Why do Christians “Ignore” Some of the Law, but not all?

I’ve been seeing lots of images like this popping up:

It really just shows the ignorance involved on the opposite side of the issue. And when I see Christians get puzzled by things of this nature, it shows how ignorant Christians are of basic theology. The Law of Moses is often a misunderstood subject in its relation to Christianity. There are some people who say that its been fulfilled and we can properly ignore it. There are some who say we ignore only the parts that are not repeated in the New Testament. There are some, mostly Jewish Christians, who believe we are still bound to carrying out the ceremonial parts of the Law, but we are under Grace and not bound to carrying out the rest. There are all different views. My viewpoint, which I believe is the most balanced, is that the whole Law is beneficial, yet, because it was fulfilled we are not to treat it by what the definition of law requires. We do not throw it out, ignore it, or write it off as belonging to a different dispensation. It is very real to us and as holy as it was to Moses. We just are no longer under obligation to following it. It is no longer Law for us. Lets get into this.

The Yoke of the Law

First off, we need to think about what Law is. A law is a legally binding command that must be followed per the demands of society. When the Jews were given the Law via Moses, they were required to follow it. It was not simply a set of moral codes, or guiding principles for living. It was Law, they were obliged to following it as members of the nation of Israel.

Now a person was still saved by grace in OT times, nothing has changed in that regard. Jesus as the final atonement had not come yet, so they were however obliged to make weekly and yearly atonement for sins. This was also a part of the Law. When a man was justified by faith, whatever the object of his faith was, his justification was not bound to the keeping of the Law. I think this is one point that people kinda stumble on. We understand that the Jews were saved by faith through grace, but then when you combine it with the keeping of the Law, many end up with a view that Jews were able to lose their justification. Not so. The Law and especially the sacrificial system were designed to keep a person tied to the benefits of the Promises made to Israel. To those that were justified by faith, the keeping of the Law bound you to the people of Israel. It’s a difficult concept, I’m not going to go in depth. Just understand that a person did not lose their justification and were required to keep the Law in order to be in fellowship with the nation of Israel.

On the other hand, in order to be saved apart from any grace, one would have to be completely perfect. They would have to follow that law perfectly. Of course, no one can do that. So, the law becomes a "pointer outer" of our sin. It just shows us that we're guilty, but does nothing to save us from that sin that we're guilty of. Here's a good explanation of it that was posted on my friend Kevin Fiske's website,  www.kevinfiske.com.

When we get to the New Testament, we understand that through Christ the Law was fulfilled. Paul says that the yoke of the law has been put off (Rom 7:4; Gal 5:1). Does this mean that the Law has become worthless? Nope. What this means is that we are no longer legally obliged to carrying it out. With Christ as our eternal sacrifice and final atonement for sin, we can live our lives freely by grace. I no longer am obliged to making sacrifices for sins committed. I no longer need to worship at a temple. I no longer need a priest to make amends for me. All these things were summed up in Christ. He is our High Priest, he is our Temple, he is our Atonement. So then we can ignore the Law? No. Read on.

The Nature of Christianity: We Can’t Keep All Laws

This is pretty self-explanatory. People who accuse us of ignoring parts of the Bible haven’t really thought it through- to keep the whole of the Law of Moses requires a Temple. Christian theology aside, even if we were to try to keep the Law, it would be an impossibility. The upholding of the Mosaic Covenant requires a temple, or at the very least, the Tabernacle. We have neither. Either way, the veil was torn at Christ’s death, signifying his fulfillment of the sacrificial system. We have no need for a temple or sacrifices.

The Nature of Christianity: Law is Not a Requirement

We believe people are saved by grace through faith. That said, we have no requirement on us to do anything in order to be saved, or to continue on in salvation. So, even when we come to commands given in the Epistles in the New Testament, they are not in any way binding on us in the sense that we will fall out of favor with God. Once we are saved, it is a done deal, we cannot lose that. That is what it means to have the “righteous requirement” of the Law fulfilled. We no longer have an obligation to doing anything in order to either earn or keep our standing with God. “By grace you have been saved, through faith, and not of yourself.”

Why the Law is Still Relevant: Gnomic Truth vs. Absolute Truth

So, what use does the Law have for us? It is applicational to us as abiding moral principles. We don’t often hear the term ‘gnomic truth’ but this is what the Law is for us. It is no longer a code of demands upon us, but is a code of principles that may be applied to our lives in various ways. A gnomic truth is a principle, as opposed to an absolute truth. A good example of gnomic truth is the “contradiction” in Proverbs 26:4-5:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Why is this not a contradiction? Because they are not absolute truths. There are times to answer the fool, and times to hold your tongue. This is the essence of gnomic truth. Another example is when Jesus said,

So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.

And yet Christians sin. Once again, a gnomic truth. It is a principle, not absolute. This is how we are to look at the Law. What is the principle the individual commands are trying to convey? If my ox gores my neighbor I’m responsible for it. Well, I don’t own an ox so how does that relate to me? I have two nasty little Italian Greyhounds. Nuff said.

We could make application out of anything, and we’re not really limited in how we apply it either.

The Different Designations Within the Singular Law

Now to the big one, the reason we’re all reading this.

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

Kinda hard not to take that one literally isn’t it? So what’s the excuse? Sometimes the abiding principle is actually the literal command. That’s all there is to it. But, as the accusation goes, are we singling this command out like it’s a special command that we can’t ignore, but we ignore all the rest? What about the shellfish or the pork? Why “ignore” those, but not this? Well, are we really ignoring everything except this? Let’s do a survey of Leviticus 18 and 19, known as the Holiness Code:

“None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness” (Lev 18:6-18)

“You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her.” (Lev 18:20) 

“You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech” (Lev 18:21a… ie, no child sacrifices) 

“…nor shall you profane the name of your God…” (Lev 18:21b)

“Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.” (Lev 18:23)

“You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.” (Lev 19:2)

“Every one of you shall reverence his mother and his father…” (Lev 19:3a)

“Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves molten gods…” (Lev 19:4)

“You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.” (Lev 19:11)

“You shall not swear falsely by My name, so as to profane the name of your God.” (Lev 19:12)

I digress. I would have to list nearly the entirety of chapter 19 if I continued, so go read it for yourself. We are not ignoring things. Many of the laws given to Moses have direct application for us.

But that still doesn’t respond to the ones we do ignore. Certainly, as I said, there are some that have some kind of abiding principle that we can glean from. But what about the whole pork and shellfish thing? Or tattoos, or shaving the corners of your beard?

The Law is divided into three kinds of Laws; Ceremonial, Civil, and Moral. Ceremonial Laws have to do with the requirements of the Temple. We already dealt with that. Civil Laws have to do with the purity of the nation of Israel. There are many laws, like abstaining from pork, shellfish, or the dreaded rock badger, which have to do with distinguishing Israel from the other nations surrounding them. Tattoos, trimming the corners of your beard, mixing crops and fabrics, are all part of this. Think about the mixing crops or fabrics thing. If a Gentile approached a Jew and asked why they do such silly things, they have a ready-made answer; their clothing is pure because God is pure. God is not many, he is One. Quite a nice picture, isn’t it? Why didn’t they get tattoos? Because tattoos had to do with respect for the dead, in a religious sense. To the Jews, all honor and glory belongs to God; there is no ceremonial or superstitious honoring of the dead. They are dead. This belief stands in contradistinction to those in the countries around them. Why didn’t they eat pork? Well, who knows. All we know is that it was a Civil command given to them to set them apart. Maybe due to Trichinosis. Maybe not. Either way, I hope I’ve made my point. So, these kinds of Laws have specifically to do with the nation of Israel as they existed alongside other nations and religions. They are not directly applicational to us, but still may be used for secondary application within our daily lives.

Then there's the case of penal judgments for breaking commandments in the Law. Well, simply put, Israel is a country. They had people and leaders. The Law of Moses was the law, no different than our law. We have punishments for certain crimes, they had the same. That's how Law works. This fits into the Civil aspect of the Law and once again, does not apply to us, thankfully, or I would have been killed several times over for disrespecting my parents...

Now, this discussion doesn’t end here. We will pick up Leviticus 18:22 later when we get into Paul when we jump over to the New Testament passages. This passage, in the Greek Septuagint, is very important for understanding Paul’s teaching on homosexuality. If the passage in Leviticus isn’t relevant today, then Paul’s use of it is. We’ll get to that later.

To tie this up, I want you to think about Law, and the basis for Law. Why do we have so many problems in our Country these days? It is because our laws are arbitrary. In the beginning of our Country, the Laws were based on something higher- the Bible. The founding fathers understood that without a basis, without absolute truth, Law cannot be upheld. When culture becomes the basis for morality, you end up with the French Revolution. The Founding Fathers understood this fact, and based their Constitution and Bill of Rights on the fact that there is a God, that he has revealed himself to us, and he alone is the foundation of all morality. This sets Law as immovable. Nowadays, Law is based on social opinion. It has no basis except the ever-swaying, ever-changing views of society. All countries who have tried that have fallen. Mark my words: if we fully remove the basis for our morality, we will follow them in that fall.

Stay strong,

Mike

Supporting Chick-fil-A

Every Saturday morning for the last 5 or 6 years I've sat in a Starbucks studying the Bible with my friends. It has been a place of quiet meditation for myself and many Christians out there, who want to have a nice study time while enjoying a good cup of coffee. Starbucks is also and active supporter of homosexual marriage. Why do I not boycott them? As a Christian, I disagree with them. As an American, I support their right to express their opinion. What we are seeing today is a hard-nosed effort to deny American Christians their right to express their beliefs publicly, based on the beliefs of the non-believing majority. We are called haters, bigots, ignorant, gay-bashers, and a slew of other names that I simply won't repeat. In Islamic countries, homosexuals are killed. In America, they are tolerated. Yet when it comes to returning that tolerance they've experienced from us, we are instead attacked. Barred from putting our businesses in major cities, barred from stating our beliefs in the public school system, and if they have it their way, we will be barred from stating our beliefs in our own churches.


Yet, we will not be silenced. And in the end, those who say they are Christians will have to decide to stand with us or stand against us and divide the body of Christ.

When persecution comes, who's side will you stand on? This is a weighty question that each person must ask themselves.


I urge you to support Chick-fil-A this Wednesday to show America that we are not the weak minority, and that we will not back down on our values.


Fight the good fight,

Mike

Balancing our Views on the World and Sinning Christians

I always find it interesting when reality hits and something that I’ve been teaching for years is brought close to home.

For the last 7 years I’ve stood firmly planted against the Emergent Church movement, and while I’ve talked to people who hold views that may in some way converge with the practices of the EC, I hadn’t really met anyone who in practice really subscribed to the whole of what was being taught in the movement. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the Emergent Church (which is really an old subject now), they are basically teaching a form of Ecumenicalism. That is, a movement away from doctrine and a move towards an all-encompassing, all-inviting, “it doesn’t matter what you believe” sorta thing. Two of the biggest voices in the movement have been Rob Bell and Brian MacLaren.

Within the last year, I’ve been getting into some not-so-welcome squabbles on Facebook with people that are almost by-the-book Emergent, whether they regard themselves as that or not. The arguments have been stemming from my rigid (ahem…Biblical) adherence to what the Bible teaches on certain subjects. Even that statement would come off as an “I’m right and everyone else is wrong” stance to them. That’s not what I’m trying to do. I want nothing more than to promote a balanced view of the Christian life, stemming from a balanced view on Scripture. It seems though, that mainstream Christianity has a disjointed view on what “balanced” means.

I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I believe that all parts are true. I believe that the original authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the words they did. I also believe that certain practices must be adhered to when interpreting Scripture. One of those rules is that no two parts of Scripture should be in direct contradiction with one another. The one thing that I see popping up time and time again from people of all different theological backgrounds, and especially from the Emergent camp, is that the view of “love” is held at a disproportionately high level compared to other attributes of God and Christian fundamentals.

Two areas seem to be affected more than others: our view of the unsaved world, and our treatment of Christians living in unrepentant sin. There are other areas that are affected, but those topics are left for another time.

The first issue, our view of the unsaved world, is a sticky one. As I said before, we have to strike a balance. We must uphold all Scripture, and make its validity real to ourselves each and every day. Balance is certainly a key issue. Jesus tells us that he came into the world “to seek and to save that which is lost.” Three times in the book of John he tells us to “love one another, as I have loved you.” And yet when confronted by the Pharisees he called them such names as “brood of vipers” and “whitewashed tombs.” Upon visiting the Temple, he was outraged by the money changers and turned over the tables of the merchants for doing evil his Father’s house. On the one hand, we have love being preached, but on the other, we have righteousness being displayed. Jesus’ balance was that we not to make light of sin, and we are not to treat sinners as if they are not enemies with God, and yet at the same time, we are to love them and care for them in the reality that if they are not saved, they will spend eternity in Gehenna.

Paul echoes Jesus’ teachings. He says in Rom 13:8, “… he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” And again in 1 Cor 16:14, “Let all that you do be done in love.” But he also says in 2 Cor 6:14-15, “Do not be bound together (unequally yoked) with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?” Once again, we see that a balance must be struck. We cannot allow one of Paul’s teachings to either override another nor negate another. That said, we are to show love to unbelievers, to treat them as we would want to be treated, but we are not to be brothers and sisters to them as we are with each other. We have Christ as our head, they have Satan. We belong to the Light, they to the darkness.

I could go on to continue quoting verses from James, Peter, and John, but we’ve done enough. When I look at disagreements, I like to go to take arguments to their logical end. In this case, I’ll take it all the way to the end. What is the end for unbelievers? It is to stand before God at the Great White Throne judgment where he will, in perfect holiness and righteousness, condemn all who did not believe in his Son to eternal condemnation. One thing I don’t think many people think about is the question, “What will our reaction be upon seeing the guilty punished?” I think a good key to this is the cry of the martyrs in Revelation 6:9-10, “When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintain and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?’” James White has little theory that he believes that most people believe in some kind of a positional sanctification in the afterlife, as if sin halts once people die. The fact is, the Spirit is working as a restrainer on the earth right now- what will happen when the body dies, and that restraining Spirit is no longer at work? When it is only the sinner and God, what will their reaction to God be? The only reasonable answer is that with sin un-harnessed, sinners will defy God in ways they’ve never done before. With the Holy Spirit pulled aside from them, it will only be themselves and their sin standing before God. I think people think that upon seeing sinners, the saints will cry for God’s mercy, as the “love doctrine” seems to imply in people’s lives today. But, Christian, what do you think your reaction would be to seeing God, in all His majesty and splendor, being defied by a person whose whole being is set against Him? Will it be mercy and love? No, our only response will be to praise and glorify God as his perfect righteousness condemns those that oppose him.

Its not really a great thing to think about, seeing those we love and care for condemned for all eternity. On the other hand, to see God’s perfect holiness poured out will be an awesome thing, and he is as worthy of being praised for his upholding of justice as he is for the love that was shown by Christ on the Cross. God is as righteous as he is holy. God is not more of one than the other. This is balance. We have to uphold the one attribute as much as we do the other. We are to love the unsaved, treat them with respect, but they are ultimately at enmity with God. They stand opposed to us as his children. To be friends in the sense of having the same kind of harmony with them as we have with others of the elect is to be bound with darkness. Anyone who has ever told someone that they will go to hell if they do not put their faith in Christ knows this well- the response of those who reject Christ is animosity.

We can say a similar thing for Christians living in sin. One thing that is so often glossed over is the idea of punishment within the Church. We are to love our sinning brothers and sisters, but fellowshipping with them is a different story. Once again, we must hold Scripture in balance. One truth cannot override another. So, where Scripture states one thing, we have to hold it in as high of regard as other things stated. Paul says in 1 Cor 5:9-11, “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” Such an idea is often looked down on in Churches today. Most people’s mindset is that we should allow such people to carry on in our Churches in order to show them the love of Christ so that they will eventually turn from their sin. But look what Paul says in the follow-up letter in 2 Cor 2:6-8 where he talks about the outcome of the above situation, “Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.” After the person was punished, Paul commended them for punishing him, and he repented, turned, and was welcomed back into fellowship in love. There is a purpose in punishment- so that they may be welcomed back with open arms. Look at what Paul said, “…otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.” Punishment is not there just for the sake of punishment, not meant to push them away or to simply prove to them that they were wrong. Instead, to keep them from “excessive sorrow,” we are to be working with them, pushing them to holiness, and then welcoming them back with open arms.

While this post may seem like a separate thought from the recent topic of homosexuality, it really isn’t. Look at the above passage in 1 Cor. “Immoral person” is the Greek word pornos, and refers to any person who is involved in open sexual immorality- of any kind that is not between a husband (man) and a wife (woman). As I said in the first post I made on homosexuality, the big deal about it is that people, even Christians, are defining their life and their very person by a particular sin. Paul’s command is that we are not to associate with these people. This is not to be unloving, or to bash them with Scripture, or to make ourselves look more pure than they. It is simply to follow the command of Scripture, and the same would go for us if it were true of any of us.

In closing, I want to urge you to uphold each other in love. We need to be calling sin for what it is- sinful. The unsaved person cannot be saved if they do not know they are sinful, and in turn, the saved person cannot repent without being convicted. We cannot do that without knowing and upholding doctrine, and having a balanced view on it. God certainly is God of love, but he is many other things as well. Jesus, having the “fullness of deity” was the display of God’s attributes lived out through human life, and we are commanded to walk as he walked. This means balance and harmony in our doctrine.

You cannot show God's love without showing his righteousness and holiness as well. Part of God means no God at all.

Grace and peace,

Mike

Praying for the Will of God to be Done

Time for something a little different. This isn't "the homosexuality blog" after all, and I definitely don't want to see it turn into that. I also don't want every post to be a big rant against some other belief or an extended exegesis either. So, I'm going to try to do more small, off-the-top-of-my-head kinda posts. Hope you enjoy the smaller ones as much as the big ones.




"...Thy Will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven."




Such a memorable line from the Lord's prayer. Jesus shows us how we should pray, and it is a beautiful prayer that when broken down into parts, shows us things that should be included in our prayers to the Father. Praying that his "will be done" is one of those things.


It is a somewhat difficult thought. On the one hand, there is the heart of God, and on the other there is the Purpose of God. There are the things he desires because of his moral nature, and there are the things that happen because He has an overarching purpose for all creation to the end that He will be glorified. We pray that His moral desires will be done, we are faithful that His singular purpose in creation will certainly be done. There can be no greater hope than what was written by our beloved Apostle Paul in Romans 8:28:




"For all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose."




I've been finally learning Greek. That said, looking at the Greek here makes this passage so much more meaningful. I'll try to impart some knowledge. The final part of the sentence is this in the Greek:

 τοῖς       κατὰ       πρόθεσιν     κλητοῖς       οὖσιν.
to(the)  according     purpose    called(ones)      are.
                 to


In Greek, as I've been learning, word order isn't really all that important as far as translation goes. You can arrange the words into pretty much any order you want, and as long as the words are in the right case, it will still make perfect sense. The word "purpose" here is in the accusative case, so it is the direct object of the verb ousin (are), which is the dative form of the verb eimi (to be). So, in English, it would be in the predicate, at the end of the sentence (The direct object is the noun the verb acts on: I threw the ball. "Threw" acts on "the ball," which is the direct object). Why isn't it in the Greek? Well, word order does have one purpose- you can arrange the words to show where the emphasis is. The fact that the word "purpose" is before the word "called" means that Paul intended for the emphasis to be put on the Purpose of God. His purpose is of greater import than ourselves. We are here for Him, not the other way around.


Notice also, that the word "purpose" is in the singular. This isn't a smaller purpose. This is a singular purpose to which all the called conform to. That purpose is the Glory of God. We are all called to be a testament to His everlasting righteousness and His perfect Holiness. So, all things work for a higher, singular, purpose- a purpose to which we've been called. That includes all misery, sin, struggles, temptations, everything. "All things" isn't modified by some other word. In fact, if you were to translate it strictly, it wouldn't even be "all things," it is just "all." He works "all" together for our good. Not the best English, but the point is clear, that our hope in prayer is that we pray for what we think is the best according to what He has revealed to us of His Will through Scripture, but, the things that actually do happen are part of a higher purpose, and have therefore been prescribed by Him. And all this to our benefit. What a wonderful thought.

ca¿riß kai÷ eirh/nh,

Mike

Homosexuality: Sources for Both Sides of the Argument

I got challenged on Facebook for not being thorough enough. As I stated before, the position and the arguments I’m addressing have been thoroughly argued by much more competent people than myself over and over again. I have about 50 visitors to this blog, tops. That said, my purpose here isn’t to go into so great detail that I lose the attention of 95% of the people reading this. My point is simply to address every passage of Scripture that deals with the topic of homosexuality. That’s it. I’m not going to give a huge 5000 word dissertation-style discussion on every singe passage with full citations etc. My point is just to address each passage, hit the major point, prove the opposition is wrong, and move to the next passage. If you want more, there are PLENTY of scholarly works on this issue. Here are a few.

Homosexual Position

There are mainly three resources that you really need to look at for this position. Unbeknownst to most people, the whole of the homosexual position is really based on three authors, John Boswell, Robin Scroggs, and D. Sherwin Bailey. All the positions that are being argued against the “traditional” interpretation rest on these three authors’ interpretations. And they’ve been refuted many times. Here are the main sources:

Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition by D.S. Bailey

Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality by John Boswell

The New Testament and Homosexuality by Robin Scroggs

A third source, which is very recent, is the speech given by Matthew Vines, which can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY

Vines hits pretty much all the main arguments. You don’t even need to read Boswell, Bailey, or Scroggs, just listen to this. Vines’ argument is a summation of every pro-homosexual argument that is given in modern times. If you listen to this single one-hour-long presentation, you’ll have a good understanding of the various arguments given from the homosexual position.

Traditional scholars

Me. Just read me. Keep reading and I’ll never steer you wrong.

…Just kidding.

These are some are random papers I’ve collected and many are articles in theological journals on the issue. Journals often require a subscription fee, so they’re available at a price. I have access to the whole history of every major journal in America through Accordance Bible Software, which is a bit of a plus. [Edit-I bumped into some links to a few of these after writing this… you’re welcome- Mike]

“Homosexuality and the Old Testament” by P. Michael Ukleja, Bibliotheca Sacra Jul 1983

“The Bible and Homosexuality: Homosexuality in the New Testament” by P. Michael Ukleja, Bibliotheca Sacra Oct 1983

The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Cor 6:9 by David E. Malick, Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct 1983, found here: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf

"The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," by David E. Malick, Bibliotheca Sacra, July 1993, found here: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/romans_malick.pdf

The Source and Meaning of Arsenokoitai, With Implications for Christian Ethics and Ministry by James DeYoung, found here: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf

The Meaning of “Nature” in Romans 1 and its Implications for Biblical Proscriptions of Homosexual behavior by James DeYoung, found here: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/31/31-4/31-4-pp429-441_JETS.pdf

Here are some YouTube debates.

Michael Brown v Harry Knox- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCTTq8DMQ8E&feature=plcp

Follow the links, there is more than one part.

James White v. Michael Schutz

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAF60DCC0073B8996&feature=plcp

This last one is a big one. Above you read about Matthew Vines’ lecture, well, this is the response. Vines’ presentation is one hour, James White’s response is 5.5 hours. More than thorough. And totally worth listening to, as he goes through many scholarly sources that I simply don’t have access to, as well as the fact that he is well versed in the original languages and textual variants. Lots of great information in here.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5086

Consider yourself well armed. The material isn’t altogether difficult, but it is very scholarly and not easy reading/listening. The debates are extremely helpful, and packed with information. You can’t go wrong devoting some time to listening to Dr. White’s rebuttal of Matthew Vines. He goes over so much material in the original languages, church history, Jewish history, Greek and Roman history, and theology that you really could benefit from the super long 5.5 hours runtime. This is pretty much a summary of the material I'm using to write these blog articles, plus a few odd commentaries for usage of original languages. Hope this does you some good.

Grace and Peace,

Mike

The Sin of Sodom

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. Then the two men said to Lot, “Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it.” (Genesis 19:1-13)

You’d think this one would be pretty self-explanatory, but as with anyone who wants to twist Scripture to make their viewpoint work, it becomes complicated. The question here is, “What was Sodom’s sin?” As was mentioned in the previous posts, the homosexual agenda likes to make multiple arguments about the same passage, without recognizing that the various arguments are all contradictory. Same goes here. Two arguments are given:

1)    Sodom’s sin was inhospitality.

2)    Sodom’s sin was gang rape.

Its not that each argument is given individually by different proponents; it is that both arguments are given by singular opponents. So, which one is it? Was it inhospitality or gang rape? Can’t be both, if each is presented as the correct one. In actuality, both are right. But they’re not the only ones that are right. The question “What was Sodom’s sin?” is really a trick question. It assumes that Sodom only committed one sin. Homosexuals will play this game with the above two sins, in the hopes that you will think that they only committed one sin. The real question is, what is the sin that was committed that made the Lord destroy them? Ezekiel adds a bit of commentary:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. (Ezek 16:49)

Now, a word on this. One thing you need to learn about Biblical exegesis is to never trust anyone 100%. There are many expositors on the homosexual side that will quote this verse, and say, “See, we were right… they were inhospitable,” and they stop there. In doing so they prove themselves untrustworthy. The very next verse says:

They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.

This is the reason you have to watch people that like to “proof text” positions. Anyone who states a position and then lists 50 passages after is probably grasping at straws and making more than a few assumptions about the texts cited. Same thing goes for someone who quotes a verse and never addresses the context. Be careful, and always check citations.

So, the problem here is this word “abomination.” In the Hebrew, it is the word to’ebah. It is the same word used in the Levitical law for a moral abomination. Homosexuals will immediately argue that there were many abominations, including eating pork, shellfish, wearing clothing meant for the opposite sex, remarrying after adultery, dishonest scales, homosexuality, and idolatry. They’ll state that it could have been any one of these, therefore the identity of the sin is unknown, and thus confuse your mind with faulty exegesis.

Let’s think this through. All we know about Sodom is written in the book of Genesis. We know that they were destroyed immediately after the issue with Lot and the angels. We know that they attempted homosexual gang rape, and were inhospitable. Of all we know about them, how many things can be identified as an abomination? One thing. Men lying with men. The only abomination we can spot in the story of the destruction of Sodom is that the men of the city wanted to “know” the angels. There is one giant giveaway that no one ever seems to focus on in relation to this issue, but treats as a separate issue unto itself: Lot’s offer of his daughters.

“Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

Now to our mindset, the idea of offering your daughters is so offensive, that most focus on this verse as if it stood alone. There’s a reason it is there though, and I believe that this reason proves that the Sodomites were destroyed for homosexuality.

Lot offered his daughters as a more appropriate appeasement for their sexual desire.

Right away, everyone’s red flags start going up, but hold on, let me explain. In general, the first thought most people have is that there is some kind of a lack of respect for women, or that this concerned the fact that women were not held in as high regard in those days. I don’t think that is the case here. If the issue was simply that the men of the city had strong sexual urges, and nothing was particularly wrong with those urges except that they were being inhospitable, Lot could have offered either himself or his sons. Why his daughters then? Let’s make a couple analogies.

You are out on a stroll with your dog and come upon a serial killer attempting to kill another person. If you intercede, you will certainly die. If you shout out, you will die. So, you offer the killer your dog in place of the victim. He kills the dog, and is filled with memories of the past, killing squirrels as a child.

The second scenario is a little more along the lines of the story. Think about a young, single man who is struggling with his sexual urges. He relates to you that he’s at his boiling point, and ready to commit a sin with a woman. A possible suggestion to the man is masturbation in order to sate his urges. He goes through with it, and his urge is held at bay.

In both scenarios, you have a person about to commit a sin. In both situations, a potential lesser sin is substituted for the greater sin. I think you get where I’m going with this. Lot’s offer of his daughters is a response to the wickedness of the act the men of the city wanted to commit. He is essentially saying, “Take my daughters and if you have to sin, sin with them; but please… for the love of all things holy- don’t sin in the way you are about to!” Lot’s terrible offer is proof of how wicked the actions of the men were. It was a much greater sin for a man to lay with a man than for a man to lay with a woman that was not his wife. Even in Levitical law, adultery is not considered an abomination, but homosexuality is. This view is the only view that makes sense of all the information we are given. Here are some questions:

1)    If the men’s sin was that they were inhospitable, how would the offer of Lot’s daughters help that? –It wouldn’t have.

2)    If the men’s sin was gang rape, how would the offer of Lot’s daughters be any different? – It wouldn’t.

3)    On the other hand, if the sin was homosexuality, would the offer of Lot’s daughters have helped the situation if the offer had been taken? –Yes.

In looking at the passage with these questions in mind, only the last question seems to make sense of the passage. Ezekiel states that they were destroyed for committing an abomination. Homosexual actions are the only abomination that we know they committed. Lot’s daughters prove it. Let’s go to the New Testament now for further testimony.

[Edit-- I want to state that I'm not condoning the action of replacing greater sins for lesser sins. I believe that in the historical sections of the Old Testament, the authors' positions were to simply tell what happened. That said, there are a lot of things in the OT that when scrutinized, weren't the most moral of decisions. Think about the entire story of Gideon. He was a deceiver, a murderer, and a doubter of God. But he was commended as a good Judge. How about Deborah? She drove a tent stake through a man's head. Same thing here. Lot may have exchanged a lesser sin for a greater sin, but I'm not saying he was justified. Given the situation he was in, that was the decision he made and the author just told it as it happened. I hope that clears things a bit. -Mike]

And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 6-7)

Whatever these angels are (my belief is that they are the “sons of God” of Genesis 6), they, “in the same way as [Sodom and Gomorrah] indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh…” Lets look at a couple words.

“Gross immorality” is the word ekporneuo, and has the idea of “giving oneself over to fornication.” It is made up of two words, ek- which means “from, out of” and porneuo or “fornication,” where we get our word “porn” from.

The second word group is “strange flesh.” In the Greek, it is sarkos heteros, meaning “flesh of a different kind.” The idea is that the flesh they committed fornication with was of kind that was not natural to them.

The two terms, being in the same context and both being the reason for the destruction of the angels and people of Sodom and Gomorrah, are interrelated. In the case of the angels, they committed fornication and went after strange flesh because they abandoned their proper spiritual body (οἰκητήριον) by taking on human form and taking wives of human women. In the case of the Sodomites, they committed fornication with people that were also not their lot- men. Notice the conjoining phrase “in the same way as these,” which is there to show that the sins of the two groups are correlated. They both were sexually active in a way that is not proper for them.

The fact here is that any action of sexuality between men is an abomination before God. There is no idea here of “committed same-sex relationships,” it is the very action that is condemned. We’ll get more into this in the next passage, as we look at the Law presented in the book of Leviticus, which is crucial to our understanding not only of the subject, but of who Jesus and Paul were, which we will discuss much later.

My challenge- read the book of Leviticus! There’s a lot in there, and even though we live under grace and not under law, it doesn’t mean we throw the book out! So do yourself a favor and read a book of the Bible that you probably wouldn’t even look at if no one told you to do so!

Grace and peace,

Mike