Question #1: Dear Bob, I thank you very much for your encouragement along the path. What do you think about the present trend towards gay marriage, and what should we as Christians do about it?
Response #1: Thanks for your e-mail and for your question. I am very pleased to
hear that these materials continue to be of some help.
On marriage in general, while this and related ethical issues are slated
to be covered in Bible Basics part 6B, "Peripateology", there are some
materials currently posted to the site:
"The
Marriage of Adam and Eve" (in SR #3)
"The Marriage of Adam and Eve" (in BB 3A - slightly revised from the
above)
A conversation
about divorce and remarriage.
What does it mean in 1st Corinthians 7:14, "the unbelieving husband is
sanctified"?
Divorce and
Remarriage
More Divorce and
Remarriage
Feelings of
Guilt about Remarriage
I have a quite a bit more of this sort of thing which is not yet posted
to the site. I know that this does not address the main thrust of your
question, so let me say a word or two about that. I try my best to stay
entirely clear of politics. It's not that I don't have feelings and
opinions, but they are entirely unimportant when considered in the light
of God's truth. If it is a question of what is right or wrong for an
individual believer to do or not to do something, I am certainly very
happy to explain everything I believe the Bible has to say on the
subject (along with the scriptures and interpretations that have led me
to that view, answering questions patiently as long as the other party
is engaged in genuine dialogue rather than rhetoric). But in my view,
what the state says (or should say) or is doing (or is possibly going to
do) on this and a whole variety of controversial subjects just doesn't
have any deep meaning for a true Christian who desires and is trying to
walk the walk Jesus wants him or her to walk.
After all, there are plenty of things that are entirely legal and yet
are also horrendously sinful, so the issue of what the law may say is
not really at the heart of the matter. We are constrained to obey the
law for conscience' sake and out of the fear of God (Rom.13:1-7;
1Pet.2:13-21), as long as it does not constrain us from doing what God
would have us do or force us personally to do something we should not.
That is an extremely high standard. If memory serves, the clearest case
in the New Testament of believers being justified in disobeying the duly
constituted authority was when the Sanhedrin prohibited the apostles
from teaching or proclaiming the gospel in the Name of Jesus Christ
(Acts 5:28-42). While I would certainly not want to pre-judge any
particular individual situation before the fact, it seems pretty clear
to me that the legal demands and constraints of our present society very
rarely approach to this level. Many of Jesus' contemporaries felt that
paying taxes to the Romans was essentially sinful, but we know His
answer: “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's”.
As I often say in such contexts, Peter and Paul's commands (cited above)
to obey what for almost all of their audience were the Roman imperial
authorities are very telling. Rome had established paganism and emperor
worship as the state religion, and Christianity was not a religio
licta, that is, a tolerated "religion". So if people who were being
persecuted for their faith are told to hang in there and take it, it
seems to me that contemporary Christians need to take several deep
breaths before they begin to take up the "good fight" in political
terms, no matter what they may think the "good fight" is.
It is true that we are a democracy, and the argument is very often made
that we Christians should participate, and enthusiastically so, as part
of our Christian duty. While I do see that there is something to that
argument, and while I do endorse giving back to our country (serving her
in some positive way, whether in the Peace Corps or Marine Corps or what
have you), and while I certainly would never tell anyone that it is ipso
facto wrong to vote or to become involved in political campaigns or
lobbying etc., it strikes me that at best these things are pointless,
and at worst, dangerous.
Why pointless? To take one example of policy, no matter what we do as a
nation, the Tribulation will arrive on time, and if my reading of
scripture is correct, nothing is going to stop antichrist from rising to
power here (see the link in
CT 3B: “The Rise of Antichrist”). The situation in the Middle East
is certainly part of the picture, but whether we decide to try and
conquer it all, or blow it all up, or win over all their hearts and
minds, or give up entirely and put a fence around this place, the end
result is going to be the same – God knows exactly what everyone will
do and when and how they will do it. That doesn't mean that elected
officials shouldn't try and do what's best, but that is their problem.
For you and I and every other Bible-believing Jesus-following Christian,
these things are truly out of our hands. And since it ultimately
wouldn't matter if they were totally under our control, it seems to me a
waste of time to worry about it.
This isn't fatalism. What we do is terribly important – our acceptance
of Jesus, our spiritual growth, our preparation for and implementation
of the ministries to which we have been called are of the greatest
importance both here and now for us and our fellow believers, and for
our rewards in eternity. On that great day of judgment, Jesus is going
to be much more concerned with who we helped personally than who we
voted for (if He will be concerned with the latter at all). On the other
hand, what we do as believers in terms of growth, sanctification,
witnessing, praying, helping others, ministering the Word and whatever
other gifts we have been given, these things DO affect our country. If
the example of the nation Israel tells us anything in this respect, it
is that "you get what you deserve". A nation of apostates gets
egregiously bad leadership and egregiously bad things happen to them,
socially, economically, internationally, every way. A nation containing
a large number of truly righteous believers, on the other hand, is
protected by God, both visibly and invisibly. In terms of electoral
politics, if we want a David, we need to be a God-fearing people
pursuing the spiritual lives that our Lord desires. But when there is no
"remnant" of good and true believers, we don't have to worry about who
to vote for because David won't even be on the ballot. We are likely to
have to choose between Ahab and Abimelech (and there is nothing to
choose between them). And we don't have to worry about which economic,
social, or international policy to pursue, because bad things are going
to happen to us if we reject the Lord no matter what we do.
Why dangerous? When Christians start thinking that what they do
politically is more important than what they do spiritually the end of
all things is in sight. And in this country in particular, the game of
politics is so attractive and so addictive that once a person has bought
into political change as some sort of solution having something to do
with God, it has the potential to corrupt everything else and destroy
the person's faith if taken to extremes. Left or right, I really feel
that the people who get involved in and end up giving their hearts to
political solutions inevitably do themselves much spiritual damage.
On the gay marriage / civil union question, I think that as far as
individual believers and their own personal situations are concerned,
scripture is so clear as to give even the most reluctant person a very
clear answer – if they are legitimately looking for one (and not doing
like the survivors of the Babylonian invasion did with Jeremiah, only
looking for the answer they wanted: Jer.42). But in terms of getting
political about it, one finds that politics and political goals very
easily and very quickly become far more important than what the Bible
actually says. This is an occupational hazard when one has committed
oneself to fighting the symptoms instead of the disease. We are the
disease, and the only cure is obedience, both in sanctification and in
our positive walk with the Lord through spiritual growth.
Case in point is on the abortion issue. I have had more than one e-mail
from someone upset with me because I am very clear in my belief that the
Bible teaches the commencement of life at birth, not before (see the
link: in
BB
3A “The Human Spirit”). To me, this is a very important teaching to
get straight, because it so clearly demonstrates God's complete control
over life, and the dominance of the spiritual over the material. And it
is not a question of whether abortion is a good thing or a bad thing, a
right thing or a wrong thing for that is obvious and not in dispute –
people get upset with me about this not because they disagree with this
point of life given at birth or any aspect of my exegesis, but simply
because think it might undermine their political argument and
persuasiveness as far as other believers are concerned. In other words,
they put political influence and manipulative power over other believers
ahead of what the scriptures say. That slippery slope inevitably infects
everything else in their spiritual lives.
Please see also the following link:
In SR
#4 “Politics and Society” (part of the “Integrated Satanic World
System”)
In Jesus Christ who is the truth.
Bob L.
Question #2:
Dear Bob,
I am struck by how much we know and knew about the arrival of "KATRINA" and yet
did relatively nothing to prevent to near total property devastation that
occurred and the loss of thousands of lives. This dispersal of people though out
the nation of people affected by this event seems to have some apocalyptic
dimensions. I'm meditating on the question: What is it in me, in mankind that
inhibits taking advantage of clear warnings of disaster right here on earth, not
to mention the Tribulation awaiting our future history?
In Jesus Christ, Our Lord, At All Times,
Response #2:
There is indeed much to ponder. I am left with three observations
which I think can teach us much about what is about to befall us:
1) the accelerating speed with which we are collectively coming to
digest and shrug
off catastrophes of previously un-imagined proportions without feeling
the need of asking the obvious question, why? Not that I think New
Orleans or New York or anywhere else is more or less in need of a divine
wake-up call. Jesus made it very clear that disaster which befalls part
of a people is meant to warn an entire people and that attributing
greater blame to those upon whom the monitory blow fell is, besides
being a misinterpretation, to miss the entire point (Lk.13:1-9);
2) the ease with which the thin veneer of civility is stripped away and
some of us return to our "natural state" - it is folly to think that any
U.S. community would react any differently - this is a preview of coming
attractions. True, the response of many brave individuals on site and
from around the country wishing to help and willing to sacrifice much in
so doing is an uplifting sight. During the Tribulation, however, Jesus
tells us that "the love of the many will grow cold" (Matt.24:12),
precisely because of the fatigue of ever increasing wickedness, no doubt
accelerated by disaster upon disaster, and because of the fact that all
of us will be in the same boat instead of most of us merely looking upon
the sufferings of others from afar.
3) the almost complete psychological dependence we have come to have on
government. As I have often said before, I don't put any stock in
politics, and, knowing more about government than I would ideally care
to know, am not surprised by bureaucratic failure and insensitivity to
whatever degree. However, what has struck me is the general feeling from
all parts of the political spectrum that somehow our government
should (and with the right tweaking will) be able
to cope with any disaster that may come from the Hand of God, no matter
how severe. That is to say, I would have thought that in the face of
such a massive storm, one beyond the living memory of any of us, we
might have taken at least a moment to express a bit of awe and humility,
and to understand that apart from the mercy of God any number of
tragedies and disasters could and would swiftly overwhelm us. Therefore
we need to look to Him for our salvation, temporal as well as eternal.
This is exactly the lesson that Israel and later Judah also refused to
learn.
Still and all, I saw a couple of things that caused me to praise God. A
woman with a baby and nothing else sitting by the side of the freeway in
New Orleans smiling and remarking, "As long as you have faith in God,
you're going to be alright". And a poor man in Mississippi who had lost
the little he had telling how "he had passed this test" and how that he
considered himself blessed by God. These things will surely be jewels in
their crowns for all eternity, and it caused me to remember that the
heartaches and disasters I and my brothers and sisters in Christ go
through in this life are all to the good - our eternal good – as long
as we stick doggedly to our faith. If we do, God may even use our
misfortunes to condemn the world, encourage others, and reward us
abundantly in the life to come. I hope that I can remember this woman
and this man and their powerful testimonies for Jesus Christ – not fair
sounding words in time of plenty, but words refined like silver from the
midst of the crucible. God is faithful to us – will we stay faithful to
Him? If we do, we too may have the opportunity to condemn the world and
encourage other believers with our words of faith. After all, history as
God has constructed it has as its primary purpose the winnowing out of
those who want nothing to do with God from those who are determined to
respond to Him and His dear Son our Lord. Without trials, tribulations,
heartaches and disasters, faith could never be tested, and could never
be demonstrated as genuine. And it is just such times, especially in
unexpected times of catastrophe, that the quality, consistency and
determination in our faith in God is revealed.
In anticipation of this ultimate deliverance, your joy overflows, though at present it may be your lot to suffer for a time through various trials to the end that your faith may be shown to be genuine. This validation of your faith is far more valuable than gold, for gold, though it too is assayed by fire, ultimately perishes. But your faith, when proven genuine in the crucible of life, will result in praise, glory and honor for you at the glorious return of Jesus Christ.
1st Peter 1:6-7
The world thinks we are crazy, but we live for the One who has
overcome the world.
In Him who is able to deliver us from every lion's mouth and every
deadly pestilence,
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Bob L.
I thank you very much for you and your scholarly teaching. Can you
comment on the following internet article excerpts regarding homosexual
behavior? I have no knowledge of the Greek words that seem to be an
important part of his presentation, namely, arsenokoites, malakoi,
but the illumination in my heart and all that I do know tell me that all
of this is a substantial distortion of Bible truth.
The Six Bible Passages Used To Condemn Homosexuals.
Genesis 19:5: "Bring them out to us that we may know them."
“Know" simply means know! No hint at homosexuality exists in the
original Hebrew. No later Bible references to Sodom ever mention
homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Many modern translations add words to
the text to create the lie that the people of Sodom were homosexual.
"SODOMY" is not a biblical word. The average person assumes that the
Bible clearly condemns male-to-male sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and
that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, which is
seen as the worst of all sins in the Bible. These assumptions are based
on no evidence at all in the Bible.
I Corinthians 6:9: "The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God. So do not be deceived;
neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."
The Greek words translated "effeminate" and "homosexual" do not mean
effeminate or homosexual!
I Timothy 1:9-10: "Law is not made for a righteous person but for those
who are lawless and
rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for
those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and fornicators
and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever
else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching."
The Greek word translated "homosexual" does not mean homosexual!
The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or some other
similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed from two words
meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found anywhere else in the
Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of
Paul's time. We do not know what it means. The word is obscure and
uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers,
which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed in the
excavations at Pompeii and other sites.
"Soft" does not mean "effeminate." The word translated "effeminate in 1
Corinthians 6:9 is Greek malakoi and means "soft" or "vulnerable." The
word translated "effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is Greek malakoi and
means "soft" or "vulnerable." The word is translated as "soft" in
reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and as "illness" in
Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. It is not used anywhere else in the New Testament
and carries no hint of reference to sexual orientation. Malakoi in 1
Corinthians 6:9 probably refers those who are "soft," "pliable,"
"unreliable," or "without courage or stability." The translation of
malakoi as "effeminate" is incorrect, ignorant, degrading to women, and
impossible to justify based on ancient usage compared to the meaning of
"effeminate" today.
Response #3:
I am not familiar with the website but have heard similar arguments
before. As an overview, it seems clear to me that any secular person
reading the Bible merely as an academic exercise could not help but come
to the conclusion that the active practice of homosexual intercourse is
condemned by scripture. One does not need extensive and detailed
exegesis of the passages the author cites to come to this conclusion. It
is self-evident from any English translation with which I am familiar,
none of which makes any effort to distort these passages for the benefit
of that point of view.
It is true that there are many passages in scripture whose true meaning
and significance is not immediately obvious from a brief consideration
of the English translation. Scripture has to be understood in its
context, in its historical framework, and, especially important, in its
original language. As a result, one often encounters "problem passages",
that is, scriptures which seem to contradict what one has previously
believed about the teaching of the Bible overall. This may be due to a
misunderstanding of the passage in question, but is also occasionally
the result of a broader and more general misunderstanding of a
particular principle of scripture as a whole. In the latter case,
"problem passages" are actually our best friends in the world, for
without the Spirit's use of pieces of the Word which don't match our
preconceptions, we would possibly never change our views so as to come
to understand the truth.
The one thing that is an extreme rarity (actually I have never bumped
into it at all) is a whole host of passages which, while they seem to
teach one and the same thing, actually do not. This is a far different
thing from a doctrine or teaching that really has no clear scriptural
support where a "problem passage" leads the seeker of truth to the truth
and away from an erroneous doctrine which is unsupported by scripture.
The author of this article is guilty of a rhetorical fallacy in trying
to equate the two. It would be one thing if scripture never directly
addressed the question of homosexual behavior (as, for example, it does
not directly address the question of drug abuse), and yet various
teachers in the church were preaching against it anyway by claiming that
the Bible did so when it did not. Quite to the contrary, the prima facie
case given by an unbiased English reading of the passages the author
himself quotes places the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of
those who would wish to claim that what seems so clear from the English
translation is somehow not clear at all.
This is a game played by many who have a particular social or political
agenda. For example, white supremacists and racists going back to before
the Civil War have used and continue to use the Bible to "prove" their
points. Of course, there are no passages of scripture that provide any
proof whatsoever for any sort of racial superiority (except for the
supremacy of Israel in the plan of God – and only believing Israel at
that). This state of affairs thus requires such advocates to manufacture
"proof" by using creative translations ("from the original Greek and
Hebrew" of course!). Jesus told us that we would "know them by their
fruits", and as always this is an excellent litmus test.
Principle: if what the person/group is seeking to "prove" from the Bible
is prima facie not obvious from the Bible and indeed contrary to a
common sense understanding of what the Bible is all about, then one
should be very leery of giving such interpretations any serious
credence.
Corollary principle: if the persons have a political or other agenda,
they should receive even less consideration. One good way to tell is to
ask the question, "Does this person / these people have other things to
say about the Bible, or is this the only time they are interested in
what the Bible has to say?” To me, this question is the killer. People
who only go to scripture to prove one particular agenda item they hold
near and dear are going to be wrong and get it wrong approximately 100%
of the time, if only because they are not viewing their pet issue in the
context of seeking the truth of God's Word, but rather of using God's
Word for their own purposes.
With that said, I will briefly try to address the individual passages
(although I think you can tell from the above that the exercise is
largely pointless):
1. Genesis 19:5: The word "sodomy" is a red-herring in this argument.
The Hebrew verb yad'ah very frequently refers to intercourse (as
in "Adam knew his wife and she conceived": Gen.4:1). The context of
Genesis 19 makes a mockery of the author's argument. Why did the angels
have to strike the men of the town with blindness if all they wanted was
"intellectual knowledge", and why did Lot offer his daughters up in
their stead to be raped if the context is not sexual? Finally, the claim
that scripture never connects Sodom and forbidden sexual behavior is
false (Jude 1:7; cf. 2Pet.2:5-10).
2. Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13: Not specifically addressed in the piece. One
wonders why, unless, of course, the words "Do not lie with a man as one
lies with a woman; that is detestable" and "they must be put to death"
are too clear for comfort.
3. Romans 1:26-27: Also not addressed and for equally obvious reasons.
Paul's words in any translation clearly describe same-sex fornication in
vivid detail which is then condemned in the strongest terms as being
typical of unbeliever behavior.
4. I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:9-10: The Greek words malakoi
and arsenokoitai used here are common words in Greek for
homosexual behavior. The first is still used in modern Greek as an
epithet for the same, and was in common use in the ancient world (even
coming into Latin in Plautus' comedies). It does mean "softy", but a
consideration of the English vocabulary for such things (or any other
language for that matter, "sweet" in German, if I am not mistaken) shows
that just because a metaphor is involved does not disqualify the term
from having a specific meaning in this regard. As far as arsenokoitai
is concerned, no Greek reader who had never before heard this word would
assume it meant what the author wants it to mean. It would require a
reversal of subject and object in the two elements to bear his meaning.
The most obvious meaning from the etymology is "those who lie with
males". It is not as common as malakos, but is not unattested. It
occurs in contemporary literature and inscriptions with the traditional
meaning. The author claims "we don't know what it means", but by “we” he
is not referring to the scholarly community in general. The statement
that "it is not found anywhere else in the Bible" is hardly convincing
since it occurs in two passages, 1st Corinthians 6:9 and 1st Timothy
1:10, and in both contexts in direct juxtaposition to other words for
sexual deviance (malakoi and pornoi respectively).
It is clear what the scriptures are saying. Engaging in certain forms of
sexual activity are forbidden by the Bible, and, of all sins, such
deviation is among the most egregious violations of God's law that human
beings can commit. For porneia is even more physically,
psychologically, and spiritually devastating than most other forms of
sin, that is to say self-destructive to those who engage in it (cf.
1Cor.6:12-20). I think that the fact that many of those who have decided
to continue to sin in such a way instead of returning to God in
repentance, and even go so far as to justify their behavior, speaks
volumes about the truth of the foregoing principle. Greedy people,
liars, haters, etc. seldom have recourse to the Bible to try and show
that they are not really sinners. For it is one thing to be
tempted towards any sort of sin including this sort of sin (we are all
tempted). It is another thing to be defeated by sin (we are all
defeated at one time or another and are disciplined for it). And
if instead of fighting sin as believers we give up and give in to it,
stop resisting and "accept" our weakness, we will find that our faith
will quickly erode. But to go past fighting to surrendering, to
actually embracing and justifying what we are doing because we
are bothered by the guilt is one of the quickest ways to destroy our
faith all together. Such behavior is worse than the sin we are
trying to justify from the point of view of our spirituality, because
energizes the process of apostasy (see the link:
in BB 3B "Apostasy and the Sin unto Death").
Finally, I wish to make it very clear that I have no animus towards
those who describe themselves as "gay". In my understanding of the sin
nature, we all have serious weaknesses, serious proclivities to sin, and
those weaknesses and proclivities are not the same for every individual
(any more than eye color, or height, or intelligence, etc., are exactly
the same). It is also true that just as environment can affect our
physical characteristics to some degree (e.g., a malnourished youth is
unlikely to grow as tall as he/she would have done on a balanced diet),
environment and upbringing can also affect our ability to control our
sin nature (e.g., if we are extraordinarily lazy by nature but grow up
with very strict and demanding parents, that inherent laziness is likely
to be under better control than it otherwise would be). Ultimately,
however, we all have to face the issue of sin with the free will God has
given us. We will never win the victory against it apart from Him and
His help, but seeking to justify what we want to do when it is clearly
sinful is a recipe for spiritual death.
Everything the Bible calls sin is sin, and much more besides (see the
link: in
BB 3B "The Nature of Sin"). I am more tempted to some sorts of sins
than to others, and what I am particularly tempted to do may not be a
serious problem for you and vice versa. But with the help of the Spirit,
the Word of God, and a commitment to following Jesus in sanctification
and holy living, we can, indeed we must, learn how to "put aside the sin
which so easily besets" (Heb.12:1). It doesn't take a biblical scholar
to see that, if instead of setting ourselves to resist sin to the point
of blood (Heb.12:4; cf. 1Pet.4:1), we set ourselves up as the arbiters of what is
sinful and what is not, exempting all conduct in which we are prone to
indulge, we are making a mockery of scripture and of God – and God does
not allow Himself to be mocked.
In Him with whom there is not a shadow of turning away from the truth,
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.