My, How Things Have Changed!
by General James Green
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE WORD OF GOD that was “...living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12)?
One minister said of Hebrews 4:12 that the Word of God is the "diagnostician of the soul." By this, he was referring to the Greek word here translated "discern" or "discerner" (kritikos/kriteekos), from which the word "critic" is derived.
Again: Whatever happened to the days when men and women of God used to allow the SWORD of the LORD to pierce and cut them?The Word of God enables us to distinguish between what are our thoughts and intentions—what is merely natural or humanistic of our soul—and what is spiritual—of the Spirit of life working in us. We can see by the above (the clip about lesbians being ordained) that the "flesh," and not the "Spirit," is at work nowadays.
I have before me an old letter, written in 1954, reading in part: "While not a member of the Episcopal church, I am the first to acknowledge that its service for the ordination of clergymen called by them priests, is the most solemn and moving of any such service in Protestantism. Few realize how great an emphasis is placed upon the necessity for the minister being a continual student of the Scriptures." The writer follows up with a part of the service which refers to this "pre-eminently important matter." In the service, the presiding Bishop asked, "Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your church, and to teach nothing as necessary to eternal salvation but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scriptures?" When the candidate had answered that he is so persuaded, the Bishop asked, "Will you be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange [QUEER!] doctrines contrary to God's Word?" To this, the reply was made, "I WILL, THE LORD BEING MY HELPER."
What can we say of Vicki Gene Robinson, the first openly "gay" Bishop of the Episcopal Church (NH)...and now these "gay" lesbians!!?? Now, the Church not only allows "Christians" to be "gay," but also to be ordained as Bishops!
You may argue that the O.T. Holiness Code did not mention "lesbians," only male sodomites. Well, the N.T. DOES mention lesbians specifically. Please take note of the following:
Absence of Female (Same-Sex) Prohibition
WHY IS female same-sex intercourse "left out" of the Holiness Code in Leviticus 18:6-23 and 20:2-21? Within the given Scriptures, we find a list of laws that legislate against various forms of deviant sexual behavior that disrupt God's eternal Created Order, with the exception of female same-sex relations.Of course, the laws in these passages were given to Israel, to preserve Israel, but these laws are also universal—that is, eternally binding upon all individuals. God destroyed ancient pagan nations for sex-sins, idolatry, etc. Take note of Leviticus 20:22—"Ye (Israel) shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue (VOMIT!) you not out." Sex-sins are grievous to God. Now, take note of verse 23: "And ye (Israel) shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I CAST OUT before you: for THEY COMMITTED ALL THESE THINGS (ref Lev. 18.6-23; 20:2-21), and THEREFORE I ABHORRED THEM."
SOME (MOST) think that God's laws were/are harsh and unloving. The truth of the matter is that God's laws preserve humanity, not destroy it.
"Each law laid down had its intent the channeling of male sexual impulses into a particular pattern of behavior, a pattern conductive to the healthy functioning of a people set apart to serve God's holy purposes" (Dr. Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice).
LEVITICUS 18:23 specifically forbids bestiality by both male and female: "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to DEFILE thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is CONFUSION.” Verse 24 tells us that the pagan nations defiled themselves in these manners—God CAST THEM OUT! This proves that God's "sex-laws" were/are UNIVERSAL. If God destroyed "nations" for sex violations, He certainly will not overlook sex-sins committed by those who claim to be His: "For whosoever shall commit ANY of these ABOMINATIONS, even the souls that commit them shall be CUTOFF from among their people." And yet we have these same sex-sins being committed by both the nation (USA) and the Church!
THIS SEX-SIN, along with bestiality, goes against the Creation Order in Genesis (I Cover all this in my Gay Way booklet series): "Male homosexuality and bestiality do not conform to the description of existence according to their kind, and the sexual unions they represent are incapable of reproducing" (Dearman, Marriage in the Old Testament). Only a male-female relationship (in the context of a proper marriage) is consistent with God's Created Order. This is why homosexuality is such an ABOMINATION!
I won't go into each of the laws under discussion; I'll get into why female homosexuality is "missing" in the Holiness Code (hereafter: HC). Of course, like male-male intercourse, in female-female relationships, we find the absence of gender complementarity from the very start.
IT ALL boils down to a discussion on "penetrating/penetrated.'' The penetrated male was/is usually regarded as "feminized"—penetration of a male constituted/constitutes a "consignment of him to the class of females" (queen). Some view this violation only as a "mixing of kinds" or the "degradation of social status"; that is, the male penetrated becomes of a "lower status." But the critique against homosexual sex, from the HC, is based upon the absence of gender complementarity between males—it takes a male-female relationship to please God. “Status degradation” was, at best, a secondary consideration. Thus, when one man uses another man as a female, he causes a transgression of the borders between male and female. We should always PROTEST this male-male SIN!!
ANAL SEX confuses gender; in addition, a man's penis is not made for another man's anus (or a woman's anus either, you heterosexual perverts!), for the anus is made for EXPELLING EXCREMENT, not for receiving sperm. Anal sex is both UNnatural and VILE!
Male-female sex (the right way) is not unnatural (although it can be a sin if not done as a married couple in the sight of the Lord). It is the mixing of two dissimilar but complimentary things. Homo sex is the mixing of two similar but non-complementary things. Therefore, the prohibition in the HC was not a "mindless application of the rule that forbade mixture of different kinds," a principle (which some have believed!) that Professor Gagnon says might have led to the assumption that same-sex intercourse was "more appropriate" (?!) than heterosexual sex (some Greeks thought this!). Rather, it was a "reflective assessment of the interlocking nature of male-female sexuality" that is CLEARLY/OBVIOUSLY lacking in male-male sex.
WE COME to the absence of an explicit critique of female-female sex in the HC. Saul Olyan observes the phrases "the lying down of a woman" in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and "the lying down of a male" in Numbers 31:17-18, 35 and Judges 21:11-12, where a female virgin is defined as someone who does not "know a man with respect to the lying down of a male" and a non-virgin is defined as someone who knows a man in that respect. Since we all know that the difference between being a virgin and a non-virgin is based on the "penetration" of the vagina, it would appear that the comparable phrase for male-male sex would imply "penetration of a male anal orifice as if it were a female vaginal orifice." Some believe that male-male "penetration" (aggressive or passive) is the only reason for the indictment of stoning (killing) for offenders, with no mention of oral sex.
IN THE Babylonian Talmud (b. Nid. 13b = intercrural, "between the thighs"), male intercourse was merely a sin comparable to masturbation. The Babylonian Talmud also states that women who "rubbed" other women were not disqualified from marrying priests (see b. Yebam. 76a and Sabb. 65a-b). Yet we must "be careful not to extrapolate from what the Babylonian Talmud rabbis thought" against that of the Spirit-inspired framers of the Holiness Code.
It is well noted that the "absence of an explicit prohibition in the Torah against non-penetrative homosexual sex and against lesbianism was almost certainly a major factor in the reticence of the rabbis, a reticence reinforced by the characteristic rabbinic reluctance to apply capital punishment" (Gagnon).
No matter what, there is no doubt that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is an indictment against males involved in anal penetration, which some in the homo camp still deny.
ALL THESE require "penetration," not just fondling, masturbation, etc. Non-penetration sex acts were and are considered lesser transgressions.
So, what we've come to is this: The primacy of "penetration" naturally would leave out lesbianism, since females cannot do this (except with objects); therefore, they cannot waste seed like a male.
ONE MUST be careful NOT to conclude that since there is an obvious absence of a specific indictment against lesbianism in the HC, it is therefore not considered a sin (read the N.T.!). Indeed, lesbianism goes unmentioned in other legal materials from the ancient Near East—but this is not to say that it did not exist or that it was not frowned upon or even condemned. It was probably handled by fathers and husbands rather than by public authorities (see Greenberg, Construction).
There were definitely male cult prostitutes but no mention of female-female prostitutes. Yet we do know as time progressed that lesbianism grew.
Enter Romans 1:26
NOT ONLY did Paul write about this sin (lesbianism), but the sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 192 (a contemporary Jewish text) did too. The Church fathers also made it clearly known that lesbianism was forbidden. It could be that the male-dominated society of Judaism didn't worry too much about female-female sex. In any case, even Jesus expanded the definition of unlawful sex to include "lust."
Today and Tomorrow
THERE IS no way we can deny the Biblical prohibitions against both male-male and female-female sexual perversions. And there is no way, at least currently, that we can deny the females' usurpation of males. Females have become a "force" to be reckoned with. The Women's Liberation Movement has brought women—lesbian and straight—to the battlefield. Not only have women become more domineering, but REPULSIVE—at least from my point of view.
I have always championed God-given women's rights and sought to see women fulfill their God-given place in the ministry (write for my booklets on "Women In The Ministry"). However, I find it harder and harder to give such encouragement. For, without hardly any exception, over my span of 45 years in God's service, females have given us the most trouble. May we each find our rightful place in God's vineyard.