I frequently come across comments on news articles that go something like this:
Commenter 1: The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong.
Commenter 2: (In response to Commenter 1) But you eat shellfish don’t you?!?! You hypocrrrrrriiiiiitttttteeeee!!!!!
For the pathetically uninformed who try to pass this off as a legitimate argument (and no doubt consider themselves intellectually superior for pulling it out), let me explain why you’re wrong.
- There is a difference between the OT and NT.
- The OT is about the law and it’s about the chosen people of Israel through whom the Messiah would come. Some of the laws given were standard moral truths that would never change. Some of the laws given were given to ensure that the Israelites survived as a people so that they could produce the Messiah. Hence the dietary restrictions and restrictions on inter-marrying with the other people in the land.
- The NT is about grace and it’s about Jesus, the promised Messiah. When Jesus came, He changed everything. He lived a life that was perfect according to the law and thus fulfilled it. And in dying, He was made a substitutionary sacrifice in our place because none of us are able to keep the law. God knows we are incapable of keeping the law and it’s why His plan all along was to send Jesus to die for us.
- The purpose of the dietary restrictions was to help ensure the continued existence of the Jewish race until the Messiah came. Once He did, those restrictions no longer had any purpose.
“Ok…great….so what? The restrictions no longer had any purpose but God still said you had to do it and you’re not so you’re wrong by your own standard, hypocrite.”
- God specifically lifted the dietary restrictions in the NT.
In Acts 10:9-16, in a vision, God presents Peter with an assortment of animals that are unclean (like shellfish) and tells him to “kill and eat”. Peter refuses, three times. God finally tells Peter not to call unclean what God has made clean. Now the meaning of the vision pertains to something much more important than food choices (it is actually God telling Peter to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles also) but the fact remains that God called those animals that were previously unclean clean which meant the dietary restrictions were no longer applicable.
- God specifically re-enforced the restriction on homosexuality in the NT.
Unlike the dietary restrictions, the restriction on homosexuality was repeated and re-enforced in the NT. Specifically, in Romans 1:18-32 among others:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
I know. I know. Those of you who trot this argument out could not care less about the actual facts. You are going to keep doing it anyway. Just know that you’re wrong.
The use of the term homosexuality in this post is in reference to an action, not a state of being. This post expands on that distinction further. )