The Prohibition of Homosexuality

In this post we will look at three modern objections to the biblical prohibition of homosexuality. They are:


First, that the prohibition's connection with the ceremonial Law no longer makes this ban enforceable.
Second, that barrenness was the reason for the ban, not homosexuality in and of itself.
Third, we will look at the reason why homosexuality and its connection with idolatry.

Homosexual Prohibitions Are Ceremonial

In the following scene from the television show The West Wing, the "acting President" Jed Bartlett takes a "right-wing" talk show host to task over a literal interpretation of Leviticus 18:22-24. While I expect that no Hollywood writer would ever take the time to speak to a Christian to learn the answer to Bartlett's diatribe, believers should learn how to respond to this ignorant rant.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJM&NR=1


So what is the response of a Christian to this rant? Very simply, Israel was under a different form of economy. It was a theocracy in which God was the supreme ruler. The fact that "President" Bartlett brings up a number of the other ceremonial laws, and we will deal with those in later posts. What I want to focus in on is the prohibitions of homosexuality.


Many people that advocate homosexuality, especially in the liberal denominations, state that because these laws are located with the ceremonial and dietary laws, and that these laws were done away with (Acts 10:15), it follows that these laws were also done away with.

The "Sin of Barrenness"

The question that must be asked is why did Yahweh ban the practice of homosexuality? Some say it was the sin of barrenness. First, barrenness was considered a curse by the ancient Israelites (Gen. 16:1; 1 Sam. 1:3-8). Children were considered a blessing from Yahweh (Psalm 127:3). The blessing of the land was connected to children (Gen. 15:5). It would then follow that homosexuality would be frowned upon because it produces no children. Further, it is not homosexuality that is necessarily condemned, but the refusal to have children.


If you believe that homosexuality is abolished because of its connection with the ceremonial law, then you must also believe that the bans on rape, incest & bestiality are illegitimate, and that we can now engage in those practices. I wonder how the good Catholic "President" Bartlett would have responded to this during his selective diatribe? The sexual laws, however, are not connected with procreation. Putting homosexuals to death would make no sense, considering the fact that heterosexual marriage would be a more appropriate punishment.


Romans 2:12-15 states that the Gentiles do not have the ceremonial Law. The law against homosexuality, however, extends beyond Israel (Romans 1:26). Further the Gentiles have no covenental stake in producing a new generation. The Jews did. This is why Yawhew judged the Canaanites (Leviticus 18:1-3, 24-25). This is the context that "President" Bartlett failed to take into consideration during his diatribe. I diatribe, coincidentally, sparked by wounded pride. Further, the punishment for homosexuality was brutal. Death by stoning. On the other hand, those that violated the dietary laws were considered unclean and banished from the camp for a specific period of time.


If barrenness was a sin, then menopausal women in that time were sinful, since they no longer could bear children. If barrenness was a sin, then no one other than Jesus himself advocated sin, since he sanctioned singleness (Matthew 19:11-12) as did Paul (1 Corinthians 7:8). Contrast these teachings with the clear prohibition of homosexuality in the New Testament (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 7).

Connected to Pagan Worship

Others say that the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality was due to its close association with the pagan worship that existed in Canaan at the time of the exodus and conquest by Israel (Deuteronomy 23:17). Part of the worship practices at that time was to engage in sexual activities with temple prostitutes, female and male (1 Kings 14:24). We also see a condemnation of heterosexual pagan worship in Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27.

While homosexuality is often associated with idolatry it is not connected with idolatry. Sexual infidelity is often used as a metaphor for idolatry (Hosea 3:1; 4:12), but it has no direct connection with idolatry. Sexual sin (hetero & homosexual) is immoral at all times and not just when associated with idolatrous worship.

It is important to point out that while idolatry may lead to sexual sin (Romans 1:22-27), they are different sins. The Mosaic Law does distinguish between idolatry (Exodus 20:3-4) and sexual sins (Exodus 20:14-17).

The Core Issue

Homosexuality is no different from any other sexual sin. Rape, incest and bestiality all fall into the condemnation of God because they pervert the teleological design of human sexuality into something that it was not designed for. While homosexuality may by connected to barrenness since no children can come from a homosexual union naturally, it is not because of barrenness that homosexuality was condemned. Lastly, while there was a connection in ancient times to homosexuality and pagan religion, idolatry and homosexuality are two separate and distinct sins that must be dealt with separately.

The reason why homosexuality is a sin is because God says it is a sin. That prohibition is sounded throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament. Which brings us back to "President" Bartlett's rant from The West Wing. The answer to "President" Bartlett is simple. In Christianity, there is to be no one who calls himself a Christian that engages regularly in homosexual practices, or a number of other practices. If this is the case, then that person is to be removed from the church, until he comes to repentance, or dies in his sin (1 Corinthians 5:1-13). Unlike the theocracy of Israel in which these persons were given capital punishment, the church is to remove these persons from the church.

This answer did not work for the writers of The West Wing. Instead of doing the hard work of getting the story straight they opted for the easy cheap shot. Then again should we expect the world to give Christianity a far shake? According to the Scriptures the answer is no.

Ten Years Later - Reflections on 9/11

My first recollections of that morning were the frantic voices of Mark & Brian, the morning drive-time DJs on Los Angeles' KLOS radio station. You see, I always have slept with on. Their frantic talk of a horrible "accident" in which a jumbo jet had slammed into one of the World Trade Center towers work me at just before 6 AM that dreadful Tuesday morning. Immediately, I donned my bathrobe and ran to the front room to turn on the TV. There in front of my eyes was the burning North Tower of the World Trade Center. I sat on the arm of the sofa and was shocked. I called for my room mate, who was still asleep in his room, to come out and look at what happened. No sooner had I called him, I witnessed the second plane slam into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. I knew then that America had just changed. She would never be the same again. I got physically sick.


Soon the reports of a plane slamming into the Pentagon filtered out. I had to get ready for work. How anyone could demand people to work on that day was, and still is beyond me, but I guess when the dollar is more important than your employees you'll do it (Integra Marketing was my employer at the time). I dragged myself away from the TV to shower for work. It was the fastest shower I have ever taken in my life. I did not want to miss anything.


It was after the shower and as I was dressing for work, that the reports of the Pentagon attack began to air. Again, a wave of nausea passed over me. Then the towers began to fall. I watched in utter horror and morbid curiosity as the South Tower began to fall onto itself. My thoughts were for the people that were in the floors above the impact zone. There was no way they could have escaped. There were reports of people who, rather than wait for a slow death, took their lives by leaping off the Towers and into eternity.


By the time I got on the freeway to head to work, the reports of United 93 were airing. This plane crashed in Shanksville, PA. What was not known at the time, was how the passengers fought to stop the Muslim terrorists that had hijacked the plane. They fought, and as fighters truly exemplified the American spirit of fighting against injustice. It was also around this time (7:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time) that the North Tower fell. Oh how I wanted to just turn around and go home.


When I got to work, everyone was in shock. Instead of the usual music on the office radio, one of Los Angeles' all-news station was on chronicling the days events in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, PA. People were in no mood to work. Everyone's emotions were raw and on their sleeves. It was sad. That Tuesday was one of the slowest days I have ever had to endure in a work environment. I hope to never have another day like that.


For the next week, the TV was on either Fox or CNN. I don't think I watched as much news during that week than in any time prior or since.


It's been ten years since those attacks. Attacks that were not only motivated by hate, but by religious hate. Particularly, the hate of Muslims performing Jihad on "the great Satan". Now, there are those that claim conspiracy and "inside job". These people need help. Sadly, most of the 9/11 "truthers" are just as fanatical as the Muslims that piloted those aircraft on that fateful day. I won't go into their conspiracy theories, sufficed to say that anyone who has actually dealt with conspiracy theories knows that the effectiveness of a conspiracy is severely limited by the number of conspirators, time from the event, and the ability of the conspirators to remain in contact with each other. A conspiracy the size of 9/11 requires a number of people "in the know" of a massive proportion. I won't go into it in detail, but there is no way, in my mind, that a conspiracy required to pull of 9/11 is just too massive. Someone should have talked, but no one is talking, not out of fear, but because there is nothing to say in that regard.


There are others that claim that the hens of U.S. foreign policy finally came home to roost on 9/11. Perhaps the people that espouse this view are right. However, the best and most simplest explanation is that 19 whack-jobs actually hijacked these airplanes and used them as flying bombs specifically against strategic symbols (financial, military & possibly political in the U.S.). Ultimately, God was in control, and both allowed and decreed the events of September 11, 2001 to happen. I struggled for many years to understand why those events, and subsequent tragedies happened. The answer came a few years later as I read Luke 13: 1-5 (ESV). I understood why these things were allowed to happen.

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. ²And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? ³No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. ⁴Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? ⁵No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

 It was verse five that struck me. Jesus said, "...unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." Jesus states this twice, and if Jesus said something twice then it behooves us to pay attention to what He said. You and I are no better nor no worse than the 2, 977 victims and the 19 terrorists that died that day. Unless we repent, however, we too will perish as they did.


So reader, let me ask you are you ready to repent?

Verse Abuse - Translation Misinterpretation

While most of the abused verses in the Bible lie on the laps of tradition, and personal misinterpretation, there are a small group of verses that have been misinterpreted by the various translation committees of a particular Bible version. A number of these are well known, and some others are not. We will be looking into a number of them in this series.


Today, we will be looking at Exodus 20:13 which has been translated by the King James Version as, "Thou shalt not kill." What is telling, is how the modern translations have rendered the Hebrew word "raw-tsakh" ("kill" in the KJV). A brief survey of the translations I use the most (English Standard Version, New American Standard, New International Version & New King James Version) shows the Hebrew has been rendered as "murder". The reason why this is important to look at is that this verse has been used by certain Christian sects and cults to justify a pacifist view regarding war in general, and what is called "just war" in particular (I will not be exploring this issue in this entry, however the reader is free to "Google" that topic). This verse has also been used to justify opposition to the implementation of capital punishment.


I believe that the following are fair definitions of "killing" and "murder":

• Killing is the taking of the life of a human being.
• Murder is the taking of a the life of an innocent human being without just cause.

This is why many criminal codes divide homicide into a number of different categories that reflect this main distinction.


That said, we must look into the broader context of the Mosiac Law in order to understand what God was demanding from the people He called His own. The main reason for the Mosaic Law is that Yahweh wanted His people to to be unique from the nations that surrounded them. Therefore, killing motivated by hatred or anger was distinguished from unintentional killing, from capital punishment, or from just war. The key factor being intentional deliberation as opposed to emotional reactions.


This misinterpretation by the translation committee of the King James Version is one of the few that modern translations have addressed. There are a couple of others that modern translation committees have not had the courage to touch because of the tradition laid down by the King James Version. We will be addressing some of these in future posts.


Of course the exposure of this verse forces us to ask the question of whether or not a person can a particular version of the Bible. To this I say that a person can trust the vast majority of the English translations available. There are a couple of notable exceptions, with the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation, being the most notorious of mistranslated Bibles. The reason I say this is that while other English translations have translation errors, these errors do not affect  historical essential Christian doctrine, such as the deity of Jesus and the Trinity. The New World Translation deliberately mistranslated verses that demonstrate these doctrines to support their own heretical views regarding these doctrines. So what is the best way to ensure that you are not getting a mistranslated Bible version? Very simply, use a number of Bible translations in your Bible study. 

Genesis 22:14 and The Promise of Prosperity

I continue my series on abused bible verses with one of my favorites. I say this because I used to attend a Pentecostal church that preached the so-called "prosperity gospel." This "gospel" is wrapped up in the false idea that God wants believers to have prosperity and health. I believe it is a false gospel and is based on blatent misinterpretations of Scripture that do not apply to Christians, but to ancient Jews that were under the Mosaic Law. I have addressed this a previous post.


So Abraham called the name of that place, "The LORD will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided." First, it is clear that "The LORD will provide" is a poor translation of the Hebrew. According to the English Standard Version, the proper translation should be the LORD "will see" or "will be seen." This forces us to ask the question, what will be seen? It is clear that according to the context that this chapter is a visual example of what the Father would do to His Son some 2,000 years after this event.


Here are some points to think about. First, Just as Isaac bore the wood that he was to be sacrificed on (Gen. 22:6). Similarly, John 19:17 states that Jesus bore the cross that He was to die on.


Second, in Gen. 22:5 Abraham prophesied to his servants that he and Isaac would return from the mountain. In Matt. 16:21 Jesus foretold that He would be raised from the dead (cf. 1 Cor. 15:4).


In Gen. 22:9, Issac willingly went to the alter of sacrifice. In Heb. 12:2, Jesus viewed the cross, His alter of sacrifice, with joy.


As the story concludes, Abraham calls the place where he was to sacrifice Isaac, "Yawhew Yireah" or "Yawhew Will Provide." Now as I have shown above, this is a bad translation based on the King James Version, but given that, the question that must be asked is what did Yahweh provide on that mountain? As I have stated, the story is a visual prophecy of Jesus death on the same mountain 2,000 years future from this event. The provision was the death of Jesus.


Sadly, Pentecostals and those who hold to the "prosperity gospel" have stripped this passage of its great soteriological (the doctrine of salvation) meaning and trivialized it into a verse that merely promises financial prosperity and good health. This is truly sad, because the gospel is not about simply about the here and now, but about "the eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor. 4:17) that Paul promised Christians.


Further, this is a sad commentary on the carnal nature of many modern Pentecostals. When I attended a Pentecostal church (i was not just an attendee, but a member of leadership there), I asked my former pastor about the emphasis on the here and now as opposed to the future in his preaching, in the denomination they belonged to, and in Pentecostalism, in general. He responded that the promises of eternal life was "not enough" for people to become Christians. Rather he said that people "need something now" to motivate them to call on Christ. Sadly, this sort of teaching merely creates false converts that are "twice the children of hell" as those that never professed faith in Christ (Matt. 23:15).


These prosperity preachers are editing the the gospel in order to win attendees as opposed to disciples of Christ. They are removing the promises of trials and tribulations which were promised by Jesus to His disciples in Luke 14:25-33 and substituting the false gospel of wealth and health. It is indeed sad that too many Pentecostal preachers are doing this. It is my prayer that they repent of this false gospel, and return to preaching the true gospel, that is, repentance from sin and belief in Jesus of Nazareth (Mark 1:15).

Back With A Vengeance!

After an interruption caused by the crashing of my old laptop, I have finally been able to get a new laptop which will enable me to post with my usual frequency. I look forward to posting on the topics I have been thinking about for the past few months, and can't wait to post them. So look for a new post in the coming week.

Above all thank you for being patient with me. I do not foresee another problem like I had. I look forward to posting and fielding questions from you, the readers.

The Creative Days: Aeons or Twenty-Four Hours

Another problem with many who attempt to interpret the Bible is the the importation of modern ideas into a cultural and literary context that is not familiar to the Bible writers, for example, insisting that the Bible writers listened to a radio. One example is the attempt by many "old earth" creationists to transform the six creative days in Genesis 1:3-31 from six literal 24-hour days to extensive periods of time.

The problem with this view is that there is no historical or exegetical basis for this assertion. First, the concept of million and billion are of recent origin and were totally foreign to Moses (the author of Genesis).

Second, to the ancient Jewish people (i.e. Moses) numbers had to have a concrete association. In other words when a Jewish shepherd took a flock out to pasture the owner of the flock would gather pebbles and as each sheep passed the owner the owner would take a pebble form the pile and deposit it in a bag. When the shepherd returned with the flock at a later date the owner would count the sheep by removing the pebbles from the bag. If the shepherd was good then there word be more sheep than pebbles, and if there were less sheep than pebbles you can guess the result of that.

Third, Arabic numerals (1,2,3, etc.) were also unknown to Moses. In other words, Hebrew numerals were spelled out, much like on a check. These reasons are good enough to jettison the "old earth" creationist theory. We are not just interested in a historical refutation of this view, but are primarily interested on what the Bible says.

The Hebrew word translated "day" in English is "yom". What is interesting about this word is that when it is modified by a numeral, then it always refers to a literal 24-hour day. Now one of the verses that that "old earth" creationists use to attempt to prove their view that "yom" when modified by a numeral is not a literal 24-hour day is Hosea 6:2:

After two days he will revive us;
   on the third day he will raise us up,
   that we may live before him.

The first usage of "yom" is a dual absolute (literally "day day") and is not modified by a numeral. The second usage of "yom" is modifired by the number three. The question then arises as to whether or not this modification causes the passage to refer to a literal 24-hour day or a period of time longer than 24 hours? The answer can be found in the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture.

The Apostle Paul interpreted Hosea 6:2 in 1 Corinthians 15:4. In this Scripture, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul interprets Hosea 6:2 as three literal 24 hour days. Further, Jesus prophesied that after three days in the grave He would be raised up from it. As we can see the insertion of modern ideas into a text leads to bad ideas, and "old earth" creationism is a bad idea.

The Gap Theory - Genesis 1:1-2

Genesis 1:1-2 has been translated by the King James Version as follows:

 ¹In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 ²And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The problem with these verses is not readily identifiable by a surface examination of the text. The problem we are facing here is the artificial insertion of the period between verses one and two. This insertion has led to a number of theories that appear to ignore the actual Hebrew in the verses. Further, the period between verses one and two has been used by theistic evolutionists and "old earth" creationists as a basis for a "gap theory" or to shoehorn modern atheistic evolution into the text of the Bible. The problem is that the Hebrew does not appear to allow for the period or the insertion of billions of years into the God's creation process.

Dr. Robert Morey has translated these verses as follows:

When the Beginning began, out of nothing, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was devoid of life and a desert, and darkness covered the surface of the sea, and the Spirit of God was brooding over the surface of the water.

 What must be pointed out is that verse two is a series of three vav consecutives (rendered "and" in English). According to Dr. Morey's translation, the vav consecutives indicate that verses one and two are actually one sentence in the Hebrew. What the King James version translators did in artificially inserting the period between verses one and two is set their misinterpretation in stone for all subsequent English translations of the Bible. This is not the only verse in the King James Version that they did this to. I must point out, however, that whether verse one and verse two are translated into one or two sentences this does not affect the doctrine of creation.

This artificial division has led to the establishment of the "gap theory". This theory, proposed by well intentioned Christians who hope to shoehorn the geological record into the first two verses of Genesis by positing that there was a undetermined period of time between verse one of Genesis chapter one and verse two. This theory can still be found in the Scofield Reference Bible, the Dake's Annotated Bible and some other Bible study aids.The "gap theory" is also promoted by Dr. Hugh Ross of the Institute for Creation Research.

One of the problems created by the "gap theory" is the insertion of pre-Adamic humanoids. This attempt at synthesizing the assertions of atheistic evolutionists with the Biblical record does not work. Namely, because Genesis 2:7 does not say "the living creature became a man" but that "the man became a living creature."

In conclusion I wish to say that I do not believe that whether a believer is an "old earth" creationist or a "young earth" creationist is an essential over which Christians should break fellowship. I realize that there are many who may disagree with me on this point, and you are entitled to that view. With that said, I do wish to point out that the use of Genesis 1:1 & 2 as a foundation for an "old earth" view is playing fast and loose with the Scriptures. I believe that a serious exegesis of the Scriptures will necessitate a "young earth" view of this planet by a Christian that is serious about studying the Bible.