ABC promotes liberal theologian - Bible supports homosexual marriage

The ABC once again on the eve of the voting on the Marriage Act has interviewed and promoted the liberal views of Robyn Whitaker who states that the Bible and God support homosexuality. Whitaker, lectures in biblical studies at Trinity College at the University of Melbourne. 

We understand why the ABC has selected such a person, but what is the basis of her claim regarding homosexuality? 

Whitaker ORIGINALLY believed homosexuality was a sin. But something changed. What happened? She was trained in liberal theological colleges in the USA. 

"I have moved a very long way from not really seeing how someone could be gay and be a person of faith through to now saying I'm going to vote yes on a postal survey because I think there should be equality in marriage," she said. 

WHITAKER NEXT ERROR IS REGARDING IMMEDIATE JUDGEMENT

She says: "Living in the United States as same-sex marriage was legalised was a part of that transformation process. "You realise the sky doesn't fall in — that this is beautiful and a part of our tradition and it's nothing to be afraid of."

Whitaker is referring to Sodom being destroyed by God by fire and brimstone. This throw away line, is also used by the gay lobby. The misuse of this line by a theologian is also surprising. 

Both her and the gay lobby are saying - God has not delivered destruction in the USA when it legalized homosexual marriage, therefore God approves of homosexual marriage or God doesn't care. Nothing happened therefore all is good! 

But Whitaker ignores scripture which says "They receive in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Rm 1:27) and "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another." (Rm 1:24). 

God hands them over fully to their desires - to be degraded. God's handing over is punitive, not spiteful or vengeful. It is simply, a homosexual freed from God's restraint regresses to a lower level of animality. God has removed all control, which restrained them from their basic instincts.

She said she had taken the conscious decision to speak out about her support for same-sex marriage because she felt she was in a "somewhat privileged position" because of her work in academia. 

"I have a little more freedom to speak on this issue; my job is not at stake. I know for some of my clergy friends in other churches there are very real consequences to them speaking out," Ms Whitaker said. 

Whitaker is correct, Universities actively promote the sin of homosexuality but Church that do not have liberal homosexual supporters in their ranks, even homosexuals who are less than honest with their denomination, people and God.

WHY WOULD A REVEREND NOW SAY HOMOSEXUALITY IS APPROVED BY GOD? BELOW IS HER FAULTY ARGUMENT IN RED

What follows represents a summary of critical biblical scholarship on the issue. Critical biblical scholarship draws on a range academic disciplines including literary criticism, archaeology, history, philology, and social science to offer the most plausible, historically grounded interpretation of the Bible. It is not simply a matter of personal belief or citing official church doctrine.

Australian scholars are among leaders in the field when it comes to sexuality and the Bible. William Loader has written several books on the matter and this Anglican collection of essays is also excellent.

When it comes to homosexuality there are, at most, six passages of the Bible that are relevant. So what do these passages say?

Genesis 19 and Leviticus

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 is well known. This is where the terms "sodomite" and "sodomy" originate, and it has long been associated with biblical condemnation of male homosexual sex. It is, however, actually about gang-rape.

In this story, the men of Sodom seek to rape two visitors (who are actually angels). Their host, Lot, defends them and offers them protection in his house, but offers his virgin daughters to be raped in their place. It is a deeply problematic and complex story that warrants an article of its own, but what is clear is that sexual violence and rape is harshly condemned, and so God destroys the town with sulphur and fire.

John MacArthur writes: Genesis 19:4 the men of the city … all the people. Both the size of the lustful mob of men boisterously milling around Lot’s house and the widespread nature of Sodom’s moral perversion received emphasis both from the additional qualifiers used (“all the people from every quarter” and “both old and young”) and the request made (v. 5, “know them carnally”). Even acknowledging legitimate exaggeration in this use of “all” would not detract from this emphasis—this was indeed a wicked city!

19:5 know them carnally. They sought homosexual relations with the visitors. God’s attitude toward this vile behavior became clear when He destroyed the city (vv. 23–29). Lev. 18:22, 29; 20:13; Rom. 1:26; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10 where all homosexual behavior is prohibited and condemned by God.

19:6–8 Lot’s response betrayed tension in his ethics; his offer to gratify their sexual lust contradicted his plea not to act “so wickedly.” Such contradiction made clear also the vexation of spirit under which he lived in wicked Sodom (2 Pet. 2:6, 7).

Young says the same as MacArthur: The words of the text describe the evil intent of the Sodomites. In light of Sodom’s reputation recorded earlier in Genesis (13:10, 13; 18:20–21, 23ff.), the behavior of the sodomites was known to be particularly despicable. However important hospitality was in that society, inhospitality does not fit this description.

The meaning of the terms in any text is defined by the context. The meaning of know in Genesis 19:5 must be considered by the use of the same word in 19:8, where it has an unmistakably sexual meaning: Lot said his daughters had not “known” a man. This use argues strongly that the same word has the same meaning within the scope of four verses, unless there is strong contrary indication. But all other evidence supports, rather than weighs against, a sexual connotation. “To have sexual intercourse” must be the preferred translation for know.

It is correct that homosexual conquest, was the intent of the men’s actions. Yet Sodom is used frequently in Scripture as an illustration of depravity or judgment in which rape or conquest does not fit or is inadequate; the full range of homosexual thought and behavior does fit. Among the thirty-nine such applications of Sodom are Deuteronomy 29:23 (vv. 19–21); 32:32–35; Isaiah 1:9–10 (vv. 4–5); 13:19; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40 (vv. 31–32); Lamentations 4:5–8; Ezekiel 16:44–50; Amos 4:11 (ch. 4); Zephaniah 2:8–10. “Sodom” takes on the broader connection with homosexuality throughout the rest of Scripture, having implications of pride, in addition to violence or inhospitality. The passages mentioning Sodom never suggest the idea of homosexual rape over conquered foes.

Whitaker tries to get away with a denial of this by saying: 

Despite the linguistic history of the word "sodomite", Genesis 19 has nothing to say about homosexuality or mutually consenting adults of the same gender expressing their desire and love. 

Whitaker then tries again to twist scripture:  Two of the laws of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) seem more pertinent. They call a man lying with another man instead of his wife an "abomination". We should note first that the imagined scenario is a married man committing adultery with another male. It is not describing what we would understand to be a sexual orientation. We might also note the inherent sexism here: women apparently don't have the same desire or their sexuality is deemed too insignificant to be worthy of comment.

De Young continues: Sodom was guilty of arrogance, abundance, apathy, and neglect of the poor and needy, according to Ezekiel 16:49. Yet Ezekiel 16:50 goes far beyond pride or haughtiness to cite “abominations” or “detestable things” as the sins of Sodom. 

The language used is applied to homosexuality in the Pentateuch, including a married or single man involved in a homosexual act. Sexual orientation is simply lustful desires. Leviticus 18:22-233 and 20:13 call homosexuality “abomination.” The same Hebrew and Greek terms used in Leviticus for homosexuality occur in Ezekiel for Sodom. Other references to Sodom in the Prophets consistently identify the sin of Sodom with such descriptive words as pride, gluttony, and arrogance. While they never say that the sin of Sodom is homosexuality, such terms as abomination take us back to Leviticus 18 and 20. If the prophets do not use the word homosexuality, neither do they say that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. 

Whitaker then tries to imply that when the Bible calls homosexuality and abomination, it also calls eating pork an abomination - seeking to minimize homosexuality as an abomination on the same level as eating pork. She has confused moral law with dietary law, Israel civil laws, of which the moral law comes over to the New Testament.

Yes, this verse clearly condemns adulterous homosexual sex in calling it an "abomination" (to'ebah), but here are all the other things also called an "abomination" in the Bible:

· Egyptians eating with Hebrews;
· having an image of another god in your house;
· sacrificing your child to the god Molech;
· having sex with your wife when she is menstruating;
· taking your wife's sister as a second wife; and
· eating pork.

Banned likewise is wearing mixed-fabric clothing, interbreeding animals of different species, tattoos, mocking the blind by putting obstacles in their way, and trimming your beard. As you can see, there is quite an assortment of ancient laws, some of which seem to make good sense (such as no child sacrifice) and others of which the majority of Christians no longer keep (such as eating pork and wearing a wool-silk blend).

The moral law like the 10 commandments, plus the moral law found throughout the Levitical code when it appears again in the New Testament under a new covenant is still mandatory and at times enhanced by Jesus 's sermon on the mount.  Whitaker makes fatal errors in covenant law and logic.

To claim one set as timeless truths while ignoring the others is patently hypocritical and goes against the grain of the text itself. These two verses in Leviticus are the sum total of what the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) says about same-sex activities.

The Traditional Jewish Answer to Whitaker's claim: 

The Mishnah and those various targums that discuss homosexuality take the biblical passages as condemning it. The Mishnah (Sanh. 7:1–9:1) restates the penalty of death and groups homosexuality with adultery, incest, and murder. Yet it allows for atonement for the sin of homosexuality, as for adultery and murder. Later Jewish writings, such as the works of Philo and Josephus, follow the interpretation of the Mishnah and strongly condemn homosexual vice 

Even the Apocrypha disagree with Whitaker

Various passages in the Apocrypha (Ecclus. 16:8; 10:13–18; 49:2) use such terms as abomination and arrogance—terms associated with homosexuality—to describe the sin of Sodom. Wisdom of Solomon 14:23–26 cites “confusion of sex” as one result of idolatry; this phrase may be rendered, “interchange of sex roles.” Wisdom 19:13–17 and 10:6–9 describe the sin of Sodom as inhospitality, as well as “ungodly,” “wickedness,” “failure,” and “folly”

.

The Pseudepigrapha even more definitely associate homosexuality with Sodom. Second Enoch 10:4–5a and 34:1–3 use stark language to describe sodomy. Third Maccabees 2:3–6 describes the Sodomites as acting “insolently” and becoming “notorious for their crimes.” Jubilees 7:20–21, 16:5–9, and 20:5–6 describe the sin of the Sodomites as “wicked,” “sinners exceedingly,” “defiling themselves,” “committing fornication in their flesh,” “working uncleanness on the earth,” “fornication and uncleanness,” and “pollution of sin.” Fourth Ezra 2:8–9; 5:7 and 7:102–31 refer to Sodom as coming under divine judgment. Testament of Naphtali 3:4–5 and 4:1 refer to the sin of Sodom as “wickedness” and that which “changed the order of nature” in a way similar to the sin of the angels before the Flood. 

Testament of Asher 7:1 connects the sin of Sodom with that of the angels. Testament of Benjamin 9:1 refers to the “fornication of Sodom.” Testament of Levi 14:6 refers to “the union” of Sodom, and 17:8 refers to unmentionable “pollution.” Levi 17:11 makes the only reference to pederasty in all of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, associating pederasts with adulterers, the arrogant, and those who practice bestiality. Other Testaments refer to “revolting gentile affairs,” “the evils of the Gentiles,” or “corruption in fornication.” The Letter of Aristeas 152 indicts gentile men for, among other sins, having “intercourse with men” and “defiling their own mothers and even their daughters”

.

The intertestamental literature is frank, not only in associating homosexuality with Sodom, but also in denouncing this as an evil gentile vice. The view of Sodom and its sin flows out of a plausible interpretation of the sin of Sodom found in the Old Testament itself and of the homosexuality described in Leviticus 18 and 20 as “abomination” or “detestable.” This literature does not distort the Old Testament. If certain New Testament passages reflect the terminology of this literature, they do so because this literature accurately reflects the sin of Sodom and the homosexuality of the nations that is prohibited in Leviticus.

The New Testament

The remainder of the biblical references occur in the New Testament, written between approximately 50 and 110 CE in the context of the Roman Empire. The attitudes and norms of Graeco-Roman culture are critical in understanding these texts. In Graeco-Roman society, there was an acceptance that men might be attracted to other men. Even if married (to a woman) and often prior to marriage, a wealthy man might have a young male lover or male partner.

In educational settings, several ancient authors comment on the male-male mentoring that often included pederasty (sex with boys). The main ancient objection to male-male sexual activity was that one partner had to take the "woman's role" of being penetrated. In a patriarchal society, to be masculine was to be the active partner, whereas to be passive was deemed feminine and shameful.

These attitudes find their way into the New Testament in various forms. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:10 list a wide group of people who will not "inherit the Kingdom" without changing. 

Young writes: Arsenokoitai (lit. “male beds”) does not occur prior to Paul, because Paul probably coined it as he coined other terms. He almost certainly derived it from two words that occur together in the LXX of Leviticus 20:13 (arsenos koitēn, “whoever shall lie with a male a bed as a woman”). This rendering suggests that Paul had in mind the prohibition of adult homosexuality in Leviticus. 

Support for this position comes from 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10, lists of vices that correspond, even in word order, to the Ten Commandments. In either list, Paul adds “homosexuals” to “adulterers” to expand and contemporize the prohibition of adultery, just as he does with the other commandments

Whitaker without evidence now states: Paul is using a standard list of vices here to make a wider rhetorical point. Where some English translations might include "homosexuality" on this list, the translation is not that simple, which is why various English words are used (adulterer, immoral persons, prostitutes).

Paul (1 Tim. 1:8–10) includes homosexuality in his list of immoralities that he believes society should proscribe. It is that simple and clear. 

The Mishnah and targums, intertestamental literature, Philo and Josephus, and early Christian church fathers share this emphasis in any reference remotely dealing with the subject (see pp. 47–56, 184–201).

Even the Greeks did not allow unbridled homosexual behavior. The increasing restriction of homosexuality by law under Christian emperors was a consequence of decisions informed by biblical conviction. It witnesses to a common Jewish and Christian interpretation of the Bible regarding homosexuality. 

The rulers saw the event of Sodom as having portent for future societies, since Sodom itself was a pagan or worldly society. Even before Christ, ancient Greek and Roman law codes began a tradition of restricting homosexual behavior that has carried forward to modern law codes and legislation (excursus 4).

The Greek word malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 means "soft" or "effeminate" and captures the Graeco-Roman distaste at a man taking a "female" role. In the Bible it is commonly used to describe fancy clothing, and outside the Bible was a term for cult prostitutes.

The word arsenokoites is rarer. Scholars have debated whether it refers to male prostitution or pederasty or something else. To translate it as "homosexual" is problematic for two reasons: it is unlikely Paul had any concept of sexual orientation and he was certainly not describing a committed adult relationship.(Paul knew exactly what he was condemning) 

Young responds to Whitaker's claim in 1 Corinthains 6:9-10

The English term homosexuals is an appropriate correspondent to arsenokoitai, given both ancient sexual practice and today’s usage. We have ample evidence that ancient Greeks and Romans knew about homosexual orientation and that some Greeks practiced a mutually respectful, committed homosexual relationship.

Arsenokoitai (lit. “male beds”) does not occur prior to Paul, because Paul probably coined it as he coined other terms. He almost certainly derived it from two words that occur together in the LXX of Leviticus 20:13 (arsenos koitēn, “whoever shall lie with a male a bed as a woman”). This rendering suggests that Paul had in mind the prohibition of adult homosexuality in Leviticus. 

Support for this position comes from 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10, lists of vices that correspond, even in word order, to the Ten Commandments. In either list, Paul adds “homosexuals” to “adulterers” to expand and contemporize the prohibition of adultery, just as he does with the other commandments.

Whitaker falsely argues that:  In Romans 1:26-27, Paul condemns people swapping out their usual partner for one of the same gender. He claims this is a result of idolatry and uses it as part of his argument for why one should only follow (his) God. It is typical of the strong "them and us" rhetoric of the ancient world, serving a larger argument and is not a statement on sexuality per se.

Young responds to Whitaker completely false statement "is not a statement on sexuality." - Romans 1:26-27.

This passage not only informs us of the reality of homosexuality as a moral issue, but it implicitly prohibits the behavior by placing those who practice it in the position of being abandoned to evil by God (v. 26), along with the others of verses 24 and 28. 

Paul makes no distinction about those who are born in a particular way. Rather, he deals in Romans 1 with how Gentiles reject general revelation of God in the creation and turn to idolatry and accompanying evil behavior, including homosexuality. In verses 24, 26, and 28, he says that God has given people over to evil vices. It is inappropriate to make a distinction to limit homosexuality to a Jewish purity taboo within any one of the groups if one does not do it in all three groups or to even say it is not a statement on sexuality. This doesn't even make sense?

The ancient Greeks and Romans both knew of and practiced homosexual mutuality and permanence, and they knew of homosexual orientation. Thus, Paul’s condemnation must encompass them.

Whitaker then throws in a bizarre maths argument to minimize the sin of homosexuality. Whitaker's logic goes like this: Homosexuality is only mentioned 0.016% of all the Bible verses - therefore it is not important. The phrase "Jesus wept" is the shortest bible verse in the Bible. The Bible records that Jesus cries twice. To minimize scripture because it appears only once, lacks biblical integrity and understanding. 

These are six verses out of more than 31,000 verses or roughly 0.016 per cent of the text. In contrast, the Bible contains more than 2,000 verses about money (and related issues of greed, wealth, loans, and property), and more than 100 specifically on one's obligation to care for widows. In other words, monitoring and proscribing human (homo)sexual activity is not a particular concern of the Bible when compared to the overarching demand for justice, economic equality, and the fair treatment of foreigners and strangers. For certain Christian groups to make this the decisive Christian issue is simply a misreading of biblical values.

Whitaker's concluding error is that because the Bible has a variety of marriage arrangements - therefore God must approve of them all. The Bible does list men who took on multiple wives. It states it - but never approves of it as Genesis clearly outlines Biblical marriage as outlined by God and affirmed by Jesus when asked about divorce. 

The scripture lists such arrangements due to sin, it permits divorce in a limited sense due to hardness of heart, but only approves of sacred marriage between one man and one woman. 

Serious Christians cannot ignore the Bible. They can, however, make sure that they interpret it with all the tools available to them, that they examine their own biases, and stop over-simplifying the issues. The Bible offers a wide variety of marriage arrangements, many of which we no longer condone. It never condemns same-sex marriage, partly because it simply does not address the issue directly. It does, however, give us an ethic to guide how we treat one another: an ethic based upon God's generous love and a profound concern for justice.

Robyn J Whitaker is Bromby Lecturer in Biblical Studies at Trinity College and a lecturer at the University of Divinity.

The ABC has found a theologian who support their pro-gay agenda. However, according to scripture and in particular the book of Galatians - this is another gospel, an apostate gospel, where some will be fooled, even deceived by false arguments.