I saw this chart the other day. The propaganda campaign rages on. It’s really sad how little so many people actually know about the Bible and what it really says. So many things taken out of context. I’d be happy to set the record straight for you on what the Bible actually says on the topic.
A signifies a ‘claim’ in opposition, with B being the chart’s response.
A: Because Jesus said so!
B: Not true. Jesus never uttered a word about same-sex marriage.
Ehhh…..not quite right there. Did Jesus ever say the word ‘homosexuality?’ No. Did he have to? No. To the surprise of many, Jesus actually did talk about marriage:
At the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’
You see, Jesus actually DID lay out the foundation for marriage right there. He didn’t say, ‘the Creator made them male and male, and female and female,’ and he didn’t say, ‘the two males, and the two females, will become one flesh.’ He said a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife.
To argue that because Jesus never said the word homosexual, that it equates him condoning the behavior, is quite foolish. That’s like saying, “I’m allowed to look at pornography, because the Bible never says the word ‘pornography.’” But we find elsewhere in scripture that the Bible says you shall not lust, which is what pornography is. It follows under the commands umbrella. Marriage is the same way.
A: Because the Old Testament said so!
B: The O.T. also says it’s sinful to eat shellfish, to wear clothes woven with different fabrics, and to eat pork.
I love these arguments about the Levitical laws. It’s so much fun to set the record straight for these.
No, eating shellfish is not an abomination. Many people take verses such as these out of context, and use them and twist them to try and justify not believing in the Bible. However, they cannot truly understand the context of these verses, unless they actually READ the Bible, and not just the book of Leviticus, but the rest of the Bible as well.
9 ” ‘Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.
You must realize the purpose of this writing. This was not meant to apply to the whole world when it was written, but it was meant to be applied to specifically the Israelites. The reason for this is because God wanted to distinguish and separate the Israelites apart from every other nation on Earth. After God fulfilled this promise, Jesus declared that all foods are clean and may be eaten. It’s all a part of the New Covenant, that so many critics of the Bible conveniently forget all about. Much more info on that will be given later on in this post.
Mark 7:19 (NIV)
19 For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)Peter was also given the words to say about declaring the food clean.
Acts 10:15 (NIV)
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” Many ‘laws’ of the Old Testament change when Jesus comes to Earth. That is the misconception that so many people have about Christianity. They see verses like this with the shellfish, and only look at that verse, and use that as their basis for attack on Christianity.
Romans 10:4 (NIV)
4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Galatians 3:24–25 (NIV)
24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Ephesians 2:14-18 (NIV)
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
The law of shellfish, (which only applied to the Israelites in the first place), is a perfect example of one of these laws that changed when Christ came to Earth.
Now for the fabrics, you are referring to Deuteronomy 19:19.
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
This is actually a metaphor on holiness. It is about Holiness. God said “I am holy, therefore be thou Holy”.
Holy means “separated.”
Our Creator’s first act was to separate light from dark. And then dry from wet. And so on down. A practical experience of fractal mathematics will give tremendous insight into this aspect of holiness. By keeping the very fabric of your clothing segregated, you are faced with a daily reminder to keep the rest of your life segregated as well.
Here’s another great article with some insight into the verses:
Do Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11 condemn wearing mixed fabrics?
Why did God say not to mingle linen and wool? What does this mean for us today?
In addition to His eternal spiritual commandments, God gave Israel various statutes and judgments as part of its civil code or national law. Most aren’t binding laws for Christians today, but Christians should consider and learn from the principles contained in all of them. Is there any principle in these laws or in their intended purpose that can guide Christians in everyday life?
In its introductory notes on Leviticus, Expositor’s Bible Dictionary points out: “The weaving of two kinds of material (wool and linen in Deuteronomy 22:11 http://www.ucg.org/bible/1/DEU/22/11 – v11) may be a rule that would prevent loss by unequal shrinkage.” There is no apparent application today for two reasons: (1) Most Christians do not make their own fabric or clothing today, and (2) clothing manufacturers do not mix these materials.
However, the broader principle of the several statutes that forbid “mixing” in various ways is that God wanted His people to pursue purity and quality. Similarly, Christians are to pursue pure and godly character. The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary offers the following explanation for Leviticus 19:19
http://www.ucg.org/bible/1/LEV/19/19 – v19:
“Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee—Although this precept, like the other two with which it is associated, was in all probability designed to root out some superstition, it seems to have had a farther meaning. The law, it is to be observed, did not prohibit the Israelites wearing many different kinds of cloths together, but only the two specified; and the observations and researches of modern science have proved that ‘wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off the electricity from the body. In hot climates, it brings on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body, it meets with the heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister’ [Whitlaw]. (See Ezek 44:17
http://www.ucg.org/bible/1/EZE/44/17 – v17, 18.)”
And lastly, regarding pork:
As we’ve seen above, Jesus changes the law and declares all food clean to eat. But here is some more insight into why pork was forbidden at the time:
Question: “Why did the Old Testament Law command against the eating of pork?”
Answer: Many of the prohibitions and requirements in the Old Testament seem pointless to the modern Western mind. A case in point is the ban on eating pork (Leviticus 11:7). After all, to most people, a good pork loin served with apples and nuts makes for a very fine meal! Understanding the purpose of the Mosaic Law, generally, and the cultural view of swine in particular is essential to appreciating the dietary restriction on pork.
The Law given to the Israelites had a number of important purposes. Following God’s prescribed actions was not to be a simple ritual; rather, obedience to the Law expressed a strong internal faith in God and healthy fear of Him. Deuteronomy 30 records the blessings God would grant Israel if they followed Him and the curses He would enact if they did not. These blessings and curses were an integral part of the covenant between God and Israel, so the Law was the basis of a conditional covenant. Also, the Law stood as a unique sign of the privilege granted to Israel, setting them apart from their pagan neighbors.
The whole world in Moses’ time was idolatrous, with each nation believing in many deities. The forbidding of certain foods such as pork clearly distinguished between what would later be termed “Jew” and “Gentile.” The dietary restrictions further indicated that Israel was a separate nation, a chosen people, and this helped the Israelites to break free from idolatry—a sin they struggled with (see Exodus 32).
Under the Old Testament Law, even touching the meat of swine made one ritually unclean (Deuteronomy 14:8). This detail further insulated the Israelites from pagan practices. The Canaanites kept herds of swine and sacrificed them to idols. The connection between swine and pagan worship became so strong that the prophet Isaiah equated the sacrificial offering of pig’s blood with murder—both are called “abominations” (Isaiah 66:3).
Then there are the hygienic concerns related to the Law’s dietary restrictions. It is well known today that pork carries any number of diseases, and the meat requires stricter cooking techniques than other meats such as beef or poultry. In Moses’ day, there was no knowledge of microscopic pathogens, and the cultural norm was to eat raw or under-cooked meat (Leviticus 19:26). Of course, eating under-cooked pork would have posed a significant health threat to Israel, but God providentially protected them through the Mosaic Law. “If you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you” (Exodus 15:26).
A: Because the New Testament says so!
B: The original language of the N.T. actually refers to male prostitution, molestation, or promiscuity, not committed same-sex relationships. Paul may have spoken against homosexuality, but he also said that women should be silent and never assume authority over a man.
Again, as we’ve seen in the very first point, marriage itself is always referred to as the union between one man and one woman. That fact never changes. Even if the language this chart says did actually mean what it claims (and it doesn’t), it still does not matter, as the Bible still does not advocate it, and still condemns it outside of real marriage. Scripture condemns all sexual practices outside of marriage.
As for Paul’s remarks regarding women, I have already written very lengthy responses debunking both of those accusations. But seeing as this post is already getting pretty lengthy, I’ll just post the links so you can check them out for yourself if you wish. You can view them both here and here.
A: Because God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
B: That was when the earth wasn’t populated. There are now 6.79 billion people. Breeding clearly isn’t an issue anymore.
This argument does nothing for saying that the Bible advocates homosexuality. It doesn’t change a word of what God says about the matter, so trying to use this in conjunction with Scripture is pointless.
But even despite that, is it the government’s responsibility to advocate every desire that someone has?
Some homosexuals try to make the case that they’ve had their desires as long as they can remember. And somehow, this is supposed to prove that these desires are the rest of nature, and not nurture. But this argument always fails to justify homosexual (or any) behavior. “Born-that-way” is an argument from nature or design. “Since I was designed with these desires, I should act on them.” The people who make this claim usually say that the Designer is God. But if you are insisting that God made you this way, you also cannot deny that He designed your body as well. After all, God doesn’t make mistakes. So if this is true, why are you following your desires but not your body? After all, you may not be sure that God designed your desires, but you do know for certain that He designed your anatomy. Why not follow what you honestly believe came from God? Ignoring your desires can be uncomfortable, but ignoring your body’s natural design has proven to be fatal.
There have been many scientific studies attempting to prove some sort of ‘gay gene,’ but a genetic component to homosexual desires has yet to be found. But honestly, think about it. Even if there ever was a “gay gene,” chances are very, very high that it would have died out a long time ago. After all, homosexuals cannot procreate, and therefore cannot pass on their DNA and genetic code. What we do know is that genetics can never be ever able to fully explain homosexual desires. If they did, twins would always have the same desires, but they do not. Instead, there is much more substantial evidence showing that it is not one’s nature, but one’s nurture (a person’s childhood and environment) that have a more identifiable impact on homosexual desires. Many studies have shown that male homosexuals are more likely to come from families with a dominant mother a weak or distant father. Homosexuals are also more likely to have been sexually abused as children. While the nature vs. nurture debate will continue on for years to come, we do know that it is next to impossible to be able to identify all of the factors that go into a person’s desires, whether they are sexual or anything else.
But even if there was a genetic link to homosexual desires found someday, would that justify their behavior? No, because each of us has desires that we should not act on. What if someone was genetically predisposed to alcohol? Should we advocate alcoholism? What if someone has a genetic predisposition to an attraction to young children. Would that justify pedophilia? Would any homosexual activist ever say that a genetic predisposition to violence justifies ‘gay-bashing?’ Desires do not justify behaviors. In fact, there is a popular word used to describe the restraint of destructive desires. “Civilization.” So should human beings act on every desire that they ever have? For our civilization’s sake, are there ever any desires that it is better we do not act on? For any civilization to thrive, there is much restraint of desires needed. But homosexual activists don’t want to hear it. Instead of just tolerating their behavior, they want our government to actively endorse and promote it, which will lead to people with certain desires engaging in harmful behavior. Shouldn’t the government discourage, and not promote, harmful behavior?
A. Because the Bible clearly defines marriage as one-man-one-woman!
B. Wrong. The Bible also defines marriage as one-man-many-women, one man many wives and many concubines, a rapist & his victim, and conquering soldier & female prisoner of war.
One of my favorite authors, Joel C. Rosenberg, responded to this accusation quite wondrously.
>> One reader named Eva is furious with me for defending “traditional” marriage and “Biblical” marriage because she writes: “If we are talking biblical marriage, then I’d have to marry any man who raped me.” She asks: “Where does the NT say that gay marriage is strictly forbidden. Chapter and verse, pls.”
Through a long series of Tweets, I responded: “Eva, when I speak of Biblical marriage, I’m referring to the NT (New Testament) teachings.”
The New Testament teachings regarding God’s opposition to homosexuality include Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11. I also noted to Eva that the New Testament picture of marriage can be found in Ephesians 5:22-33 (which commands a man to love his wife) and Titus 1:6 (which tells us that a godly man is the husband of just one wife).
Eva then wrote back: “Ah yes, women-submit-to-your-husbands-marriage. A wonderful way of life for so many women.” Then she wrote: “So you don’t subscribe to the OT (Old Testament)? Where do you disagree with it…in its description of marriage?”
I explained to Eva that the Hebrew Prophet Jeremiah 31:31 promised that God would give us a “new covenant” one day, and that’s exactly what Jesus Christ inaugurated with His death and resurrection. Now, we’re under the new covenant, not the Law of the Moses (Mosaic covenant).
Eva wrote: “So good, then Leviticus no longer applies.”
I responded that the only parts of the Old Testament that apply to us today are those parts that are repeated in the New Testament.
Eva asked: “So repeated by Jesus, right? Not followers up to 100 years later.”
But I clarified that “everything in the New Testament — the Gospels, Acts, epistles, & Revelation – all applies.”
This is a critical point that even many Christians don’t understand.
- The New Testament is crystal clear that we no longer live under the Law of Moses. See Romans 10:4, I Corinthians 9:20, and Hebrews chapters 7 through 9.
- All Old Testament Scripture was inspired by God and is useful for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work,” as the Apostle Paul writes so clearly in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
- Indeed, Christ Himself affirmed the Old Testament law as the eternal standard of
God’s righteousness. See Matthew 5:17-20.
- But while God wants us to learn from the principles of the Old Testament, He does not command us to obey the laws that He gave to the ancient Israelites.
- “[T]he Law has become our tutor to leaed us to Christ, so that we can be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,” if in fact you have received Christ into your heart by faith as Savior and Lord of your life. (Galatians 3:24-26)
- Today, the Lord God commands us to follow what the Apostle Paul refers to as the “Law of Christ.”
- Carefully read through 1 Corinthians chapter 9, for example. Notice that he writes in verses 19 through 21: “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
- Consider, too, Galatians 6:1-2. The Apostle Paul writes: “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.”
- Consider, too, Romans chapter 8. The Apostle Paul writes that the Spirit of Christ redeems us, forgives us, and gives us life and peace that Moses couldn’t. In verses 1 and 2, for example, he writes, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.”
- Consider, too, Hebrews chapter 8. Here, the writer notes in verses 6 and 7 that Christ is the mediator of a “better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises” and that “if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.” In verse 13, we also read that Jesus Christ “has made the first [covenant; the Mosaic covenant] obsolete” and it has been replaced by “a new covenant.”
- The Law of Christ is the teachings of the New Testament. Whatever we are commanded to believe or do in the New Testament, from Matthew through Revelation, is what God expects of us. Every Old Testament command that is repeated in the New Testament, therefore, is part of the Law of Christ. But if an Old Testament command has not been repeated or restated or quoted in the New Testament then it is not binding on us today. We are free from the heavy chains and burdens of the Mosaic Law that God imposed on the Israelites. Once we receive Christ into our heart by faith, all of our sins against God’s Law have been forgiven and now we operate under the kindness and mercy and grace of the new covenant found in the New Testament. It is very good news, and that’s what it’s called “the gospel of Jesus Christ”
All this to say: According to the Bible, marriage is an institution that God Himself created to be holy and beautiful. In the book of Genesis, we learn that God created Eve to love and support and bless Adam so they could be together as one in marriage. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” (Genesis 2:24-25) Yes, sin has polluted the world. Yes, sin has wreaked havoc on God’s plan and purpose for marriage. But the New Testament reaffirms that God holds marriage between one man and one woman beautiful and sacred, even in this fallen world. Indeed, Jesus performed His first public miracle at the wedding in Cana. As a person reads through the New Testament, he or she will find example after example of God commanding a husband to love and honor and cherish and protect his wife, to treat her gently and kindly and with deep respect. A man is not allowed to abuse or mistreat his wife. Marriage must not be a prison or a place of suffering and sadness and neglect and unkindness. To the contrary, in the New Testament, marriage is a picture of Christ’s love for the Church. Jesus loves the Church, however imperfect the people of the Church are. He sacrificed for the Church. He teaches and encourages and leads the Church, protects and defends and blesses the Church. And that’s how a husband is to treat his wife. Anything less we will have to answer for before the Lord Himself one day.
A: Because it just disgusts me, dangit!
B: Props for being honest. However, a whole population of people shouldn’t have their families discriminated against just because you think gay sex is icky. Grow up!
Again, as was shown before, should every desire that someone has be advocated? If I’m a child molester and honestly have that desire to rape little boys, should that be a legal right of mine? Or if I’m bisexual and want to marry both a man and a woman, should I be able to do that? Or if I’m still straight, but want seven wives, should I be able to do so?
I go into much, much more detail to this whole response at the following. Feel free to check it out for a much more detailed and cited work.
If you support same-sex marriage, that is your right and decision to do so. But to claim that the Bible does not say it is a sin, or that it might even advocate it, is utter foolishness.