Hosea 6:6, Jesus and Animal Sacrifice

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

//Hosea is among the first writing prophets, back in the 8th or 9th century BC. At a time when animal sacrifice seemed common, Hosea opposed this practice, as seen in this verse. Hosea foresaw a day when mankind and animals would live in harmony:

In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, the birds in the sky and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety. –Hosea 2:18

Isaiah and Jeremiah also opposed animal sacrifice. See Jeremiah 7:21-22 and Isaiah 1:11-13. Jesus quoted Hosea directly in Matthew 9:13, and again in Matthew 12:7:

But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

In Keith Akers’ book Disciples, he argues that Jesus, too, opposed animal sacrifice. When Jesus drove the animals from the Temple, he was not objecting to fleecing pilgrims as much as sacrificing animals.

Might Jesus have been hoping to introduce the day of peace that the prophets promised?

Book Excerpt: Revelation: The Way It Happened

Monday, July 7, 2014 in Book Excerpt | 0 comments

Sometimes overlooked in our zeal, two millennia [after Jesus died], is the insistence of early teachings that Jesus would return pronto. John begins the book of Revelation by affirming that the time nears. As David Chilton puts it, “Not once did he imply that his book was written with the twentieth century in mind, and that Christians would be wasting their time attempting to decipher it until the Scofield Reference Bible would become a best-selling novel.” Commentators on Revelation often mention that, unlike other apocalyptic material, John makes no attempt to set a date for his future events, but in truth, John repeatedly promises they will happen now. If you reread the New Testament scriptures, trying to put yourself in the first century, you’ll easily see why Christians believed Jesus would reappear within their lifetimes. The calamitous events of the times surely added weight to this belief, particularly when the Temple fell. Read carefully the prophecy of Daniel:

Daniel 9:25, NLT: Now listen and understand! Seven sets of seven plus sixty-two sets of seven will pass from the time the command is given to rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One comes. Jerusalem will be rebuilt with streets and strong defenses, despite the perilous times. After this period of sixty-two sets of seven, the Anointed One will be killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing, and a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end.

 Sixty-nine “sets of seven” multiply to 483 years. The Jews did not know exactly when to begin counting this 483 years or perhaps exactly how long it had been since they returned from Babylon to begin the rebuilding process, but they understood it must have already been about the number of years prophesied here, so the end times neared. Indeed, if we do the math, beginning with the decree issued by Artaxerxes for Nehemiah to begin rebuilding in 457 BCE, the first “seven sets of seven” bring us to 408 BCE, by which time the rebuilding of Jerusalem was finished. Then, the next sixty-two sets of seven bring us to the year 26 CE, right about to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry as he turned thirty years old. The repeated appearances of would-be Messiahs about this time kept the Jews stirred up into a constant religious fervor. Christians possessed no copyright on the title of Christ.

–Revelation: The Way It Happened, 2010, pp. 21, by Lee Harmon

Leviticus 20:13, Homosexuality and the Bible, Part VIII of VIII

Saturday, July 5, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them … are to be [stoned].

//Let me wrap up this topic with a nod of approval to the State of Washington. With only this one Old Testament law still in the way of accepting gays as our brethren in Christ, Washington has found a loophole.

They legalized gay marriage and marijuana on the same day.

Mark 9:42, Homosexuality and the Bible, Part VII of VIII

Friday, July 4, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

//Question 5 of 5: Does the vast preponderance of teachings about compassion and acceptance toward the marginalized outweigh the scripture which seems to teach against homosexuality?

In the last four days, we have examined four issues regarding the one (!) reference in the Bible to homosexuality outside an outdated law code. These four issues are: Did Paul really condemn loving same-sex relationships? Does his immediate contradiction soften that condemnation? Should we really assume Paul speaks for Jesus at all, when Paul himself cautioned against reading his words this way? And should Jesus’ complete disinterest in the topic mean anything to us?

Let’s suppose that none of the prior arguments hold water, and that Paul does guess properly about God’s feelings regarding same-sex partners. If we weigh the two anti-homosexual teachings in the Bible against the legion of teachings which encourage acceptance of marginalized groups, which comes out ahead? It’s awfully one-sided, isn’t it?

There are so many verses that display concern, love, and compassion for the marginalized that I couldn’t begin to list them. This isn’t just Jesus’s opinion. This emphasis is throughout the Old Testament as well.

When talking about the marginalized, please remember: gay people are no more able to change their sexual preference than the lame can walk. Their predicament is not a choice. 7,848 suicides per year because of this discrimination is a disturbing statistic.

We never once found Jesus telling the marginalized they were wrong for being lame, or sick, or poor, or a woman, or a Samaritan, or a gentile, or homosexual. Those are strictly Old Testament ideas. Instead, Jesus’ concern was focused on welcoming even folks who are different into society. There was simply nobody Jesus refused, and nobody he seemed more furious with than those who lacked compassion and acceptance.

I believe this is the only example it is safe to follow. I have just one more small comment to make tomorrow.

Matthew 8:5-7, Homosexuality and the Bible, Part VI of VIII

Thursday, July 3, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 4 comments

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, and saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

//Question 4 of 5: What did Jesus think about same-sex partners?

I promised that today I’d discuss what Jesus himself has to say about homosexuality. The answer is…

Nothing. Jesus has nothing to say at all. Yet there is one event which might actually shed light on how Jesus felt. It is in Matthew 8:5-13, and in Luke 7:1-10, where Jesus heals a centurion’s servant who is dying. The Greek word used for “servant” is “pais.”

According to some Bible scholars, this word pais almost always had a sexual connotation. Others say only sometimes. It also hints that the centurion’s “servant” was a youth. In any case, it leaves open the real possibility that the centurion’s servant was his young lover.

“Pais” may be the root word of pederasty, a word discussed earlier, but a twist … a “beloved” youth. The youth is also described in this story as highly-valued. Was it pure love, rather than a sex-slave relationship? Is that why the centurion was so desperate that the young man be healed? Is that why Jesus had no words of rebuke?

This is admittedly not a strong argument, since it relies on a deeper study of Biblical Greek than I am capable of, yet if there is any hint at all in scripture about how Jesus felt about same-sex relationships, this is it. No condemnation, only respect and compassion.

1 Corinthians 7:25, Homosexuality and the Bible, Part V of VIII

Wednesday, July 2, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy.

//Question 3 of 5: Did Paul mean for us to take this anti-gay teaching (1) literally, (2) in our day today, and (3) as the words of Jesus? Even if we believe that Paul was teaching against homosexual sex in general, should we take his words literally and at face value? Read today’s verse again, written by Paul.

So Paul himself cautioned us about believing that he was speaking for Jesus. He was giving his honest opinion, he says, and in retrospect, we know in this case he guessed wrong. He imagined that Jesus was coming back in his lifetime, or at least in the lifetime of some of those listening. So certain was he about this that in this passage in Corinthians, he recommended that people not bother to marry! Thank goodness he was honest, and prefaced his opinion with “I have no commandment from the Lord!”

Does this give us pause about considering his opinion regarding same-sex relationships on the same level as the words of Jesus? Does it make us wonder whether these words—like so many of Paul’s writings—were better suited for a first-century audience, because of his particular beliefs and concerns? Two days ago I pointed out how different the first century social setting was from ours today. Certainly, Paul had no idea we’d be reading his words as scripture 2,000 years later, and using them to condemn loving, honest relationships.

Tomorrow, we’ll take a peek at what Jesus says on the matter.

Romans 2:1, Homosexuality and the Bible, Part IV of VIII

Tuesday, July 1, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

//Question 2 of 5: Why does Paul then contradict his teachings on this topic, in this same letter to the Romans?

Yesterday, I introduced the one verse in the New Testament which seems to speak against homosexual relationships. It’s in the letter of Paul to the Romans. Oddly, immediately after this, we find today’s verse at the start of chapter two.

The question is this: Why would Paul write condemning words, and then immediately say that anyone who judges another condemns himself? It hardly makes sense. Could Paul be NOT condemning anyone in the famous “homosexual” verses of chapter one? Or is he providing an example of how God takes care of the judgment of evil men (in this case, turning them over to pederasty), warning us to never, ever judge another?

More curious is why Paul would condemn homosexuals, when the only other place in the scripture which does so is the Old Testament Law. Does he forget his own words on the topic, how the law was obsolete once Jesus happened on the scene with a better way to live? (In Romans 10:4, he says the Christ is the end of the law.) Did he not insist that the Law applied only to the Jews, not to the Romans, the audience of his letter? Why does he explain twice in this same book of Romans (5:20, 7:7-8) that the Law increased our sin, as if many of the things once considered sin should be no longer?

Christians recognize the replacement of the Law to be true in regard to Sabbath observance and unclean foods. Things once considered a sin no longer are.

There is plenty of controversy about what Paul meant, but in any case, it should definitely make us doubt the assumption that we can tie Paul’s apparent condemnation of homosexuals in chapter 1 to the Holiness Code of the Old Testament. That is unlikely … whatever Paul was talking about in Romans chapter 1, he wasn’t talking about the Law. We’ll examine this in more depth tomorrow.

Romans 1:25-27,Homosexuality and the Bible, Part III of VIII

Monday, June 30, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 2 comments

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

//Question 1 of 5: Could we be reading the one N.T. reference to homosexuality wrong?

Yesterday, I pointed out that there are two, and only two, places in the Bible which speak against homosexuality. One is in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, and the other is here in the epistle to the Romans. This is the ONLY passage in the New Testament criticizing homosexuality. Since the Bible itself advises a double witness, we should be extremely careful in how we interpret this one passage.

So what did Paul mean? First, let’s put the verses in context. These verses are positioned not as a sin but as a punishment. Repeatedly throughout this chapter, Paul lists a sin and with it its punishment. In this case, the sin is idolatry; the punishment is giving them up to their passions; and the people being punished are described as wicked, covetous, malicious, envious, murderous, deceitful, and evil-minded. So, if you apply Paul’s letter to your gay neighbor, you are labeling him as evil in all these ways.

But what does it mean to “give them up to their passions”, passions that are “against nature?”

Paul was a product of his times, so to understand what he was talking about, we must understand the social setting in the first century. The word to learn is “pederasty.” It refers to an acceptable form of same-sex encounters in the Greek and Roman world, defined by one strong partner (acting as the male, if you will) and one weak partner (acting as the female). It was considered a sort of mentor-student relationship, like men with boys. Surely Paul found this “unnatural”–a word which for him did not mean perverse, but against the norm, just as for Paul long hair on a man was “unnatural”.

For the Romans–the audience of Paul’s letter–pederasty came to be particularly disturbing: it began to crop up between a free man and his slave. It was, in other words, no longer consensual sex.

This, explain many scholars, is the real target of Paul’s warning. He was thinking of same-sex rape. In this light, we can now understand how Paul considered “homosexual relations” a punishment, not a sin! Could we have been reading Paul wrong all this time?

Tomorrow, we’ll look at how Paul seems to contradict his own teaching on this matter.

Jude 1:7, Homosexuality and the Bible, Part II of VIII

Sunday, June 29, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 4 comments

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.

//Yesterday, I introduced a week-long series on the topic of homosexuality within the Bible. It actually shouldn’t take that long … we have only two places in the Bible which speak against homosexuality: The Holiness Code of Leviticus, and the letter of Paul to the Romans. While conservative Christians sometimes reference other verses, responsible scholarship points out that they are not really about homosexuality at all. Today’s verse is often referenced in such a manner, but it really doesn’t say anything about homosexuality, does it? As it turns out, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah actually had nothing to do with homosexuality at all … see here. Various references in the Bible about sexual perversions do not specify homosexuality. It is purely in the mind of the reader that homosexuality is thought to be one of those “sexual perversions,” because the Bible doesn’t say this at all.

We as Christians today no longer observe the Old Testament law. Surely none of us dare to speak for God, deciding which O.T. laws should be upheld and which should not, now that Jesus has brought a newer, higher, law. We eat pork; we wear cotton-blend clothing; we allow hunchbacks in our holy places; we don’t strain every drop of blood from our meat. Normally, then, we wouldn’t think twice about refusing to uphold the prohibition against homosexual relations in Leviticus. But then there’s that darn letter of Paul to the Romans.

Yet millions of Christians are saying they can no longer read this letter as instruction to label honest and loving homosexual relations as sinful. I’d like to discuss this topic over several more posts, introducing five respectful questions which, in my opinion, should leave an honest Christian in doubt over whether God really condemns homosexuality. And if there is doubt, it’s surely better to err on the side of compassion. Here are the next five days’ topics:

1. Could we be reading the one N.T. reference to homosexuality wrong?

2. Why does Paul then contradict his teachings on this topic, in this same letter to the Romans?

3. Did Paul mean for us to take this anti-gay teaching (1) literally, (2) in our day today, and (3) as the words of Jesus?

4. Most Christians understand that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but could his actions actually show approval?

5. Given the doubt these topics should introduce, does the vast preponderance of teachings about compassion and acceptance toward the marginalized outweigh the two passages in scripture that seem to teach against homosexuality?

Leviticus 20:13, Homosexuality and the Bible, Part I of VIII

Saturday, June 28, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 8 comments

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

//The greatest challenge today for the Church may be our struggle to overcome a bias against homosexuality, yet I don’t think I’ve ever put my research down in words here. Well, I’m on a week-long vacation, so I’ve queued up this series to cover me while I’m relaxing. So, here we go, on an eight-day investigation.

In the Old Testament, buried within the Law, in a section called the Holiness Code, lies today’s verse … a warning against homosexuality. Here is where it all starts, and to me, the wording is pretty clear. Readers sometimes argue that it refers only to sex between a man and boy (see tomorrow’s post about pederasty), not between two consenting adults, but I’m not convinced. The Bible says what it says: lie with another man and you should die. See also Leviticus 18:22.

Yet, notwithstanding this one law, plus a warning given by Paul to the Romans, I argue that Christians are called to overcome this old law with a doctrine of acceptance and compassion. I’d like to run an eight-part series on this topic, not with the intent of rewriting the Bible, but instead focusing on what we should be doing with what the Bible says. Let’s start with a reminder of why this is such an important issue today:

“More than 34,000 people die by suicide each year,” making it “the third leading cause of death among 15 to 24 year olds with lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth attempting suicide up to four times more than their heterosexual peers.” –thetrevorproject.org

Here is what these numbers mean, as I read it: If, as other studies show, roughly 10% of us prefer same-sex partners, then 10,464 lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth commit suicide every year. This is 7,848 more than would commit suicide if they were straight. This means that 7,848 young people are committing suicide because their sexual preference is causing them distress.

The primary reason for this is our religious teaching. In America, the blame falls squarely on Christianity. Suicides happen because we teach our kids that it is evil or, worse, despicable, to love a person of the same sex. A friend of mine tells how his gay brother committed suicide on the steps of the Mormon church. You may believe that God considers homosexuality a sin, but do not let your religious beliefs hide the truth: If you promote this doctrine, you are contributing to about 7,848 suicides per year among our youth, because of the confusion their sexuality is causing them.

There is no question anymore that homosexuality is not a choice. If you don’t believe the studies, then merely ask any gay person. Moreover, the thousands of suicides each year by gay and lesbian teens is telling; these suicides would not happen if a person could simply choose their sexual preference. The horrible truth is that our beliefs are killing our kids, and this is causing more compassionate Christians to wonder if there is something wrong with our interpretation of scripture.

On this note, let me remind you that the masses are not always right. While it’s true that traditional (conservative) Christianity still believes homosexuality is a sin, we human beings are not infallible. We have misinterpreted the Bible before, using it to condone witch hunts, crusades, and inquisitions. In just the last two centuries in America, the Bible was successfully being used to argue for slavery. So we’ve been wrong before on moral issues.

Yet the Bible seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? Abstain or die. I’d like to examine what the Bible really says over this series, and then compare it to the teachings of Jesus.