Mutable

I'm sure you've seen the shift in public perceptions. And not just the public in general. Seems like every week some well-known pastor is "coming out" (that's a play on words there) in favor of homosexual relationships. A recent issue of World Magazine had an article about a Bible-based pastor who started "City Church—an attempt to build a biblically focused congregation in San Francisco" in 1997 and then shocked the now large congregation in March by announcing that practicing homosexuals could be members in good standing. Times, they are a'changin'.

Leviticus 18 has the famous "anti-gay" verse that those opposed to the claim that the Bible opposes homosexual behavior like to mock. Let's see ... in what ways? Well, they'll tell you "That's Old Testament" and ask if you eat shellfish. They'll tell you "It doesn't mean loving same-sex relationships." They'll do all sorts of dances.^[1]

Here's the actual text.

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Lev 18:22)

It's interesting that the language construction of "lie with a man" is the exact same construction of Paul's Greek word, arsenokoitēs. (It means literally man in bed with man.) But, of course, the dance continues. "It doesn't mean loving same-sex relationships." Except that the text doesn't refer to either "sexual orientation" or whether or not "love" is involved. It refers to sexual acts between the same gender. Both Old and New Testaments classify this as sin. And this text in view here calls it "an abomination".

So, what about that whole "shellfish" thing? Is that an abomination, too? As it turns out, no. The passage on that says,

These you may eat, whatever is in the water: all that have fins and scales, those in the water, in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you, and they shall be abhorrent to you; you may not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses you shall detest. (Lev 11:9-11)

You will notice, even if you don't care, that this one says "detestable", not "abominable". It's not a non-issue. The two texts use different Hebrew words. Presumably to suggest that they are not "abominable" or "detestable" in the same way.

There are a couple of problems with today's "Christian" dissenters on the subject. Very often they'll give you that whole "Old Testament" objection. "Well, do you do other things the Old Testament forbids?" Like that's a measure of what's right or wrong. Using this logic, there are some disturbing values we'll need to change. Leviticus 18 precludes sex with your neighbor's wife (Lev 18:20), offering your kids to Molech (Lev 18:21), and bestiality (Lev 18:23). If you're paying attention, I just gave you three verses directly adjacent to Leviticus 18:22. So if we are dismissing that one, we ought also to dismiss these others. Or they'll tell you, "Maybe God changed His mind." I've actually been told that God brought about these changes we see today. All of Jewish history and all of Christian history has been wrong. God finally got around to straightening things out. And ... whew! ... was that a lot of work. This, of course, is worse than the changes in values we'll need to affect. This is a change in God who does not change (1 Sam 15:29; Jer 4:28). Indeed, if God does change, we can't be sure of anything. And that would include His promise to save (Heb 7:21). If God found something abominable and then decided He liked it, what can you be sure of?

Now, of course, those who have moved away from the biblical and historical consensus^[2] aren't going to read this and say, "Well, looky there. He's right! I'm changing my views." Not my point. But in this day and age where many, even with names you know, are "going out from us" against Scripture and history, I wanted to help bolster those who might look at the exodus and think, "Wait, am I wrong?" If you are (if we are), you are wrong on your other values as well and probably ought not place too much stock in a promise of salvation from a God who changes His mind. That's the alternative to siding with Scripture and history.

________

^[1] You'll hear this argument, too. "There are only 6 verses on the subject. How can you draw a conclusion from that?" There are fewer than 6 verses on bestiality, pedophilia, and a host of other things the Bible touches on and on which we all agree. Are you sure you want to make a count of verses the measure of a moral value?

^[2] Note that all of Jewish and Church history has agreed on the subject up until the late 20th century, and all of the biblical texts on the subject agree as well.