Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
A message to those behind the mask….
In the beginning of any debate worth having, the opening statements do not merely set the tone—they reveal the foundation upon which each side stands. One side, rooted in covenantal context, speaks from the breath of Yahweh, from the original design encoded in the Hebrew text, from the multidimensional architecture of divine intention. The other, shaped by historical linguistic academia, stands upon centuries of translation, cultural drift, and institutional scaffolding. The contrast is not subtle. It is seismic.
Covenantal context begins not with ceremony, not with law, not with institution—but with design. The Hebrew scriptures, when engaged in their full dimensionality, do not speak in flat lines or abstract categories. They speak in cubes—each letter a six-sided structure of meaning, composed of character, number, and pictograph. This is not metaphor. It is divine technology. The language of Yahweh is alive, layered, and resistant to distortion when read in its full form. It is not a system of moral abstractions. It is a living blueprint of covenantal function. Every word carries weight, every letter carries breath, and every phrase carries the rhythm of divine order.
Man’s linguistic academia, by contrast, operates in the realm of flattening. It takes the cube and presses it into a line. It takes the breath and converts it into bureaucracy. It takes the joining and turns it into a contract. Through centuries of translation—from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English—the original voice of Yahweh has been compressed, distorted, and often replaced. The Septuagint, translated in the third century BCE by Hellenized Jews in Alexandria, Egypt, was the first major inflection point. These translators, immersed in Greek philosophy and cultural norms, rendered Hebrew terms into Greek equivalents that carried moralistic and emotional connotations foreign to the original text. The word to’evah, which in Hebrew describes a covenantal violation through positional abuse, was flattened into bdelygma, a term of moral disgust. This single shift opened the door for centuries of misinterpretation, condemnation, and spiritual violence.
The covenantal voice does not speak in condemnation of identity. It speaks in protection of design. It does not target innate biological realities. It targets violations of trust, distortions of authority, and betrayals of covenant. The Hebrew text, when read in its full cube form, reveals a God who is not obsessed with ceremony but with integrity. Not with labels but with love. Not with exclusion but with order. The covenantal context is not a theological opinion. It is the original breath of the Creator, encoded in the structure of the language itself.
Historical linguistic academia, on the other hand, has built its case on scaffolding. It has taken the Septuagint’s flattening and built doctrines upon it. It has taken the Latin Vulgate’s legal tones and declared them divine. It has taken the English word “homosexual,” invented in 1860 and inserted into the Bible in 1946, and used it as a weapon of exclusion. This is not scholarship. It is semantic imperialism. It is the rewriting of divine truth to serve institutional power. It is the conversion of covenant into control.
The opening statements of this debate do not merely introduce two perspectives. They expose two spirits. One seeks restoration. The other seeks regulation. One breathes life. The other enforces law. One returns to Eden. The other builds a courthouse beside the tree of life. And as this debate unfolds, the evidence will not be presented by the speakers. It will be presented by the text itself. The Hebrew will speak. The timeline will testify. The Spirit will illuminate. And the counterfeit will collapse under the weight of truth.
This is not a conversation. It is a reckoning. And the garden is watching.
In section two, the debate now enters its most critical terrain—the linguistic battlefield where the integrity of divine design is either preserved or betrayed. This is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of spiritual fidelity. The Hebrew terms ish and zakar are not interchangeable labels for “man” and “male.” They are covenantal roles, each carrying distinct positional weight, relational function, and spiritual implication. To misrepresent them is not a translation error—it is a willful omission. And that omission has been used to justify centuries of condemnation, exclusion, and spiritual violence against those born with innate biological same-sex attraction. But the Hebrew does not support that condemnation. It exposes the abuse of power, not the existence of love.
The term ish is a covenantal designation. It is not merely a biological descriptor. It is the title given to the one who carries authority, responsibility, and spiritual covering. Scripture expands this term into multiple covenantal roles, each revealing a facet of divine design. Ish Elohim (אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים) refers to a man of God—a prophet or spiritual authority, one who speaks on behalf of Yahweh and carries His word with weight. Ish Milchamah (אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה) is a man of war—a warrior, a defender, one who engages in battle to protect covenantal boundaries. Ish Ba’yit (אִישׁ בַּיִת) is the man of the house—the head of the household, the steward of provision, protection, and inheritance. Ish Shem (אִישׁ שֵׁם) is the man of name—a man of renown, reputation, and influence. Ishi (אִישִׁי) is the intimate designation—my husband, the man in covenantal union, the one joined in relational fidelity. Ish Sadeh (אִישׁ שָׂדֶה) is the man of the field—a hunter, a skilled laborer, one who operates in the external domain, often with strength and independence, as in the description of Esau.
Each of these roles carries positional authority. Each describes a man who is in a place to impose power over another. The very fact the scripture addresses the Ish and places the ish before zakar, irrefutably, indisputably, unassailably, and unequivocally, denotes, implies, suggests and simply states the obvious. That this is the positional authority that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 addresses. The command is not directed at the zakar. It is directed at the ish. The one who holds power. The one who is responsible for covenantal order. The one who must not weaponize intimacy against those under his care.
The term zakar, by contrast, describes the anatomical male without implied status. It is the designation for the servant, the slave, the bondsman. The boy, the youth, the servant-boy, the son. It is the term used for those who are vulnerable, dependent, and without positional authority. The zakar is the one upon whom power can be imposed. He is the one under the covering of the ish. And when the ish violates that covering—when he presses into the zakar as he would into the ishah, the life-revealer—he commits a covenantal trespass. He twists the design. He desecrates the household. He violates the image of Yahweh embedded in relational order.
This is what the Hebrew text reveals. And this is what the Septuagint omits. The Greek translation, produced in Alexandria by Hellenized Jewish scholars, stripped away the covenantal nuance of ish and zakar. It replaced them with generic terms—arsēn for male, koitē for bed—and fused them into arsenokoitai, a term that lacks the positional clarity of the Hebrew. This was not a flattening. It was a willful omission. A deliberate erasure of covenantal context. A narrative hijack driven by agenda, control, and fear.
And yet, even in its compromised form, arsenokoitai still testifies to the original indictment. Because Paul, whether knowingly or not, pulled from the Septuagint’s phrasing in Leviticus. And by default, the original Hebrew meaning remains embedded in the structure. Arsenokoitai is not a condemnation of orientation. It is a condemnation of positional abuse. It describes a man in authority—an ish—who weaponizes intimacy against a vulnerable male—a zakar. It is the reenactment of the Levitical violation. It is the betrayal of covenantal trust. It is the desecration of household order.
To interpret arsenokoitai as a blanket condemnation of innate biological born same-sex attraction is to ignore the Hebrew foundation. It is to participate in the same omission that the Septuagint committed. It is to uphold a counterfeit narrative that Yahweh never authored. It is to misrepresent the word and therefore misrepresent the father Himself. Detestable, condemnable, damnable offenses. The Hebrew text does not condemn innate biological same-sex attraction. It condemns domination, coercion, and exploitation. It condemns the misuse of authority. It condemns the twisting of covenantal design. But it does not condemn love. It does not condemn joining. It does not condemn the desire for connection, companionship, or covenant.
The terms ish and zakar are not abstract labels. They are covenantal roles. They define who is responsible and who is vulnerable. They establish the framework for relational integrity. And when that framework is violated, the text speaks with clarity. But when that framework is honored—when two individuals join in love, fidelity, and covenantal alignment—the text does not speak condemnation. It speaks silence. And that silence is sacred. Because Yahweh does not condemn what He did not prohibit. He does not curse what He did not forbid. He does not reject what He did not rebuke.
The debate over these terms is not academic. It is spiritual. It is relational. It is covenantal. And the evidence is clear. The Hebrew text, when read in its full dimensionality, does not support the condemnation of innate biological born same-sex attraction. It supports the protection of covenantal order. It upholds the integrity of relational design. It defends the vulnerable. It indicts the abuser. And it reveals the heart of Yahweh—a heart that breathes life, not law. A heart that restores, not rejects. A heart that joins, not judges.
This is the truth that the counterfeit cannot withstand. This is the design that the institution cannot replicate. This is the breath that the bureaucracy cannot contain. And as the debate continues, the Hebrew will keep speaking. The Spirit will keep illuminating. And the garden will keep calling us back to the original joining. The one that was never about ceremony. The one that was never about control. The one that was always about covenant.
The third section of this debate brings us into the realm of timeline integrity—a forensic audit of linguistic evolution, translation history, and the chronological insertion of foreign concepts into the sacred breath of Scripture. This is not a casual glance at etymology. It is a full excavation of how man’s institutions have trespassed into the garden of divine design, dragging with them words, frameworks, and ideologies that did not exist when the text was first spoken. The timeline itself becomes a witness, testifying against the claim that marriage, wife, or condemnation of same-sex attraction were ever authored by Yahweh in the Genesis account.
Genesis was written between approximately 1400 and 1000 BCE. At that time, the Hebrew words ish and ishah simply meant “man” and “woman.” They were descriptors of identity and function, not legal status or ceremonial roles. The man was the covenantal steward, the one charged with protecting and providing. The woman was the life-revealer, the one through whom multiplication and continuity flowed. There was no concept of “marriage” as a ceremony, contract, or institution. There was no word for “wife” in the legal or social sense. The union described in Genesis 2:24 was a joining—a dabaq, a cleaving, a fusion of two beings into one flesh. It was anatomical, spiritual, and covenantal. But it was not institutional.
Between 1200 and 900 BCE, the term ishah began to carry new social overtones. It started to describe a household partner, someone joined in domestic and reproductive function. But even then, it did not imply ceremony or legal binding. It was still rooted in function, not form. The covenant remained divine, not bureaucratic. It was not until the third century BCE, with the translation of the Septuagint, that the Hebrew ishah was rendered into the Greek gynē. This term, while initially meaning “woman,” began to absorb the concept of “wife” as Greek society developed its own marital structures. The overlap blurred the purity of the original meaning, introducing cultural assumptions into the sacred text.
By the fourth century CE, the Latin Vulgate further entrenched this distortion. Translators chose uxor and mulier, words that carried distinctly legal tones. For the first time, the notion of the female spouse as an established role entered the biblical lexicon. This was not a clarification. It was a redefinition. It was the insertion of Roman legal frameworks into the breath of Yahweh. And finally, by around 900 CE—nearly three thousand years after Genesis 2:24 was written—the English word “wife” appeared. It carried with it all the social and religious baggage of post-Roman civilization. It was a product of medieval legal systems, not divine revelation.
To take the word “wife,” a product of medieval bureaucracy, and insert it into a verse written thousands of years earlier, is the equivalent of placing a smartphone in Adam’s hand while he names the animals. It is anachronism at its most absurd. It is like claiming Noah built the ark with power tools or that Moses signed the Ten Commandments with a pen. The timeline itself exposes the impossibility. The text of Genesis belongs to a world untouched by human institution. It speaks of function, not contract. The insertion of “wife” or “marriage” is not translation—it is time travel gone wrong. It is the dragging of man-made words backward through history and forcing them into the mouth of Yahweh as if He spoke through the language of bureaucracy. The term “homosexual” follows a similar trajectory of distortion. It was invented in Germany in 1860 as a psychological classification. It did not exist in any biblical manuscript, translation, or commentary prior to that time. And yet, in 1946, it was inserted into the English Bible—specifically the Revised Standard Version—as a replacement for terms like arsenokoitai and malakoi. This was not a clarification. It was a linguistic trespass. It was the rewriting of divine truth to serve institutional power. The insertion of “homosexual” into Scripture is not a matter of translation. It is a matter of spiritual malpractice. It is the deliberate reshaping of the biblical narrative to align with cultural fear, control, and exclusion.
The timeline exposes the counterfeit. It reveals that the concepts of marriage, wife, and condemnation of same-sex attraction are not ancient truths. They are modern insertions. They are scaffolding built upon mistranslation, cultural bias, and institutional agenda. The Hebrew text, when read in its original breath, does not contain these constructs. It speaks of joining, not ceremony. It speaks of man and woman, not husband and wife. It speaks of multiplication, not moral policing. And it speaks of covenantal alignment, not exclusion based on orientation.
This section of the debate does not rely on opinion. It relies on chronology. It relies on linguistic integrity. It relies on the testimony of history itself. And that testimony is clear: the words used to condemn were not present when the text was written. They were added later, by men seeking control. They were inserted into the scrolls like foreign seeds, growing into doctrines that Yahweh never planted. And as we continue this deep dive, the timeline will remain a faithful witness, exposing every distortion, every trespass, and every counterfeit claim that dares to speak in the name of God.
The fourth section of this debate enters the heart of the myth—what has been called “marriage” in modern theology and culture, and what Scripture itself refuses to crown with holiness. This is not a semantic critique. It is a covenantal exposure. The word “marriage,” as used in pulpits, pamphlets, and policy, is not a divine institution. It is a man-made construct, born of acquisition, shaped by tribal custom, and later dressed in ceremony. The Hebrew text does not begin with marriage. It begins with joining. And the difference between those two realities is the difference between Eden and empire.
Genesis 2:24 is the foundational verse often cited to defend the sanctity of marriage. But the verse itself does not mention marriage. It says, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his woman, and they shall become one flesh.” The Hebrew verb used here is dabaq—to cling, to cleave, to stick. It is the language of fusion, not formality. It describes a bond that is spiritual, emotional, physical, and covenantal. It is not officiated. It is not licensed. It is not ceremonial. It is divine joining. The man leaves, the two cling, and they become one flesh. This is the architecture of union. It is the mechanism through which life continues. It is the fulfillment of the reproductive mandate given in Genesis 1:28. But it is not marriage.
The law of first mention, a principle often invoked by theologians to establish doctrinal precedent, further dismantles the marriage myth. The first time union appears in Scripture, it is described as joining. The first time marriage appears, it is described as taking. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech takes two women. The Hebrew word is laqach—to acquire, to possess. This is not joining. It is acquisition. It is the language of property, not covenant. The second mention is even more troubling. In Genesis 6:2, the sons of God see the daughters of men and take for themselves women from all they choose. Again, laqach. This is not a hymn to holy matrimony. It is a prelude to the flood. The union is desire-driven, boundary-crossing, and corrupt. It is not sacred. It is not celebrated. It is condemned.
The pattern continues. Abram and Nahor take women. Pharaoh takes Sarai. Lot’s sons-in-law are described as those taking his daughters. Abimelech takes Sarah. Isaac takes Rebekah. Abraham takes Keturah. Esau takes multiple wives. Ten mentions. Ten acquisitions. No holy. No sacred. No ceremony. No Edenic verb. Only laqach. The timeline refuses to bow to the narrative. From Eden to the patriarchs, marriage as a formal institution does not exist. What exists are possession events and male-brokered arrangements. Only centuries later do we see anything resembling ceremony—Samson’s weeklong feast in Judges, Ruth’s redemption proceeding at the gate. These are social events, not divine mandates. Even then, the Bible refuses to call them holy. The words are not hiding. They simply aren’t there.
Leviticus arrives long after the damage and regulates what man already invented. It sets boundaries for who may take whom. It establishes property and inheritance controls. It protects and prohibits within a system birthed in laqach, not in dabaq. Regulation is not authorship. Restraint is not origin. Yahweh fenced a field He did not plant. And when the Messiah is confronted with the question of divorce, He does not defend the institution. He bypasses it. He reaches past the centuries of acquisition and ceremony and returns to the one verb that mattered before the fall. “From the beginning,” He says, “the Creator made them male and female, and for this reason the man will leave and be joined to his woman.” He does not say married. He does not say officiated. He says joined. He quotes Genesis 2:24. He pulls the spine out of the registry and replaces it with Eden’s cleaving.
The exception He grants is porneia—sexual betrayal of the union. Not failure of ceremony. Not breach of contract. Betrayal of joining. Because He is upholding Eden’s design, not rubber-stamping the mutated machinery of man’s institution. The Son of God refuses to sanctify man’s invention. He restores God’s union. And if that union is faithful, mutual, covenantal, and aligned with divine design, then it reflects Eden more than any ceremony ever could.
Scripture does not enthrone marriage. Man does. The Bible narrates the system, regulates the system, confronts abuses within the system, but it never pretends the system is the Edenic origin. The origin is joining. The origin is dabaq. The origin is two becoming one flesh. And if that joining is faithful—if it reflects the covenantal pattern of leaving, cleaving, and becoming—then it is aligned with Genesis, regardless of gender, ceremony, or cultural approval.
The argument that same-sex covenant is invalid because it is not marriage collapses under the weight of this truth. Because marriage, as defined by man, is not the standard. Joining is. And if two image-bearers form a covenant to cleave—to become one flesh in the full sense of shared life, shared fidelity, shared burden, shared joy—then that act imitates Eden’s pattern more faithfully than any ceremony that still reeks of laqach dressed up in tulle.
The critique that it “isn’t marriage” is the least relevant thing one could say. Because marriage, in the sense most people mean, is the least biblical part of the entire discussion. The Bible does not hand out divine warrants to police the unions of those we despise. It does not call our institution holy. And it does not call their covenant unholy by virtue of not serving our census math. It records a God who joined by cleaving, who regulated our machinery because we broke what we were given, who in the flesh pointed past our codes to the beginning and called us back to it.
What offends the institution is not an affront to heaven. It is an affront to a system that never bore heaven’s name. And that is why the pulpit thunders so loudly—because somewhere beneath the slogans, it knows that if Eden is the standard, then the question is not whether a union flatters our institution, but whether it reflects God’s joining. Two people, cleaving, keeping faith, bearing one another’s weight, refusing to turn the other into property or prop—that is the thing we were meant to defend. And that is the thing we have consistently defaced.
God made union. Man made marriage. Scripture honors the first and hems in the second. Holy and sacred never crown the verb to take. They never hover over the first italicized “wife.” The Messiah Himself sends us back to the joining and away from our legal gymnastics. So when we pound our pulpits against same-sex covenant, we must understand that we are standing on a platform the Bible does not build. The deep dive does not invent that verdict. It exposes it. And if a ring must seal the lesson, let it be etched with what the text actually teaches: cleaving is divine. Ceremony is cultural. And love, when aligned with covenant, is never condemned.
Section five of this debate brings us to the divine mandate of reproduction and its fulfillment—a topic often weaponized to invalidate covenantal unions that do not produce biological offspring. But when examined through the lens of covenantal context, the argument collapses under its own weight. The Genesis command to “be fruitful and multiply” was not a poetic suggestion. It was a divine activation sequence, a biological and spiritual imperative spoken into the prototype human as the mechanism for continuation. It was the breath of Yahweh encoded into flesh, the instruction that turned design into destiny.
Genesis 1:28 declares, “God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” This is not metaphor. It is commission. It is the moment when humanity was charged with replicating the image of Yahweh across the earth. The command assumes the mechanism already exists. It does not invent reproduction—it activates it. The human frame was already designed to carry out the order. The joining of man and woman was the circuit through which divine breath would continue. It was not ceremony. It was function.
Genesis 2:24 then becomes the mechanical application of that law. “For this reason, a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his woman; and they shall become one flesh.” The phrase “for this reason” links the verse directly to the correspondence recognized in Genesis 2:23—“bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” The joining is not symbolic. It is literal. It is anatomical. It is covenantal. Two become one flesh. Two divided by two equals one. And out of that joining comes a third—the child, the manifest continuation of Yahweh’s image in flesh. This is the divine equation. It is the fulfillment of the creative will of Yahweh, the living pulse of Genesis itself.
But this mandate was spoken into a world of two people. It was critical. It was urgent. It was foundational. Today, however, we live in a world of eight billion souls. The earth is filled. The command has been fulfilled. The biological imperative has been satisfied. And while reproduction remains a beautiful expression of divine design, it is no longer the gatekeeper of covenantal legitimacy. To insist that union must produce offspring in order to be valid is to ignore the timeline. It is to ignore the context. It is to ignore the fulfillment of the mandate.
Moreover, Scripture never declares that reproduction is the only or even primary purpose of joining. Infertile couples are not sinful. Elderly couples are not disqualified from covenant. The joining of two people in love, fidelity, and covenantal alignment is never condemned simply because it does not produce children. The point is union, not multiplication. Companionship is just as divine. The joining is sacred because it reflects the design, not because it fulfills a census.
This truth dismantles the argument against same-sex covenantal unions. If reproduction is not the sole measure of legitimacy, then the absence of biological offspring does not nullify the spiritual validity of the union. Two individuals, joined in love, fidelity, and covenantal alignment, reflect the Genesis pattern. They fulfill the design. They honor the breath. They participate in the architecture of joining. And Scripture does not condemn them.
The condemnation comes not from Yahweh, but from man. It comes from institutions that have elevated reproduction above relationship. It comes from doctrines that have confused biology with morality. It comes from fear, control, and prejudice. But the Hebrew text does not support that condemnation. It speaks of joining. It speaks of covenant. It speaks of alignment. And it speaks of love.
The reproductive mandate was fulfilled. The joining remains sacred. And the covenantal union, when aligned with divine design, is never condemned. This section of the debate does not argue for permission. It declares fulfillment. It does not seek approval. It reveals alignment. And it does not defend love. It exposes the counterfeit that dares to condemn it.
The breath of Yahweh continues. The image of Yahweh remains. And the joining, when rooted in covenant, reflects the garden more than any ceremony ever could. The mandate was multiplication. The mechanism was joining. The fulfillment is evident. And the condemnation is not divine. It is institutional. It is cultural. It is counterfeit. And it will not stand.
Section six of this debate confronts the most persistent and spiritually damaging fallacy in modern theology: the belief that God condemns innate biological same-sex attraction. This claim, often repeated with fervor and certainty, is not rooted in the breath of Yahweh. It is rooted in institutional fear, cultural bias, and centuries of mistranslation. The Hebrew text, when read in its original covenantal context, does not support this condemnation. It exposes the abuse of power, not the existence of love. It indicts domination, not desire. It speaks against coercion, not connection. And it reveals a God who does not reject His creation, but who breathes life into every soul He forms in the womb.
The condemnation fallacy begins with a misreading of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. These verses are often cited as proof that same-sex attraction is an abomination. But the Hebrew tells a different story. The command is directed at the ish, the man of authority, the one charged with covenantal responsibility. It is not directed at the zakar, the anatomical male without status. The ish is the actor. The zakar is the vulnerable recipient. The violation occurs when the ish uses his positional power to dominate the zakar as he would the ishah, the life-revealer. This is not a condemnation of orientation. It is a condemnation of positional abuse.
The term to’evah, often translated as “abomination,” is another site of distortion. In its original Hebrew form, it describes a covenantal violation—a twisting of relational design. It is not a term of moral disgust. It is a term of spiritual breach. The Septuagint, however, rendered to’evah as bdelygma, a Greek word meaning “detestable thing.” This was not a flattening. It was a willful omission. A deliberate erasure of covenantal nuance. A narrative hijack driven by agenda, control, and fear. And it opened the door for centuries of condemnation that Yahweh never authored.
The term arsenokoitai, coined by Paul and used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, inherits this distortion. It fuses arsēn (male) and koitē (bed, sexual intercourse) and is widely believed to be derived from the Septuagint’s phrasing in Leviticus. But the Septuagint omitted the full context of ish and zakar. It stripped away the positional clarity. It erased the covenantal roles. And it replaced them with generic terms that lack the weight of divine design. This omission was not accidental. It was strategic. It served a narrative. It upheld an agenda. It reinforced control. And it perpetuated fear.
Yet even in its compromised form, arsenokoitai still testifies to the original indictment. Because Paul, whether knowingly or not, pulled from the Septuagint’s phrasing. And by default, the original Hebrew meaning remains embedded in the structure. Arsenokoitai is not a condemnation of orientation. It is a condemnation of positional abuse. It describes a man in authority—an ish—who weaponizes intimacy against a vulnerable male—a zakar. It reenacts the Levitical violation. It betrays covenantal trust. It desecrates household order.
To interpret arsenokoitai as a blanket condemnation of same-sex attraction is to ignore the Hebrew foundation. It is to participate in the same omission that the Septuagint committed. It is to uphold a counterfeit narrative that Yahweh never spoke. The Hebrew text does not condemn innate biological same-sex attraction. It condemns domination, coercion, and exploitation. It condemns the misuse of authority. It condemns the twisting of covenantal design. But it does not condemn love. It does not condemn joining. It does not condemn the desire for connection, companionship, or covenant.
This truth is not a loophole. It is a restoration. It is the reclaiming of divine breath from the grip of institutional distortion. It is the unveiling of Yahweh’s heart—a heart that forms each soul with intention, that knows each person before they are knit together in the womb, that does not create in error, and that does not condemn what He has designed. The condemnation of same-sex attraction is not divine. It is man-made. It is born of fear, not faith. It is rooted in control, not covenant. And it reveals more about the accuser than the accused.
The Hebrew text, when read in its full dimensionality, speaks with clarity. It does not target identity. It targets betrayal. It does not reject orientation. It rejects exploitation. It does not condemn love. It condemns the abuse of power. And it does so with precision, with breath, and with covenantal integrity.
This section of the debate does not seek to defend. It seeks to expose. It does not argue for inclusion. It reveals the exclusion as counterfeit. And it does not plead for acceptance. It declares alignment. The condemnation fallacy is dismantled. The Hebrew speaks. The Spirit confirms. And the garden calls us back to the original joining—the one that was never about orientation, but always about covenant.
Section seven now reaches its full weight—not just as a diagnostic of spiritual posture, but as a confrontation with evil itself. The insistence on condemning same-sex covenantal love is not merely a theological misstep. It is a willful embodiment of malice, bigotry, prejudice, and homophobia. These are not unfortunate opinions. They are chosen positions. They are stances, postures, demeanors, and perspectives that together form a deliberate spiritual state—a state that stands in direct opposition to the character of the Messiah and the breath of Yahweh.
This behavior must be named for what it is: evil. Not ignorance. Not tradition. Not conviction. Evil. Because it seeks to harm, exclude, and destroy under the guise of righteousness. It weaponizes Scripture to justify cruelty. It baptizes hatred in the language of holiness. And it does so with full volition. No one stumbles into this posture. It is chosen. It is cultivated. It is defended. And it is preached.
The contrast with the Messiah is stark. He did not condemn the vulnerable. He did not weaponize Torah against the outcast. He did not use His authority to shame those seeking love, healing, or belonging. He restored. He embraced. He corrected with compassion. He confronted the religious elite who used Scripture to elevate themselves and exclude others. He exposed their hypocrisy. He dismantled their scaffolding. And He did so not with violence, but with truth.
The Messiah’s posture was one of humility, mercy, and covenantal restoration. He did not stand on ceremony. He stood on alignment. He did not defend institutions. He defended image-bearers. And He did not tolerate spiritual abuse. He rebuked it. He overturned tables. He called out vipers. He named the counterfeit. And He did so with authority rooted in love.
Those who condemn same-sex covenantal love while claiming to represent God are not aligned with the Messiah. They are aligned with the Pharisees. Their stance is not holy. It is hostile. Their posture is not righteous. It is rebellious. Their demeanor is not reflective of the Spirit. It is reflective of fear, control, and spiritual corruption. And their perspective is not born of revelation. It is born of indoctrination.
The consequences of this willful state of being are not theoretical. They are scriptural. They are absolute. And they are severe. The NASB makes this clear:
Romans 2:1–2: “Therefore you have no excuse, you foolish person, every one of you who passes judgment; for in that matter in which you judge someone else, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.”
Matthew 7:1–2: “Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.”
James 2:13: “For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.”
1 John 4:20: “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and yet he hates his brother or sister, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother and sister whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.”
Proverbs 6:16–19: “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness who declares lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.”
Matthew 23:27–28: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you too outwardly appear righteous to people, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”
These are not poetic warnings. They are divine indictments. They expose the spiritual condition of those who choose to embody evil under the delusion that it is faith. They reveal that the condemnation of love is itself condemned. That the rejection of covenantal joining is itself a rejection of Yahweh’s breath. And that the posture of exclusion is not a position of holiness—it is a position of rebellion.
This section of the debate does not seek to persuade. It seeks to confront. It does not aim to soften. It aims to expose. And it does not argue for tolerance. It declares judgment. The Spirit does not tolerate evil dressed as doctrine. The Word does not endorse hatred baptized as holiness. And the garden does not welcome those who build fences around the tree of life.
The choice is clear. Either align with the Messiah or align with the accuser. Either reflect the breath of Yahweh or reflect the spirit of empire. Either embrace covenantal love or be exposed by the Word that cannot be misquoted. The consequences are written. The posture is revealed. And the Spirit is watching.
Section eight brings the debate to its final confrontation—the verdict. This is not a summary. It is a reckoning. The evidence has been laid bare. The Hebrew text has spoken. The Spirit has illuminated. And the counterfeit has collapsed under the weight of truth. The question is no longer whether same-sex covenantal union is allowed. The question is whether it is aligned. Aligned with Genesis. Aligned with divine design. Aligned with the breath of Yahweh. And the answer is yes.
Covenantal context has declared from the beginning that Yahweh created joining, not marriage. That He formed man and woman as functional counterparts, not ceremonial roles. That He embedded reproduction into the human frame, not into a legal institution. That He spoke the command to multiply and then gave the mechanism to fulfill it. That He designed union as a sacred architecture, not a social contract. And that He never once called marriage holy. Never once called wife a divine title. Never once instituted ceremony as a prerequisite for covenant.
Man’s linguistic academia has been exposed. It has inserted words into the text that did not exist when the text was written. It has dragged concepts backward through time and forced them into the mouth of Yahweh. It has replaced joining with acquisition. It has replaced covenant with contract. It has replaced love with law. And it has done so not by accident, but by agenda. By control. By fear. By empire.
The Messiah Himself refused to sanctify man’s institution. When confronted with the question of divorce, He did not defend marriage. He returned to the original joining. He quoted Genesis 2:24. He spoke of cleaving, not ceremony. He upheld covenant, not contract. He exposed hardness of heart, not failure of ritual. And in doing so, He restored the design. He realigned the conversation. He dismantled the counterfeit.
The Spirit does not breathe through bureaucracy. It breathes through covenant. It does not endorse exclusion. It restores belonging. It does not condemn love. It confronts abuse. And it does not speak through the scaffolding of man. It speaks through the breath of Yahweh.
The verdict is clear. The Hebrew text does not condemn same-sex covenantal union. It condemns positional abuse. It does not reject orientation. It rejects exploitation. It does not rebuke love. It rebukes domination. And it does so with precision, with clarity, and with covenantal integrity.
The counterfeit has been exposed. The timeline has testified. The language has revealed. And the Spirit has confirmed. The debate is not whether it is allowed. The debate is whether it is aligned. And when the answer is yes, there is no need to defend. There is only a need to repent—for every time love was condemned, for every time covenant was rejected, for every time the breath of Yahweh was silenced by the voice of empire.
This is the final word. The garden has spoken. The breath has returned. And the joining stands. Not as ceremony. Not as contract. But as covenant. As alignment. As truth.
Let every counterfeit be exposed. Let every scaffolding fall. Let every heart be pierced. And let the Spirit restore what man has defaced.
The debate is over. The verdict is written. And the garden is open once more.
Section nine is not a conclusion. It is a restoration. It is the moment when the counterfeit is laid to rest, and the covenantal design is resurrected in full view. The debate has run its course. The evidence has spoken. The Hebrew text has testified. The Spirit has confirmed. And the garden has reopened. This is not the end of a conversation. It is the beginning of a return.
The debate was never about permission. It was about alignment. It was never about tolerance. It was about truth. It was never about defending love. It was about exposing the counterfeit that condemned it. And now, with every distortion dismantled, every omission exposed, and every scaffold collapsed, the path is clear. The path back to Eden. The path back to joining. The path back to covenant.
The Hebrew text does not speak in abstractions. It speaks in breath. It speaks in structure. It speaks in design. And that design has never changed. It was not altered by ceremony. It was not rewritten by empire. It was not redefined by translation. It remains intact, encoded in the original language, waiting to be reclaimed.
The Spirit does not operate through fear. It operates through love. It does not endorse exclusion. It restores belonging. It does not breathe through bureaucracy. It breathes through covenant. And it does not speak through the voice of empire. It speaks through the breath of Yahweh.
The Messiah did not come to defend institutions. He came to restore design. He did not come to uphold ceremony. He came to fulfill covenant. He did not come to reinforce exclusion. He came to dismantle it. And He did so with clarity, with authority, and with love.
The condemnation of same-sex covenantal union is not divine. It is man-made. It is born of fear, not faith. It is rooted in control, not covenant. And it reveals more about the accuser than the accused. It reveals a spiritual condition that is out of alignment with the Father. It reveals a posture that reflects empire, not Eden. And it reveals a heart that has not been transformed by love but conformed to fear.
The verdict is written. The counterfeit is exposed. And the garden is open once more. The joining stands. The breath returns. And the Spirit moves. Not through ceremony. Not through contract. But through covenant. Through alignment. Through truth.
Let every scaffold fall. Let every distortion be dismantled. Let every heart be pierced. And let the Spirit restore what man has defaced.
This is the final word. The debate is over. The breath has returned. And the garden is calling us home.
