GAY TRUTH

The Distinction Between the Ceremonial and Moral Law As Necessary for Biblical Interpretation Recognizing this distinction between the ceremonial and moral law is vitally important in properly understanding such passages as 1 Samuel 15:22: “Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.” The Lord has commanded of His covenant people adherence to both His moral and His ceremonial law ; however, in this passage, obedience “is better than sacrifice.”  How can this be since God has commanded both? The answer is that, even for the children of Israel who were commanded to offer sacrifices in accordance with the ceremonial law that regulated their lives and worship, loyalty to the Lord by obeying His moral law came first. Persons who disregarded the commandments of God’s moral law were not welcome to present their offerings. This fact is clearly seen

THE MORAL AND CEREMONIAL LAWS DISTINGUISHED The chief failure of those who reduce the book of Leviticus to a non-applicable status is in not recognizing the proper biblical distinctions between that which God intended to be temporary and that which is permanent and applicable to all persons.  The Bible does make distinctions between what was temporary, solely intended for the children of Israel , and that which is universal, unchanging, and obligatory upon all peoples in all places. We have not denied that parts of the book of Leviticus offer temporary instruction. Some regulations are no longer observed due to divine amendment. We have already seen this to be the case with regard to the dietary laws and the ordinances that pertained to the priesthood. Bible scholars and theologians have recognized these distinctions and categorized them as the ceremonial and moral law. God’s moral law refers to those precepts that are perpetually binding upon all peoples in all time (

Returning the Challenge—Leviticus, Bestiality , and Pedophilia Those who propose that we no longer consider the Leviticus prohibitions of homosexuality as binding must tell us what is to be done with the rest of the book.   They are left in the inconsistent position of either rejecting it all (which Jesus did not do, as seen in Matthew 22:39—Jesus citing Leviticus 19:18) or revealing their true colors and showing their own subjectively selective approach to biblical interpretation.  We can discern what is permanent and what is temporary in God ’s Word.  If God has not repealed His Law at any given point, His Law stands, which poses a problem for those advocating the acceptability of homosexuality with the Bible , for they must answer why bestiality and pedophilia are moral evils.   Such practices are sinful because God declares them so. Specifically, bestiality is condemned in Leviticus 18:23, just one verse after the first Leviticus prohibition of homosexuality, and yet n

ANSWERING THE EVASIONS AND REVISIONS Even professing Christians encounter difficulties when they consider the book of Leviticus . Few people understand this third book of the Bible. Discussions become bogged down due to a lack of Bible reading and knowledge. Some people will make grandiose claims and bold assertions about the Law of God , about the book of Leviticus, and about “Holiness Codes” despite the fact that they are woefully misrepresenting the truth of God ’s Word (1 Timothy 1:7). A great deal of confusion could be avoided if those who bear the name of the Lord would spend more time reading the Bible. Often, this is enough to refute the revisionists’ contentions. Leviticus Only for the Jews? A Case of Geographical Morality Rabbi Jacob Milgrom has taught that the laws against homosexuality in the Old Testament were exclusively Jewish in scope and application. He has attempted to prove his point by going to the text of Leviticus and making reference to the land. He

REJECTED: THE LEVITICUS PASSAGES DO NOT APPLY TO US This approach recognizes the prohibitions against homosexuality that are found in the book of Leviticus and does not deny them, but these prohibitions, we are told, do not apply to the present day or current situation. Such claims are made because these prohibitions supposedly only applied to the Jewish people of the Old Testament . By restricting the Leviticus prohibitions in this way, this revision honestly admits the presence of the prohibition and so presents itself as “faithful” to the Bible . Those who take this approach admit that at some time, for some people, homosexuality was prohibited. Stated even more simply, homosexuality was forbidden then and for them. This view speaks voluminously of matters that pertained to the external worship of the God of the Bible—the ceremonies of the Old Testament (sacrifices, the priesthood, the promised land, purity and cleanliness distinctions, dietary laws, etc.). These ceremoni

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. ( Leviticus 18:22) 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; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13) These verses are abundantly clear. Both passages unquestionably prohibit any type of same-sex intimacy and even prohibit the interest in same-sex intimacy. If God forbids certain deeds—declaring them sinful—we must necessarily conclude that the desire, the longing, or the interest in committing such deeds is sinful as well.  One cannot say that although the deed of murder is sinful, the desire to murder is morally (and scripturally) acceptable; therefore, from the outset, we can discard the attempted and unacceptable evasion that presents these passages as only dealing with homosexual acts and not with homosexual interest or desire.1 The Bible, particularly these passages i

Objection Stated The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is irrelevant to homosexuality because it does not address loving, monogamous relationships . It is only decrying gang rape and violence , nothing else. Biblical Response Surely there is everything wrong with violence, whether sexual or not. And there is everything wrong with gang rape as well. But to note that these things are wrong does not explain many of the issues in the narrative of Genesis 19 , as well as the rest of the Bible’s references to Sodom and Gomorrah.  There was no violence on the part of the crowd until Lot identified their desires as wicked. Was Lot wrong to identify homosexual desires for these men as wicked? And was Peter wrong to interpret the story from Genesis as involving daily ungodliness on the part of the Sodomites? Are we to assume the Sodomites engaged in daily gang rapes, or is it apparent that it was their lifestyle that tormented his soul? The insertion of the concept of “monogamous, loving ho

Lot leaving Sodom, Woodcut from the Nuremberg Chronicle (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Objection Stated   The references to Sodom in Jude and 2 Peter do not condemn homosexuality. Jude speaks of desiring “ strange flesh ,” and Peter refers only to sexual immorality, not to homosexuality. Some assert that the sin of the Sodomites in Jude consisted of a desire to have sexual relations with angels. Both passages show us that the attempt to connect the Genesis story with homosexuality lacks the support of New Testament writers. Biblical Response The two passages under consideration are Jude 6–7 and 2 Peter 2:4–10. Jude writes,   6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day. 7 Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoin

Sodom and Gomorrha, Alte Pinakothek, Room 23 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Objection Stated   Jesus mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah , but never connected the Sodom story with anything relevant to homosexuality. Instead, He connected Sodom and Gomorrah to inhospitality, proving that the traditional interpretation of the passage is in error. Biblical Response Matthew 10:14 –15 records the words of the Lord ,   Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment , than for that city. While it is admitted that Jesus does not speak of homosexuality in connection with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, it must also be admitted that Jesus nowhere refers to their sin as that of in-hospitality. It is inappropriate to assume that Jesus is approving of the revisionist interpretation of the Genesis account of

As a clinician within a Victoria police unit for mental health emergencies, Ahern, 46, deals with people who are suicidal, acting erratically, or in a state of crisis. But 10 years ago, he was in a mental health crisis of his own. Ahern was taught that the sin of homosexuality could be repented of and that walking in the Spirit daily, seeking to obey Christ would enable him to resist his homosexual lust. Fleeing from any form of temptation, focusing on worship and prayer, acknowledging the need for the power of the Holy Spirit were all part of the biblical teaching on sexual purity and spiritual health. Unfortunately he thought all he had to do was pray harder. Ahern received biblical counselling sessions at a Sydney Christian Life Centre , part of a group of churches associated with today’s Pentecostal Australian Christian Churches . In his early twenties, he married a woman, encouraged by the idea that if he settled down and got married, refused to act out his lust everything wo

An Australian Catholic father of seven has won his case in New South Wales after he was accused of vilification for publicly objecting to what he believed was the blatant promotion of homosexuality. Bernard Gaynor, a former military man and outspoken free-speech campaigner, received a favorable judgment last week in his battle with the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board and the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). “The New South Wales Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that effectively ended three years of progressive totalitarian action against me – and all Australians who dare to express conservative views,” Gaynor said in a media release.  “This victory could not have come without your support. As such, it is not mine. It belongs to all of us." The judgment ended nearly three years of costly legal action and effectively terminated 32 complaints (many of which were duplicates) for opposition to homosexual “marriage” brought against