A. The authority of the Bible within the congregation.
From the time of the Reformation, and from the time of the when the Baptists came into the scene, the Bible has played the central role of what Protestant Christians believe the final and central authority is within the congregation.3 Nevertheless, there seems today to be a trend to contrast Jesus as the solely revelation of God, and place the bible as a witness to Jesus.4 However, as we have seen before, Baptists, although having many differences of interpretation of Scripture, have always seen Scripture as their primary source of authority. Jesus himself was willing to submit to the authority of the Old Testament while on earth, cf. Matt. 5: 17"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.” But most important of all, Jesus recognized the Old Testament as the very word of God. This can be attested in the temptation in the wilderness, when the devil tempted Jesus to convert rocks into bread, cf. Mat. 4: Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Jesus was referring back to the Old Testament, specifically Deut. 8:3. The claim that making the Bible the ultimate authority would lead us to making an idol of it, it would seem to be unfounded. Jesus saw his Bible of the day as having authority by which even him was a subject to. If the Bible does not have authority in itself, then we could not confidently trust the Bible in issues such as creation, morals, and even what it says about Jesus himself. The only way we come to know of what Jesus says and teaches is through the Bible. Jesus is the “Word made flesh”, cf. John 1:14. Thus, the Bible is our ‘written Word’. David Dockery suggests that this two apparently opposites, must be held in contention. Just as we have Jesus who is fully divine and fully man, we have an authoritative Word, that is both divine and written.5 This is of great importance in any congregational discussion, because by taking the whole counsel of God, we will not be tempted to pick and choose those passages that appeal the most to us, either from the Gospels or from the rest of Bible. Jesus did not talk about many issues, but if we take the whole Bible as authoritative, then we have even more resources to appeal to. Although it is true that Jesus in the gospels does not mention the issue of homosexuality at all, nevertheless, he mentions the overall intent of how sexuality should be expressed among human beings, cf. Mat. 19:4" Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." If those in the conversation want to take Jesus for what he says, it must be admitted that Jesus set the ground rules as to how sexuality is to be expressed among human beings. Therefore, to approach the homosexual issue with a Christian approach, any church must approach it with the full intent to submit itself under its authority and guidance. Henry has done this by submitting to baptism, therefore, placing himself under he lordship of Jesus.
a) Biblical texts dealing with homosexual behavior.
As we have seen before, Jesus in Matthew 19 has given us God’s prototype of what sexuality means within creation. Jesus appeals to the creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and 2. Both divorce, and in this case, homosexual behavior, therefore, are an aberration to the original intent of God’s creation. It is interesting to note that those who want to promote Barth’s view of the Bible as the witness to Jesus, and also support homosexual practices, nevertheless miss what Barth pronounces about the the image of God in humans, ‘In all His future utterances and action God will acknowledge that He has created and female, and in this way in His own image in likeness.6 Barth may be appealing to Genesis 1:27 “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”7 From the Old Testament we have data that tells us of the rejection by God to homosexual behavior.
i) Our first two examples are Genesis 19 and Judges 19. In both cases, we see a lack of hospitality on the part of the people dwelling in the cities where the sojourners had arrived. Some have made a claim that that was the reason why Sodom was destroyed, and this did not include any homosexual sin at all. Jesus is appealed as not to attribute the destruction of Sodom to the homosexual acts, but rather, to the inhospitality that they showed, cf. Mat. 10:14-15.8 This however, is not attested by the Old Testament prophets. In both Jeremiah 23:14 and Ezekiel 16:49-50, hospitality is not mentioned as one of the sins for which the both Sodom and Gomorrah were punished. But as we have seen before, one must take all the Bible into context and we find in the New Testament another reference to this event. Jude 7 reads “in a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire”. Once again, we find that the main sin by which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, was not their inhospitality, rather, their sexual perversion.
ii) Our second example comes also from the Old Testament, is seems to be the only direct command not to indulge in homosexual activity in the Old Testament. The commands are found twice in the book of Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13. It has been argued that these laws are found as part of the holiness code “ which is not so much about defining general human morality, but defining the distinctive behavior of a distinctive “people of Israel””9 It could be found that this argument is faulty, since it tries to limit the holiness code to a nation, Israel. If this would be so, then it can be considered than that the following law in Leviticus 18:23, about a woman committing bestiality, does not apply to others since they are not part of Israel. In Leviticus 20:9, we find that cursing parents is forbidden. Thus, it can be concluded that these laws are not only to be applied to a special people, in this case Israel, but can and are applied today in our Western society. Although it is very difficult to understand which laws are applicable to today’s christians, as in the case of having sexual intercourse with a woman while she is menstruating, cf. Lev. 18:19. However, as we have seen in the previous text, if we find the prohibition mentioned again in the New Testament, then the Christian is obliged to take a closer look at it.
iii) We have three passages in the New Testament that deal with homosexuality, and all of them come from the Pauline letters of the New Testament. Two texts are closely related, and will be dealt first. The passages are I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10. The first one reads “9Do 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”, while the second one read as follows, “10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, (NASB)”. The two words in contention here are in greek arsenokoites and malakos. Both have been interpreted according to the other usages they had during the time of Paul. It has been acknowledge that malakos has been use in order to describe a pederastic relationship, or to a soft or effeminate men.10 The other word, arsenokoites, has been used as the word that depicts those who would procure a male prostitute.11 However, to attempt to put in doubt what Paul was trying to say in, for example I Cor. 6:9, where all that is being depicted in the verse is sexual immorality. In I Tim. 1:10, arsenokoites is once more mentioned, and if Paul has used it once in regard to homosexual activity, one can expect that Paul is being consistent in the used of the word, and its application. In conclusion, it must be recognized that the words are very difficult to understand and may be condemning mainly exploitative sexual relationships,12 nevertheless, it cannot be ignored that all the mentions of homosexuality in the Bible are negative.13
iv) The final text to be looked at is Roman 1:18-21. This text has been treated in a very particular manner. It has been suggested that what Paul is actually setting against, is not a committed homosexual relationship, but the sexual experimentation and the promiscuous life style that is being carried according to the text. This text, on the other hand, brings down the argument that ‘Paul only refers to exploitative or promiscuous same-sex relationships..”14 The text seems also to refer that due to their rebellion against God, same-sex behavior is “an expression of God’s judgment upon them”.15
Texts to comfort or to condemn?
It has been seen how the arguments, for and against of the texts that deal with homosexuality have been used. Time and time again, it can be seen that the ones who wish to advocate a more ‘user friendly’ reading of the Bible for homosexuals, actually don’t give homosexuals much comfort. Integrity in use of the Bible is to be a desirable goal for all the parties involved. Innovation to please a group within the church that is struggling with any sin, does no good for those people, who will not be living according to the laws given by their saviour in the Bible. Both sides of the conversation need to acknowledge the other’s interest in giving a proper answer to those who are struggling with homosexuality. They need also to give an even explanation to the congregation in order for them to grasp what the stakes in attempting to grapple with the issue. Scripture condemns all sin, but also comforts the sinner who is struggling with his or her conscious. After taking into consideration what Scripture says about homosexuality, the pastoral approach should not stop there, but continue to the next level, to show empathy.
Luis A. Jovel
7 comments:
I'm not convinced that the verses in Jeremiah and Ezekiel back up what you're saying. Jeremiah seems to be saying that the prophets have been cut off from God ("like Sodom to me"). I'm not sure he is saying that these specific sins were committed by the people of Sodom. Ezekiel attributes certain sins to Sodom (pride, lack of charity) but doesn't mention homosexuality.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah must make uncomfortable reading for people who take the Bible literally. Lot receives approval after, apparently, offering the crowd the chance to rape his daughters.
To me, it also seems like a misunderstanding. The word usually translated "know [someone]" in the passage has the same two meanings in Hebrew. It can mean "knowing about someone" and it can also have the sexual meaning. As Lot was not a native of Sodom, had he simply misunderstood what was being asked of him?
Where does this analysis get you? If you've concluded that homosexuality is a sin, do you now want to make it illegal or push gays out of the church? Or is it a private matter between them and God? I'm pleased I don't have to make that decision, really. Britain is becoming more tolerant, and I can just be pleased for the people whose lives have become easier.
its quite simple. as paul says we are no longer under the law but grace, the law is now for conscious............conscious of loving your neighbor as yourself....the summation of all the law. in order for homosexuality to be a sin it must come against loving your neighbor as yourself.
"Jesus saw his Bible of the day as having authority by which even him was a subject to. If the Bible does not have authority in itself, then we could not confidently trust the Bible in issues such as creation, morals, and even what it says about"
scripture says christ is the authority. please annotate your opinion with scripture.
outside of 2tim(all scripture is god breathed) i know of no scripture that gives scripture authority. my understanding is that scripture points to spirit. and whatever understanding we have of scripture comes thru the grace of the holy spirit.
john 13:3Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God;
ephesians1: "21far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way."
john 16: 12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you."
this and knowing jesus is god, how can one defer to anyone other than christ.
in dealing with the issue of homosexuality why do you go to interpretations of the law that is of other covenants when you have three scriptures that are under the covenant of christ.............particularly romans 1: 24-27.
i have yet to hear a credible explanation of how the words of romans declare homosexuality a sin.
what was the truth that was traded for what lie. and how was the created worshipped and served so that individuals were given over to homosexuality.
and if a man goes to woman out of shame based lust(niv), what does that look like. does it resemble human bonding that is done out of mutual love, respect, attraction, and trust for a shared commited life together. my understanding of lust is that there can be no relationship, because the commitment is to the lust.
my understanding is that same sins in the comission of same sex acts, no more condemns homosexuality, than the sins commited in opposite sex acts condemns(incestal rape in 2samuel, and the adultry in 1samuel) heterosexuality.
the thing that i have discovered in this homosexual issue is even after 2000 years, the majority of christians still believe they are under the law, even though romans says specifically that in christ we are neither led by the law nor under it. that the law is only for conscious.....conscious about loving............loving our neighbor as ourselves (the summation of all the law).
the law is about "dont do's" but the three commandments of love are a very strong "do". and by following those commandments we automatically fulfill the law, which is love.
paul also says that in the new covenant, we rather than being under the law, are now under grace, and are led by and serve of the spirit. (in following the law we neither receive god's righteousness nor our salvation.)
and we are no longer controlled by the sin nature but by the spirit ....................if the spirit of god lives in us.
why do we still attempt to put ourselves and others under the law?
even paul in his teachings did not use the law in this way.
whenever he said not to do something, he always included an alternative positive choice that was of the spirit and the essence of love.
Jesus still defines sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Fornication and adultery are unloving because each has a victim. What is unloving about a couple in a homosexual love relationships ? Neither is victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who is the victim being sinned against?
homosexuals bond out of mutual love, devotion, respect, attraction, and trust for a shared committed life together.....................the same a heterosexuals.
the thing i find disappointing is that this condemnation is without witness. condemnation without witness comes from being under the law. but we are not under the law, but grace.....being led and serving of the spirit in fellowship of christ. but there is no fellowship witness, no 1john1 witness of the spirit...........that "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life."
and, on top of this no one , i mean no one has been able explain how words of any verse in scripture, says that homosexuality is a sin starting with romans 1.
and finally no one has been able to explain how, if homosexuality is a sin, does it come against loving your neighbor as yourself.....the summantion of all the law.
Jesus still defines sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Fornication and adultery are unloving because each has a victim. What is unloving about a couple in a homosexual love relationships ? Neither is victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who is the victim being sinned against?
Post a Comment