The original post was arguing that we are no longer under the Old Covenant (Hebrew 8:13) so we should no longer be obligated to obey any of the Old Testament laws unless the New Testament (more precisely, Jesus) also specifies that it is an offense against God. As evidence, he listed Old Testament regulations, in the first item of the original post, that are mostly ignored today.
Then, the author, of the original post, made two observations.
The first observation is that the Old Testament regulations explicitly forbid a man from laying with another man like a man would with a woman (Leviticus 18:22) however, they do not explictly forbid a woman from laying with another woman like a man would with a women. It would seem that lesbian sex is not forbidden.
The second observation is that Jesus never talked about homosexuality. If we carry the argument that we are no longer obligated to obey any of the Old Testament laws unless the New Testament (more precisely, Jesus) also specifies it, then homosexuality must then be no longer an offense.
I could have stop the discussion by posting a New Testament reference that forbids homosexuality. However, to do so would allow the broader problem of how the Bible was interpreted to continue to propagate.
The first problem is the interpretation of what IS the Old Covenant that Hebrew 8:13 is talking about. It is a problem because the interpretation of this verse does not conform to its context.
Hebrew 8:3
Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer.
The covenant to which Hebrew 8:13 is referring is not the entirety of the Old Testament laws, it is referring to just the system of giving sacrifice found in the Old Testament. This system is no longer needed since Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice to save all who believe; Jesus' sacrifice is the basis of the New Covenant.
This chapter of Hebrew is not about abolishing the Law. More particularly, Jesus said the following:
Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
In the context of the homosexuality discussion, I added:
Just because Jesus did not explicitly mentioned homosexuality, does not mean that He thinks it's ok. He came to fulfill every aspect of the Law. By upholding every aspect of the Law, he implicitly upholds the prohibition on homosexuality.
The author, of the original post, wrote back with the following:
So, let's make sure we preach against sex with unclean women, eating unclean meat, wearing certain types of clothing, tattoos, work on the Sabbath... If this justification is correct, why have we then selectively chosen what to follow and what not to follow? Did we feel it was not culturally relevant? I think you (and most Christian doctrine) may be drawing some dangerous conclusions here.
I think you are taking this out of context. Jesus spoke on His most hated sins (adultery, murder, divorce, truthfulness. He spoke much about piety, helping the downtrodden, and love for one's enemies during the entire Sermon. Are you saying by default then that "he really meant" to speak against homosexuality? Matt 5:17-20 is the catch all for all laws then? I think that explanation is devoid of true logic.
With this post, the author, of the original post, added another assumption. The post referred to some sins as more hated by God than others.
God/Jesus hates all sin; one is no more hated by God than another (maybe blasphemy against the Holy Spirit).
Jesus spoke about different sins to illustrate that we are all sinners. The ones that He pointed out were the ones that some people of that time were committing but weren't willing to admit that they have a problem these sins.
It's not about one sin being worst than another.
James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
It doesn't matter which sin we commit. Any sin condemns us to death.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
It's not in keeping the Law that we can be righteous since none of us are able to keep the law.
It is only through the acceptance of Jesus' gift of his sacrifice on the cross in which we can become righteous.
That's the Gospel.
Someone else who was following the discussion asks for clarification with the following:
If all sins are equally wrong then why did you say that homosexuals cannot be Christians? What makes homosexuality any worse than the daily sins we all commit?
I wrote back the following:
To be a Christian, one has to repent: one has to recognize that he/she is a sinner and strives towards not sinning. Of course, all of us continue to sin because we are not perfected until the return of Jesus.
However, if someone refuses to accept the fact that they are sinning, then they did not repent and they are not saved. It does not matter if the sin is lying or adultery or homosexual activities. If one is not willing to recognize their sin as wrong, they did not repent and therefore not saved.
So, if a gay or lesbian says that there is nothing wrong with being gay and he/she continues to sin, they are not saved.
However, if a gay or lesbian says that it is wrong to participate in gay/lesbian activities and is trying to stop sinning, then that person has repented. If that person, then, accepts Jesus' gift of his sacrifice on the cross, then that person is saved.
Frustrated with my answer, the author, of the original post wrote the following:
I'm straight and I ate pork, have had sex with my wife on her period, have a few tattoos, have worked on the Sabbath, and wear some pretty ridiculous clothes. And I don't think I've sinned... I guess I'm damned to hell? That my personal relationship with Christ is nothing but a farce?
To which I replied:
Leviticus 11:4-8
There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
The dietary laws are about keeping clean. Whether it is for ceremonial cleanliness or health reasons, it doesn't matter. If for ceremonial cleanliness, since Jesus' death paid for all our sins and we no longer participate in sacrifice ceremonies. If for health reasons, our food processing methods clean those food. (Not to mention Acts 10:13-15)
Same with laws concerning having sex during a woman's period.
Leviticus 15:19
When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
Notice that the person remain unclean only until the evening?
Leviticus 19:26-28
Do not practice divination or sorcery. Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.
The law against tattoos is about practicing divination or sorcery. If your tattoo isn't related to practicing divination or sorcery, it's not a sin.
My point is that the Old Testament law concerns three types of regulations:
1) Regulations for maintaining physical health
2) Regulations for maintaining spiritual health (acts that condemn us to hell)
3) Regulations for sacrifices to be made to atone for the violation of the second type of regulations
The first type does not concern eternal issues that send us to hell and does not require atonement. Before modern technology and modern medical practices, these regulations were very important. But now, we are free from the problems that they solved.
The second type, however, does concern eternal issues that can send us to hell and requires atonement. No modern technology or modern medical practices can save us from the penalty required to pay for sin. These regulations are very much in play today as they were when the Law was given.
The third type is the Old Covenant which was replaced by the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the Christian Gospel:
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
p.s., Homosexuality is also explicitly forbidden in the New Testament:
1 Corinthians 6:9
(NIV) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
(KJV) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
"abusers of themselves with mankind" was translated from the Greek word "arsenokoites" which means sodomite.
p.p.s., I addressed the lesbian question with the following:
All sexual activity outside of marriage is sin. If single having sex, it's fornication. If married having sex with someone who is not one's spouse, it's adultery.
Since marriage is defined from the start to be between a man and a woman, then two woman can not be married to each other. Thus, if two woman are a sexual relationship, they are either committing fornication or adultery.
To which he replied:
Understood, what about two women that marry in the church? Say in Vermont? They are not having sex outside marriage. What then?
My answer:
A Christian Church must abide by Christian Doctrine. Otherwise it is not a Christian Church. Since Christian Doctrine defines a marriage as between a man and a woman, a church that sanctions the union of two woman does not abide by Christian Doctrine.
Posts
