The Sacrificial System

This is a post in a series of posts titled Types and Shadows. You may want to start at the FIRST post of the series, or see the PREVIOUS post, before reading this one.

When I was in college I worked part-time for an attorney’s office. One of my various tasks was to take the law book updates that came in daily and to insert them into the books. It wasn’t a hard task – the pages were numbered systematically, so it was usually as simple as finding the pages by page number, pulling out the old ones, and inserting the new ones.  The hard part came when you had to actually read through a part of a page for some reason. It turns out that law books can be extremely boring reading (at least, for a non-lawyer).   Unfortunately, when it comes to reading the Bible, the Old Testament Law is sometimes the same way. We decide we’re going to read the Bible, we start in Genesis, we do well until the end of Exodus, then we call it off 1 or 2 chapters into Leviticus. Number and Deuteronomy never really had a chance.  Even so, there is a lot of benefit to understanding the Old Testament Law, and by skipping through these few books, we miss out of some of the richest Biblical typology to be found.

Today’s lesson from the Online Bible College was over the Biblical typology of the sacrificial system instituted in the Law of Moses. The lesson starts out by making the point that, regardless of whether you are reading the Old Testament or the New Testament, you will find one common question being answered: How can a sinner live in fellowship with a holy God?  In the very beginning of Genesis, with Adam and Eve, we see sin and death enter the world and the huge divide arise between God and humanity. And from that time, the greatest need of humanity is to find a way back across that divide. But humanity couldn’t ever bridge the gap – only God could do that, and the way He demonstrated is “bridge” was through blood sacrifice.

We see the recurring redemptive act of blood sacrifice throughout Scripture, even before the Mosaic law was put into place. When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, God clothed them with the skins of animals (requiring the animals’ deaths). When Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to the Lord, Abel’s blood sacrifice of an animal was accepted, while Cain’s offering of “fruits of the soil” were not. When Noah left the ark after the Flood, he built an altar and offered burnt offerings to the Lord. Altars were built and animal sacrifices were offered by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And my lesson points out that, though it is clear that sacrifices “were understood to be required by the Lord, Israel is later explicitly instructed by God to offer blood sacrifices, firstly as a part of the Passover ceremony, and then secondly as part of the code of Mosaic Law.”

Once the Law was handed down from God to Moses, a system was put in place to ensure proper sacrifices were made. There were 5 main sacrifices listed in the Law:

1. Guilt offering (Leviticus 5:14-19) – a mandatory animal sacrifice to atone for the acts of sin committed by a person
2. Sin offering (Leviticus 4:1 – 5:13) – a mandatory animal sacrifice to atone for the sinner (the internal, sinful nature of a person)
3. Fellowship offering (Leviticus 3; 7:11-21) – a voluntary animal sacrifice offered as an expression of thanksgiving to God
4. Grain offering (Leviticus 2; 6:14-23) – a voluntary offering of the first-fruits of one’s possessions or wealth (not animals)
5. Burnt offering (Leviticus 1) – a voluntary animal (or grain) sacrifice, as an offering of worship to the Lord

Notice that some of the sacrifices were mandatory, while others were voluntary. The guilt and sin offerings were compulsory because they deal with the sin barrier between a person and God.  Interestingly, these two are not described as producing an “aroma pleasing to the Lord.”  The other 3 sacrifices are all described as “pleasing to the Lord,” and were more positive in nature.

New Testament Fulfillment

As you become more familiar with the sacrifices listed in the Law, it’s not hard to start putting the puzzles pieces together as to how the sacrificial system serves as a Biblical type of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, as well as the daily offerings and sacrifices we are called to give to this day.

The mandatory sacrifices of the guilt offering and the sin offering dealt with sin and sinners. The reason blood sacrifice was required was that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22).  Jesus’ death on the cross also dealt with sin and sinners – his shed blood was better than the shed blood of animals, in that He was a perfect sacrifice, totally without the blemish of sin. “By one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” (Hebrews 10:14). Because of the perfection of Jesus’ sacrifice, it was a once-for-all sacrifice – we no longer need to make this sacrifice for the atonement of our sin.

The voluntary sacrifices are repeated continuously under the New Covenant. Today, these would include:

• Praise and thanksgiving (the fellowship offering) – “let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess his name.” (Hebrews 13:15)
• Tithing and give money (the grain offering) – Paul speaks of this kind of offering when he said “I have received full payment and even more; I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God.” (Philippians 4:18)
• Our whole lives (the burnt offering) – Paul tells us what this looks like in Ephesians 5:1-2: “Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.”

As you can see, the New Testament does not do away with the need for the Old Testament. Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. In Christ, the sacrifices required to be made have already been made. And in Him, we can continue to live in a way that offers the sacrifices God truly wants from us even today.

Click HERE to see the next post in this series –>

The Tabernacle of David

This is a post in a series of posts titled Types and Shadows. You may want to start at the FIRST post of the series, or see the PREVIOUS post, before reading this one.

In yesterday’s post, we looked at the Biblical typology of the tabernacle of Moses. We defined the word tabernacle as a dwelling, and showed how other translations used the word tent in its place. We determined that the tabernacle was God’s plan to dwell with His people, Israel, at that point in history.  Today’s post is going to continue looking at the tabernacle, but will focus on the tent erected on Mount Zion during the reign of King David.

Historical Background

Before we can look at the New Testament significance of the Tabernacle of David, we have to look at the historical background of why David had the tabernacle raised in Jerusalem in the first place. The tabernacle of Moses was still standing and in use in Gibeon, but as we’ll see, the Ark was not there.

In 1 Samuel 4, we read that about a hundred years before David came into power, the Israelites were at war with the Philistines. They weren’t faring well in battle, so they took it upon themselves to bring the Ark of the Covenant (which, as we mentioned yesterday, symbolized the presence of God) out of the Tabernacle of Moses and into battle with them. They figured that it would bring them victory, but in the end, the Ark was captured by the Philistines and taken back to their city of Ashdod. The people of Ashdod ended up being judged by God (they were afflicted with tumors – my lesson said these were probably hemorrhoids…eghh…), so they had the Ark sent to Gath, who in turn had it sent to Ekron. Each city having the same fate (hemorrhoids), they finally decided to have the Ark sent back to Israel. Once in Israel, the Ark made it’s way to Kiriath Jearim, where it stayed until the time of David.

After David had come into power, he decided to bring the Ark back into it’s rightful place – the center of Israel’s worship. He set up an Ark-moving party, and they started transporting the Ark on a cart back to Jerusalem. The only problem was, this was not the prescribed method of moving the Ark – God had commanded that it be moved on poles so that it would not have to be touched by the priests who carried it. Instead, as they moved the cart along, one of the priests put his hand on the Ark to steady it, and God immediately strikes him dead. This angers and confuses David, who probably thought he was doing the right thing by having the Ark transported back to it’s proper place. Instead, David has the Ark placed in the home of the nearest resident and goes back to Jerusalem empty-handed.

Three months later, David hears that the household where he had left the Ark was experiencing great blessing, so he is stirred to try moving the Ark again to the center of Israel’s worship. This time he is careful to move the Ark in the way prescribed in the Law, on the shoulders of Levites, and he offers the right sacrifices to the Lord as the Ark enters Jerusalem. And as we mentioned before, instead of taking the Ark to the existing tabernacle in Gibeon, David has a new tent pitched on Mount Zion especially for the Ark.

Moses’ Tabernacle vs. David’s Tabernacle

As we talked about yesterday, Moses’ tabernacle had 3 compartments – the Outer Court, the Holy Place, and the Most Holy Place.  As you can see from this diagram from my lesson, David’s tabernacle had only one compartment, and this compartment corresponded to the Most Holy Place in Moses’ tabernacle:

In this new tent, the Ark was the only fixture inside, and David set up a new order of worship here. The tabernacle in of Moses, in Gibeon, was still in use. In 1 Chronicles 16, where it talks about David’s tabernacle, it mentions the old tabernacle by saying “David left Zadok the priest and his fellow priests before the tabernacle of the LORD at the high place in Gibeon to present burnt offerings to the LORD on the altar of burnt offering regularly, morning and evening, in accordance with everything written in the Law of the LORD, which he had given Israel.” (v. 39-40). At the new tabernacle, David set up many priests to serve before the Ark of the Lord. Their jobs included sacrifice, singing and music, thanksgiving, and guarding the door of the tent. Most amazingly, there was no veil! As my lesson put it, “people had daily access into the presences of God…there was a constant flow of people into the Tabernacle of David, bringing praise and worship before the Ark of the Lord.”

New Testament Fulfillment

David’s tabernacle serves many great illustrations with New Testament significance.

• Open access into the presence of God. When Christ died, the veil in the Temple blocking the Most Holy Place from the people, ripped in two from top to bottom (see Matthew 27:51). Because of this, we have the authority to “approach the throne of grace with confidence” (Hebrews 4:16).  This open access is illustrated in David’s tabernacle, where the people could enter God’s presence and worship Him freely.
• Unity. One of the hallmarks of the reign of David was the unity of the nation of Israel. Throughout the times before David and much of the time after, the nation was split in different ways, but during his reign the nation was one. The tabernacle in Jerusalem served as the center of worship for this unified nation. This illustrates the unity that believers have in Christ, which Jesus prayed about in John 17: “I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (v. 22-23)
• Our Life in Christ. One of the themes that can easily be seen in David’s returning the Ark to the center of Israel’s worship is joy. David and the people experience great joy in their rejuvenated worship before the Lord, with singing, dancing, and music. At the same time, the Christian life is described throughout the New Testament as a life of joy. This joy comes from doing what we were created to do, just as the Israelites were joyful in returning to what they were called to do – worship.

As a Biblical type, the tabernacle of David is only mentioned once in the New Testament. In Acts 15, James (the brother of Jesus) quotes the prophet Amos as saying “After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things that have been known for ages” (v. 16-17).  The context of this statement by James is a conversation between the leaders of the Church over whether Gentiles should be allowed to convert to Christianity. Therefore, what James is doing is referring to the great spiritual revival that happened in David’s time (represented by the new tabernacle) and comparing it to the spiritual revival that was occurring at that time with the great influx of gentiles into the Church. And with this new revival came all the things that we saw come with the return of the Ark to Jerusalem – open access to God, unity, and a joyful, purposeful life.

See the NEXT post in this series –>

The Tabernacle of Moses

This is a post in a series of posts titled Types and Shadows. You may want to start at the FIRST post of the series, or see the PREVIOUS post, before reading this one.

I started a new course from Online Bible College this week, titled Types and Shadows. The lessons in this course discuss things from the Old Testament that model New Testament truths. An example would be Adam as a personal type of Christ – both act as representative figures, in that their actions have repercussions for all of humanity. Therefore a type is a model or some form of a foreshadowing element that points toward Jesus and the New Testament. Today’s lesson discussed the Tabernacle of Moses as a type of Christ and as a type of the Church.

What is the Tabernacle?

The tabernacle of Moses was the first tabernacle prescribed by God for the Israelites to build. In the King James Version, you actually see it called the “tabernacle”, while in the New International Version, it’s often translated “tent” (see Exodus 29:42). The Hebrew word translated “tabernacle” or “tent” here is ohel, which literally means “dwelling” or “dwelling place.” The purpose of the tabernacle, then, was inherent in it’s name – it was to be where God dwelt among His people. This is made evident in Exodus 25:8, where God tells Moses “…have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them.”

This idea of God dwelling among his creation is not something that He talked about only with the tabernacle. In fact, in all of Scripture, we see that this was God’s desire from the beginning and is His desire in the end.  In Leviticus 26:11-12, in speaking of the tabernacle, God said “I will put my dwelling place among you, and I will not abhor you. I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.”  Interestingly, the Bible talks of God walking among his creation in Genesis 3, where it says “…the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden” (v. 8). And in Revelation 21, where it is describing the eternal setting in which God’s people will live forever, the Apostle John hears a loud voice say “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.” (v. 3). No doubt, dwelling with His creation is God’s goal, and the tabernacle was how He chose to do so as he formed the nation of Israel in the desert after they left Egypt.

The Structure of the Tabernacle

The tabernacle had an absolute structure, and God was very explicit with Moses about every little detail. He told Moses, “make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.” (Exodus 25:9, emphasis added). The reason for this was that the tabernacle was, as my lesson put it, “a mirror reflection of a heavenly reality.”  Hebrews 8:4-5 explains: “…there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: ‘See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.’ “  (emphasis added). Whether the throne room of God looks exactly like what the tabernacle was commanded to look like, I can’t say. Physical realities and spiritual realities don’t always line up the way our finite minds might think. But we know that, in some way, every structural detail of the tabernacle models a spiritual reality in heaven.

These structural details include 3 main compartments and several fixtures spread throughout. This diagram comes from my lesson:

As you can see, the Outer Court contained the Brazen Altar and the Laver.  Inside of the outer court were two more areas, the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place (often called the Holy of Holies). These areas were curtained off so that those in the outer court could not enter or see in. The Holy Place contains 3 fixtures: the table of shewbread (also called the bread of presence), the lampstand, and the altar of incense. Between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place was another curtain, or veil. The Most Holy Place contained the Ark of the Covenant, which contained the Law on the stone tables, a golden pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded. Each fixture in the tabernacle had specific functions, and many of those functions have New Testament illustrations that correspond to them (but would not necessarily be considered a Biblical type, since a New Testament reference doesn’t exist).

• Brazen Altar – the altar of sacrifice, where the Israelites offered sacrifices for atonement; illustrates Christ’s death on the cross, a sacrifice made once for all
• Laver – a basin of water where the priests washed themselves before entering the Holy Place; illustrates New Testament baptism and, perhaps, the “washing with water through the word” (see Ephesians 5:26)
• Table of Shewbread – the bread of presence was 12 loaves of continually replenished bread in the Holy Place, eaten only by the priests; illustrates the Word of God coming continually and daily into our lives
• Lampstand – the menorah, a seven-branched lampstand, provided light in the enclosed Holy Place; illustrates that the people of God are to be the light of the world, and that the Holy Spirit is to fuel us as oil fuels the lampstand
• Altar of Incense – table placed right in front of the veil into the Most Holy Place, where incense was burned before the Lord; illustrates prayers to God (see Psalm 141:2, Revelation 5:8, Revelation 8:3-4)
• Ark of the Covenant – the small box in the Most Holy Place, covered by a lid with cherubim (guardian angels) statues on top; illustrates the presence of God with His people – truly dwelling among them

New Testament Fulfillment

As with all Old Testament types, the tabernacle and all of the fixtures within are fulfilled in Jesus.  Jesus himself likened his body to the Temple (a later, permanent form of the tabernacle – see John 2:19-22).  John 1:14, in speaking of Christ, says “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” Jesus, therefore, was God dwelling among His people once again. Jesus’ purpose was to reconcile God and man, so that God could once again and for all time dwell with His creation. On top of Christ fulfilling this type, we as the Church, the Body of Christ, also fulfill the type of the tabernacle. In Ephesians 2:19-22, Paul writes

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

My lesson summed this up by saying “As the Body of Christ, we are a spiritual Tabernacle that houses the presence of God, revealing his glory to the world.”

See the NEXT post in this series –>

Type Versus Illustration

This is a post in a series of posts titled Types and Shadows. You may want to start at the FIRST post of the series, or see the PREVIOUS post, before reading this one.

As I was reading back over my previous lesson, and I read a few more resources online that I trust, I started to realize that I had not made a complete introduction to the concept of Biblical typology. While I think the definitions I wrote about in the introductory post were sufficient, one thing I didn’t talk about was the difference between an official Biblical type and a simple illustration. The reason it is important to differentiate between the two comes down to the rules of Biblical interpretation. Two of the most important rules of Biblical interpretation are

1. Never read into Scripture, but always draw meaning out of Scripture, and
2. Always use Scripture to interpret Scripture.

In doing this, we are less likely to mistakenly assign an Old Testament figure or event as a type of a New Testament truth.

One way to follow these rules of interpretation as it applies to typology is to only consider something a type when it is declared to be a type in the New Testament.  Admittedly, the OBC lesson I followed for my first post did not agree with this.  They quoted Moses Stuart as saying “Just so much of the Old Testament is to be accounted typical as the New Testament affirms to be so, and no more,”, but then explained that “by limiting the number of types solely to those mentioned by the New Testament writers, one severely curbs the richness of types and shadows found elsewhere in the Old Testament.”  They felt that sticking to only New Testament revealed types was too limiting, and as I read through the lesson the first time through, it didn’t jump out at me how dangerous this line of thinking could be. But after doing some reading elsewhere, I came to realize that by identifying an Old Testament figure or event as a type, even though it’s not identified in Scripture as being so, I am adding meaning to Scripture, and not drawing meaning out of it.

A good example is the story of Joseph. The Got Questions site explains “…many people see parallels between Joseph (Genesis 37-45) and Jesus. The humiliation and subsequent glorification of Joseph seem to correspond to the death and resurrection of Christ. However, the New Testament never uses Joseph as a model of Christ…”  My OBC lesson listed Joseph as a personal type of Christ, so it’s a great example of this kind of error.  But as GQ pointed out, “Joseph’s story is properly called an illustration, but not a type, of Christ.”

Why go on about this, you ask?  Perhaps there isn’t much reason to. But as I continued in my study, I felt I needed to make some clarification before continuing on in my posts here at WHITM.

See the NEXT post in this series –>

Types and Shadows

This is the first in a series of posts titled Types and Shadows.

I’ve tried to make it very clear on this site that I am far from being a theologian. I have no formal theology training, and my knowledge of the Bible only goes as far as my own personal study has taken me. But I still find all things theological very interesting, and I think my main spiritual gift is the gift of knowledge (if there truly is such a thing). The thing I love the most in my Christian walk is studying God’s Word, and learning everything there is to learn about Him. That is why I have been working through the courses at the Online Bible College – the courses here have allowed me to systematically study the Bible, and this is, as we say here in Texas, “right up my alley.”

For this reason, when I started going through a course titled Types and Shadows, I quickly realized that this was going to be one I truly enjoyed. The purpose of the course is to look at those things in the Old Testament that are types and shadows of things in the New Testament. These words are not necessarily ones we use on a daily basis, but the meanings should be pretty clear once we look at them closer:

Types

The word type is a theology word taken directly from the Greek wording written by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:11 – “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.” The word translated examples here in the NIV is the Greek word tupos, which is literally the word type. Easton’s Bible Dictionary defines it as “…a ‘model’ or ‘pattern’ or ‘mould’ into which clay or wax was pressed, that it might take the figure or exact shape of the mould. The word ‘type’ is generally used to denote a resemblance between something present and something future…”. Therefore, the things of the Old Testament that served as a “model” or “pattern” for the things of the New Testament would be considered types. These could be:

• Personal types, where a person’s life and experiences typifies a New Testament truth
• Historical types, where an historical event foreshadows a New Testament truth
• Ritual types, where a ritual prescribed by Old Testament Law illustrates a New Testament truth

My lesson quoted the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’s definition of type, which I really liked:

God in the types of the last dispensation was teaching His children their letters. In this dispensation He is teaching them to put the letters together, and they find that the letters, arrange them as they will, spell Christ, and nothing but Christ.

Shadows

The word shadow also comes from Paul’s writing, one example of which is Colossians 2:16-17 – “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” (emphasis added). A shadow is basically the same as a type, in that it represents an Old Testament entity that foreshadows a New Testament truth.  I liked the way my lesson today worded it:

When backlit by the sun, an object will cast a long shadow. When you look at that shadow you can see the basic form of the object, yet the shadow only points to the object. It is not the object itself. In the same way, it can be said that the Christ of the New Testament casts a long shadow across Old Testament history, revealing himself in countless prophetic images.

Traversing the Tapestry of Types

There are many great examples of types and shadows throughout Scripture. Adam serves as a type of Christ, in that just as through Adam’s actions all of humanity was affected (sin and death), the same is true of Christ (though in righteousness and life) (see Romans 5:14-19).  Jonah’s experience in the great fish is a shadow of Jesus’ burial and resurrection. The list could go on and on.  I know that my course doesn’t cover all examples (nor would I write about them all, even if it did…the Internet is only so big…). But the following posts in this series will walk through several of the main types in the Old Testament, including the various tabernacles and the temple, the sacrificial system, the Feasts, and more. I encourage you to stop back by each day for the next couple of weeks as we traverse these types, and dive deeper into the personality of Him who is our God and our King.

Go to the NEXT post in this series –>

Homosexuality: A Christian’s Response

I’ve spent the past 3 days writing about how homosexuality can be considered unnatural, detrimental, and destructive to civilization. These words were not my own, at least to begin with. These came from a statement made by Kirk Cameron, and they caused a firestorm of angst toward Cameron, and in many ways, his Christian beliefs. In the end, though, after much research, I came to the conclusion that all three statements he made about homosexuality had merit. No doubt, most of them are debatable, so to tie everything up we need some form of objective standard. For people of faith, the Bible can serve as that measuring tool. For those who deny that scripture is God-breathed, or who feel that scripture is not perfect, using the Bible in this way will seem worthless. But it was the Apostle Paul who wrote:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe…For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength. (1 Corinthians 1:18-21, 25)

So for those who are willing to consider that the Bible is true, read on. This post will sum up the past 3 quite nicely. For those who find the Bible to be unbelievable, or who see the Christian faith as foolishness, this post will do nothing for you. But keep in mind that the message of the Bible is not intended to confirm the wisdom of those considered wise, intelligent, or scholarly, by this world’s standards. The message of the Bible is the wisdom of God and the power of God to those who believe, and the Apostle Paul predicted it would appear as foolishness to the unbeliever almost 2000 years ago.

So what does the Bible say about homosexuality?

The main point I’d like to make regarding a Biblical perspective of homosexuality is that it’s not as much a physical sin as it is a heart condition.  Allow me to explain. As I pointed out in the first post this week, both Old Testament and New Testament scriptures condemn homosexual acts. Some may try to split hairs and say that there is a big difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. I would disagree. Although I agree that temptations are not sinful in themselves, thoughts very well can be sinful. In Matthew 5, Jesus teaches that lust is a sin – not just the physical acts of adultery or fornication, but simply looking at a woman lustfully. What we find here is that it’s someone’s heart that counts – not always their actions. A person who is willing to allow homosexual, lustful thoughts to enter his or her mind has more than a temptation problem…he or she has a heart problem. That person has stopped seeing things accurately, spiritually-speaking, and started considering the human form to be more desirable than the God who created it. As it’s written about homosexuality in Romans 1:24-25, “…God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator…” (emphasis added).

On the other hand, the Bible does NOT point out homosexuality as the only sin, or even the worst sin. In many of the places where homosexuality is mentioned, other sins are also listed.  Take 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”  Other sexually immoral (that is, heterosexually immoral) people, thieves, greedy persons, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers are all in the same boat as homosexuals. And a lot of other sins are mentioned in other areas that are just as evil. It’s not homosexuality that is wrong – it’s sin in general. And the world sometimes fails to understand that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is sinful. The Bible teaches that “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23, emphasis added)  Humanity in general needs saving…not just gays. And that is the Gospel – the good news – that everyone, regardless of who you are or what you’ve done, can have salvation from our sin through faith in Jesus.

Why must we talk about it?

One of the arguments made by Piers Morgan and others in the whole Kirk Cameron debacle was that they don’t like the “hateful rhetoric” used in talking about homosexuals. They claim that it fosters bullying and discrimination. Although I’m not sure how Cameron’s statements, that homosexuality is “unnatural”, “detrimental”, and “destructive to the foundations of civilization,” could be considered hateful (critical, yes, but hateful?), it does lead one to ask…why do Christians need to speak out against homosexuality to begin with? The reason is that we are mandated to speak the truth in love (see Ephesians 4:15).

Somewhere along the way, people started getting the idea that Christians were supposed to offer 100% grace, all the time. After all, they reason, grace is what God has offered to us through his Son, so we should offer grace to others, right? The problem is that they are pushing grace at the expense of truth, and Jesus never does this. Instead of writing about the grace and truth continuum here, allow me to direct you to a series of posts talking about just that – click here.  But to summarize, yes, we are to offer grace, but we must never compromise truth. We don’t have to go out in search of homosexuals and shove their sin down their throats. But if asked about it, as Kirk Cameron was on Piers Morgan’s show, we must always stand for truth. Is it true that homosexuality is a sin? Yes. Cameron was obligated to say so. And so are we.

On top of our obligation to speak truth in all circumstances, what people fail to realize is our motive. It is not hate that drives the Christian to say that homosexuality is a sin – it’s love! Think of it this way…imagine that at the end of time, at the judgment seat of God, a homosexual finds out that, in actuality, homosexuality was a sin and was offensive to God. But because of their insistence that they would live how they pleased, they would not change. They would say things like “it’s natural, it’s not a choice!” and “I don’t believe in God anyway.” At that point, in front of a holy God, wouldn’t they wish that someone had loved them enough to tell them the truth? Just as a doctor must tell a patient when they have cancer, knowing that it’s going to hurt them at first, we must tell people the truth when asked. In the end, it’s not because we hate them, but because we love them.

Where should we go from here?

A few years ago I coached a middle school tennis team. One of the girls on my team, who was not a Christian but knew that I was, would ask me questions a lot. After much discussion, I came to realize that her biggest stumbling block to becoming a Christian was homosexuality. She had family members and family friends who she loved dearly that were openly homosexual. She never actually said so, but I suspected that her father might be gay (her parents had long since been divorced). After a while, almost every discussion we had ended in some kind of debate over why gay people were living in sin, and could ultimately go to hell, even though they  were, in her words, “really good people.”  Obviously her understanding of the Gospel was skewed (it’s not our “goodness” that determines our eternal destination, but faith in Christ), and this was something I should have worked harder at helping her understand. But this story serves as a good example of a situation where the truth of the Bible intersects the reality of homosexuality in our nation. There are so many people who cannot get past this one issue…they don’t have a problem with God, but they aren’t willing to bend on this one little thing. So how do we handle this? What do we tell people when we want to share Christ’s love with them, but know that they are going disagree on the issue of the sinfulness of homosexuality?

All I know to do is to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). On top of that, we must have an answer ready for whenever someone asks a question. Peter tells us in 1 Peter 3:15, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…” The last part is important – our obligation to speak the truth comes with it the obligation to share grace. We must be gentle, respectful, and most of all, loving. Our motivation must be love above all else. If it’s not, we’re simply judging homosexuals, and that’s wrong. We’re playing God’s role, and that’s as much a sin as homosexuality itself.

Is Homosexuality Destructive?

Welcome to the WHITM blog! If this is your first visit here, you may want to go back a couple of days to ready the previous posts, which are the first 2 of a series of 3 posts on a statement made by Kirk Cameron recently in an interview on Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN. In that statement, Cameron said that homosexuality is “unnatural,” “detrimental,” and “ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” The first 2 posts in this series take on the first two arguments – that homosexuality is unnatural and detrimental. This final post will look at how homosexuality might be destructive to the foundations of civilization.

When we talk about the foundations of civilization, we must first define civilization. One definition I found and that I thought particularly well-fitting was this: “a group of people who live together in a single place, and have social, political, economic and religious structure qualifies as a civilization.” So the 4 major facets of civilization are:

1. Social – people and cultural affairs
2. Political – government and public affairs
3. Economic – industry and financial affairs
4. Religious – church and faith-based affairs

This post will attempt to look at these 4 areas that define the structure of a civilization and will try to determine if homosexuality can be seen as destructive to that area in any way.

Argument #3: Homosexuality is Destructive to Civilization

Social

Perhaps the least destructive area of civilization, as far as homosexuality is concerned, is the social arena. No doubt, there is and will always be a huge cultural barrier between much of the heterosexual population and the homosexual population. But because of the disproportionate amount of media attention and support from those in the spotlight, the LGBT community suffers less social stigma today than ever before. If anything, homosexuals have their own culture that has developed and is being more widely accepted than ever before. The only destructive element I could think of is the fact that, as social and cultural acceptance of homosexuality increases in America, it will put a greater strain on the other areas of our civilization that are being negatively affected by this lifestyle.

Political

Interestingly, there are not as many homosexuals in America as you might think. In a Gallup poll, when asked the question “How many lesbian- and gay-identified people live in America?”, the average response was 25%. In actuality, it’s only 1-3%! Why do we tend to think there are more homosexuals than there actually are? Because we hear about it constantly in the media.It’s a hot topic, sure to get the attention of anyone flipping channels or considering buying your magazine. Which begs the question…if only 3% of the population (at the most) is homosexual, why is so much political attention given to homosexual causes, like gay marriage? America is a democratic nation, where the majority vote takes the election. If people were given the opportunity to vote on gay rights issues, I have trouble believing  more than 50% of Americans would care whether two men or two women had the right to marry. This should be a fringe issue, not worth the amount of time it gets in the public arena. All the same, gay marriage and other issues are getting approval at phenomenal rates, but not by American voters. It’s by activist judges!  Take the ban on gay marriage in the state of California. It passed by popular vote of the people, yet it was reversed by judges for it’s constitutionality. The same constitution that ensures the democratic process can deny the democratic process? It shouldn’t. But because of this judicial activism, the democratic will of the people is getting overridden, and this is only going to lead to social conflict and division in this country. And this division is not beneficial for America – it can only be seen as destructive.

Economic

Obviously, there are few, if any, direct links between homosexuality and economic issues in America. But indirectly, several economically destructive issues can be tied to homosexuality. As mentioned yesterday, the Center for Disease Control has reported that “the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women” and “the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among [men who have sex with men] is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women.” In a country where healthcare is costing taxpayers more and more each year, it isn’t hard to see that a lifestyle that is more prone to diseases like HIV and Syphilis is economically destructive.  The numbers speak for themselves: in a report by the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. government spending on AIDS research, prevention, and treatment programs has raised from $200,000 in 1981 to over $6 billion in 2008, and it is increasing every year. Now, admittedly, these numbers are not specifically tied to AIDS in homosexuals, but with the numbers of homosexuals contracting HIV at 44 times greater than heterosexuals, there is cause for concern.

Another area of concern is the economic problems that may become worse should gay marriage become universally legalized. Marriage itself may not have much of a destructive economic impact on our country, but divorce has a huge destructive impact. And as mentioned yesterday, homosexual couples are less likely to stay together as heterosexual couples. One writer put it this way when talking about the economics of divorce:

Since marriage is a legal civil contract, the only way to dissolve them is through court proceedings which means that all divorces, both amicable and messy, require some court time and resources which adds to the already heavy load of work clogging our court system. While some of the costs of the court system are offset by fees paid by participants coming before the courts, society (read taxpayers) still has to foot a large part of the bill for the court system and when that system is forced to increase in size due to increasing business the taxpayers have to pay for that as well.

Religious

Although it isn’t spoken of often, the core of almost every major religion claims homosexuality to be wrong.

• Buddhism – One of the Five Precepts of Buddhism condemns “sexual misconduct.” Traditionally, this included homosexuality, though in recent years, some Buddhists have changed their opinions on this issue and re-interpreted “sexual misconduct” to not include homosexual activity. In all, though, sexuality (and all sensuality) is not supposed to be “attached” or “craved.”
• Christianity – Biblical Christianity rejects homosexuality as completely sinful.
• Islam – Islamic law condemns homosexuality and allows for the punishment of those who practice homosexual acts.
• Hinduism – Most Hindu cultures condemn homosexual sex (though this is usually for more cultural reasons than religious)
• Judaism – Jewish scripture condemns homosexuality. Orthodox and Conservative Jews stick to this view, while “reformed” Jews approve of committed gay unions.

If homosexuality has been considered wrong (sinful, misconduct, condemned) by these major religions, and religion is a major pillar of civilization, then a culture that moves toward widespread acceptance of homosexuality could be seen as destructive to civilization (or at least this one part).

To conclude, I couldn’t help but think of something that a commenter said on a previous post here about this specific statement by Kirk Cameron. He said “…How is [homosexuality] destructive to anything? I’d say that the heterosexuals are doing just fine what with lust, adultery, fornication, war,…. need I go on?” Beyond the fact that he characterized all of these destructive elements as being fully caused by heterosexuals, in the end, I have to admit that he has a point. The truth is that it’s not homosexuality BY ITSELF that is destructive to civilization, but it’s the depravity of humanity that is destructive. All humanity – gay or straight. I’ll elaborate what I mean tomorrow, when I  will finish this series by turning it into a series of 4 (instead of the original intended 3…), with a post titled “Homosexuality: A Biblical Response.” Same bat time. Same bat channel.