Leviticus 18: 22 “You shall not lie with male as you lie with a female; it is an abomination”.
The job of a Christian is to harmonize the texts of Scripture. Since Whetstone believes Leviticus to be inspired and influential and applicable today, he must now harmonize loving our neighbor with the character of God which makes clear that homosexual behavior is an abomination. Thus, it cannot be loving to our neighbors to support them in their abominations.
3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?
First you need to understand that not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. Second, you need to realize that the Bible is a snapshot of history. It’s Old Testament written to the Hebrew people, giving them a guide to live by and preserving their history and giving a road map to the Messiah. Once you understand these two things, then you realize that the laws written in Leviticus were for a specific people, at a specific time in history, given to the modern day church to show us the struggles that the Hebrew people went through, the way that they lived their life according to the law, the customs that they celebrated, etc… The Old Testament is basically a spiritual family history for Christians.
—The laws in Leviticus were for a specific people, except for the Levitical law he just cited in the last question. Apparently Leviticus 18 is simply a snapshot of history, but Leviticus 19 tells us something about God that applies today (unless we want to write off loving our neighbor too).
In addition to the historical aspect, there is the literal aspect, and while there are certainly parts of the Bible that we should and must take literally, there are others that we should not. For example, to use the Bible as a science text would be silly, considering that modern day science has shown, time and time again, that they earth is more than 7,000 years old, that there more than likely was not a global flood, and the list goes on.
— This is the first major issue. This is apparently the view of Scripture we need to teach our youth. Anything secular scientists or professors say is the authority on reality, and you must reinterpret Scripture in light of it. That certainly wasn’t Jesus’ view of Scripture. What is our ultimate standard of truth? Secular opinion or Scripture? Whetstone’s answer is clear. The Bible is subject to modern, 21st-century secular opinion. It should be the other way around. The Bible ought to be the standard first, and it ought to serve as the interpretive lens we apply to the reality around us. No one is neutral; that’s what Jesus and Paul said (Romans 1, Matthew 12). And everyone brings those bias’ with them. Christians are to allow the Bible to be our bias.
–The second major issue would be that this example doesn’t apply. What exactly is the equivalent in regards to homosexuality? What modern science has convinced us to reinterpret the Bible’s clear teaching? Clearly, it’s godless secular opinion and emotion that’s driving our biblical interpretation. That’s horrifying.
Realizing those two things should cause one to pause and think that maybe, just maybe, there is not anything in the Bible that blesses same sex activities because maybe people back then just weren’t obsessed with it like they are today.
— This proves the point. No one has ever approached the Bible and read the texts regarding homosexuality and human relationship until people became predisposed to it in a certain way. This is a wonderful admission that the Bible itself cannot support homosexuality until the secular culture changes and dictates our new interpretations.
4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?
Any relationship, between two consenting adults, based upon love and christian values could depict Christ and the church. Any spouse who is willing to lay down their life for the other, regardless of sex, would be an example of Christ.
–This would only make sense provided words don’t have meaning. The next problem is that every other relationship that the text uses to depict Christ in the church uses words like “bride” and “husband”. Those words have meanings. They have gender specific meanings. They cannot be used. The problem for the revisionist is they have to go there because no homosexual relationship is ever mentioned explicitly or condoned in the Scriptures. Even Jesus, who knew the hearts of men (John 2) when He spoke on marriage in Matthew 19 purposefully left those relationships out of his definition even though He knew some people had that orientation. Thus, no consenting adult relationship of the same sex can be used. On top of that, why only two consenting adults? Why not three? The Bible actually has OT examples of polygamy (more than same-sex relationships can say). By what standard do we interpret verses that speak of only having one partner literally, but we don’t take the passages on homosexuality the same way? What if more than two people want a marital relationship? Why not? What verses could Whetstone appeal to in order to support couples and condemn polygamy that liberal revisionists could not simply reinterpret? Remember Whetstone’s rules: “In addition to the historical aspect, there is the literal aspect, and while there are certainly parts of the Bible that we should and must take literally, there are others that we should not.” If we can just simply reinterpret what the Bible says about homosexuality, why not do the same for polygamy? What’s the standard? He says they have to be based on “Christian values.” How can someone with his view of Scripture believe in something called Christian values? What gets to define those? Who gets to define those? The fact remains that homosexuality itself goes against Christian values.
5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?
—That’s interesting because Jesus was a law abiding Jew. He had no issue with the Law, for He did not come to abolish but fulfill the Law (Matthew 5). Being God Himself (the Son and 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity) He obviously was not at odds with the decree of the Law or the Spirit’s inspiration of it’s writing. Jesus wrote the Law and He obeyed it perfectly. And that Law consists of Leviticus 18:22 which commanded the stoning to death of anyone committing the abomination before God of homosexual sex. That Jesus, approves of that relationship very same relationship? The same Jesus who is part of the Godhead that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for that behavior?
–This would also put Jesus at odds with His very disciples who explicitly do not condone these relationships, and that would disqualify them from their apostolic role.