Articles

Question: My question has to do with the frequent argument made by the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender) community that there are parts of the Bible that no longer apply to modern society. For instance, GLBT apologists often cite texts regarding the stoning of disobedient children and the Levitical laws forbidding the consumption of shellfish or wearing clothing made of two kinds of material. These and other Old Testament passages, including the forbidding of homosexual relations (so they contend) are proof that the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is for an ancient people and not applicable today.

How are we to understand the OT law, particularly the complexities of the Levitical law, in a way that does not dismiss God's moral will as insignificant or unrelated to the grace and freedom from the law that was given to us in Christ. With the growing number of GLBT zealots in addition to a society that is becoming increasingly tolerant of homosexuality, it is important for us to teach our children how to defend the Bible as God's word; therefore, how should we respond to the GLBT arguments?

Answer: There is little doubt with regard to what the Scriptures say about homosexuality. There is not even the slightest hint about what God's good, pleasing and perfect will is for men and women or what is forbidden regarding sexual conduct.

The Lord is holy, thus His will is always best. Prohibitions are not the result of a sadistic Deity tormenting man with desires that He then forbids him to enjoy, but such desires are a direct result of man's rebellious fall and have become a part of his innate nature thru the seed of Adam to rebel against the holy will of a sovereign God (Ephesians 2:3).

Biblical prohibitions are meant to point sinful man toward the fullness and joy that the Lord wills for him, while sin (including those of a sexual nature) represent a failure of society to submit to the Lord's holy purposes. For example: Fornication does not honor the image of God but sees the other person as merely a commodity. Adultery violates marital fidelity which keeps sacred the sexual expression. And homosexuality is also a result of the fall that leads some to seek union with a "mirror" image of oneself.

The Sin of Sodom

Scripture: Two angels, who came to Lot in Sodom, were threatened by a mob (Gen 19:4-11). What were the men of Sodom seeking when they called on Lot to bring out the men "that we may know them" (19:5)?

Argument: Some believe this record has no reference to homosexuality, but the men of Sodom were anxious to interrogate the strangers to find out if they were spies. Thus, the sin recorded for us was not about homosexuality, but gang rape.

Lot had angered these residents by receiving foreigners whose credentials had not been examined. The men were angered by this omission, and were now being very discourtesy to the visitors by demanding "to know" their credentials. So some argue that the demand of the men of Sodom "to know" the strangers in Lot's house meant nothing more than their desire to "get acquainted with" them. They claim inhospitality is the primary sin to which this text refers. "This Biblical account demonstrates the seriousness with which these early Eastern people took the important customs of Oriental hospitality. It appears that, if necessary, they would even allow their own daughters to undergo abuse in order to protect guests." The sexual aspect of the story is simply the vehicle in which the subject of hospitality is couched as seen in Ezekiel 16: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy" (v. 14).

Some will also argue, the Hebrew word for "know" (yada), can be translated "to get acquainted with" or "to have knowledge of". They argue the word appears over 943 times in the Old Testament and only 12 times does it mean "to have intercourse."

Response: The first problem with these kind of arguments is the fact that the meaning of a word in a given passage is not determined solely on the basis of the number of times it is translated a particular way in the Bible. The context determines how it was meant to be understood. Of the 12 times the word "yada" occurs in Genesis, 10 times it means "to have intercourse."

Point #1: Statistics are no substitute for contextual evidence and in Genesis 19 the demand to "know" is used in a sexual sense.

Point #2:  No one suggests that in Judges 19:25 the men of Gibeah were gaining "knowledge" of their victim in the sense of personal relationship, yet this same word is used of them.

Point #3: Genesis 19 takes on near-comic proportions 'if Lot' on hearing the demand of the crowd that they wished to "get acquainted with" the men in his house, said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please let me bring them out to you and do to them as is good in your sight, only do nothing to these men."  

Point #4: In verse 8 the same verb, "yada" with the negative particle is used to describe Lot's daughters as having "not known" a man. The verb in both verses 5 and 8 "yada" obviously means "sexual intercourse." The context does not lend itself to any other credible interpretation.

Point #5: Jude 7 gives commentary on this passage. It clearly states that the sin of Sodom involved gross immorality and seeking after strange or different flesh "sarkikos heteras" (Greek). It is no accident that Jude describes their actions by using "ekpornusasai" (Greek). The verb "pornuo" refers to sexual immorality and the preposition "ek" explains that it means "they gave themselves up fully, without reserve."  The term "strange flesh" could imply unnatural acts between men and men or even with animals. The inhabitants of Canaan were guilty of both sins (Lev 18:23-29) which definitely includes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Point #6: History and archaeology confirm these conditions. Josephus, who wrote around A.D. 99-100, said that the Sodomites "hated strangers and abused themselves with sodomitical practices."

Side Note: Lot was following local customs in offering his daughters to appease the angry mob. No doubt the surrender of his daughters was simply the most tempting bribe Lot could provide on the spur of the moment. This action, almost unthinkable in Western society, was consistent with the low status of female children at the time. But what Lot did was not right. Just because Lot offered his daughters to them in accordance with local customs does not mean that his action was morally acceptable to the Lord. It is much more probable that Lot's offer was motivated by the thought that however wrong rape is, homosexual rape was even worse. His offer, he must have thought, was the lesser of two evils.

RESTRICTIONS IN THE LAW

Scripture: God's command concerning homosexuality is clear: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22). This is expanded in Leviticus 20:13: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act." These passages are set in the context of God's judgment on sexual crimes; an expansion of the seventh commandment.

Argument: Pro-homosexual advocates usually dismiss these passages by relegating them to simple religious prohibitions rather than taking them as moral prohibitions. Therefore, they argue, the passages in Leviticus are not really speaking against homosexuality, but against identifying with the practice of alien religions, which included homosexuality.

Response: The first major problem with this logic is assuming that ritual purity and moral purity are always distinct. To hold to such a distinction one would have to conclude that adultery was not morally wrong (18:20), child sacrifice had no moral implications (18:2 1), and nothing is inherently evil with bestiality (18:23).

These passages are consistent with God's purpose for human sexuality, as presented in Genesis 1-3. When these passages are properly studied, it becomes obvious that God's purpose is to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the home.

RELEVANCE OF THE LAW

Argument: Pro-homosexual advocates also try to show the irrelevance of the Law for Christians today. "Consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the Israelite Holiness Code is to be invoked against twenty-first century homosexuals, it should likewise be invoked against such common practices as eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the menstrual period. Thus the Old Testament Law must be thrown out when seeking a guide to the issue of homosexuality."

Some will say: "It is interesting how lightly evangelicals have taken Old Testament rules against eating rabbit (Lev 11:26), oysters, clams, shrimp, and lobster (Lev 11:10ff), and rare steaks (Lev 17:10). Evangelicals do not picket or try to close down seafood restaurants nor do they keep kosher kitchens. They do not always order steaks "well-done." They eat pork and ham and the wearing of clothes made from interwoven linen and wool (Deut 22:11) does not seem to bother them."

Response: These statements expose a great ignorance of how the Law fits within the total scheme of the Scriptures. When taken to their logical conclusion these assertions make it possible to say that having sex with animals or engaging in incest is okay simply because homosexuality is sandwiched between these two prohibitions. These heretical arguments come at a great price.

It would have been easier for the GLBT to say that Christ brought an end to the entire Law (Rom 10:4) and the Ten commandments are included in this termination (2nd Cor. 3:7-11). Christ is now the Christian's High Priest, which shows that a radical change in the Law has come about (Heb 7:11). They could argue the Law has been superseded (Heb 7:11).

Point #1: However, when the statement is made ... that the Law has ended ... this does not mean the Lord no longer has a holy will for His people. This does not mean there are no moral precepts to be followed in order to walk in fellowship with Him.

Point #2: The New Testament speaks of the "law of the Spirit" (Rom 8:2), the "law of Christ" (Gal 6:2), and the "royal law" (James 2:8). This "law" includes numerous commands, both positive and negative, which form a distinct code of ethics for today. It is here that the pro-homosexual exegetes have made their mistake. Many of the moral commands in the Mosaic code for the Israelites have obviously been reincorporated into the New Testament code for Christians.

Point #3: The Mosaic law is no longer necessary as a code b/c the Lord is no longer guiding the life of His people by this "old covenant" that was given to Israel for a variety of reasons (civil purposes for governing the nation; ceremonial purposes for worship that foreshadowed the coming of Christ, and moral purposes for ethical living). The laws concerning diet, punishment by stoning, or wearing mixed fabrics have in the N.T. been abrogated; no longer applicable.

Point #4: However, the Lord's will for the moral conduct of "His people" has not changed; thus prohibitions against fornication, adultery, and homosexual behavior have been clearly repeated in the New Testament (Rom 1:26-27; 1st Cor 6:9-11; 1st Tim 1:9-10). This should be of a major concern to pro-homosexual advocates because it totally destroys the point they attempt to make with regard to the Old Testament law being out dated.

Point #5: It is dangerous and false to say that immoral behavior that was sin under the Law is no longer sin under grace. There is a moral unity between the Old and New Testaments b/c God is immutable (Malachi 3:6). It has always been wrong to murder, rape, steal, have sexual relations with animals or persons of the same sex. Such behavior has always been outside God's purpose and design for His creation.

Conclusion: The Lord has dealt with people in different ways at different times throughout history, but His standard for righteousness has never changed b/c His character never changes ... thus the basis for morality, that is rooted in the character of God, is immutable.

Lesson: The best way to teach your children how to defend the Bible, is to teach them how to "rightly divide the word of truth." Don't formulate "a faith" and try to make the Bible say what you want to believe.  The Lord will explain Himself in scripture with scripture, so seek a right understanding of His word, then make sure your faith lines up with His truth.