A New Hermeneutic



A New Hermeneutic?

This last week the Associated Press (AP) released a statement from a “religious leader” in Christianity who claims that Christians have misinterpreted one of the most often used texts to show that God is opposed to homosexuality.

In his statement he claims that Christians have long used Rom. 1:26-27 out of context. That if Rom. 2:1 is read with the rest of Rom. 1 then it changes the whole meaning of the passage. He claims that it no longer condemns homosexuality, but rather, it condemns the attitude of Christians who condemn such persons.

Is this so called religious leader accurate in his teaching? Or is he like many before him merely trying to justify more unrighteousness.

Rom. 2:1

To understand how the “religious leader” came to his conclusion, we must first look at his proof text. Rom. 2:1 reads, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” Therefore is a concluding remark. The points he was making in Rom. 1 are to be continued into Rom. 2.

In Rom. 1 Paul was emphasizing the fact that the world, especially the gentile world, was without excuse (Rom. 1:20). They should have recognized God as the supreme being and worshipped him as such. Instead they worshipped the creation (Rom. 1:23). Therefore God gave them over to their own lusts (Rom. 1:24) and degrading desires such as homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-27). God then gave them over to a depraved mind and to continue in other forms of unrighteousness (Rom. 1:28-32).

After these points were established Paul says, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things (Rom. 2:1).” How are they inexcusable in their judging? The answer is found in Rom. 2:3; “And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?” Paul was NOT condoning the actions. Paul was condemning the same thing Christ did in the Sermon on the Mount when he spoke of the log in our eyes and the speck in our brother’s (Matt. 7:1-5). We cannot judge our brother when we are guilty of the same crime. Even more so, we cannot judge the world when we ourselves commit in a like offence.

During the Wednesday night class the following example was given. During one Sunday morning sermon the speaker lectured the assembly on attendance and the necessity of being here and then the following evening he went to work instead of services. One preacher had given a lesson on the dangers of alcohol only to be found drinking before Wednesday night services later that week. This was apparently one issue the Romans had in congregation. They thought they were better off than those worshipping false gods because they worshipped the true God. However, it is apparent that some of the Christians in Rome had not cast off all of the old man.

Again, Paul was in no way condoning homosexual behavior. He was condemning the Christians who were judging when they were sinning in a like fashion. This “religious leader’s” new hermeneutic (method of interpretation) is false doctrine.

I Cor. 6:9-11

It is here that Paul gives us one of the “sin lists” found in the Bible. In this particular list, he mentions those who abuse themselves with mankind (I Cor. 6:9). .In the Greek, the above phrase is but one word. The following dictionaries offer their definitions of the word.

Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words states that the Greek word means, “sodomite.” It comes from two words meaning man (male) and cohabitation, bed or couch. This is not meant to be taken as two men living together, but rather lying together as with a woman.

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the word as “one who lies with male as with female; a sodomite.”

These are two well thought of scholarly Greek books. They are in harmony with one another. This is no a matter of opinion. The word means what they say it means.

The other location of this word is found in I Tim. 1:10, another “sin list” by Paul. How can one justify homosexuality and condemn idolatry (I Cor. 6), stealing (I Cor. 6), murders (I Tim. 1), and false teachers (I Tim. 1)? One cannot justify one without justifying the remaining. Neither can one condemn one without condemning the others.

Lev. 18:22

The last passage we will examine is of course found in the Old Testament. I understand that the Mosaic Law is no longer binding upon us today, but there are some passages that can clarify what God expects of us under the Christian dispensation.

Here in Lev. 18:22 God commands “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Does it get any plainer than this? The Israelites would have clearly understood that homosexual behavior was not approved of by God. It is an abomination! An abomination is a disgusting thing (Strong’s). This particular passage includes lying with someone else’ wife (adultery), child sacrifice, and lying with beasts. Are we going to justify those sins along with justifying homosexuality? God forbid!

Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. It is detestable in his sight. It is sin.

Although it is called an alternative lifestyle; although those who participate in such behavior claim it is their right to live that way, it does not make it right. Yes, God gave us a choice. We can choose to serve Him or we can choose to reject Him. If we desire to acknowledge His existence and right to rule us, then we must submit to ALL of his commandments and not just the ones that fit into our desires. -WTK

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download