<p class="MsoNormal">We as people often strive to find rules and regulations to live by. We know when we break the rules. We know that breaking the rules is wrong. Rules and laws help us know and decide what is right or wrong. The Pentateuch, which are the first five books in the Old Testament, gives a lot of laws and rules for the Israelites to live by, and in a large way, many of these laws have contributed to establishing laws for governing modern society.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In the book of Leviticus, part of the Pentateuch, there are two passages that speak against men sleeping together as a man would sleep with a woman. And it is true that we do not find any positive references to same sex-relations anywhere in the Bible. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Very often it is these two scriptures that are quoted in the debate against same-sex relationships or same-sex marriage, but as is the case with interpretering any portion of scripture, we do need to look closer at what the context of these scriptures are and what was the intent of these laws.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Lev.18:22 - <i>You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.</i> (NKJV)<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Lev. 20:13 - <i>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.</i> (NKJV)<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">There are many writers and scholars who have done extensive research on these verses – far more than I could do and therefore I will draw a lot from what I have learnt from them – and what they in turn have learnt from others.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Matthew Vines writes the following in his book, “God and the Gay Christian”:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>Old Testament laws related to sex don’t always align with Christian views on sexual ethics. Our freedom from the law, I should be clear, is about much more than one decision made by one church council nearly two thousand years ago. It is rooted in the saving, reconciling work of Jesus Christ. The New Testament teaches that Christ fulfilled the law. (p.79) (See Col. 2:13-14, Heb.8:6-7, 8:13, Rom 10:2, 10:4, Gal. 3:13, 5:1, 5:6, Rom. 7) <o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>Christ’s death on the cross liberated Christians from all that—what Paul called “the yoke of slavery.” Which leads to the obvious question: Are Christians also released from the prohibitions of male same-sex intercourse? In one sense, the answer is an uncontroversial yes. Our standing before God doesn’t depend on whether we’ve followed any laws. (p.81)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>Christians also accept many Old Testament “abominations” without controversy. (p.85)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In the church today there is a great distinction between “moral law” and “ritual law”. It is often argued that Christians today have no obligation to keep the “ritual laws” since these have all been fulfilled by Christ, but it is argued that as Christians we still have a duty to keep the “moral law”. This has given theologians the liberty to pick and choose which laws they find fitting to burden the Church with and which laws they can simply discard. It is interesting is that there is no scriptural differentiation between what constitutes a “moral” and “ritual” law – scripturally, the law is the law.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">David P. Gushee writes in his book “Changing our Mind”:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>I review these Old Testament legal materials in order to ask Christians who quote selectively from such materials to describe and defend their principle of selection, interpretation, and application. In other words, unless one accepts every Old Testament legal text as authoritative for Christians today in the exact manner in which it is written, what alternative hermeneutical (method of interpreting the Bible) principle is to be employed? It is not as simple as saying that Christians accept all the laws offered in the Old Testament, just not the death penalty statutes that go with them—because very, very few if any Christians accept all the laws themselves, such as those requiring genocidal violence against idolatrous towns or the adherence to kosher food regulations or the priestly sacrifice rules.</i><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>It is also not as simple as saying that Christians accept the moral laws offered in the Old Testament, just not the ceremonial, cultic, dietary, or civil laws—because, as Old Testament scholar Martin Noth wrote, “Here in the Old Testament … there is no question of different categories of commandment, but only of the Will of God binding on Israel, revealed in a great variety of concrete requirements.” Any differentiation of authority in terms of categories of Old Testament legal materials is foreign to the materials themselves. And no clear delineation along these lines is offered in the New Testament.<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>It is relevant to note that never again outside of Leviticus are same-sex acts mentioned in Old Testament law, leaving at least 111 of the 117 uses of the term “abomination” to describe other issues. It is interesting how few of those other acts or character qualities are ever described as abominations by Christians today.</i><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Gushee also states that:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>John Piper has written of Mark 10:5, the equivalent of Matthew 19:8, this passage indicates “that there are laws in the Old Testament that are not expressions of God’s will for all time, but expressions of how best to manage sin in a particular people at a particular time.”</i><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Karen Keen writes in her book, “Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships”:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>One common cause of misinterpretation of Old Testament laws is that we focus more on what the laws are than on why they are included in Scripture. Inspiration resides not necessarily in the particularities but in the overarching reason for the laws—namely, a good and just society. Sin is generally defined by what harms others. (pp.62-63)<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>What is inspired is not the genre or particular ancient Near Eastern legal concerns but rather what the laws signify: a good and just world. Quoting the Old Testament, Jesus made the same point: all the law can be summed up in love of God and love of neighbor. Jesus didn’t dismiss the Old Testament statutes as irrelevant. Rather, he saw past the cultural trappings to affirm the overarching intent and purpose of the laws. Discernment is required to determine whether and how a biblical directive contributes to the creation of a good and just world. They teach us how to appropriate ethics from Scripture. (p.65)</i><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Gushee also makes the following statements:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>Scholars generally agree that uneasiness about non-procreative sexuality was a factor in Old Testament and perhaps also New Testament treatments of same-sex issues.<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But, it is worth noting that the world population was most likely significantly less than today. Israel’s men were often called out to war, and many died in fierce battles. Life expectancy was also probably not as long as today, due to lack of medical advancement at that time. Procreative sex was probably important to keep the nation of Israel growing. Procreative sex would be beneficial to the nation. In the world we live in today, where the world population is growing very quickly, procreation is not as important for the survival of humanity.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The word “abomination” is scripturally often connected with idolatry. Male prostitutes were often found in temples where people went for idol worship, which could also add clearer context and help to accurately interpret Romans 1. If the context of having same-sex relations was going to an idolatrous temple to have sex with a male prostitute, it is understandable that the law would forbid it. Other common occurrences of same-sex relations included men raping young boys and conquered enemies to display his dominance over them, which is again very different from the loving same-sex relationships we are speaking of today.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It is safe to say that when we look at the full context in which these scriptures were written in, using these two scriptures to judge and condemn gay Christians in same-sex relationships is not a proper way of using scripture.<o:p></o:p></p>
💕 They love it! 💕
1
There are no comments to display!