SHOCKING: Woke Theology Meets the Bible? | Pastor Reacts

Well, today I'm looking at woke, so-called progressive Christian TikToks. Are you ready for this?

Because I'm not. Jesus did not say one single word of condemnation about anyone based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Interesting.

The Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels and will then repay each one according to his deeds. There's your condemnation.

God told us what gender means. Male and female, he created them. Oh, so we should get our sexual ethic from Adam and Eve. Uh...

You get your sexual ethic from the biblical teaching on sex.

Hey, you must be one of those super-Christians who doesn't cherry-pick the Bible because you just take the Bible as it is.

Ooh, sassy. The Bible does not say that homosexual acts are sinful.

Leviticus 18 .22, and you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination. Leviticus 20, verse 13. If there is a man who lies with a male, it's those who lie with a woman. Both of them have committed an abomination.

Romans 1, verse 26. For this reason, God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their females exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural. Woke and progressive theology turns you into bad book readers, ladies and gentlemen.

It's as simple as that. It's that time. Time for another Wise Disciple video. If this is your first time here, welcome, welcome. My name is Nate Sala. I'm the president of a Christian nonprofit organization dedicated to helping you become the effective Christian that you were meant to be.

I've worn a number of hats in my career. One of them was the hat of pastor. Another one was the hat of debate teacher. And so, like Liam Neeson, I have a unique set of skills.

What I do have are a very particular set of skills.

That I believe will help you as you get out there and make much of Christ in today's culture. Well, it's time, ladies and gentlemen, to take the Bible to TikTok. TikTok, time to rock. A lot of weird claims floating around TikTok, but are these claims actually biblical?

Let's find out. You know, the last several videos I've done has been some of the most viewed that I've ever made. So, thank you so much for watching. Would you do me a favor and like and subscribe to these videos because this is only the tip of the iceberg, my friends.

We have a lot of work to accomplish together in the name of Jesus Christ. So, subscribe to the channel and don't miss out on what we're doing next. Well, today I'm looking at woke, so-called progressive Christian TikToks.

Are you ready for this? Because I'm not.

Matthew 19 and the Claim That Jesus Affirmed Genderqueer Eunuchs

Are there trans people in the Bible? Yeah, does it say they're going to hell? No, Jesus actually lifts up genderqueer people as model disciples. Really? Yeah, Matthew 19, 12. There are eunuchs who are born that way, some who are made eunuchs by others, and some who become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

And eunuchs are castrated men? Short answer, yes. But being a eunuch is not the same as being trans. Trans can mean a lot of things, but here's how this passage affirms genderqueer, trans, gender nonconforming, and intersex people.

Go on. First, it says some people are born eunuchs. Jesus affirms there can be more than just male or female at birth. Then Jesus says some will become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. In other words, some people who were assigned male at birth will later choose a different gender identification as part of their work of following God.

Couldn't it be symbolic? I thought this was about priests being celibate. Priests didn't have to be celibate until the 1100s. Also, a lot of eunuchs could and did still have sexual relationships. They just couldn't procreate.

Weren't they also outcasts? Yes, while some eunuchs had high-power jobs in the royal courts, they also faced a lot of discrimination. So it's notable when a Christian Philip runs into an Ethiopian eunuch along the road, and the eunuch says, what is there to prevent me from being baptized?

Philip doesn't say, well, you can't be a Christian because you don't fit the gender binary. Philip stops the chariot, goes down to the water, and baptizes them. So if people don't fit the binary, whether they're born that way or they even choose that later in life, they're cool with Jesus?

They're not just cool with him. They're celebrated as models of discipleship. Yeah.

This is the perfect example of what it means to be a bad reader. Just take Christianity out of this for a moment. Take all religions out of this for a moment, and set all of that to the side. The question is, what is entailed in order to be a good reader of a book?

And that's ultimately what this is about. The TikTok begins with Matthew chapter 19. Okay, let's go there. So when you look at Matthew chapter 19, you should be able to, as a good reader, notice the theme of the story, okay?

So bear with me here. As I said at the outset, before I was a pastor and a Bible teacher, I actually taught literature. So let's just figure this out from a literary perspective. What is the theme of the story of Jesus having this discussion in Matthew chapter 19, verses 1 through 12?

As a good reader, you should know this. The theme is of marriage slash divorce, right? That's the main idea of the entire encounter. That is what is in focus. Marriage slash divorce. Jesus is asked to take a position on divorce, which is normal for itinerant rabbis in the first century to be asked this kind of question.

And sometimes, today in church, we confuse every single question that Jesus received as being hostile. No, a lot of these questions were done because it was just part of the norm of that culture to wrestle with the interpretation of the scripture.

And so Jesus gives his answer, and he surprises folks because he takes a way more conservative approach to marriage. He talks about how men and women were created in the original design for marriage. It's one man, one woman for life.

Verse 3, take a look. And some Pharisees came to Jesus testing him and saying, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all? And he answered and said, have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?

And said, for this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.

Even the husband that uses some reasons that Moses allowed in the past to separate? Yeah, let no man separate. Okay, that's what Jesus says. Now, Jesus is quoting from Genesis chapter 1 and 2. And he's doing so in order to take a conservative stance on divorce, which is to say, don't do it.

Don't get divorced. In the ways that you think it's easy to justify divorce currently, these justifications are biblically illegitimate. Stay married, which immediately causes the Pharisees to spin out.

And so they say this, verse 7, they said to him, why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away? He said to them, because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives.

But from the beginning, it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality and marries another woman, commits adultery. This causes quite a stir among those listening, including the disciples of Jesus.

And so they respond to Jesus' quite conservative take on marriage by saying this, verse 10, the disciples said to him, if the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.

This should tell you the type of attitude that a lot of men had in this culture at the time. And it is precisely that attitude that Jesus is seeking to correct with his teaching. No, fellas. It was one man, one woman for life in the Garden of Eden.

And so therefore, it's one man, one woman for life today. And the audience is just struggling to face the consequences of Jesus' stance on marriage. So it's not as easy as I thought to get rid of my wife and marry another woman.

Well, boy, maybe men shouldn't get married at all. That's basically the response coming from even Jesus' disciples. Now, that leads us up to this point where this TikToker wants us to somehow believe that Jesus sees this dilemma play out, sees the audience's struggle as they vocalize what they just heard about Jesus' very conservative stance on divorce.

And Jesus decides to sweep all of that immediately off the table and say, hey, guys, you know what? Let me teach you about gender fluidity. Hey, you know what? I know that you've just asked me a pointed question about the consequences of what I just told you about marriage.

But let me teach you now about trans and gender non-binary folks. All good readers have one essential job, and that is to think the author's thoughts after the author, which forces you to be very careful about the words being used on the page and trying to get at the author's intended meaning, which forces you to look at things like theme, main ideas, supporting ideas, syntax, all of that.

The person who does not respect the original author but perhaps begins with their own lived experience and decides that the reader, not the author, is the one who determines the meaning of a text, will read the words and gauge its meaning based on how they interact with it.

This is a solipsistic way of reading the Bible, and it leads to all kinds of theological error. So let's finish this story here. So Jesus says, verse 11,. But he said to them, Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.

Verse 12,. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

He who is able to accept this, let him accept it. You know what Jesus is saying here? Don't get married then! If that's your attitude towards marriage, guess what? There are lots of people who don't get married.

Look at eunuchs. See, now we have the reason why Jesus mentions eunuchs. It's not because he wants to change the subject and start teaching about gender categories. It's because he's saying to his audience, If that's your attitude towards marriage, then don't get married!

Be a eunuch! By the way, did you notice Jesus mentions eunuchs without having to define what they are for the disciples? Which means the disciples already know what a eunuch is. That this is a person who either was born without male reproductive parts, by the way, that's not a trans person, or a eunuch is castrated in order to work as a government or like a royal official.

By the way, why would they be castrated? Well, because there were women in positions of royalty. And so there was a concern for their personal safety, hence castrating male servants in these roles. But then, look at this.

Jesus says, well, there are also eunuchs who might as well have no reproductive parts. Why? Well, because they are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Gosh, is there anyone that we can think of that fits that description?

Hmm. The fact is, this has nothing to do with affirming new gender categories or non-binary folks. Jesus is bringing up eunuchs to tell his disciples and his overall audience, if your attitude is wrong about marriage, don't get married.

Jesus said, you love, period. Jesus said, you welcome people, period. Jesus said, you extend radical hospitality, period. Jesus did not say one single word of condemnation about anyone based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

In fact,.

Jesus did not say a single word condemning folks based on orientation or gender identity. Interesting. I mean, you know, how could Jesus talk about these things that did not exist in the first century in the first place?

Interesting how that works. Were there L and G actions in the Bible? Sure. We see this described in the Bible, but is there such a thing as orientation or gender identity in the Bible? No. These are anachronisms.

Well, let's try this, okay? I'm going to give you a series of statements in order to kind of build a case here, and let's just see what happens, alright? The LGBTQ community elevates self to formulate their own identity.

And what I mean by that is, they take the desires of their own self and they use those desires to live their lives in a manner according to those desires. In this way, they self-express through their identity.

So, for example, if a man desires to be with another man, then he is the G of the acronym, right? If a woman desires to be with another woman, she is the L in the acronym. But you see how this goes. These folks self-express based on their own personal desires.

In Matthew 16, verse 24, Jesus said to his disciples, if anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. This is why the Apostle Paul says in Romans 6, verse 6, we know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

As a matter of fact, the Bible teaches that your self fights against you as you seek to live for Christ. Why? Well, because your self contains all kinds of passions and desires to live for self and not for God.

That's why 2 Corinthians 5, verse 15 says this,. And so in that sense, you are faced with a choice as a Christian. Seek to live for your own self and its fleshly desires or seek to live for Jesus Christ and deny your passions.

This is why the Apostle Peter says in 1 Peter 4, verse 2, that Christians live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions, but for the will of God. To be LGBTQ is to elevate your self-centered desires to the place of shaping your own identity and seeking to live according to those desires.

Your desires become the thing that defines you. To that, Jesus says, the only thing that defines you as a Christian is me. Crucify your flesh and let me live through you. That's Galatians 2, 20. Here it is in very clear language.

Matthew chapter 16, verse 24. Here it is. And we'll then repay each one according to his deeds. There's your condemnation. There's your warning. You won't find the LGBTQ acronym or novel terms and words that have only recently been invented and utilized in today's culture like orientation or gender identity.

You won't find that in the Bible, but you will find the condemnation in the Bible by Jesus that is specifically directed at the very thing that the LGBTQ lives for and that is self.

The only mention Jesus really makes of it is this passage in Matthew. Maybe you're familiar with it. It's actually an affirmation. It's buried in ancient language and it's surrounded by this weird teaching about divorce.

But what Jesus said is this, that if you are a eunuch and you have been a eunuch since birth, that was an ancient way of saying that if you differed from what was expected in terms of what we would call today sexual orientation or gender identity, that if you were a eunuch and you had been a eunuch from birth, that you were loved by God.

Nope. Nope. It's weird how nobody but progressive and woke folks see orientation or gender identity in the Bible. It's weird how nobody noticed that for thousands of years in neither the Jewish nor the Christian communities, the Bible had anything to say about orientation or gender identity.

And then here come these folks. Oh yeah, it's always been there. Look in Matthew chapter 19. This is how you know that these kinds of folks should not be taken seriously as Bible teachers. Because here's what happens.

When they try to explain to you what the Bible teaches, in order to shove their agenda into it, they fail at exegesis. Every time. Eunuchs are not mentioned to affirm a new category of sexual orientation.

Eunuchs are mentioned to say to the disciples, don't get married then. If your attitude for marriage is wrong, don't get married. Eunuchs don't get married. Go be a eunuch, if that's your attitude. This has nothing to do with affirming gender non-binary folks.

If it is, please locate the specific words used in the act of affirmation in Matthew chapter 19. Matthew chapter 19. Where are the specific words of affirmation for a new gender category? Is it, well, there are eunuchs?

Is that an affirmation pointing out that men exist who have no reproductive parts? Is that an act of affirmation? Is it, uh, there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs? For the sake of the kingdom?

Is that the affirmation? By the way, I thought trans folks didn't choose their gender. I thought being trans was a condition, not a choice. I mean, that's the slogan that I heard. So, I mean, if that's true, then who is Jesus talking about here?

There are also eunuchs who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. That's interesting. If eunuchs are supposed to be trans, is Jesus saying folks choose to be trans? Or is Jesus not talking about trans and non-binary folks at all?

It's really simple, ladies and gentlemen. You will not find sexual orientation or gender identity in the Bible. Why? Because the Bible is concerned with your actions, not your orientation. To bring those categories in is a textbook example of eisegesis.

Trans people are great. What about Adam and Eve?

What does that have to do with God-loving trans people? God told us what gender means. Male and female, he created them. Oh, so we should get our sexual ethic from Adam and Eve.

Uh... You get your sexual ethic from the biblical teaching on sex. Interesting setup there. But nobody gets their sexual ethic from Adam and Eve. They get it from God's design for sex, which is discovered in various places in God's Word.

For example, Genesis 2, verse 24, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Exactly.

So Adam and Eve were the first humans, right? Obviously. So Adam and Eve were the first humans. Who did Seth have sex with? Who? Seth, the remaining son of Adam and Eve. He had children. Who was the mother?

Was he banging his sister, or was he banging his mom? Well, I think that part was meant to be taken metaphorically. Oh. So the parts that you like you take literally, and the parts you don't like you say are metaphorical.

Well... Yeah, I guess. There's a better way of interpreting the Bible, friend. If we use our heads and our hearts when we try and understand the Bible, we can recognize that God's message is clear.

Yeah, you're right. God's message is clear. Leviticus 18, 22, And you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination. Leviticus 20, verse 13, If there is a man who lies with a male, it is those who lie with a woman.

Both of them have committed an abomination. Romans 1, verse 26, For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their females exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural.

And in the same way also the males abandoned the natural function of the female and burned in their desire toward one another. Males with males committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Seems pretty clear to me. Even if you want to interpret the genealogy of Adam and Eve in a non-literal way,.

Guess what's not a metaphor? God's designed for sex. Hey, you must be one of those super-Christians who doesn't cherry-pick the Bible because you just take the Bible as it is because you believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God.

Good for you, super-Christian. The Bible says.

It, you believe it, that settles it. Awesome. That's very faithful of you. Hey, did you know that the book of Deuteronomy says that you were to take your stubborn and rebellious son into the center of the city and stone him to death?

That's because the Bible is very pro-life, right? So I imagine since you don't pick cherries that you're going to go to the Supreme Court and demand your religious freedom to kill children. Because you don't pick cherries, do you?

Did you know that Deuteronomy also says that you shouldn't charge interest? Yeah, but American capitalism depends on charging interest, so I guess that since you don't pick cherries you're against American capitalism, aren't you?

Did you also know that the book of Deuteronomy says that no man with crushed testicles is to enter the worship space? So I imagine that you are the person who is the testicle checker at your church. You know, the guy who stands at the front door and whenever men come in, you say, hey, this church doesn't pick cherries, so I gotta check your testicles.

You're the testicle checker, right? Oh, that's all the Old Testament, and we don't have to follow that anymore. Well, that's a very interesting way for you to cherry pick the Bible. So hey, let's take a look at the New Testament.

Did you know that Jesus picked cherries? In fact, in Matthew chapter 5, Jesus quotes Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy and says, you have heard it said, eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, we're not picking those cherries anymore.

Why? Because Jesus picks other cherries. Did you know that later on in Matthew, a group of his opponents come to Jesus and they say, hey Jesus, what's the greatest commandment? And Jesus says, how dare you ask me to pick cherries?

Don't you know that all the commandments are equally valid as the inerrant and infallible word of God? No, Jesus doesn't say that. Why? Because Jesus is perfectly happy picking cherries. In fact, Jesus picks from Deuteronomy and from Leviticus and says that the most important commandment is to love God and to love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Why? Because for Jesus, the most important cherries that you can pick are the cherries of love.

So, once again, the lack of understanding when it comes to the scripture is flamboyant. See what I did there? Two things I would say about this. First, this person either doesn't know or doesn't want his viewers to know about the various types of laws discovered in the Old Testament.

And you learn this in, I don't know, remedial theology. I mean, the fact is that you have three types of laws in the Old Testament Israelite system. You have what's called judicial, ceremonial, and moral.

All of these laws were designed to distinguish and keep holy the nation of Israel from the rest of the nations that surrounded them. And so you get to this judicial law, the first one that he listed, right?

Of parents taking their children to the elders in order to be put to death. It sounds horrible. I mean, just look at this verse. Deuteronomy 21, verse 18. If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they discipline him, he will not even listen to them.

Then his father and mother shall seize him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. And then they shall say to the elders of his city, This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious.

He will not listen to our voice. He is a glutton and a drunkard. How old is this kid? Then all the men of his city shall stone him, and he will die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it, and fear.

The problem comes in when you refuse to see this law in its proper historical context, but just to react to it with your western 21st century glasses. Here's one of the ways that you can flesh this out, by the way.

If you just ask a question that no one is asking. Where in the Bible do you see this law enforced? It's a legitimate question. Where in the Bible is the enforcement of this law put on display for all of us to read about?

If you literally look down here, and you see just a couple verses later, right? You have verses and commands about hanging, and instructions about hanging people, or hanging laws, right? We see those laws being enforced later on in the Old Testament.

Where is the one enforced about taking your son out to the center of the city? Where is that one enforced? Can't find it? Well, the next question is, why not? See, you have to understand that the severity of Hebrew laws are meant to communicate two things.

First, the severity of the crime itself. I'll say it again. The severity of the punishment of certain laws is meant to communicate the severity of the crime. And if you are a rebellious son who time and time again refuses to obey your parents, in the Jewish mindset you're already to the point where you will disobey civil authorities.

Right? It's not a big leap to go from, I'm not ever obeying my parents to, now I'm not going to obey civil authorities. From parents to police. And once you've gotten to that point, there's nothing to stop you from murder.

That is a progression that you can actually track in the Jewish literature. So, how do we talk about how important it is to avoid the path that leads to murder? We let the punishment of the law communicate how important it is.

The second thing this law is meant to communicate is, no one should be punished for this law. I mean, that's basically what this is. Look at the verse again. Why does this law exist? Look at the last line right here.

So, all Israel will hear of it and fear. By the very nature of the punishment described in this law, you should be deterred to ever go down that path in the first place. Thus, to understand the law is to never violate it, which is the point of the law.

It is meant to be what's called a special deterrent. That's why I asked the question, where in the Bible do we see this law being enforced? If you're not seeing it everywhere in the Old Testament, then you see the point of the law.

Then you say there's this guy named Paul in the New Testament. Did you know that Paul says that it's better for you to not be married? So, I assume that since you don't cherry pick and that you have such a high regard for Paul, that you're not married.

And then you go around telling Christians that they shouldn't be married either. Oh, you don't do that. Because you do cherry pick. You just pick cherries that you can interpret in ways that justify your homophobia.

Those are rotten cherries.

You should pick better cherries. What this has to do with progressive folks who cherry pick the Bible in order to live sinful lifestyles is beyond me. But the only thing that I'm going to remember about this TikTok is its snarkiness, not its scriptural basis.

Once again, we find people who want to tell you what the Bible actually says, what it actually teaches. And when they go to actually describe what the Bible says and what it teaches, they fail miserably.

This isn't even a theological issue. This comes down to how to read.

A book well. Engaging in homosexual acts is a sin and that in itself is not bigoted. No, it doesn't. The Bible does not say that homosexual acts are sinful. There are six verses in the Bible that people point to that they say condemn homosexuality or homosexual sex.

But if you actually look at all six of those verses in their context, meaning, read the verses around them. Don't just pull one sentence out of the text, but understand the entirety of the argument being made or the actions being described.

You will find that what's being described is nothing like loving, consensual, same-sex sexual relationships. I mean, you know,.

I've already touched on this, so it seems like this is a bit of a repeat for me, but I suppose if you haven't seen the previous video where I reacted to Jeff Durbin and James White versus Brandon Robertson, I'll go through this one more time.

For instance, if you look at Leviticus chapter 18, verse 22, it says a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman for this is an abomination. If you isolate that verse, take it out of its context, sure, it sounds like a broad condemnation of same-sex sexual relationships.

But if you actually read the entire chapter, you'll find a different thing is being condemned. Leviticus 18, verses 1, 2, and 3 has God speaking to the people of Israel saying, do not be like the Egyptians or the Canaanites, two cultures that surrounded the Hebrew people in the ancient world.

God is saying, do not do the cultural and religious practices of the pagans and the Canaanites. And the verses all throughout chapter 18 refer to a bunch of strange practices that were done in pagan, idolatrous context or in cultures that were sexually exploitative.

Leviticus chapter 18, verse 22 this is what it says and you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female it is an abomination. Now notice, as good exegetes of scripture that we're supposed to be Robertson is not looking around the verse itself for context clues to understand what is being described in verse 22.

So, for example, Robertson is not looking at verse 21, he's not looking at verse 23 for context clues, or even verse 22 itself which is exactly where you find a phrase that defines exactly what the author means.

No, you have to jump all the way up to 18 verse 3 and then you have to jump all the way back down this is like 19 verses, guys all the way back down to verse 22 in order to properly understand what you're reading according to Robertson.

But it's even worse than that. You have to ignore a phrase as part of the syntax of this sentence in order to do what Robertson wants you to do, in order to interpret the way that he wants you to interpret.

Look at the verse again. And you shall not lie with a male. Okay, stop. Clearly something is being described and we have a phrase here to describe it Do not lie with a male. Okay, what does that phrase mean?

In the Bible, what does that phrase mean? You look around at the Old Testament passages and other passages that use the same phrase, it means sex. That's what it means. Okay? But in what way does the author want you to understand this lying with a male?

Here it is. As one lies with a female, in the same way that a man lies with a female. There's your definitional phrase that gives you what you need to interpret the verse. Does the author say in the same exploitative way that the Egyptians lie with males?

Does the author say in the same idolatrous way that the Canaanites lie with males? No. He says as one lies with a female. You have to do some weird interpretive gymnastics in order to get to Robertson's interpretation.

Now, maybe you don't like that teaching and so therefore you reject it. Okay, fine. But don't play this game to say that the Bible is teaching something it's not I think that's actually worse than rejecting the.

Bible. If you look at Leviticus 18 verse 20, it says do not sacrifice your child to Molech. What's Molech? A name for pagan gods used in the Hebrew Bible. The condemnation of Leviticus 18 verse 20 is of pagan idolatry, pagan ritual practices.

So it would follow that Leviticus 18 verse 22 also is a condemnation of a pagan ritual religious practice, not loving consensual same-sex relationships.

Except in verse 21 so it's not verse 20 but it's 21 you have clear phraseology that tells you that what is being described are acts of idolatrous worship. It says you shall not give any of your seed, your children to pass them over to Molech.

Okay, stop. Now we have a pagan god named specifically. There's your first clue. Nor shall you profane the name of your god. I am Yahweh. That's your second interpretive clue. Profaning the name of God.

Using Robertson's own logic, we should see something very similar in verse 22. If lying with a male is also about idolatrous practices we should see the verse say something more like this and you shall not lie with a male to offer to Molech and so profane the name of your god.

Right? This isn't that difficult, friends. It becomes difficult when you come to the Bible with your own agenda and you try to distort the Bible to fit.

Into that agenda. In Romans chapter 1 in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul writes that men exchanged natural relations with women and became inflamed with lust for one another and God gave them over to the due penalty of their error.

Now if you just read that verse in isolation, it sounds like a condemnation of homosexual sex. But if you read the entire context, Romans 1 is a condemnation of the idolatry of the Roman people. It begins by saying the Romans exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped created things instead of the creator God.

Therefore, God gave them over to the lust of their hearts and men exchanged natural relations with women. The context of the homosexual sex in Romans 1 is idolatry. It's pagan practice.

You see how he skipped over that part of the verse very quickly. Now, maybe he's excited or maybe he's doing this on purpose. Look at the verse with me. This is Romans chapter 1 verse 26. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions, for their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature.