[Editor’s note: In recent newspaper articles published in the Denton Record-Chronicle I dealt with various issues of immorality, such as divorce, fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. After the second article appeared, someone wrote in to take issue with what was said. Even though the articles did not rely upon the Old Testament as the sole proof against this sin, the letter writer acted as though they did. To clarify the point I wrote the following response (which varies only slightly from the original–for comprehension purposes). The editor decided enough had been said on the subject; so it was never published. It answers “the pork argument.”]
Does the Bible teach that it is acceptable under the New Testament system to partake of “pork dishes”? Although some would try to bind the dietary laws given by Moses upon others, the fact is that these laws were part of a covenant that was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). That first covenant, given to the Jews, has been replaced by the new testament of Jesus Christ, which God has given to all men (Heb. 8:6-7).By commanding him to eat of them, God made known to Peter that the animals which had once been forbidden were now acceptable. He was horrified and answered: “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean” (Acts 10:14). In the next verse God rebuked him: “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This conversation was repeated three times.
Did God change His mind? “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness or shadow of turning” (James 1:17). God’s nature does not change. His character is today exactly what it was yesterday and what it will be tomorrow.
Does this fact mean He cannot change dietary laws, worship procedures, or even covenants? No. He had a purpose in mind for the law of Moses; it was never intended to be the final law. Even as Moses revealed it, he spoke of a lawgiver to come (Deut. 18:15-19). The New Testament, however, not only fails to promise another covenant; it presents itself as the final, complete revelation of God to man (see 2 Peter 1:3 and Jude 3-4). God has not changed His attitude about homosexuality, which transgresses His holy character.
We sometimes cite Genesis 19 (which occurred during the Patriarchal Age) and Leviticus 20:13 (part of the Law of Moses) to show historical precedent. But the New Testament (under which we live and to which we are responsible) reveals that God has the same attitude toward homosexuality now as He did then (Jude 7).
What objections were offered (by the reader defending homosexuality) against these Scriptures? He noted that homosexuals are artistic (this is an answer?). Did anyone deny that they could be? John Gacy (the serial killer) was thought by some to be a pretty fair artist, too. Is there a point here somewhere? Jesus said that the Father “makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). Surely we do not think that only righteous people are blessed with talent and wealth. It may be that there were a number of gifted musicians in Sodom and that they had a fabulous community playhouse; but that did not cause God to hold back judgment against their sins.
The only other argument introduced was one based upon genetics, which as yet has offered no conclusive evidence. It is doubtful that it ever will, since some have demonstrated that it is possible to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9-11).