{"id":534,"date":"2020-09-25T22:10:33","date_gmt":"2020-09-25T22:10:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stevebelsheim.com\/?p=534"},"modified":"2024-01-17T14:44:00","modified_gmt":"2024-01-17T14:44:00","slug":"the-pro-lgbtq-faction-of-the-umc-wrongly-discards-leviticus-1822-and-2013-part-16b-of-a-17-part-series","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevebelsheim.com\/?p=534","title":{"rendered":"The Pro-LGBTQ Faction of the UMC Wrongly Discards Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 – Part 16B of a 17 Part Series"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The essence of the second fundamental argument by the pro-LGBTQ faction is that the context of the Levitical Holiness Code shows it was peculiar to the times to separate the Jews from the surrounding pagan nations.  Bishop Wilke says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

This code was designed for the specific purpose of setting the Jews apart from the Canaanites. It was not intended as a universal morality. It was peculiar to the Hebrews \u2014 and to the times. It reflected one side of the constant tension in Judaism, as well as in all religions, between exclusion and inclusion.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

According to the pro-LGBTQ faction, today, neither Jews nor Christian obey the Holiness Code.  Three examples of \u201cdisobedience\u201d are: (1) Christians eat shrimp, (2) Christians do not stone those who commit adultery, and (3) Christians do not justify killing children for talking back to parents.  (See Wilke presentation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the sake of completeness, the passages-in-question read:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Leviticus 18:22 (ESV) – 22<\/sup> You shall not lie with a male (z\u0101k\u0101r<\/em>) as with a woman (is\u00b7s\u0101<\/em>); it is an abomination (t\u00f4\u02bf\u0113b\u00e2<\/em>).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

Leviticus 20:13 (ESV) – 13<\/sup> If a man (is<\/em>) lies with a male (z\u0101k\u0101r<\/em>) as with a woman (is\u00b7s\u0101<\/em>), both of them have committed an abomination (t\u00f4\u02bf\u0113b\u00e2<\/em>); they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

There is no question that each passage on its face condemns homosexual practice.   Leviticus 20:13 makes it a capital offense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As mentioned in my previous article (Part 16A), there are four reasons the pro-LGBTQ faction is wrong to discard Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 from the Bible.  This article discusses the first reason, which is the account in Genesis of the creation of human beings (i.e., Genesis 1:26-28; 2:5-7, 15-24).  The Genesis creation account shows that the only God-ordained sexual practice is between a man and a woman within the marriage covenant.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first passage of Genesis 1:26\u201328 (ESV) reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

26<\/sup> Then God said, \u201cLet us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.\u201d 27<\/sup> So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male (z\u0101k\u0101r<\/em>)  and female (n\u0115q\u0113b\u00e2) <\/em>he created them. 28<\/sup> And God blessed them. And God said to them, \u201cBe fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

God decided to \u201cmake man (\u2018<\/em>\u0101d\u0101m<\/em>)\u02d3in our image, after our likeness.\u201d  God then carried out His creative act when He \u201ccreated man in his own image, in the image of God, he created him; male (z\u0101k\u0101r<\/em>) and female (n\u0115q\u0113b\u00e2)<\/em>he created them.\u201d  By using \u201cmale (z\u0101k\u0101r<\/em>)\u201d and \u201cfemale (n\u0115q\u0113b\u00e2)<\/em>\u201d, God brought human sexuality into the equation.  One commentator (Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26<\/em><\/a> (Vol. 1A, pp. 172\u2013174). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers) writes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Being human means being a sexual person. Human sexuality and sexual bonding between husband and wife are deemed \u201cvery good\u201d (1:31) by God and are to be honored as the divine ordinance for men and women (see 2:18\u201324 discussion). There is no place in God\u2019s good order for unisexuality or for any diminishing or confusion of sexual identity. Human sexuality in Genesis is a blessed function in the creative purposes of God, and it is essential for carrying out God\u2019s mandate for humanity (cf. 9:1, 7) and for the patriarchs in particular (e.g., 12:1\u20133; 26:24; 28:3\u20134).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Verse 28 records a command God gave to His created male and female to \u201c\u201cBe fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, \u2026\u201d.   This command reveals God\u2019s original plan that the \u201cmale\u201d and \u201cfemale\u201d procreate through sexual intercourse to populate the earth.   In The Bible and Homosexual Practice, [(2001) Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN, 2001], Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon writes at page 58:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

God\u2019s intent for human sexuality is imbedded in the material creation of gendered beings, irrespective of the globe\u2019s population.  \u201cMale and female he created then\u201d probably intimates that the fullness of God\u2019s \u201cimage\u201d comes together in the union of male and female in marriage (not, one could infer from same-sex unions).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In light of the scope of the command, God\u2019s command appears to apply to the offspring of the \u201cmale\u201d and \u201cfemale\u201d of God\u2019s original creation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Genesis 2:5-7 and 15-24, which add more details pertinent to the creation of the human race, read (ESV):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

5<\/sup> When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up\u2014for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6<\/sup> and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground\u2014 7<\/sup> then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. \u2026 15<\/sup> The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16<\/sup> And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, \u201cYou may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17<\/sup> but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.\u201d 18<\/sup> Then the Lord God said, \u201cIt is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.\u201d 19<\/sup> Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20<\/sup> The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21<\/sup> So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22<\/sup> And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23<\/sup> Then the man said, \u201cThis at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.\u201d 24<\/sup> Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

We see that there was a need for a man to work the ground and the solution when the LORD God:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u2026 formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.  \u2026 15<\/sup> The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

God recognized that it was not good that \u201cthe man\u201d should be alone.  The solution was for God to \u201cmake him [the man] a helper fit for him.\u201d  Even though the man had named all livestock and every beast and bird, there was not found for him a helper fit for him.  Matthews gives more insight into the Hebrew words (boldfacing added):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cSuitable\u201d (k\u011bnegd\u00f4, lit., \u201clike what is in front of him\u201d) indicates a correspondence between the man and the woman. The focus is on the equality of the two in terms of their essential constitution. Man and woman share in the \u201chuman\u201d sameness that cannot be found elsewhere in creation among the beasts. \u2026 In the case of the biblical model, the \u201chelper\u201d is an indispensable \u201cpartner\u201d (REB) required to achieve the divine commission. \u201cHelper,\u201d as we have seen from its Old Testament usage, means the woman will play an integral part, in this case, in human survival and success. What the man lacks, the woman accomplishes.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

At page 60, note 43, Gagnon writes that (boldfacing added):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

As J. Andrew Dearman notes\u201d The term \u2018helper\u2019 (c<\/sup>\u0113zer<\/em>) does not imply inferior status but one who supplies what is lacking.<\/strong>\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The solution to the problem of \u201cthe man\u201d not having a \u201chelper\u201d was not the independent creation of another \u201cAdam,\u201d, but to build a complementary being from a portion of Adam\u2019s own self.  See Gagnon at page 60.  To accomplish this, God put \u201cthe man\u201d in a deep sleep and while he slept, God \u201ctook\u201d one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.  God then took the rib He had taken from \u201cthe man\u201d and \u201cmade [the rib] into a woman.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

God then brought the woman to the man, and \u201cthe man\u201d said that the woman was \u201cat last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.\u201d  Gagnon writes at page 61 (boldfacing added):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The woman is not just \u201clike himself\u201d but \u201cfrom himself\u201d and thereby a complementary fit to himself.  She is a complementary sexual \u201cother.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Matthews highlights the sameness of man and woman:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The building block for constructing the woman is a portion of the man\u2019s essential skeletal frame. As we have already observed, the language of the garden scene is found in the tabernacle description; the term \u1e63\u0113l\u0101\u02bf, here rendered \u201cribs,\u201d appears frequently in the construction setting of the tabernacle, there translated \u201cside.\u201d 117<\/sup>. The woman was taken from the man\u2019s side to show that she was of the same substance as the man and to underscore the unity of the human family, having one source. This is made clear by the man\u2019s description of her: \u201cBone of my bones and flesh of my flesh\u201d (v. 23). The verb \u201ctook\u201d (l\u0101qa\u1e25), which is given prominence in the narrative (vv. 22\u201323), may anticipate the marital union of the two since it is the common idiom for marriage.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This passage ends with God\u2019s definition of marriage because a man shall leave his father and mother and \u201chold fast\u201d to his \u201cwife.\u201d   The result is that they shall become \u201cone flesh.\u201d Matthews (p. 223) expands on the concept of \u201cone flesh\u201d (boldfacing added):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cOne flesh\u201d echoes the language of v. 23, which speaks of the woman\u2019s source in the man; here it depicts the consequence of their bonding, which results in one new person. Our human sexuality expresses both our individuality as gender and our oneness with another person through physical union. <\/strong>Sexual union implies community and requires responsible love within that union.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

There are three passages that reference Genesis 2:24 and reinforce God\u2019s definition of marriage for the 21st<\/sup> Century.  These passages are set out below:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Matthew 19:5\u20136 (ESV) – 5<\/sup> and said, \u2018Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh\u2019? 6<\/sup> So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

Mark 10:8 (ESV) – 8<\/sup> and the two shall become one flesh.\u2019 So they are no longer two but one flesh.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

Ephesians 5:31 (ESV) – 31<\/sup> \u201cTherefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

These passages establish that prior to the Fall, it was God\u2019s intentional plan that man and woman are each other\u2019s sexual counterpart whereby each is one half of a sexual whole.  The only sexual whole is a man and a woman.  It is impossible to fashion a sexual whole via a man with another man or a woman with another woman.  <\/strong>To try to say otherwise is to defile God\u2019s original creation of the human race.  The fact that the Fall corrupted mankind does not change God\u2019s original plan for the sexuality of man and woman.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One Bible dictionary [Johnson, J. A. (2003). Homosexuality. In C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen, & T. C. Butler (Eds.), Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (p. 777). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers] sums it up:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

HOMOSEXUALITY Sexual relations between people of the same sex. When discussing homosexuality, the biblical emphasis is on behavior, and the verdict is always that it is sinful.  Homosexuality is a consequence of rejecting the created order. The prima facie case against homosexuality in the Scripture is found in God\u2019s creative plan for human sexuality. God created mankind as male and female, to procreate within the context of marriage (Gen. 1:27\u201328; 2:18\u201324). This creation order for human sexuality received the endorsement of both the Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 10:6\u20139; Matt. 19:4\u20136) and the Apostle Paul (Eph. 5:31). On the surface, homosexual behavior should be recognized as sinful because it violates God\u2019s original plan for heterosexual monogamy.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Finally, Matthews points out the importance of Genesis 2:24 and its impact on homosexual practice in general (boldfacing added):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Finally, this \u201cleaving\u201d and \u201cuniting\u201d involves a public declaration in the sight of God. Marriage is not a private matter. It involves a declaration of intention and a redefining of obligations and relationships in a familial and social setting. In our contemporary climate of sexual freedom and societal tolerance for moral deviance, we would do well to reconsider the biblical viewpoint toward marriage and sexual behavior. Without question 2:24 serves as the bedrock for Hebrew understanding of the centrality of the nuclear family for the survival of society. Monogamous heterosexual marriage was always viewed as the divine norm from the outset of creation.<\/strong> Mosaic instruction shows considerable efforts to safeguard this ideal against its dissolution by clarifying what is \u201cfamily.\u201d Sexuality was instrumental in defining what a household was in Israel; abrogation of sexual boundaries threatened the identity of this core social institution. Without proper limits \u201cfamily\u201d ceased, and the consequence was the undoing of Israel as a nation, the same fate suffered by their predecessors (Lev 18:24\u201330). Strong prohibitions against sexual offenses often prescribed the penalty of death, as in the case of the heinous sins of murder and idolatry.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

To ignore or discard the prohibitions against homosexual practice of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 removes the God-given boundaries that prevent the disintegration of the core social institution of marriage and family.   Everything in the account in Genesis (i.e., Genesis 1:26-28; 2:5-7, 15-24) of the creation of  the human race points to a sexual whole.  And that sexual whole ONLY <\/strong>exists in a monogamous husband and wife sexual relationship.  The LGBTQ faction of the UMC is wrong to remove Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 from the Bible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please send me any comments to steve@stevebelsheim.com<\/a> or use the comments feature of the blog.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NOTICE OF PERMISSIONS – I am mindful of and respect the rights other authors and publishers possess in their works.  I thus try my best not to violate any copyright rights other authors and publishers possess in their works.  The below copyright permission statement is the result of my best efforts to understand that limited usage or \u201cfair use\u201d is available and to secure direct permission for specific works.  Scripture quotations are from the ESV\u00ae Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version) copyright 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.  Used by permission.  The quotations from news sources are fair use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scripture marked \u201cNASB95\u201d are taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE\u00ae, Copyright \u00a9 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scripture marked \u201cNCV\u201d is taken from the New Century Version. Copyright \u00a9 1987, 1988, 1991 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Scriptures marked \u201cNET\u201d are quoted are from the NET Bible\u00ae  http:\/\/netbible.com copyright \u00a91996, 2019 used with permission from Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. All rights reserved”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright \u00a9 1996, 2004, 2007, 2013, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scripture marked \u201cGW\u201d is taken from the God\u2019s Word Bible that is a copyrighted work of God’s Word to the Nations. Quotations are used by permission.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The essence of the second fundamental argument by the pro-LGBTQ faction is that the context of the Levitical Holiness Code shows it was peculiar to the times to separate the Jews from the surrounding pagan nations.  Bishop Wilke says: This code was designed for the specific purpose of setting the Jews apart from the Canaanites. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"off","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[319],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-534","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lgbtq"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/534","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=534"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/534\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2163,"href":"https:\/\/stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/534\/revisions\/2163"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=534"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=534"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebelsheim.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=534"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}