I encourage you, first, to read this article. It was an article my friend sent me regarding the issue. It's interesting, to say the least. Later, in my response, there is a link to another article, one of many I found refuting the claims of the first article. Specifically, it breaks down the terms in the passage regarding the original Greek texts. I encourage you to read that article too.
Anyway, here is my response....
I didn’t want you to think that I forgot about your request that I check into the passage of Luke where you assert homosexuality is mentioned. I’ve researched it, and here’s what I’ve found. This is lengthy, but I hope you’ll take the time to read through it.
First, I wondered why I’d never heard of this passage before. I’ve read through the gospels many times, and one would think that with my study of homosexuality as it pertains to Scripture, I would surely have noticed this passage. But I hadn’t.
The reason, it turns out, is simple… I’ve never read through the Gospels using the King James Version. I’ve always used, primarily, either the NIV or the NASB versions. It is only the KJV, as translated in English, that gives the idea of homosexuality in this verse. Here are the three different versions.
KJV: 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
NIV: 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” (Verse 36 is omitted in some versions.)
NASB: 34 I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left. 36 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.”
As you can see, there are subtle, yet distinct differences in the versions. So to get a clearer understanding, you have to dig a little deeper. Before I get to the original greek writings, let’s look at a couple other things.
The idea of context, as noted in the link you gave me, is important, but I think you have to look at it in a broader sense (which has been one of my arguments against those who claim I just “cherry pick” the verses I want to follow.) It is not only vital to understand the context of the entire chapter or passage containing a particular verse, it is also vital to understand the entire context of the Bible as a whole.
The Bible isn’t just a book of laws, or a good book of principles to live by. It is also a comprehensive history book. The Bible is an account of God’s creation, from start to finish. It shows the history of every way he’s interacted His people since the beginning of time, and how He moved within each culture, and everything He did preparing us for the saving grace of Jesus and beyond. It’s filled with many great twists and turns over time but has a central theme throughout. When one reads the book from start to finish, and views it as a whole piece, one will begin to understand that it is not contradictory of itself. But it is also definitely true that by showing the history of mankind, we see that over time, cultures change, values change, and certain rules and regulations change. But it is important to remember that those changes always came from God and/or Jesus. The basic rules and precepts we live by were never just changed by some random guy. It was always Jesus who said something like, “I know our forefathers told you this… but now I tell you this…” Or something of that nature.
Laws enacted by various governments throughout time have changed, but the basic rules and precepts given by God usually did not.
Which is important to understand and remember when we look at things like, say, the stoning of an adulteress in Deuteronomy. That was a law that was handed down for a particular purpose, with particular reasons, for a particular culture at a particular place in time. When Jesus later pardons an adulteress centuries later, it’s not a contradictory action, but rather Jesus fulfilling centuries of prophecy that showed ancient rules and regulations were no longer needed in light of Jesus’ own saving grace. His pardon can by no means be misconstrued as an endorsement of adultery, (He didn’t all of the sudden make adultery legal, as it were) but rather shows that such drastic punishment is no longer needed as we can find forgiveness and grace and salvation in Jesus. (As an aside, it is also important to note that even as Jesus pardoned the young adulteress and shamed her accusers, He tells her to go and, “Sin no more.” — an admonition He would make of almost everyone he pardoned or healed.)
This is why the argument that claims that if I still believe homosexuality is a sin, then I must still believe that we should stone adulterers, or own slaves, or wear purple, or any other such nonsense is just that: nonsense. Those precepts were put in place for a particular time and place and purpose. Moreover, it presumes, in some way that doesn’t exist, that God or Jesus came along somewhere and somehow began condoning homosexuality, and that simple is not the case.
From start to finish, nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condoned. NEVER is it spoken of in a good light. Not once. Not ever. Moreover, when it IS mentioned, it is almost always mentioned in the context of a myriad of other sins, among them murder and thievery. That’s an awful slippery slope when trying to justify it as something with which God is OK.
Which brings us back to the passage you sent. Contextually speaking, we must remember that the Gospels are, more or less, the same account of events as seen through the eyes of four different men. Which means that often, an event that is listed in one Gospel can also be found in another Gospel. That is true of this account.
The same conversation is mentioned in Matthew 24:40-42. For our purposes, I’ll just list the NIV version:
40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42 "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.
Again, here, the subtle, yet distinct differences. To read this, no one can see any hint of homosexuality. The “context” here, as it were, as well as in the Luke passage is not one of homosexuality, but rather the idea of the suddenness of Jesus’ return at the rapture. Moreover, the idea that none of us will know the actual time and date of His return.
Both passages mention the story of Noah, and the sudden destruction of the flood, and the idea that most people were totally unprepared for it. Only Luke mentions the destruction of Sodom, but the context, again, is not homosexuality, rather the suddenness of the destruction of the city. One can even picture the imagery of Lot’s wife being instantly turned into a pillar of salt for her disobedience.
So we’re left to look at things logically. What makes more sense? That Luke is relating a passage about homosexuality that is totally and 100% contradictory to every other passage about homosexuality in the Bible, a book that nowhere else contradicts itself? Or rather, that Luke and Matthew are both relating a story about the impending suddenness of Jesus’ return, a concept that is in no way contradictory to solid Biblical doctrine? You’re a logical man: Which is easier to believe?
Finally, to break down the actual Greek translation of the Luke passage, I’ll in turn give you a link to an article (one of many, I might add) I found that totally refutes the assertions made in the article you gave me. I’ll let you read it yourself. There’s no need for me to try to rehash it when this article breaks it down pretty well.
In the end, it’s important to remember that lots of good people aren’t going to Heaven. That’s not my judgment, that’s simple, Biblical fact. The story of the Sheep and the Goats in the Bible (Matthew 25:31-46) is proof of that. I know you know a lot of good gay people. I do to. But the truth is that I know tons of “good people,” gay AND straight, who are not Biblical believers. In my interpretation of the Bible, there is ONE way to Heaven, and that’s through Jesus. And if we are followers of Jesus, I believe we have to follow the Bible, and all it contains.
I’m not perfect, and I’m a sinner. But I have saving grace through Jesus. I ask forgiveness, and I repent of my sin, and it is that repentance that is distinctive. To say I’m a sinner just the same as any homosexual is true. But because of my repentance, and my desire to TURN AWAY from those sins the best I can, and try to “sin no more,” and that it is in my heart to live right and not continue in sin is what separates me from someone who is not willing to turn away from their sin.
I know this can lead to a whole other discussion about homosexuality as a choice, or it’s biological origins, or whether a gay man can be “delivered” or “cured,” etc. But we’ll leave that to another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment