Homosexual Relationships (A Response) – Part 2
In reviewing a reply concerning a sermon preached, “Did Jesus Teach Anything Concerning Homosexuality?”, I have already refuted the main thesis, which was that the Bible does not condemn consensual same-sex relationships. This article will just deal with related matters that were presented by DS (as we refer to him to protect his anonymity).
He alleges that the Bible had to protest the practices of the Romans where a married man would keep a young boy on the side but that the writer of Scripture did not have in mind condemning a consensual relationship. He writes: “Even the context of Leviticus on the subject is really addressing married men who might have considered a homosexual act as a loophole to
not committing adultery.” The context of Leviticus 20, however, does not confirm this assertion.
Leviticus 20 begins with a warning to “the children of Israel” (or any stranger in the land) not to give their children to Molech (as a sacrifice); the penalty was death (Lev. 20:2-5). Verse 6 likewise forbids any “person” to be involved with mediums or those with familiar spirits. Verses 7-8 encourage the people to be holy and to keep God’s commandments. Verse 9 mentions
the death penalty for one who curses his father or mother. Only when the reader arrives at verse 10 does he find Moses mentioning sexual sins.
There Moses does discuss a man who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife. She is married; he may be. Both parties should surely be put to death. Nothing is mentioned about the man in verse 11 being married; he might or might not be, but his sin involves lying with his father’s wife. Both were to be put to death. The same fate comes to the man who lies with his daughter-in-law (v. 12). Both of the men in these two verses might be married, but nothing forces us to believe that they are. Many men lost their wives in these days. The men who sinned in these instances could be single. But whether they were single or married is irrelevant; their actions were wicked.
And thus it is in Leviticus 20:13, also, which reads: “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Once again, the reader does not know if one of the men or both of them are married to women, nor is it relevant. The homosexual act itself is what Moses describes as an abomination.
Verse 14 prescribes the death penalty for a man who marries a woman and her mother. Verses 15-16 condemn a man or a woman who approaches an animal. It would not matter if either of them were married; such an act is itself an abomination. The next two verses also begin with, “If a man….” The point is that DS’s theory does not hold. Leviticus 20 does not fit the context he concocted. Nothing in Leviticus indicates that the man was married, nor does anything the least bit indicate that he was committing homosexuality to avoid adultery. In fact, homosexual acts are defined as adultery by Greek lexicons (see the previous article).
Marriage and Divorce
In his third paragraph, DS states: “I disagree that an answer to a question on divorce is also Jesus’ definitive definition of a marriage.” His denial will not change the fact that Jesus uses the definition of marriage to answer the question on divorce. He was asked in Matthew 19:3 if a man could “divorce his wife for just any reason.” Notice the first words He uttered in response
to the question: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female…” (v. 4).
How does this answer the question? Jesus is citing the precedent established in the creation itself. God could have created an entire community—say, twenty men and twenty women, but He did not. He might have created two men or two women, but He didn’t do that, either. He might have created one man with four women, but no—one man and one woman established
the pattern for the home. Verses 5 and 6 bear this plan out. God joined those two, the man and the woman, together. But how do these facts relate to divorce?
Verse 6 closes by saying, “Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Not only was one man and one woman created as the ideal home, the ideal marriage must remain intact. If it disintegrates, the reason is that either the man, the woman, or both caused it to collapse. God designed and desires marriages to succeed.
DS writes a somewhat confusing sentence: “He was hardly calling Moses and David adulterers who died in sin due to their multiple wives.” When Moses married a second time, do we know that Zipporah, his first wife, was still alive? Moses did not have multiple wives in the sense that David did. When David took various women as wives, he was not committing adultery (as he did later with Bathsheba). God had not prohibited polygamy under the Law of Moses. An Israelite could not marry a woman and her mother; he could not marry a woman and her sister. But no death penalty was prescribed for a man with more than one wife.
However, it was not God’s plan. He allowed it under the Law, but it is not part of the Christian covenant. This admission gives no comfort to the homosexual, for their sin has been condemned under every covenant. Moses permitted divorce, and he permitted polygamy, but neither was authorized by God in His original design. The answer to the specific question on divorce
does include the definition of marriage.
Never Forbidden
Another of DS’s statements is: “Homosexual marriage was not practiced in the bible [sic] by followers, but it was never forbidden by God.” It is inappropriate to ask: “Where did God condemn something?”; the question must be, “Where did God authorize it?” For example, where did Jesus say not to make fish part of the Lord’s Supper?” He never said that, but He authorized unleavened bread and the juice of the grape.
But, further, if the practice of homosexuality itself is condemned, which it is under both the Law of Moses (Lev. 20:13) and the Law of Christ (Rom. 1:26-27), then why would anyone even imagine that homosexual “marriage” was acceptable? If stealing is wrong, how could anyone envision a Kleptomaniac Club? If adultery is wrong, why would we expect a specific denunciation of a Swingers’ Society? Such is an unrealistic expectation.
What the Church Should Do
People who do not follow the teachings of the Scriptures always seem to be willing to help out the church by advising them what to do and what not to do. DS is no exception in this regard. He thinks the church should leave homosexuals alone and let them “marry.” Well, we can scarcely stop them—unless they are willing to listen to the Word of God. He thinks we ought to
concentrate on keeping people married. Of course, we do that. Perhaps he has never heard of marriage seminars and workshops that are available, along with books and CDs designed to enrich couple’s marriages. He further states:
There are plenty of divorced adulterers in the church for hobbyist moral police to have a field day. There should be no need outside of bigotry to make homosexuals a special case.
This assessment is humorously stated, if not accurately. DS could be mistaking “hobbyist moral police” with the obligation that Paul placed upon Christians:
But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an idolater, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person (1 Cor. 5:11).
The church in Corinth needed to withdraw fellowship from a man living with his father’s wife. If Christians find any of those described above, it is our duty to let them know of the danger they are in—and one way of doing that is by withholding fellowship from them (if they refuse to repent) so they will see the seriousness of their moral error.
Of course, the best way to solve some of these problems is to be certain that they do not enter the church in the first place. John insisted on fruits worthy of repentance before baptizing some (Matt. 3:7-8). He further spoke plainly to Herod: “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18). What John did, the church attempts to do, also. The New Testament
does not call us moral police, but we are individually to be holy, as well as collectively (1 Peter 1:15-16).
We do not always know everything about someone’s past when they decide to obey the gospel. Theoretically, a young woman might previously have been a prostitute. She may have been married five times and not mentioned that fact. A man might have embezzled money in New Jersey and moved to another locale under an assumed name. We don’t always have all the information we might need to accept someone as part of the congregation. But when two homosexuals appear and make it clear who they are, we cannot ignore the information and merrily welcome them.
DS further expects that someone ought to issue “a rebuke and an apology for the Church’s unlawful and unchristian abuse of homosexuals in and out of the church.” Unfortunately, he does not define either the word church or what he means by unlawful and unchristian abuse. Christians cannot be held accountable for the actions of just any group that calls itself Christian. There may be some hate groups that violate Christian principles; certainly, we could not stand with them. However, if by abuse is meant the refusal to allow homosexuals to be members, we will have to maintain that stance. Our goal is to encourage people to repent of sins—not tell them they are fine living in them and practicing them.
Straying Sheep
“We all like sheep have gone astray,” DS says. Apparently, the point is that we all commit sin, which is true (1 John 1:8, 10). But we do not all practice sin. Peter stated those same words about straying sheep but added that Christians “have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 2:25). Again, we accept the Bible’s definition of sin, and we repent of them before becoming Christians (and also afterwards).
Love and Truth
In the last paragraph, DS says, “Indeed you may be showing love in truth or you may just be showing truth.” He added that he could not discern one way or the other. Our response is that Truth is valuable whether or not it is offered in love, which is ideal (Eph. 4:15). For example, Jonah did not want to go to Nineveh to preach. He ran away. After God gained his attention, he decided to obey. Did Jonah preach God’s message in love? Possibly not—since he was upset that the people repented. He even declared that for that reason he fled in the first place (Jonah 4:2). Regardless of Jonah’s attitude, however, the people of Nineveh believed the message, and they repented, “from the greatest to the least of them” (3:5). So, we apologize if someone thinks our attitude is deficient and we do not appear to be speaking in love. But communicating Truth is love because it gives everyone an opportunity to do what is right.
The post Homosexual Relationships (A Response) – Part 2 appeared first on South Seminole Church Of Christ.
View Full Content Source:
http://cocwp.org/?p=6198
