Sabbath Sermon: Adam and Steve

[Tom Wetmore]

Consider that perhaps God leaves complete victory out of lives to frustrate and refute the heresy of perfectionism.  Is He perhaps saying, "I have told you before, and repeatedly shown my people throughout history that the victory is not theirs,  It is mine."  Human victory over sin is impossible.  We have victory only through Jesus Christ.  But many of us still have to be shown the truth of that by failure.  

 

There are many things that remain as they have from the beginning.  They will not be changed this side of the Second coming.  In a twinkling of the eye, we will all be changed.

[LifeHiscost]

 

 

There are many things that remain as they have from the beginning.  They will not be changed this side of the Second coming.  In a twinkling of the eye, we will all be changed.

Others believe God has given them right to claim this promise.

 

…19and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. 20Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen....Eph 3:20

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Gerr]

Sorry about the misspelling Gerry: Anyway, the Bible does make the distinctions, the picking proof texts out of context and the traditional translation of a word makes it harder to notice, and our reading our traditions into the text wanting the Bible to say what we wish God said instead of what he actually said that makes us like Isaiah and Jesus says, having ears but do not hear, having eyes but do not see.

 

Now languages are my weak point and someone with a better understanding of the language may clarify this, but apparently Paul could have used other Greek words that could have meant homosexuality in all it's implications.  Instead the word he uses, as word studies have been done and other ancient writings have been discovered and the use of that word has consistently had only one meaning. It is a very specific term for adult men having sex with little boys in the gym. However although Paul picked a word with a specific narrow meaning, before we discovered that he had a very technical meaning, translators had just translated it with the more general term "homosexuality." so instead of reading what would be a more accurate translation "Adult men having sex with little boys in the gym" we read in our translations "homosexuality."

 

The question is do we really want to study the Bible to see what those words meant to the people who wrote and the original audience it was addressed to? Or do we want to read into it our traditions as to what we THINK it SHOULD say and have our opinions be the final authority. 

 

No you are NOT correct to say "Am I to understand what you said that heterosexuals practicing homosexual activity is condemned but not homosexual who were born with that orientation?" This is what our scholars have been debating for several decades. What they tell us is that it is clear that the texts are talking about heterosexuals engaged in homosexual behavior. What they cannot agree on is whether to limit the text to it's actual context or to widen the text to include people born with the homosexual orientation as well. I am allowing them to fight this out and see where the debate finally ends up. I am just sharing what our church leaders have been telling us in classes and in lectures so that we are at least aware of the issues in the current debate and have a foundation other than tradition to build our studies upon.

 

 

 

 

I for one, would not want the Lord's frown for teaching wrong doctrine. So let's examine the evidence.  I don't believe the God of heaven intended His word to be understood only by a select few who have some titles attached to their names.  Let's leave Paul out of the picture for a moment and go back to the OT.  (And btw, I do not condemn people who are homosexuals; that is not my job.  I am just a sinner who is also in dire need of grace and redemption.)

 

Now, to the first reference of God's overt prohibition of the practice.

ESV　|　Le 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

NASB95　|　Le 18:22 ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

NIV84　|　Le 18:22 " ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

NRSV　|　Le 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

KJV 1900　|　Le 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

NLT | Lev 18:22　"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

GNT |Lev 18:22 No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that

TNIV | Lev 18:22 "‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

NirV | Lev 18:22"　‘Do not have sex with a man as you would have sex with a woman. I hate that.

 

I have included here some very modern translations. No doubt the translators included scholars who are of the same ilk as those you mentioned who are not following the traditional line that you detest. 

 

As for the commentaries, Harper's Commentary which is very liberal, offers no alternative interpretation of Lev 18:22.

From "A Handbook on Leviticus" 1990

You: this is obviously addressed to the males among the Israelites. Consequently the word male later in the verse is to be translated "another man."

Lie with … as with a woman: the idea of sexual relations between two men may be very difficult to express in some cultures, but the addition in Hebrew of the words as with a woman indicates that it may have also been difficult for the Israelites. The verb "to sleep with" is a more general term for sexual relations, and the addition of the comparison with sleeping with a woman makes the meaning clear.

An abomination: see the discussion under "wickedness" in verse 17. tev renders this dynamically with the phrase "God hates that."

 

From "The New American Commentary" 2000

18:22 The next prohibited sexual activity is homosexuality. This offense is characterized as an abomination (tôʿēbâ), a term that occurs five times in this context (18:22, 26, 27, 29, 30; 20:13). An abomination, a term especially frequent in the Book of Deuteronomy, refers to an act that is abhorrent or repugnant, such as idolatry and inappropriate worship of God (see Deut 7:25; 27:15; 17:10 12:31; 18:9–14).

Homosexuality is not to be viewed as a disease or a viable sexual lifestyle as it has been in some Western cultures. Rabbi Jakobovits has contrasted the recent tolerance of homosexuality with consistent Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament teaching:

Whereas the more liberal attitude found in some modern Christian circles is possibly due to the exaggerated importance Christians have traditionally accorded to the term "love," Jewish law holds that no hedonistic ethic, even if called "love," can justify the morality of homosexuality any more than it can legitimize adultery, incest, or polygamy, however genuinely such acts may be performed out of love and by mutual consent.

This moral teaching regarding this practice cannot be contextualized but should be viewed as normative morality. As Kaiser has well stated:

 

To prohibit homosexuality today, some would argue, would be like forbidding unclean meats. It is admitted, of course, that there is a category of temporary ceremonial laws, but I do not agree that homosexuality is among them. Nothing in its proscription points to or anticipates Christ, and the death penalty demanded for its violation places it in the moral realm and not in temporary legislation.

The deep-rooted avoidance of homosexual activities probably was the reason that even cross-dressing was to be avoided (Deut 22:5). The sin of homosexuality is described in narrative passages such as Gen 19:5 and Judg 19:22–25, and it is rightly condemned in Lev 20:13; Rom 1:27; 1 Cor 6:9; Rev 22:15. Lesbianism is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but it was condemned in Talmudic law and in the New Testament (Rom 1:26–27). The penalty for homosexuality was death (Lev 20:13).

 

It seems clear to me that if one goes back to the original proscription in the OT, the spin that you and your scholar friends are putting on Paul's statements in the NT do not hold water.  God calls it an abomination no matter who is practicing it.

[Tom Wetmore]

Others believe God has given them right to claim this promise.

 

…19and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. 20Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen....Eph 3:20

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

Then why do you keep sinning?

[Woody]

I'm hoping LHC will actually answer you Tom. I am very curious.

[Gerr]

Consider that perhaps God leaves complete victory out of lives to frustrate and refute the heresy of perfectionism.  Is He perhaps saying, "I have told you before, and repeatedly shown my people throughout history that the victory is not theirs,  It is mine."  Human victory over sin is impossible.  We have victory only through Jesus Christ.  But many of us still have to be shown the truth of that by failure.  

 

There are many things that remain as they have from the beginning.  They will not be changed this side of the Second coming.  In a twinkling of the eye, we will all be changed.

So God does not give me victory over cheating or pornography or whatever, to show how imperfect I am?  I don't need God to do that, my wife does a very good job of that already!

[LifeHiscost]

Then why do you keep sinning?

I have a character that still hasn't developed the grace of loving the accusers of the brethren.

 

Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. 35"But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. 36"Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful....Luke 6

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Woody]

Well .... I did have hopes

[LifeHiscost]

So God does not give me victory over cheating or pornography or whatever, to show how imperfect I am?  I don't need God to do that, my wife does a very good job of that already!

 You have to remember it was God Who gave you that gift.

 

22He who finds a wife finds a good thing And obtains favor from the LORD. Prov 18

 

17Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.... James 1

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Tom Wetmore]

I have a character that still hasn't developed the grace of loving the accusers of the brethren.

Why?

[Kevin H]

The context of Lev 18:22 is in a list of things that the Canaanites did in their worship services that God did not want done as you came to worship him. The Canaanites thought that they needed to help out Baal and the gods of life to gain the victory over the leviathan and the gods of death by uniting their life forces.

 

There were certain times during the year that were tied to the agricultural cycle of Canaan. They happen to match the feasts of the land that the Hebrews kept, including the feast of unleavened bread in the spring and the two goats on the day of atonement.

 

Some of the things they did was eat bread of mixed grains (Ezekiel 4:9 bread), wear clothes of mixed textiles, and everyone had sex with each other. If you were a Canaanite living back then, you would go to the temple and eat the Ezekiel 4:9 bread, wear clothing of mixed textiles and you would have sex with your mother, your father, your aunt, your uncle, your cousin, your children, your pets, your sheep, your goats, your neighbor, your neighbors wife, your neighbor's parents, your neighbor's aunt, uncle and cousins and your neighbor's children, your neighbor's pets, your neighbor's animals. And your neighbor would have sex with your wife, your parents, your aunts, uncles and cousins, your children, your pets, your sheep your goats etc.. They believed that this uniting of life forces gave Baal more power so that he could defeat the leviathan so that the rains could come and the crops grow.

 

This is what Lev 18:22 is talking about.

 

While the Hebrews were to be coming to the tabernacle/temple for the same feasts on the same days their Canaanite neighbors were doing the above activity, but instead of trying to help Yahweh out by mixing their life forces, they were to know that Yahweh was all powerful and could take care of the leviathan without any help from us. That we were to rejoice in his strength and enjoy the fruits of his victory.

 

Since you are concerned about that verse, is it safe to assume that you apply the whole package: That you never eat Ezekiel 4:9 bread and that all your clothing is 100% one fabric and that you don't wear clothes with mixed fabrics. Hey if you are going to apply one verse from this context to every day life, you should apply all the verses. Otherwise you are doing a different application of the same sin as Lev18:22.  

[Kevin H]

Interesting article!!!  http://www.liberaladventist.blogspot.com/

[Gerr]

Are you saying that since we can eat multigrain bread, and wear multi-fiber clothes, therefore we can now practice same gender sex?  Or if we now take it out of the Canaanite context and put a Christian cloak on it that it is now okay to do it?

[Tom Wetmore]

I think you are missing the point, Gerry. Context is important to understand what is really being condemned. By narrowly focusing on just one proof text one can miss the greater meaning, other equally important elements, or even the true message being given in the whole story.

Ezekiel is a great example of that. The Ezekiel bread is not described as some healthful multigrain bread as marketing geniuses now would have us believe by narrowly promoting it based on one verse from a Biblical Prophet. A natural reaction - "It must be a perfect God ordained recipe for bread!!" But... It's very much different if you read the full context. God was using Ezekiel as a living demonstration of the the abhorant and disgusting fate of the people if they didn't mend their ways. Here is your fate. In your captivity will have to eat bread scraped together from remnants of what grains are left over and bake it over a fire fueled by your own dung.

And then there is the modern twisting of the story of Sodom to have but one narrow take away from one poorly understood verse taken out of the whole context to teach that homosexuality is so evil that God destroyed a whole city because of it. From that we get the modern era word for gay sex - sodomy. Forget that the mob of sodomizers was actually all the people of the city, young and old, men and women. Ignore the abhorrent alternate solution offered up by Lot himself of handing over his own daughters rather than his honored guests. And ignore the real reason God did what he did to Sodom as the prophet Ezekiel explains. It really was their arrogance and disregard for the needs of others.

[Kevin H]

Are you saying that since we can eat multigrain bread, and wear multi-fiber clothes, therefore we can now practice same gender sex?  Or if we now take it out of the Canaanite context and put a Christian cloak on it that it is now okay to do it?

 

Where did I say that we can eat multigrain bread or wear multi-fiber clothes? I am merely pointing out the context of Lev 18:22, if I recall correctly, you were the one who brought it up. I was pointing out some if it's sister texts from the same section and how the law that you pointed out here also has other applications with in this section, and was wondering if you keep this law or only sections of this law.

 

 Here I'd like to get your understanding. Do you take the whole package that Lev 18:22 is a part of or are you only picking and choosing the "I'll take this part but not that part" and your rational for your picking and choosing.

[NJK Project]

Just an FYI: Here is some commenting about the minsitry-patent spurious “beyond the pale” claims of Jonathan Henderson; and also posts on this homosexuality topic.

http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2012/04/the-claims-and-theology-of-jonathan.html

http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2010/11/world-of-morons.html#lifestyle
http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2010/11/world-of-morons.html#Sodomites
http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2010/11/world-of-morons.html#epigenetics

The warning/“prophecy” by the contra. Women Ordination side in regards to such whimsical* hermeneutics leading to such claims about homosexuality is already (self)-fulfilling...

*(Case in point: Henderson had claimed that Women should be ordained as pastors because they can bear the pains of childbirth!)

Btw, it seems to me that a pastor at the Hollywood SDA Church got fired for (relatively) preaching much less about this topic (e.g., contrary to Henderson he did not try to twist Scripture, nor make God seem like He does not know what He is doing)

[Lauralea]

I fail to see how this topic is related to how the Lord may use women in ministry. There are both Biblical and historical precedents for the Lord using women in serving Him- Deborah, Ellen White, women church leaders in China, early Adventist pioneers, etc etc. The question is whether they should be ordained in ministry. There is precedent for former homosexuals becoming active in the church- Paul says so also were some of you. I have friends who are homosexual, both current and former. I believe we should pray for and witness to homosexuals in a kind way. But there is no record in the Bible of the Lord using practicing homosexuals in his work. We are all sinners and seek a better country but church order demands that those who wilfully continue in open sins of this nature not be in regular standing in the church, similar to those living in adultery embezzling from the church or selling drugs.

[LifeHiscost]

Why?

Why do you ask?

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[bonnie]

I fail to see how this topic is related to how the Lord may use women in ministry. There are both Biblical and historical precedents for the Lord using women in serving Him- Deborah, Ellen White, women church leaders in China, early Adventist pioneers, etc etc. The question is whether they should be ordained in ministry. There is precedent for former homosexuals becoming active in the church- Paul says so also were some of you. I have friends who are homosexual, both current and former. I believe we should pray for and witness to homosexuals in a kind way. But there is no record in the Bible of the Lord using practicing homosexuals in his work. We are all sinners and seek a better country but church order demands that those who wilfully continue in open sins of this nature not be in regular standing in the church, similar to those living in adultery embezzling from the church or selling drugs.

Judging from the past few weeks maybe it is time the SDA church comes out of the narrow  minded dark ages.  Not allowing those living in adultery  or embezzling to remain in regular standing would require a judgment call. That has been soundly condemned as has believing that a homosexual lifestyle is biblically wrong.   This has been misunderstood all these years and is now only being rightly understood. After all we have some highly educated members here assuring us that we have had it all wrong. SDA pastors should be willing to perform wedding ceremonies. Absolutely no reason I can fathom not to have a pastor that has a same sex spouse.

[Lauralea]

Yes Bonnie I think I remember reading somewhere that the interpretation  an ordinary person would put on a passage is generally the correct one, not the elaborately theologically complicated one. 

[bonnie]

Yes Bonnie I think I remember reading somewhere that the interpretation  an ordinary person would put on a passage is generally the correct one, not the elaborately theologically complicated one. 

But this can be used to sway those not firmly grounded. It is actually quite effective as those that cannot be swayed by elaborately theologically complicated ones.  are the problem

[Lauralea]

Even though it says to live peaceably with all men as far as lies with us, we also need to follow our conscience.

[LifeHiscost]

Those who cannot be swayed by these complex arguments are troublers of Israel.

Where would that put this counsel from the Word?

 

…2And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4"Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.…Matt 18

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Lauralea]

I don't see a conflict. Troublers of Israel were prophets and others who stood for unpopular truth. I changed the quote I usedt because I do not believe we should go out of our way to be disagreeable or unnecessarily controversial. However as EGW said we should be willing to stand for the right "though the Heavens fall."

[Gerr]

Quote:  "Since you are concerned about that verse, is it safe to assume that you apply the whole package: That you never eat Ezekiel 4:9 bread and that all your clothing is 100% one fabric and that you don't wear clothes with mixed fabrics. Hey if you are going to apply one verse from this context to every day life, you should apply all the verses. Otherwise you are doing a different application of the same sin as Lev18:22."

 

If not for the NT, I would have to accept Lev 18:22 at face value, i.e. lumping the multi-fiber clothing with homosexuality.  But I believe Jesus provides the distinction when He said it's not what goes in but what goes out that defiles the soul.  So then, I am compelled to think that perhaps Lev 18:12 is dealing with two issues - one being inherently abominable, and the other because of how it was used.  So is the Canaanite origin of homosexual practice what makes it evil?  or does God consider the practice  an abomination no matter the source?