Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders

Monday, April 10, 2023

LCG: Beyond "Dos and Don'ts"


 

It is amazing how various COG groups continue to make excuses to this day on how liberated and enlightened they are. Gerald Weston hilariously believes that he and the Living Church of God do not follow a list of "do's and don'ts" Who wants to tell him?

Beyond “Dos and Don’ts”

Jesus had to deal with the Pharisees, who kept a long list of “dos and don’ts.” Their idea was that as long as they stayed within that detailed list of their own making, they were free to get away with anything else they wanted. Yet what did Jesus say?

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Matthew 23:23–24).

Often, for those who take a “checklist” approach, there are bigger questions that are ignored or missed. Jesus Christ told the Pharisees that they had neglected the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. These are less easily defined. It is not that they are undefinable, but they require us to use righteous judgment. We must mature over time as we grow in understanding and Christ lives in us through the Holy Spirit, so that we may make godly judgments (Galatians 2:20Hebrews 5:14). Tithing on something is rather clear cut. If someone says you must tithe on mint and anise and cumin, these are clear guidelines—how and when and how much—and we can feel very good about doing that. But without clear “dos” or “don’ts” on a point of justice, mercy, or faith, it’s not so easy to know if we have pleased God. Yet He is plain that they are “weightier matters” that mean a great deal to Him.

And it was not only the Pharisees of Jesus’ day who sought to keep lists of extrabiblical “dos and don’ts.” With the advance of technology, today’s Orthodox Jews often seek rulings as to whether or how to adapt or adopt modern innovations into their religious lives. In 2007, the Jerusalem Post reported an attempt by the Israeli Defense Force to accommodate the “requirements” of religious soldiers:

A recent decision by the IDF top brass to institute a “kosher telephone” that minimizes Shabbat desecration is yet another sign of the growing influence of religious soldiers on the army. In recent weeks the IDF purchased hundreds of telephones developed by the Tzomet Institute, a research group that finds technology-based loopholes in Jewish law, according to the army weekly Bamachane.… Dialing and other electronic operations on the “Shabbat phone” are performed in an indirect way so that the person using the phone is not directly closing electrical circuits. Instead, an electronic eye scans the phone buttons every two seconds. If a button has been pressed, the eye activates the phone’s dialing system. This indirect way of activation is called a grama (“‘Kosher phone’ helps IDF minimize Shabbat desecration,” February 14, 2007).

In other words, punching in the same numbers is not technically dialing the phone. Imagine one Israeli solder calling another on his special “Sabbath-compliant” phone and saying, “We’ve got to lob artillery fire on those people coming across the border.” Now, that would produce a good-sized fire! Yet, it was the tiny telephone circuit that was seen as desecrating the Sabbath! You will never come to an end of “dos” and “don’ts” if that’s your approach.

We at times find the same approach, perhaps less obvious, among ourselves. Consider how often the question “Is it OK?” really means “Is it a sin?” And, again, a lot depends on the spirit in which that question is asked.

The Days of Unleavened Bread teach us a lesson about sin, and we certainly do not want to commit sin. But too often people use questions like these in an effort to find technical “cover” for doing something that, deep down, they know is probably not the most righteous course of action they could take. The Apostle Paul gives us very good advice when he points out that some things may technically be OK—may not be sin—but still not be profitable: “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify” (1 Corinthians 10:23; see also 6:12).

Paul’s statement challenges Christians to aim higher—to ask harder questions. Asking “Can I technically justify my actions in the law?” is one thing. The Pharisees were very good at this. But asking questions like “Does this edify others?” and “Is it helpful to the congregation and my family?” and “Does it truly reflect God’s own mind, thinking, and desires?” is something very different. The Pharisees were not very good in this department.

Some details are clear-cut in Scripture, of course. For instance, consider the question “Is it OK to get a tattoo?” The answer is unambiguous: “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28). But let’s look at another example that many think is similarly clear-cut, but in fact is not: “Is it OK for a man to wear an earring?” Some will argue that men are adopting a female custom if they wear earrings, so they shouldn’t do so. But what about a society in which both men and women routinely wear earrings? Proponents may go to Exodus 32, Exodus 35, Judges 8, and other chapters to point out that  Israelite men at times wore earrings, seemingly without condemnation.

So, which is it? The answer to “Is it OK?” may be either “Yes” or “No,” depending on circumstances. The question, whether it is asked aloud or only internally, should not be “Can a man get away with wearing an earring?” Rather, we should keep in mind a vital admonition from Scripture: “And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight” (1 John 3:22).

Notice: “keep His commandments”— of course—but also “do those things that are pleasing in His sight.”

If we begin by seeking to please God, rather than to follow a fad promoted by a culture deliberately pushing the boundaries of acceptable behavior, we will naturally ask, “Is God pleased when we try to imitate the world around us” (1 John 2:15-17)? Can we not recognize who is behind the course of this world (Ephesians 2:2)? Even if we can’t find a definitive passage of Scripture that forbids earrings on men and other body piercings the way it forbids tattoos, we can put verses together and understand something of the mind of God. Consider this vital passage from Deuteronomy:

You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations which you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place. You shall not worship the Lord your God with such things (Deuteronomy 12:2–4).

This passage is about destroying the symbols and altars of pagan gods. What is one of the most influential gods of our present society? Pride and the promotion of the self. Think of a simple baseball cap, with its visor on the front to keep the sun out of the wearer’s eyes. Is it OK to wear the cap sideways? What could be wrong with that? Nothing—or everything. It’s “just a style,” true. But is it about looking “cool” and projecting an attitude about the self—an attitude Satan would recognize as his own?

This kind of thinking—real, honest self-examination concerning our own motives and desires—is hard. Much harder than checking a list of “dos” and don’ts” to see if something is “OK” or “a sin.”

64 comments:

  1. Jeez! What if the LCG member rides a motorcycle? You don't wear your ball cap with the visor forward, or it will blow off, even if you have a windshield! If you wear your ball cap backwards on top of your bandanna, you won't be losing your ball caps constantly.

    Just goes to demonstrate once again something we already knew. Armstrongite ministers don't have any common sense, let alone wisdom!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gerald Weston hilariously believes that he and the Living Church of God do not follow a list of "do's and don'ts"

    "There are do's and don'ts, but there is no LIST of do's and don'ts." -- Ron Fraser, PCG minister, now deceased.

    OK. Why did he think it was so evil to have a LIST, when it was admitted that there were in fact do's and don'ts? Seems stupid to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What if the LCG member rides a motorcycle? You don't wear your ball cap with the visor forward, or it will blow off, even if you have a windshield! If you wear your ball cap backwards on top of your bandanna, you won't be losing your ball caps constantly.

    Just goes to demonstrate once again something we already knew. Armstrongite ministers don't have any common sense, let alone wisdom!


    Wisdom says you should be wearing a motorcycle helmet, not a baseball cap.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It all has to do with matzos and socks. The administration of law is a major challenge to religious denominations whether Christian, Jewish or Armstrongist. I can cite an immediate example. It should be a transgression of law to eat matzos according to Armstrongist interpretation. This would be news to Christians and Jews but Armstrongists can follow the logic. I bought a box of matzos a few days back. I am a Christian and the DULB are simply pedagogical for me. And I like matzos with butter and jelly. On the side of the box was a warning that the matzos, manufactured by a Jewish concern, are classed as carcinogenic because they contain acrylamides. All carbohydrates heated to a high temperature form acrylamides. So, eating Matzos would be, according to HWA’s reckoning, a “physical sin.” Devout Armstrongists who observed the Passover, in their theology, committed sin in doing so. Laws are tricky.

    Regarding socks. Armstrongists believe that the Torah is written on their hearts – every jot and tittle. And Jesus even expanded the Torah so Armstrongists really believe in Torah Plus. The Torah Plus is accorded this central position because Hoeh believed that it was the eternal moral law of God. And Torah Plus says you cannot wear socks made of both wool and cotton. (Why God’s eternal moral law would condemn mixed fabrics and this would rise to a spiritual level and was in force for all of past eternity is puzzling. You see, back before the creation, there was nobody to wear socks. And, err, there was no wool or cotton either. Oh, well. Never mind.)

    The Israelis might be picky. But picky is as picky does. Many Christians who believe the center of the Gospel is love God and love your neighbor might not see the relevance of mixed fabrics – eternal, spiritual and written on the heart. I don’t. And I will also eat a matzo today.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Leave it to a cog minister to remain utterly oblivious as to what Paul was teaching, when quoting Paul!! You cannot make this stuff up.

    I would be stunned if, just once, these fools would read whatever passage they are citing to prop up whatever false doctrine they think they are bolstering, in its' context. Paul is saying the polar opposite of what Weston claims, but it just flies right over his legalistic, proof texting head, as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  6. DO NOT-- (I have seen all of these)

    Get a tattoo of Sylvester the cat on one calf, and Tweety Bird on the other calf.

    A tramp stamp tattoo above your butt crack that says "JUICY"

    A swasticka tattoo in the middle of your forehead like Charlie Manson.

    A tattoo of eyeballs open on your eyelids, so as to always make it seem like you are watching, even while sleeping.

    DO NOT!!! - Go to Flurry, Thiel, Pack , Cox or Weinland's church!

    ReplyDelete
  7. 7:14 ~ What are you, some kind of Republican or something? I moved out of California 30 years ago because they enacted a helmet law.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is impossible to interpret the bible without text proofing unless one admits to the numerous contradictions in it. Only hard-nosed people cannot see that obvious reality.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Only in Mat 23:23 and Luke 11:42 is the word "other(s)" translated from Strong's Greek 2548 meaning "and those" or "those". The point: "those" could easily refer to judgment, mercy, faith, not tithing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So "pride and the promotion of self" is a false god.

    Not really. Many years ago l read a book called "How to sell yourself" by Joe Girard. He points out that we all need to sell ourselves in everyday life to attract friends, succeed at work etc. He writes about dress, how to introduce oneself, be positive, be confident etc.
    "Pride" in contemporary Christianity is code word for being assertive and having a healthy self image. Christianity gives itself the perk of mentally shrinking its members for the sake of control. It's cold blooded murder, and is in sharp contrast to the bible's instructing to "be strong and courageous" in both Joshua 1:9 and 1Chronicles 28:20. Mentally shrinking people is today called "narcissistic devaluation." For details I suggest readers Google this label.

    Christ asked in Luke 18:8 whether He would find faith (confidence in His laws) on His return. Evidently not among the ACOG ministers. They have instead put their faith in bully morality by running their churches like Borg re-education camps and mentally minimizing their members. The two go hand in hand. Bully morality works, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12:38
      “Christ asked in Luke 18:8 whether He would find faith (confidence in His laws) on His return.”

      My belief is He was asking whether He’ll find “the Faith” ie “the Faith once delivered to the saints” when He returns. And seeing how His original true teachings were virtually extinguished in the first couple centuries (eg Quartodeciman controversy) it’s even worse now 2000 years later with every vestige of Biblical and Christian teaching being eliminated by secularists in every area of society.

      Delete
  11. Yeah, Tonto, got a couple others.

    Don't go over old pictures of GTA, identify his tattoos and have them duplicated on your own body.

    No tattoos of Elmer Fudd mowing the lawn. (Use imagination for location).

    If you meet an English gal in a bar somewhere, and she has a BBC tat, she probably does not work for the British Broadcasting Corp.

    If you have tattoos of Jesus and crosses on you, having come into Armstrongism from a mainstream Christian Church, you may not want to wear a tank top to ACOG church picnics. If, by some coincidence, you also named your daughter "Trinity", you may want to introduce her as
    "Trini".

    Anyone know if it's considered appropriate to use tithes to pay for tattoo removal if your new spiritual gurus order you to get rid of them?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The New Testament has plenty of lists of dogs and don'ts... Galatians 5:19-23

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 1:44:00 PM PDT,

    You are mischaracterizing what Paul wrote to the Galatians. His "lists" are a summary of what happens when we live our lives guided by human nature influenced by Satan or God's Holy Spirit. Strictly speaking, they are NOT a list of dos and don'ts. Once again, Christians are expected to apply Christ's Law of Love (for God and each other) to every situation we confront in this life. God expects this to be internalized within the Christian - there is NO list of dos and don'ts to reference anymore (and if you need one, you may not be a Christian).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous 1:44

    "The New Testament has plenty of lists of dogs (sic) and don'ts... Galatians 5:19-23"

    Sorry for that. I could not avoid the pun.

    It is good that your recognize that the New Covenant contains laws. Many Armstrongists do not. One theory I have encountered is that the New Covenant contains no terms and, hence, we must look to the Torah Plus. In other words, the New Covenant is just an agreement about the Torah. And the Torah Plus is still binding. The obvious rejoinder is "If the Torah Plus is still binding, why don't you keep it?" Then there is some shuck and jive about church administration. I have never seen this documented. But some anonymous Armstrongist bloggers will pontificate on this.

    An odd but documented viewpoint of Armstrongist belief is that the New Covenant is not yet in force. I gather, though I have not spent much time on this tenuous idea, that you do not really enter into the New Covenant until you are resurrected and can keep the Torah Plus perfectly. (Lesson 19 of the 1967 Correspondence Courrse makes much of this topic.) This life is perfective and spent demonstrating your obedience. Lot's a luck with that one considering that grace is a feature of the putatively un-enacted New Covenant (John 1:17). This is another form of salvation by works or maybe the Millerite idea of earthly perfection. The author of Hebrews stated explicitly that the New Testament was enacted legislation in Hebrews 8:6.

    The idea here is to make the Old Covenant something substantial while the New Covenant something ethereal. This plays nicely with HWA's ideas about the Sabbath and Holy Days.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Apologies for misspelling it "dogs". I was getting called forward for a haircut, in the middle of writing that on my phone. :-/

    ReplyDelete
  16. God's love will always be defined, as in laws and commandments but the mature Christian will love without always thinking about laws or commandments and legalism. An adult driver doesn't usually come to a stop sign or red light and think: damn!.....another law.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous 10:06

    "God's love will always be defined, as in laws and commandments..."

    I think you have it reversed. God is love in his essence. He did not create a moral code for himself that defines love. And his essential nature is what goes into defining a behavior code for humans to live by. The interpretation that blurs this in the Armstrongist realm is this one:

    "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:"

    What this means for Armstrongists that if you go crazy keeping the Torah that is your sufficient duty to your God and neighbor. The book of 1 John talks about love and nowhere suggests that it refers to the Torah. The author of 1 John also provides us a context where we can find out what the commandments are (1 John 4:21). Jesus set for us an unreachable stretch goal of love by dying for us that we might share in his divine life. This goal lies well beyond the Torah. The Torah condemns human sacrifice.

    Circumscribing love by the Torah is what leads to institutions like Ambassador College. People knock themselves out trying to conform to that part of the Torah they acknowledge but relate to eachother through a system that is hierarchical. How many times have you heard HWA emphasize "top-down" in a stentorian voice? This then oozes out into the local churches via AC graduates. (I think church government is top-down: Jesus at the top and then the rest of us. It is not the ornate organizational structure favored by Armstrongists, rich with sinecures for the favored.) The result is hierarchical local congregations where everyone knows who is important and who is not. And everyone is ambitiously trying to climb the ladder to get ahead. Guys are struggling to pass out song books not because it is a service but because it is the first rung on the ladder. You know the deal. You've seen it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 6:58, Gal 5:19-23 indeed is a list of do's and don'ts, although not put into that form. The works of the flesh are the result of breaking the defined law of God. Look at how many of them are just tied to the ten commandments alone, adultery, idolatry, covetousness, etc. And the apostle excludes from salvation those who break them, as per 1 Cor 5:10-11; 6:9-10. Sinful behaviours are tied to an already existing moral law of commandments.

    It's nice to say, "just apply 2 principles and internalize them", but you still need to know specifically what is right and wrong in a given situation. That's why detailed instruction manuals are handed out, and why some people are very detailed by nature (because they want to know precisely how to please God and man, or how to operate and build something). God knew Abraham loved Him but He still gave him a command to sacrifice (a "do"). Would Abraham have sacrificed Isaac on his own? I don't think so. Why didn't Abraham just say "I don't need to reference your law and commandments anymore (your words) because I have them internalized anyway". Huh? On top of being disobedient this is presumptuous, similar to the Israelites who thought that they could just go out and win a battle on their own after having "internalized" the law given to them at Sinai.

    As for the list of fruits of the Spirit, they are called fruits rather than works because they flow out naturally from the living Spirit. Yet from Scripture we know that love is part of a list of "do's", both in the law and from Christ, likewise peace and moderation. "Love as I have loved you", commanded the Lord (Jn 15), which is higher than "Love your neighbour as yourself", as per Moses. "Be at peace among yourselves", "Believe (have faith in) the gospel", all show that Gal 5 is not just a list of "fruits" but also of "do's".

    Before we are born again of the Spirit we are commanded to have faith (a "do"), even if we have never heard of the law before, for the law of the Spirit of life (Rom 8:2) orders us to believe. Thus "faith" is a "do" and not just a "fruit" of the Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I was always getting hit with do’s and don’ts on the regular in Lcg. Most of the dos and don’ts were reminiscent of the policies of a low skill corporate middle manager that occasionally locks themselves in the broom closet to smell their own farts.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 1:37:00 PM PDT,

    The characteristics contrasted in this passage from Paul's epistle to the saints of Galatia are clearly presented as the EVIDENCE (figuratively "fruit") of living one's life under the influence of Satan's spirit or God's Holy Spirit. They are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of choosing to follow one way or the other! In other words, if one accepts the leadership of the Holy Spirit, these are behaviors that such a person will exhibit (ALL based on the principle of LOVE). FAITH is also a consequence of following the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Even our faith, is a GIFT from God. Christ commanded his followers to love, because love fulfills God's expectations. Unlike a series of commands (even THE TEN), love is a standard which can be applied to any circumstance/situation. This principle (love for God and each other) is as superior to Torah commands as Godly righteousness is to Pharisaical righteousness. This is the essence of putting God's law in our hearts - of serving God in the spirit, NOT in the letter!

    ReplyDelete
  21. There's all sorts of do's and do nots when it comes to gardening. The same applies to morality for the same reason. The problem when applied to morality is that it often becomes a malicious game, or a rigging of the rules to exploit others game.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous 1:37

    "It's nice to say, "just apply 2 principles and internalize them", but you still need to know specifically what is right and wrong in a given situation.'

    Excellent point. The NT gives us a code and it defines and inititates the moral arc of Christianity. The Holy Spirit may then provide further instruction but that direction will comply with the code set in the NT. Chrstian praxis is not wholly a case of do-it-yourself morality. One cannot assert that the Holy Spirit leads us to love and love can be defined per individual. The NT is not a blank sheet of paper on which we write our own proclivities. There is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof is death, someone said.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yes, there are always ways which seem right/righteous to individuals, but they do not end in life. Jesus of Nazareth was and is the only way back to God, and anyone who attempts to get there in ANY other way will be unsuccessful. I leave you to your list of dos and don'ts - we'll see what that accomplished/achieved someday.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I was pondering the "love vs. rules" debate while sitting at a 4 way stop sign. People try to be gracious (love) by yielding to someone else their rightful turn to go, all the while being ignorant of the laws of right-away. The end result is confusion, nobody knows what to do, traffic comes to a stand still, and good intentions causes havoc!

    For love to work, it has to flow according to revealed lawful guidelines!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lonnie

    Your statement strikes a distinct anti-nomian tone. The way "back to God" is not without law.
    Not without behavioral prescriptions. Solo Christo must be accompanied by Sola Scriptura. Hebrews 10:16 speaks of a Law, a body of legislation, discernible by the Christian from the New Testament, that defines the behavioral dimension of The Way, The Truth and the Life. There is no circumvention through Solo Christo. Something does get written on our hearts. And something does comprise Paul's concept of sin. And the Holy Spirit does not trace out an arc that is wholly other.

    Maybe I have read something into your statement that is not there. Pardon me if this is so.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:39:00 PM PDT,

    I have NEVER advocated antinomianism (the notion that Christian's are not obligated to follow moral law). I believe that Christians are saved by grace through Jesus Christ. However, I also believe that a Christian's life will reflect the fruits of God's Holy Spirit - the new man/woman which Christ's work has made him/her. Christ fulfilled and summarized Torah into two great commandments for his followers: Love God and each other. If the disciple internalizes and applies these principles/commandments, he/she will live a moral life. For example, if love truly does no harm to another, than that would preclude things like adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, murder, stealing, lying, jealousy, violence, etc. In reality, Christ's commandments are much more comprehensive than the list of dos and don'ts outlined in Torah - they cover ALL aspects of human behavior/conduct. Hence, if a Christian is following Christ's commandments, he/she will easily exceed the righteousness which is derived from scrupulous legalism. It is NOT that we (Christians) do not have a moral standard, it's that we have a DIFFERENT standard than that which applied to the Israelites operating under the terms of the Old Covenant.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Lonnie 5:54

    Cutting to the chase, I notice your list of precluded activities does not contain a particular item. The elephant in the room. This perspective renders the rest of what you have written unorthodox. It may seem orthodox semantically to the casual reader but it is not. The view rests upon a highly idosyncratic interpretation of scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:52:00 AM PDT.

    Is the elephant in the room Leviticus 18:22? Heaven forbid that we would try to deprive "Christians" of one of their cudgels against homosexuality! So, we're back to cherry picking Torah - you cannot have it both ways! Christians are either obligated to observe Torah, or they are NOT. ANY middling position on this topic validates the Armstrongist position on Christians and Law. Now, you can certainly appeal to things which Paul wrote in his epistles to maintain your stance against homosexuality, but any appeal to Torah on this point makes you a party to the Armstrongist's arguments about a Christian's obligation to obey SOME of the provisions of Torah/Old Covenant.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Lonnie 12:21

    While the Torah is done away with, the moral intent of the law was not done away with. This is really a simple principle to understand. Just because Leviticus 18:21 has been cancelled does that mean that we may now sacrifice our children to Molech? Is Leviticus 18:22 devoid of any moral content? This is not an all or none game like you have characterized it to be. The bridge between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is the moral character of God reflected in both bodies of legislation. And the New Covenant, in the words of Paul in Romans 1, reflects this moral position.

    I'm done. I am sure you have heard all these arguments before. The theological point is that when you say the Torah is cancelled you mean something entirely different from what it means in Christian theology even though the words may sound the same to the ear.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Friday, April 14, 2023 at 1:09:00 PM PDT,

    Sacrificing children to Molech would be inconsistent with both of Christ's commandments. Yes, it is the same God (same moral character) behind both covenants. Also, Christ's commandments were drawn from Torah and were intended to comprehend/summarize the moral intent of Torah. Hence, the fact that we discern similarities between the legislation which underpins both covenants is unremarkable. Indeed, it would be more remarkable to find no connection between them! Nevertheless, although you may not have intended it to do so, your parsing of Torah blurs the bright and clear distinction between the two covenants. Although Christ's commandments were derived from Torah, they clearly are NOT meant to suggest that all of those dos and don'ts were incorporated into the terms of the New Covenant.

    I would also take issue the language that anything was "done away with" or abrogated. Jesus Christ fulfilled the provisions of Torah for us. By doing so, he rendered it superfluous for us to undertake doing the same thing. To be precise, Christians are not currently operating under Torah. We are operating under the terms of the New Covenant. Christians are obliged to follow Christ's commandments as a way to demonstrate our acceptance of Christ's work on our behalf and sacrifice of himself for us - NOT as a means to effect or achieve our salvation (again, Christ has already accomplished that for us). From the Christian perspective, Torah still points to Jesus of Nazareth and his work. Sabbaths, Holy Days, sacrifices/offerings, clean and unclean, moral righteousness - ALL OF IT points to Christ. Hence, Torah isn't "cancelled" or made useless to Christians. It simply fulfills a different role for Christians than it did for Israelites/Jewish folks!

    Finally, as you know, what Paul wrote to the saints of Rome cannot be rightly interpreted to mean a blanket condemnation of homosexuality. While his remarks can be interpreted to suggest that some homosexual BEHAVIORS should be avoided by Christians, it is also clearly a flawed exegesis which would describe his language in this epistle as an indiscriminate censure of homosexuals and their nature. So, yes, if that is your definition of orthodoxy, I am most certainly challenging it!

    ReplyDelete
  31. In the interests of midrash, an argument redux.

    "Sacrificing children to Molech would be inconsistent with both of Christ's commandments."

    And Leviticus 18:22 is not?

    "... parsing of Torah blurs the bright and clear distinction between the two covenants."

    Observing that the Torah and the Law of Christ derive from the moral character of God is not a blurring but a clarification.

    "I would also take issue the language that anything was "done away with" or abrogated."

    The author of Hebrews uses the term "obsolete." The terms I used are consistent with the term obsolete. Fulfilling is the process and "obsolete" or "done away with" or "abrogated" are terms that refer to the result. One must go to context to find that the moral theme of the Old Covenant has been retained in the New but many of the implementation details have been dropped. Let circumcision be our example.

    "While his remarks can be interpreted to suggest that some homosexual BEHAVIORS should be avoided by Christians..."

    Paul nowhere condemns the state of being a homosexual but he does condemn the associated psychololgical and physical sexual engagement. And this does not contradict Leviticus 18:22.




    ReplyDelete
  32. Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:31:00 AM PDT,

    Please explain exactly how two men in a loving and faithful sexual relationship would be inconsistent with Christ's commandments?

    While we can acknowledge that the legislation underpinning both covenants is derived from the same source, it should also not present any hardship for us to acknowledge that those covenants are NOT the same!

    I believe you are referencing Hebrews 8:13? If so, and you are talking about the Old Covenant as being "obsolete," we are in agreement. Once again, Christ's commandments were taken from Torah and were intended to comprehend/summarize it. Let circumcision, Sabbath, sacrifices, offerings, Holy Days, clean/unclean, etc., etc. be our example! ALL of it pointed to Christ and was fulfilled and transformed by him!

    As regards Paul's comments in the first chapter of Romans, it appears that we simply see this passage differently and are immune to each other's interpretations of them.

    ReplyDelete
  33. When confronted with the issue of divorce, Christ, in Matthew 19:4-8, pointed back to the beginning, when the MARK of God's order for mankind was set in motion. I think "two men in a loving and faithful sexual relationship" would MISS (hamartano) that mark!

    ReplyDelete
  34. BP8,

    Yes, the issue was DIVORCE! I wonder how many divorced Christians we have in the ekklesia at present? Do they miss that mark?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Lonnie,

    I have been reading your comments for a while and have you categorized with the majority of believers who think the law is done away with, and who refuse to register Mt 5:17-20 into their hearts, the words of Christ which presumably one would wish to internalize, that is, that He came to fill up (pleroo) and not destroy the law.

    Look at how Christ interpreted the law in Mt 5. Some were either expanded (adultery, murder), changed (divorce) or annulled (revenge, hate) to suit the New Covenant, which He had authority to do as the new Priest of the order of Melchizedek. (Heb 7:12) Right, we are not justified by simply keeping the law but there still is a law to be kept and a standard of righteousness to reach (Mt 5:20), which is defined by the holy Spirit. As Christ said, "Why call you me 'Lord' but do not what I say (or command)"?

    BTW, Paul does condemn homosexuality in accordance with the law in 1 Cor 6:9 when he says that arsenokoites (in Greek), "male co-habitants", "couching men", will not inherit the kingdom of God. It is classified with the worst of sins, and is contrary the first model (man with woman) and is an expression of lust (Rom 1:24) -- not love.

    And get your facts straight. The old Covenant is done away with but many of its laws still apply, as outlined above. It's not a case of, "it's all or nothing", as you said earlier. This been the party line of worldly protestantism for centuries and you've swallowed it. And salvation is by grace through faith but grace only reigns for you if your standard of righteousness is sufficient. (See "grace reigns through righteousness" in Rom 5:21) And this isn't a salvation by works doctrine because James explains that faith and works go together.

    Abraham obeyed the commands to be circumcised and sacrifice Isaac AFTER he had expressed faith, which is why faith is a major gift/attribute and is given such high mention by Paul in Romans. But faith leads to works as can be seen from the parable of the talents in Mt 25. Christ doesn't say for nothing to the seven churches, "I know your works", does He?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I would think that , in the beginning, neither divorce or the "2 man" thing is what God had in mind! Both miss the mark!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 2:36:00 PM PDT,

    I'm glad that you were able to "categorize" me. I wouldn't put myself in the category you've assigned for me, but I'm happy if you're happy!

    Thank you for reading my comments here, but your comments about Matthew 5 suggest to me that you haven't read very many of my posts here or on my blog (because I have focused a great deal of attention on that chapter in many of my posts). Yes, Jesus FULFILLED Torah for us.

    Moreover, I believe it is you who need to "get your facts straight." It appears that you have swallowed the Armstrongist heretical take on the law hook, line and sinker! The Israelites were responsible for observing Torah - Christians are responsible for obeying Christ's commandments (which, once again, were lifted from Torah and meant to comprehend it). Torah pointed to a new and future reality - that reality is Jesus Christ. The fundamental and foundational message of Christianity is that our salvation was accomplished by Jesus Christ - period! Our faith is in what HE accomplished for us!

    Christ said that his disciples would be identified by their love for each other - So, YES, Christ is very much aware of the works of his people! He is also aware of the folks who are self-absorbed and self-righteous.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:31:00 AM PDT said...

    Please explain exactly how two men in a loving and faithful sexual relationship would be inconsistent with Christ's commandments?

    BP8 Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 4:08:00 PM PDT said...
    I would think that , in the beginning, neither divorce or the "2 man" thing is what God had in mind! Both miss the mark!

    I gotta say I've been reading the back and forth until now and have to say I agree with BP8 on this issue. Christ Jesus when asked about divorce and remarriage redirected the attention of those listening to Him to what is written in Genesis and what God it implies was God's original intention for Adamkind from creation. My interpretation and understanding is that marriage was instituted to be a lifelong covenant between a biological male and female who would then through the sexual act procreate and have children. Divorce or marrying a divorced person; and engaging in sex with someone you aren't married to (according to the definition of marriage I just gave) fall short of God's standard.

    For anyone interested Rev. Calvin Robinson who was studying to be a priest in the Anglican Church, gave, what is imo, a perfect argument against homosexualism and its relative transgenderism, recently.

    And Matt Walsh argues with an MtF transgenderist giving what, is imo, another excellent argument against transgenderism.

    If we do not uphold the divine standard as revealed in the Christian Bible and traditionally taught for centuries (or millennia if counting the ancient Israelites) then who is to say that, as Robinson put it, that 3 people isn't more "love" if as the LGTB etc movement has parroted that "Love is love?" Who's to say that an adult and a child isn't "love?" Who's to say that a biological man turned woman shouldn't be checked over by a doctor as if he's pregnant because he thinks he is? Where do we draw the line and say enough?

    ReplyDelete
  39. This is the revisiting of a case already tried in the Church. The exegetical case of Vines and Wilson was found wanting. It re-emerges here because the debate is new to this blog which has other purposes that sociological reform. The church broadly has made a decision and, of course, as always there are marginal dissenters.

    Tim Keller wrote:
    “Contra Vines, et al, the ancients also knew about mutual, non-exploitative same sex relationships. In Romans 1, Paul describes homosexuality as men burning with passion “for one another” (verse 27). That is mutuality. Such a term could not represent rape, nor prostitution, nor pederasty (man/boy relationships). Paul could have used terms in Romans 1 that specifically designated those practices, but he did not. He categorically condemns all sexual relations between people of the same sex, both men and women. Paul knew about mutual same-sex relationships, and the ancients knew of homosexual orientation. Nonetheless “Nothing indicates that Paul is exempting some same-sex intercourse as acceptable.” (Loader, Making Sense of Sex, p.137).”

    And for those who claim they have a high view of the authority of the Scripture and the contrast between the Covenants yet advocate homosexuality, Keller writes:

    “The traditional view is this: Yes, there are things in the Bible that Christians no longer have to follow but, if the Scripture is our final authority, it is only the Bible itself that can tell us what those things are. The prohibitions against homosexuality are re-stated in the New Testament (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1) but Jesus himself (Mark 7), as well as the rest of the New Testament, tells us that the clean laws and ceremonial code is no longer in force.”

    The red herring used by the opponents of Keller’s view is to create and entanglement over which laws are in force and which are not. Keller states:

    “Vines and Wilson claim that they continue to hold to a high view of biblical authority, and that they believe the Bible is completely true, but that they don’t think it teaches all same-sex relations are wrong. Vines argues that while the Levitical code forbids homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22) it also forbids eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12). Yet, he says, Christians no longer regard eating shellfish as wrong — so why can’t we change our minds on homosexuality? Here Vines is rejecting the New Testament understanding that the ceremonial laws of Moses around the sacrificial system and ritual purity were fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding, but that the moral law of the Old Testament is still in force. Hebrews 10:16, for example, tells us that the Holy Spirit writes “God’s laws” on Christians’ hearts (so they are obviously still in force), even though that same book of the Bible tells us that some of those Mosaic laws — the ceremonial — are no longer in binding on us. This view has been accepted by all branches of the church since New Testament times.”

    The Vines/Wilson dog simply does not hunt.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Geronimo,

    An argument based on tradition has some obvious weaknesses (societies change over time and traditions change with them). In the first chapter of Genesis, it is made very clear that God created males and females within various species to facilitate the reproduction of the species (and humans are included in this scheme). We read there: "So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Then God blessed them and said, 'Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it.'" (Genesis 1:27-28) God, of course, also designed the asexual reproduction which is the practice of many other species on this planet, but God clearly included humans among those species where sexual intercourse between genders was the mechanism for reproduction. Interestingly, Scripture also suggests that humans will be like the angels in the resurrection - neither marrying, nor being given in marriage (Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, Luke 20:35), which further reinforces that the gender designations were intended for reproduction.

    Then, in the second chapter of Genesis, we have a narrative where the man was created before the woman and placed in a garden (verses 4-8). Then we read: "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.' So the Lord God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and the man chose a name for each one. He gave names to all the livestock, all the birds of the sky, and all the wild animals. But still there was no helper just right for him." (Verses 18-20) Here, the clear implication is that ONLY another human would be a suitable companion for the man, and God takes a part of the man and fashions it into a woman (verses 21-23). Thus, we have another element introduced into the mix - companionship with someone who would be like him - the same species. So, now we have reproduction and companionship. And this concludes with the passage quoted by Christ: "This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." (Verse 24)

    Let's summarize. In the first two chapters of Genesis, we are told that men and women come together for reproduction AND companionship. This is an important point, because we know that many heterosexual marriages do NOT result in offspring. Hence, the assertion that heterosexual marriage is only/exclusively/primarily for procreation is shown to be absurd and is NOT Scriptural! Moreover, although these passages demonstrate that the "one man - one woman" formula was the Divinely intended ideal, it does not negate the fact that polygamy and divorce were subsequently tolerated. It should also be noted that there isn't any ceremony or ritual for marriage given here or anywhere else in Scripture - all such traditions are human inventions! Indeed, if we are guided only by Scripture, we are forced to conclude that a man and woman cohabitating and having sexual intercourse constitutes a valid marriage in God's sight!

    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  41. My response continued:

    Unfortunately, there is another very important element to this Genesis narrative about the first humans that is often glossed over or ignored. In the final verse of chapter two, we read: "Now the man and his wife were both naked, but they felt no shame." (Verse 25) So, originally, there wasn't any shame attached to the human body or its natural functions! Remember: "Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!" (Genesis 1:31) Hence, we are forced to conclude that the shamefulness which many folks (Christians included) have attached to our bodies and sexual intercourse is NOT of Divine origin!

    This notion is further reinforced by the account of the "fall of man" found in the third chapter of Genesis. We read there that the Serpent tempted the woman to eat the fruit which God had forbidden the humans to ingest, and that she also gave some to her husband (verses 1-6). Then, we are informed: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves." (Verse 7)
    Indeed, this is the very thing that made it obvious that they had disobeyed God. We read: "When the cool evening breezes were blowing, the man and his wife heard the Lord God walking about in the garden. So they hid from the Lord God among the trees. Then the Lord God called to the man, 'Where are you?' He replied, 'I heard you walking in the garden, so I hid. I was afraid because I was naked.' 'Who told you that you were naked?' the Lord God asked. 'Have you eaten from the tree whose fruit I commanded you not to eat?' The man replied, 'It was the woman you gave me who gave me the fruit, and I ate it.'" (Verses 8-12)

    Thus, we are forced to conclude that our traditional, Puritanical, shame-based views of human sexuality did NOT originate in the mind of God! Indeed, we see from these accounts that they are an important part of the great lie which Satan told our ancestors and has used to deceive humankind ever since! Once again, the dangers of appealing to tradition are manifest and many.

    (Continued)

    ReplyDelete
  42. Paul told the Romans that God's invisible qualities were evident in the things which He had created (Romans 1:20). In the natural world, there are a whole host of mechanisms built into the system to control the populations of the various species (predation, disease, aging, infertility, environment, climate, homosexuality, etc.). These mechanisms prevent a species from reproducing more offspring than the ecosystem can support, and thus ensures the perpetuation of the species. If these provisions are features of God's creation, who are we to pronounce them evil or wrong? And, when we do that, are we calling that which is good "evil," and that which is evil "good"?

    In that second chapter of Genesis, we read that God said that "It is not good for the man to be alone." (Verse 18) Is that a universal and eternal truth or not? If someone is oriented to be attracted to members of their own gender - if that is his/her NATURE, are we saying that it is good for that person to be alone? Are we saying that that person should go against his/her nature and couple with a member of the opposite gender? Should marriage be honored by EVERYONE (Hebrews 11:4), or should it only be available to heterosexuals? Again, are we saying that it is good for some humans to be alone? What about that other feature of marriage - companionship? Is that feature of the institution insufficient by itself? If so, are childless heterosexual marriages inappropriate?

    Paul also said that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." (I Corinthians 7:1) Is it really? What about what followed that statement? He wrote: "But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. (Paul was unmarried)" (Verses 3-7) Continuing, we read: "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (Verses 8-9) Are we saying that it's OK for homosexuals "to burn with passion"?

    No, I'm sorry. Your traditions and interpretations are illogical, and they are NOT consistent with Scripture! We should also approach all of this with more humility than has been exhibited here. Yes, God knew everything that we now know and MORE (much more), but the people whom he was dealing with two and three thousand years ago DID NOT! In other words, he had to accommodate what they knew - where they were. The Bible CANNOT and DOES NOT contain God or encompass His mind, and those of you who suggest that it does are danger close to blasphemy! The Bible is a complex book, and it deserves a lot more attention and thought than we have traditionally given to it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. For those who may be interested in a more comprehensive treatment of the subject of Torah and Christians, I have a series of posts on my blog about Christ in the Torah. If you don't have the time for that, you may want to check out these:

    https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2023/03/were-any-of-commands-of-torah-carried.html

    https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2023/04/you-cannot-impose-terms-of-old-covenant.html

    https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2023/04/beyond-legalism.html

    ReplyDelete
  44. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 .....that law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and worldly, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, homosexuals.....(a male engaging in same gender sexual activity).

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yes, keep trotting out your proof-texts. This conversation underscores the deficiencies of this approach as it relates to interpreting or understanding Scripture. It is much easier - not as much work or thinking required. You don't have to understand context or what Paul might have been thinking when he employed the Greek word arsenokoites in his epistles. You don't have to worry about a First Century Jewish convert to Christianity's understanding of homosexuality or human sexuality writ large! Just trot out those clobber Scriptures. Who needs nuance or understanding? All of those folks are headed for Hell or the Lake of Fire anyway, right?

    When I read these kinds of comments, I also can't help but think about how many of these individuals actually adhere to the sexual moral standards which they espouse. How many of them waited till they were married to engage in sexual intercourse? How many of them are divorced? How many of the married folks have committed adultery or lusted after someone who wasn't his/her spouse? In other words, even if we accept their standard and say that homosexuality or homosexual behavior is sinful, what makes that "sin" any different from their own? Why are his/her failures in this respect superior to those of the homosexual? Also, if you can't follow your own standard, how can you impose it on others with a straight face? Sounds mighty pharisaical to me! Moreover, if ANYTHING that you propose hurts/harms another individual, it is inconsistent with Christ's commandments and the basis of Torah!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Right, 11:24, that verse was aleady quoted above along with the other two pertaining to the prohibition against homosexuality. I am surprised that no one quoted from Gen 19 or Jude 7 to Lonnie, where it is quite clear what God thinks of such conduct where one "prostitutes himself out" and "goes away backwards after different flesh" (Jude 7; check the Greek for my translation). They didn't suffer the vengeance of eternal fire for nothing, did they?

    Lonnie, you are becoming even more confused with every comment you post, and the reason is your inner hatred for the law of God (and WCG background?) that still inflames you. Yet you hit the nail on the head perfectly when you said that we are to obey Christ's commandments, and that that law was lifted from the torah. The trouble with the whole church today is that we cannot agree on what laws are still valid.

    You said that Christ fulfilled the law. We hear that everywhere today ad nauseum but what does that mean? That Christ did everything in the law perfectly just to do away with it? Huh? That Christ did something repugnant (or was it good?) just to show mankind that He could do it better than anyone else? Huh? To make up for His mistake in giving it to us in the first place knowing full well that we couldn't keep it perfectly? Huh? This is not "fulfilling" but "destroying", contrary to His words in Mt 5:17.

    Nonsense. You and many others obviously don't understand what Christ came to fulfill. To cram up, to level up, to make replete (pleroo in Mt 5:17) means to magnify (enlarge; Is 45:21), which is what Isaiah prophesied He would do. What about Christ's statement in Mt 5:19 where He refers to the "least commandments" from the law -- from which He pulled to give to His church, as you affirmed above? And who did He address here? His disciples (Mt 5:1) -- the church. Least commands are just as important as the great commands in the moral code given to us by the Lord.

    Acts 15:29 is another good study on what went forward from the law into the NT era.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Lonnie:

    This is a follow-up to my comment at 7:15 on the views of Vines/Wilson. You answered another person with a long multi-part response that is only moderately related to the topic under consideration. Discussing socially instigated shame attached to sexuality is a valid concern but has only a distant and collateral connection to what we are discussing.

    Let me frame the issue as I see it:

    >>>You need to exegete a coherent, Biblically based argument as to why Leviticus 18:22 in the Old Covenant and the follow-on statements of Paul in the New Covenant in Romans 1 do not constitute a continuous, consistent moral arc.<<<

    Anecdotal statements such as the issue of "burning with passion" being draconian will not suffice. While I have much sympathy with that predicament, there are many single men and women in the Body of Christ who are heterosexual and cannot marry for some reason or another and face that same affliction.

    My guess is that you will have to cover some territory that Vines/Wilson have not already covered to achieve this. I think the broader Christian church has already made an adequate response to the Vines/Wilson arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:32:00 AM PDT,

    I'm sorry you didn't like my response to Geronimo, but I believe it addressed the traditional Christian perspective on human sexuality rather comprehensively by exegeting the first three chapters of Genesis as it relates to that topic. In my view, pointing out the origins of the traditional Puritanical, shame-based Christian views of human sexuality is essential to a proper understanding of this subject. Without a proper understanding of how we got to where we are today, our ability to clearly see and deal with our own circumstances is severely hindered. Moreover, in exegeting those Scriptures, I presented a more comprehensive explanation for Christ's quotation of the passage from Genesis in his discussion of divorce.

    As for your invitation to address your comments in more detail, I would be happy to oblige.
    First, contra Tim Keller, we read in the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" article on "Homosexuality," that "The term ‘homosexuality’ was coined in the late 19th century by an Austrian-born Hungarian psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert." Per the Greeks, the article goes on to relate that "As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ (e.g., Foucault, 1980). There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as the Symposium, to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros, while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990)." From there, the article made this generalization about Greek attitudes: "Probably the most frequent assumption about sexual orientation, at least by ancient Greek authors, is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex. Diogenes Laeurtius, for example, wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5th century B.C., 'in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands.'"

    Now, having addressed the subject of Greek attitudes toward (and knowledge of) homosexuality, we are ready to exegete what Paul wrote in the first two chapters of his epistle to the Romans. After his introductory remarks (Romans 1:1-15), Paul stated that he was not ashamed of the gospel (good news) that he was preaching (verse 16). He went on to say that "It is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes—the Jew first and also the Gentile." (Same verse) Continuing, he told them that the Gospel explains "how God makes us right in his sight" and that "This is accomplished from start to finish by faith." (Verse 17). He concluded his thought by quoting a passage from the prophet Habakkuk: "The righteous will live by faith." (Same verse)

    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Next, Paul turns his attention to the other folks - the unrighteous, and the contrast is stark. Instead of living by faith, he wrote that "God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness." (Verse 18) In other words, the way that they are living their lives contradicts the message he is preaching. He goes on to say that these people cannot employ the excuse that they are ignorant of God and his will, because his character and his power are evident in the things which He has created - the world around them (verses 19-20). Remember, Paul had said that EVERYONE who had faith in Christ's work would be saved - "the Jew first and also the Gentile." Hence, since the people he is addressing here are obviously not Jewish (God was revealed to them through the Torah, Prophets, and other writings of what we refer to as the Old Testament), we can clearly see that this passage is focused on the Gentiles.

    Continuing, Paul wrote: "Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles." (Verses 21-23) These people created their own conception of what God was like, and they fashioned idols to represent the god which they had imagined in their minds. So, this passage is clearly addressing the idolatry which pervaded the Gentile world of that time.

    In this connection, it is necessary to briefly reference some of the practices which were extant in the Gentile world of the First Century. In the online "World History Encyclopedia's" article "Prostitution in the Ancient Mediterranean," we read: "Prostitution in the ancient world usually referred to a classification of women and men who offered their sexual services outside the parameters of law codes for ancient society. The word 'prostitute' derives from the Latin prostituere ("to expose publicly"). This was a reference to the way in which Roman prostitutes advertised so as not to be confused with decent matrons." Continuing, in the same article, we read: "The dominating religious theme of all ancient societies was that of fertility; of crops, herds, and people. The divine powers who ruled the universe occurred in male and female pairs, and so could be approached for the benefits of fertility for humans. This was particularly relevant to the creation and worship of the various mother goddesses in the region: Inanna (Sumer), Ishtar (Mesopotamia), Hathor and Isis (Egypt), Cybele (Anatolia), Astarte (Canaan), Demeter (Greece), Aphrodite (Greece), and Venus (Rome). All these goddesses ruled human sexuality, the erotic uses of the body, birth, and children...Scholars debate the ways in which worship of these fertility deities was instituted, in a concept known as sacred prostitution or temple prostitution. There are references to this in the ancient cultures of Sumer and Mesopotamia, and the ideas spread throughout the Mediterranean Basin." The article goes on to inform us that many of the folks who engaged in this "prostitution" (our term) were drawn from the ranks of the slaves (we must not forget that slavery was a widely accepted practice of that time).
    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  50. Now, that we have provided some historical context for Paul's remarks about the Gentiles, we are ready to continue in Paul's epistle to the Romans. However, before we leave this source, I think that it is relevant to the discussion we have already had to shed a little more light on the origins of traditional Christian attitudes toward human sexuality. Later, in the same article, we read: "In the 2nd century CE, Christian leaders were drawn from Gentile backgrounds, educated in Greek philosophy. The concept of asceticism ('discipline') taught in philosophical schools, encouraged moderation in uses and abuses of the body. This included eating, drinking, and particularly sexual activity. It is in the writings of these Church Fathers that we find the Christian innovation of human sexuality as a sin. It was a necessary sin, to fulfill the command to "be fruitful and multiply", in this case, to grow the Church. However, all forms of human sexuality that did not lead to procreation were banned. Sexual intercourse for any other reason was the sin of lust. This included homosexuality of either sex. Without addressing prostitution per se, they utilized the books of the Prophets for their metaphors of 'sexual immorality' connected to idolatry in the dominant culture." My point? These attitudes did NOT originate from Sola Scriptura!

    Now that we have established that Paul was speaking to the idolatrous Gentiles of his own time, we are ready to take a closer look at what he had to say about them. Paul continued: "So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved." (Romans 1:24-27) In other words, as a consequence of the idolatrous behavior of these Gentiles, God has abandoned them to their sinful behaviors! This is clearly a commentary on what was going on in the Gentile world of that day (idolatry, public prostitution, bath houses, temple prostitution, etc.)! Hence, the notion that Paul was dealing with our modern perspective of homosexuality is shown to be absurd! Indeed, such an interpretation is either born of ignorance of the context of those times or an intentional effort to deceive!
    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  51. This is made even plainer by what follows. Paul continued: "Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." (Verses 28-32) Paul was clearly indicting Gentile society of the First Century - an entire way of life! According to Paul, these Gentile folks, who were clearly proud of their civilization - their intellectual, political, military, religious, and economic accomplishments, in reality, were engulfed in a culture and lifestyle of wickedness! So, the sexual behaviors referenced in this passage are clearly symptomatic of this much larger depravity which he was clearly talking about here!

    Moreover, although the chapter and verse designations are clearly helpful to the folks who try to make this passage of Scripture a statement against homosexuality, they are clearly an impediment to the proper understanding of Paul's intent in this instance. Remember, these chapter and verse designations were NOT part of Paul's original epistle! In other words, Paul's thought continues into the next chapter. Hence, after calling out Gentile society, Paul wrote: "You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things. And we know that God, in his justice, will punish anyone who does such things. Since you judge others for doing these things, why do you think you can avoid God’s judgment when you do the same things? Don’t you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can’t you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?" (Romans 2:1-4) In other words, don't you dare use what I just wrote about those people to condemn them and try to make yourselves feel better! (It's no wonder that homosexuals refer to this passage as a "clobber scripture" - that's exactly the way that it has been used by many Christians!)
    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  52. And, to make sure that both Jews and Gentiles didn't misunderstand, Paul summarized: "But because you are stubborn and refuse to turn from your sin, you are storing up terrible punishment for yourself. For a day of anger is coming, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. He will judge everyone according to what they have done. He will give eternal life to those who keep on doing good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers. But he will pour out his anger and wrath on those who live for themselves, who refuse to obey the truth and instead live lives of wickedness. There will be trouble and calamity for everyone who keeps on doing what is evil—for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. But there will be glory and honor and peace from God for all who do good—for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism. When the Gentiles sin, they will be destroyed, even though they never had God’s written law. And the Jews, who do have God’s law, will be judged by that law when they fail to obey it. For merely listening to the law doesn’t make us right with God. It is obeying the law that makes us right in his sight. Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right." (Verses 5-15) He then went on to reiterate that both Jews and Gentiles can be transformed by God's Holy Spirit.

    Now, this exegesis of the first two chapter of the book of Romans is clearly consistent with Christ's commandments to love God and each other - the ones drawn from the Torah. So, stop using this as a "clobber passage" - a way to condemn homosexuality. Clearly, Paul did NOT intend this when he wrote it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! With that, I think that I have provided the exegesis which you requested.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 1:53:00 PM PDT,

    I don't feel confused, maybe it's you? Judging from your comments, you haven't bothered to read what I've posted about the passages you referenced. Hence, I will not waste my time or yours in reiterating what I've already publicly shared on this subject. The material I've already published is more than sufficient to refute your remarks here. If you have a question about something I've written in those posts, or some point that I haven't addressed before, I'd be happy to respond.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Lonnie:

    I am not going to read all of that. Tell me in three sentences how you disconnect Leviticus 18:22 at the moral level form Romans 1:26-27. If you are argument has coherence, you should be able to provide a synopsis. If your synopsis is persuasive, I may go back and read your material.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous Monday, April 17, 2023 at 6:12:00 PM PDT,

    What you read and believe are your own business. Likewise, how I choose to respond to someone's query about my beliefs is between me and the Holy Spirit.

    Leviticus 18:22 is one of many commandments in the Torah governing human sexuality. In the article I quoted in an earlier comment (https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1797/prostitution-in-the-ancient-mediterranean/), we read this about the Torah's perspective on morality as it related to human sexuality: "Prostitution in ancient Israel was not deemed a sin. The legislation in the Law of Moses that was directed to marriage and divorce utilized the concept of women as property. Women were the property of their fathers, then handed over in a marriage contract to a husband. Adultery was related to these unions; adultery meant the violation of another man’s property. In a world without DNA tests, it was crucial that the bloodlines remained clear.
    Prostitutes were not under contract in a legal marriage, so sex with a prostitute was not in violation of the social codes. This does not mean that prostitutes were a favored commodity. They were at the bottom of the social ladder. The ancients did not know that semen regenerates; a man should not waste his semen outside the marriage contract.
    Surprisingly, the Jewish Scriptures relate stories of prostitutes in what is termed a literary type as "the righteous harlot." These are stories of usually Canaanite women (non-Jews), who nevertheless believe in the God of Israel. When Joshua sent spies into Jericho, the madam of the brothel, Rahab, hid them because she knew that God would give the victory to the Israelites. Judah’s Canaanite daughter-in-law, Tamar, disguised herself as a harlot by the side of the road, to seduce Judah so that his line would not die out.
    The Hebrew word for 'prostitute' was zonah, but we also find the word kedeshah, which means "set apart" or "consecrated". It usually appears in descriptions of non-Jewish women who served as servants in the fertility temples. There are references to male prostitutes, also termed kadesh, or "set apart". Depending upon the context, they are referred to as "sodomites".
    None of the daughters of Israel shall be a kedeshah, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a kadesh. You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute (zonah) or the wages of a dog (kelev) into the house of the Lord your God to pay a vow, for both are an abomination to the lord your God. (Deuteronomy 23:17-18)"
    The article went on to demonstrate that adultery was used as a metaphor for what had happened with Israel - their idolatry and foreign alliances.

    Sorry, that's not 3 sentences. However, as you can see, the subject of sexual morality in Torah is NOT a simple subject. And, what was included here, is a brief summary for consumers of online articles. This underscores that Torah was tailor-made for the society and culture of ancient Israel. Yes, like the New Covenant, Torah was founded on love for God and each other, but its individual commandments are NOT always consistent with the morality and circumstances of First Century Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "I am not going to read all of that. Tell me in three sentences how you disconnect Leviticus 18:22 at the moral level form "

    Practice what you preach. Stop your incessant long posts. Im not going to read them

    ReplyDelete
  57. NO2HWA

    Thank you for the invitation to leave. I am unpersuaded by Lonnie's responses. Just not ready for primetime.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I never told you to leave and have not been part of this conversation. Debate is a good thing that most COGs refused to let us do. There are always two sides to almost every issue facing us. Plus, this is one of the few COG blogs that allow people to do this. Unless a post is full of anti-semitism, Naziism which unfortunately many sent here are, posts go through. One thing many COG members refuse to do is to agree to disagree and still be kind to each other. Sadly in the church, it is either my way or the highway, Stay or leave, that decision is yours alone. I would prefer you stay.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Now I see what you were responding to. That actually wasn't from me another poster who could not get things to post and I posted it for them, usually, it goes through anonymously as they had requested, but when I do blog stuff on my iPhone the Google platform does into always work well. but understand where you go and your reaction. Apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Proverbs 10:19 NIV - Sin is not ended by multiplying words, but the prudent hold their tongues.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Counterpoint to Lonnie (8:09)

    I will condense this as much as possible. I am still not sure what the deal is about my “incessant long posts.” Little confusing. Leviticus 18:22 is contained within a collection of laws that is carefully prefaced and also has a kind of afterword. The essence is that God is telling Israel not to engage in the practices, without qualification, of Egypt and Canaan. Because to God these practices are “defiling” and “abominations.” The Mosaic preface (Leviticus 18:5) is repeated by Paul (Romans 10:5). This collection of prohibited sexual unions is cited in Romans 10 as being an example of law written on the heart (Romans 10:8). Further, in the Book of Revelation God continues the use of Egypt as the archetype of evil (Rev 11:8). Is it a valid conclusion that God’s viewpoint on what is evil changed because of a change in covenant? Is evil with this kind of pedigree something that is arbitrary or simply ceremonial, a form without moral underpinning, to be discarded on whim? I think not.

    I have had my say. Thanks for the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  62. https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2023/04/one-convinced-against-his-will-is-of.html

    ReplyDelete
  63. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" - Hamlet, William Shakespeare

    ReplyDelete