Main homosexual argumewnt against the Bible prohibition
 |
| Jesus is considered by scholars such as Weber to be an example of a charismatic religious leader. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Pro-homosexual activists dismiss the OT prohibition on Homosexuality because it comes from Leviticus where eating certain foods and wearing certain types of clothing were also forbidden in the OT but today are ignored.
The root of the issue is the perceived inconsistency regarding rules mentioned in the OT that are no longer practiced by the NT people of God. Most Christians don’t know how to respond when confronted about this, but usually the best place to start is by describing the relationship of the OT to the NT.
The OT devotes a good amount of space to describing the various sacrifices that were to be offered in the tabernacle (and later the temple) to atone for sin so that worshipers could approach a holy God. Part of that sacrificial system included a complex set of rules for ceremonial purity and cleanness—you could only approach God in worship if you ate certain foods and not others, wore certain forms of clothing, refrained from touching a variety of objects, and so on. This code vividly conveyed, over and over, that human beings are spiritually unclean and cannot enter God’s presence without purification.
But even in the OT, many passages indicate that the sacrifices and regulations of temple worship point ahead to something beyond them (see 1 Sam 15:21–22; Pss 50:12–15; 51:17; Hos 6:6). This “something” was Jesus. Throughout His ministry, Jesus ignored OT regulations regarding purification, touching lepers and dead bodies; He declared all foods “clean” (Mark 7:19). The culmination of Jesus’ ministry made clear His reason for doing this. When He died on the cross, the veil in the temple tore in two, demonstrating that the entire sacrificial system and its ceremonial laws had been done away with (Matt 27:51). Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice for sin, now makes us “clean”—not the laws of the OT.
The book of Hebrews explains that the OT ceremonial laws were not so much abolished as fulfilled by Christ. Whenever we pray “in Jesus’ name,” we “have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus” (Heb 10:19 NIV). As a result, it would be deeply inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible as a whole if Christians continued to practice the ceremonial laws.
The NT provides further guidance about how to read and understand the OT. Paul makes clear that the apostles understood the OT moral law to still be binding on us (see Rom 13). Jesus spoke of the OT Law and even enhanced it, "you have heard it said that you shall not commit adultery, but I say unto you..."
In short, the coming of Christ changed how we worship, but not how we live. The moral law outlines God’s own character—His integrity, love, and faithfulness. Old Testament commandments about loving our neighbor, caring for the poor, being generous with our possessions, and committing to family still applies. The NT continues to forbid killing and adultery, and the sex ethic and in particular prohibits all sex outside of heterosexual marriage. (Matt 5:27–30; 1 Cor 6:9–20; 1 Tim 1:8–11). If the NT reaffirms an OT commandment, then it continues to have force for us today.
Once you grant the main premise of the Bible—the surpassing significance of Christ and His salvation—then all the various parts of the Bible make sense. Because of Christ, the ceremonial law of the OT is repealed. However, if you reject the idea that Jesus is God’s Son and our Savior, then the Bible may contain some insight and wisdom, but most of it would be rejected as foolish or erroneous.
So where does this leave us? There are only two possibilities: If Christ is God, then this way of reading the Bible makes sense and is perfectly consistent with its main premise. If Christ isn’t God, then one does not adopt the central proclamation of Christianity, nor can the Bible serve as a guide for much of anything. But the one thing that cannot be said is that Christians are inconsistent to accept the moral statements of the OT while not practicing its ceremonial laws.
One way to respond to the charge of inconsistency may be to ask a counter-question: “Are you asking me to deny the very heart of my Christian beliefs?” If you are asked, “Why do you say that?” you could respond, “If I believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God, I can’t follow all the ‘clean laws’ of diet and practice, and I can’t offer animal sacrifices. All that would be to deny the power of Christ’s death on the cross. So those who really believe in Christ must follow some OT texts and not others.”
Once you grant the main premise of the Bible—the surpassing significance of Christ and His salvation—then all the various parts of the Bible make sense. Because of Christ, the ceremonial law of the OT is repealed. However, if you reject the idea that Jesus is God’s Son and our Savior, then the Bible may contain some insight and wisdom, but most of it would be rejected as foolish or erroneous.
So where does this leave us? There are only two possibilities: If Christ is God, then this way of reading the Bible makes sense and is perfectly consistent with its main premise. If Christ isn’t God, then one does not adopt the central proclamation of Christianity, nor can the Bible serve as a guide for much of anything. But the one thing that cannot be said is that Christians are inconsistent to accept the moral statements of the OT while not practicing its ceremonial laws.
One way to respond to the charge of inconsistency may be to ask a counter-question: “Are you asking me to deny the very heart of my Christian beliefs?” If you are asked, “Why do you say that?” you could respond, “If I believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God, I can’t follow all the ‘clean laws’ of diet and practice, and I can’t offer animal sacrifices. All that would be to deny the power of Christ’s death on the cross. So those who really believe in Christ must follow some OT texts and not others.”
