Most everyone has heard about the court ruling which favored homosexuals and went against the Boy Scouts, as well as common decency. This is a time for those “professing” Christianity to show solidarity on the moral values taught in the Scriptures, for without God and an objective basis for morality, there remains no foundation and no hope for society. We are already well on our way to arriving at Genesis 6:5 again, and none of us knows how much more patience God possesses.
Therefore, when a “professed Christian” upholds moral degradation and denounces the Word of God, he has done nothing less than Judas, who betrayed righteousness and truth to men of corrupt mind. “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord” (Pr. 17:15).
On Monday, August 23rd, in The Dallas Morning News Rodney W. Pirtle of Farmers Branch played the devil’s role in attacking the Scriptures. Someone had written a letter after the court’s decision, in which he cited Leviticus 20:13 to show God’s attitude toward homosexuality. Pirtle decided to deride the man’s use of that verse when he did not insist upon other Old Testament verses, such as the death penalty for adultery.
In fact the Bible is replete with examples of people who are ordered killed for infractions for which they wouldn’t even be jailed today. Being the father of two boys, I stopped my reading with Deuteronomy 21:18-24 in which I learned that I should have killed both of them for being “stubborn and rebellious.” Tempted at times, I’m glad I didn’t know about this passage when they were growing up (10A).
Mr. Pirtle does not know how to rightly divide the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15) any better than does the man he criticizes. All of the verses in Exodus through Deuteronomy were written for the nation of Israel, which was a theocracy. There religious and civil laws were combined. Therefore, a man could be executed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath day, a violation of the fourth commandment (Num. 15:32-36). Adulterers, rapists, and idolaters were all assigned the death penalty.
The offense Mr. Pirtle cited in Deuteronomy 21 is more serious than he let on. (Perhaps the newspaper misquoted him since this text ends with verse 21 and there are only 23 verses in the entire chapter.) The “stubborn and rebellious” son is called an evil person because he is a glutton and a drunkard, who has chosen to reject the frequent chastening given to him. Reading the passage will provide the appropriate context.
The Christian system is not a theocracy. Christianity was designed to be observed in every nation under heaven. Moral laws could not be enforced on society unless every nation was first conquered physically, and Jesus left no instructions for His church to do that. Christianity is spread not through a sword but through the preaching of the gospel. In fact, the New Testament teaches that the old law was “taken out of the way” and “nailed to the cross” (Col. 2:14). God’s people are under a new covenant (Heb. 8:6-7). Therefore, it is inappropriate to appeal to the Old Testament as a pattern for worship or laws. Only the New Testament is valid for mankind today. The Old reveals God’s attitudes and principles, but for commandments we must abide by the New Testament.
Unfortunately for Mr. Pirtle, the New Testament does not treat homosexuality any better than the Old. Paul calls it a vile passion and proclaims that it is “against nature” (Rom. 1:26). Among those who shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven (right next to the adulterers) are homosexuals and sodomites (1 Cor. 6:9). Jude refers to Sodom and Gomorrah “as an example” of those “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7). But there is no death penalty given in the New Testament, since God’s people are no longer a theocracy.
So, what will Mr. Pirtle say for himself now? He calls himself a “professing Christian.” It is an empty profession, and although he may be fooling himself, he does not deceive God. Those who believe in Jesus Christ do not attempt to make a mockery of the Old Testament (from which Jesus respected and frequently quoted). Mr. Pirtle does not possess the same reverence and therefore makes a poor follower indeed!
He concludes his letter thus:
First, the Bible is an inspirational, joy-imparting, life-changing, but dangerous book to read, if you read it honestly. Second, regardless of where you come down on the question of homosexuality or any other matter, you can’t (legitimately) pick and choose verses that support your position and ignore those that don’t (10A).
Although the Bible contains several inspirational verses, it also presents a number of sorrowful verses (Gen. 6:5, as already mentioned). The Bible is not dangerous to anyone who reads it honestly; it is dangerous in the hands of those who read it and apply it dishonestly. For example, how can one read the New Testament and then say, “regardless of where you come down on the question of homosexuality”? If you read the Scriptures honestly, there is only one place to come down. Otherwise, a person will find himself opposing plain New Testament doctrine.
Mr. Pirtle is correct in saying that no one has the right to pick and choose what verses he will be governed by (provided that we are under their authority in the first place), but if he is going to try to bind teachings that were given to Israel when they were a theocracy upon Christians who have never been under that system, then he is the one being dishonest. The burden of proof is upon him to show any inconsistency on our part.
In addition to working on that problem, perhaps (since he has implicitly defended homosexuality) he might provide a list of all those Scriptures which defend the practice. Exactly what verses support that position? There were none listed in his article. But perhaps he will deny that he defends homosexuality–that we misunderstood him. Okay, then let him state unequivocally that the Scriptures oppose the practice of homosexuality. Otherwise, he will be guilty of “picking and choosing.”