As mentioned previously, Newsweek magazine’s Social and Religion editor, Lisa Miller, decided to enter the extreme “gay”-ety fray that has erupted since the citizens of California voted a constitutional amendment last November which upholds defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Those who voted for Proposition 8 have been called hatemongers (which is absurd), and now, in December, marriage, as seen in the Bible, has come under attack.
The Bible Defines Marriage
Ignoring dozens of typical families in the Old and New Testaments, Editor Miller selected a few exceptions to God’s design and said, “See this is what marriage in the Bible looked like.” Evidently, she thinks that nobody has read the Bible and she can slant it any way she desires. Her ignorance of the Scriptures is set forth in this incredible statement:
First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
What?! It would be difficult to imagine a worse blunder! Someone needs to direct her attention to Matthew 19. In verse 3 Jesus is asked by Pharisees who came to test Him: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Now think of all the ways Jesus could have answered this question. He could have discussed all the pros and cons of divorce, outlined a brief history of the practices in various cultures, reviewed what all the scholars and rabbis thought, and then told them what His opinion of the matter was. Instead, He asked them:
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:4-6).
God’s definition of marriage, which Jesus endorses, was first set forth in Genesis 2:18-24. God designed one man and one woman to be married to each other. He did not begin with two men or two women. He did not create a man and two (or more) women (which would have populated the earth a lot faster), or a woman and two (or more) men; nor did He create five of each for a community marriage. The fact that marriage is to be a permanent arrangement is seen in that God gave no provisions for divorce. Jesus is telling the Pharisees that what they read in Genesis 2:18-24 IS God’s definition of marriage. Somehow, the Religion Editor misses the significance of the passage.
The Pharisees then tried to pit Jesus against Moses in order to make the Lord look bad. They asked why Moses allowed for divorce—if marriage was so defined. Jesus answered that Moses allowed the practice because of the hardness of their hearts and then added, “but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). No one can miss the emphasis of the way God created the first man and the first woman as a pattern—except editors at Newsweek and homosexuals who are biased against the Bible in the first place.
Those who fail to see this definition have overlooked what God intended for them to see. Jesus once chided the Sadducees for not understanding the significance of the statement: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” It meant that, although their physical bodies were dead, they (their spirits) yet lived in the presence of God. Similarly, God entwined marriage with the account of creation so that mankind would follow the Divine pattern.
Is the Bible a Living Document?
To counteract the clear teachings of the Scriptures, Editor Miller tries to brush away their effectiveness with a wave of her hand. She writes:
Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.
What these words mean is anybody’s guess. The Bible is a relevant document. People commit the same sins that they always have. There is nothing new under the sun. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life were present in the Garden (Gen. 3:6), were used by Satan on Jesus—without success (Matt. 4:1-11), and have been operative all through the Christian age as well (1 John 2:15-17). The Scriptures are always applicable to man, regardless of what new technologies are available.
The Bible is a living document in that the Word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb. 4:12), but it is not “living” in the sense that new portions are being added periodically. It says of itself that it is complete (2 Peter 1:3; Jude 3). Neither is it “living” in the sense that someone can assign any interpretation to it that she desires. God protected His Word so that it is fully capable of refuting any heresy. There are no reasons found in the Bible for homosexuals to exist, period, let alone be married.
Having affirmed that the Bible is a living document, Lisa then makes the comment that “the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology.” Really? And she knows that, how? But even if she were right, the point is irrelevant because the God who inspired the writers of the Holy Scriptures did know, and that is the reason that the Bible contains sufficient information on all relevant moral issues.
But Editor Miller cannot have it both ways. Do Biblical truths “speak to us as we change through history,” or could God not have imagined “the brave new world” of modern man? How ironic it is that people talk about God and the Bible, but they do not necessarily accept the supernatural elements of the Book! Many will say they cannot believe in miracles or that the writers could have envisioned our current society. Hello! What is there about the definition of God that is hard to understand? He is a supernatural being, a Spirit, that is above and outside of the physical world He created. He is omnipotent, omni-present, and omniscient, which means He knows ALL things. For that reason He can declare the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:10). As much as it may shock some people, God is not surprised about atom bombs or DVDs.
The Non-Literal, Liberal View
One should not assume that, because someone discusses things recorded in the Bible, or even makes a flattering statement concerning the Scriptures on occasion, such an individual actually believes the Bible. Lisa Miller has a consultant for this article in Newsweek. He is “Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal.” A search on the Internet shows that he has an even more impressive title—“professor of Religion and Ingeborg Rennert Professor of Jewish Studies at Barnard College, Columbia University in Manhattan.”
All that anyone needs to know about him and his attitude toward the Scriptures can be summarized by what Editor Miller says of him. After he refers to Genesis 2:18-24, he comments that,
if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was a way of the world.
What this sentiment expresses is that Segal is a modernist who does not believe the Bible is inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and frowns upon anyone else believing so, either. He is like those who put together The Bible’s Buried Secrets for PBS. Since these “Scholars” reject inspiration, they say, “Oh, Moses made up that Genesis part to get people to quit being polygamists.” Israel did need that teaching, but Moses did not originate the idea; the Holy Spirit inspired him to include the definition of marriage because it was the way God created the world.
Segal also said that marriage in the Old Testament was an arrangement between “one man and as many women as he could pay for.” He must be reading between the lines. Abraham was married to Sarah. He was with Hagar only once so that she could be a surrogate mother. The faithful patriarch could have afforded a multitude of wives, had he so desired, but he did not. Isaac married only Rebekah. Jacob had two wives under unusual circumstances (until his favorite died), and he had two handmaids who also served as surrogate mothers. Although occasionally a man had more than one wife (Elkanah), there is no indication that very many men did—with the exception of kings.
Comments like Miller’s and Segal’s only serve to attempt to undermine the inspiration of the Scriptures, but they do not stand up under scrutiny. Miller admits that “gay marriage” is not found in the Bible, but this fact does not slow her down. She repeats the erroneous statement that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, when a good Bible lexicon explains that porneia includes homosexuality, along with adultery, as part of its definition. What does it signify that Jesus did not specify the act, when it is included in the general term? Nothing! He did not single out the terms rape or incest, either. Will Miller argue that they are therefore acceptable practices? Besides, what the apostles taught is just as valid and authoritative as what Jesus said.
Minimizing Sin
Quoting from a Bible dictionary which is erroneous on this point, Miller affirms that “nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women.” Really? What about Paul when he wrote: “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature” (Rom. 1:25)? Whoops!
Miller continues blithely along, acknowledging that the Bible only condemns homosexuality for males in a handful of passages, “but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text….” They are clear enough to anyone who can read. She argues that, because Leviticus also includes advice about treatments for leprosy and how to offer blood sacrifices, all of these instructions should be discounted because “our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions.” Obviously, she knows nothing of the fact that the Mosaic law was given to Israel, and it was nailed to the cross when Jesus died (Col. 2:14). Again, she has returned to her “Bible is out of date” theme, when in fact it is only the Law of Moses that is out of date. From her slanted scenario, one would think that Christians are commanded to offer up blood sacrifices today. She is one confused commentator.
She acknowledges that Paul was “trough on homosexuality,” but then adds that “progressive scholars” believe he is speaking against flagrant promiscuity and debauchery, such as were practiced by Nero and Caligula. The phrase, progressive scholars, should be translated as “modernists who twist the Scriptures to mean what they want them to mean” (2 Peter 3:16). Editor Miller does not refer once to God’s destruction of Sodom (prior to the Law of Moses) nor the fact that Jude says it serves as an example of God’s judgment to those who have “given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh” (7), which presumably could include women as well as men.
Incredibly, Miller states: “Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, but in custom and tradition….” She needs a 17-point reality check. Why would most of us care about the subject—except God has branded it as immoral? It would be far easier to remain quiet and let the biased news and entertainment media just persuade everyone that it is all right. Christians oppose this sin just as we do adultery, fornication, gambling, and prostitution. These are not our thoughts on any of these subjects; they are God’s.
She erroneously argues that the Bible endorses slavery. Regulation of something being practiced by nearly every culture does not constitute endorsement. Christian principles brought about its demise. After citing the death penalty for adulterers and homosexuals in the Old Testament as being passé, she then suggests that we need a “mature view of scriptural authority” that lets us move “beyond literalism.” What she means, of course, is that we just forget about context and “interpret” the Bible however we want.
Scriptural Justification for Homosexuality?
Editor Miller’s arguments in favor of homosexual marriage are few and worthless. First, she uses the tu quoque fallacy, which basically means, “If I’m guilty, so are you.” She says: “Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.” The fact that people disregard the Bible does not mean it is wrong or out of date. It means that people choose to disregard what the Bible teaches when it suits them. Jesus says they are living in adultery (Mat. 19:9). They cannot see the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11). God will judge them (Heb. 13:4). One sin can not justify another sin.
Second, Miller writes: “Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan.” Apparently, Miller has never heard of being kindred spirits with a person of the same sex without there being some sort of physical relationship. She adds: “What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.” This is just plain sick. Both men were married, and nothing indicates anything more than friendship.
It is argued that the message of Christianity is one of inclusion rather than one of exclusion. Yes, everyone is invited to be a Christian—even tax collectors and harlots. But everyone must first repent of his sins. The adulterer cannot continue to live in adultery. Jesus did not approve the situation the woman at the well was in. He told the woman taken in adultery to “sin no more.” Homosexuals must give up their sin, also. All being one in Christ Jesus is written to those who have repented and obeyed the gospel (Gal. 3:28).
A forth lame attempt involves misapplying, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:13-16). While it is a great text to show that human life exists in the womb (and therefore abortion is murder), it does not relate to homosexuality at all. God did not create people who had no choice but to practice sin. Gay advocates assume that homosexuals are born that way, despite the lack of evidence, and then say, “If God made me this way, homosexuality must not be a sin.” This is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
A fifth claim is that homosexual rights parallel the struggle for racial equality. Galatians 3:29 states racial equality, along with Acts 17:26. Where is the verse that states homosexuals are born that way and are equal to heterosexuals? Anyone can see the difference.
Finally, “Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad,” which is exactly what the proponents of unlawful divorce and remarriage argue. God wants people to be holy (1 Peter 1:15-16). Genuine happiness results from obeying God, including being pure in heart (Matt. 5:8) and in body (2 Cor. 7:1). “More progressive denominations—the United Church of Christ, for example—have agreed to support gay marriage.” This is not the only error they practice. We “literalists” believe that God means what He says. “Progressives” do not.