Volume 2 Issue 9 September 2015 - Shellfish & Sexuality

SHELLFISH AND SEXUALITY

Another common argument heard in defense of homosexuality is the equivocation between Moses’ prohibition of eating shellfish and his prohibition of homosexuality in the book of Leviticus. The argument usually goes something like this: “The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. But it also says that eating seafood without scales is an abomination. If you can eat shrimp why can’t you accept homosexuality?” But are these acts both abominations in the same sense? Are they equal?

There are two Levitical passages prohibiting homosexual acts. The first is Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” The second is Leviticus 20:13, “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Chapter 20 deals with unlawful acts that defile the land, such as child sacrifice to Molech, consultation with sorcerers and mediums, and unlawful sexual relations. Chapter 18 deals specifically with the sexual abominations of the Canaanites which Israel were not to follow. In chapter 18, many of the sexual sins are called abominations while in chapter 20 only homosexuality is called an abomination. This is the context of the prohibitions against such acts.

Earlier in Leviticus the Lord lays out the dietary code for Israel. This occurs in chapter eleven. The verse we will focus on is 11:10 where the Lord says, “But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.” Here, the eating of seafood without fins and scales is called an abomination.  By simply comparing the texts, eating shellfish and homosexuality are both abominations to the Lord.

But not so fast. In English both verses have the word ‘abomination.’ But that isn’t the case is the Hebrew text. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word translated ‘abomination’ is hb'[eAT (pronounced To-ay-vah). An abomination is something that doesn’t only defile the person participating in the act, but it also defiles the land of Israel. This is why in Chapter 20 homosexual acts are in the context of child sacrifice and sorcery. Idolatry among Israelites is also named as an abomination. The prescribed punishment for actions is typically death.

But the dietary restrictions in chapter 11 are a different animal. In Leviticus 11 the Lord says that certain animals are abominations to Israel so they are not to eat them. The Hebrew word translated ‘abomination’ in these passages is not hb'[eAT (to-ay-vah) but #q,v, (pronounced ‘she-ketz’). This is more accurately translated as “a detestable thing.” A detestable thing does not defile the person as an abomination does, nor is it punishable by death.

There is a theological difference between a detestable thing and an abomination. The detestable thing makes one ritually impure. Being unclean is a ritual punishment, meaning that the person is unable to enter the Tabernacle and participate in the Divine Service. Being unclean lasts until the evening. It is a temporal punishment for a ritual condition.  #q,v, (‘she-ketz’) is only used in chapter eleven the on dietary restrictions while hb'[eAT (‘to-ay-vah’) the Hebrew word for Abomination, never appears in that chapter. It is also never used throughout Leviticus in an association with ritual impurity.

What does this mean? It means that the argument in question is untenable. It’s simply not what the text says. Homosexuality is sin which merits death while eating shellfish makes one ritually unclean which makes one unable to worship until evening.

The reason for this is that Leviticus does not exist independently from the rest of the Scriptures, especially the other books of Moses. The Levitical laws in Chapter 18 and 20 are reinforcements of the creation narrative in Genesis 1-2. In Leviticus 18 the legislation concerns who is out of bounds for sexual relations. The chapter can be summarized as ‘no intercourse with family, animals, or the same sex.’ Why? Because all the acts listed in that chapter violate the institution of marriage in Genesis 1-2 especially where God said, “male and female He created them,” (Gen 1:27) and “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24)

The same is true for chapter 20, which deals with sexual sins as well as idolatry and sorcery, both first commandment issues of faith in the true God. It is clear (at least in Hebrew) that eating fish without fins and scales is not of the same caliber as intercourse with a member of the same sex. The dietary restrictions were solely for the people of Israel, not for Gentiles and these restrictions existed to teach Israel that “man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” (Deut 8:3) The prohibitions about sexual relations are rooted in the creation,and thus apply to everyone since everyone has an innate recognition of natural law (Romans 1-2). 

In fact, that the laws about sexual relations are a part of natural law makes all of this Leviticus discussion a moot point. Christ has fulfilled the law of Moses. Christians are not bound to follow Moses unless he agrees with natural law, as in the Ten Commandments. The Levitical law, the observance of specific feast days, the Sabbath, and other sacrificial and ceremonial features Christ fulfills entirely. All things were established as “shadows of things to come, but the substance is Christ.” (Col 2:17) The Christian is not bound to Levitical law. This is reiterated in Acts 10 when Christ tells Peter in vision concerning unclean foods, “What God has cleansed you must not call common (unclean).” Even Jewish Christians are free from Moses.

We are not bound to Mosaic Law, but we are bound to the natural law, that which is written on our hearts since the creation (Romans 2:15) and the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are really just a summation of natural law into its simplest for). Natural law tells us that men are not to lie with a man as they would a woman and human biology (as part of nature) teaches against it. Man and man, woman and woman, are not sexually compatible. Those who ignore this are simply suppressing the truth apparent to everyone.

Thus we see that this argument of equivocation is nothing. Shellfish and sexuality are not the same. Besides, arguing from Leviticus amounts to nothing. The only true use of Leviticus for the Christian is to teach us Christ and His sacrifice upon Calvary, as our propitiation for sin and the thing which makes us clean from our sinful impurity, even the sin and impurity of homosexuality.  May we always read it so, and rejoice in Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away all the sin of the world.

Vol. 2 - Issue 8 - August 2015 Jesus Vs. Paul

JESUS VS. PAUL

One comment I hear often when defending traditional marriage is the claim that Jesus never mentions homosexuality in the four Gospels, therefore true Christianity allows for homosexuality. When Romans 1 or 1 Corinthians 6 is mentioned, the opposition easily brushes those chapters aside because Paul wrote those, not Jesus. Those that use such an argument pit Paul against Jesus. This argument also closes it eyes to what Jesus does say about marriage in the Gospels. How is the Christian to respond to such an argument?

First the argument must be understood. The assumption that is foundational to this argument is that Jesus’ version of Christianity is different from Paul’s version of Christianity. Not only is Paul’s Christianity different from Jesus,’ it is viewed as an aberration of the Gospel Jesus taught. Jesus is viewed merely as a good teacher or a moral philosopher whose teachings can improve the individual and society if they are implemented. Paul, in this view, gets his hands on Christianity after Jesus’ death and makes it into a religious system which bears little resemblance to what Jesus actually taught. Having separated Jesus from Paul (and the other apostles), people can separate their teachings and cast aside that which they don’t like.

As I wrote in the first paragraph, this does two things. The first is that is destroys the definition of what an apostle is. In Greek, the word apostle means ‘one who is send on behalf of another.’ An apostle is an official representative of someone else. Not every Christian gets to be an apostle. In fact, there can be no more apostles since the death of St. John the Evangelist (the last apostle to die). As apostles, these men were sanctioned to speak on behalf of the Lord Jesus after His ascension. Thus

we have verses like Luke 10:16, “He who hears you hears me.” Jesus bestows this Office upon them in John 20 when He breathes on them, giving them the Holy Ghost, and commands them to forgive and retain sins. In Luke 24:46-47 the Apostles are sent to preach repentance and remission of sin in Jesus’ name. The apostles can only speak that which they are given to speak by Christ. They can write only what they are given to write by the inspiration of God the Holy Ghost. An apostle who deviates from their sender’s message ceases to be an apostle.

St. Paul is just as much an apostle as the Twelve. His calling is recorded in Acts 9. Consider the way Paul speaks of His Office in his epistles:

For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Cor. 15:9)

Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds. (2 Cor. 12:12)

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 1:1)

Christ called Paul to be His apostle to the Gentiles in spite of His past sins of persecuting the church. Christ proved His apostleship through signs and wonders and mighty deeds. Christ also proved Paul’s apostleship through the effectiveness of Paul’s preaching. Paul tells the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 9:2, “For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” Paul is just as much of an apostle as Peter, James, John and rest of the Twelve. That means that when Paul speaks and writes His epistles, that word is the Word of God, that is, the teaching of the same Jesus who sent him. (1 Thess. 2:13)

Another aspect of the argument we are outlining is that it functionally ignores what Jesus DOES say about marriage. It is truth that Jesus does not teach about explicitly about homosexuality in the four Gospels. But would He have had to teach about this topic? Homosexuality wasn’t an issue in first century Judaism. The Pharisees, strict disciples of the Mosaic Law, would have known the passages in Leviticus that prohibit same-sex relations. As proud children of Abraham’s bloodline, these people would have been raised hearing about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Lord’s rescue of Lot and his family. Jesus never speaks of homosexuality because there is no need for him to speak about it.

An argument from silence isn’t valid here because Jesus addresses marriage in a very clear way. Jesus is tested by some Pharisees in St. Matthew 19. They ask him about if divorce is permissible for any reason. The Pharisees want to entrap Jesus in the rigmarole of the Mosaic divorce certificate:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house. (Deut. 24:1)

The Pharisees ask Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Jesus will not fall into the trap. They want to argue marriage from Deuteronomy. Jesus answers them, not from the Law about divorce, but from the institution of marriage in the beginning:

And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his

father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:4-9)

Jesus argues from the institution of Marriage in Eden that divorce for any cause contradict sthe Lord’s institution and purpose for marriage. I realize that Jesus is not debating homosexual marriage in this passage. But He is teaching about marriage. His teaching about marriage is to uphold His original institution of it in Eden. He established it to be a man and a woman, “male and female” He says. So while Jesus never says, “Homosexual thoughts, acts, or marriage is sinful,” His teaching on marriage is that it was instituted by God to be between a male and a female. The reason Jesus never taught on it, other than mentioned above, is that Genesis already establishes what a marriage is.

One can’t separate Jesus from Paul, nor can one pit the two against each other. “The Scripture cannot be broken.” (John 5:39) Neither can one simply ignore the words of Jesus on this or any subject. The Church is called to make a clear confession on this topic in this age. Let us not surrender the Scriptures to those who do believe it, but let us hold fast to what our Lord has given us in His Word since only in His Word does He show us His will for our lives and His love for all sinners in Christ Jesus our Lord.