Last episode ay we talked about the question na if ang mere non-affirmation of the LGBT
lifestyle would necessarily lead to suicide. We argued na ang mere affirmation will not cure the
problem at ang non-affirmation won’t necessarily lead to suicide. Ngayon naman ay we will talk
about homosexuality, if sin lang ba siya sa Old Testament. What we will do first is to discuss
their argument, then after ay we will show why their conclusion does not follow.
I remember a chemical engineering student from UP before who asked me about a post sa
Twitter. The guy asked Christians na against same-sex marriage bakit daw tayo nagsusuot ng
clothing na woven sa two kinds of material? Violation daw ito ng Leviticus 19:19. Bakit din ba
raw tayo kumakain ng food from the sea na walang fins and scales? Violation daw ito ng
Leviticus 11:10. The problem na pinapakita ng person na ito is that Christians like us who are
against same-sex marriage are merely cherry picking verses and hindi raw natin talaga
sinusunod ang Bible.
Another problem related here ay makikita sa comment ni Matthew Vines sa Leviticus na
passage. Sabi kasi ni Vines na sa Romans 10:4 ay si Christ daw ang end ng law. Ito raw ang
reason kung bakit karamihan sa Christians today ay kumakain ng meat, gumagamit ng credit
cards, nag-me-make-up, at nag support daw ng equality for women. Kasi raw ay sa Hebrews
8:13 ay ang old law daw ay obsolete and aging. If we follow this logic, then this means na if
bawal ang homosexuality sa Old Testament and if Christ is the fulfillment of the law, then it
would show na ang homosexuality ay acceptable na raw sa New Testament. And therefore ay
hindi na raw sin.
Though marami tayong puwede mapag-usapan sa mga statements na ito, let’s focus sa mga
objections na mas related sa homosexuality. Is it true na sin lamang ang homosexuality sa Old
Testament? Let’s examine ang Old Testament laws in question and answer ang objections
related dun, then let’s talk about Christ being the fulfillment of the law.
Sa Old Testament law, it’s clear na the one who made the objection is not familiar with the
divisions of the Mosaic law. Mayroon kasing Civil Law na nawala after ng Jewish theocracy, ang
Ceremonial Law na nawala dahil sa fulfillment ng work ni Christ as priest, and ang Moral law na
nag continue parin. Let’s examine ang objection about wearing clothing na may mixed fabrics
and also ang pagkain ng sea creatures na walang fins and scales. Sa objection na bawal tayo
magsuot ng clothing na woven sa two kinds of material na makikita natin sa Leviticus 19, we
can see written sa verses 1-2, “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to all the
congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God
am holy.” Holiness means na set apart, and though may aspects ng moral law sa passages,
there are aspects ng ceremonial law which is meant to show that Israel must be set apart
among the nations, which includes their agricultural practice and their clothing sa verse 19.
Tapos sa Leviticus 11:10 naman na passage na may kinalaman sa seafood, we could see sa
verse 1-2, “And the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of
Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the
earth.” This means na ang command na ito ay specific lamang for Israel as a nation na set apart
for the LORD. This makes sense in light of Acts 10:9-28 kung saan tinanggal ang restrictions in
light of Peter’s vision. Sa homosexuality naman makikita natin sa Leviticus 18:22 ay sabi, “You
shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Ang difference nito sa previous
passages na mentioned natin ay when God talked about unlawful sexual relations, God did not
talk as if it only pertains to Israel. Sa verse 3 ay sabi, “You shall not do as they do in the land of
Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am
bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. Sabi rin sa verses 24-30, “Do not make
yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before
you have become unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its
inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations,
either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for the people of the land, who were
before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean) lest the land vomit
you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For
everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from
among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that
were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your
God.” In light of the above passages sa Leviticus 18, puwede natin na ma-conclude na lahat ng
unlawful sexual relations na binanggit ng Diyos ay sinful against Him regardless kung saang
nation ka kabilang. Ito ay dahil ang mga unlawful na relasyon na ito ang dahilan kung bakit ni
God papaalisin ang mga nation na ito. Pinarusahan sila dahil sa kanilang defilement. Ang law
na ito therefore ay hindi lang for Israelites pero for the world, kung saan kasama ang
homosexuality sa nag cause ng defilement. I’ll mention ulit Leviticus 18:22 for emphasis, “You
shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The word abomination there is
the Hebrew noun to’evah which means “detestable and abhorrent”. Hindi siya merely “taboo” as
some “gay Christians” would say. Dr. Michael Brown cited the authoritative
Koehler-Baumgartner Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament to show this further.
Based sa work na iyon ay ang phrase na “the abhorrent customs” sa Leviticus 18 refers sa
“abhorrent customs of the Canaanites, by which is meant in particular sexual perversity”. Dr.
Brown said na in light of that ay it speaks certainly of moral violations.
As a summary, ang pagkain ng sea creatures and pagsuot ng clothing na may mixed fabrics ay
part ng ceremonial law ng Israel which Christ fulfilled as our great high priest. Ang sacrificial
system ay part of this. The human high priests would make sacrifices to temporarily cover the
sins of the people until the Messiah would come. Jesus the Messiah came and offered Himself
as a sacrifice once and for all. Since Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law ay we no longer offer
animal sacrifices which Israel did in the Old Testament. Dahil part ng ceremonial law ang hindi
pagkain ng sea creatures na walang fins and scales and wearing mixed fabrics, then we are no
longer required to obey it. Ang unlawful sexual relations sa Leviticus 18 ay hindi lamang limited
sa Israel, hence, ito ay part ng moral law. Unlike the civil and the ceremonial law na limited
based sa specific time period, the moral law reflects the character of God which is eternal and
doesn’t change. This is the reason why homosexuality is still a sin today and forever. Therefore,
true Christians are not picking and choosing which passage to practice in the Bible, and that
Christ being the fulfillment of the law does not mean na hindi na sin ang homosexuality ngayon.
To conclude our discussion, I would like to end with this passage from 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, “Or
do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor
thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of
God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were
justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
No comments:
Post a Comment