What I want to say about Christians being afraid of the homosexual issue...

Yeah, I'm not afraid of the change coming. And this is how I feel toward those already plotting against Christ's church... if I wanted to make light of it. Which I kinda do.

1 Tim 2:4

"...who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

A little late night rant. Presidential race just got wrapped up, Obama wins. This is the first passage that comes to mind.

Generally, you only hear this verse coming from some kind of altar call from an Arminian preacher teaching that God's desire is for every single person on the planet and throughout history to be saved. Not so. Let's look at the rest of the context.

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 We can see from the context that the desire on God's behalf is not that every person will be saved, but instead that all kinds of men be saved- here's the part that's important- even the kings and rulers who oppress you.

Right now we're facing a moral crisis in America. What Paul defines as a "giving over" to sin in the area of homosexuality is happening as we speak. And what's more, what Paul said later about others "giving hearty approval" is also the norm. The moral compass is so far off in this country. I actually just had to take a break from typing to argue with someone over the definition of life. When a country can't define what marriage is based on the natural function of the body, or the definition of life based on just the dumbest common sense, then its time we start getting off our behinds and becoming the Christians that the Apostles desired us to be.

Hard times are coming. Times are coming where we will simply no longer be tolerated. And yet despite that, Paul urges Timothy to pray for our rulers, as He has the power to save even those that are our enemies. What we are going through right now is of no comparison to the trials experienced by the early Church. We have yet to face death for our belief in this country. We have yet to worry about exile. We do not have secret meetings in homes. We live a good life, worshiping freely.

Enjoy that freedom, but do not become complacent. Give thanks to God for the graces he has bestowed upon us, and that when the tide comes, he will be merciful and not allow us to be swept up with it.



Grace and peace in the next 4 years,

Mike

Homosexuality: Who was Jesus? Part One

In continuing with the topic of homosexuality, I’d like to do a short study of Christology. Often as it is, the topic comes up of what Jesus taught on homosexuality, and the general consensus is that he didn’t teach anything. In one sense, this is correct; Jesus did not teach explicitly on homosexuality (though he did teach on the definition of marriage, which I have already addressed) in his earthly ministry. In another sense, he certainly did- when we look at the whole of who Jesus was. As I state time and time again, theology matters. Narrowing the discussion of Jesus to only the carpenter of Nazareth in ignorance of his full person as God, and again narrowing it to only what is in the red letters of certain Bibles is theological laziness. It shows that either a person has no desire to understand Christian theology, or that a person is ignoring or possibly overlooking other parts of Christian theology. Theology matters. One weak link in the chain causes the whole chain to fail. So, let’s study Christology together.

Christ as God

The Orthodox Christian understanding of Jesus’ deity is central to understanding the relationship between Christology and the homosexual debate. We as Christians recognize Jesus as God. We refer to him as the Second Person of the Trinity. That is, Jesus is fully God, yet is the Second of Three, the other two Persons being the Father and the Spirit, respectively. A denial of this is across the board heresy, and divides those who are Christians from those who are not.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

“For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him…” (Col 1:19)

“…although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” (Phil 2:6-7)

“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

Read the next two as one section. The passage from Isaiah is what John quotes in his gospel.

“For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.’ These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.” (John 12:39-41)

“In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
And one called out to another and said,            ‘Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts,            The whole earth is full of His glory.’
And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke.
Then I said,            ‘Woe is me, for I am ruined!            Because I am a man of unclean lips,            And I live among a people of unclean lips;            For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.’…“He said, ‘Go, and tell this people:            ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;            Keep on looking, but do not understand.’
‘Render the hearts of this people insensitive,            Their ears dull,            And their eyes dim,            Otherwise they might see with their eyes,            Hear with their ears,            Understand with their hearts,            And return and be healed.’ ” (Isaiah 6:1-5, 9-10)

Notice John's commentary: "[Isaiah] saw His glory, and he spoke of Him." Saw who? Spoke of who? Contextually, in John's gospel, he's referring to Jesus. But when we go to the book of Isaiah and read what Isaiah actually wrote in the whole context, we see that he spoke of the LORD. If you don't know, whenever our English Bibles use "the LORD" in small capitals, it means that the original Hebrew is using the tetragrammaton- YHWH. So, John is equating Jesus with YHWH.

Aside from Biblical references, you can also do a study on secular authors and look historically at what Christians have believed from antiquity. Pliny writes to the Emperor of Rome in the early second century AD on what to do with Christians. He mentions a list of ways to find them, which included forcing them to curse Christ or worship statues of the Emperor and offer drink and food offerings to his Genius. True Christians would not do these things. Now, it follows from that, that if Christianity was a Jewish religion (which Pliny also recognizes, saying that the “disease” spread from Israel to Rome), and Judaism was strictly Monotheistic, and we have witness that Christians worshipped only Christ, that therefore Christians were Monotheistic and considered Christ as God. So, from the earliest of their history, it was recognized that Christians worshipped Christ alone. Worship, being something only offered to God, is a historical proof that Christians for their whole history have honored Christ as God. So from this one source (and there are others), we can see that from very early on, people knew 1) that there existed those who were called Christians, 2) that they were Jewish in origin, 3) that they worshipped a man named Jesus, 4) they recognized him as God, and 5) Christians could be distinguished from non-Christians by their beliefs.

Theologically speaking, we recognize Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…” (Matt 28:19)

We are Monotheist Trinitarians. That is, we believe in One God, in three Persons. Islam, in contrast, is Monotheist Unitarian. They believe that Allah is one god with only one person. We believe that each member of the Trinity is equally God and of the same essence. As was quoted above,

“For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him…” (Col 1:19)

Paul writes to the church at Colossae that the pleroma (fullness) of God dwelt in Christ. The word “fullness” is used also in the next verse,

“and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority…” (Col. 2:10)

The word here “complete” is the word pleroo (play-raw-oh), which is the verb form of pleroma. The word means “to make full, to complete,” and when applied to Christ, draws an equality of the essence of Christ and God. Theologically, we call this homoousia, “same essence.”

To conclude this section, if Christ is God, and God was the giver of the Law, then Christ also gave the Law. That means that Jesus of Nazareth, the God-Man, upheld the Law of Moses as its Creator, its Author. Therefore, whatever is contained therein, is the very word of Christ Himself. So, when the OT Law denounces homosexuality as evil, it is Christ who is doing the condemning. [Note here, unlike the charge levied against Paul, homosexuality in the OT Law cannot be equated with temple prostitution or pederasty, as those were foreign to Hebrew practice.]

Christ as the Angel of the Lord

This is something that is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and Theologians. There are more than a few examples of it, but I will only name one. In Exodus 3, during the scene of the Burning Bush, Moses writes,

 “The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. So Moses said, ‘I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up.’ When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, ‘Here I am.’” (Ex 3:2-4)

Maybe you didn’t catch it, but look at the wording. In the first sentence, it is the Angel of the Lord in the burning bush; in the third sentence it is God who is in the bush, vis-à-vis, The Angel of the Lord is God. Pretty simple concept.

The same passage is confirmed in the New Testament, in Acts 7:30-35:

“After forty years had passed, AN ANGEL APPEARED TO HIM IN THE WILDERNESS OF MOUNT SINAI, IN THE FLAME OF A BURNING THORN BUSH. When Moses saw it, he marveled at the sight; and as he approached to look more closely, there came the voice of the Lord…”

I only quoted 30 and 31 for brevity. Once again, notice how Stephen draws the connection between the Lord and the Angel. This time, we have an interpretation given by not only a New Testament author, Luke, but a character within the story. The words in caps are the OT quotation, the words in normal case are Stephen’s words.

Although the Angel of the Lord is designated as YHWH himself, he is also a distinct person.

“Then the angel of the LORD said, ‘O LORD of hosts, how long will You have no compassion for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which You have been indignant these seventy years?’ The LORD answered the angel who was speaking with me with gracious words, comforting words.” (Zech 1:12-13)

The fact that the Angel is both talking to the Lord and being talked to by the Lord shows that there is a distinction between the two. This is in line with what Jews believed of the Angel. A.C. Gaebelein says, "It is noteworthy and of great interest that the ancient Jews in their traditions regarded the Angel of the Lord, in every instance, not as an ordinary angel, but as the only mediator between God and the world, the author of all revelations, to whom they gave the name Metatron."

So, what we’ve seen so far is that the Angel is both YHWH and someone else at the same time. He’s the only intercessor of the Lord with supreme authority from God. These attributes fit what we know of Jesus from the New Testament. Jesus is God, yet he is distinct from the Father and the Spirit. Equal in essence, different in person. So, what proof do we have to make that connection? John Walvoord makes four points to prove that Jesus was the Angel of the Lord: 1) Jesus is revealed as God in the New Testament, 2) The Angel of the Lord is absent from the New Testament, 3) Both the Angel of the Lord and Christ are sent by the Father, and 4) The Angel of the Lord cannot be either the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Of these, only the last really needs to be elaborated on. John 1:18 says, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”  This explains that the Angel of the Lord cannot be the Father, as the Angel of the Lord had a body, and was visible to men at various times. The Holy Spirit subsists in spirit form at all times and thus is also invisible. Therefore, the Angel of the Lord, being both YHWH and yet distinct from YHWH, can only be the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.

Jesus, God, the Giver of the Law

Now that we’ve established that Jesus did make himself visible during the Old Testament times as the Angel of the Lord, let’s look at another place where Jesus made himself visible in the Old Testament. Keep in mind the principles we established about the nature of God, and the individual Three Persons and the distinctions between them.

Then the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.” (Ex 33:21-33)

“The LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the LORD. Then the LORD passed by in front of him…” (Ex 34:5-6a)

Being that the Lord who is depicted here is one that is visible, we once again conclude that it is neither the Father nor the Spirit. That leaves only one other option; this is once again the pre-incarnate Christ. It follows also that it was the pre-incarnate Christ who gave the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, the Levitical Law (Leviticus), and the second giving of the Law (Deuteronomy; deutero- “second”, nomos- “Law”).

So, did Jesus agree with the Old Testament Law? Yup. As a matter of fact, he wrote it. He agreed with its every part, as he declared it to Moses. Once again, we see that Jesus was certainly against homosexuality and declared it as a sin. When Leviticus states that a man should not lay with a man as one lays with a woman, it came from the very mouth of Jesus as the giver of the Law.

[Edit: The Law states that a lot of other things are sins as well, things that Christians do not recognize as sin. For a discussion of that, see my earlier post here.]

Separating Jesus from the Law is impossible, from both perspectives of Christ’s nature as God-Man. We’ve looked at his pre-Incarnate glorified aspect and how it agrees with the law, next time I visit this topic, I’ll go over who Christ was as the Son of Man.

In Him,

Mike

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

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

Jesus Does Not Believe in Homosexual Marriage...Really!

Genesis 2:18-24- "Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said,

 “This is now bone of my bones,

 And flesh of my flesh;

 She shall be called Woman,

 Because she was taken out of Man.”

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Today we'll actually be discussing the validity of the phrase "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." The phrase, when used, usually gets a roll of the eyes or possibly violent reaction. Most people just write it off completely and act like it has no logical validity. How wrong they are.

One of the things that is important to a few different issues is the order of creation. Topics involving the creator/creature relationship, husband/wife relationship, man/animal relationship, and idolatry, all are founded on the actual order of how things were created. Paul makes specific reference to it in 1 Corinthians 11 in God's authority over man, and man's authority over women. Paul infers it in Romans 1:18-32 in talking about sin and man's fallen nature, a text which we'll get to eventually. In the case of Genesis 2:20-24, Jesus actually is its interpreter in regards to the definition of marraige. We'll get to that in a second, let's look at the passage itself first.

First off, this passage is almost never referred to in conversations about homosexuality by homosexuals. Most discussions go only to passages that directly refer to it, and pass over what is probably the most important passage on it in the Bible, and more so because Jesus interprets it in Matthew 19. The importance of this passage is to the topic is that there is a reason for why homosexuality is defined as a perversion, because God did not create man or woman to operate that way. So, homosexual marriage advocates won't reference it due to the fact that it is the pivotal argument about even the plain old existence of homosexual marriage.

So, let's get started.

“It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

What does it mean to be "a suitable helper" for man? We need to look at Man in creation first. When God created Man, He created him as he was supposed to be. The fact that God looks down on creation as "good" means that the order of the cosmos is exactly as God intended it. Man, before the fall, was exactly as he was intended to be, in the perfection of creation. The homosexual agenda will start off any conversation on this subject with the assertion that Eve was a suitable helper because Adam was heterosexual. Well, of course. On the other hand, they will state that if Adam was created homosexual, a man would have been a suitable helper, not a woman. Right here is where we need to put on our thinking caps. While it is good to sometimes look at what may have been from a hypothetical viewpoint, when it comes to things that have already occurred, you cannot ignore the plain facts. The fact of the matter is, God created Adam heterosexual and declared it as "good." The word "good" in Hebrew is the word "tob" and has the idea of "pleasure." When something is pleasing in the eyes of God, it means that the pleasing thing correlates to God's very nature. What that means is that heterosexuality in itself is holy, and is the proper order for nature.

Back to "suitable." Why was Eve "suitable?" Look at the animals. God doesn't create a male first, then a female out of the male. He creates each "after its own kind" and all at the same time. This is the context. When the animals are brought before Adam for a name, what is the inference? It is that there are two kinds of each kind, a male and a female. They are able to reproduce. Look at the birds and fish, for instance. In 1:22, God tells them "to be fruitful and multiply." Obviously, they can't reproduce without male and female, and they're created before man. So, in 2:19 when man sees them, the sexes were distinguished. So, if 2:18 is the beginning of the paragraph, then 2:19 is the context. Why weren't the animals suitable helpers to man? Because he couldn't mate with them. Why was Eve suitable? Because only with her could he "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Even if Adam was created homosexual, he would not have been able to mate, and therefore a male still would have been unsuitable.

Let's stop and think about contradicting arguments. It has been levied against homosexual apologists that they like to pile arguments on top of each other without thinking through the fact that the multiple arguments are all in contradiction to each other. The argument they usually use in reference to Romans 1:24-26 is that the people there were naturally heterosexual, but were taking part in homosexual activity, and therefore were "against nature." But let's think that through in this case. If Adam was created homosexual (hypothetically), and he could only multiply with a female, then wouldn't Adam be sinning if he were to be fruitful and multiply as a homosexual? Its an odd scenario, but I think it proves my point. Let's jump down a bit.

“This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Why will the two become one flesh? Remember hermeneutics- context. What does the context say? "For this reason." What reason? "This is now bone of my bones... she was taken out of Man." So, the all-important question when it comes to homosexual "marriage"- Can a man and a man become "one flesh" with each other? The answer is an abounding no. The reason that homosexual marriage is a complete farce is because man did not come from the very flesh of man. Only woman holds that claim. Woman is meant for man because she is his compliment; she works with him because she is from him. When a man and a woman are united in sexual intercourse as the result of a marriage, they become one flesh because the rib is reunited with its body. This all sounds good, but is it accurate? Let's look at what Jesus Himself has to say.

Matthew 19:3-9- Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Now, look at how Jesus interprets this passage. A slightly different take than mine, but to the same point. He directly uses the creation order as the reason for male-female marriage. In the original passage, the reason that "they shall become one flesh..." is that "She was taken out of man." Jesus instead ties it to the larger context, that God "made them male and female." So, coming full circle, we ask the question: "Why is homosexual 'marriage' unbiblical and a sin?" Because God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Its kinda amusing to look at it that way. Such a trite statement, and yet so theologically accurate. Jesus cites the creation order as the reason marriage is defined as "a union between one man and one woman for life."

So, Christian, what is your stance on homosexual marriage politically? Do you wish to see homosexuals happy? Do you wish to bring homosexuals together in loving relationships? Then you are directly going against what Christ taught about marriage. You are defining it differently than how Christ did, and are standing in direct opposition to the teachings of our Lord and Savior on the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is God-instituted, and therefore only He is qualified to define it.

I want to add, on a personal note, that I'm not coming up with these interpretations. They've been around for a long time, much longer than I have. There are men much smarter and more competent than I am that use these same arguments ably. That said, the homosexual position is nothing new. There is nothing said that hasn't already been said. The position has always been the same- stand against homosexuality or throw away your Bible. The homosexual position has been proven time and time again to be unbiblical, and therefore, those who support it stand against their own Scripture.

Simply put- there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. If it doesn't exist, then you can't support it. So don't.

Keep up the fight,

Mike

Homosexuality: How Should We Read Our Bible?

Having a method to how we study our Scripture is a lost art form. From the person who believes in tongues because they’ve ‘experienced’ it to the pastor at the local Church who believes Jesus turned water into grape juice, the name of the interpretational game today is ourselves. The most common method of interpretation is to read the Bible in a way that only relates to experience, feelings, and tradition. The idea of reading the Bible according to rules and guidelines is almost foreign to most people today. This is one of the major reasons why the homosexual agenda is allowed into our Churches. They set the stage for us by first talking about their feelings, their emotions, and the difficulty of living life as a homosexual. They talk about how their desire to have a lifelong, committed same-sex companion has been denied them based on a Bible that doesn’t address what it is they have experienced. And thus, they set the interpretational guidelines.

There is however, a science to interpreting Scripture. We call it ‘Hermeneutics.’ The word comes from the name of the Greek god Hermes, who was a messenger for the gods, and has the idea of relaying Biblical knowledge to the reader. It’s a broad and deep subject and has all kinds of applications, but we’ll only be going over the basics, as that is all that is needed for our discussions.

Why do we need a systematized method of interpreting our Bible? Basically, because we (ourselves) are poor guides. We are arbitrary. We change our minds, our experiences are vast, and our backgrounds are varied. Thus, our experiences are poor interpreters. Let me give you an example. I was once teaching on Genesis a few years back and got into a discussion with a woman on the interpretation of Gen 3:16, “…Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” I was teaching that the word “desire” (which is only found here and one other place in Scripture) meant a “desire to dominate,” due to the fact that the interpretation here was impossible based on context and the only other occurrence of the word has a connotation of domination. Her argument against me was, “I’ve never experienced this,” and went on to say that she has always viewed her husband as her head, the way she should. So who’s right? Well, I’m not going to emphatically state I am (even though I believe that interpretation is the only one that makes sense). But, what I can say is that her guide is flawed. What concrete reasoning is her experience based on, and does that base have any intrinsic value to the text? The obvious answer is none and no. She was a Christian, and so my answer was simply that her feelings were irrelevant to the text, and that if she didn’t feel that way toward her husband then it simply meant that she was living the Christian life properly. Pretty simple.

            We could say the same thing about the other two examples I mentioned above. When someone says, “I believe in tongues, because I’ve spoken them,” our minds (if we disagree with the tongues movement) naturally go crazy because there is no reason to assume that they are lying to you. But, they don’t need to be a liar to be wrong. It is a matter of asking the right question. Instead of asking, “Are they making it up?” we should be asking, “Was what they experienced the same as what the Bible speaks of?” It has been well proven that the answer is “no.” The “tongues” of the New Testament are “known languages” (a debate for another time :D). The other example, of Jesus turning water to grape juice at Cana, is an example of tradition, or culture dictating Scripture. It is obvious that there are certain Christians that have grown up believing that alcohol is the drink of the devil, and that if you even taste a drop of it, you’re on your way to alcoholism. Thus, there is “obviously” no way that Jesus would have changed the water to actual fermented wine. I mean, let’s ignore the fact that Jesus was a Jew, he was serving other Jews at a Jewish wedding, Jews commonly drank wine, and that the word the headwaiter uses for “drank freely” is the Greek word μεθύω (methuo), which means “to be drunken.” We can once again see that when we base our interpretations of Scripture on ourselves, we end up with less than perfect outcomes.

            So, how should we read our Scripture? When I teach hermeneutics, I teach that there is essentially only one rule- context. This can require next to no effort on the part of the reader, or it can require a scholar’s accuracy. It all depends. Nonetheless, it is the best guide. It requires us to ask questions of Scripture in relation to how it was written. Here are some examples.

1)    When was it written?- This can be pivotal for interpreting some portions of Scripture. Sometimes it is a guide for knowing what cultural situation the author is talking about and sometimes it can even affirm or negate an entire theological position.

2)    Who wrote it/ who is speaking?- We believe in plenary inspiration. Therefore, we believe that the author’s style and intent is preserved within God’s Word. So, it is vital to know a little about the authors and in the case of stories, who is speaking. For instance, it is really important to know that Paul was a Pharisee, as it gives his theology more flavor and gives background to some things he teaches.

3)    Who is the intended audience?- Here is the big trip up for most people. Christians, rightly so, tend to internalize Scripture. We make Scripture to be about us. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. When done correctly, it makes the Bible a living document that transcends time and culture. Done incorrectly, and we turn the intended audience into 21^st century people with all their cultural nuances. For instance, look at how Wiccans react to Levitical teachings about magic. They'll counter by saying that there are different types of magic, and that the Bible only condemns certain kinds. This throws out the perspective of Jews at the time of Moses, and when taken in the appropriate context will show that the Hebrew understanding is that all magic is of the same nature, and is an abomination. Without context, we are led to an incorrect interpretation.

4)    What is the grammatical context?- This could mean an array of things. What language is being spoken? What is the grammatical construction being used? Where else is the word used? How is this word used in the immediate context vs. the larger context? Lots could be said here, but I think you get the idea.

So, as we get into interpreting, let’s remember context. Experience is a poor guide. We, in and of ourselves, are not a good basis for judgment. We need to allow Scripture to speak for itself, and base our beliefs and ideals from what Scripture actually says, based on its own contexts.

In stating this, I’d also like to state that this is indeed a refutation of the homosexual position. Instead of making up a quotation that represents the homosexual position, I’ll use an actual quote. This comes from Matthew Vines, whose speech given on March 8 of this year was really what prompted me to get into this (and even more so, James White’s commentary on Vines’ presentation). Vines states,

It’s because [gay people] have a sexual orientation that we’re able to fall in love with someone, build a long-term, committed relationship with them, and to form a family.

First off, I want to state that this is in the introduction to Vines’ presentation about homosexuality in the Bible. This is his foundation for the interpretations he’s about to address. This isn’t some random gay person stating this, but is someone who intends to Biblically defend the homosexual position. That’s why I’m using it as an example. As we look at this quote, remember all I’ve said about experience, and about how poor of a judge it is in determining the meaning of Scripture, and as you’re reading the quote, think about how loaded the words are. Instead of taking him at face value, let’s ask a few questions about his quote pertaining to Biblical viewpoints.

1)    “…we’re able to fall in love with someone…”- “with someone” obviously meaning “someone of the same sex.” Is what he’s experiencing actually love, as the Bible depicts it? Is it even Biblically possible for a man to love a man in the same exact way a man loves a woman, according to what Scripture says about relational love?

2)    “…build a long-term,  committed relationship…”- What is the Biblical depiction of a relationship? Is what Vines sees as a relationship the Biblical definition for a relationship?

3)    “…to form a family.”- Is how Vines defines “family” the same as how the Bible defines “family?” Is it possible for two people of the same sex to form a Biblical “family?”

By asking these questions, rather than just listening to him and letting his feelings and emotions that he expresses impact our own, we can see that he is allowing those feelings and emotions to define certain words within the Bible. He’s taking for granted that there is a possibility for his definitions to be legitimate, based on what he’s experienced. Back to hermeneutics. We have two words pertaining to this, exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis comes from the Greek word ἐξηγέομαι (exegeomai), which means, “to lead out.” In theological language, it means “to read out of Scripture.” Eisegesis is the opposite of exegesis (εἰς- into), and means “to read into Scripture.” We’ll see this as we get into Genesis 2. The homosexual position will state that Eve was suitable because Adam was a heterosexual, and not a homosexual, in which case a man would have been a suitable partner. This is eisegesis. The plain meaning of the text, which we’ll go over, is that there is only one type of suitable partner for any man- woman.

I’m not going to answer the above questions now, I’ll answer them as we continue, as my intention is to exegete every text in Scripture that deals with homosexuality. In the midst of that, I’m also going to write a post addressing the health risks inherent in homosexual activity- it is not analogous to heterosexual sexual activity and comes with sometimes very serious consequences. I’ll also be doing a few posts on understanding specific contexts, namely, the Christian view of Levitical Law, understanding Jesus’ teachings based on who he was, and understanding Pauline thought. So, much more to come!

Peace be with you,

Mike

Homosexuality

I think I'm going to try to tackle this. This could go on for a while, I'm going to be as comprehensive as I possibly can.

Well, for starters, I'd like to say that what I'm going to do is talk about homosexuality as it relates to Scripture. Trying to tell unsaved people that its wrong doesn't go too far. Society is their guide, and it has always proven to be a loose cannon in the morality department. What I'm going to do is show what the Biblical perspective is on homosexuality and homosexuals. So, this will be more aimed at Christians, since it is entirely from a Biblical perspective. If you're unsaved, please feel free to keep reading, and understand that our position is entirely logical, and not based on bigotry or hate. I may sprinkle a few topics in to lighten the load, things that are more social in nature.

Why? What's the importance? Why do some Christians seem to make such a big deal about homosexuality as opposed to other sins?

First, culture is making it a big deal. It is a big deal right now. Not only that, but we are standing on the edge of possibly watching churches being dictated to stop preaching against it.

Second- the big reason- it stands alone as an 'embraced' sin in the Church. No other sin- murder, envy, strife, adultery, hate, lying, etc., etc.- ever gets tagged onto a person as defining him or her. When someone says, "I am a Homosexual Christian," they are taking the name of a sin and defining themselves by it. I commit a lot of sins. I do not embrace any one of them. Never in my life will I ever say, "I'm a Liar, that's just how God made me, please accept me as a Lying Christian." The idea in and of itself is utterly ridiculous. With homosexuality, it is viewed as a norm. If you experience the temptation of homosexual sins, you are told that you are a homosexual. To me, this is utterly preposterous. There are Christians who struggle with homosexual sins, there are Christians who give in to homosexual sins, there are Christians that have given themselves over to homosexual sins, but there is no such thing as a Christian homosexual. Romans 6 makes it clear that our sins have been nailed to the Cross, we have been crucified with Christ, and that we are now free from sins. When we define ourselves by our sins, we are stating that Romans chapter 6 never happened. This is the problem with homosexuality, and why it gets singled out.

I'll be looking at a number of topics along the way, many that have to do with Biblical perspective in general, so that you can understand how the Bible was written also, not just what's in it. This debate is a very deep one from the conservative position. It is a challenge in itself to Christians as to how well they understand their Scripture. I guess in light of my last blog article, this really fits in. Understanding the Old Testament law, understanding who Jesus was, understanding the relationship between Biblical authors, overcoming apparent contradictions in Scripture, understanding the mindset of Second Temple Jews, understanding Greek phrases, understanding Hermeneutical practices, and on and on and on. There is quite a lot that is going on here, and it is more than just quoting 1 Corinthians 6:9 and ending it there.

So I invite you to keep reading! Also, if you have a question or disagreement, please comment! I'm looking forward to a time of good study!



Peace be with you,


Mike