Cultural Crossroad XIX: God Made Me This Way-Part II

Reduced To Absurdity

If the previous argument isn’t enough to refute the pro-homosexual view, the following logic should end the argument. The framing of the “God Made Me This Way” argument as a sinful allowance by God is flawed from a logic standpoint. It assumes one that is guilty of homosexual actions is unique in their type of sin. To agree to frame the debate this way is to pay practicing homosexuals special credence for their particular sin. Sin is sin no matter how it’s framed. God views all sin as an affront to His holy nature. To use this leap of logic for homosexuality requires that we also do it for all sin and all sinners and this would lead to reductio ad absurdum. It would mean that God made a thief a thief, an adulterer an adulterer and so on. Again, this violates Scriptural description of God’s attributes and description of His character.

1 John 3:9 ~ No one who is born of God practices sin, because His [God’s] seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Further Flaws of Logic

Furthermore, God didn’t make these sinful people sinful. Although that it is possible that the entire human race’s nature is corrupted via the Fall of Man (Feinberg 382-383), for someone to say that because God has allowed the sins to continue unabated constitutes an approval of them is another fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. This argument goes as follows:

(1) If God allows homosexuality, He approves of homosexuality
(2) God has allowed homosexuality to continue
(3) Therefore God approves of homosexuality.

The problem with this is that is assumes that the only reason God has allowed the sin of homosexuality to continue it because He approves of it. This is not what Scripture tells us. Just because God has allows any sin to continue does not mean He approves of sin. Scripture is clear on this fact.

Romans 6:1-3 ~ What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

What in reality has happened since Genesis 3 and the Fall of humanity is that God through His forbearance and patience has allowed human sins to continue and not judge people for their sin outright which is what they deserved.

Romans 6:23 ~ For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Some Christians, unsure of Scripture will assume that, for reasons only a God can know, he allows sinners (like homosexuals) to continue to sin in this fallen world. This is an incorrect assumption. Scripture tells us exactly why God continues to allow sinners to sin and also allows evil and suffering to continue in this world in 2 Peter and it is not because He approves of sin. It is just the opposite reason.

2 Peter 3:9 ~ The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you [a sinner], not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

The truth is that God is extraordinarily patient when it comes to our sin (Erickson 195, Grudem 201-202). He is giving humanity and individual humans every possible chance to repent and turn to Him for forgiveness of the very sins they are committing (Enns 337). In the end, logic and Scripture repudiates the flawed assertion that God makes homosexuals the way they are. This also goes a long way to repudiate the eunuch/homosexual argument put forth about Matthew 19, Daniel and the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8 that says some eunuchs are made the way they are by birth (Helminiak 127).

Theological Implications of Human Choice

To wrap-up the “God Made Me This Way/Genetics Argument” the following can be stated. Just like any other volitional action whether it is physical, mental, sexual or otherwise, it is a choice. Granted it is sometimes an incredibly difficult choice to stop some of these sins but it is not an impossible task to cease from one’s entrenched sin. The question that needs to be asked in this situation is this: Is a sinner expected to try and stop their sin on their own without help? Is that what is truly expected of a sinner? The answer: Yes and no. God expects us to turn and repent of sins. In reality, He knows His creation as only a Creator God would know it…and it is the very reason God foreknew that He would send His Son Jesus Christ. We are all slaves to sin and we are all totally incapable of beating sin without God as Romans 3 clearly states. We would need righteousness apart from the Law and human works.

1 Corinthians 5:21 ~ He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Romans 3:25 ~ God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished...

John 3:17 ~ "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

The bible tells us that it is impossible to uphold the Bible’s standards of holiness from the human perspective but through God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26-27, Luke 1:37, Philippians 4:13). This includes not only physically resisting of the sin but even the more difficult task of not thinking the sin. This process that last throughout our time on earth is called sanctification. It is both a passive and active role that we play. By yielding ourselves over to God we depend on God to sanctify us (Erickson 326, Grudem 754). We are to strive for holiness and without which no one will see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14) and we are to abstain from immorality and obey the will of God (1 Thessalonians 4:3) that is our sanctification (Grudem 755). The start of the turnaround is the admission of guilt of one’s sin. God cannot make a person remorseful of sin because this is a volitional act (a choice). Without an admission of one’s sin, there is no repentance (Erickson 279, 308; Grudem 713).

It doesn’t matter if this sin is homosexuality or any other sin. To refuse to admit that a choice is involved here is to deny any culpability in one’s own sin (Grudem 333-334). This is either an inability or it is an unwillingness to take accountability for one’s actions. To take accountability for one’s actions would be and admission of the guilt of the transgressor/sinner. It would force an individual to acknowledge their sin. Sinful humanity will not nor cannot do this as it is not their nature as stated in Romans 3:9-20 (Erickson 190, Grudem 497).

Cultural Crossroad XVIII: God Made Me This Way-Part I

The “God Made Me This Way” or Genetics Argument for Homosexuality

Through a proper theological understanding of God backed with Scripture and properly understood logic it is conceivable that this argument can be refuted without getting into myopic scientific minutiae (but I'll touch on it now a little to make my point). It is critical to refute this argument because the modern theological division is divided at this point.  I suspect this is the avenue down which I will receive the stiffest opposition and be savagely attacked for this particular argument. 

On one side we have conservative theology that believes that homosexuality is inherently sinful and is the position of this paper. On the opposing side are those that believe or accept that homosexuals are made the way they are or have little or no choice in the manner (Holtam 593). The recent trend culturally is that even the wordage of this phenomena has even changed over the last few years to enforce the idea that homosexuality is now an "orientation" rather than a "preference" which would indicate a choice. These terms (like those of abortion) become exceptionally important when dealing with legal or litigious issues concerning respective legalities. It needs to also be mentioned that no studies have ever conclusively proved there is any genetic linkage to the behavior of homosexuality. As this is primarily a biblical and theological series on homosexuality and so that I do not bog down this post with unwarranted scientific complexities I reference some of the most recent scientific references here in their source material: Mustanski et al-Human Genetics 116, 272–27 ; Rice et al-Science 284: 665-667. 

Having tentatively mentioned that the genetic argument for homosexuality stands on extremely shaky ground I now move to the main gist of my theological/biblical polemic.

First, based on previous argumentation it can conclusively be shown that homosexuality is a sin (among many others). Sin by its nature is not of or from a holy God per se as this would contradict God’s nature being holy. Therefore God could not have made a human homosexual or sinful. Additional Scripture validating the attributes and nature of God are as follows.

1 John 1:5 ~ This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

Habakkuk 1:13 ~ Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

When confronted with sinful sexual circumstances including immoral or wicked thoughts humans are confronted with a choice (freewill) to violate the rules and statutes that God has ordained for human sexual activity. The truth is that the only acceptable sex acts are those within the covenant of marriage between man and woman (Genesis 2, Ephesians 5). What we choose to do with our minds and subsequently our bodies when dealing with temptation and sin is choice (Enns 209, Erickson 210-212, Grudem 333). If our fantasies and acts of sexuality are outside of marriage they are in violation of Scripture, therefore they are sin and an offense against God. The Bible is replete with examples of sexual sin being sins of choice. From the mouth of Paul we again see the following about adulterers, thieves, homosexuals, etc.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9-11

The implication in the above passage is that the believers made a choice to believe and become part of the Church. Paul then states that it was a past action / condition. Therefore by entering the Church they were to put away the old behaviors such as homosexuality. It is clear that because Paul needed to address these sins in such a manner, some within the Corinthian church were still choosing to commit the aforementioned sins. They would now need to make a choice to stop committing these sins. More specifically, they having been told these sins are clearly out of bounds for Christian behavior and the Corinthians should at least now be convicted of their immoral behavior enough to feel guilt and wish to stop these sins of their own volition.

When we begin to combine the idea of sexual thoughts / sexual acts being choice with the idea that a person may have homosexual inclinations we see an inconsistency. The first premise logically invalidates the second premise or claim. Even though a person may be homosexual and have homosexual proclivity - like unmarried heterosexuals, they have a biblical obligation to control not only their physical sexual life but also their sexual thought life just as Jesus said:

Matthew 5:27 ~ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Although the passage above does not speak directly to homosexuals the underlying principle is clear. To look at a woman (or object of desire) and have sexual thoughts about her/him outside the bounds of marriage (adultery) is to sin. To think a sin is to have committed the sin in your mind. It therefore follows logically that any sexual thoughts about another human being (or animal) outside the bond of marriage is improper and sinful. Since homosexuality is not within the acceptable confines of what is considered legitimate biblical marriage, we see a compounding of sin (Romans 1). 

What is additionally interesting about the Habakkuk 2 passage above is that it speaks not only to the fact that God is pure and cannot look upon evil but it also alludes to the idea that God allowed/allows wickedness (therefore sin). It is at from this angle of the pro-homosexual argument that we arrive at the aspect that says homosexuals cannot help that they are the way they are. It is the idea that God may not have made a person homosexual but he has allowed people that choice to sin and perform homosexual acts.

Revealing Christ In The Old Testament XXV: Spitting Nails

Nahum

For a prophet whose name means comfort, he carries a burden: The message of the destruction of Nineveh and the ferocious burning anger towards them from God. God is spitting nails in this prophet's book. It is as if His blood is like boiling lead. God’s comfort though Nahum is for the kingdom of Judah. In the mist of this comfort we see mention of God’s wrath or anger three different times with three different Hebrew words in one verse which is directed a God’s enemies. We see a word that means indignation or figuratively frothing at the mouth or seething in anger זַעְמֹו֙. We see a fuming from the nostrils in anger in אַפֹּ֑ו. We see חֲמָתֹו֙ meaning fury in correlation to heat caused by said anger. Perhaps because of the redness of a face in one that is emotionally agitated. God isn’t just a little upset here he is fuming, seething and this fierce anger is projecting heat outwards towards the object of His wrath…His enemies…those disobedient and in rebellion against Him. Not a real good place to be.

Who can stand before his indignation? Who can endure the heat of his anger? His wrath is poured out like fire, and the rocks are broken into pieces by him. The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; he knows those who take refuge in him. But with an overflowing flood he will make a complete end of the adversaries, and will pursue his enemies into darkness. Nahum 1:6-8

We see a distinct contrast of love for those that take refuge in Him and wrath that do not trust in Him. These contrasts are clear, obvious and poignant for any that will take the time to read them. It is a later reiteration of Deuteronomy 28’s, blessing for those that are obedient and curses for those that are disobedient. Those that do not obey the word of the Lord are His enemy by their very nature.

So we see the disobedience of Nineveh. They were warned judgment would come by God’s reluctant prophet Jonah and they initially responded in a positive manner to Jonah but a few years down the road, like natural sinners will, they slid back into their sin and rebellion against God. The remainder of the prophecy (and book) of Nahum is pointed like a nail gun at Nineveh. Nahum literally acts as the counterpart to Jonah and his book and prophecy. In Jonah we see a patient and merciful God both with Jonah’s antics and with the antics of Nineveh. In Nahum we see the study of contrasts. We see God’s trigger of wrath being pulled on His enemies after having exhausted His long-suffering patience. He had been supernaturally patient but now…that time was over. How long oh Lord will this modern nation of America be allowed to pursue its wayward and sinful ends before you pull the trigger on your anger…before you drop the hammer on the head of an apostate nail? Have you already done so (as I suspect you have)? Is that resounding ring in my ears the report of your hammer hitting its mark? Woe to those who have called evil good.

Nineveh had returned to its sin after initially repenting but now they were flipping their finger at Him. We see right in its leader Sennacherib a blasphemous and flippant attitude towards God.

“Whatever they plot against the Lord he will bring to an end; trouble will not come a second time. They will be entangled among thorns and drunk from their wine; they will be consumed like dry stubble. From you, Nineveh, has one come forth who plots evil against the Lord and devises wicked plans.” Nahum 1:9, 11

Assorted passages from 2 Chronicles 3:29-20:

(v. 10-11)“This is what Sennacherib king of Assyria says: On what are you basing your confidence, that you remain in Jerusalem under siege? When Hezekiah says, ‘The Lord our God will save us from the hand of the king of Assyria,’ he is misleading you, to let you die of hunger and thirst.”

also

(v.13-17) “Do you not know what I and my predecessors have done to all the peoples of the other lands? Were the gods of those nations ever able to deliver their land from my hand? Who of all the gods of these nations that my predecessors destroyed has been able to save his people from me? How then can your god deliver you from my hand? Now do not let Hezekiah deceive you and mislead you like this. Do not believe him, for no god of any nation or kingdom has been able to deliver his people from my hand or the hand of my predecessors. How much less will your god deliver you from my hand!” Sennacherib’s officers spoke further against the Lord God and against his servant Hezekiah.  The king also wrote letters ridiculing the Lord, the God of Israel, and saying this against him: “Just as the gods of the peoples of the other lands did not rescue their people from my hand, so the god of Hezekiah will not rescue his people from my hand.” 

What bold arrogance we read of here. Through all of this we see a God who showed His longsuffering character and mercy in Jonah continue into the beginning of Nahum but in the beginning of Nahum we see God’s patience end. In Jonah we see the God or LORD of Exodus 34:6 who:

“…the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness…” Exodus 34:6

In Nahum we see the avenger and the jealous God, although slow to anger, eventually He judges wickedness.

The Lord is slow to anger but great in power; the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet. Nahum 1:3

Nahum’s message of comfort for Judah is that Nineveh’s day was coming and the judgment would be absolute and utter destruction for the Ninevites. They were absolutely and utterly doomed. There were no conditions here.  This was not a conditional prophecy like Jonah’s, this was like a bullet (or nail) already released from the chamber heading towards its end. When Nineveh fell it was at the absolute height of its power (just as America appears to be now). So complete was Nineveh’s destruction, so deep was her grave that she totally disappeared from history and it happened virtually overnight in terms of historic timescales. It wasn’t until modern times in 1841-42 that scientists were able to affirm the truth/evidence of Nineveh’s existence after it had been completely eradicated.

What is the principle and moral of the story? If you’re on the receiving end of God’s justice, His righteous hammer of judgment will most certainly crush you and you will be ground to unidentifiable power or sand. When He’s done with you, most will not even know that you ever existed. Just ask the Ninevites. Oh wait, you can’t, they haven’t existed since the 7th century BC…yet the Jews and Israel still do along with Christians.

In a moral and symbolic sense, Nineveh (and ironically America, or any apostate nation) is described in Romans 1:21-23. The chief deity of sinful Nineveh was the bull-god that had the face of a man and the wings of a bird. This is the same description given in Romans of ''an image made like corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts.''

What is the context and what does Romans 1 speak of? It speaks of people or persons that have been given over to their own sins in judgment due to apostasy. The fact that they have been given over to this sin speaks of the judgment in itself. The end result of this judgment is not conditional… it is complete and absolute. People that reach this extent of apostasy are visited upon by catastrophic destruction.  Those of Sodom and Gomorrah and those of Noah’s time would agree if they could…but they’ve been destroyed, haven’t they? Even apostate Christianity will meet this end…

Luke 17:26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.

So where is Christ in this? He's in the repentance and long-suffering loving-kindness. He is in the willingness to reach out and die for others while they are still His enemies. He is also in that moment when the sinner has just gone too far and are turned over to their judgment. It isn't until we turn to Him and repent that we truly understand what He has done for us, saving us from the wrath of God. To date, the Jews have still not figured it out and it has been two thousand years and they are still paying the price of their stiff necks.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ ”Matthew 23:37

Cultural Crossroad XVII: Another Case of Homosexuality That Wasn't

Were Ruth and Naomi Lesbians?

Along the same lines as David and Jonathan we have Ruth and Naomi and the assertion that they were gay. Frankly, there is not much evidence to go on to defend a homosexual relationship in the Book of Ruth (Helminiak 126).  Again we are confronted with a single verse of Scripture to base a homosexual interpretation on.

The claim is that Ruth 1:14 is a biblical assertion that these Biblical women were gay. They base a majority of their argument on one passage (like Daniel 1:9) that seems clearly torn from its context of loyalty and family and the overarching theme of the Kinsman Redeemer (Levirate marriage) in the book of Ruth (Cundall 242). It is in this passage that shows Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi (Cundall et al 259) that many within the homosexual community claim is  an affirming “messages for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people” (Would Jesus Discriminate?-Ruth and Naomi). They claim that in the story of Ruth we see the Bible address the question: Can two people of the same sex live in committed, loving relationship with the blessing of God? They are implying that this loving committed relationship could potentially be sexual.

Ruth 1:14 “And they lifted up their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.”

The focal point in this passage for the gay community is a single word: דָּ֥בְקָה /dabaq or clung. Orpah kissed her mother but Ruth, her daughter-in-law clung to her. The word דָּ֥בְקָה is indeed the exact same term used by Genesis 2:24 to describe the how man will leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife or specifically how Adam was to cling or cleave to Eve. It is a word that does show the unique closeness that can be experience in a marriage relationship (Wolf 522). Interestingly, the word order in the Hebrew places Ruth ahead of דָּ֥בְקָה /dabaq therefore it emphasizes the contrast between the response of Orpah and Ruth. The purpose of the writer of Ruth was to show the two women who were initially viewed as equals to be actually quite different. Orpah goes with a natural course of obeying Naomi’s wishes but Ruth picks the harder spiritual and emotional course but one that is more loyal to Naomi (Block 638).

This is a relationship of closeness founded in faith and loyalty not lust (similar to David and Jonathan). There is a familial relationship taking place here. It is indeed possible to have a very close familial relationship similar to that of a husband and wife in other relationships in a family. It does not follow that the relationship needs to also contain aspects of sexuality or eros like that of Adam and Eve. This is a fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. It is no different than saying: Gay people hug in a loving and affectionate manner, Naomi and Ruth hugged in a loving and affectionate manner, therefore Naomi and Ruth have to be gay. There are other reasons in Scripture that people clung/cleaved and they were not sexual in their motive. Clearly this passage concerning the gleaning of Boaz’s fields that uses the same verbiage is not homosexual in its intent and it resides right within Ruth:

Ruth 2:21 ~ Then Ruth the Moabitess said [speaking to Naomi], “Furthermore, he [Boaz] said to me, ‘You should stay close [cleave/cling] to my servants until they have finished all my harvest

It is interesting to note that the supposed homosexual passage of Ruth 1:14 is immediately followed by a declaration of faith in God by Ruth (which is conspicuously absent from many homosexual arguments). Had these verse that immediately followed verse 14 been read and taken into account also in this context, it would easily dispel the assertion that Ruth is clinging to Naomi in a sexual or romantic manner. She is clinging physically to Naomi but spiritually and in the context of Scripture, she is clinging in faith to God.

Ruth 1:15-18 Then she said, “Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the Lord do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me.” When she saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her.

Ruth immediately responds to Naomi in a theological manner in verses 15-18, not a homosexual manner. She states that Orpah has gone back to her people and “her gods.” Ruth then followed her initial statement with an immediate statement that she wouldn’t leave Naomi nor would she leave Naomi’s God. Far from being a sexual assertion, this passage is a profound theological statement from Ruth about her faith in Naomi’s God (the God of the Bible) and how that ties into her relation to Naomi (Block 639). This is an issue of spirituality, not sexuality. To read sexuality into this passage is to re-frame the context of the passage.

This scenario also begs the question. If Ruth was indeed a lesbian, why would she inevitably marry Boaz and also sleep with Boaz to produce offspring (Ruth 4:13). At the point of Obed’s birth we see Naomi taking the child, laying him in her lap, and becoming his nurse. This hardly seems like the behavior of a jilted lesbian lover.

Cultural Crossroad XVI: Heterosexual Admiration or Homosexual Adoration?

The Peculiar Case of David and Jonathan’s Love

Were David and Jonathan gay lovers? Is there an Ancient Near East homosexual love story that unfolds in 1 and 2 Samuel? In a word: No. This explanation will be rather lengthy but simple to understand. It is another example of poor hermeneutics that are further exacerbated by a failure to be able to read/interpret the original Hebrew and theological principles.

“Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt…” 1 Samuel 18:1-4

Pro-homosexual advocates are quick to cite the relationship between David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18:1-4 (secondarily 1 Samuel 20:16-17) as probably being a homosexual relationship (Helminiak 123-125, White et al-Kindle location 104). This is because of the statement in 1 Samuel 18:1 that says the “soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself”, verse 3’s statement that “Jonathan loved him as himself” and verse 4’s, “Jonathan stripped himself…” The wordage that Jonathan stripped himself is often attributed to the fact he was undressing for a sexual act. Jonathan didn’t strip naked here. What happens in this verse is a physical act with symbolic implications.

In reality, for Jonathan the heir apparent to the throne to strip of his robe, sword, etc. (royal regalia) and give it to David was an acknowledgement by a King’s son (Saul) that David was indeed the divine elect of God (Youngblood 707). In other words…in the time of David, which was approx. 1000 B.C., for a person of position and power to relinquish their weapon, armor and royal robe was to essentially divest themselves of power and hand it to the person they hand these items to. It was the same as handing someone your royal scepter. In this case it is David. Jonathan knew David was truly God’s chosen, not his father - nor him. By doing these things he was essentially throwing his potential crown he would gain from his father at David’s feet acknowledging David as true king-God's king (Gagnon 150-Homosexual Practice, Merrill 449, Youngblood 707).

Admiration Not Adoration

What we see in this passage is a respect or admiration for David by Jonathan, not a homosexual adoration. This is not imagery of a homosexual tryst. It is the passing of a mantle or rightful transfer of political power. Because we are dealing with David who is God’s chosen there is a covenantal aspect to this also (Youngblood 707). How Jonathan's obedience to God and acknowledgement of David as true king can be interpreted as homosexual encounter is unfathomable. This is especially true when the dominate pattern of the Bible that this passage resides in clearly condemns immoral sexual behavior that includes homosexuality or same-sex intercourse. To assume one of God’s chosen or a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22) is homosexual is to smear and defame God’s character / name and it betrays a complete lack of understanding of Scriptural principles.

The homosexual inference is further compounded with 2 Samuel 1:26’s lament from David over Jonathan’s death when David says, “I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women. It is assumed that the word love here is sexual and above that of women. A gender comparison does not assume a love that is sexual in nature, as this is a fallacy of composition (Jenni et al 48-49). This is a reference again to David and Jonathan’s deep covenant relationship mentioned in 1 Samuel 18:3, 20:8. It is a love of covenant/political loyalty and friendship (Youngblood 816).

David and Jonathan really loved one another, this much is clear. The question is: Does the relationship as described in Scripture warrant seeing them as homosexuals? The Bible makes it abundantly clear that the love between David and Jonathan was deep (real deep). The word love in Hebrew in this and other passages like 1 Samuel is “וַיֶּאֱהָבֵ֥הוּ/aheb” which means to have affection for, sexual or otherwise (Jenni 47). In the political/covenant context of David (God’s true king) and Jonathan (Saul’s heir apparent), this would not make sense (Youngblood 707, 725). What is sad is that this assertion is incongruous to the preponderant pattern of Scripture (Analogy of Scripture) and is totally counter-intuitive in terms of the biblical condemnation of sexual immorality.

When doing hermeneutics and words studies whether they are Hebrew or Greek, the context of the passage and context of Scripture at large need to be taken into consideration. This is not being done with this passage if people believe this relationship speaks of homosexuality. One needs only look at Genesis 22:2 to see the exact same word (love) being used between two other males in the Old Testament…and they are clearly not homosexual (Jenni 48). It is God speaking to Abraham about his son whom he loved in the same manner David loved Jonathan: It was Isaac. We also see it in Leviticus 19:18 when we read that God said, "…you shall love/ahab/ בְּאַהֲבָת֥וֹ your neighbor as yourself” (Jenni 50). If this is homosexual love, this means God is telling the Israelites to love everyone in a homosexual manner. This is wrong to the point of absurdity.

Again, this understanding totally violates the premise of God’s natural order and God’s premise for sexual relationships or any normal heterosexual relationships for that matter because we are called to love all our neighbors. We even see the same word in the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 where believers are called to, “love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Jenni 53). God is not calling us to love Him in a homosexual manner. This was it an intense pure covenant love, not homosexual lust. The places where homosexual intercourse are referred to in the Old Testament it is referred to as יָדַע or yada / “to know” as in Genesis 19:5 with Lot in Sodom and Judges 19:22 with the Levite and His Concubine (Block 537). This also seems to show that it isn’t even love related to covenant or loyalty (ἀγάπη / φιλέω) that is being addressed in the strictest sense where יָדַע / yada is being used in these respective passages. It is in reality just a sexual act of lust (ερος).

In 1 Samuel 20:41 we also see, “After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.”

When viewed from a presupposition that assumes homosexuality, it is easy to see how these passages can be misinterpreted. The homosexual view of this is that it is a “homosexual kiss.” Again we revisit context, this time in a cultural manner. Men in the time of David greeting other men Ancient Middle Eastern (AME) culture is much the same as it is now. This should be especially evident as all the other actions involved in this passage are in a formal greeting (the acts of bowing). It was and is a common cultural greeting for men in that day to greet one another by bowing/bending and with a kiss. Furthermore, it did not occur until two and a half chapters after Jonathan gave David his clothes (1 Samuel 18 thru 1 Samuel 20). This hardly happens in a single romantic evening rendezvous regardless of what people want to read into the text.

The truth is there is no suggestion in the Bible that David and Jonathan were homosexual. This is misinterpretation of the Hebrew or Septuagint Greek based on the context and speculative revisionism. In the larger context of Scripture and David’s life in general, the issue for David does not appear to be an issue of homosexuality; it appears to be an overabundance of heterosexuality. David, like his son Solomon was a heterosexual polygamist based on the evidences of Scripture (DeYoung 290).  David indeed had a problem with sexual immorality but it had to do with quantities, not types.

It seems that this love between Jonathan and David is a covenant love that finds God in the center as witness to it and ironically as the binding agent too (Youngblood 707). Homosexual presuppositions are clearly being read into the text. John Boswell who speaks from a pro-homosexual viewpoint seems to affirm this sentiment about the stories of David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi by only stating that they have erotic overtones but he never insists that they are homosexual (Boswell-Kindle location 2878). It doesn't seem that he was bold or foolish enough to bridge that interpretive chasm and jeopardize his academic credibility.

Cultural Crossroad XV: Were Daniel and Ashpenaz Homosexual?

Daniel and A Divine Act of Grace

It becomes immediately evident when researching the alleged homosexuality of Daniel and Ashpenaz that the assertion is based on one verse in Daniel’s superscription (Helminiak 127). The homosexual viewpoint is formulated by a single verse or more specifically two words within Daniel 1:9. Proper hermeneutics is to not formulate an entire doctrine around one verse of Scripture but this appears to be the case here.

What is interesting about this passage in Daniel is that it is also the Hebrew that is being used to defend a pro-homosexual position.

Daniel 1:9 ~ “Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.” (KJV)

Daniel 1:9 ~ "Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified)

The traditional view of the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz is that it is friendship at best and nothing within the context alludes to sexuality. Ashpenaz was the chief eunuch guarding the family of Nebuchadnezzar. He is most known for the diet and lifestyle administered to Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Brand et al 126). This of course does not prevent people with a poor grasp of the Bible and improper hermeneutics from seeing what they want to see in the text. From a theological point of view it is incomprehensible that A God who hates sin would make one of His prophets homosexual when His Law strictly forbids it. Prophets in the very office/role they inhabit are heralds of the Law and when all else fails they are heralds of doom.

Because of the wordage of specific English versions and liberal interpretation of the Hebrew of this passage, some believe that there could’ve possibly been an insinuation of a homosexual relationship when it says that God had brought tender love (KJV) on Daniel from Ashpenaz (Robinson). What this view completely fails to take into account is that the Bible specifically calls homosexuality sin and being such is against God’s nature. When viewed from the proper historical context, Sitz im leben and the Sitz im buch the passage defends itself as being non-homosexual. In Hebrew it says that God had brought Daniel וּֽלְרַחֲמִ֑ים/racham and לְחֶ֖סֶד/checed in the sight of Ashpenaz (Harris 305-307). The word לְחֶ֖סֶד /checed or hesed in the Hebrew is a word that can mean favor and other things such as mercy, loyalty and love. In this context is makes sense to understand the use of the word to be align to a meaning of loyalty and/or or kindness not love as is being implied from a homosexual point of view (especially love in an erotic sexual sense). It should be understood to mean favor or a kindness of a man towards a man. The other word וּֽלְרַחֲמִ֑ים/racham based on the context should be viewed to mean compassion of man for another a man. This passage is merely stating that Daniel was given loyalty and compassion by Ashpenaz specifically because of God.

Based on a request by Daniel to not defile himself by partaking of forbidden food and drink, “he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way.” We do not see a statement of sexuality in Daniel 1:9; instead we see a statement about faith and conviction. So much so that God inspired Ashpenaz to take notice to this and it inspired a favor and loyalty in him towards Daniel. God gave this kindness to Daniel through Ashpenaz. It is clear to Ashpenaz that Daniel’s request was based in a principled decision and conviction. It would also appear that Ashpenaz’s recognition of this fact was a result of divine grace.

What most homosexual exegetes miss in this verse by focusing on the “compassion” and “favor” is the fact that God has the definite article attached to it in Hebrew in order to show that this is indeed an act of grace towards Daniel by the Elohim or the One True God. God always honors those that are faithful witnesses to Him. It therefore follows that a homosexual prophet is not being an obedient faithful witness to the One True God because they would be committing an overt sin being his representative. It is in total violation of Scripture and is therefore totally incompatible with God’s character (Young 45).

It is totally against God’s attributes to ascribe to Him the favor given Daniel from Ashpenaz was homosexual in nature. This is a total misreading of the passage and it is forcing a non-theological context into the passage that does not belong there. What we see is another forced homosexual presupposition into a theological statement about the relationship between two men. It is a relationship that clearly had positive biblical connotations because we see God acting as the prime mover behind the scenes.

Momma Didn't Raise No Fool

"Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly." Matthew 1:19

In Mary and in Joseph, we see an interesting balance that we will also see in Jesus. Mary, who was willing to be used by God to fulfill His will...just as we will see in Jesus. Joseph a hard-working humble carpenter or tradesman also willing to fulfill the will of their Father in Heaven. Mary willing to take on a shameful pregnancy to fulfill God's will and remain obedient to what God had called her to. Joseph, who by law, could've embarrassed Mary horribly and her family by making this episode or divine pregnancy public, who could've had her put to death because of the shame her pregnancy would've had on him. He chose to do neither because...

"...after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." Matthew 1:20

We see in Jesus' female role-model, the obedient woman of God submitting to not only God's will but the godly husband in her life (Ephesians 5). A good woman who did not "hen-peck" or browbeat her husband into doing what she wanted him to do but rather acted as a sanctifying agent in Joseph's life. We see in Joseph, Jesus' earthly masculine role model a balance of righteousness and love. These are the woman and man God chose to raise His Son in His earthly incarnation. A carpenter's wife and a carpenter. A godly mother and a godly father. A blue-collar family if I ever did see one. We see two people full of grace and truth. We need to understand that it needs to be a balance too. Too much grace and we cripple a person, too much truth and we can kill them. A woman confronted with a divine plan that could've run but stood and obeyed. A man that, by law could've had Mary put away but by mercy and grace not only accepted what he was told to him (conception by the Holy Spirit) but was also willing to marry her and face the lifelong ridicule and flapping lips in Nazareth. Lips that surrounded tongues that spewed salacious rumors and biting comments about his wife, his son and himself. A man that put his own needs and wants in submission to his wife and his son. Mary too would put many of her needs into submission also as see would henceforth make her needs secondary to being a mother. It is the quiet submissive leadership of both that serves to nurture Jesus. We must remember that Jesus

"...grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." Luke 2:52

We know that the example of humility and servant leadership that He gained and learned in His youth primarily came from Mary and Joseph being His primary care-givers. Mary the earthly momma of Jesus and Joseph adopted Jesus as his own. Jesus would take on the sinners as His own. Through His work on the cross the Gentiles would be adopted into the family also.

In Jesus we see a man (like his momma and poppa) that would be willing to suffer humiliation and suffering for the well-being of another...just like his earthly parents. Another (one) that wasn't necessarily his (at least not yet ;) at the time as they had not even been born yet. Yet Jesus would suffer even death on a cross for those unborn sinners yet to be born and sin. Sinners that were still his enemies. 

The example of mercy over law shown by Joseph in the birth narrative will again surface in other places in Jesus' life. The one that comes to my mind is Jesus being Lord of the Sabbath.

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grain fields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:23-28

What we see happen here is quite simple. The Pharisees had created so many legalistic rules that fenced in and surrounded the Law. The true purpose of the Law had been subverted. What did Jesus say all the laws and prophets hung on?

"Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 22:37-39

The purpose of the Law was to bring the people back to God and the first sign of this would've been a love for others of God (or your neighbor). If you love someone you are more concerned for their well-being and comfort if they are within the acceptable practices outlined by God. You will not care if they are bending some unknown legalism outlined by the culture. The Pharisees and their stupid rules? Their legalism alienated man from both their fellow man and God. If a man is loving God and his fellow man  he probably wouldn't be sinning to begin with which then wouldn't require atonement. No sin no need for forgiveness. Hosea outlined this thought quite nicely...

"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

Jesus comes not to judge but to save. He came to dwell among the sinners and save them. To dwell among the sick and heal them. To dwell among the poor and help them.

“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him,  and he will bring justice to the nations. He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his teaching the islands will put their hope.” Isaiah 42:1-4

The Pharisees in their arrogant hypocrisy made laws that separated themselves from people. Separated themselves from the sinners that they were charged with shepherding and teaching the ways of the Lord. Jesus came to build the sinner up and help them understand the errors of their way. The Pharisees came with their legalism and bludgeoned them over the head with nonsensical rules surrounding the Law that not only did not make anyone holy it made the Pharisees sons of Hell and made their converts something even worse...They made the blind even blinder (if that's possible) and made to sinners more wretched.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are." Matthew 23:15

The suffocating legalistic rules of the religious leaders built a fence around the true Law never allowing the sinners to even approach the true commandments of God. The rules of these hypothetical dopes burdened the people and beat them down. The people never had a chance.

Conversely, Jesus came to build people up like a loving parent should, like His parents did to Him (both earthly and heavenly). He explained to people that in an emptied state and in a contrite humbleness, man is most usable by God. An empty vessel can be filled but a full one overfilled with junk needs to be emptied first or it is worthless...and Jesus did this by example.

"And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!" Philippians 2:8

The Pharisees rules were a burden over the Law but Jesus...came to remove that burden. The burden in the following verse is the Law itself (the yoke). Jesus came to fulfill it thereby removing the yoke from the backs of the people (who could not attain it) and put it on Himself. The only requirement would then be to believe in the work Christ had done in His ministry.

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” Matthew 11:28-30

God desires loving mercy folks. Compassion for the sick (from illness and sin). Not divisiveness and argumentativeness that leads to division. Perhaps if we treated everyone like a mother treats her son or the Father treated the Son we would learn to better understand how to handle and deal with a person that stumbles in sin. When a mother's child falls or stumbles in sin do they berate them because they have not agreed with our exact way of doing things or do we coax and guide them through lessons, ideas, stories. Do we bludgeon them with stupid insulting comments telling them exactly how it should be or do we show them through example. Sometimes it pays to show not tell, instead of a show n' tell of all our self-righteous arrogant verbosity.

Jesus only wanted the best for His children and He was exceptionally patient with them to get them to come around yet many still resisted...just like children will.

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Matthew 23:37

Can we do no less in our time here on earth? To act as a mother embracing her child or a father loving his wife who is the mother of his child or children. In the end, God will call all of His children home. Shouldn't we at least try and emulate his example of paternal love and give selflessly to our children (and His) until He calls us home?

Revealing Christ In The Old Testament XXIV: Who Is Like God?

Micah (Who Is Like God?)

Micah's lived in the village of Moreshah which was a on a Mediterranean flood plain of Judah, near the borders of the Philistines. The word of the Lord came to him in the days of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. His prophecies concerned Samaria and Jerusalem (the northern and southern kingdoms). God’s word through Micah primarily hammered Judah. He was a contemporary or lived at the same time as Hosea and Isaiah. It is clear God was hitting his people with prophecies from multiple sources just in case they might have thought it was a fluke coming from one. It was a divine double-barrel.

Micah had the same name (albeit abbreviated) as Micaiah, the son of Iralah a prophet of Israel, who stood alone for God against 400 false prophets in the days of Ahab, when he and Jehoshaphat went against Ramoth-Gilead in 1 Kings 22. Micaiah ends his prophecy with the following words:

1 Kings 22:28 ~ “Micaiah said, “If you indeed return safely the Lord has not spoken by me.” And he said, “Listen, all you people.”

It is interesting that 150 years later his namesake Micah (abbreviated) will begin his prophecies with the very same words. All the main divisions of his prophecies will begin with the same exact exhortation (Micah 1:2, 3:1, 6:1). People are to hear or take heed. Just like people need to hear the Gospel as it is by hearing that faith comes (Romans 10:17). We see hints of the belief and faith that will be required to trust in the Gospel, just as these hearers of prophecy will need to trust in prophetic foretelling/forthtelling.

Micah 1:2 ~ “Hear, O peoples, all of you; listen, O earth and all it contains, and let the Lord God be a witness against you, the Lord from His holy temple.

Micaiah (in 1 Kings) had seen:

1 Kings 22:17, 2 Chronicles 18:16  ~ “…all Israel scattered on the mountains, like sheep which have no shepherd. And the Lord said, ‘These have no master. Let each of them return to his house in peace.”

It would therefore be ironic (or cleverly planned by god) that Micah's prophecies teem with allusions to the Good Shepherd and His merciful care over His flock. With a broken heart Micah announces God's judgment on Judah for sin, but he seems to dawdle purposely over the message of God's love and mercy. He then concludes his prophecy with an especially beautiful proclamation in which he uses his very namesake Micah or (Who is like God)…

Micah 7:18-20 ~ “Who is a God like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love. He will again have compassion on us; He will tread our iniquities under foot. Yes, You will cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. You will give truth to Jacob and unchanging love to Abraham, which You swore to our forefather from the days of old.

It is here that we see Jesus in his most luminescent state in Micah. We see Jesus the Redeemer from sin, the One that will tread our iniquities under foot. No other idol can forgive sins and no false God can save us from our sins. This is the work only from Jesus. This is the message Micah took the most joy in proclaiming and it is the one that we as Christians should also get the most joy from also. It is Micah’s very name that makes his most joyous proclamation (and ours) for him (and us).

So a message is delivered to Samaria and the Cities or Judah. Micah proclaims the coming judgment to Samaria first, and then upon Judah. These were all fulfilled by the forces of Assyria. The idolatry and contamination of Israel had spread south to Jerusalem, and the point of contagion appears to have been Lachish.

Micah 1:13 ~ “Harness the chariot to the team of horses, O inhabitant of Lachish-She was the beginning of sin to the daughter of Zion—Because in you were found the rebellious acts of Israel.

It is idolatry and its associated evils that Micah condemns and he also rebukes the extreme oppression of the poor, women and little children being made homeless. Micah rips into those that are being covetousness, even at the cost of blood and violence which Micah compares to cannibalism. He specially denounces the sins of the rulers, bribery in the courts and among the judges, and false weights and balances. We can see many of these parallels today in the culture worldwide. It should come as no surprise that these crimes and moral infractions brought with them severe judgment just as we see in Micah’s time, and just as we are seeing now with the degrading of the American culture and all that it influences.

Obviously though the most focused allusion to Christ our savior in Micah 5:

Micah 5:2 ~ “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.”

It was from this very book from this very prophet that all the chief priests and scribes of the people would gather together with Herod and proclaimed unhesitatingly that it was at Bethlehem

of Judea that the Messiah would be born.

Matthew 2:4-6 ~ “When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he [Herod] asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.”

Micah in the end shows a picture of the restoration of Zion and all the  nations that will flow into it. He shows the glory and prosperity of Christ's Kingdom and His reign of universal peace and this also parallels Isaiah into his prophecy.

Isaiah 7:14 “…and He will arise and shepherd His flock In the strength of the LORD, In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God. And they will remain, because at that time He will be great to the ends of the earth.”