It has been requested of me to share what the Bible has to say about homosexuality, so if you are reading this and are thinking that I’m just picking on gays (or one of my readers in particular)… I’m just fulfilling a request. (Because, you know, I take requests!)
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Leviticus 20:13
Interestingly enough, the word “abomination” is only used twice in all of the Levitical code, both times referring to homosexual sex. The word translated “abomination” comes from a Hebrew word meaning “an abhorrence” or “disgusting” and can also refer to idolatry. Much later in the Bible, as we will see in a bit, the Apostle Paul very much links homosexuality with worshiping the creature rather than the Creator.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9–10
One of the questions posed to me earlier was if I thought there was forgiveness for someone who has been gay; to answer that, I’ll quote the next verse from the previous passage:
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:11
Who comprised the early church? Who were the Christians Paul was writing to at Corinth?
They were a group filled with people who had once been gay or thieves or idolaters or drunkards… people who were on the fast track to Hell but were rescued — indeed, transformed — by He who is powerful to save.
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. 1 Timothy 1:8–11
A few of my readers may have wondered about the quotes from Leviticus earlier… Is the Old Testament law still valid? I don’t blame you. Plenty of people like the New Testament quite a bit better — after God took some anger management courses, so to speak.1
Writing to Timothy, Paul points out that yes, the law is in fact good! Yes, the Old Testament commandments are still valid!
The law, after all, shows just how short we fall when measured up against God, how desperate our situation is, and how needful we are of a Savior. The law is given for the ungodly, the unholy, the sinners, the profane, the lawless, and the disobedient so that they may see their need for Christ.
Because of that, Paul could include homosexuality in the list of sins given to both the Corinthian church and to Timothy. Perhaps it is because homosexuality is classed as an abomination over and above all the other sexual sins mentioned in Leviticus that Paul includes it separately in his lists, exclusive from the more general “sexually immoral.”
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. Romans 1:26–28
This passage scares me on behalf of gays even more than the two verses in Leviticus do… Being put to death? That isn’t that harsh by comparison when you consider that the wages of any and all sin is death — it’s grace and grace alone which keeps any of us alive after telling a lie, stealing even something small, or any of a great number of other things.
Here in Romans, however, Paul details the plight of the unrepentant homosexual: God gives them up. Now, I cannot pretend to fully grasp the implications of that — likely, we’re not meant to.
What we find in Romans, however, is that homosexual acts are not only against the law of God but are also unnatural. Just as a man is not meant to have sexual relations with a beast, so is man not meant to have sexual relations with another man. Homosexual behavior is an aberration from the created order, and God so dissociates Himself from it that He turns over unrepentant homosexuals “to a debased mind.”
In addition to homosexuality giving rise to any number of other sins2, Paul reveals the homosexual’s hard-heartedness toward God:
Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Romans 1:32
Such is the spiritual state of so many in our world today.
Paul says that the future holds “wrath and fury … tribulation and distress” for those who do not obey righteousness and who do evil.3
I’ll take a moment to address something which may come up… You may have noticed that these verses deal with homosexual actions. Being homosexual is not in and of itself condemned; rather, it is part & parcel of being born a sinful human. We are all born inclined to lie and to steal, to be self-centered and selfish, to hate and to covet. It’s no mystery why such things are so much easier than love and respect or why people so often emphasize that relationships are “hard work.”
Sin is easy.
For a homosexual male, is it easier for him to just act on his impulses? Excluding pressure from society, yeah, it’s going to be easier for him to live out his desires. The same, of course, goes for heterosexual men and women.4
In Ephesians 2:3, Paul says that we are all “by nature children of wrath,” and he even ties that right to living “in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind.”
God demands chastity, and He has prohibitions against fornication (sexual actions outside of marriage, and don’t fool yourself into thinking this only applies to intercourse). Sexuality, as is made clear throughout the Scriptures, is only acceptable to God within the bonds of marriage.
And marriage, as defined by creation (Adam and Eve), is something which only exists between a man and a woman.5
What this means is that a homosexual person is forbidden by Scriptures to both engage in sexuality outside of marriage and to marry. Given the severity with which homosexuality is treated in the Scriptures, I hope you can see just how depraved our society is becoming as homosexuality (and/or bisexuality) not only becomes ever more en vogue but as marriage is redefined to include gay unions as true marriage.
So what is a homosexual to do, then, if they cannot live out the desires they feel within, whether he or she was born with them or whether they developed later in life?
They must do the same thing the liar, the murder, the hateful, the idolater, the sexual immoral, and the drunkard must do: Repent.
They must repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand, and they will either encounter the King as a merciful Savior or as wrathful Conqueror.
God is more than able to give homosexuals a new nature, to remove from them the unnatural affections and to replace them with godly desires.
I’m not saying the process will be easy; indeed, everyone from myself to the great apostle Paul struggles with sin, even after having experienced transforming grace. No one’s saying the termination of homosexual inclinations will be immediate.
Perhaps you’ll be able to refrain from ever again acting upon homosexual tendencies, but the tendencies will still be there. Then the goal is to refrain from acting, to refrain from even lusting after another person (whether of the same sex or different, actually), lest you commit adultery in your heart.
While it may seem right to have the feelings and be forbidden to act upon them, all I can offer is that the eternal reward for obedience is unbelievably worth it.
Linked to Image Source
The alternative is to suffer the fate of Sodom & Gomorrah:
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day–7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Jude 5-7
- However, it doesn’t take much reading in the New Testament to realize that God is just as indignant against sinners as He ever was. [↩]
- As listed in Romans 1:29–31. [↩]
- Romans 2:8–9. [↩]
- It is also no mystery why so few virgins are marrying. [↩]
- And there may be certain other biblical requirements which reveal that many who think they are married nowadays may in fact be living in sin rather than matrimony. Oh, and a man may be husband to more than wife, as well, but I’m uncertain of that one… I just haven’t found a way yet to argue against it biblically. [↩]
{ 1 trackback }
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
Sandi 07.16.08 at 20:41 PDT
Ok, the closest you have ever come to convincing me! I don’t think homosexuality is en vogue as you state. I still have trouble believing people are bad by nature. Damning people to hell for actions that seem to me to not be as bad as others. I know, I know-I am not the judge! Not telling the truth, murdering, drinking are all choices you make on how to live your life. I am still uncertain as to whether homosexuality is a choice or the way you are born. Another friend pointed out to me today that maybe there was abuse (or some other profound event) in the childhood of homosexuals that influenced their beliefs. Something I have never thought about before and will have to mull over. I know for someone who is not homosexual I am troubled a lot by thoughts for those who are. Those who are family members, loving sons, good mothers…
Alicia 07.16.08 at 21:29 PDT
Sandi, perhaps taking homosexuality out of the equation will actually make it easier to understand.
Perhaps someone had an event in their past (or perhaps they were just “born this way”) that caused them to be violent. A womanizer. I’m sure you would agree that this is wrong. This person could have been born with a tendency toward violence, or perhaps they were beaten as a child, and thereby learned violent behavior. That might make us understand the violence they exhibit better…but does that make their violence okay? No. They are still responsible for their actions and emotions, even if they have a tendency toward it.
Homosexuality is similar (though, I realize this isn’t the best comparison). Whether someone has inborn tendencies or a “reason” doesn’t excuse the sin. It’s still wrong.
Senior 07.16.08 at 22:22 PDT
A womanizer has victims.
Violent behavior has victims.
A consensual homosexual relationship has no victim.
Rick 07.16.08 at 23:04 PDT
Senior: Depends on one’s point of view. The end result for those who commit homosexual acts according to Romans 1 clearly show that the homosexuals themselves are the victims… victims of the wrath of a Holy God.
Claiming an act is a-okie-dokey simply because it has no victims is a dubious morality at best — just as any moral system outside the Law of God is destined to become. Who decides what constitutes a victim? Does a victim have to be a person? Who decides what personhood is?
Once you get outside the Law of God, you end up with absolute foolishness that says it’s illegal to kill certain animals yet that aborting babies is not only legal but is an acceptable alternative to an unwanted pregnancy.
Alicia 07.17.08 at 06:40 PDT
Senior, I realize that my analogy wasn’t the best. And the lack of (obvious) victims is one reason why I did comment that it wasn’t the best comparison. However I wasn’t trying to prove homosexuality wrong by that comparison, but rather show that though someone can be predisposed for something, whether from birth or due to some life-altering event they can still be in the wrong.
I think that one of Sandi’s main hangups about the situation is “what if these people are just born this way?” or “these people are just being who they are, right?”
Hopefully this all made sense. I probably shouldn’t try posting comments when I first wake up (and perhaps am not completely awake yet).
Senior 07.17.08 at 07:36 PDT
I understand what you were trying to show with the analogy. But if the analogy is bad, then it does not support your claim.
Senior 07.17.08 at 07:51 PDT
Rick,
“Victims of the wrath of a Holy God”? LOL!! The goblins will get you.
“Claiming an act is a-okie-dokey simply because it has no victims is a dubious morality at best…Who decides what constitutes a victim? Does a victim have to be a person? Who decides what personhood is?”
All of us, together, over time, work these things out. We have no choice. You yourself, Calvinist, admit that not all of us will hear “Gods” call. We have no choice but to frame an ethics, a morality, on the basis of this world.
“Once you get outside the Law of God, you end up with absolute foolishness that says it’s illegal to kill certain animals yet that aborting babies is not only legal but is an acceptable alternative to an unwanted pregnancy.”
First, a secular ethics is still a work in progress (probably always will be). You might argue that the Bible is a final product, but understanding it is still a work in progress.
As for “absolute foolishness”. I guess it is all a matter of opinion as to what constitutes that.
But I don’t guess it would take me too much time to come up with a list of absolute foolishness that is/was practiced by Christians.
And you would argue, what?, that they had gone astray and were not following the Bible.
And I would say, there’s the point.
Even harder for the secularists, since we don’t have a Bible to point at. (not that having the Bible has done Christians a lot of good in this department).
Clint 07.17.08 at 09:41 PDT
I watched a show called 30 days where a Mormon woman was sent to live with a gay couple who were fostering children. I figured she would come away from the experience with a different attitude towards them because she put a face to what she had been against. Well she stood her ground but she did come away from it a little wiser towards other people.
I was rather intrigued myself while watching because I went back and forth with all these things concerning this topice because it has been on the forefront in everything it seems these days.
Is it that we love the sin and hate the sinner?
Or can we condemn others by something that they see as coming from God?
I came to this conclusion
All have sinned
A person who says that they were homosexual from birth is telling the truth - not because God made them that way but because of sin. We are all born with a defiled sinful nature. We are all born with a predisposition to sin but many times our sin differs.
To me (and I am pretty much saying what Rick already said) the only answer is Jesus Christ. I decided that I am not going to condemn others. I am not going to hate someone because they are a sinner headed for hell just like I was. I am going to do my best to let Jesus live through me and tell everyone He brings into my path about Him
….but don’t ask me what I think about your sin or what the Bible says about sin especially if you are living in it because you won’t like my answer
Well thats my two cents
Mark 07.17.08 at 12:43 PDT
An appeal to a biologically based orientation is not a moral argument. As two researchers who have worked hard to demonstrate congenital influences on homosexual development have admitted: “No clear conclusions about the morality of a behavior can be made from the mere fact of biological causation, because all behavior is biologically caused” (Brian S. Mustanski and J. Michael Bailey, “A therapist’s guide to the genetics of human sexual orientation,” Sexual and Relationship Therapy 18:4 [2003]: 432).
Senior seems to think, maybe I am wrong, there are no objective Truths.
If I am correct - that view leads ultimately to nihilism. A cursory look at history and one will find many folks embracing relativism because they think it leads to more tolerance and less persecution. In fact, a look at the very foundations of any authoritarian society and you will soon discover that objective truth is usually the first thing that is suppressed! What is right and wrong is no longer based on objective truths - it is the mere opinions of those in power.
As far as the authority of the Biblical texts:
“There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.”3
“There is, I imagine, no body of literature in the world that has been exposed to the stringent analytical study that the four gospels have sustained for the past 200 years. This is not something to be regretted: it is something to be accepted with satisfaction. Scholars today who treat the gospels as credible historical documents do so in the full light of this analytical study, not by closing their minds to it.”4
“Skepticism toward the reliability of Scripture seems to survive in many academic circles despite the repeated collapse of critical theories. One still finds a disposition to trust secular writers whose credentials in providing historical testimony are often less adequate than those of the biblical writers. Not long ago many scholars rejected the historicity of the patriarchal accounts, denied that writing existed in Moses’ day, and ascribed the Gospels and Epistles to second-century writers. But higher criticism has sustained some spectacular and even stunning reverses, mainly through the findings of archaeology. No longer is it held that the glories of King Solomon’s era are literary fabrication, that ‘Yahweh,’ the redemptive God of the Hebrews, was unknown before the eighth-century prophets, or that Ezra’s representations about the Babylonian captivity are fictional. Archaeologists have located the long-lost copper mines of Solomon’s time. Tablets discovered at Ebla near Aleppo confirm that names similar to those of the patriarchs were common among people who lived in Ebla shortly before the events recorded in the later chapters of Genesis took place.”5
3 F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, 3rd rev. ed. (Westwood NJ; Revell, 1963), p. 178.
4 Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Leicester, UK; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1987), p. ix.
5 Carl F. H. Henry, “The Authority of the Bible,” in The Origin of the Bible, Philip Wesley Comfort, ed., (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992), p. 17.
Latest from Mark: The real American Idolaters
Rick 07.17.08 at 16:44 PDT
Senior:
The analogy showed exactly what it was supposed to show; rarely are analogies perfect beyond their given purpose.
If there is no holy God who is an executor of perfect justice, then there is no justice and any attempt at it is vain and fleeting. As stated before by me (here and on the Hall) and by Mark above, where there are no absolutes, nihilism is all in all — we’re all just animals vainly hoping that somehow this life matters, destined to one day, if the species survives, to be engulfed by the dying sun.
Also, I find it interesting that objectors to existence of justice (and the then necessary existence of an executor of that judgment) relate the concept to various absurdities… invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, or in this case, goblins.
I myself, Calvinist, believe that every man is responsible to the Law of God and most specifically the call of the Gospel. That most reject it simply confirms what the Scriptures say, and for those who claim “I’m not elect, so I can’t believe,” I can only say, “You won’t know for sure until you die; today you have a choice, believe.”
No denying that those without God stand upon shifting sands. Social morality must change to fit whatever trends are currently popular, just as you point out regarding secular morality.
I do argue that, certainly, and every time earlier manuscripts of the Scriptures are found, they concur with what we have today. (Yet people continue to say the Bible has been repeatedly changed to fit various people’s whims. I won’t deny certain translations of the Bible are done with extreme bias — the Jehovah’s Witnesses depend on their own version, for instance — but there’s a long line of reliable translations in many languages… But I digress.)
Yes, understanding the Bible is an ongoing process; and even if someone like Charles Spurgeon or John Knox had such great insights into the Bible, even though they are correct, it may take me a great time to come to the same determinations, not because I’m slow of learning, but because the Bible is much more than a text book of facts which can just be memorized, it is in a sense alive and life-changing and so much of what it teaches is directly tied to how mature a believer a person is.
It’s no secret that seven years ago I hated Calvinism, hated every version of the Bible other than the King James, hated contemporary music, and so on. In my spiritual youth, I clung to a few easily memorized Scriptures and misapplied them to my life. As I grew in understanding of the Bible, both my beliefs and my life have been refined in the process. But such sanctification is always toward a goal, that of conformity to the image of God as revealed in His Word.
Secular morality continues to evolve as well, but it’s path is as a ship without a header. Who knows where it’ll end up.
You’d have to define “foolishness” first, and without any set of absolutes, just how does one do that and expect the judgment to hold fast?
It’s no secret many who have taken the name of Christ have committed great atrocities. Ditto just about any religion or worldview out there.
Still, thanks to Christians, untold millions have been fed, housed, and tended to… The printing press was invented, making Gutenberg not only the most influential person of the past millennium, but utterly revolutionizing the way mankind communicates. The West was freed from the idea of the divine right of kings thanks to the secularization by John Locke of the works of Samuel Rutherford. Christians gave us ivy league universities. Christians gave us hospitals and orphanages and free clinics and so on.
Sure, perhaps someone else may have stepped up to do many of those things, but people like to claim the atrocities of Christians without giving “equal time” to all the benefit done in Christ’s name. It just seems a little dishonest to me.
Rick 07.17.08 at 16:47 PDT
Clint: “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is what the Christian should live by. Indeed, everything we do ought to be in love to others, and that love is first and foremost to warn of the judgment to come; how much love can we claim to have for people if we don’t tell them that unless they repent, they shall likewise perish? I like what Jude said in verse 23… “hating even the garment stained by the flesh.” Sin of any kind is despicable and damnable; if we are not loving sinners by telling them the truth, we are by default, I think, hating them.
Rick 07.17.08 at 16:56 PDT
Mark: Good to hear from you again, Mark! It’s been my belief for over a year now that atheism — or any belief system which denies moral absolutes — leads to nihilism.
Thanks for posting the apologetics quotes, too; it’s a reminder that I really need to sit down and read Evidence That Demands a Verdict by McDowell (I think).
Again, welcome back!
Randy 07.30.08 at 21:45 PDT
Well, I just installed Thesis as my blog template and driven myself crazy trying to tweak it (not through yet but giving up for the night.) I went to the Thesis forums, found some of your advice and then found your blog …
and then found this post. I work for Exodus which is a 33 year old ministry helping men and women with unwanted same sex attraction.
:)
Glad I found your blog.
Rick 07.31.08 at 02:33 PDT
Randy: Welcome to Kingdom Geek, Randy, glad to have you! Thanks for the comment. Awesome to meet someone of similar belief through Thesis. I get a lot of traffic from the Thesis forums; I doubt most people aren’t as appreciative of my conservative biblicism as you are. In any event, keep up the good work with Exodus. I spent a few moments over at your blog; I like what I see and will be subscribing.
Randy 07.31.08 at 12:00 PDT
Thank you. I have added your blog to my reader as well.
Latest from Randy: Anne Graham Lotz
Robert 08.03.08 at 04:09 PDT
@Rick
I have been reading through your blog for some time, really fascinated with your point of view and message. I am what I affectionately call a lapsed catholic, but more importantly a Red Letter Christian. I have been blessed to know Jesus and call Him my lord and savior. I think it’s important that you know that.
There was a couple of points that I think we both (you and I) need to look up, but I believe that Leviticus used the word abomination a whole bunch of times. One of them in particular put’s shrimp and lobster as a food source out of the question. Leviticus 11:9-12 uses the word abomination. In fact, Leviticus is full of acts and situations that are considered “abominations”. Some, like that small acne scar on your cheek, would restrict you from praying on the temple steps, or in today’s world in front of the altar, because a mark of the face was considered an abomination (might be Deuteronomy on that one, got to double check)
But my point is this, though considered a sin, and I’m not convinced on the authority of all books in the Bible (I don’t think they are all scripture), it seems to be TOO much of an issue.
It’s just not. We have to wake up as Christians and Humans and see that these debates and fixations are taking us AWAY from the word of Jesus Christ. His message was never about abominations or women being submissive, or drunkards, or debasers, but about love of God, love of thy Neighbor, and love of the sinner. His rebellion of faith was never about any of this, so why do we, the people of the book (look that one up) have to sit here and throw stones again and again and again, and even start a ministry about it. Jesus himself put a stop to throwing stones. He was a man without fear, so why do we still fear these issues?
All I know is that I thank God that the day I almost died from a severe trauma and blood loss in a bus accident, He sent me a man that saved my live, dressed my wounds, told me to think of my life and my wife and to hold on, while he got me into an ambulance and raced me to the hospital. Yup, the man was gay (why else would I tell this story. LOL)
God love you Rick, thank you for being a person of Faith. Just remember, God is the maker of the World and the Universe. He created the Mountains, the Oceans, the Sky, the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Venus, the Galaxy, Stars, Red Dwarf Stars, Black Holes, White Holes, Math, Science and Oreo Cookies. Do you really think a few words in a book got His mind pegged?
Rick 08.03.08 at 04:32 PDT
Robert: Just a heads up that the King James Version is a pretty outdated version that could probably be ignored entirely and we’d be just fine. It renders a couple of different words as “abomination” in Leviticus. One of those words is פּגּוּל, which means “unclean” or “a foul thing.” Another, the one used in the Leviticus 9 passage you mentioned, is שׁקץ, which means “filth” or “idolatrous.”
Still another, תּועבה, actually means “abomination” outside of the “clean vs. unclean” realm of the others above, and that is the word used in the passages of Leviticus pertaining to homosexual acts.
The Law of Moses — which Jesus Christ Himself upheld and extolled — calls homosexuality an abomination. This is over and above what is leveled against such as eating unclean foods. A good translation knows the differences.
I appreciate your story about your life being saved by a homosexual, but be careful not to let that influence your beliefs. Moses may have led the Israelites, but he was still a murderer. King David may have been a man after God’s own heart, but he was still an adulteress murderer. Judas Iscariot may have been hand-picked before the foundation of the world to be one of Christ’s disciples, to be one of His circle of friends, but he was still a devil incarnate.
Jesus Christ indeed was a man of love, but He was a man of love who hated sin and hated to see people remain in it. “Go, and sin no more,” was His call, and one day He will have slain before Him all those who reject His rule. That doesn’t sound like a God who ignores the Old Testament to me.
(Likewise, it is illogical to consider the Gospels to be considered Scripture without considering the entirety of the Old Testament to be Scriptures first — the Gospels testify of a God, Jesus Christ, who believed the Old Testament, the Law & the prophets — to be steadfast Scriptures which will not pass away. To dismiss certain of the Old Testament is to make Jesus into a fallible man who is certainly unable to be trusted to save anyone, much less himself.)
Robert 08.03.08 at 14:17 PDT
God love you Rick.
But we are going to stay at ends with this. Though you feel it’s your calling to tell me what scripture really means, I’ve been down this path more times than can be counted my friend. We should talk again about it in 20 years.
I’m incredibly impressed with your knowledge of the Bible. The translation you mention is but one, and of course uses the accepted format as it’s source. It’s one ministries version, no matter how honorable that ministry is. But bless you and bless them nonetheless.
When asked which of the commandments where the most important, Jesus didn’t even come close to citing what where handed down by Moses.
I would love to discuss this further. It’s refreshing to speak to a young man so prepared. Be well.
Rick 08.03.08 at 18:44 PDT
Robert: The important commandments Jesus cited actually *did* come from Moses. Likewise, just because they are the most important doesn’t mean everything else Moses was told by God was suitable to be disregarded.
I’m curious how you can be sure of anything regarding Jesus if you have trouble trusting translations.
Sandi 08.03.08 at 20:28 PDT
Robert,
Glad to hear someone else has agreed to disagree with Rick. I have expressed to him before that I feel his views will grow older and softer with him.
Richard, Jr.,
Really, “He will have slain before Him all those who reject His rule. ” Doesn’t sound like love to me :)
Robert 08.03.08 at 23:03 PDT
@Rick.
You are right. Jesus did cite “Love they neighbor as yourself” from Leviticus 19:18
“You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.”
However, the Hebrew teachers and Rabbi’s believed this to be something completely different, as in only love your own people,
Jesus clarified “who is my neighbor” with the story of the Good Samaritan. As I said before, not even close to what the Wise of the time thought it meant.
It leads you to wonder what else Jesus would have clarified?
Would he clarify Leviticus 20 or 21 as well?
I’m curious how you can be sure of anything regarding Jesus if you have trouble trusting translations.
You are right. It’s difficult to be sure of exactly what Jesus said, only what we think he said based on interpretations of the men who know him. Luckily, Jesus is in history. Not just religious history, but cited again and again in Roman legal history. The Republic was a VERY modern society in the sense of legal mumbo jumbo, and that included forms, reports, INTERROGATIONS, and a whole bunch of other legal documents. So, we have some pretty rock solid proof on what He said, and how He acted, and all of it was pretty consistent with what is said in the Bible.
So, where Leviticus says that a prostitute must surely be put to death, and Jesus saves a prostitutes life, teaches her mercy, and to sin no more, there is a pretty wide divide.
Again and again Jesus had to teach us to break with what people thought they knew of the Lord.
I don’t disregard the what Moses was told by God, but I do think that Jesus, God in the Flesh, made some adjustments.
Bless you Rick.
@Sandi. Thank you for your statement. But I know from reading this blog that Rick is sincere in his love for God and His teachings. Maybe you are right, with age comes clarity, and from the fire of youth comes hope.
Jonathan 08.04.08 at 09:51 PDT
Rick, I really appreciate your treatment of this subject and even more your handling of the objections that have been posted here. I am afraid that I am often not as patient or as gracious. I believe that Senior stated that homosexual acts between consenting adults have no victim or hurt no one. Your answer to this was correct. I would also like to add to this.
My brother is a homosexual. He was married to a wonderful woman, but came to the conclusion that he could no longer “live a lie” by denying his homosexuality. He divorced his wife and ripped her out of our family, where she was dearly-loved. The damage that this did to her was immeasurable. The pain that this created for my family was unbelievable. My nephew barely remembers her anymore, and my niece has no recollection of who she is.
On top of that, my family is subjected to the constant reminder that a loved and valued member of the family is on a path to destruction. Our family times are not as safe as they once were because of this blatant sin.
And beyond all of that, my brother still feels the alienation that his sin has created. He has lost the closeness of his family that he so desires to have - not because we have stopped loving him or expressing our love to him, but because light and darkness can’t dwell in the same place, and we all feel that distance.
Based on my personal experience, it seems a bit cavalier to suggest that there are no victims between consenting adults. The damage to my family has been devastating.
Latest from Jonathan: Biblical Worldview
Rick 08.04.08 at 13:35 PDT
Sandi:
It’s been seven years now since Christ opened my eyes, and I’ve only grown more strongly devoted to Him & His Word. The more I learn, the more I believe.
For my beliefs to soften with age would require my pride in myself outweighing my belief in the Scriptures. It would take a mountain of audacity on my part to think that I can pick and choose what I want from the Scriptures or depart from them entirely — if I’m ever that prideful, I hope my wife slaps me. Hard.
Biblical love demands justice; and because true love is so intimately tied to God’s character, it stands to reason then that those who oppose God are to receive its opposite. I believe I’m standing well within the grounds set by such as the Psalms, so far as that is concerned.
That’s the concluding line of a parable, and it’s possible that it had its fulfillment when Jerusalem was destroyed, resulting in the death of many, many Jews, who had set themselves up as Christ’s enemies when they rejected Him as Messiah and had Him executed.
Or it’s possible that at a point in time in the future, those who reject Christ will be slain before Him. For all I know — and this doesn’t seem to be a common idea at all in the resources I’m looking at — this refers to the everlasting destruction of the wicked in Hell.
Rick 08.04.08 at 13:44 PDT
Robert:
That He did not would seem to indicate that there wasn’t an issue with how it was being interpreted. That’s rather bold of you to seek to put words into His mouth, though. I’m not sure that’s a road anyone should be comfortable going down. (Those who do come out of it quoting ridiculous things like “What Would Jesus Do?” or “What Would Jesus Drive?” or “Jesus Loves Porn Stars” — all things which are found in today’s churchianity.)
Jesus exercised mercy on some, absolutely. On others, though, He withheld mercy, and in an angry rage, overturned tables and cast people out with a whip. Jesus Christ the Judge is more than capable of forgiving offenses committed against Him — we are in no position to do so. We may only forgive offenses committed against us, and sometimes I wonder just what an offense against me would be. I know my own depravity and that before God I deserve a place in Hell — what more could man do to me that I didn’t already have coming to me? That God through Christ has forgiven me by grace through faith, well, it makes any offenses against me done by men fairly inconsequential in the scheme of things.
I don’t really even think He adjusted anything; He simply returned the people — those with ears to hear, anyway — to a right understanding. Mankind being the sinful mess that it is, we’re still having trouble with interpretations. I find the safest path to tread is the path which stays as close as possible to the plain readings of the Scriptures. The faith that Jesus expressed in the Scriptures I cannot ignore — ditto Paul, Peter, Steven, the prophets, and so on.
Sandi 08.04.08 at 13:53 PDT
Rick,
I am not at all sugsesting that you will no longer believe in God. I am expressing that I feel your views will grow in time-with you. Just look at the things that you believed were a must in the past (women must wear dresses, only certain movies) and how those views have changed as you have grown older and wiser.
This is why I don’t post more often. Private discussions are better for me.
Rick 08.04.08 at 13:57 PDT
Jonathan: Thanks for sharing that, brother. I’ll certainly pray for you & your family, that Christ will bring reconciliation if it is His will.
Sadly, Senior and others may suggest that there is only this damage & devastation because of our beliefs concerning homosexuality — not because of the homosexual’s.
Rick 08.04.08 at 15:18 PDT
Sandi: Doesn’t get any more private than a blog’s comments on the Internet. :P
Although it should be noted that my views have grown more closely to Scriptures not away from them. Whereas I used to accept the teachings of friends, pastor, and authors without much questioning, now I pretty much reject whatever doesn’t mesh with the Scriptures. I don’t know the Scriptures entirely nor do I understand everything therein yet, so it is in those areas that I’ll continue to grow.
Robert 08.04.08 at 16:17 PDT
And again I say, may God bless you Rick.
Your faith is yours, and the purity of faith you feel is something to be proud of, and to see it in you makes me proud and happy that someone can be genuine in their convictions and genuine to their faith.
I’m sorry that I’ve drawn your blog post about your views on homosexuality away from this initial conversation. This is your blog, and your faith comes from the personal relationship that you have with God. Though our opinions might be different, all I can say is that I have a faith in God and Jesus because of my personal relationship with God that brings me happiness as well as peace of heart and mind that there is a God that loves me enough to be a light in my life, and to show me the way to His kingdom.
Your growth toward scripture is a personal one, and that I cannot deny. Where you used to accept what was handed to you, you now look to with your own eye to scripture, and a true heart cannot be denied.
I’m sorry if you think I’m being bold enough to put words into God’s mouth. There are much more learned men and women than I who are closer to the scriptures than I am, and might make the claim of knowing EXACTLY what he meant. I can’t, and in getting closer to scripture yourself, it looks like you’re on the path of learning God in many more ways yourself.
If God sent a homosexual man to save me, it’s obvious that he chose what that which was closest at hand to do his bidding. But you yourself said that Mose and David where murders, David a murdering
adulterer. Yet STILL these are the men that God sent to lead his people. As sinners, we all have a chance to redeem ourselves, and as sinners, somehow God still finds in us a quality worth redeeming. Maybe I can dare to say that in each of us, even in the sinners, he finds something to love?
Galatians 3:28
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
And in this big ol crazy world, I a Cuban somewhat Catholic Red Line Christian can seek to find another man of faith online, and have honest discourse with him. I don’t think the differences between us are walls or things that will keep us from heaven. I like to think that our differences are the steps we take to get closer together.
It’s your blog bro. It’s just like that joke about pizza. “Who gets that last slice of pizza? They guy who paid the bill.”
Much respect.
Rick 08.04.08 at 19:05 PDT
Robert: I can respect that you claim to have a relationship with God based on happiness and such. However, I disagree that is what a relationship with God is based on; Jesus said that we must worship in spirit & truth, not in emotion or experience. The “truth” He referred to is the Scriptures — the sure word of God in written form.
And the Scriptures from start to finish testify that homosexuality is a sin.
Galatians 3:28 says that we are all one “in Christ Jesus”; elsewhere the Scriptures make it clear that unrepentant sinners are not in Christ and Christ said Himself that if we are not for Him then we are against Him. And if you’re quoting Paul as Scripture, then I urge you not to ignore his words in Romans 1 or these words:
Robert 08.04.08 at 23:01 PDT
No, Rick, you’ve got me pegged wrong.
My faith is based on the good and the bad. Wars happen, death happens, bad things happen to good people, and good things happen for the bad.
The truth is that the world is a big, dangerous, messed up place where disease takes innocent children, and good fathers die from not enough medicine, because an insurance company didn’t approve it.
Bad men prosper, good men loose it all. But somehow, you kneel and pray, and tell God that you’re sorry for the sins you’ve committed.
When you’re on the floor, unable to breathe because of a ripped open gut, praying that you see your family just one more time, then you might understand my faith.
When you know the loneliness and despair of a child in a dirty, third world country hut, dying alone from some alien and horrendous disease, who only learned the Lord’s Prayer, but prays it nonetheless, you might know my faith.
So if I find some happiness in faith, I think it’s well deserved. So the scriptures say it’s sin. Your right, they do. But we are all sinners, the scripture says that as well.
Thanks for pointing out the weakness in my faith.
Rick 08.05.08 at 06:40 PDT
Robert: I understand faith in weakness. Asthma almost claimed my life in ‘99.
And you’re right, the world is a bad, terrible place. As a friend of mine is apt to point out: It’s jacked up. Even that’s an understatement. We are all sinners, and we all deserve the worst punishments imaginable.
It is recognition of that which drives me to Christ — and conversely it is only by His grace that I even recognize my depravity. Apart from Him, I would love darkness rather than light just as everyone else who has not believed in His name.
Experience and emotion are a big part of life — no doubt about it. My first several years as a disciple were spent following emotion. Out of emotion I “surrendered” to preach. Out of emotion, blah blah blah. As I matured, I realized that every believer is called to preach the Gospel to the nations. My experiences were replaced with a more complete knowledge of the Word.
May your experiences, your faith by continually sanctified by the Word, as I hope mine continually are.
And may we join the saints (and likely Jesus Himself) in raising our voices with the words of God’s song book:
Walt Dickinson 08.05.08 at 14:46 PDT
Rick,
Thank you for quoting Psalm 19 for me, because I’ve had a question bugging me for a long time.
The Psalmist in Psalm 19 states, “The Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.”
I don’t know exactly what translation you used, but there are two points I want to explore.
1. The Law of the Lord is perfect, according to David. That means it is whole, complete, without need of improvement. The Hebraic word is “tamiym” which denotes what I just said. There is nothing wrong with the Law of the Lord.
Is the Law to which David refers the Law of Moses? One can only assume it is, since it is almost inconceivable David knew of any other Law of the Lord.
If, indeed, David is referring to the Law of Moses, and it being perfect, then why did we need a new Law?
In Hebrews 7:18, the author says, “There is a putting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness.”
The author is speaking of the Law of Moses, the same Law that David declared to be “perfect,” without need of improvement.
How can the Law of Moses be both “perfect” and “weak and useless”?
2. David says the Law of the Lord is perfect because it “revives” the soul. The Hebraic word is “shuwb” which means, “to return, to turn back.” So really, David is saying, “The Law of the Lord is perfect, turning back the soul.”
Because the Law of the Lord turns back, brings back, restores, revives the soul, it is perfect.
But the entire New Testament disagrees with this one statement. Again, Hebrews says, “For the Law made nothing perfect” (7:19). Indeed, Paul says, “For if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”
If souls can be revived, brought back to God, through the Law, what point was there in sending Christ?
So which is it? Is the Law of God perfect, or isn’t it?
If David is right, then Christ died needlessly. If Paul is right, then Christians have canonized a heresy (in that they accept the Old Testament as true and what not).
~~~
You also opened another topic which I want to explore, which is more relevant to your post on homosexuality.
I can’t remember where exactly, but there is a place in one of Paul’s letters where he admits that some things he teaches are not things Christ has taught him, but that he feels are beneficial to the Church.
How do we know his views on homosexuality are views held by God? Is it possible he could just be teaching something he feels would benefit the church, however much they lack Divine authority?
~~~
My opinion won’t change either way, but I’m curious to see what you believe.
Rick 08.05.08 at 16:15 PDT
Walt Dickinson: Hey, Justin… Good questions. Regarding the Law, I would like that conversation moved to the Fellowship Hall, if you don’t mind. I already reposted your comment there. It’d be easy for this thread of discussion to be wholly replaced by discussion about the Law, and I’d prefer to keep the thread on-topic if at all possible. :)
You’re referring to the things Paul taught on marriage. Keep in mind that even those passages which are not explicitly labeled “Thus says the Lord” are Scripture. Paul’s teachings on marriage are binding — he is an apostle and thus has great authority within the church. Likewise, that God would enscripturate the marriage teachings prove that they are compatible with not only Christ’s teachings but God’s will.
Note that Paul did not preface anything regarding homosexuality in that manner, so there’s no cause to even think that “Well, maybe it doesn’t count…”
Once you start rejecting certain portions of Scripture, not only are you risking removing yourself from the Lamb’s Book of Life, you reveal your idolatry — if the Scripture’s revelation of God does not wholly describe who you worship, there’s something wrong, and tragically so.
kristarella 08.15.08 at 22:49 PDT
Rick, thanks for such a thorough and faithful exegesis! I really appreciate how you have weighed both Old and New Testament and how any emotions that you’ve shared are not ones of disgust, but ones of concern for the lives of others.
Walt, I posted my thoughts about the law on the forum.
As for the second, I think it might be 1 Cor 7:12 that Walt is referring to.
Rick, you’re right, Paul is an apostle, authorised by Christ, through the Holy Spirit, to teach the word of God. I also agree about not picking and choosing scripture.
When looking at 1 Cor 7:12, it’s important to look back at verse 10 and see what he’s saying. I think that he’s saying, “look, here are some things you need to hear that Jesus himself already spoke about”. We can see he spoke about them in the Sermon on the Mount and he probably spoke about it at other times. Then in verse 12 he says “but to this group of people that Jesus didn’t already address, I’m telling you this as his spokesman”. I don’t think Paul means that his opinions are less important, and in fact they’re not because he is teaching what God has commissioned him to.
Rick 08.16.08 at 00:37 PDT
kristarella: You’re absolutely right, kristarella! As an apostle of Christ, Paul (and the other apostles) had the authority to speak on His behalf. Just as an ambassador for a nation may speak for a nation, so to did the apostles (of which there are an estimated fifteen mentioned in the Bible) have the authority to speak on behalf of Christ. As Jesus said, they were given the ability to bind & loose on Earth, and that their decisions would be mirrored in Heaven.
Paul didn’t teach some new doctrine in Romans 1 when he decreed the ungodliness of homosexuality; rather, he did what every follower of Christ ought to do: hearken unto the Old Testament, just as Christ did. Paul extrapolates and further explains why homosexuality is such a grievous sin — an abomination, in Leviticus’ words.
Homosexuality, as explained by Paul, is a sin which stems from an utter and complete rejection of God as Creator. Whereas God created as male & female so that two flesh may be as one (as Jesus also taught without apology), homosexuality rejects that Creation decree and emphasizes the relationship of two males or two females. It is idolatry, for it elevates the reasoning of man above the decree of God. There are few sins, if any, which are greater than idolatry — especially brazen idolatry done despite knowledge of the true God, as the Israelites did at Sinai — which explains God’s intense punishment upon Sodom.
The angels in Genesis 6 went after strange flesh, and they are being held to this day in Tartarus, awaiting judgment (according to Peter & Jude); homosexuality entails going after “strange flesh” as well.
And any attempt to interpret the Scriptures any other way is an exercise in wresting the Word of God to ones own destruction.
Thanks for the comment, kristarella, and you posted on the Hall? *off to check that now*
kristarella 08.16.08 at 03:18 PDT
Arguably all sins put the reasoning of man before the decree of God. We convince ourselves that it’s ok, that it doesn’t matter, or even that it’s good.
If you class homosexuality as idolatry, does that make it similar to greed, jealousy, covetousness? All of which worship things other than God, the created rather than the creator.
Jonathan 08.16.08 at 08:36 PDT
I think what Kristarella is saying shows why it is easy to reduce all of the commandments to two: love the Lord thy God with all thy heart mind soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Disobedience to God’s command, sin, is essentially idolatry. Is it any wonder then that all sin deserves punishment in hell?
Latest from Jonathan: Regarding Russia’s Blitzkrieg In Georgia
Rick 08.16.08 at 16:00 PDT
Jonathan & kristarella: You two are both right: All sins are essentially idolatry — the putting of ourselves or objects in the place of Yahweh — and virtually all of them are motivated by pride — we know better than Yahweh.
In fact, near the close of Romans 1, I believe, Paul links homosexuality with myriad other sins.
For whatever reason, though, homosexuality is in a class to itself — in Leviticus, it’s the only sin branded as abominable. I suppose you could link it directly with the sin of “going after strange flesh”; man isn’t meant to lie with man any more than angel with human (Genesis 6; Jude 6, 7).
When the angels went after strange flesh and pursued unnatural desires, only a few were saved from the whole Earth. When the citizens of Sodom and the surrounding areas did the same, only a handful of people were saved therefrom.
Sexual purity is clearly of paramount importance to the Lord.