But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16 for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy (1 Peter 1:15-16).”
I learned holiness in Pentecostal churches which got their's from the Weslyan Holiness Momement of the 19th Century. So for me, holiness was was following the Ten Commandments of the Holiness Movement which were given to us from the very hand of God (not really, but believe me when I say, they were treated like they were from the hand of God). So here they are:
And God spake all these words saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, out of the house of bondage.
1. Thou shalt not have alcohol before me. Thou shalt not drink it in the bars or the restaraunts, or in your homes, and especially not in the communion cup. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that drink alcohol; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and drink non-alcoholic beverages.
2. Thou shalt not use profanity; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that swears.
3. Remember to wear long dresses that are not colorful. Keep them holy and not holey.
4. Every day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt not dance, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy pets, nor thy friend that is within thy house: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: the Lord thy God did not dance on any of those days.
5. Thine women must not cut the hair: that their hair may be long upon their backs which the Lord thy God giveth them.
6. Thou shalt not wear make up.
7. Thou shalt not listen to Rock and Roll.
8. Thou shalt not smoke.
9. Thou shalt not go to a movie.
10. Thou shalt not gamble. Thou shalt not gamble for thy casino's jackpot, thou shalt not gamble for thy country's powerball, nor the state's, nor shalt thou play cards, nor look at any thing that looks like gambling.
The reasons I heard as a young Christian for these unwritten rules:
1. I was told that in the Bible days, there was new wine (which is non alcoholic) and old wine which has fermented and turned into alcohol. Jesus and other Bible characters only drank new wine. Unfortunately for this line of thought, Hosea 4:11 suggests that new wine may have packed a punch. New wine was any wine under a year old and was inferior to the older wines which tasted better. By the way, non-alcoholic wine (grape juice) was invented in 1869 by Thomas Welch who pasteuized grape juice to keep it from fermenting. He did this so communion would be without alcohol, but his church didn't like Welch's grape juice and kept to regular wine.
2. I don't know the history to the ban on swearing, and I don't know why it is considered bad among many Christians. Neither have I ever heard any sermons on it that I remember. The Bible does emphasize the importance of words and what one says.
3. Peter tells women to dress modestly without focusing on makeup for their beauty, but this can also be interpreted as, "focus on the inner qualities more than the outer." Holiness followers (Pentecostal and non-Pentecostals) are veering more and more away from the extreme modesty they practiced in the past. So although some churches still require long and colorless dresses, others have abandoned this practice entirely.
4. I hear that dancing is erotic and leads to sex, so it is bad, unless it is in a church service, with a good hymn, and carries little or no rythm to it. Dances that are encouraged were the shakes, the jitters, the swoon, the jumps, the passed out on the floor, and the run around the sanctuary shouting and praying in tongues. This rule is also changing in many of the churches as new generations enjoy and practice dancing outside of the church.
5. The apostle Paul said a woman's hair should be long because it is her glory and covering because of the angels. This has been interpreted differently, and the only one
6. Same as number 3.
7. Rock and Roll was the music that came from Africa and was the music of choice when Israel worshiped idols (when Moses came down from the mountain he heard noise in the camp). No kidding, I actually heard a well known Pentecostal preacher say that the noise he heard, coming down the mountain when Israel was worshipping another god at the base of the mountain, was rock and roll music. Rock and Roll is the cousin to Country Music (both branched off from the Blues), and was and is accepted by all as good music. In fact, Southern Gospel is solidly Country and has always been accepted without question.
8. Smoking is bad for you. Not many would argue with this.
9. Going to a G rated movies somehow supports the X rated ones. At least that is what I was told. I think this came out of the fact that some of the early silent movies played in the same theaters that held burlesque shows on other nights.
10. Gambling is considered evil too, moreover, playing cards were of the devil with roots in evil images. When I went to school we were not allowed to have playing cards, so everybody brought Uno. I think cards are now accepted, although I can't confirm that.
These were the rules that kept me holy, seperated, and apart to God. Even while many of these fell apart and are disintigrating in most Pentecostal and Holiness circles, there was still the pressure to keep these rules - not because they were biblical but because of their witness to non-believers. I was taught that if a non-Christian saw me go to a movie or dance, he or she would be hindered from becoming Christian. The same is true for any one of these.
On the other hand, if they saw that I avoided dancing and drinking, they would so want to become like me and become Christian.
Like I said, most Pentecostals and Holiness believers are changing, and many of these commandments are no longer important. When I recently visited some of my old schools, I saw that kids were allowed to go to movies, play with real playing cards, and dress normally.
Pentecostals and other groups are still admonishing Christians to dress modestly, keep from getting drunk, keep to good movies, avoid addiction to gambling and so on. I think that they are rightly seeing that using wisdom and moderation is better than following rules that are losing their meaning.
WHY THE CHANGES?
1. I think many Holiness and Pentecostal churches are moving away from their list of taboos in part because large churches and the mega churches do not have as much control on behavior as small churches. As more and more Christians flock to big churches, there is far less acountability and less demand on living a certain way. Nobody watches, nobody keeps tabs on what you do or how you live, so the need to conform is no longer there. As a result, swearing, drinking, gambling and smoking are not always frowned upon - they may be ignored or effecitvely hidden; but the are not the evil they once were.
2. Any group that comes into contact with another group leaves changes in both groups. As the Holiness groups came into contact with the outside world, both were changed, and both continue to influence each other, so women are wearing make up, cutting their hair and wearing fashionable clothes.
3. The reasoning behind many of these commands are falling away. Rock and Roll is no longer the music of sex and drugs and Satan. It is every day music in almost every office. Christian Rock and Roll permeates the churches and is even played as worship in many churches. Theaters that play G movies no longer play the X rated movies. And slowly each generation is abandoning many/most of the basic 10 Commandments of Holiness.
I sometimes wonder what will happen to Christianity if there is another revival like that of 1858 or the Welsh revival of the early 1900s. Will we see some of these commandments make a resurgence? No doubt, some commandments will not return, but we may see others come back in force.
MY PREDICTION
Even though the 10 Commandments of Holiness will further disintigrate in the next few years or decades, there will be a revival of some of them years from now.
I think drinking in moderation will be emphasized and drunkenness will be put away from the churches.
Smoking will continue to lose popularity with church goers.
As a revival hits the churches, I think we will see less swearing among Christians (especially at their homes).
Gambling, while accepted in moderation, will lose its popularity during time of renewal.
While dancing and movies will continue to become more and more acceptable, Christians will visit the dance halls less than normal.
Rock and Roll will not go away, but will become more and more accepted in Christian circles, even in church worship. Eventually, other forms of music will threaten to drown out Rock and Roll, but there will always be come backs.
Finally, as revival sweeps the churches, I believe that hymns will become more popular, even among the young.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Anarchy, the Judges, God's Government
GOD'S POLITICAL SYSTEM
Throughout the hundreds of years the Bible was written, only 2 eras followed God's design for government.
The first was the era from Moses to Samuel. During this 200 year period, Israel had no king except God. The form of government was called a Theocracy.
Beginning in the desert with Moses, Israel set up a tent for God called a tabernacle. Whenever Israel moved from place to place, the tabernacle was set up in the center of the camp, which was where kings usually set up their tents. But there were no kings in Israel because God was their king and that made Israel a Theocracy.
Because there were no kings in Israel's Theocracy, there were no standing armies and no armory to speak of. As a nation, Israel was supposed to depend upon God for protection and direction. This left Israel incredibly vulnerable, so from time to time, neighboring nations invaded, took cities, stole crops and cattle and did whatever they wanted.
Israel saw this as a sign that the local gods were not pleased, so they intensified their dedication to these gods only to find things getting worse. Eventually, when they realized that the local gods were incapable of or unwilling to helping them out, they turned to God who then helped them by raising up a military leader (called a judge) who led them into battles that would help deliver them from the foreign pillages.
After battles were won, the people served God for the life of the military leader/judge. When the judge died, the people went back to the gods of the past. And when the judge died, Israel was without a central leadership until once again a new deliverer would be needed, and was propelled into leadership.
In this Theocracy, prophets and priests were crucial, because they were God's messengers who gave people and the nation whatever message God had for them. On the other hand priests took care of the tabernacle, and eventually (in Samuel) took a more prophetic role by speaking for God. Compared to kings, prophets and priests had very little power.
After about 200 years of this, for the sake of personal survival, Israel began copying the nations around them in 2 consecutive steps:
1. In Samuel (a priest), they began looking for continuous leadership - expecting that his sons would take his place when he died. Even Samuel himself accepted this unspoken and unwritten deal by planning and preparing his sons to follow him in leadership.
2. Realizing Samuel's sons were neither good leaders, nor capable of protecting them from ever growing threats on every side, the people demanded that there would be a king chosen who would raise up a standing army with real weapons that were designed to kill people. Their neighbors were already building their armies under their kings, leaving Israel legitimately vulnerable and scared. The people saw the need for the strength that only a king and his trained army could give. And so after 200 years of Theocracy, Israel started a Monarchy with their first king who was Saul. And when Saul became their king, God's choice of government ended.
In Anarchy and Christianity, Jacques Ellul points out that this 200 year time period best reflects what we would today call Anarchy which is not the type of Anarchy described by today's conservative radio political blasters. The Anarchy that Ellul describes is closer to that of the type that flourished in Europe and Russia and somewhat with many of the U.S. workers almost 100 years ago.
This type of Anarchy seeks to get rid of every part of the political state (whether it is Communist, Capitalist, or Socialist) and give power of political decision making to the people.
During the time of the Judges, the Bible says that there were no kings, so everybody did what was right in their own sight. Ideally speaking, during that 200 years, God was their king, with prophets serving as messengers and priests serving as God's house servants; but in reality most of the time, people ignored God and thus were on their own, living very closely to a pure Anarchy.
When the people turned to a king in order to protect themselves, the Bible makes it clear that this was a rejection of God's form of government for His people. Nevertheless, even though it was not God's will to change governments, God gave in to the people and supported Israel's decision, letting them know that having a king was not the ideal government that they all thought it would be.
This whole episode in the Bible tells me two things:
1. God wants us to trust Him more than standing armies, nuclear weapons and a strong state. This is something very few people of today would allow, agree with, or put into place; even though it is in the Bible.
2. God will support and work with most governmental systems we put in place. After some warnings and some hurt feelings, God blessed and supported the Monarchy Israel wanted.
Throughout the hundreds of years the Bible was written, only 2 eras followed God's design for government.
The first was the era from Moses to Samuel. During this 200 year period, Israel had no king except God. The form of government was called a Theocracy.
Beginning in the desert with Moses, Israel set up a tent for God called a tabernacle. Whenever Israel moved from place to place, the tabernacle was set up in the center of the camp, which was where kings usually set up their tents. But there were no kings in Israel because God was their king and that made Israel a Theocracy.
Because there were no kings in Israel's Theocracy, there were no standing armies and no armory to speak of. As a nation, Israel was supposed to depend upon God for protection and direction. This left Israel incredibly vulnerable, so from time to time, neighboring nations invaded, took cities, stole crops and cattle and did whatever they wanted.
Israel saw this as a sign that the local gods were not pleased, so they intensified their dedication to these gods only to find things getting worse. Eventually, when they realized that the local gods were incapable of or unwilling to helping them out, they turned to God who then helped them by raising up a military leader (called a judge) who led them into battles that would help deliver them from the foreign pillages.
After battles were won, the people served God for the life of the military leader/judge. When the judge died, the people went back to the gods of the past. And when the judge died, Israel was without a central leadership until once again a new deliverer would be needed, and was propelled into leadership.
In this Theocracy, prophets and priests were crucial, because they were God's messengers who gave people and the nation whatever message God had for them. On the other hand priests took care of the tabernacle, and eventually (in Samuel) took a more prophetic role by speaking for God. Compared to kings, prophets and priests had very little power.
After about 200 years of this, for the sake of personal survival, Israel began copying the nations around them in 2 consecutive steps:
1. In Samuel (a priest), they began looking for continuous leadership - expecting that his sons would take his place when he died. Even Samuel himself accepted this unspoken and unwritten deal by planning and preparing his sons to follow him in leadership.
2. Realizing Samuel's sons were neither good leaders, nor capable of protecting them from ever growing threats on every side, the people demanded that there would be a king chosen who would raise up a standing army with real weapons that were designed to kill people. Their neighbors were already building their armies under their kings, leaving Israel legitimately vulnerable and scared. The people saw the need for the strength that only a king and his trained army could give. And so after 200 years of Theocracy, Israel started a Monarchy with their first king who was Saul. And when Saul became their king, God's choice of government ended.
In Anarchy and Christianity, Jacques Ellul points out that this 200 year time period best reflects what we would today call Anarchy which is not the type of Anarchy described by today's conservative radio political blasters. The Anarchy that Ellul describes is closer to that of the type that flourished in Europe and Russia and somewhat with many of the U.S. workers almost 100 years ago.
This type of Anarchy seeks to get rid of every part of the political state (whether it is Communist, Capitalist, or Socialist) and give power of political decision making to the people.
During the time of the Judges, the Bible says that there were no kings, so everybody did what was right in their own sight. Ideally speaking, during that 200 years, God was their king, with prophets serving as messengers and priests serving as God's house servants; but in reality most of the time, people ignored God and thus were on their own, living very closely to a pure Anarchy.
When the people turned to a king in order to protect themselves, the Bible makes it clear that this was a rejection of God's form of government for His people. Nevertheless, even though it was not God's will to change governments, God gave in to the people and supported Israel's decision, letting them know that having a king was not the ideal government that they all thought it would be.
This whole episode in the Bible tells me two things:
1. God wants us to trust Him more than standing armies, nuclear weapons and a strong state. This is something very few people of today would allow, agree with, or put into place; even though it is in the Bible.
2. God will support and work with most governmental systems we put in place. After some warnings and some hurt feelings, God blessed and supported the Monarchy Israel wanted.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Homosexuality and the Bible - Debate in a Nutshell
This is the debate about homosexuality in a nutshell:
SIDE ONE - The Bible is clearly against homosexual behavior. God loves the sinner but hates the sin.
1. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because it had become so homosexual.
2. Leviticus 18 and 20 are clear moral laws forbidding homosexuality, calling it an abomination and condemning it by demanding the death penalty.
3. Jude emphasizes that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality (which he calls "going after other flesh").
4. There are lists of sins in the New Testament that keep people from the kingdom of God and even send them to hell, one sin mentioned in those lists is homosexual behavior.
5. Romans chapter one clearly reveals homosexuality as the most obvious result of sin that begins with idolatry.
SIDE TWO - The Bible is not against normal homosexual behavior, but against homosexual rape or using homosexuality for worship of other gods.
1. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is violence against the visitor, not homosexuality. Ezekiel is the only writer in the Bible who clearly names the sin of Sodom, and he does not say homosexuality, but says the sin is economic injustice and lack of care for the poor.
2. Leviticus 18 and 20 are against temple prostitution and not against normal homosexual behavior. Secondly, the Law is not for us today - we cannot pick and choose what verses we want to use from the Law, or else sex with one's wife during her time of the month would be an abomination, and children who are too rebellious should be killed. These and other laws are laws that most Christians do not care to resurrect, so why do we want to make a big deal about one law in Leviticus 18 and 20?
3. When Jude talks about Sodom and "going after other flesh," he is getting his information from books he quoted - one being the Book of Enoch, where angels have sex with women. "Going after other flesh" is not homosexuality, but trying to have sex with angels.
4. When it comes to the lists found in Paul's writings and in Revelation, the New Testament translators have mistranslated the words in question, assuming from their own prejudices that the words refer to homosexual practices. In reality the words are closer in meaning to temple prostitutes, or any type of sexual behavior (heterosexual or homosexual) that goes too far.
5. Romans 1 is set in the context of idolatry, so the type of homosexual behavior addressed is temple prostitution which is wrong. Regular homosexual behavior is not in question. Even if Paul were speaking about regular homosexual practices, the bottom line is it is against nature. Well, he also said that nature teaches us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, and that a woman's glory is her hair. What was natural to Paul is cultural and not universal.
6. Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. In fact, when he talked about Sodom and Gomorrah, he used the story as an illustration to emphasize the wrath of God against villages that rejected him or his disciples. This illustration emphasizes the evils of inhospitality. From this the conclusion is confirmed that Sodom's sin was not homosexuality, but poor treatment of visitors.
MY CONCLUSIONS
1. I looked at Sodom and Gomorrah and how the story was interpreted by other writers in the Bible. None of them focused on homosexuality, but on the sins of their own day. For example, although Isaiah used the story to emphasize the seriousness of God's wrath, Isaiah ignored Sodom and Gomorrah's intent to violently rape 2 men, and focused on the economic injustices of his day. It was those economic injustices that result in the wrath of God-a Sodom and Gomorrah, fire and brimstone wrath of God.
Ezekiel was the only one to mention the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah - economic injustice and carelessness of the upper classes.
As I studied Sodom and Gomorrah's legacy, I learned that there were plenty of other sins far worse than those of Sodom and Gomorrah's - sins such as breaking the covenant that God had with his people, idolatry, rejecting the Gospel or rejecting Christ.
2. I believe that Leviticus 18 and 20 were not only temple prostitution, but any type of homosexual behavior. However, that being said, I am concerned with the fact that too many Christians cherry pick Old Testament moral laws. Because we are under a new covenant, and because the Old Testament Laws are so chosen, I do not hold Leviticus as the ultimate authority on the matter. I do believe that Christians must be led by scripture (primarily the New Testament) and by the Spirit of God.
3. Having studied the book of Enoch and seeing how much it influenced some of the biblical writers, I am quite sure that "other flesh" in Jude was referring to men seeking sex with angels.
4. I am left undecided about word studies in the New Testament. Without a doubt I believe that we have read our own biases (both sides) into words that are ambiguous. The ambiguity comes from this large gap we have between culture and time. We don't know what nuances some words took on when they were used among the common people of the day.
5. I think Romans 1 speaks against any type of homosexual behavior as well as other sins in a list of sins that result from idolatry. I think Paul emphasized homosexuality because the type practiced in his day (that included having sex with 12 year old boys) was the most obvious of sins in his day. The list of sins that Paul includes with homosexuality in chapter one include sins that we think almost nothing about, such as gossip, disobience to parents, and quarreling.
I believe:
1. The Bible says that a homosexual act is a sin.
2. There are many sins that are worse than homosexual practices.
3. Some of those bigger sins, such as economic injustice, are ignored or even justified by many in today's Christian communities (contrary to scripture.
I believe:
1. Among openly gays, there are some awesome people and some jerks. Its like every other grouping of humans.
2. Even though Paul says homosexuality is against nature, there are many who grow up with feelings for the same sex. For some people, these feelings are taught or learned, and some are born with attraction for the same sex. I cannot prove this, but neither can it be proved otherwise.
I believe:
1. Some of the people who will have the biggest struggles are those who have strong feelings for members of the same sex, whether or not it was learned or from birth.
2. Many who struggle with homosexuality the most; hate it the most, and preach against it the most.
I believe:
1. This issue will not disappear or calm down, but will have to be discussed in more and more churches and denominations. Divorce was not accepted in churches in the past, but now seems quite commonly accepted. I am not saying that it will ever be accepted practice in the churches, but I do wonder, as more and more people in the churches and in our families are discovered to be gay, will we see more acceptance of homosexuality?
2. As Christians, we will have to ask ourselves deeper questions about why we have chosen homosexuality as the ultimate of sins and have ignored larger and more lethal sins that are clearly stated in the bible.
Finally, I believe:
1. As I learn more from scripture and ancient times, I may just change my mind in some areas of this study.
2. I have tried to be fair with both sides of this issue, but probably have erred on one side or another in my attempt to discover, not what I think about this, but what the Bible says about homosexuality. The opinions I have mentioned are my flawed attempt to understand what the Bible does say.
If I had written the Bible:
1. If it were up to me, I would condone and accept homosexuality as normal human passion that is not a sin.
2. Homosexual relationships should be like hetersexual relationships where sex is confined to a vow of committment such as marriage in the Christian churches.
3. All rape of any type would be forbidden.
4. Temple prostitution would be outlawed.
But then, I didn't write the Bible, so its not up to me.
SIDE ONE - The Bible is clearly against homosexual behavior. God loves the sinner but hates the sin.
1. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because it had become so homosexual.
2. Leviticus 18 and 20 are clear moral laws forbidding homosexuality, calling it an abomination and condemning it by demanding the death penalty.
3. Jude emphasizes that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality (which he calls "going after other flesh").
4. There are lists of sins in the New Testament that keep people from the kingdom of God and even send them to hell, one sin mentioned in those lists is homosexual behavior.
5. Romans chapter one clearly reveals homosexuality as the most obvious result of sin that begins with idolatry.
SIDE TWO - The Bible is not against normal homosexual behavior, but against homosexual rape or using homosexuality for worship of other gods.
1. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is violence against the visitor, not homosexuality. Ezekiel is the only writer in the Bible who clearly names the sin of Sodom, and he does not say homosexuality, but says the sin is economic injustice and lack of care for the poor.
2. Leviticus 18 and 20 are against temple prostitution and not against normal homosexual behavior. Secondly, the Law is not for us today - we cannot pick and choose what verses we want to use from the Law, or else sex with one's wife during her time of the month would be an abomination, and children who are too rebellious should be killed. These and other laws are laws that most Christians do not care to resurrect, so why do we want to make a big deal about one law in Leviticus 18 and 20?
3. When Jude talks about Sodom and "going after other flesh," he is getting his information from books he quoted - one being the Book of Enoch, where angels have sex with women. "Going after other flesh" is not homosexuality, but trying to have sex with angels.
4. When it comes to the lists found in Paul's writings and in Revelation, the New Testament translators have mistranslated the words in question, assuming from their own prejudices that the words refer to homosexual practices. In reality the words are closer in meaning to temple prostitutes, or any type of sexual behavior (heterosexual or homosexual) that goes too far.
5. Romans 1 is set in the context of idolatry, so the type of homosexual behavior addressed is temple prostitution which is wrong. Regular homosexual behavior is not in question. Even if Paul were speaking about regular homosexual practices, the bottom line is it is against nature. Well, he also said that nature teaches us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, and that a woman's glory is her hair. What was natural to Paul is cultural and not universal.
6. Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. In fact, when he talked about Sodom and Gomorrah, he used the story as an illustration to emphasize the wrath of God against villages that rejected him or his disciples. This illustration emphasizes the evils of inhospitality. From this the conclusion is confirmed that Sodom's sin was not homosexuality, but poor treatment of visitors.
MY CONCLUSIONS
1. I looked at Sodom and Gomorrah and how the story was interpreted by other writers in the Bible. None of them focused on homosexuality, but on the sins of their own day. For example, although Isaiah used the story to emphasize the seriousness of God's wrath, Isaiah ignored Sodom and Gomorrah's intent to violently rape 2 men, and focused on the economic injustices of his day. It was those economic injustices that result in the wrath of God-a Sodom and Gomorrah, fire and brimstone wrath of God.
Ezekiel was the only one to mention the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah - economic injustice and carelessness of the upper classes.
As I studied Sodom and Gomorrah's legacy, I learned that there were plenty of other sins far worse than those of Sodom and Gomorrah's - sins such as breaking the covenant that God had with his people, idolatry, rejecting the Gospel or rejecting Christ.
2. I believe that Leviticus 18 and 20 were not only temple prostitution, but any type of homosexual behavior. However, that being said, I am concerned with the fact that too many Christians cherry pick Old Testament moral laws. Because we are under a new covenant, and because the Old Testament Laws are so chosen, I do not hold Leviticus as the ultimate authority on the matter. I do believe that Christians must be led by scripture (primarily the New Testament) and by the Spirit of God.
3. Having studied the book of Enoch and seeing how much it influenced some of the biblical writers, I am quite sure that "other flesh" in Jude was referring to men seeking sex with angels.
4. I am left undecided about word studies in the New Testament. Without a doubt I believe that we have read our own biases (both sides) into words that are ambiguous. The ambiguity comes from this large gap we have between culture and time. We don't know what nuances some words took on when they were used among the common people of the day.
5. I think Romans 1 speaks against any type of homosexual behavior as well as other sins in a list of sins that result from idolatry. I think Paul emphasized homosexuality because the type practiced in his day (that included having sex with 12 year old boys) was the most obvious of sins in his day. The list of sins that Paul includes with homosexuality in chapter one include sins that we think almost nothing about, such as gossip, disobience to parents, and quarreling.
I believe:
1. The Bible says that a homosexual act is a sin.
2. There are many sins that are worse than homosexual practices.
3. Some of those bigger sins, such as economic injustice, are ignored or even justified by many in today's Christian communities (contrary to scripture.
I believe:
1. Among openly gays, there are some awesome people and some jerks. Its like every other grouping of humans.
2. Even though Paul says homosexuality is against nature, there are many who grow up with feelings for the same sex. For some people, these feelings are taught or learned, and some are born with attraction for the same sex. I cannot prove this, but neither can it be proved otherwise.
I believe:
1. Some of the people who will have the biggest struggles are those who have strong feelings for members of the same sex, whether or not it was learned or from birth.
2. Many who struggle with homosexuality the most; hate it the most, and preach against it the most.
I believe:
1. This issue will not disappear or calm down, but will have to be discussed in more and more churches and denominations. Divorce was not accepted in churches in the past, but now seems quite commonly accepted. I am not saying that it will ever be accepted practice in the churches, but I do wonder, as more and more people in the churches and in our families are discovered to be gay, will we see more acceptance of homosexuality?
2. As Christians, we will have to ask ourselves deeper questions about why we have chosen homosexuality as the ultimate of sins and have ignored larger and more lethal sins that are clearly stated in the bible.
Finally, I believe:
1. As I learn more from scripture and ancient times, I may just change my mind in some areas of this study.
2. I have tried to be fair with both sides of this issue, but probably have erred on one side or another in my attempt to discover, not what I think about this, but what the Bible says about homosexuality. The opinions I have mentioned are my flawed attempt to understand what the Bible does say.
If I had written the Bible:
1. If it were up to me, I would condone and accept homosexuality as normal human passion that is not a sin.
2. Homosexual relationships should be like hetersexual relationships where sex is confined to a vow of committment such as marriage in the Christian churches.
3. All rape of any type would be forbidden.
4. Temple prostitution would be outlawed.
But then, I didn't write the Bible, so its not up to me.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Homosexuality in Romans 1
ROMANS ONE
In Romans chapter one, Paul borrows an argument from the apocryphal book of Wisdom chapters 13-14. In Romans 1, Paul uncovers the root of Gentile sin which is idolatry, thereby carrying with it the wrath of God. In Romans chapter one, the wrath of God is presently revealed (not in the future) by 3 acts of God: Three times God "gives people over to" something human - desires, passions, and reprobate minds. Ultimately we see God's wrath in the immoral actions of the very same people that God created. The fact that people go so far into sin is an outward sign that God has given up / given them over to their own sins.
Paul wrote a step by step account of how idolatry resulted in a list of evils which reveal God's wrath, of which, one seems to be emphasized a bit more than the rest. And that is homosexuality.
Some of the arguments in defence of homosexuality are as follows:
1. When Paul wrote that God gave the idol worshippers over to uncleanness, he was talking about an event that took place long before Roman times, so he was not talking about Roman homosexuality.
This argument does not hold any water, because even though Paul was talking about the beginning of times, he saw God's judgment on the sins of his day. In fact, he was pointing to those sins and claiming that those sins - the list of sins he mentioned in chapter one - all of those sins have their roots in idolatry.
2. Paul defines homosexuality as unnatural. He did the same when he said that it was unnatural for a man to have long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14).
3. The particular homosexuality that Paul was referring to was temple prostitution, because in Romans 1, the entire context is saturated in idolatry. The focus of Romans 1 is idolatry, so any mention of homosexuality is related to idolatry and not regular homosexuality.
It is true that Paul saw idolatry as the beginning of all types of sins, including some sort of homosexuality that was practiced in his day, but he began this entire argument by pointing out that God's wrath was already seen in the sins that permeated his society - in all types of sins. A summary of Romans 1 would be like this:
I. We can see the wrath of God at work today, in that 3 times God gave the Gentiles over to their own evil passions and poor excuses:
A. Even though God revealed Himself through nature, the Gentiles worshipped idols and not God, so God gave them over to their lusts.
B. The Gentiles did not worship God, but worshipped things made by God, so God gave them over to vile affections (EX: women lusting after women, and men lusting after men - which is against nature).
C. The Gentiles abandoned the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a twisted mind, doing things that shouldn't be done, such as: greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, gossip, backstabbing, hating God, insolence, pride, and boastfulness, inventing new ways of sinning, disobying parents. breaking promises, being heartless, and having no mercy.
CONCLUSION
In the end I feel like every side takes advantage of the fact that we are not 100% clear about the ancient biblical worldviews, cultures and settings. There is enough ambiguity for anybody to argue that their position is the correct one.
Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that Paul believed that homosexuality (the type practiced in his day, if not all types) was against the natural order of creation, and that it was one of many sins that demonstrated that God had given the Gentile world over to its own desires. However, because homosexuality is highlighted in Romans 1, I believe that Paul viewed homosexuality as the most visible or most obvious of the of sins of his day - not necessarily the worst of sins. The fact that Paul mentions homosexuality more clearly than other sins on his list may reflect the worldview of Paul's audience.
In Romans chapter one, Paul borrows an argument from the apocryphal book of Wisdom chapters 13-14. In Romans 1, Paul uncovers the root of Gentile sin which is idolatry, thereby carrying with it the wrath of God. In Romans chapter one, the wrath of God is presently revealed (not in the future) by 3 acts of God: Three times God "gives people over to" something human - desires, passions, and reprobate minds. Ultimately we see God's wrath in the immoral actions of the very same people that God created. The fact that people go so far into sin is an outward sign that God has given up / given them over to their own sins.
Paul wrote a step by step account of how idolatry resulted in a list of evils which reveal God's wrath, of which, one seems to be emphasized a bit more than the rest. And that is homosexuality.
Some of the arguments in defence of homosexuality are as follows:
1. When Paul wrote that God gave the idol worshippers over to uncleanness, he was talking about an event that took place long before Roman times, so he was not talking about Roman homosexuality.
This argument does not hold any water, because even though Paul was talking about the beginning of times, he saw God's judgment on the sins of his day. In fact, he was pointing to those sins and claiming that those sins - the list of sins he mentioned in chapter one - all of those sins have their roots in idolatry.
2. Paul defines homosexuality as unnatural. He did the same when he said that it was unnatural for a man to have long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14).
3. The particular homosexuality that Paul was referring to was temple prostitution, because in Romans 1, the entire context is saturated in idolatry. The focus of Romans 1 is idolatry, so any mention of homosexuality is related to idolatry and not regular homosexuality.
It is true that Paul saw idolatry as the beginning of all types of sins, including some sort of homosexuality that was practiced in his day, but he began this entire argument by pointing out that God's wrath was already seen in the sins that permeated his society - in all types of sins. A summary of Romans 1 would be like this:
I. We can see the wrath of God at work today, in that 3 times God gave the Gentiles over to their own evil passions and poor excuses:
A. Even though God revealed Himself through nature, the Gentiles worshipped idols and not God, so God gave them over to their lusts.
B. The Gentiles did not worship God, but worshipped things made by God, so God gave them over to vile affections (EX: women lusting after women, and men lusting after men - which is against nature).
C. The Gentiles abandoned the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a twisted mind, doing things that shouldn't be done, such as: greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, gossip, backstabbing, hating God, insolence, pride, and boastfulness, inventing new ways of sinning, disobying parents. breaking promises, being heartless, and having no mercy.
CONCLUSION
In the end I feel like every side takes advantage of the fact that we are not 100% clear about the ancient biblical worldviews, cultures and settings. There is enough ambiguity for anybody to argue that their position is the correct one.
Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that Paul believed that homosexuality (the type practiced in his day, if not all types) was against the natural order of creation, and that it was one of many sins that demonstrated that God had given the Gentile world over to its own desires. However, because homosexuality is highlighted in Romans 1, I believe that Paul viewed homosexuality as the most visible or most obvious of the of sins of his day - not necessarily the worst of sins. The fact that Paul mentions homosexuality more clearly than other sins on his list may reflect the worldview of Paul's audience.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
The New Testament and Homosexual Word Studies
The biggest problem we have with the homosexual debate is getting to the root of some of the words that were used in the New Testament that translate into different sexual practices. Part of the problem is that we don't always have the best understanding of what certain words meant to people in Bible days, and part of the problem is that the values and customs of the Greek/Roman ways are not the same as what we have today. Therefore, it is important for us to study the meanings of the words that the Bible uses that some translators claim is homosexuality.
Fair warning: Even with the best studies at our disposal, there are still questions unanswered about the precise meanings of some of the words we are dealing with.
ANCIENT CUSTOMS
The following are quick facts about homosexuality in the ancient times. If you want more information there is plenty on the internet and in books that lean one way or another in the debate.
1. Homosexuality was either in vogue or despised, depending upon the era. In other words, it was not constant; during one decade it may be unpopular, but a decade later it may be accepted.
2. Although we don't know much about the lower classes, when homosexuality was in vogue, we know that it was popular among the upper classes.
3. There were two types of male homosexuals - the male (the dominant) and the female who was considered soft, effeminant and deemed to be like a woman.
4. Not all soft and effeminate men were homosexual, but all of them were generally looked down on in society.
5. Wealthy mentors oftentimes took on young boys (under 12 was not considered good) to teach them about life and to receive erotic love. When the boy grew a full set of hair (beard and etc.) he was no longer the recipient of this sex.
6. Wealthy men also took young teenage slave boys as recipients of their sexual desires.
7. Homosexuality was not considered "a way of life" as it is thought of today in the 21st Century.
NEW TESTAMENT WORD STUDIES
The following words are oftentimes associated with homosexuality.
1. Pornos - Those who practice pornos will not inherit the kingom of God; so if they are Christians who practice pornos, they are to be shunned. In 1 Corinthians, Paul uses the word to describe the behavior of a man who lived with his father's wife. He asked the Corinthians to shun the man until he repented; which he did.
2. Malakos - The meaning is "effeminate" - the Greek culture emphasized the importance of men living up to man like qualities. Many did not like qualities relating to women such as listening to too much music. Although some have suggested that malakos is a homosexual partner that plays the woman (the receiver), others have pointed out that malakos was not used anywhere else in any other greek literature as a word for homosexual.
3. Arsenkoites - Paul is the first person ever to use this word which literally translates as follows:
"Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse, and "arsen", simply means "male". Both koitai and arseno were used side by side in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (in the LXX/Greek translation which was used in the First Century). And I have already looked into Leviticus and concluded that some sort of homosexual behavior was being condemned (whether temple prostitution or regular). It is possible that Paul combined the two words from Leviticus to create a new word that had never been used before.
People have translated arsenkoites as either a man who has a lot of loose sex with women, a man who takes on a young boy or girl for his pleasures (as has been discussed) or a homosexual.
CONCLUSIONS
From a purely grammatical point of view, there is ambiguity with these words. We don't know enough about the 1st Century culture (both Greek and Roman) to be able to develop clear conclusions or exact definitions for them.
There is just enough ambiguity in these words to leave us with several possible definitions, so anybody can read into them what they want it to say. I am sure that there will be plenty of people who will say that the words are very clear; but that's only because their own pro or anti homosexual world views are blocking other possibilities.
Until now, there has been a lot of ambiguity with the words in both Old and New Testament that we translate homosexual, whoremonger, sodomite, and so on.
And in studying how the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was viewed by other writers in the Bible, it became obvious that the writers in the Bible were usually more concerned with the sins of their own day and age than the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, so homosexuality was never clearly mentioned (although it is clear that some sort of abomination was mentioned - probably the intended violent rape that was homosexual in nature). Maybe Romans 1 will give us more clarification.
Fair warning: Even with the best studies at our disposal, there are still questions unanswered about the precise meanings of some of the words we are dealing with.
ANCIENT CUSTOMS
The following are quick facts about homosexuality in the ancient times. If you want more information there is plenty on the internet and in books that lean one way or another in the debate.
1. Homosexuality was either in vogue or despised, depending upon the era. In other words, it was not constant; during one decade it may be unpopular, but a decade later it may be accepted.
2. Although we don't know much about the lower classes, when homosexuality was in vogue, we know that it was popular among the upper classes.
3. There were two types of male homosexuals - the male (the dominant) and the female who was considered soft, effeminant and deemed to be like a woman.
4. Not all soft and effeminate men were homosexual, but all of them were generally looked down on in society.
5. Wealthy mentors oftentimes took on young boys (under 12 was not considered good) to teach them about life and to receive erotic love. When the boy grew a full set of hair (beard and etc.) he was no longer the recipient of this sex.
6. Wealthy men also took young teenage slave boys as recipients of their sexual desires.
7. Homosexuality was not considered "a way of life" as it is thought of today in the 21st Century.
NEW TESTAMENT WORD STUDIES
The following words are oftentimes associated with homosexuality.
1. Pornos - Those who practice pornos will not inherit the kingom of God; so if they are Christians who practice pornos, they are to be shunned. In 1 Corinthians, Paul uses the word to describe the behavior of a man who lived with his father's wife. He asked the Corinthians to shun the man until he repented; which he did.
2. Malakos - The meaning is "effeminate" - the Greek culture emphasized the importance of men living up to man like qualities. Many did not like qualities relating to women such as listening to too much music. Although some have suggested that malakos is a homosexual partner that plays the woman (the receiver), others have pointed out that malakos was not used anywhere else in any other greek literature as a word for homosexual.
3. Arsenkoites - Paul is the first person ever to use this word which literally translates as follows:
"Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse, and "arsen", simply means "male". Both koitai and arseno were used side by side in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (in the LXX/Greek translation which was used in the First Century). And I have already looked into Leviticus and concluded that some sort of homosexual behavior was being condemned (whether temple prostitution or regular). It is possible that Paul combined the two words from Leviticus to create a new word that had never been used before.
People have translated arsenkoites as either a man who has a lot of loose sex with women, a man who takes on a young boy or girl for his pleasures (as has been discussed) or a homosexual.
CONCLUSIONS
From a purely grammatical point of view, there is ambiguity with these words. We don't know enough about the 1st Century culture (both Greek and Roman) to be able to develop clear conclusions or exact definitions for them.
There is just enough ambiguity in these words to leave us with several possible definitions, so anybody can read into them what they want it to say. I am sure that there will be plenty of people who will say that the words are very clear; but that's only because their own pro or anti homosexual world views are blocking other possibilities.
Until now, there has been a lot of ambiguity with the words in both Old and New Testament that we translate homosexual, whoremonger, sodomite, and so on.
And in studying how the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was viewed by other writers in the Bible, it became obvious that the writers in the Bible were usually more concerned with the sins of their own day and age than the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, so homosexuality was never clearly mentioned (although it is clear that some sort of abomination was mentioned - probably the intended violent rape that was homosexual in nature). Maybe Romans 1 will give us more clarification.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
The Old Testament and Homosexuality - Conclusions
1. There is no doubt that the Old Testament condemns homosexual rape as well as temple prostitution of any kind (heterosexual or homosexual).
2. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was later used in Israel, not as a lesson against homosexuality, but as a lesson of God's judgment that can and will be used against his own people for sins of their own time; which were mostly idolatry, economic injustice, and breaking God's covenant. Those sins affected the nation to the point of total Sodom and Gomrrah like destruction. This rule continued into the New Testament.
3. The word sodomite is not found in the original Hebrew, but rather was a KJV translation of an elusive practice (possibly a temple prostitute).
4. The only clear statemtent against homosexuality is found in Leviticus 18 and 20. Although these seem to be clear, there is still some debate as to whether or not Leviticus was speaking about temple prostitution. There is also a debate about how much we should allow a moral Law from the Old Testament to hold authority over us today.
MY THOUGHTS
When I teach I may have students from other countries. Some are convinced there is no hint of homosexuality in their homeland. I disagree with them telling them that it is there, but it is hidden, kept in the closet because of cultural rejection.
I believe that this was the same for Israel. There were eras when homosexuality was had gone to extremes (such as during the time of the judges when "everybody did what was right in their own sights"), but there were eras when it was unpopular and hidden, and therefore ignored by the prophets who focused on the blatent sins of their own day.
As I looked to how the New Testament dealt with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Peter and Jude), I came to the conclusion that those writers, like the prophets, focused on the types of sins that were practiced in the groups that were recruiting from the Christians. And even though some of those sins were sexual in nature, it is not certain they were homosexual.
As Christianity burst out of its Jewish roots, it faced a Roman style of homosexuality and responded (as we will see more in the New Testament studies).
2. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was later used in Israel, not as a lesson against homosexuality, but as a lesson of God's judgment that can and will be used against his own people for sins of their own time; which were mostly idolatry, economic injustice, and breaking God's covenant. Those sins affected the nation to the point of total Sodom and Gomrrah like destruction. This rule continued into the New Testament.
3. The word sodomite is not found in the original Hebrew, but rather was a KJV translation of an elusive practice (possibly a temple prostitute).
4. The only clear statemtent against homosexuality is found in Leviticus 18 and 20. Although these seem to be clear, there is still some debate as to whether or not Leviticus was speaking about temple prostitution. There is also a debate about how much we should allow a moral Law from the Old Testament to hold authority over us today.
MY THOUGHTS
When I teach I may have students from other countries. Some are convinced there is no hint of homosexuality in their homeland. I disagree with them telling them that it is there, but it is hidden, kept in the closet because of cultural rejection.
I believe that this was the same for Israel. There were eras when homosexuality was had gone to extremes (such as during the time of the judges when "everybody did what was right in their own sights"), but there were eras when it was unpopular and hidden, and therefore ignored by the prophets who focused on the blatent sins of their own day.
As I looked to how the New Testament dealt with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Peter and Jude), I came to the conclusion that those writers, like the prophets, focused on the types of sins that were practiced in the groups that were recruiting from the Christians. And even though some of those sins were sexual in nature, it is not certain they were homosexual.
As Christianity burst out of its Jewish roots, it faced a Roman style of homosexuality and responded (as we will see more in the New Testament studies).
Monday, September 12, 2011
Who are the Sodomites?
The Old Testament Hebrew word for Sodomite is qadesh. One would expect that the word "sodomite" would have its roots in the story of Sodom. One would expect that the evil behavior of those who lived in Sodom would define who a sodomite was.
Interestingly, as one studies this issue, one finds that the Hebrew word had nothing to do with Sodom. In reality, the word sodomite came from the King James Version translation of the word qadesh which means "holy, separated," and that suggests the person worked in a temple of some sort.
But once again, as with other scripture, this one faces different possibilities. In all likelihood, qadesh was a man or a woman who prostituted himself/herself at a local temple for the idols' sake. There were women who prostituted themselves at the temple (for the religious pleasure of men) and men who did the same (for the women, although some think it was for the men as well).
In different versions of the English Bibles, the word qadesh has been translated:
1. Ritual harlot
2. Sodomite
3. Cult prostitute
4. Shrine prostitute
5. Temple prostitute
6. Whoremonger
7. Perverted person
8. Male or female shrine prostitute
9. Male shrine prostitute
10. Male cult prostitute
11. Unclean
12. Immoral living
13. Defiled
Interestingly, as one studies this issue, one finds that the Hebrew word had nothing to do with Sodom. In reality, the word sodomite came from the King James Version translation of the word qadesh which means "holy, separated," and that suggests the person worked in a temple of some sort.
But once again, as with other scripture, this one faces different possibilities. In all likelihood, qadesh was a man or a woman who prostituted himself/herself at a local temple for the idols' sake. There were women who prostituted themselves at the temple (for the religious pleasure of men) and men who did the same (for the women, although some think it was for the men as well).
In different versions of the English Bibles, the word qadesh has been translated:
1. Ritual harlot
2. Sodomite
3. Cult prostitute
4. Shrine prostitute
5. Temple prostitute
6. Whoremonger
7. Perverted person
8. Male or female shrine prostitute
9. Male shrine prostitute
10. Male cult prostitute
11. Unclean
12. Immoral living
13. Defiled
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)