GAY TRUTH

In what has to be a new low for the  New York Times , the Gray Lady (or should we now say the Bearded Lady?) has published an op-ed piece titled “ Is God Transgender? ” by a New York rabbi named Mark Sameth. Cousin to a man who “transitioned to a woman” in the 1970s, Sameth contends that “the Hebrew Bible, when reading in its original language, offers a highly elastic view of gender.” He marshals many purported examples of gender fluidity in the Hebrew scriptures, in order to argue that religion should not be put in service of “social prejudices” against transgendering. But his treatment of the Bible amounts to propaganda, not scholarship. Proposing that the God of Israel was worshipped originally as “a dual-gendered deity,” the rabbi asserts, untenable, that the etymological derivation of Yahweh is “He/She” (HUHI). His argument requires that the Tetragrammaton be read, not from right to left (as Hebrew always is), but from left to right: The four-Hebrew-letter name of God, w

Within the Christian community , the issue of whether or not homosexual behavior is consistent with biblical teaching has once again become a hot topic of conversation, though in recent years it has never been too far from the forefront. Indeed, American churches have been split over this issue and the Supreme Court decision promises to ensure this matter is not going to go away any time soon. Amongst the flurry of articles and blogs addressing this topic, of most interest to me have been those which attempt to defend the compatibility of homosexual behavior with Biblical teaching. This should be of interest to all Christians considering that for nearly 2,000 years the historical and consistent position of the Church has been that homosexual behavior is sinful and prohibited by Scripture. And prior to Christianity, this was also the historical position of the Jewish people which they based on the teachings of the Old Testament . There is a reason of course that both Jews and Chri

What do later prophets understand the sin of Sodom to be? The Revisionist Answer The reference to Sodom in Ezekiel proves that the sin of Sodom is inhospitality (16:49) and pride (16:50). The text refers to Sodom often, yet it never cites homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. The rest of the prophets follow the example of Ezekiel. The Biblical Answer 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 . Leviticus 18:23 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

How significant are the prohibitions of same-gender behavior in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13? Are these passages limited to Israel ’s purity code and her separation from the surrounding gentile nations, or are they universal? The Revisionist Answer The context limits the prohibitions to the cult or religion of Israel, as shown by the use of the word abominable (Heb. toʿeba, Gk. bdelygma). These regulations belong solely to the purity laws applied to Israel in the Old Testament and have no on-going value as moral standards. These passages are never quoted in the New Testament as part of the Christian ethic . Establishment of the death penalty for violators does not help determine whether the texts apply to the modern world. The texts have no relevance. The Biblical Answer Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 clearly describe homosexual behavior , with the second passage calling for the death penalty. The words abomination or detestable occur in both passages. Among the vices listed

The Revisionist Answer This body of literature does not read the Old Testament passages as condemning homosexuality in general; rather they refer to some other sin, such as pederasty. Sodom is condemned for its pride and inhospitality. Even if homosexuality is understood to be the sin of Sodom, this interpretation is wrong and linked to the sin of the angels before the Flood. These angels committed a sin “against nature.” In turn, this interpretation in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha has wrongly influenced various places in the New Testament (Jude 7; 2 Peter 2:6–8) so that they also link the sin with that of the fallen angels. All of these improper connections arose in the intertestamental literature because of Jewish aversion to Greek homosexual practices. The Traditional Jewish and Biblical Answer 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

Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you. So we can confidently say, “The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?” This article by John Piper is built around eight points designed to give a biblical vision of marriage in relation to homosexuality, and in relation to the proposed Marriage Amendment.  I asked that Hebrews 13:1–6 be read not because I will give an exposition of it, but to highlight that one phrase in verse 4: “Let marriage be held in honor among all.” That is what I hop

Question: Is homosexual sin worse than other sins? It is very tempting to suggest that all sins are equally sinful . In some sense, every single sin sufficiently justifies our eternal damnation and separation from an infinitely holy and righteous God . Yet not all sins are equal in ambition, context, or effect.  They are not all equal in ambition because some sins are so deeply rooted in conscious rebellion that they amount to blatant disobedience or refusal to believe. With regard to context, the Bible itself distinguishes sin. Some are described as "against nature" and others are not.  Paul did this in Romans 1 when he spoke about homosexuality. He used the same argument in 1 Corinthians 6 when he showed that sexual sin has a particularly sinful quality since it is, unlike other sins, directed against the body, which he argued is a temple of the Holy Spirit . Even in the Old Testament , some sins are referred to as abominations, which effectively set them apart

Question:  Since Jesus did not specifically address homosexuality, how can we be certain he considers it sinful behavior? Jesus addressed a multitude of sins throughout the four Gospels . As evidenced in the Sermon on the Mount , he explicitly affirmed the continuation of the Old Testament moral law and its intensification in his kingdom.  At the same time, there are many specific issues, both ancient and modern, for which there is no specific scriptural text explicitly revealing what Christ said during his earthly ministry. This does not mean we cannot know what Christ believed and taught.  In answering a question about divorce, Jesus himself stated that God 's plan from the beginning was that a man and a woman be united in marriage. Jesus affirmed the Genesis pattern of complementarity, and he honored the institution of marriage as the conjugal union of a man and a woman ( Mark 10:2-9).  At every single point, Jesus affirmed the Old Testament's judgment aga

Question: Aren't Christians being selective with Old Testament law when they appeal to it with respect to homosexuality, while ignoring Old Testament commands about clothing, food, etc.? In some sense, yes, because we are singling out the  moral law , which is exactly what the New Testament trains us to do. The book of Acts distinctly separates the ceremonial and liturgical laws from the moral law. The Lord told Peter not to distinguish between clean and unclean animals any longer (Acts 10:9-16). At the same time, the Jerusalem Council clearly confirmed the continuation of the moral law ( Acts 15 ). Paul tells us the gospel is for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews, which obliterates that distinction in the holiness code.  Nevertheless, Paul regularly returns to the moral law of the Old Testament to show and defend the character of righteous living in general and rule commandments against same-sex acts in particular.   If we still depended on rule Levitical code

Last week Eugene Peterson , the author of “The Message” as well as several other pastoral books, said in an interview with Jonathan Merritt of Religion News Service that he didn’t consider homosexuality wrong and would, if asked, officiate a same-sex “marriage.” “I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian,” Peterson said, “and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do.” The reaction was swift and immediate. After all, Peterson is no minor figure. His work has influenced the faith of millions, and predictably, liberal circles hailed him as the most prominent evangelical figure yet to “evolve” on same-sex relationships. But then on Thursday, Peterson released a statement retracting his earlier comments , saying, “To clarify, I affirm the biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything.” I’m glad for this retraction, though his statements are still puzzling. Even more, they’re revealing First, they reveal the crisis of authority amo

SODOM AND HOMOSEXUALITY. Almost a century ago, G. K. Chesterton wrote, “Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.”  Though in many ways that remains true, in the issue of homosexuality it defines the controversy. Some today still consider homosexuality an evil, whether excusable or not. Others march for the rights of those they believe to be simply practicing an acceptable alternative lifestyle that expresses their sexual preferences . Though Genesis 19 is not a story about the evils of homosexuality, the narrative has traditionally been a starting point for discussion of the biblical view of homosexuality. We include this discussion under Breakout Points because in it we are digressing from the purpose of the author. Nonetheless, given the prominence of the issue in contemporary society, a brief comment is in order. The sin of Sodom. The first question to be asked is whether the text of Ge