on pain of death.

People with perverse minds often insinuate that David and Jonathan’s relationship was of a sexual nature. David’s lament at the death of Jonathan and his father Saul are used to substantiate this claim: “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Sam 1:25-27).David states that Jonathan’s love was unique, even surpassing the love found between a man and a woman. Many fail to realize that David had a particular woman in mind; he was in fact referring to Jonathan’s sister Michal to whom he was married (1 Sam18: 20). In the past Michal had despised David’s dedication to his God (2 Sam.6: 20-22) and as a consequence “she had no child unto the day of her death” (2 Sam.6: 22-24), which probably meant that David had no marital relations with her from that day forward.

In contrast to his sister, Jonathan was willing to take a subordinate position to David, even forfeiting his right to kingship (1 Sam.23: 17). When did this mutual love and respect commence? According to the narrative it started after David had slain Goliath. Jonathan was so moved by David’s courageous display of faith, and by his noble but humble bearing before his father, King Saul, that “his soul was knit with the soul of David” (N.I.V. he became one in spirit with David) because he loved him as himself (1 Sam 18:1-3). These men shared a bond of fellowship far greater than mere carnal love; it is only the degenerate minds of the truly reprobate that fail to understand.

“In the same spirit, St Paul’s condemnation of the ‘unnatural practices’ of the Greco-Roman world springs from a visceral disgust with idolatry, the root cause of all the disorders in Paul’s long list (Romans 1:20-31).”

(Karen Armstrong –The Guardian 30-06-2003)

The passage referred to is not about Greco-Roman idolatry, but rather about the golden-calf incident recorded in Exodus 32. The Israelites had, “changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass” (Ps.106:20). Paul paraphrases this quote from Psalm 106 in verse 23 of Romans 1 – “and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.” It was only the Jews who changed the glory of God, “Hath a nation changed their gods which are yet no gods? But my people hath changed their glory (Paul’s phrase) for that which doth not profit” (Jer.2:11). “They changed the truth of God into a lie (Old Testament idiom for an idol)” (v.25)

The description of these “idols” is remarkably similar to the cherubim (with a man, eagle, lion and ox face; Ezek.1:10) with the “creeping things” probably a reference to the snake Nehushtan, created by Moses as a representation of crucified sin, but worshipped by the Israelites as a god later in their history (2 Kgs.18:4). Even though Moses was commanded to make the cherubim for the tabernacle, it was not intended that they become a substitute for the glory of God. They represented the glory of God in creation (Isa.6:3) – both the natural creation and the spiritual (Israel); “But they served the creature more than the Creator” (v.25). In the Old Testament the spiritual counterpart of idolatry was adultery, the betrayal of a faithful covenant relationship. The golden-calf incident became the excuse for an orgy: “they rose up to play” (Ex.32:6). Paul informs us that “God gave them up to vile passions” among which homosexuality was predominant. It is entirely correct that Paul had a visceral disgust of Idolatry, whether Jewish or Gentile in origin, but his argument is that the outward working of turning away from God is displayed in “vile” and “unseemly” acts. Moreover, this outward display characterizes a reprobate mind, a mind that is alien to the things of God, a mind “without understanding” a mind that ignores God’s judgment on these matters and actually approves (justifies) people who break his commandments (v.32).

While it is true that, “the root cause of all the disorders in Paul’s long list is idolatry (turning away from God)” , this does not mean that the behavior condemned by Paul is somehow acceptable as long as one remains in a relationship with God. Is it acceptable to be wicked, greedy, murderous, insolent, proud…etc…and a homosexual…etc… (v.24-31), as long as we are a Christian? In fact Paul says that the opposite is true, this sort of behavior is the external manifestation of a broken relationship. We actually divorce ourselves from fellowship with God in the same way as an adulterous partner does in a broken marriage. One cannot claim to be a Christian and continue unabated with unwholesome behavior or attitudes. A Holy God demands Holy behavior, moreover, the apostle warns us that those who approve of, or advocate, ungodly behavior are on a par with those who practice the same (v.31).

(Rom.9:19)

It is often stated that homosexuality is a “gift” from God. How then can a just God find fault with people who are attracted to the same sex, if he made them that way? It has become fashionable in certain circles to allow genetic determinism to absolve individuals of responsibility for their actions. This simplistic view of human beings, as nothing more than sophisticated robots; the sum total of their genes, is flawed logic which consequently leads to the cessation of individual responsibility. Such simplistic models are being increasingly challenged, even in the field of psychiatry the justification of deviant moral behavior on the grounds of mental illness (the insanity plea) is being re-examined: “Paradoxically, the old, prescientific-religious explanation of human behavior is more faithful to the facts than the modern, scientific-psychiatric explanation of it…. …..God…..does not distinguish between two kinds of conduct – one rational, for which man is responsible, and another irrational, for which he is not. Being held responsible for our actions is what renders us fully human –it is the glory with which God endows everyone, and the burden he imposes on everyone.” [5]

The Director for Human Genome Research summarizes the issue as follows: "As genetic predispositions to everything from cancer or diabetes to novelty-seeking behavior or homosexuality are being reported almost daily in the scientific literature (and regrettably often overstated in the popular press), a new and dangerous brand of genetic determinism is subtly invading our culture. Carried to its extreme, this 'Genes R Us' mentality would deny the value of social interventions to maximize individual potential, destabilize many of our institutions (perhaps especially the criminal justice system), and even deny the existence of free will. Surely a world in which every aspect of human behavior is hard-wired into our genes cannot comfortably exist with the concept of personal responsibility and free will to try (albeit not successfully for very long) to follow the moral law of right and wrong which people of faith believe has been written into our hearts by a loving and holy God." [6]

Science recognizes that the interplay between nature and nurture is extremely complex and although it is true that genetic predispositions exist (i.e. for violence or alcoholism), this does not rob the individual of the dignity to choose, it merely makes it more difficult. But God does not try men above what they are able to bear. It is presumed that Jesus has nothing to contribute to this “modern problem,” this is however untrue for in his characteristic manner he reduces everything to a fundamental principle – one man and one woman joined together for life – this is the divine will. His answer on the question of divorce is just as valid for homosexuality:

“But he said unto them [his disciples], All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mothers’ womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs by men: and there be eunuchs, which were made eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. He that is able to receive it let him receive it.” (Mtt.19:11-12).

Wenham and Heth comment on this passage as follows; “In other words, ‘to understand’ or ‘comprehend’ or ‘gain insight’ into the message of Jesus is a privilege accorded only to His disciples (cf. John 6:65; 8:43). This means that those who do not accept Jesus’ teaching are the unbelieving outsiders. In Matthew 19:11 they are set over against Jesus’ disciples who have been granted this ability…..but just because the disciples have been given the grace to perceive divine revelation (cf. Matt.11:25//Luke 10:21; Mtt.16:17) does not mean that they are exempt from making a concerted effort to realize the fruit of such teaching in their own lives. True discipleship involves conduct commensurate with the believers’ new relationship with God. This is the message of the parable of the sower (Matt.13:3-9, 18-23).

Therefore, a life devoid of the conduct demanded reveals a life devoid of any evidence of the new age, the presence of the Kingdom, and such a life results in exclusion from the future Kingdom regardless of one’s claims and actions (7:21-23). And where Jesus has spoken a particularly difficult word and the disciples react as if not even they could live up to such demands (as many react today on Jesus’ prohibition on divorce and remarriage), it would not be surprising to hear Jesus exhort His followers to faith. This is precisely what we find in Matthew 19:12d: “he who is able to accept this let him accept it.” This does not mean that the acceptance of his teaching is optional. This is the same sort of call for insight and fertile hearing found elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel. Sometimes they have parallels in other Gospels: “Let the reader understand” (Mtt.24:15//Mk.13:14); and after the parable of the sower is spoken to the multitudes: “He who has ears let him hear” (Mtt.13:9//Mk.4:9//Lk.8:8)” [7]

The end conclusion is that God will accord the believer the grace and strength to live a celibate life should circumstances make it necessary.

“The Bible is not a holy encyclopedia, giving clear and unequivocal information; nor is it a legal code that can be applied indiscriminately to our very different society. Lifting isolated texts out of their literary and cultural context can only distort its message. Instead we should look at the underlying principles of biblical religion, and apply these creatively to our own situation”

(Karen Armstrong –The Guardian 30-06-2003)

Our society is indeed very different, but our human nature is the same – and therefore we face the same problems as the ancients, only in a different setting. All the vices that existed in the ancient world are still with us. Human nature has not changed, nor has divine nature. The underlying principle of biblical religion is summarized in Lev.11:44: “For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am Holy.” Black is still black and white is still white no matter how “creatively we apply these to our own situation.”

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear”

(2 Tim.4: 3 NIV).

It would be wrong for Christians to discriminate against people on the grounds of sexual orientation; everyone should be treated with compassion, respect and dignity. Jesus Christ did the same with the publicans, sinners and harlots in his day. The self-righteous Pharisees had no need of a savior; it was the marginalized element of society who willingly heard his message. They recognized their need for a savior and repented. Jesus Christ preached forgiveness of sin, but sin can only be forgiven if there is repentance and a change of lifestyle. The Lord said the following to the woman caught in adultery: “Neither do I condemn thee, go thy way and sin no more” (John 8:11). It is essential that the Christian treats other sinners with humility in the knowledge that he or she owes their very life to the saving grace of God – otherwise we are in danger of becoming like the self-righteous Pharisees who looked down on the common people. On the other hand it is important for the church to have a clear and unambiguous teaching on this matter, it is a contradiction to continue in a sinful lifestyle and claim to be a Christian. It makes no difference if the sinner is a harlot, adulterer, murderer, drug addict, homosexual…etc all sins can be forgiven if the sinner is truly repentant.

“Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hand of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life”

(Ezek.13:22) [8]

[1] Here follows a few examples of the proliferation of recruiting or apologetic sites for “gay” Christians these are; Christadelphian, JW, Methodist and Baptist sites. Although these denominations are doctrinally very different (some Trinitarian, others Unitarian) they share a problem common to all religions (also non Christian); the incursion and justification of immorality:

http://www.geocities.com/gaychristadelphian/

http://www.gayxjw.org/activejw.html

http://www.umaffirm.org/

http://www.rainbowbaptists.org/

[2] Christopher Wright has the following to say in God’s People in God’s Land (pg.239-40): Man is the shadow of a god; a slave is the shadow of a man…Akkadian proverb. In contrast to the proverb quoted here, the height of Old Testament thinking on slavery is reached in the words of Job 31:15: “Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?” Although this is the clearest expression of the slave’s fellow humanity, it is not the only evidence for such an awareness in ancient Israel. There is very wide agreement among scholars that the Israelites’ attitude toward slavery, particularly as it becomes apparent in some of their laws, was undoubtedly unique in the ancient Near Eastern world. While it is obvious that Israel regarded slaves as the property of their masters, in common with what J.P.M. van der Ploeg calls the ius gentium (“law of the nations”, i.e., common legal conventions) of the time, there was also a sense that slavery was inherently unnatural and abhorrent-indeed, the result of a curse in the case of the Canaanites, who probably made up the bulk of slaves in early Israel (Gen.9:25; Josh.9:23). This feeling produced a trait of humanity even in the laws where the property status of slaves is at its starkest. Mayer Sulzberger notes: “Among the Hebrews the slave was not obliged to struggle for recognition as a human being.” Furthermore, this attitude was not something that arose by social or ethical evolution. It seems on the contrary to have been present in Israelite legal traditions from the earliest period and to be bound up with Israel’s belief that their own history as a nation had begun in slavery. Indeed, it is precisely in this area-namely, Israel’s attitude toward slaves and other classes of oppressed and vulnerable people- that their foundational tradition of national delivery from slavery through the Exodus had its most profound ethical impact.

[3] C. Wright in God’s People in God’s Land (pg.188) quotes Mace: The idea seems to be almost universally and very tenaciously held that she was little better than a chattel belonging to her husband. This conception, I hold, is gravely inaccurate and mischievous. It is true that the Hebrew wife did not fulfil public and social functions, and was therefore confined largely to the limits of the home. But to read into this state of affairs all that it would imply in our modern society is to make a fundamental error of judgment. In the highly urbanized community life of today, a woman confined exclusively to the sphere of the home would certainly be deprived of many rights and opportunities. But in the society the Old Testament describes, the home was virtually the centre of the community life, and few events which took place could be considered as falling outside the sphere of the family. The Hebrew wife therefore, as the proper mistress of the home, far from being a slave in her own world, was something decidedly more like a queen in it.

[4] The practice of cultic prostitution has been challenged in recent publications. It is known from the Ugaritic texts that the Canaanite cult (predating the Hebrew) also included holy men (duties unknown) called qedeshim. Perhaps a desire to rid the Hebrew cult of any vestige of Canaanite influence led to the Deuteronomic law against these functionaries. Thus King Josiah, in addition to destroying Baalim altars and cutting down groves, "broke down the houses of the qedeshim that were by the house of the Lord" (2 Kings 23:7). King Asa similarly "took the qedeshim out of the land" (1 Kings 15:12But whatever the qedeshim were, Frymer-Kensky and others consider it presumptuous to translate the term as "cult prostitutes" (RSV) or, as the KJV renders it, "sodomites" (1 Kings 14:24,22:46, 2 Kings 23:7). Carol Yee suggests that a better translation of qedeshah, etc., in the absence of more information, would be "hierodule" (as used also by Theodor Gaster in editing Frazer's The New Golden Bough, and by Phyllis Bird), which simply means "temple servant."

[5] Mental illness: Psychiatry’s Phlogiston- Thomas Szasz

[6] Frances S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.Director, National Centre for Human Genome Research from forward to "Playing God?" by Ted Peters

[7] Jesus’ discussion with his disciples about the rich young man entering the Kingdom (in the same chapter 19:23-26) follows the same structure. In both verses 9-12 and 23-6 of Matthew 19 there is a harsh word from Jesus (v.v.9 and 23-4) followed by a stunned, human reaction from his disciples (vv.10 and 25) resolved by a word from Jesus, referring back to his harsh statement, on the possibility of even humanly impossible things in a God-given situation (v.v. 11 and 26). Pages 58-60 Jesus and Divorce. Gordon J. Wenham & William E. Heth.

[8] The only unforgivable sin is against the Holy Spirit – does this included distorting the interpretation of God’s Spirit gifted Word?

Please copy and paste this link to our site:

    <p>
      <a href="http://www.biblaridion-online.net" >
Biblaridion - prophetic witnessing magazine</a>
    </p>

If you prefer copy and paste our linked icon here is the HTML you should use to add this icon to your Web page:

    <p>
      <a href="http://biblaridion-online.net/"><img border="0"
          src="http://www.biblaridion-online.net/images/link.gif"
          alt="Biblaridion link icon" height="32" width="70"></a>
    </p>

"For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (Rev.19:10)