Why Same-Sex Acts Got the Death Penalty in OT, but Not Today

Like Us
article_images/5.22.ActsOTDeathPenalty_311978692.jpg

Is the Bible consistent about homosexuality?

I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent because “they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey.”

What I hear most often is, “Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts — about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on. Then they condemn homosexuality. Aren’t they just picking and choosing what they want to believe from the Bible?”

It is not that I expect everyone to have the capability of understanding that the whole Bible is about Jesus and God’s plan to redeem his people, but I vainly hope that one day someone will access their common sense (or at least talk to an informed theological advisor) before leveling the charge of inconsistency.

First of all, let’s be clear that it’s not only the Old Testament that has proscriptions about homosexuality.

The New Testament has plenty to say about it as well. Even Jesus says, in his discussion of divorce in Matthew 19:3-12, that the original design of God was for one man and one woman to be united as one flesh, and failing that (v. 12), persons should abstain from marriage and from sex.

However, let’s get back to considering the larger issue of inconsistency regarding things mentioned in the OT that are no longer practiced by the New Testament people of God. Most Christians don’t know what to say when confronted about this.

Here’s a short course on the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament:

The Old Testament devotes a good amount of space to describing the various sacrifices that were to be offered in the tabernacle (and later temple) to atone for sin so that worshippers could approach a holy God.

As part of that sacrificial system, there was also a complex set of rules for ceremonial purity and cleanness. You could only approach God in worship if you ate certain foods and not others, wore certain forms of dress, refrained from touching a variety of objects, and so on. This vividly conveyed, over and over, that human beings are spiritually unclean and can’t go into God’s presence without purification.

But even in the Old Testament, many writers hinted that the sacrifices and the temple worship regulations pointed forward to something beyond them (cf. 1 Samuel 15:21-22; Psalm 50:12-15; 51:17; Hosea 6:6). When Christ appeared, he declared all foods ‘clean’ (Mark 7:19) and he ignored the Old Testament clean laws in other ways, touching lepers and dead bodies.

Tim Keller In 1989 Dr. Timothy J. Keller, his wife and three young sons moved to New York City to begin Redeemer Presbyterian Church. In 20 years it has grown to meeting for five services at three sites with a weekly attendance of over 5,000. Redeemer is notable not only for winning skeptical New Yorkers to faith, but also for partnering with other churches to do both mercy ministry and church planting. Redeemer City to City is working to help establish hundreds of new multi-ethnic congregations throughout the city and other global cities in the next decades.

More from Tim Keller or visit Tim at http://www.timothykeller.com

Please Note: We reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, uncivil and off-topic. Read a detailed description of our Comments Policy.
  • Billy

    Terrific post! Absolutely blessed by this!

    • Pastor Tim

      I am looking at the passage about eunuchs. I believe it is clear to see that the choice to be a eunuch would be one in which the believer makes a choice to submit their life to the Family of God and not to a family of origin. This is not about a orientation but more about a consecration to serve without the concern of a natural family. The Apostle Paul chose to be a Spiritual Father not a natural one the same admonition is given by Paul to all men and in a repeat of the message in the passage about a consecration to the Body of Christ. This passage is not about homosexuality, according to the Word of God homosexuality is an abomination and that message is clear throughout both OT and NT. With humanistic philosophy invading the church and a seeker sensitive mentality the church has forgotten we are called to be Spiritual sensitive and Biblically correct not politically correct.

  • Animan

    Absolute nonsense! Men like these poison the faith and lead unsuspecting men to hell. A Pharisee who neither enters Heaven nor allow others to enter. So sad.

    • Cam

      Why? I too thought this was a pretty accurate presentation, but before I share it with others I’d like to know your argument.

      • Algoria

        Based on the content of his remarks – invective rather than something substantive – he probably has no argument at all.

        There are some people who just enjoy calling others Pharisees. Maybe it makes them feel better about themselves and superior to others.
        I used to find it annoying but now I see the simple minded name-calling as an opportunity to submit more thoroughly to the Lord. It seems to me all humans have some hypocrisy in them, at least potentially. I certainly do. We are a fallen race. So now whenever I am called a Pharisee, or see a right-thinking man of God accused in this way, I see it as an opportunity to examine myself in case there is any truth in the charge.
        In this case however I suspect the writer is merely one of those odd people who just like to slander and dispute with those who study and believe the scriptures.

        This was a helpful and well-reasoned article.

    • Joe McKeever

      This is how the unthinking among us criticize: call it nonsense. Try answering his points, friend.

      • Kevin T

        Any first year seminary student could form a rebuttal to these points; but why bother a demon when they are busy here!? Blogs such as these keep the demons busy, so we can go about the Lord`s work elsewhere, friend!

  • Barry

    Very good explanation. Thank you for sharing this!

  • Pastor

    I have found to never take the words of earthly to be completely truthful or in this case consistent with what the Bible says. I choose to read the word myself and seek God’s understanding. The Bible verses Matt. 19:3-12 (KJV)

    “3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

    4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

    5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

    8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

    9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

    11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

    12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

    I agree that Christians pick and choose from the Bible what fits themselves. We no longer live under the Mosaic laws of Moses. Jesus freed us from those laws and from sin by dying on the cross. God is our judge, not man. Society is so busy keeping a watch on how others are living their lives that they are not being watchful of the approaching end times. We should be mindful of our own lives and leave the lives of others to themselves. Christians are losing sight of the big picture of God’s plan, because some are just to focus on others rights and wrongs. Be very careful of how we view others. God commands us to love one another as we love ourselves. Have we forgotten that?

    • Cam

      You really haven’t made a point here! What are you actually saying? Is the author of this passage right or wrong in his presentation?

    • revgazza

      What is it you are trying to say brother? I don’t disagree with your last statement but I am trying to understand the relevance to the original presentation.

  • tokwa

    You nailed it… God Bless

  • Joseph Fafi

    Amen

  • Thomas

    One need not look outside the NT for internal inconsistencies:

    1. Jesus’ lineage was traced through David’s son Solomon. Mt.1:6.
    Jesus’ lineage was traced through David’s son Nathan. Lk.3:31.

    2. The announcement of the special birth came before conception. Lk.1:26-31.
    The announcement of the special birth came after conception. Mt.1:18-21.

    3. Jesus’ parents were told of their son’s future greatness. Mt.1:18-21; Lk.1:28-35.
    Jesus’ parents knew nothing of their son’s potential. Lk.2:48-50.

    4. The angel told Joseph. Mt.1:20.
    The angel told Mary. Lk.1:28.

    5. There were 28 generations from David to Jesus. Mt.1:17.
    There were 43 generations from David to Jesus. Lk.3:23-31.

    6. Jacob was Joseph’s father. Mt.1:16.
    Heli was Joseph’s father. Lk.3:23.

    7. He was to be called Emmanuel. Mt.1:23.
    He was called Jesus. Mt.1:25.

    8. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old. Mt.2:13-16. (Note: Jesus’ cousin, John, was also under 2 and survived without having to flee.)
    Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt, but remained for temple rituals.
    No slaughter of infants is mentioned! Lk.2:21-39.

    9. Jesus was tempted during the 40 days in the wilderness. Mk.1:13.
    Jesus was tempted after the 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:2,3.

    10. The devil first took Jesus to the pinnacle, then to the mountain top. Mt.4:5-8.
    The devil first took Jesus to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle. Lk.4:5-9.

    11. Satan tempted Jesus. Mt.4:1-10; Mk.1:13; Lk.4:1,2.
    Satan had no interest in Jesus. Jn.14:30.

    12. The baptism of Jesus was with the “Holy Ghost”. Mk.1:8; Jn.1:33.
    Fire was also added to the baptism. Mt.3:11; Lu.3:16.

    13. John knew of Jesus before he baptized him. Mt.3:11-13; Jn.1:28,29.
    John knew nothing of Jesus at all. Mt.11:1-3.

    14. Jesus begins his ministry after John’s arrest. Mk.1:13,14.
    Jesus begins his ministry before John’s arrest. Jn.3:22-24.

    15. It is recorded that Jesus saw the spirit descending. Mt.3:16; Mk.1:10.
    It is recorded that John saw the spirit descending. Jn.1:32.

    16. The heavenly voice addressed the gathering. Mt.3:17.
    The heavenly voice addressed Jesus. Mk.1:11; Lk.3:22.

    17. Immediately after the baptism, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:1,2; Mk.1:12,13.
    Three days after the baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana. Jn.2:1.

    18. Jesus went to Bethphage and the Mt. of Olives, then left for Bethany. Mt.21:1,17.
    Jesus went to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mt. of Olives. Mk.11:1; Lk.19:29.
    Jesus went to Bethany and then Jerusalem. Jn.12:1,12.

    19. Jesus and his disciples taught in Capernaum. Mk.1:20,21.
    Only Jesus taught in Capernaum. Lk.4:30,31.

    20. Peter was chosen, with Andrew, by the Sea of Galilee. Mt.4:18-20; Mk.1:16-18.
    Peter was chosen, with James and John, by the lake of Gennesaret. Lk.5:2-11.
    Andrew chose Jesus and then got Peter to join. Jn.1:35-42.

    21. Peter was to preach to the Jews. Mt.10:2,5,6; Gal.2:7.
    Peter was to preach to the Gentiles. Acts 15:7.

    22. Jesus cured Simon Peter’s mother-in-law after he cleansed the leper. Mt.8:1-15.
    Jesus cured Simon Peter’s mother-in-law before he cleansed the leper. Mk.1:30-42; Lk.4:38 to 5:13.

    23. Peter’s mother-in-law was healed before Peter was called to be a disciple. Lu.4:38,39; 5:10.
    Peter’s mother-in-law was healed after Peter was called to be a disciple. Mt.4:18,19; 8:14,15; Mk.1:16,17,30,31.

    24. James and John were with Jesus when he healed Simon Peter’s mother-in-law. Mk.1:29-31.
    James and John were not with Jesus when he healed Simon Peter’s mother-in-law. Lu.4:38,39; 5:10,11.

    25. Lebbaeus (Thaddaeus) was the name of an apostle – but no Judas, brother of James. Mt. 10:3.
    Judas, the brother of James, was an apostle, but no Thaddaeus. Lk.6:16; Acts 1:13.

    26. The centurion’s servant was healed in between the cleansing of the leper and the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. Mt.8:2-15.
    The centurion’s servant was healed after the cleansing of the leper and the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. Lu.4:38,39; 5:12,13; 7:1-10.

    27. The people were not impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Mk.6:52.
    The people were very impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Jn.6:14.

    28. After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Gennesaret. Mk.6:53.
    After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Capernaum. Jn.6:14-17.

    29. A demon cries out that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Mk.1:23,24.
    Everyone who confesses that Jesus came in the flesh is of God. 1 Jn.4:2.

    30. Jesus cursed the fig tree so that it would not bear fruit. Mt.21:19; Mk.11:14.
    It wasn’t time for the fig tree to bear fruit. Mk.11:13.

    31. The fig tree withers immediately, and the disciples are amazed. Mt.21:19,20.
    The disciples first notice the withered tree the next day. Mk.11:20,21.

    32. Jesus is the mediator of the “Father”. 1 Tim.2:5; 1 Jn.2:1.
    Jesus sits on “his” right hand. Mk. 16:19.
    Jesus and the “Father” are one in the same. Jn.10:30.

    33. There is one “God”. 1 Tim.2:5; Jms.2:19.
    There are three. 1 Jn.5:7.

    34. Jesus said to honor your father and mother. Mt.15:4; Mt.19:19; Mk.7:10; Mk.10:19; Lk.18:20.
    Jesus said that he came to set people against their parents. Mt.10:35-37; Lk.12:51-53; Lk.14:26.
    Jesus said to call no man father. Mt.23:9.

    35. Jesus/God said, “You fool…”. Lk.12:20; Mt.23:17.
    Paul calls people fools. 1 Cor.15:36.
    Call someone a fool and you go to hell. Mt.5:22.

    36. Anger by itself is a sin. Mt.5:22.
    But not necessarily. Eph.4:26.

    37. Ask and it shall be given. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened to you. Mt.7:7,8; Lk.11:9,10.
    Ask and you shall be refused. Seek and you won’t find. Knock and you will be refused entrance. Lk.13:24-27.

    38. Do not judge. Mt.7:1,2.
    Unless it is necessary, of course. 1 Jn.4:1-3.

    39. Jesus is thankful that some things are hidden. Mt.11:25; Mk.4:11,12.
    Jesus said that all things should be made known. Mk.4:22.

    40. Jesus said that no sign would be given. Mk.8:12.
    Jesus said that no sign would be given except for that of Jonas. Mt.12:39; Lk.11:29.
    Jesus showed many signs. Jn.20:30; Acts 2:22.

    41. Jesus stated that the law was until heaven and earth ended. Mt. 5:17-19.
    Jesus stated that the law was only until the time of John. Lk.16:16.

    42. The “Sermon on the Mount” took place on the mountain. Mt.5:1.
    The “Sermon on the Mount” took place on a plain. Lu.6:17.

    43. The “Lord’s Prayer” was taught to many during the “Sermon on the Mount”. Mt.6:9.
    The “Lord’s Prayer” was taught only to the disciples at another time. Lu.11:1.

    44. Jesus had his own house. Mk.2:15.
    Jesus did not have his own house. Lu.9:58.

    45. Good works should be seen. Mt.5:16.
    Good works should not be seen. Mt.6:1-4.

    46. Jesus said that Salvation was only for the Jews. Mt.15:24; Mt.10:5,6; Jn.4:22; Rom.11:26,27.
    Paul said that salvation was also for the Gentiles. Acts 13:47,48.

    47. Repentance is necessary. Acts 3:19; Lu.3:3.
    Repentance is not necessary. Rom.11:29.

    48. Non-believers obtain mercy. Rom.11:32.
    Only believers obtain mercy. Jn.3:36; Rom.14:23.
    Only baptized believers obtain mercy. Mk.16:16.
    Mercy cannot be predetermined. Rom.9:18.

    49. All who call on the “Lord” will be saved. Rom.10:13; Acts 2:21.
    Only those predestined will be saved. Acts 13:48; Eph.1:4,5; 2 Thes.2:13; Acts 2:47.

    50. Jesus said he would not cast aside any that come to him. Jn.6:37.
    Jesus said that many that come to him will be cast aside. Mt.7:21-23.

    51. Salvation comes by faith and not works. Eph.2:8,9; Rom.11:6; Gal.2:16; Rom.3:28.
    Salvation comes by faith and works. Jms.2:14,17,20.

    52. The righteous have eternal life. Mt.25:46.
    The righteous are barely saved. 1 Pet.4:18.
    There are no righteous. Rom.3:10.

    53. Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
    Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.
    Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
    Call on the name of the “Lord” to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
    Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
    Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
    Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24.
    Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
    By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
    By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
    Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
    Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.

    54. Backsliders are condemned. 2 Pet.2:20.
    Backsliders are saved regardless. Jn.10:27-29.

    55. Forgive seventy times seven. Mt.18:22.
    Forgiveness is not possible for renewed sin. Heb.6:4-6.

    56. Divorce, except for unfaithfulness, is wrong. Mt.5:32.
    Divorce for any reason is wrong. Mk.10:11,12.

    57. Jesus approved of destroying enemies. Lk.19:27.
    Jesus said to love your enemies. Mt.5:44.

    58. God resides in heaven. Mt.5:45; Mt.6:9; Mt.7:21.
    Angels reside in heaven. Mk.13:32.
    Jesus is with God in heaven. Acts 7:55,56
    Believers go to heaven. 1 Pet.1:3,4.
    Heaven will pass away. Mt.24:35; Mk.13:31; Lk.21:33.

    59. Pray that you don’t enter temptation. Mt.26:41.
    Temptation is a joy. Jms.1:2.

    60. God leads you into temptation. Mt.6:13.
    God tempts no one. Jms.1:13.

    61. Take no thought for tomorrow. God will take care of you. Mt.6:25-34; Lk.12:22-31.
    A man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. 1 Tim.5:8.

    62. Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
    Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Mt.7:21.
    Only those whom the Lord chooses will be saved. Acts 2:39.

    63. We are justified by works and not by faith. Mt.7:21; Rom.2:6,13; Jms.2:24.
    We are justified by faith and not by works. Jn.3:16; Rom.3:27; Eph.2:8,9.; Gal.2:16.

    64. Do not take sandals (shoes) or staves. Mt.10:10.
    Take only sandals (shoes) and staves. Mk.6:8,9.

    65. Jesus said that in him there was peace. Jn.16:33.
    Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace. Mt.10:34; Lk.12:51.

    66. Jesus said that John the Baptist was a prophet and Elijah. Mt.11:9; Mt.17:12,13.
    John said that he was not a prophet nor was he Elijah. Jn.1:21.

    67. Jesus said that he was meek and lowly. Mt.11:29.
    Jesus makes whips and drives the moneychangers out from the temple. Mt. 21:12; Mk.11:15,16; Jn.2:15.

    68. Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees”. Lk.12:1.
    Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees”. Mt.16:6,11.
    Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod”. Mk.8:15.

    69. Jesus founds his church on Peter. Mt.16:18.
    Jesus calls Peter “Satan” and a hindrance. Mt.16:23.

    70. The mother of James and John asks Jesus to favor her sons. Mt.20:20,21.
    They ask for themselves. Mk.10:35-37.

    71. Jesus responds that this favor is not his to give. Mt.20:23; Mk.10:40.
    Jesus said that all authority is given to him. Mt.28:18; Jn.3:35.

    72. Jesus heals two unnamed blind men. Mt.20:29,30.
    Jesus heals one named blind man. Mk.10:46-52.

    73. Jesus healed all that were sick. Mt.8:16; Lk.4:40.
    Jesus healed many that were sick – but not all. Mk.1:34.

    74. The council asks Jesus if he is the Son of God. Lk.22:70. The high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ, the Son of God. Mt.26:63.
    The high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ the Son of the Blessed. Mk.14:61.
    The high priest asks Jesus about his disciples and his doctrine. Jn.18:19.

    75. Jesus answers to the effect of “You said it, not me”. Mt.26:64; Lk.22:70.
    Jesus answers definitely, “I am”. Mk.14:62.

    76. At the Mount of Olives, Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times. Mt.26:30-34.
    At the Passover meal, Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times. Lu.22:13,14,34.

    77. Peter was to deny Jesus before the cock crowed. Mt.26:34; Lk.22:34; Jn.13:38.
    Peter was to deny Jesus before the cock crowed twice. Mk.14:30.

    78. The cock crowed once. Mt.26:74.
    The cock crowed twice. Mk.14:72.

    79. Peter makes his first denial to a maid and some others. Mt.26:69,70.
    It was only to the maid. Mk.14:66-68; Lk.22:56,57; Jn.18:17.

    80. Peter’s second denial was to another maid. Mt.26:71,72.
    It was to the same maid. Mk.14:69,70.
    It was to a man and not a maid. Lk.22:58.
    It was to more than one person. Jn.18:25.

    81. Peter’s third denial was to several bystanders. Mt.26:73,74; Mk.14:69,70.
    It was to one person. Lk.22:59,60.
    It was to a servant. Jn.18:26,27.

    82. The chief priests bought the field. Mt.27:6,7.
    Judas bought the field. Acts 1:16-19.

    83. Judas threw down the money and left. Mt.27:5.
    Judas used the coins to buy the field. Acts 1:18.

    84. Judas hanged himself. Mt.27:5.
    Judas fell headlong and burst his head open. Acts 1:18.

    85. Jesus did not answer any of the charges. Mt.27:12-14; Lk.23:9.
    Jesus answered some of the charges. Mk.14:61,62.
    Jesus answered all of the charges. Jn.18:33-37.

    86. Jesus said that eternal life would be given to all that were given to him. Jn.11:27-29; Jn.17:12.
    Jesus released Judas in order to keep this promise. Jn.18:5-9.

    87. The chief priests and elders persuade the people. Mt.27:20.
    Only the chief priests persuade the people. Mk.15:11.
    The chief priests and the people persuade themselves. Lk.23:13-23.

    88. Jesus is given a scarlet robe. Mt.27:28.
    Jesus is given a purple robe. Mk.15:17; Jn.19:2.
    Jesus is given a gorgeous robe. Lk.23:11.

    89. The sign says, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews”. Mt.27:37.
    The sign says, “The King of the Jews”. Mk.15:26.
    In three languages, the sign says, “This is the King of the Jews”. Lk.23:38.
    In the same three languages, the sign says, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews”. Jn.19:19,20.

    90. Jesus asks God, The Father, why he has forsaken him. Mt.27:46.
    Jesus said that he and The Father were one in the same. Jn.10:30; Jn.17:11,21,22.

    91. The centurion says, “Truly this was the son of God”. Mt.27:54.
    The centurion says, “Truly this man was the son of God”. Mk.15:39.
    The centurion says, “Certainly, this was a righteous man”. Lk.23:47.
    There was no centurion. Jn.19:31-37.

    92. Jesus was crucified at the third hour. Mk.15:25.
    Jesus was still before Pilate at the sixth hour. Jn.19:13,14.

    93. The women looked on from “afar”. Mt.27:55; Mk.15:40; Lk.23:49.
    The women were very close. Jn.19:25.

    94. The last recorded words of Jesus were: Version 1: “Eli, Eli …My God, My God why have you forsaken me” Mt.27:46.
    Version 2: “Eloi, Eloi…My God, My God why have you forsaken me” Mk.15:34.
    Version 3: “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit”. Lk.23:46.
    Version 4: “It is finished”. Jn.19:30.

    95. A guard was placed at the tomb the day after the burial. Mt.27:65,66.
    No guard is mentioned. Mk.15:44-47; Lk.23:52-56; Jn.19:38-42.

    96. Only those keeping the words of Jesus will never see death. Jn.8:51.
    Jesus’ disciples will be killed. Mt.24:3-9.
    All men die once. Heb.9:27.

    97. Upon their arrival, the stone was still in place. Mt.28:1 2.
    Upon their arrival, the stone had been removed. Mk.16:4; Lk.24:2; Jn.20:1.

    98. There was an earthquake. Mt.28:2.
    There was no earthquake. Mk.16:5; Lk.24:2-4; Jn.20:12.

    99. The visitors ran to tell the disciples. Mt.28:8.
    The visitors told the eleven and all the rest. Lk.24:9.
    The visitors said nothing to anyone. Mk.16:8.

    100. Jesus first resurrection appearance was right at the tomb. Jn.20:12-14.
    Jesus first resurrection appearance was fairly near the tomb. Mt.28:8,9.
    Jesus first resurrection appearance was on the road to Emmaus. Lk.24:13-16.

    I had 194 but my post was too long and it gave an error. “There was internal server error while processing your request”. So I have cut the list down to allow posting.

    You may be able to brush a few under the rug, but you can not claim that there are no inconsistencies.

    • Thomas

      Here are the rest, I hope it works.

      101. One doubted. Jn.20:24.
      Some doubted. Mt.28:17.
      All doubted. Mk.16:11; Lk.24:11,14.

      102. Jesus said that his blood was shed for many. Mk.14:24.
      Jesus said his blood was shed for his disciples. Lu.22:20.

      103. Simon of Cyrene was forced to bear the cross of Jesus. Mt.27:32; Mk.15:21; Lu.23:26.
      Jesus bore his own cross. Jn.19:16,17.

      104. Jesus was offered vinegar and gall to drink. Mt.27:34.
      Jesus was offered vinegar to drink. Jn.19:29,30.
      Jesus was offered wine and myrrh to drink. Mk.15:23.

      105. Jesus refused the drink offered him. Mk.15:23.
      Jesus tasted the drink offered and then refused. Mt.27:34.
      Jesus accepted the drink offered him. Jn.19:30.

      106. Both “thieves” mocked Jesus on the cross. Mt. 27:44; Mk.15:32.
      One “thief” sided with Jesus on the cross. Lu.23:39-41.

      107. Joseph of Arimathaea boldly asked for the body of Jesus. Mk.15:43.
      Joseph of Arimathaea secretly asked for the body of Jesus. Jn.19:38.

      108. Jesus was laid in a nearby tomb. Mk.15:46; Lu.23:53; Jn.19:41.
      Jesus was laid in Joseph’s new tomb. Mt.27:59,60.

      109. A great stone was rolled in front of the tomb. Mt.27:60; Mk.15:46.
      There was nothing in front of the tomb. Lu.23:55; Jn.19:41.

      110. Nicodemus prepared the body with spices. Jn.19:39,40.
      Failing to notice this, the women bought spices to prepare the body later. Mk. 16:1; Lu.23:55,56.

      111. The body was anointed. Jn.19:39,40.
      The body was not anointed. Mk.15:46 to 16:1; Lk.23:55 to 24:1.

      112. The women bought materials before the sabbath. Lu.23:56.
      The women bought materials after the sabbath. Mk.16:1.

      113. Jesus was first seen by Cephas, then the twelve. 1 Cor.15:5.
      Jesus was first seen by the two Marys. Mt.28:1,8,9.
      Jesus was first seen by Mary Magdalene. Mk.16:9; Jn.20:1,14,15.
      Jesus was first seen by Cleopas and others. Lu.24:17,18.
      Jesus was first seen by the disciples. Acts 10:40,41.

      114. The two Marys went to the tomb. Mt.28:1.
      The two Marys and Salome went to the tomb. Mk.16:1.
      Several women went to the tomb. Lu.24:10.
      Only Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Jn.20:1.

      115. It was dawn when Mary went to the tomb. Mt.28:1; Mk.16:2.
      It was dark when Mary went to the tomb. Jn.20:1.

      116. An angel sat on the stone at the door of the tomb. Mt.28:2.
      A man was sitting inside the tomb. Mk.16:5.

      117. Two men were standing inside the tomb. Lk.24:3,4.
      Two angels were sitting inside the tomb. Jn.20:12.

      118. Peter did not go into the tomb but stooped and looked inside. Lk.24:12.
      Peter did go into the tomb, and another disciple stooped and looked inside. Jn.20:3-6.

      119. After the resurrection, the disciples held Jesus by the feet. Mt.28:9.
      After the resurrection, Jesus told Thomas to touch his side. John 20:27.
      After the resurrection, Jesus said that he was not to be touched. Jn.20:17.

      120. Mary first saw Jesus at the tomb. Jn.20:11-15.
      Mary first saw Jesus on her way home. Mt.28:8-10.

      121. The women entered the tomb. Mk.16:5; Lk.24:3.
      The women stayed outside the tomb. Jn.20:11.

      122. The disciples were frightened when they saw Jesus. Lk.24:36,37.
      The disciples were glad when they first saw Jesus. Jn.20:20.

      123. Twelve disciples saw Jesus. 1 Cor.15:5.
      Eleven disciples saw Jesus. Thomas was not there. Mt.28:16,17; Jn.20:19-25.

      124. The disciples doubted that Jesus had risen from the dead. Mt.28:17.
      The Pharisees and chief priests believed it possible. Mt.27:62-66.

      125. Jesus ascended on the third day after the resurrection. Lk.24:21,50,51.
      Jesus ascended the same day as the crucifixion. Lk.23:42 43.
      Jesus ascended forty days after the resurrection. Acts 1:3,9.

      126. At the time of the ascension, there were about 120 brethren. Acts 1:15.
      At the time of the ascension, there were about 500 brethren. 1 Cor.15:6.

      127. The moneychangers incident occurred at the end of Jesus’ career. Mt.21:11,12.
      The moneychangers incident occurred at the beginning of Jesus’ career. Jn.2:11-15.

      128. Zacharias was the son of Jehoida, the priest. 2 Chr.24:20.
      Jesus said that Zacharias was the son of Barachias. Mt.23:35. (Note: The name Barachias or Barachiah does not appear in the OT.)

      129. The coming of the kingdom will be accompanied by signs and miracles. Mt.24:29-33; Mk.13:24-29.
      It will not be accompanied by signs and miracles since it occurs from within. Lk.17:20,21.

      130. The kingdom was prepared from the beginning. Mt.25:34.
      Jesus said that he was going to go and prepare the kingdom. Jn.14:2,3.

      131. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. Mk.3:29.
      All sins are forgivable. Acts 13:39; Col.2:13; 1 Jn.1:9.

      132. The ascension took place while the disciples were seated together at a table. Mk.16:14-19.
      The ascension took place outdoors at Bethany. Lk.24:50,51.
      The ascension took place outdoors at Mt. Olivet. Acts 1:9-12.

      133. The holy spirit was with John from before he was born. Lk.1:15,41.
      The holy spirit was with Elizabeth before John’s birth. Lk.1:41.
      The holy spirit was with Zechariah. Lk.1:67.
      The holy spirit was with Simeon. Lk.2:25.
      The holy spirit is obtained by asking. Lk.11:13.
      The holy spirit did not come into the world until after Jesus had departed. Jn.7:39; Jn.16:7; Acts 1:3-8.

      134. Sometimes God is responsible for unbelief. 2 Thes.2:11,12.
      Sometimes Jesus is responsible for unbelief. Mk.4:11,12.
      The devil causes unbelief. Lk.8:12.

      135. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer. 1 Jn.3:15.
      If anyone claims to love God but hates his brother, he is a liar. 1 Jn.4:20.
      No one can be a disciple of Jesus unless he hates his brother. Lk.14:26.

      136. Believers do not come into judgment. Jn.5:24.
      All people come into judgment. Mt.12:36; 2 Cor.5:10; Heb.9:27; 1 Pet.1:17; Jude 14,15; Rev.20:12,13.

      137. Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is true. Jn.8:14.
      Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is not true. Jn.5:31.

      138. Men can choose whether or not to believe. Jn.5:38-47.
      Only God chooses who will believe. Jn.6:44.

      139. None of Jesus’ followers would be lost. Jn.10:27-29.
      Some of Jesus’ followers would be lost. 1 Tim.4:1.

      140. Jesus is the ruling prince of this world. Rev.1:5.
      The prince of this world will be cast out. Jn.12:31.

      141. Jesus says all men will be saved. Jn.3:17.
      Only 144,000 virgin men will be saved. Rev. 14:1-4.

      142. God wants all men to be saved. 1 Tim.2:3,4; 2 Pet.3:9.
      God does not want all men to be saved. Jn.12:40.

      143. Peter asks Jesus where he is going. Jn.13:36.
      Thomas asks Jesus where he is going. Jn.14:5.
      Jesus said that no one asked where he was going. Jn.16:5.

      144. Jesus lost only one disciple. Jn.17:12.
      Jesus lost no disciples. Jn.18:9.

      145. Jesus came into the world to bear witness to the truth. Jn.18:37.
      The truth has always been evident. Rom.1:18-20.

      146. During his first resurrection appearance, Jesus gave his disciples the holy spirit. Jn.20:22.
      The holy spirit was given to the disciples after his ascension. Acts 1:3-8.

      147. The world could not contain all that could be written of Jesus. Jn.21:25.
      All was written. Acts.1:1.

      148. Obey the laws of men for it is the will of God. 1 Pet.2:13-15.
      The disciples disobey the council. Acts 5:40-42.

      149. Obey God, not men. Acts 5:29.
      Obey men. It is God’s will. Rom.13:1-4; 1 Pet.2:13-15.

      150. God hated Esau and loved Jacob even before they were born. Rom.9:10-13.
      God shows no partiality and treats all alike. Acts 10:34; Rom.2:11.

      151. All who have sinned without the law will perish without the law. Rom.2:12.
      Where there is no law there is no sin or transgression. Rom.4:15.

      152. Doers of the law will be justified. Rom.2:13.
      Doers of the law will not be justified. Rom.3:20; Gal.3:11.

      153. The law has dominion. Rom.7:1.
      The law does not have dominion. Rom.6:14.

      154. The law was the result of sin. Gal.3:19.
      Sin is the result of breaking the law. 1 Jn.3:4.

      155. Those of “God” cannot sin. 1 Jn.3:9.
      Those of “God” can sin. 1 Jn.1:7 8.

      156. The anointing of Jesus teaches right from wrong. 1 Jn.2:27.
      The law written on the heart and conscience teaches right from wrong. Rom.2:15.

      157. Abraham was justified by faith. Heb.11:8.
      Abraham was justified by works. Jms.2:21.
      Abraham was not justified by works. Rom.4:2.

      158. It is not good to eat or drink anything that might cause your brother to stumble or be offended. Rom.14:21.
      Let no one pass judgment on you in matters of food or drink. Col.2:16.

      159. It is better that widows should not remarry. 1 Cor.7:8.
      It is better that young widows should remarry. 1 Tim.5:11-14.

      160. The god of this world blinds people to the gospel. 2 Cor.4:4.
      There is only one god. 1 Cor.8:4.

      161. The powers of this world are wicked, so fight against them. Eph.6:11-13.
      All powers are ordained of God and, if you resist, you are damned. Rom.13:1,2.

      162. Bear one another’s burdens. Gal.6:2.
      Bear your own burdens. Gal.6:5.

      163. Anyone who even greets a non-believer shares his wicked work. 2 Jn.10,11.
      Always be ready to answer any man concerning your faith. 1 Pet.3:15.

      164. All of the grass on the earth is burned up. Rev.8:7.
      The army of locusts are instructed not to harm the grass. Rev.9:4.

      165. Only “The Father” knows. Mk.13:32.
      “Jesus” and “The Father” are one. Jn.10:30; 17:11,21,22.

      166. Jesus said that he would judge. Jn.5:22,27-30; Jn.9:39.
      Jesus said that he would not judge. Jn.8:15; Jn.12:47.
      Jesus said that The Father judges. Jn.12:48,49.
      Jesus said that The Father does not judge. Jn.5:22.
      Jesus said that his disciples would judge. Lk.22:30.

      167. He that does not believe is damned. Mk.16:16.
      Thomas did not believe and was not damned. Jn.20:27-29.

      168. “When his branch is yet tender”. Mt.24:32.
      “When her branch is yet tender”. Mk.13:28.

      169. Jesus is God. Jn.10:30.
      Jesus is the “image” of God. 2 Cor.4:4.
      Jesus was a man approved by God. Acts 2:22.

      170. Jesus and God are one in the same. Jn.1:1.
      Jesus is beside himself. Mk.16:19; Acts 2:32,33; 7:55; Rom.8:34; etc.

      171. Jesus is the Son of God. Jn.6:69; Jn.20:31.
      Jesus is the Son of Man. Mt.18:11; Lk.21:27.

      172. Paul states that he does not lie. Rom.9:1; 2 Cor.11:31; Gal.1:20; 1 Tim.2:7.
      Paul states that he does lie. Rom.3:7.

      173. Paul said that he does not use trickery. 1 Thes.2:3.
      Paul admits to using trickery. 2 Cor.12:16.

      174. Paul says that circumcision is nothing. 1 Cor.7:19.
      Paul says that circumcision is profitable. Rom.2:25; Rom.3:1,2.

      175. Do not covet. Rom.7:7; Rom.13:9.
      Paul says covet. 1 Cor.12:31; 1 Cor.14:39.

      176. Paul teaches not to steal. Eph.4:28.
      Paul admits to stealing. 2 Cor.11:8.

      177. Paul was assured that he would not be hurt. Acts 18:9,10.
      Paul was often physically abused. 2 Cor.11:23-27.

      178. Paul states that the law is necessary. Rom.3:31.
      Paul states that the law is not necessary. Rom.6:14.

      179. Jesus said to go and baptize. Mt.28:19.
      Paul said he was not sent to baptize. 1 Cor.1:17.

      180. Paul said he was not sent to baptize but to preach. 1 Cor.1:17.
      Paul baptized. 1 Cor.1:16.

      181. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law. Mt.5:17-19.
      Paul said otherwise. Eph.2:15.

      182. Jesus said that God did not condemn the world. Jn. 3:17.
      Paul said that God did condemn the world. Rom.5:18.

      183. Those present at Paul’s conversion stood. Acts 9:7.
      They fell to the ground. Acts 26:14.

      184. Those present at Paul’s conversion heard a voice but saw nothing. Acts 9:7.
      Those present at Paul’s conversion saw a light but heard nothing. Acts 22:9.

      185. Shortly after his conversion, Paul went to Damascus where he spent some time with the apostles. Acts 9:19.
      Paul went to Damascus three years later and saw only Peter and James. Gal.1:18,19.

      186. Shortly after his conversion, Paul went to Damascus and then to Jerusalem. Acts 9:18-26.
      Shortly after his conversion, Paul went to Arabia, then to Damascus, and then, 3 years later, to Jerusalem. Gal.1:17,18.

      187. In Damascus, the governor attempts to seize Paul. 2 Cor.11:32.
      In Damascus, the Jews attempt to seize Paul. Acts 9:22,23.

      188. The holy spirit forbids preaching in Asia. Acts 16:6.
      Paul preaches in Asia anyway. Acts 19:8-10.

      189. Paul said he would not be a servant of Christ if he tried to please men. Gal.1:10.
      Paul said that he tried to please men. 1 Cor.10:33.

      190. Paul says that he was the chief of all sinners. 1 Tim.1:15.
      He who commits sin is of the devil. Children of God cannot sin. 1 Jn.3:8-10.

      191. Paul said that Jesus is the judge. 2 Tim.4:1.
      Paul said that God is the judge. Heb.12:23.
      Paul said that the saints would judge. 1 Cor.6:2.

      192. Paul said that Jesus was the Son of God. Rom.1:3,4.
      Paul said that Jesus was just a man. Heb.7:24.

      193. Do not boast. Lk.18:14.
      Do not be proud. Rom.11:20; 1 Pet. 5:5.
      Paul proudly boasts. 2 Cor.11:16-18; Gal.2:9-11.

      194. Jesus commends the church at Ephesus for discerning the lying apostles. Rev. 2:1,2.
      Paul was the apostle to Ephesus. Eph.1:1.

      • Kevin T

        Obviously you are way off the mark! If you truly knew how to study the word of God; and were not lead astray by Satan in this ridiculous dribble, perhaps then holy spirit would have given you spiritual eyes to see these are not inconsistencies, but a broader scope of man`s understanding of God.

      • JAB

        But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14 NKJV

      • revgazza

        Thomas you need to get saved. You are not only confused in your understanding of scripture but you sound angry with God. If you actually read the bible all your questions of so called inconsistency are answered. Let me just look at the last one for you
        194. Jesus commends the church at Ephesus for discerning the lying apostles. Rev. 2:1,2. Paul was the apostle to Ephesus. Eph.1:1.
        The bible makes it clear that their are false prophets and apostles as well as real prophets and apostles (after all you can’t have false without real) So when Jesus is addressing the church at Ephasus He is commending them for not putting up with the false apostles. As for most of the other scriptues you meantion they are eye witnesses and as every police officer will tell you everyone sees something that others don’t see and by putting all the eye witness testimony together you get the whole picture.
        As for Paul boasting IF you bothered to actually read the bible and I don’t believe you have, then you will see he said I boast for the Lord. He is not boasting about himself but what God has done for him. He is also giving his qualifications so those who question him see that he is actually qualified to speak.
        My question to you is this .. why do you come onto a Christian Leaders website when you are obviously not a Christian nor a pastor. If I am wrong and you are in ministry then please resign immediately, because we preachers and teachers are judged on what we teach our flock. AND if you don’t believe the bible is the word of God then you cannot teach it. Find yourself a good bible teacher, someone who understands scripture, and sit under their teaching for a few years and then you will be able to comments.

      • Lance

        First, I like the main article as a whole. Second, “Thomas” either is an unbeliever but a real seeker that came across the material he has presented and seriously wants these issues addressed because he doesn’t have the logical skills, knowledge set, etc to deal effectively with the supposed inconsistencies, or two, he is an unbeliever that is using a form of verbal tactical trickery used by various groups, namely certain atheist or agnostic groups to try to overwhelm them with appears to be a good case to doubt. I looking over the 194 questions I almost laugh and at the same time cry. I laugh because I’m thinking is this the best stuff the devil can come up with. And I cry because I realize the strategy is designed to deceive those not really well versed in theology and scripture. That said, many of the tactics used above demonstrate logical fallacies and tactical trickery. I don’t have time to address specifics, but broadly speaking, the writer (1) does not Know the scriptures properly, nor doe she Know about the power of God (2) He makes use of straw men arguments. (3) Quote Mining. Is the Abhorrent practice of searching through large volumes of literature or spoken word to “Mine out” any quotes from opponents that may seemingly support your position. In the list above, this apply to what has been done with the Bible. In most cases, the quote is clearly taken out of context in a deliberately planned campaign of disinformation.(4) Non sequitur arguments are arguments that do not follow from any logical train of thought, but where this occurs above I must question whether or not it done willfully or truly out of ignorance. (5) Elephant hurling is a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of “evidence” which supposedly supports the debater’s arguments, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support the argument. It’s when the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side. (6) There are other Tactical Tricks and logical fallacies used in the above post, which I presuppose was copied and pasted from another website or other source which Thomas felt was creditable. Whatever the situation is on that, such tactical trickery, misinformation, and logical fallacies do exist and Christian Leaders should be equipped and also equip their flock with as much “scriptural ammo” as possible to deal effectively, intelligently and lovingly with those who are not merely atheists but also ANTI-Theists, namely anti-Christ, and the otherwise misinformed and deceived, and/or doubters.

    • willis

      All these supposed inconsistencies have been adequately answered in conservative theological apologetic s material. Liberal theology will agree with you but conservative sources will open your understanding. Willis

    • Vern

      1. Is the same “inconsistency” a public school teacher used on me as a kid. You are obviously neither a Bible reader nor student. Matthew’s record traces Jesus’ lineage through Joseph. Luke’s record traces it through Mary. A casual reading would show you that. For them to be the same would mean Joseph married his sister which didn’t happen. Like many on your list, a careful reading of the Bible clears everything up. For the more difficult ones you need spiritual revelation. Ive learned not to assume the ancients were idiots and couldn’t produce a” consistent” book (since that seems to be what you are looking for in a religion). This kind of”throw everything out there and see what sticks” approach to “inconsistencies” totally ignores the great message of the Bible of God’s love and seeking of mankind to ultimately make man one with Him in life and nature through the work accomplished by Jesus Christ and carried out by the Spirit. To the praise of the glory of His grace. Amen!

      • Thomas

        THE BIRTH OF JESUS

        A. THE GENEALOGIES OF JOSEPH

        1. Matthew and Luke disagree

        Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary’s, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph’s genealogy (Luke 3:23). Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies since at least the early fourth century. It was then that Eusebius, a “Church Father,” wrote in his The History of the Church, “each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages.”

        2. Why genealogies of Joseph?

        Both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke show that Joseph was a direct descendant of King David. But if Joseph is not Jesus’ father, then Joseph’s genealogies are meaningless as far as Jesus is concerned, and one has to wonder why Matthew and Luke included them in their gospels. The answer, of course, is that the genealogies originally said that Jesus was the son of Joseph and thus Jesus fulfilled the messianic requirement of being a direct descendant of King David.

        Long after Matthew and Luke wrote the genealogies the church invented (or more likely borrowed from the mystery religions) the doctrine of the virgin birth. Although the virgin birth could be accommodated by inserting a few words into the genealogies to break the physical link between Joseph and Jesus, those same insertions also broke the physical link between David and Jesus.

        The church had now created two major problems: 1) to explain away the existence of two genealogies of Joseph, now rendered meaningless, and 2) to explain how Jesus was a descendant of David.

        The apostle Paul says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Romans 1:3). Here the word “seed” is literally in the Greek “sperma.” This same Greek word is translated in other verses as “descendant(s)” or “offspring.” The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus (as some apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin – seed from the line of David was required.

        Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man’s sperm (the woman’s egg being discovered in 1827). The woman’s womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children.

        This is the reason that although there are many male genealogies in the Bible, there are no female genealogies. This also eliminates the possibility put forward by some apologists that Jesus could be of the “seed of David” through Mary.

        [Church apologists try to claim women can pass on 'seed' according to the bible, "Genesis 3:15 says 'And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed.'" This does not change the fact that both Matthew and Luke were writing of Josephs lineage and that at the time genealogies were only traced through male lineages, to have women mentioned in a genealogy would be very unusual. More on that later.]

        3. Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth?

        Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.

        The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus’ birth, he says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Romans 1:3) and was “born of a woman,” not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).

        4. Why did Matthew include four women in Joseph’s genealogy?

        Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph’s genealogy.

        a. Tamar – disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19).

        b. Rahab – was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1).

        c. Ruth – at her mother-in-law Naomi’s request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14).

        d. Bathsheba – became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5).

        As previously mentioned, to have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, “The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four “loose women” in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?”

        B. THE ANGEL’S MESSAGE

        In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary’s child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David’s throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her.

        If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son. Instead, we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus’ family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. And later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.

        C. THE DATE

        According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod’s death.

        Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is “this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor …” In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod’s death.

        D. THE PLACE

        Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew’s poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel.

        Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).

        In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel).

        E. THE PROPHECIES

        Matthew says that the birth of Jesus and the events following it fulfilled several Old Testament prophecies. These prophecies include:

        1. The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14)

        This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a “young woman” will give birth, not a “virgin” which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.

        This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).

        2. The “slaughter of the innocents” (Jeremiah 31:15)

        Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy.

        This is a pure invention on Matthew’s part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the murder of several members of his own family. However, ancient historians such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod’s crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod’s greatest crime by far. It simply didn’t happen.

        The context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.

        3. Called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1)

        Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 2:15). However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

        As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened, one need only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened between the time of Jesus’ birth and the family’s arrival in Nazareth. According to Luke, forty days (the purification period) after Jesus was born, his parents brought him to the temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Into this same time period Matthew somehow manages to squeeze: the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt, the sojourn in Egypt, and the return from Egypt. All of this action must occur in the forty day period because Matthew has the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents.

        F. THE TRUTH BEHIND THE PROPHECIES – MATTHEW’S BIG BLUNDER

        Since the prophecies mentioned above do not, in their original context, refer to Jesus, why did Matthew include them in his gospel? There are two possibilities:

        1. The church says that the words had a hidden future context as well as the original context, ie, God was keeping very important secrets from His chosen people.

        2. Matthew, in his zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, searched the Old Testament for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events in Jesus’ life to fulfill those “prophecies.”

        Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, “on them he sat.”

        Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, “mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”

        Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated “and” in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of “even” (which is used in many translations) for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus’ life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event. Matthew’s gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in “future contexts,” any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy!

        G. CONCLUSIONS REACHED SO FAR

        From looking at just the birth accounts several conclusions can be reached, all of which will be further reinforced by examining other parts of the New Testament:

        1. The gospel writers contradict each other.

        2. The gospel writers rewrote history when it suited their purposes.

        3. The gospels were extensively edited to accommodate the evolving dogma of the church.

        4. The gospel writers misused the Old Testament to provide prophecies for Jesus to fulfill.

        From the birth accounts alone, it is obvious that in no way can the New Testament be considered “the inerrant Word of God,” or even “the Word of God, inerrant regarding matters important to faith and practice.”

  • Scott

    I’m impressed that you have tried to address this issue. I do think that you need to complete the process and give it a little more detail.

  • Steve

    Clear Biblical theology – very well presented

  • Roy

    Tim,

    Very good explanation of the topic. Yes, those who know Jesus are saved from the power and penalty of their sin, PTL!

    “These things have I written to you, WHO believe on the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.” 1 John 5:13

    Nough said!

  • Phil

    Well said. Also, if you read levitical laws in context, the law forbidding homosexuality is in the context of other forbidden relationships, so to condone homosexuality you also have to condone incest and a whole lot of other forbidden relationships. It isn’t in the same place as the other laws.

  • Anglican Bishop Samuel Sostre

    It is not likely that the interpretation of Matthew 19:12 is the one given by the author. By the way, many people think that the eunuchs born that way may be the homosexuals of today. I believe Jesus when he says that, of course, these born eunuchs and some that are seeking the Kingdom (lest marriage interfere with their mission) will choose not to marry a woman.

    • amos8

      Yes, people believe a lot of things. In fact, we are told that people will believe what they want to believe and not what Scripture/God teaches. (Is 30:9-11; 2 Tim 4:3-4)

    • http://www.drhodges.org/ Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

      What another non-sense article from the folks over at Church
      Leaders (CL) and their supporters of yet another cleverly disguised support in
      the advancement of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) gay
      rights community.

      Just like sheep being lead to slaughter, once again Church
      Leaders supporters wave their hands with glee and adulation of yet another
      clever, but deceptive article in their collective tacit support of the LGBT
      agenda. This time in the article written
      by Timothy J. Keller of the Presbyterian persuasion in the “new” efforts in his
      Redeemer City church.

      What a dong hill this Keller is trying to push out as
      reasonable discourse of unsupportable fact. Of course with the blessings of good
      folks over at Church Leaders, this is why Keller’s piece appeared as a featured
      article. So let’s get to the facts of
      the misguided Keller’s comments, the Church Leaders homosexual slant and their ardent
      supporters of what the Bible really says choice of the homosexual life styles.

      Keller his piece said… “I find it frustrating when I read or
      hear columnists, pundits or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent
      because “they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey.”

      Keller went on to say, “What I hear most often is,
      “Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts — about not eating raw meat or
      pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing
      garments woven with two kinds of material and so on. Then they condemn
      homosexuality. Aren’t they just picking
      and choosing what they want to believe from the Bible?” Is this a case of the tea kettle calling the pot
      black?

      One suggestion Keller might find helpful to ease his
      unnecessary frustration may be for Keller to stop listening or reading the
      comments of columnists, pundits and journalists that get him so upset and do more reading of
      the Holy Bible.

      If so, Keller will find the Bible is completely consistent
      in both the Old and New Testaments and in particular, when it comes to LGBT homosexual
      lifestyles and same-sex marriage.

      At one point it use to amaze me where Church Leaders found
      these so-called pastors, ministry leaders and others that Church Leaders often
      puts forth in their blog as featured articles in support of the LGBT gay rights
      choice lifestyles.

      Then the answer became abundantly clear, when a media medium
      like Church Leaders is constantly putting out dribble in its tacit support of
      the LGBT gay rights agenda either from its own staff writers or featured pieces
      from liked-minded submission, then it’s really is no surprise.

      In the case of Keller’s ministry in the “new” efforts of the
      Redeemer City church that boast of 5,000 members with his over 20 years of experience,
      it is this type of rhetoric that attempts to give credence, legitimacy and
      cover to otherwise very inconsistent comments from Keller and other ministry types
      like him about the actual consistency of the Bible.

      Most first year Bible students not have a problem in eating Keller’s
      lunch and sending him home if he were to put forth such non-sense in a serious
      media forum outside the Church Leaders flock and the Hollywood media. Even non-trained
      established Christian’s understand the consistency of the Old and New Testaments
      as the Old Testament being revealed in the New Testaments, in what is known as
      the full counsel of God or the full Gospel.

      In Keller’s case he puts his alleged knowledge and accomplishments
      to risk with this almost immature argument in support of the LGBT gay rights
      agenda that many of the LGBT supporters have already advanced for years to no
      avail in changing God’s Word.

      In Keller’s argument for his support of the LGBT gay right
      agenda, he weaves through Old Testament in his attempt to draw allegories from
      the Old Testament (that many incorrectly consider the law of God), with allegories
      to the ceremonial laws, sacrifices, temple worship, touching lepers, and dead
      bodies as abolished being fulfilled by Christ.

      Aren’t the Scriptures clear on this subject? Apparently not,
      if you listen to the many voices now embracing this LGBT gay rights life style.
      Their still in the closet and openly gay scholars and theologians who adamantly
      try to defend their homosexual views life style choice based on the Scriptures
      that are inconsistent with God Word and/or inapplicable to the real facts.

      While some do not believe that homosexual sex is even
      mentioned or described in Scripture, others freely admit that it is mentioned
      and was a capital crime under Moses, and strongly condemned by the Apostle Paul
      in the New Testament, but now such conduct should be treated differently
      because they say so.

      Keller correctly states that if that if… “New Testament has
      reaffirmed a commandment, then it is still in force for us today.” So let us just take a look at what the New
      Testament says about the LGBT gay rights homosexual lifestyle choice, Keller’s
      comments, the supporters of Church Leaders, and other like-minded types that use
      his brand of logic in unsupported fact as their support for the LGBT lifestyle.

      Matthew 19:1-8
      — Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality? Of course, when asked about
      marriage, Jesus issued a sweeping condemnation of all sexual relationships
      outside of the male/female model established in Gen 1:27, which he specifically
      cited.

      Romans 1:18-32
      —Though most of the passages deal with the male perspective, for the first time
      there is a specific mention of female homosexuality. And as the verdict comes in, we discover it
      too is a depraved condition brought on by a sinful nature.

      1Cor 6:9-11—The
      only passage of scripture that clearly acknowledges former (ex) homosexuals in
      the church. They are listed along with other ex-sinners who have been changed
      by the power of Christ. It is certain that Pastor Paul knew there were former
      homosexuals in his local church and he celebrated their freedom in Christ
      Jesus. With a completely different tone in comparison to the volume of harsh,
      negative reaction to the unrepentant homosexuality, scripture here ends with
      the tremendous hope and goodness of God.

      Galatians 5:19
      — Many areas that the apostle traveled to take the gospel indeed were very
      accepting of homosexual practices, yet he did not back away from communicating
      the sinfulness of such practice. Corinth, Ephesus and Rome as well as other
      major cities of the ancient world, were all too often cesspools of all forms of
      sexual immorality. Undeterred, Paul drew
      from sources familiar to him and forged them with New Testament teachings of
      God’s grace to forgive and cleanse. In the letter to the Galatians, he teaches
      that the “works [not plurality] of the flesh are manifest. The flesh or sinful
      human nature is always considered and enemy to God.

      Ephesians 5:3-7—
      Paul repeats his warnings against “uncleanness” to the church at Ephesus.

      Colossians 3:5-7
      — Paul issues his third warning against “uncleanness” to the church at Colossi.
      This time he adds instructions on overcoming/controlling the sin. Believers are
      to mortify or deaden themselves and exercise self-control (a fruit of the
      Spirit) over such actions. Homosexuals claim that denying the free expression
      of homosexuality is “suppressing one’s true self”, but scripture
      clearly instructs that we are to hold our bodies in check and refuse it
      participation in sexual immorality. This passage further emphasizes that no one
      should expect to escape the “wrath of God” except they repent.

      1 Tim 1:9-10
      — the law was not made for the righteous, but for the “lawless and
      disobedient.” The law (of Moses) encompassed the ceremonial, judicial and moral
      components of human interaction. Christ neutralized the ceremonial aspects but
      upheld the judicial and moral aspects, tendered with grace and mercy. Hence,
      homosexuality remains a sin “worthy of death” but yet qualified for
      forgiveness through repentance. The phrase Paul uses “defiling themselves with
      mankind” is another link of homosexual behavior to disobedience and incompatible
      to sound or acceptable Christian doctrine.

      Titus 1:16
      — This is an aggressive attack and exposure of the psychosis of those who are
      “defiled” and commit “abominations”. Again, let us identify the source of
      the Apostle Paul’s strong condemnation. When one accepts what God has
      pronounced abominable (by God’s own
      definition) and rejects the created model which God has pronounced good, a
      process of hardening and mental perversion begins to take root in the mind.
      Such is the danger of justifying sin. Sin corrupts the mind and conscience (the
      seat of individual integrity and morality) rendering it incapable of making
      spiritually sound decisions.

      Jude 1:4, 7, 19
      — Jude forcefully revealed that like
      the Sodomites, certain men in the church had gone after “strange flesh.” I
      believed Jude was describing contemporary “gay Christians”. His choice of phraseology is a combination of
      two words: heteros and sarx meaning “another flesh with the same quality.” His
      inclusion of the word flesh pointed to the homosexuality (not the
      inhospitality) of the Sodomites. Similar to the Apostle Paul, Jude selected
      strong language to convey the serious of the charge facing the church. Allowing
      unrepentant homosexuals into Christian fellowship without applying the same
      standards of admission applied to other sinners would be a spiritual death for
      the church. Repentance is the major action a sinner must take to be accepted
      into the family of God.

      Rev 21:27—The
      final book of the Bible, finalizing a complete picture stunning denouncements
      of all forms of homosexual conduct. From Genesis to Revelation, the Word of God
      firmly establishes once and for all the sinfulness of homosexuality, but also
      provides a wide opportunity for repentance and redemption through Jesus Christ.
      Homosexuality, as seen through the eyes of scripture is a spiritual aberration,
      a result of the fallen nature of man, a disease of the soul. It produces
      nothing life giving, in essence opposite of the nature of God who is life.
      Therefore it “worketh” or produces abomination which is death.

      Keller with his claim of 20 years of experience in ministry and
      over 5,000 members apparently has been too busy to read these sections of the New
      Testament in what Keller even he admits still applies today.

      Unfortunately Keller, like the folks over at Church Leaders and
      others are just too caught up in the wave of popular culture change, private motivations,
      political correctness, and blindness to God’s Word to desire to adhere to true truth.

      So for the follows of the Keller’s and Church Leaders types
      of the world, keep being lead like sheep to the slaughter, but you can’t say
      that you did know the truth. Therefore and
      as such, you now become responsible for this knowledge.

      Oh by the way, the role of your responsibility for knowledge
      of God Word and it consequences are in the Bible just in case you care to read
      it.

      Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

      • http://www.drhodges.org/ Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

        Anglican Bishop Samuel Sostre your comments about eunuchs born that way as being the homosexuals of today is way off any reasonable or responsible supported human or Bible fact.

        Most homosexuals are not born eunuchs in much as eunuchs are not born homosexual lest you or other any person lack a proper understanding of the term and meaning of the word eunuch.

        Likewise your comments on marriage are equally off the mark, as inappropriate and inconsistent with God’s Word “Bishop Sostre”.

        Your election or that of your colleagues not to marry by virtue of your denominational following has nothing to do with main theme of this article Keller, nor are your comments about the role of New Testament “Bishop” as an unmarried man consistent God’s Word.

        So “Bishop” if you, your congregation or others who may be interested what God Word truly says about the qualifications and role of true New Testament Bishop irrespective of domination, try reading 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.

        Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges
        Just A Plain Minister

  • jethro

    Does that mean he agree with same sex marriage? Pardon me cos, it makes me wonder as it did not come out clear in this write-up.

    • PastorDerek

      I think he was very clear on this issue. Read it again.

      • Jay d

        I agree with the article, but the passage (math 19: 3-12) he used for an example had nothing to do with homosexuality

        • David Le Maungo Mnjama

          My dear brother, the point made by Jesus in Matthew is that in the beginning [where God made his intentions clear, law of first mention] God made them MALE AND FEMALE. Not same sex. There is not a single scripture where God sanctions same sex marriage. So the passage actually has a lot to do with homosexuality. Passage can also be used to demonstrate why polygamy and poliandry are out. One man, one wife.

    • Kevin T

      Same sex marriage is wrong!

  • Ibeawuchi Aja

    This is well written, and I do hope that every Christian should manage what he or she understood from the Bible rightly very well, and leaves those he or she does not understand. And from time to time, and by relating with one another the answers will come by. Fighting and arguing for what one does not understand is a waste of time, and will not lead any of us to achieve anything spiritually. I got something from here and I knew that this text was inspired. To God be the glory.

  • jonah adamu

    though well said but it can not be the ultimate truth. God created man and woman not man and man. He will judge finally, so it is not for us to kill ourselves. One is free to live as he chooses yet there will reckoning. The truth sets free from desires of the flesh.

  • Common Sense

    Bravo, well done. Of course Jewish people who believe in Jesus are free from the Law in one sense but in another sense it is their right to practice their culture – we would not tell a Polish person to quite being Polish for instance… yet for two thousand years Christian got this mixed up with the Jews. But it is getting better now. Certainly replacement theology is less and less seen as a tenable. I just mentioned this because a hint of this might have been visible in Rev. Keller’s approach… but, aside from that – this was very well done and provides people with an answer- people need to have an answer (1st Peter 3:15)

  • Jeff

    A (hopefully) interesting observation: When people point out the alleged inconsistencies about which biblical rules some Christians follow, they are doing so as part of an argument against using religion as a reason to prohibit (civil) same sex marriage. In light of that, it is interesting that the last point of this argument is that the Church is no longer “a nation-state imposing civil penalties.” If religion is used as the justification for denying same sex partners what is, for most, the constitutional right of marriage, the Church is imposing a civil penalty (through its members).

    • David Le Maungo Mnjama

      To be sure, it is my personal opinion that for the church to be the light, it does not necessarily need any nation’s law to justify it. This is why adultery for example is not a crime, but nobody can deny that adultery is a sin, harmful to society and the cause of much pain today. So yes, nations all over the world need not use the Bible to criminalize same sex activity, but that does not negate the death that comes with it – just like all other sins that are not punishable by legal sanctions.

  • Olive Tree

    “It would, therefore, be deeply inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible
    as a whole if we were to continue to follow the ceremonial laws.”

    If by “we” you mean GENTILES and by “follow ceremonial laws” you mean as a way to salvation then yes. If you mean anything else then you are repeating the age-old satanic lie of GENTILIZATION, the counter-part of JUDAIZING, which forces one group to assimilate into the other to be saved. Messianic Jews are not inconsistent by continuing to observe Torah, it’s actually expected by God. Gentiles are not required to. Both are saved by grace, Torah never saved to begin with. God does not change.

    Please do not continue the garbage heresy that a Jewish person has to commit ethno-cultural suicide and live like a Gentile to be saved by their own Torah observant Jewish Messiah, who was preached by Torah observant disciples. Remember Romans 11 THREE TIMES (Stresses utmost importance with 3 fold repetition) Paul told Gentiles not to be arrogant towards the Jewish People, and in that context it was arrogance in thinking they had replaced Israel as God’s people and that they were better than them.

    Also the phrase “the church is no longer a nation-state imposing civil penalties”.

    It never was. Israel is a nation-state, the Church didn’t exist till Pentecost. Do not confuse the two groups, they are NOT the same.

    There is a lot of common mistakes in this entire writing about understanding the Older and Newer Covenants God made with Israel (Not the Church), and these are two of the more glaring ones.

    You end goal though is clear: Homosexual practice is clearly sin. And no something does NOT have to be repeated in the Newer Covenant in order to still be valid, quite the opposite, it would have to be strictly DENOUNCED for it to NOT be still in force.

    • David Le Maungo Mnjama

      Very interesting discussion. Never thought about it. On another related note, what about Gentiles who try to use other Torah parts to obtain “Jewish” blessings? Will God bless Gentiles who make an effort to appear before him bearing gifts? Does tithing for Gentiles work? A lot of prosperity teachers use the Torah, emphasizing portions where God says the law is to be observed forever throughout generations. Or should Gentiles focus on Ephesians Chapter 1 and believe that every blessing comes through Christ and not observance of the Torah?

  • incrediblyvexed

    Very clever but Matthew 19: 3-12 says that God’s design was man and woman were designed as a pair and thus will join to become one flesh and what God has joined let no man separate. He was speaking about divorce, not homosexuality. There’s nothing in this passage about what happens with gay couples. We can assume that since it takes two genders to join into one flesh, that gay couples do not become one flesh, but that’s not really a sin is it? This is a very twisted use of a bible verse clearly about the morality of divorce, to support discrimination against gay people.

    Throughout the Christian world I see a repeat of this kind of misleading teaching, taking a verse that is clearly a reply to another question and editing it to mean something completely different. TV evangelists do it, cults do it and now this fella. I will leave you with a verse of my own selection, but, I’m going to quote verbatim and not interpret it for my own purposes. “How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart,” – Jeremiah 23:26

    Make of that what you will.

    • justified

      actually it does refer to sexuality as well; in the first part of the scripture where you acknowledge man and women being designed by God as a pair…meaning it is a man and a woman that is designed for to be together other. Man was not designed to be the help meet for another man. Nor a woman for a woman. Promoting homosexuality is promoting the break down of the family Which God is not pleased with. How would one reproduce using two men?
      It is not the Christians or Followers of Christ who have the issue; the issue is the people of the world who attack the beliefs of others as a way of justifying their sin. For the record sin is sin and just because one is discussing one particular sin does not mean that they have excluded the other. Also, when one identifies a sin or teaches about what does and does not please God it is not implied that the followers or God exempts love. We are to love everyone and teach the gospel as intended. Love one another; perform the works of the Lord, be one body in Christ, & follow the Word of God!

      • incrediblyvexed

        All well and good, but still not one single verse in the NT that specifically says a man and another man being together is a sin is there? All the objections against homosexuality are inferences from answers to questions that are not about homosexuality at all. Then the question becomes about the intention of the person making the inference. If you all recall, Christians have burned people at the stake, forced entire generations of people to convert at swordpoint, invaded nations, killed countless innocents, denied the position of the sun in the solar system and helped the spread of AIDS in Africa all because someone made an inference from Scripture about God’s “intentions”. And now science has shown us that homosexuality may be epigentic. If true, this begs the question why God would make a person that is abhorrent to Him. I think before we become another Christian generation that is a source of shame for future Christians, perhaps we should take care that we do not “prophesy the deceit of their own heart”, rather than what is actually written in the scripture.

        • Passing through

          Hello vexed. Here’s a verse. Romans 1:26-27 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In
          the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (NIV)

          Jesus also confirmed all the OT law (the article lays out what this means and doesn’t mean), including homosexuality in Matthew 5:17 – ““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

          Mainly wanted to cover a couple biblical bases here, since that is what you first mentioned. To you question about why God would make someone abhorrent to Him is a mistake about who is culpable for evil. God gives man free will because He wants a love relationship with us and love requires choice. People choose to disobey God and sin. We make ourselves abhorrent to Him by rejecting Him and saying, in effect, we don’t need God and can do better on our own. That goes for any and all sinners who has not repented and made Christ Lord of their life.

          • incrediblyvexed

            Might these be verses from the Apostle Paul? The one that said women are saved by childbearing and that they should cover their heads in church and that they should keep quiet? Is this the same Paul that once proclaimed

            “But women will be saved through childbearing, assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty” 1 Timothy 2:15.

            So women who do not have children join gay people in hell too? Of course he later changed his mind and said

            “and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world – how she can please her husband.” 1 Cor 7:34

            This is also the same Paul that was confused about whether people should still follow the old law right? Having first spoken out against circumcision then later offered sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem

            Wait, I’m confused. But maybe so was Paul, because by his own admission

            “I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.” 1 Corinthians 7:25

            I’m just thinking that perhaps we should stick to the actual teachings of Jesus found in the first four books rather than from someone who admittedly is making his own judgement which sometimes seems to contradict itself. You will see that the first four books of the NT are rather free from any such contradiction when Jesus is teaching thus suggesting that these teachings actually come from God and not someone who believes he was licensed by God. Remember “The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Revelations 21:14. Twelve, not twelve + 1.

        • http://www.drhodges.org/ Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

          Try Romans 1:26-27 on for size, last time checked was in the New Testament.
          Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

    • amos8

      Interesting … in that a few verses before the Jeremiah verse that you quoted it tells us that true prophets will turn people from their sins (IF that prophet truly stands in the council of God).

      You, however, minimize or deny a seriously destructive sin (to the individual, relationships, and society … not to mention the church).

      Furthermore, you attempt to minimize teachers (or “Prophets”) who would dare teach what is sin, and what is not a sin (which the Word of God teaches us to do).

      “And among the prophets of Jerusalem
      I have seen something horrible:
      They commit adultery and live a lie.
      They strengthen the hands of evildoers,
      so that not one of them turns from their wickedness.
      They are all like Sodom to me;
      the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.”

      “But if they had stood in my council,
      they would have proclaimed my words to my people
      and would have turned them from their evil ways
      and from their evil deeds.”

    • Reginald

      He was asked about divorce by the Pharisees, but in His answer to them He first covered the original design of marriage (verses 4-6). He said “what God has joined, let no man separate.” This means that marriage is of the origin and design of God; not man. He gave this to mankind (man an woman) as a holy institution of relationship between man an woman; by which population of mankind would continue through Him and His holy order.

      God did not give lease of mankind to redefine the holy order of His creation. He said “A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE”. This did not say that a man would be joined to his husband; nor did it say a woman would be joined to her wife. This order is established and is plain as day.

      When the Pharisee’s pressed Him about divorce? He gave them the only means; contrary to what Moses told them, by which divorce (between man and woman) is recognized before God. Any sexual relationship outside of what He laid out in Matthew 19:9, enters into the sin of adultery.

    • Reginald

      You asked “We can assume that since it takes two genders to join into one flesh,
      that gay couples do not become one flesh, but that’s not really a sin is
      it?”

      I believe this should clearly answer that question.

      Jude 1:7 ~ as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

  • Ibeawuchi Aja

    One of the greatest problems that we are facing as Christians is that there too many kinds of theology…, and most people`s minds have been shaped with too different thoughts….And when someone is not saying what their teachers in one of the theological institutions have taught them, they would not accept that idea as truth. “I have always told people that the mind can only know what was fed on it. And the mind could be a wasted asset when it is wrongly fed.”
    And what most people do not know is that we the Gentiles wanted to push the Jews away from the God who has used them to reveal Himself to the world. Sometimes we the Gentiles will be hiding ourselves by using the word Church. But the Church is a Living organism and not an institution or an organization: It`s we all that make us the Church, and the has never changed from the “Call Out People” from the fallen world to serve the Living God to be any other thing visible or invisible.. There is ONLY one Church which begin when the Children of Israel when they had left Egypt (Acts 7:38). It was still that Church that came together when Christ Jesus has died on the Cross and the Temple was rent into two just to make the Jews and the Gentiles one family or the commonwealth of Israel (Mathew 27:51) (Ephesians 2:19,3:1-6).
    I still cannot believe that after the Apostle Paul has said that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, people are still dividing the Scriptures into two saying, that this is Torah and that is the Bible for Christians (The New Testament). Although that I`m not a writer but I`ve tried to put this into writing in my book (Basic Principles). In this very book I have also raised this question, what are we Christian doing with the words of the Apostle Peter who during in his life time had counseled the Church to be careful on how they interpret the writings of Brother Paul because his writing can be misunderstood. And many people will be going to hell because of that misunderstanding (2Peter 3:16-17). Do you know that the only thing that the theologians have made out of this sound warning is that the Apostle Peter has recognized the writings of the Apostle Paul to be authentic Scripture?
    Another issue that always do baffles me is when I hear Christians arguing that The Law(Torah) cannot save. My question is, who among the list in the book of Hebrews chapter 11 written by the Apostle Paul that was not saved? And who among the Old Testament of Hall Famer that were listed in that book was a Christian? Let`s begin afresh, let`s be open-minded when reading the Bible. For there is this spiritual and political warfare against the Jews going on. In this many Christians would say that they hate the Jews because of the Palestine Christians, and what they thought about Jew Christians they do not have the answer. The Bible would say he who has ear let him hear.

    • Quentin Elsea

      Paul was very clear that the Law cannot save:

      “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:3-4)

      “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’ Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ But the law is not of faith, rather ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us – for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’ – so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith” (Galatians 3:10-14)

      As for your question, “who among the list in the book of Hebrews chapter 11 [...] was not saved,” Paul was also very clear on this point:

      “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness'” (Romans 4:2-3)

      “Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith – just as Abraham ‘believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’?” (Galatians 3:5-6)

      We must preach the entire counsel of God – not just the selections that fit our pet theories (Acts 20:27).

  • Pastor Alex Souto

    @ author: i could not get beyond your innacurate reading of Matthew 19:3-12.

    That passage is an argument against divorce and say nothing about homosexuality, which Jesus never said a world about it. Ironically, divorce; which Jesus spoke against dozens of times is now widely accepted by protestant denominations.

    It is sad when cultural norms are imposed as Biblical truth and theologically sound belief.

    We tend to think of Pharisees as a dead cast of religious fanatics… but they have survived within the Christian fold… that we can be certain of…

    • http://batman-news.com Babz

      very well said and indeed this is disturbing!

      • amos8

        Are you saying that you agree that Jesus was in error?

    • amos8

      Are you saying that, even though it is in the context of “divorce,” that Jesus cannot establish the basis for marriage, that it is between “A” man and “A” woman?

      God/Jesus is quoting from “the beginning” the supreme and divine and unalterable design for marriage. [BTW: Notice that He goes out of His way to emphasize the male/female aspect of marriage.] By establishing that THE one and only way for a marriage was one man and one woman He condemns all other types of “marriage” and “romantic” or “sexual” relationships (e.g. polygamy; homosexuality; bestiality; etc … if it were not obvious already). Many, however, will believe what they want to believe.

      Nevertheless, people who have “read” the Scriptures are attack and insulted as “Pharisees” because they point out the base line premise of Jesus?

      If someone says: “You need to stay on this one road go straight on the road until you come to big purple house.” Should we then ask, “Well, he didn’t say we could not turn left! So, it must be okay to turn left.” Sure, turn left and see where that gets you!

      It it might be wise to avoid the danger, the irony–if not hypocrisy–of one person judging and condemning others as a “Pharisee.”

      • Pastor Alex Souto

        please refer to my reply above…
        and try to get to know a homosexual person before equating same sex love to “bestiality” and proclaiming Divine condemnation…

        • amos8

          “…and try to get to know a homosexual person before equating same sex love to “bestiality” and proclaiming Divine condemnation…”

          I’m concerned that you lack awareness of either how judgmental you come across, or how judgmental you really are–all in the context of judging and condemning being judgmental.

          Your judgment of me as not knowing a homosexual person comes from a complete void of knowing anything about me, yet that does not stop you from sitting in judgment of me and who I know/don’t know.

          Furthermore, you further mis-judge me/what I said. Clearly I was not “equating” what you judged of me. I was obviously pointing out what are referred to today as “alternatives” to “traditional” marriage/sexual relationships. [Also, where do we draw the line? And if we draw the line, are we not guilty of "Pharisaism" or "Hating" in eyes of some group that will be offended?]

          What is also clear is that many people frequently twist arguments/discussions into something along the lines of “You are equating homosexuality with ________!!!! (polygamy; adultery; bestiality) When someone twist the words of others to fit into common talking points then I’m done. But if that is not accurate, then please illuminate how that is.

    • amos8

      By your logic, Jesus was in error!

      In Matthew 19 Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 … which says NOTHING about divorce … yet it is the premise by which He builds the overall concept and teaching on divorce. This is also what the author (and many other authors/teachers) frequently do. Yet you pick at this, and then condemn the author, and then attempt to minimize the overall point/concern. Why?

      Jesus also condemned people for “straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.”

      • Pastor Alex Souto

        Brother amos8, no need to capitalized any of your words [we all know what that stands for and there is no need for shouting].



        My point still stands… In Matthew 19:3-12 Jesus is condemning marriage after a divorce but somehow the Pharisees of today would gladly re-marry anyone who knocks at their doors despite the fact that Jesus spoke against re-marriage dozens of times.

        So how does the argument attempted by Dr. Keller that the OT cleanliness laws are no longer relevant because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, hold up against the flat out disregard to a law that Jesus re-affirmed over and over again?

        

So the OT Levirate laws can be conveniently ditched but the divorce as adultery can be overlooked?



        Don’t get me wrong… I’m not speaking against divorce. 

Marriage is a human institution, therefore imperfect, therefore bound to reach an unhealthy level and divorce becomes the only solution. 
God’s blessing upon a committed couple, on the other hand, is eternal even if they have to get a divorce.

        And please… get your world history straight… marriage between one man and one woman is a very recent institution. How many Biblical characters had more than one wife??? Yep, almost all of them!

        And by the way, it was aninstitution based on political and financial interest, not love. The concept of marriage as a natural evolution of the love of man and woman only started after the Troubadours.

        

Lastly, I’m not saying that Jesus was “in error”!
        He was speaking about the realities and problems of his time.
        By the grace of God some of those problems have been addressed to one degree or another. Slavery is an unacceptable institution, stoning is no longer a human form of discipline and punishment and the list goes on. Let us remember that what was wrong then is not necessarily wrong now. Jesus condemned divorce because he was looking out for the welfare of women, today divorce is a necessary process when all other resources have been exhausted. Mosaic laws had provision to
        support women that were divorced [or abandoned] by their husbands, but during
        Jesus’ time those provisions had been highly disregarded [exegete the book of Ruth and you will see some interesting parallels].
        Divorce was not acceptable then and Jesus reinforced that norm for the benefit of women.
        Today our context is different and we have acknowledged it as a society and as people of faith.

        Why is there such a violent opposition to accept the love of two people of the same gender?

        Why do authors such as Dr. Keller insist on finding Biblical condemnation for that form of love and commitment when Jesus never spoke a word about it?

        Worse still, the couple of verses that have been translated as homosexuality are actually decontextualized and tremendously week substantiation for an internalized form of fear and camouflaged manifestation of hate.

        The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus on legalities as many of today’s Pharisees do. The beauty
        of God’s love and grace is that it surpasses legalisms and human constructs.

        I oppose arguments against same gender loving people because of the highest commandment not because of legalistic straws and misguided theology put together to prevent God’s grace from reaching All of God’s Children. “All” meaning all, including you, me and the ones we categorize as “them”!

        • amos8

          I was curious how you would handle this…

          First, there is no other way (that I know of) to emphasize a word, hence, the all caps.

          I was hoping that you would not stick to your original argument, even though it is pretty clear that you condemned the author for doing precisely what Jesus did: quote verses as a baseline to prove a further point.

          You openly condemned this and said that you could not get past this vital premise. Then you would also have to be okay with the Pharisees saying to Jesus, “I’m sorry, but when you established the original design of marriage by quoting Scripture then I can’t get past that. You lost me.”

          Instead of admitting the obvious, you seem to stick to your guns and avoid addressing this painfully clear parallel. To make matters worse, you assert that Gen 2:24 is NOT God establishing marriage, let alone the specifics of marriage (e.g. one man, one woman; leaving/cleaving; unity; etc).

          Also, “almost all” the people in the Bible had multiple spouses? The Troubadours originate marriage (at least between one man and one woman)?? Your sources are far different from mine and, I would say, “traditional” Christianity. Therefore, we are never going to come to the right conclusions together.

          Finally, it is a hackneyed, not to mention, and embarrassingly false accusation to judge and condemn others of “hate” and “fear” and “homophobia” when they are merely seeking to be Biblically accurate and, in fact, truly loving of anyone who might in sin (homosexual sin, or otherwise). Disagree with their conclusions if you will, but to so errantly judge and condemn others motives is not only destructive to the discussion, it falls perfectly in line with and mirrors millions in the world who openly reject God and Scripture.

          If you cannot admit your errors or sin, if you consistently blame others and create some “ill-intentioned” aspect to their character rather than discussing Scripture, then how can you ever come to the truth?

          • Pastor Alex Souto

            I am always open to discussing Scripture, and I have done just that, but I’m not interested in discussions that take it out of context.
            Are you interested in considering historic, literary, sociological contextualization?
            Without that we are left in very shallow waters.

            We can certainly agree on one thing… we do not agree… I might have “lost” you in my argument, and i certainly find your “theological” and “historical” argument inaccurate.
            

I’m not judging, I am simply highlighting the inaccuracies presented in the article above and your defense of it’s misuse of Biblical text.
            Homosexuality is as sinful as inter-racial marriage if one chooses to twist Biblical text to say so. And while at it, one could even manipulate the Bible to justify subjugation of women and the defense of slavery.

So, I rest my case, the article above doesn’t hold any water and you seem to be have a very fixed opinion about homosexuality.
            I don’t intend to change your mind and you won’t succeed in changing mine. 

I’m a United Methodist pastor and therefore I guide my theology by the Quadrilateral [Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason].
            Yours and Dr. Keller’s scriptural understanding may work very nicely with “tradition” but I see no sign of reason or experiential knowledge of the realities of homosexual people.

What would happen if you allowed homosexuals to exist without feeling a need to condemn?

            What would happen if you allowed homosexuals to experience God’s love within our church communities?

            So… who is being judgmental?

            No one is asking you to engage in homosexual practice so why are you and Dr. Keller so concerned in condemning it?

            Your condemnation of homosexuality makes people feel unworthy of God’s love. It distances people from God and the people of God, my so called “judgement”, or questioning of your judgment is a mere attempt to prevent such injustice and violation of the highest commend from happening.

            Best wishes to you and I’m sure that God’s love shall prevail.

          • amos8

            I’m glad you mentioned “reason,” but I’m not sure why you will not address your reasoning (and my reasoning) of how you misjudged and condemned the author (and many others … as “Pharisees,” mishandling Scripture, “hating,” etc) yet when confronted you blame me. You still will not acknowledge the painfully obvious: the author did what Jesus did in the very same passage (Matt 19) yet you condemned the author … and if you are accurate then Jesus is also in error (in your judgment, not mine).

            Either way, you will not address what everyone else can see, experience, and reason from Scripture and history … and yes, you instead blame me … just as I hoped you would not.

            “What would happen if you allowed homosexuals to exist without feeling a need to condemn?”

            Again, this is not only a judgment of something you do not know, but it is painfully and embarrassingly errant … AND when this is pointed out, you don’t seem to care … you will just blame me (and others) for what you ascribe to me/us … but is not real … nor will you confess or repent (apparently) even after I have tried to point these out … and, dare I say, you are fulfilling your own judgment of others as … Pharisees.

            It is safe to say that I have never “condemned” a homosexual. I have ministered to them, however. Yet in your (MIS) judgment of me (and, perhaps, millions of others like me) you have put me in a box without knowing anything about me or what I do.

            Like I have tried to exhort you before, I don’t think you have the necessary awareness of your propensity to judge/condemn others … all while accusing them of judging.

            “What would happen if you allowed homosexuals to experience God’s love within our church communities?”

            Who is making the judgment that “I” am not? I have lost track of how many times you not only have judged me, but have been so far off in your judgment, but there is hope … and it alls starts with confession…

            “So… who is being judgmental?”

            I think we have abundantly established the answer.

            “No one is asking you to engage in homosexual practice so why are you and Dr. Keller so concerned in condemning it?”

            Again, another falsehood. This is like me saying to you, “Why do you want people to be destroyed by their sin and go to hell?” This quote is not true, so for me to ascribe this of you–because of your beliefs about what Scripture says or does not say–is a falsehood, judgmental, unloving, etc.

            Perhaps there are some people who condemn it, but I/we are merely wrestling with what Scripture says about millions of things–homosexuality to be one of them. So, to be accurate, what we are saying is that God–as He teaches us in Scripture–is deeply concerned about sin–all sin–and that homosexuality is a very significant and harmful sin. AND, if it is a sin, then it is a hard thing to do, but we must warn others about this harmful behavior — OUT OF LOVE for others — even though we know we will get judged and condemned for judging and being “hateful.”

            “Your condemnation of homosexuality makes people feel unworthy of
            God’s love. It distances people from God and the people of God, my so
            called “judgement”, or questioning of your judgment is a mere attempt to
            prevent such injustice and violation of the highest commend from
            happening.”

            Again, it is not MY condemnation. What this is about is my concern for truth and love … and having enough love to not merely accept what a person wants (all of us who have a heart that is sinful and deceitful above all things) to be true.

            I would hope that we could agree that what truly distances a persons from God is deception and sin. What brings hope for reconciliation with God (i.e. bringing them closer) is confession of sin and replacing the lies with the truth of God (Rom 1:25) and getting rid of the deceit that is in our hearts and lives.

            It is one thing for us to disagree–that will always happen–but what makes or breaks a person is their willingness to acknowledge the truth. Nevertheless, the pattern here seems to be that no matter what happens it is someone else’s fault–even when it is painfully obvious to all.

            Can we have true love without the truth? Confess = “admission of the truth” so please, wherever you are willing, please own up to your responsibility … without this can there really be hope?

          • Pastor Alex Souto

            Great, we agree on something else…

            the importance of “truth”…

            the only problem is that you claim to own it!



            Love will always have the last word my brother…

            You claim that homosexuality is a sin but seem to conflate that with promiscuity.



            The love and commitment of two persons of the same gender is as worthy as the love and commitment of two heterosexuals. Homosexuality is not a sin and doesn’t not harm anyone, but homophobia and condemnation from religious people afraid of what they do not know… now that is deceitful and shamefully destructive not only to homosexuals but to everyone else, including you.

            Your writing comes across as someone terribly disturbed by the expression of love of same sex partners.

By the way, if you love someone, you respect their sexual orientation and not oppress that person to become who you think they should be.



            And… don’t worry about replying… one day we will come before God so let us just move forward doing the best that we can.

I’m sure that you are doing your best but you’re just not going to convince me of your righteousness.

            

I called out Dr. Keller inappropriate use of Matthew 19:3-12 and that is all I felt called to do. 

You defended the author and I read your argument unfortunately it has not changed the view I formed from studying with the best contemporary Biblical scholars and through my own scholarship, reason, experience and tradition.

I suggest you expand your own worldview and scholarship and let history and God’s grace determine who is on the right side of truth.

            In clocing, the Pharisees pointed to the laws and their understanding of the “truth” claiming that Gentiles were dirty and unworthy. The Pharisees were repulsed by the reality of the Gentile body and could not allow those children of God to be part of the faith community unless they mutilated their bodies.
            So… Did the Pharisees impose circumcision also out of their love for the Gentiles and the importance for those sinners to “repent”? [this is a rhetorical question, so just meditate on that for a bit].

          • amos8

            I do find it fascinating how you avoid, and twist, what I am saying.

            “the only problem is that you claim to own it!

” [truth]

            I do? I expressed what I believe what the Bible teaches … as you do. I respect your beliefs (but I don’t believe you have respected my beliefs [e.g. through your misrepresenation of them and name calling, etc]), but I originally pointed out the inconsistencies of your judging and condemning the author’s handling of Scripture and then calling him/others “Pharisees.” You, in turn, tried to make this about our differences of beliefs about homosexuality.

            “Love will always have the last word my brother…”

            I hope you can see that this is not only an assertion of truth, but a declaration of a superlative truth (which is fine to do) but you claim *I* am the one claiming to own truth. Yet your pattern seems to be when you find yourself in a self-defeating notion you avoid addressing the error, instead you find blame with others.

            Also, you mention “love,” which is great, but which love is true love? Ahhh, there is the problem. We are all for love, but we do not agree on what that love is. And then you assert that *I* claim to “own” truth … all while you are claiming to have the truth about love?!? The most troubling part is that you can’t or won’t see/address this.

            “You claim that homosexuality is a sin but seem to conflate that with promiscuity.”

            Again, you did the exact error/twisting of what I said. This is all on you.

            “The love and commitment of two persons of the same gender is as worthy
            as the love and commitment of two heterosexuals. Homosexuality is not a
            sin and doesn’t not harm anyone, but homophobia and condemnation from
            religious people afraid of what they do not know… now that is
            deceitful and shamefully destructive not only to homosexuals but to
            everyone else, including you.”

            “love”? Define love. Also, this brings up the glaring problem of can “any two” entities can “love” each other and it not be problematic or “sin”? Where do you draw the line? If so, you are “hating” someone somewhere (in their view). Yet you continue to rely on repeating slanderous words and labels (that anti-Christians use) like “homophobia” and “Pharisee” rather than “reason.”

            It doesn’t harm anyone? With all of your extra-biblical sources you don’t know the egregious damage that this behavior does?

            Please tell all this to the young man in my office who sought out counseling because HE knew his behavior was harmful and “sinful.”

            “Your writing comes across as someone terribly disturbed by the
            expression of love of same sex partners.

By the way, if you love
            someone, you respect their sexual orientation and not oppress that
            person to become who you think they should be.”

            I hope you see how you, unfortunately, fulfilled my prediction of blaming me/others rather than “reason.”

            “

I’m sure that you are doing your best but you’re just not going to convince me of your righteousness.”

            Ummm? What? Despite all of my selfishness YOU are the one that continues to try to make this about me. Furthermore, I am painfully aware of my lack of righteousness … BUT blessed by His righteousness.

            “I called out Dr. Keller inappropriate use of Matthew 19:3-12 and that is
            all I felt called to do. 

You defended the author and I read your
            argument unfortunately it has not changed the view I formed from
            studying with the best contemporary Biblical scholars and through my own
            scholarship, reason, experience and tradition.

I suggest you expand
            your own worldview and scholarship and let history and God’s grace
            determine who is on the right side of truth.”

            You continue to reveal more and more accurately who you really are. To be accurate, I was not trying to defend the author, but using *this* particular Scripture and how it was used … and which you attacked … and then judged millions as “Pharisees” for judging … and still will not see/admit the self-defeating folly therein.

            We all sin, we all are deceived to various degrees, the only hope is to confess our sin (i.e. to admit the *truth*) [hence, the emphasis on confession in Scripture) … to own up to our mistakes, failures, errors, false teachings, sins, etc … but for whatever reason you refuse to do so–especially when it is absurdly obvious to all.

            So be it.

            When you freely and frequently judge, condemn, and assault and insult others … especially judging them as “Pharisees” (i.e. condemning others for judging) AND THEN DON’T SEE THE SUPREME FOLLY IN THIS then there is literally no reasoning going on, and no hope.

          • Pastor Alex Souto

            Despite being “absurdly obvious to all” that I’m not owning up to my “mistakes, failures, errors, false teaching, sins, etc …”, I do have a few last questions:

            Why is my “confession” and “redemption” so vital to you?

            Why are you so fervent about homosexuals having to confess their “harmful and sinful” behavior?

            Aren’t the sins of an individual between God and them?

            How can the love of two people of the same gender “harm” you or anybody else around?

            Don’t worry about analizing me anymore because you obviously know exactly who I am and pegged all of my evil ways. Instead, it would be more helpful to me if you’d answered the questions I offer above.

  • Randy Wilson

    Brother Tim that was a great exhortation! Thanks for reminding us of the Old and the New Testaments and their likenesses and differences. Well handled.

  • Vincent Aja

    I have written in my book “Basic Principles” that a speaker may say a thousand word but so many people may never get a word from the thousand words except that very word that the speaker spoke out of context. Dr. Tim Keller was making a point against the argument on why Christians were against homosexuality when they were not ready obey every Law that God has given us in the Bible. That we Christians were only taking the Laws that were suitable to us while we do ignore the rest. This is his very point of writing. He only used the gospel of Mathew 19 here to show that marriage was meant for a man and a woman, this he also expanded by using the book of Corinthians etc..
    Someone should not omit his point here because he has laid the most important issue that brought his topic here: “It would, therefore, be deeply inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible as a whole if we were to continue to follow the ceremonial laws.The New Testament gives us further guidance about how to read the Old Testament”
    The point here is giving the reason why Christians were not obey every Law that was written in the Old Testament. These Laws were mostly the ceremonial Laws. And he has attributed it to the sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus. These laws were the “Ceremonial Laws” which has nothing to do with the “Moral Laws”. Let`s get the point before we should stone him.
    Vincent Aja is a Bible teacher, I`m on Facebook with this name basicp62..

    • Karen Yates

      Thank you. I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought that way and I thought I must have missed something.

    • http://www.drhodges.org/ Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

      I hope that as self proclaimed “Bible teacher” on Facebook that you
      Vicent Aja will take the time to come under some true Biblical teaching
      for your own benefit as “Bible teacher” and those ears you speak.

      By the way, in the church you attend does it collect tithes and offering?
      Perform baby dedications or marriages between a man and women?

      If so, are these the ceremonial laws the you mention in your piece as not
      being laws from the Old Testament that should not be followed today?

      I would enjoy hearing your reply to these questions and how it squared
      with your premise the if these acts are also “deeply inconsistent with
      the teaching of the Bible …to continue to follow…” since these too where practiced in the Old Testament?

      Vincent Aja you wrote…..”But I`m still insisting that “most of you people”
      have not the clear understanding….”

      Yes, in your mind count me in as the ill-informed, homobophic, hater, bigot,
      bias, etc., etc., etc., that “most of you[r] people” resort to as the
      familiar name calling refrain when your agreements fail to stand against
      fact and reason.

      Regarding your allegation of me having … “a personal issue with Dr. Keller”, because of in your opinion… “he has brought this issue many people have gained insight”. I say insight to what?

      Please do not take this the wrong way, but the insights of Keller or Vincent Aja do not amount to hill of beans when measured against the irrefutable Word of God.

      I have never met Keller or in any other capacity had any contact with Keller outside his misguided article that was baseless in Scriptural facts.

      Now you and others supports like you want to cry foul for being taken to task on the real facts of what the Scriptures says with supported evidence from
      Bible, not just your opinions.

      It was Keller who put himself out there in the public spot light with his highly questionable article and in doing so opened himself up to rebuff in intelligent discourse on a matter that he simply got wrong; when compared against the solid facts of Bible related to this issue and not personal interpretation.

      Lest you and others like you that support the LGBT gay rights agenda forget,
      it was just a few short years ago that not many questioned the Word of
      God or its application on this topic from many corners.

      The only thing that has changed over this period has not been the God’s Word, rather the public’s opinion due to the heavy media campaigns from LGBT gay rights activists, their supporters and misguided teachings comments from the Keller’s of the world.

      Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

  • Deana Callins

    There is only “One” way to Follow after Righteousness! By Faith/Complete Trust In Jesus Christ Performance; The Promised Seed of Righteousness.
    What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which “Followed not” after righteousness, have ‘attained’ to righteousness, even the righteousness which (is) of Faith. Romans 9:29-31
    This happened to those who did not “Follow Jesus” By Faith.
    But Israel, which “followed” after ‘the law’ of righteousness, -Have Not- Attained to the Law of righteousness. Romans 9:30-32
    Why?
    Because they Sought it Not (by) Faith, but as it were (by) the “Works” of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;Romans 9:31-33
    What then is Works? Something to be done(Toil) to “receive” righteousness.
    Righteousness Is “Given” through Jesus Christ. To All who (Will) “Receive” it. Understanding we were unworthy to gain it of our ownself, but.Through Him who is Worthy and given the Holy Spirit of God “without measure”the FULLness of God Himself. Gives freely of his richness to those who Believe & Accept him as the Truth; that delivers us from Bondage of “Unprofitable Self Works”. Now, Being Reborn of the Spirit. “Receive” the Holy Spirit. Which “Gives” THE ADVANTAGE; Power to us.
    Galatians 3:4
    HE therefore that minister to you the Spirit, and work miracles among you, does he it by the works of the law, or (by) the “Hearing of Faith?

  • Jean-Michel Etienne

    This is an excellent exegesis. Your understanding on the distinction of the moral law and the ceremonial law is fantastic. However, do not forget that the observance of the weekly sabbath which is the worship on the 7th day is still included in the moral laws which the 10 commandments ( Exodus, 20:8-11).

    Blessings,

    Jean-Michel Etienne, Pastor

  • Randy Jay Rance

    The article was right on. The bottom line is that Jesus, our great God and Savior is exalted for all He did on our behalf. For God so loved the world. Also, in no way are the O.T. Moral precepts abandoned: To love God with all your heart, soul, & mind & to love your neighbor as yourself..

  • Randy Jay Rance

    This post is for Jean-Michel Etienne,Sir, you mentioned remembering the Sabbath ? That is part & parcel of the Old Testament law. Jesus never instructed Gentiles to keep the Sabbath. When asked what is the greatest comandment ? Jesus replied: to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself; on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. If the sabbath was still applied, He would have mentioned it.

    • rtp000

      Actually Jesus stated in Mark 2:27 “Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” God never designed it to be a burden, but a privilege and it was modeled by God himself who rested on the 7th day. Our minds and bodies need rest and opportunity to enter into worship, so Sabbath is about rest, restoration and relationship with God.

  • Randy Jay Rance

    Mr. R.J. Rance is a chaplain also.

  • http://www.drhodges.org/ Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

    What another non-sense article from the folks over at Church Leaders (CL) and their supporters of yet another cleverly disguised support in the advancement of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) gay rights community.

    Just like sheep being lead to slaughter, once again Church Leaders supporters wave their hands with glee and adulation of yet another
    clever, but deceptive article in their collective tacit support of the LGBT agenda. This time in the article written by Timothy J. Keller of the Presbyterian persuasion in the “new” efforts in his Redeemer City church.

    What a dong hill this Keller is trying to push out as reasonable discourse of unsupportable fact. Of course with the blessings of good
    folks over at Church Leaders, this is why Keller’s piece appeared as a featured article. So let’s get to the facts of the misguided Keller’s comments, the Church Leaders homosexual slant and their ardent supporters of what the Bible really says choice of the homosexual life styles.

    Keller his piece said… “I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent
    because “they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey.”

    Keller went on to say, “What I hear most often is, “Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts — about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on. Then they condemn homosexuality. Aren’t they just picking and choosing what they want to believe from the Bible?” Is this a case of the tea kettle calling the pot black?

    One suggestion Keller might find helpful to ease his unnecessary frustration may be for Keller to stop listening or reading the
    comments of columnists, pundits and journalists that get him so upset and do more reading of the Holy Bible.

    If so, Keller will find the Bible is completely consistent in both the Old and New Testaments and in particular, when it comes to LGBT homosexual lifestyles and same-sex marriage.

    At one point it use to amaze me where Church Leaders found these so-called pastors, ministry leaders and others that Church Leaders often puts forth in their blog as featured articles in support of the LGBT gay rights choice lifestyles.

    Then the answer became abundantly clear, when a media medium like Church Leaders is constantly putting out dribble in its tacit support of
    the LGBT gay rights agenda either from its own staff writers or featured pieces from liked-minded submission, then it’s really is no surprise.
    In the case of Keller’s ministry in the “new” efforts of the Redeemer City church that boast of 5,000 members with his over 20 years of experience, it is this type of rhetoric that attempts to give credence, legitimacy and cover to otherwise very inconsistent comments from Keller and other ministry types like him about the actual consistency of the Bible.

    Most first year Bible students not have a problem in eating Keller’s lunch and sending him home if he were to put forth such non-sense in a serious media forum outside the Church Leaders flock and the Hollywood media. Even non-trained established Christian’s understand the consistency of the Old and New Testaments as the Old Testament being revealed in the New Testaments, in what is known as the full counsel of God or the full Gospel.

    In Keller’s case he puts his alleged knowledge and accomplishments to risk with this almost immature argument in support of the LGBT gay rights agenda that many of the LGBT supporters have already advanced for years to no avail in changing God’s Word.

    In Keller’s argument for his support of the LGBT gay right agenda, he weaves through Old Testament in his attempt to draw allegories from
    the Old Testament (that many incorrectly consider the law of God), with allegories to the ceremonial laws, sacrifices, temple worship, touching lepers, and dead bodies as abolished being fulfilled by Christ.

    Aren’t the Scriptures clear on this subject? Apparently not, if you listen to the many voices now embracing this LGBT gay rights life style.
    Their still in the closet and openly gay scholars and theologians who adamantly try to defend their homosexual views life style choice based on the Scriptures that are inconsistent with God Word and/or inapplicable to the real facts.

    While some do not believe that homosexual sex is even mentioned or described in Scripture, others freely admit that it is mentioned and was a capital crime under Moses, and strongly condemned by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, but now such conduct should be treated differently because they say so.

    Keller correctly states that if that if… “New Testament has reaffirmed a commandment, then it is still in force for us today.” So let us just take a look at what the New Testament says about the LGBT gay rights homosexual lifestyle choice, Keller’s comments, the supporters of Church Leaders, and other like-minded types that use his brand of logic in unsupported fact as their support for the LGBT lifestyle.

    Matthew 19:1-8 — Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality? Of course, when asked about marriage, Jesus issued a sweeping condemnation of all sexual relationships outside of the male/female model established in Gen 1:27, which he specifically cited.

    Romans 1:18-32 —Though most of the passages deal with the male perspective, for the first time there is a specific mention of female homosexuality. And as the verdict comes in, we discover it too is a depraved condition brought on by a sinful nature.

    1Cor 6:9-11—The only passage of scripture that clearly acknowledges former (ex) homosexuals in the church. They are listed along with other ex-sinners who have been changed by the power of Christ. It is certain that Pastor Paul knew there were former homosexuals in his local church and he celebrated their freedom in Christ Jesus. With a completely different tone in comparison to the volume of harsh,
    negative reaction to the unrepentant homosexuality, scripture here ends with the tremendous hope and goodness of God.

    Galatians 5:19 — Many areas that the apostle traveled to take the gospel indeed were very accepting of homosexual practices, yet he did not back away from communicating the sinfulness of such practice. Corinth, Ephesus and Rome as well as other major cities of the ancient world, were all too often cesspools of all forms of sexual immorality. Undeterred, Paul drew from sources familiar to him and forged them with New Testament teachings of God’s grace to forgive and cleanse. In the letter to the Galatians, he teaches that the “works [not plurality] of the flesh are manifest. The flesh or sinful human nature is always considered and enemy to God.

    Ephesians 5:3-7— Paul repeats his warnings against “uncleanness” to the church at Ephesus.

    Colossians 3:5-7 — Paul issues his third warning against “uncleanness” to the church at Colossi. This time he adds instructions on overcoming/controlling the sin. Believers are to mortify or deaden themselves and exercise self-control (a fruit of the Spirit) over such actions. Homosexuals claim that denying the free expression of homosexuality is “suppressing one’s true self”, but scripture clearly instructs that we are to hold our bodies in check and refuse it participation in sexual immorality. This passage further emphasizes that no one
    should expect to escape the “wrath of God” except they repent.

    1 Tim 1:9-10 — the law was not made for the righteous, but for the “lawless and disobedient.” The law (of Moses) encompassed the ceremonial, judicial and moral components of human interaction. Christ neutralized the ceremonial aspects but upheld the judicial and moral aspects, tendered with grace and mercy. Hence, homosexuality remains a sin “worthy of death” but yet qualified for forgiveness through repentance. The phrase Paul uses “defiling themselves with mankind” is another link of homosexual behavior to disobedience and incompatible to sound or acceptable Christian doctrine.

    Titus 1:16 — This is an aggressive attack and exposure of the psychosis of those who are “defiled” and commit “abominations”. Again, let us identify the source of the Apostle Paul’s strong condemnation. When one accepts what God has pronounced abominable (by God’s own
    definition) and rejects the created model which God has pronounced good, a process of hardening and mental perversion begins to take root in the mind. Such is the danger of justifying sin. Sin corrupts the mind and conscience (the seat of individual integrity and morality) rendering it incapable of making spiritually sound decisions.

    Jude 1:4, 7, 19 — Jude forcefully revealed that like the Sodomites, certain men in the church had gone after “strange flesh.” I believed Jude was describing contemporary “gay Christians”. His choice of phraseology is a combination of two words: heteros and sarx meaning “another flesh with the same quality.” His inclusion of the word flesh pointed to the homosexuality (not the inhospitality) of the Sodomites. Similar to the Apostle Paul, Jude selected strong language to convey the serious of the charge facing the church. Allowing unrepentant homosexuals into Christian fellowship without applying the same standards of admission applied to other sinners would be a spiritual death for the church. Repentance is the major action a sinner must take to be accepted into the family of God.

    Rev 21:27—The final book of the Bible, finalizing a complete picture stunning denouncements of all forms of homosexual conduct. From Genesis to Revelation, the Word of God firmly establishes once and for all the sinfulness of homosexuality, but also provides a wide opportunity for repentance and redemption through Jesus Christ. Homosexuality, as seen through the eyes of scripture is a spiritual aberration, a result of the fallen nature of man, a disease of the soul. It produces nothing life giving, in essence opposite of the nature of God who is life. Therefore it “worketh” or produces abomination which is death.

    Keller with his claim of 20 years of experience in ministry and over 5,000 members apparently has been too busy to read these sections of the New Testament in what Keller even he admits still applies today.

    Unfortunately Keller, like the folks over at Church Leaders and others are just too caught up in the wave of popular culture change, private motivations, political correctness, and blindness to God’s Word to desire to adhere to true truth.

    So for the follows of the Keller’s and Church Leaders types of the world, keep being lead like sheep to the slaughter, but you can’t say
    that you did know the truth. Therefore and as such, you now become responsible for this knowledge.

    Oh by the way, the role of your responsibility for knowledge of God Word and it consequences are in the Bible just in case you care to read
    it.

    Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

  • Vincent Aja

    Rev. Dr. Hodges you got it wrong, maybe you have a personal issue with Dr. Keller. For since he has brought this issue many people have gained insight. I do think that in this Church Leaders the contributors and supporters were all dealing on issues that the average person is confronted with each day on the street , work place or around the neighborhood. So your contribution could make a difference, so as a leader you must show a leadership lifestyle. Of course many people were using the Bible for their own good these days, this wasn`t a new idea because the Bible warns us about all what will taking place in these last days.(1Timothy 4)(2Timothy 3-4).

  • Vincent Aja

    If you are in a better position to address this issue which he has just brought up, so kindly do it so others may learn from you. But I`m still insisting that most of you people have not the clear understanding of what Dr. Keller was saying here. Better read his article again sir. He was saying why are Christians against gay marriage when they cannot even obey the Laws. That Christians only obey the Laws that they have “selected” to be good for them, and that while they cannot obey the Laws made for them to obey. They still found it right to condemn others. It was because of this that he went one to show the differences between the “Ceremonial Laws” and the “Moral Laws.” I think that Dr. Keller is not the problem, the only problem is on our levels of understanding. People did likewise to Brother Brian few weeks back when he has brought his finest article on people we won`t see in heaven.

    • http://www.drhodges.org/ Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

      Vincent Aja you wrote…..”But I`m still insisting that “most of you people”
      have not the clear understanding….”

      Yes, in your mind count me in as the ill-informed, homobophic, hater, bigot, bias, etc., etc., etc., that “most of you[r] people” resort to as the familiar name calling refrain when your agreements fail to stand against fact and reason.

      Regarding your allegation of me having … “a personal issue with Dr. Keller”, because of in your opinion… “he has brought this issue many people have gained insight”. I say insight to what?

      Please do not take this the wrong way, but the insights of Keller or Vincent Aja do not amount to hill of beans when measured against the irrefutable Word of God.

      I have never met Keller or in any other capacity had any contact with Keller outside his misguided article that was baseless in Scriptural facts.

      Now you and others supports like you want to cry foul for being taken to task on the real facts of what the Scriptures says with supported evidence from Bible, not just your opinions.

      It was Keller who put himself out there in the public spot light with his highly questionable article and in doing so opened himself up to rebuff in intelligent discourse on a matter that he simply got wrong; when compared against the solid facts of Bible related to this issue and not personal interpretation.

      Lest you and others like you that support the LGBT gay rights agenda forget, it was just a few short years ago that not many questioned the Word of God or its application on this topic from many corners.

      The only thing that has changed over this period has not been the God’s Word, rather the public’s opinion due to the heavy media campaigns from LGBT gay rights activists, their supporters and misguided teachings comments from the Keller’s of the world.

      Thank you for sharing,

      Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

      • The One Galen

        Dr. Keller is not saying homosexuality is ok in this article, he’s saying that it’s against God’s word. Vincent is pointing this out to you but you’re so wrapped up in being better than Keller that you’re not paying any more attention to him than you did to what Keller wrote.

        Relax, you already agree.

        • http://www.drhodges.org/ Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

          The One Galen wrote…”but you’re so wrapped up in being better than Keller”…really?

          I hope this does not come as shocker to you, but I have absolutely nothing to prove to you, Keller or anyone else.

          The Word of God has already proven any and all points that I could ever make on this or any issue.

          Not sure what article you read by Keller, but it’s pretty clear what Keller stated and intention in his opening arguments to many, well almost many.

          By the way, thank you for your compliment!

          Rev. Dr. Hodges

  • Kehinde Akinlolu

    Reading most of the exchanges on the above subject I feel so much like the Apostle John when he heard an angel proclaiming that, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scrolls?” He suddenly realized that there was no-one worthy to open or even look inside the scroll until the Lion of Judah, and the Lamb of God showed up (Rev 5:4-5). I feel disappointed if not devastated to see how some Bible scholars are defending obvious sins as no sin, and trivializing the sacred word of God. Something is fatally wrong today with the way we read, interpret and apply the word of God.

    I am not particularly dealing with the context in which the original article was written, but I feel sick to hear Christians justify sins. Even if our societies are metamorphosing into a modern Sodom and Gomorrah, must God’s words also be watered down to enthrone and accommodate unspeakable sins in the Church? I feel we betray God when we try to justify it–directly or indirectly.

    As to whether any form of sexual perverseness–be it adultery, incest, or gay, is sin or not we really do not need to go to the OT to determine that. We do not even need to use Jesus’ teaching on divorce to argue it because the context of what Jesus was responding to was clear, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Jesus talked about a man leaving his father and mother and joining to his wife. A wife in this context implies a woman. There can be no alternative explanation. Paul alluded to this same statement in Ephesians 5:22-33. When has the truth become a nuisance in the church?

    Apostle Paul was the best biblical scholar and theologian of the NT. He was also the greatest teacher on GRACE. However, he did not mince words when it comes to sexual immorality and pervasiveness–bestiality, prostitution, gay, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest and adultery. He commanded Christians to flee from sexual immorality because our body is the temple of God (1 Cor 6:12-20). To avoid these he recommended that each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband (1 Cor 7:1-5). Please note the “he” and “she” in these statements before the church starts to have another bible that will apply gender neutrality.

    In the strongest terms Paul condemned gay and homosexuality in Romans 1:26-28, 32:

    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

    27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

    32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    Four truths are obvious here:

    1. The shameful lust for same sex instead of God-ordained marriage is already a consequence of failing to retain the knowledge of God (v.26-28). The remedy is to embrace the knowledge of God, and repent.

    2. It is madness–God gave them a depraved mind, so they do what was forbidden to a normal person. They need mental cure. This is now a spirual issue that needs prayers.

    3. Those that do these things are aware that it is sin, no matter how much they pretend or justify it. The fact that they do it deliberately despite knowing it is contrary to God’s will is what grieves God.

    4. The worst kinds of people are not the same sex participants, but those who know God’s words, and yet approve of it. This is where many Christians must be very careful so we do not bring God’s wrath on ourselves by accepting, approving and endorsing these perverse sins!

    Apostle John is renowned as the “apostle of love.” Yet he taught that all wrong doing is sin, but that there are sins that lead to death and those that do not lead to death (1 John 5:16-17). But this one Paul told us is a sin that lead to death (Romans 1:32). Also the same John asserted that sexually immoral people will not be found in heaven (Rev 22:15).

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to assign judgment or penalty on gay, lesbian and homosexuality. Gay and same sex are sinners, but God loves them and is willing to forgive them if they will repent.

    Nonetheless, God’s words cannot be compromised just because the world views support gay. When has the truth of God’s word become a nuisance, even among those who call upon God’s name? Let God be God! Let God be true and all men liars!

    • http://www.drhodges.org/ Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

      Kehinde Akinlolu….Preaching to choir here brother and we like it!

      Happy to see more true Christians coming out of their own closets and standing up for what is right according to God’s Word come hell, high water or backlash from the current public opinion based upon popular culture and not God’s Word.

      Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

    • amos8

      “Even if our societies are metamorphosing into a modern Sodom and
      Gomorrah, must God’s words also be watered down to enthrone and
      accommodate unspeakable sins in the Church?”

      Kehinde, thank you for your words … but which came first? I believe it is the many attacks on the Word that came first. So we find ourselves where Amos 8 predicted.

      • http://www.drhodges.org/ Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

        May be allowed to respond to your question of which came first in reply by stating it does not matter as much how you start out as it does how you finish. Psalm 6:8, Luke 13:27 & Matthew 7:23.

        Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

        • amos8

          Thanks for responding–and I agree about how we finish–but my point is that THE biggest problem here is the attacks on the Word (both subtly and overtly) and the lack of concern for discernment and contending for the faith. This is the battle the church is losing, and few seem to care.

  • Vincent Aja

    Dear Rev. Hodges. I`m so sorry if you are offended. I never supported anything contrary to the Bible. If you have read my first contribution here you will find out that I have viewed the Old Testament and the New Testament as one book (2Timothy 3:16-17). In other occasions I have written that Russia once seen as the Evil Empire is today asking the West to allow her to stand for her anti-gay…. I have even written that President Obama will work hard so create enough jobs for gay people, because the law of the land permits freedom of worship, which means that the true Christians will still maintain their rights not to hire the gay people. Showing how he is going to leave the constitutional crisis behind him.

    Upon all these, I have never justified anything that is contrary the Word of God. And in the case of Dr. Keller I have read to understand he was using Mathew 19 to justify through our Lord`s teaching that marriage was made for a man and a woman. From what he has written the issue of gay shouldn`t have come if not that he wanted to give every lay Christian a pre-information on how to respond if the pro-gay people should ask them, why are Christians speaking against homosexual when they cannot even obey every law that was made for them to obey.

    Once more I`m so sorry for using the word that might have be offensive to you. Please do accept my apology while we remain brothers. Blessed.

    • http://www.drhodges.org/ Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

      Brother Aja

      While your apology is appreciated, it is not necessary!

      Unfortunately, when you stand-up as I do against the popular cultural malaise,
      you can expect backlash and resistance from those who disagree.

      The topic of the LGBT gay rights choice lifestyles and same-sex marriage agenda has and will continue to be a hard and tough road.

      In particular for those who have and will continue to stand-up for what is right according to God’s Word and against the personal interpretation of God’s Word from people with the goal to place God the box of their own convenient belief system.

      Make no mistake, God loves all His people, but can’t be moved by the change in public opinion on topics of this nature or similar topics in which He has already and so completely settled in His Word. To do so would completely destroy the integrity of His Word that too many people have already died for
      in faith.

      This would mean that God sent His Son to suffer such a horrific death for Biblical truths that could subsequently be changed by popular opinion
      or judges in black robes on something God has already decreed and declared is wrong. So what popular or legislative change would there be next?

      Just like there is only ONE way to God through His Son Jesus Christ, long before the current day LGBT gay rights activists and theirs supporters were even a sparkle in their mothers’ eyes, God handled this issue in both the Old and New Testaments as He saw fit.

      God knew full well that as a country would be here at this point in history even before the foundations of the earth were ever formed.

      God knew that many would run and flee from these important modern day issues in and outside of ministry for their own personal reasons or agendas, so as to not offend to their congregations in meeting their church
      budgets. Just read Keller’s web site on their “Approach” to understand this point.

      God also knew that there would remain a remnant that likewise would stand for His Word until they pry the Bible from our cold dead hands.

      Why? Because the cost was just too high to run and hide when His Son’s blood was openly shed on the cross at Calvary to save a sinner like me.

      So hopefully, I have won over a brother in Christ and if not, may we part ways in disagreement without being disagreeable.

      Be Blessed!

      Rev. Dr. Ronald E. Hodges

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1031481427 Earl Click

    Rev. Hodges, I am sorry but where in the article did Keller throw his support in with homosexuality?
    You said the following, which I will quote afterwards, in one of your responses to the article, “In Keller’s case he puts his alleged knowledge and accomplishments to risk with this almost immature argument in support of the LGBT gay rights agenda that many of the LGBT supporters have already advanced for years to no avail in changing God’s Word.

    In Keller’s argument for his support of the LGBT gay right agenda, he weaves through Old Testament in his attempt to draw allegories from
    the Old Testament (that many incorrectly consider the law of God), with allegories to the ceremonial laws, sacrifices, temple worship, touching lepers, and dead bodies as abolished being fulfilled by Christ.”

    It appears to me that you have fought the good fight against a foe who does not exist. Keller clearly stated his view here, “The New Testament continues to forbid killing or committing adultery, and all the sex ethics of the Old Testament are restated throughout the New Testament (Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Corinthians 6:9-20; 1 Timothy 1:8-11).
    If the New Testament has reaffirmed a commandment, then it is still in force for us today.””
    Your attack seems unnecessary to me.

  • Rev. Percy

    Really good book suggest any body should read is Homosexuality & The Christian by Mark A. Yarhouse…

  • Jessica Harmon

    The thing is though, we do “pick and choose” what parts of the Bible to emphasize or follow. At least I do. As a woman, I don’t cover my head (in church or outside – unless it’s raining!). Many churches only allow men to be pastors (a discussion for another post and another day), but women are not “silent” in church by any means, with all the singing, corporate prayers, and reading of Scriptures. We can say we don’t have to follow the Levitical purity codes anymore, but how can we pick and choose among the Pauline/Greco-Roman household codes? Those are in the New Testament, post-Jesus, post-Pentecost. Is it really sinful for me to have a short haircut, an uncovered head, and read the Epistle aloud during church?

    • Darin Kleeman

      Jessica, I believe that you are misunderstanding some of the cultural aspects of the Bible. I just preached a sermon on this topic on Sunday. There is a simple process one can go through in studying the bible to determine whether a command was strictly cultural or not.

      1. Clarify the action being commanded.
      2. Clarify the principle behind the command.
      3. Compare the two. If there is a great degree of separation between the command and the principle, then the command was simply one way to obey the principle. If the command and the principle are one in the way, then the command must be universally applied.

      So, concerning head coverings, the action is to cover one’s head while the principle behind the command is to honor sexual distinctions. This separation shows us that the command is strictly cultural in nature.

      On the other hand, when it comes to wives being submissive, the action being commanded is to submit. The principle behind the command is also to submit. Therefore, this is a command for all people to obey regardless of the culture.

      So, it is sinful for women to have short hair? No, but it is sinful to ignore the principle behind the command.

      • Jessica Harmon

        Thank you for the response! I understand your reasoning, but I wonder how we are supposed to “clarify the principle behind the command”. I could make the argument (citing New Testament scholars) that the command for women to be submissive has more to do with education and knowledge than gender, the principle being “non-educated people should submit to educated people”

        During the Hellenistic period, educated women were not at all common, and the women that Paul speaks about in 1Tim 2 could not have spoken with true authority because they did not have the education. In recent decades, women have become pretty much equal to men in education (7/10 in my PhD cohort are women).

        Another line of argumentation may mark me as a progressive heretic, but I don’t believe that Paul should get the last word on everything. Christians no longer support the institution of slavery, even though Paul admonishes slaves to submit to their masters as to Christ. I would not like to be an abolitionist trying to argue theologically against slavery. (See Mark Noll’s The Civil War as a Theological Crisis for a real discussion of this.)

        If Paul has the final word from God on all issues, why do we make such a big deal of the Holy Spirit being here today? What is the Holy Spirit doing except guiding us in how God wants us to act in the present day? Not to say that Paul is wrong, but shouldn’t Christians be trying to make the world even better than it was during the first century AD? I don’t believe God’s plan for the world involves half of His people submitting to the other half just because of gender. And frankly, I don’t think Paul thought that either: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:38, ESV)

        • Darin Kleeman

          Jessica, there are times in Scripture the principle behind the command is provided in the text, but not always. When the principle is not in the text, we are forced to research, study, and do our best!

          I was using the passage of wives being in submission to their husbands as an example. (Which I believe works) but regardless, the process still remains valid and should help add much clarity to cultural issues.

          Also, I agree that the Holy Spirit is alive and working in our lives. But, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit would ever go against God’s Word. After all, the Holy spirit helped write it!

          Our goal in studying the Bible is to transform ourselves into believing and living as the Lord would direct sometimes even against our flesh. The Bible is supposed to challenge us. It is useful for teaching, correcting, training, and rebuking. The Holy Spirit is good at those tasks as well, but he is not the only guidance the Lord has provided us!

  • Ike

    The Bible is consistent not only about homosexuality, but all sin. The wages of sin is death, physical and spiritual. Thank God that Jesus died and resurrected to destroy the power of sin forever over us all. We only have to believe that Jesus has done so, and choose to follow Him. Like Dr Keller said, once the central position of Emmanuel is understood (The Bible is His story, and His alone) then everything written in the Bible becomes intelligible. But this can only be done through the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Those who the gods and demons of this age have blinded to the Truth (Jesus) will never understand this until this veil is torn asunder by placing their faith in Emmanuel. We can only continue to bring the Gospel of Jesus to them until they choose to place their faith in Him. Then they will know the Truth (Jesus) and the Truth will truly set them free…

  • yahoo

    I got a lots out of your teaching today

  • chessed1

    The basic method of interpretation is in line with historic Christianity and is wrong. I highly respect my brother, but he’s a bit behind in his scholarly understanding of Biblical studies. If his theory is correct that only certain moral law is still transmissible into the New Testament covenant and that certain regulations no longer apply, then why in Acts 15 are gentiles commanded to eat only kosher meat, but the church ignores this NT commandment? And why in certain eschatological passages throughout the Bible do we find that the Leviticus 23 feasts are still celebrated (most famously the Feast of Booths), and that animal sacrifices will be performed in the Messianic age? Academics admit that Christmas and Easter (including their non-Scriptural names) are not Biblical feasts, but we still continue to celebrate them, and we celebrate them in non-Biblical manners.

    I’m not advocating executing adulterers or homosexuals, but the reasons are much different than those based on the errant Scriptural interpretation in this article that ignores modern scholarship and a return the Jewish roots of our faith. Only a return to a pre-Constantine historical base of our faith will be closely based on an inerrant and very high view of the Bible and its place in our everyday lives and worship and community.

  • Trevor

    There are 2 births. Our natural birth and our spiritual birth. The spiritual birth happens when you choose to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior by asking Him in prayer to forgive you of your sins and come into your heart and save you.

    Then you become born again.

    Until a person becomes born again, they will not understand or know the spiritual things of God because it is the Holy Spirit that lives within you and enters into you the moment you become saved.

    The Holy Spirit is the one that teaches you the things of God.

    Jesus Christ will give you the Holy Spirit if you ask Jesus to be your Lord and Savior. Until then, people who are not saved will not understand.

    The spirit fights with the flesh. Our flesh wants to commit sexual immorality.

    Sexual immorality is a choice. Practicing sin long enough leads a person to form a habit which also leads to altering that persons perspective as to doing wrong thinking it is right.

    Meaning…

    If you practice sin long enough, you will make what is wrong, right in your own eyes.

Music_Scale

WATCH: The Christmas Scale

It’s hard to believe that the greatest message the world will ever hear is contained in one simple scale. From Igniter Media.