Same Sex Controversy part 3 of 3: Leviticus and the Application of the Holiness Code

It certainly is a book of scripture that very few people are very familiar with today, and yet it is a book of scripture that the Lord Jesus cited from frequently, and it is cited a number of times in the text of the New Testament, and so you would think we would be more familiar with its background, but since it's a part of that dreaded word, the law, it is generally ignored by most Christians today.

I refer to the book of Leviticus, it's certainly not at the top of the list of many people's favorite terms and many people's favorite books of the Bible. It is one of those difficult books to work through, and because the fact that people, well, they look at it and there's unfamiliar material within it, there are Old Testament issues within it that people go, well, you know, I'm really not sure if I know the backgrounds here, this seems a little strange to me, I just like reading John a whole lot better than this, and so it's given a cursory glance and we run away from it.

And yet, in the book of Leviticus, two passages in Leviticus chapter 18 and Leviticus chapter 20, both make reference to the fact that in God's law, homosexuality is something that brings blood guiltiness.

It is toevah, it is an abomination in God's sight. And yet, many revisionists today who seek to find a way to establish a Christian homosexuality, a means for Christians to engage in homosexuality, to seek to have a same-sex partner, etc., etc.

These revisionists very frequently do not even want to take the time to deal with Leviticus 18 and 20. They don't have to take the time to do so. They don't have to because very few evangelicals today are able to mount a meaningful defense for the relevance of any citation from a passage such as Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

Why? Because so many evangelicals today have abandoned the idea that God's law has any relevance. Hey, what does it really matter? I mean, when you think about it, we're not under law, we're under grace.

And therefore, since we're not under law, we're under grace, that means that God's law is irrelevant to us, that God's law has no meaning for us, and we don't have to worry about that stuff. Besides that, there's a lot of weird stuff in books like Leviticus and stuff like that.

There's stuff about not eating shellfish. And hey, you know, one of my favorite TV programs, The West Wing, it had the president in The West Wing ripped on anyone who would cite Leviticus, and so I don't want to cite Leviticus because I just love Hollywood, and I think like Hollywood has taught me to think, and I am now a moron.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was going a little too far there. Sadly, we are deeply influenced by that type of thinking, and we are deeply influenced. I think many thousands of Christians who listened, for example, to The West Wing program where a person representing Dr. Laura Schlesinger was ridiculed by the president, obviously as a result of that, are caused to think about it, are caused to go, well, how would I answer that?

Maybe I should keep my mouth closed. I don't want to experience this myself, etc., etc., etc. And therefore, they want to sort of step back and not address this particular, this particular issue. What does Leviticus say, and is it still relevant to us?

Is the fact that there was a holiness code for the people of Israel that included things that, quite honestly, we just simply do not practice today? Issues such as the wearing of clothes with mixed, mixed threads within them.

We all wear clothes today that have mixed threads, all the various blends and things like that. Why is that relevant at all, then? Why is it not true that the individuals who write books today and say, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, only relevant to Jews, only relevant to the Jewish people in the land of Palestine.

It's ancient stuff, it's not relevant anymore, and anyone who cites this is simply being an idiot for the fact that you're not consistent. You don't follow everything that's in the holiness code, the purity code, and therefore you're just being an old-fashioned bigot if you dare cite these passages as having anything to do whatsoever with homosexuality today.

How do you respond? Sadly, most people responded by no longer citing these passages, by just simply ignoring that they exist and saying, Yeah, well, that must be right. I mean, we just don't cite this stuff anymore.

It's all the old covenant, it's no longer relevant to us. And yet we find the New Testament writers do cite these passages as being relevant, therefore we can hardly believe that the writers in the New Testament believed that the very substance of the Old Testament law was no longer relevant to either them, to human behavior, to the glory of God, or to anything else, for that matter.

And so how are we to understand that? Well, we're going to take some time today to discuss that, to look at what Leviticus 18 and 20 says about the subject of homosexuality, and to take your phone calls as well at 866 -854 -6763.

866 -854 -6763. I would invite you to take your Bible and consider well these things. You may find yourself in a situation of having to give an answer for the hope that's within you and for the answers that you give in regards to simple morality.

Has God revealed how we are to live? Or are we left simply without any type of compass, to just simply be driven along by the winds of cultural taste? Our culture, of course, is very quickly embracing everything that is deviant and base and silly as if it is something that is good.

I understand that the MTV Music Awards has yet again demonstrated that there is no distance too far to go to debase human life and human morality, that Hollywood has demonstrated yet once again that it hates God's law and will do everything it can to mock God's law.

And so we live in that kind of society. We're going to be impacted by that. If we do not have a firm anchor in a revelation from God as to what is good and what is not good, then are we not just going to be doomed to be blown about by the wind and go here, there, and everywhere, and our next generation then will be saying things very, very differently than we do as to what is right and what is wrong and what is sin.

And of course, once we get to the point of asking the question, what is sin? We are now talking about the very gospel itself and who we are going to proclaim that gospel to. Did Jesus Christ die upon the cross taking in his body the penalty due to the sin of homosexuality for his elect people or did he not?

Can a person be a homosexual and be in Christ and it not be a sinful thing? If we can't even define what sin is, then we're hardly in any decent position to proclaim the gospel with any level of clarity.

And so these are important things. So I'd invite you to turn with me to Leviticus chapter 18 and my hope would be, of course, that that's not a book that you have to separate the pages on, unless you've got a new Bible, you know, that's understandable.

But if your Bibles are fairly older and you still have to separate the pages there, that might indicate that you're suffering from a common malady of many evangelicals in our land today and that is having a small amount of being canonically challenged.

That is, we attend much more to the last 27 books than the previous 39, ignoring the fact that the writers of the last 27, their Bible, their scriptures, were those 39 books of the Old Testament and they did believe that those books revealed to them the very Word of God.

And in fact, Paul said that all scripture, not just some, not just the part in red or the part toward the end of the book, but all scripture is theanustas, it is God breathed. So with that in mind, if we turn to Leviticus chapter 18, you discover that this chapter refers to the activities, specifically sexual activities, of the Jewish people and gives explicit guidelines as to how that activity is to be handled.

And of course, they are primarily negative guidelines, that is, they provide boundaries, you shall not do this, you shall not do that, these are the relationships you shall not enter into. For example, verse 16, your brother's wife, your father's brother, you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.

In other words, we have in Leviticus 18 very explicit discussion prohibiting any type of incestuous relationships. Then we also have the denial, in verse 20, of the freedom that some people would seek to have to engage in sexual intercourse with their neighbor's wife.

Then you have, in verse 21, you shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Mulloch, nor shall you profane the name of your God, I am the Lord. And then we have, verse 22, that says, you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it is an abomination.

And of course, here is the passage that immediately raises all of the questions. It is said here very clearly that you shall not lie with a male, and Leviticus in the Greek Septuagint utilizes the term there, arsenos.

And you might want to even write that down because it becomes very important. You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it is toeva, it is an abomination. The term, when it talks in the Septuagint, is a little bit more explicit in that it uses the very term coetane, from coete, bed, a marital relationship.

And you might want to write down both arsenos and coete because that's going to become very important when we look at 1 Corinthians 6, 9 and 1 Timothy chapter 1, verse 10, in the discussion of a certain term that is used there.

Just for your information, however, just so you're aware, in Leviticus 18, 22, in discussing homosexuality, you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it is abomination, in the Greek Septuagint, which is the translation of the Bible the Apostle Paul utilized in writing to the churches because that would have been the translation that they would have had.

The terms arsenos and coete occur right there in that particular passage that speaks of homosexuality. That becomes very important. You'll notice that immediately after verse 22, also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it, it is a perversion.

So you have bestiality that is clearly an offense before God, it is a perversion of the created order. And then notice this, if you're taking notes and if you're not, well, you should be. One of the most important things to note and one of the most important skills that you need to develop as a Christian, a Christian called upon to do apologetics for God's truth in our culture today, is that you never ever read just one verse.

In fact, you don't just read the five verses around a verse, you read the whole chapter, you understand how it functions in the argument. And here is an important element of it, because verses 24 and 25 say, do not defile yourselves by any of these things.

So what are these things? All the things that came before, bestiality, homosexuality, and the whole list that came before that. For by all these, the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.

For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. Now, again, what's that about? What is the context here? Well, the context is the fact that the Jewish people are going to be taking the land of Canaan.

And it is a common refrain in the Old Testament Revelation that the Canaanites, those who had been in the land, had defiled themselves in God's sight. They had defiled the land, they had committed tremendous abominations, and that the utter destruction of these people, ordered by God, was a just destruction.

That these are individuals who had committed every kind of possible offense in God's sight. These were not just people who were slightly evil, these were people who had gone to the farthest lengths of finding a way to express their utter depravity and rebellion against God.

The land was defiled, the people were defiled, and sometimes people, well, I can't worship the God of the Old Testament, He told them to kill every man, woman, and child of these nations. These nations had engaged in every kind of depraved practice.

They were diseased, they were offering their children in the fire to Moloch, they were involved in child sacrifice, and homosexuality, and bestiality, and the whole nine yards. It was a horrific situation.

God had basically taken His hand away from them and allowed them to descend into the very depths of depravity. Now, why do I emphasize this? Do I emphasize this, oh, see, you're just picking on the homosexuals.

That was one of many things, it was one of those things, which is toevah, it's an abomination, it was one of the reasons that judgment came upon these nations. That's true, and no nation that allows for that kind of practice, that coddles homosexuality, will long survive from God's judgment, there's no question about that.

However, here's the issue. The single most common way around these passages, by revisionists, is very simple. This only has to do with the Jews. This only has to do with the holiness code of the Jews, therefore it's irrelevant to us.

That also even comes into some of the ways that people used to get around the book of Romans, Romans chapter 1, by saying, ah, well, you know, all Paul's really talking about here is, you know, Paul's Jewish, and he couldn't get rid of his Judaism, and really all he's saying here is relevant to the holiness code, and the holiness code is gone, and therefore this really doesn't matter.

But please note that this passage of scripture in Leviticus 18, verses 24 through 25, is given to the people of Israel. It is not given to the people of Canaan at this particular point in time. In fact, God does not say, you know what, I'm giving you my law, and since no one really knew what my law was before, why don't you write these things down, and why don't you send some missionaries into the land of Canaan, and why don't you let them, you know, go around for a few years and proclaim to the people of Canaan that these things are wrong, that they shouldn't be engaged in bestiality, they shouldn't be engaged in homosexuality.

Let me give them a little time to repent, and then we'll see if we're gonna give you the land of Canaan. That's not what happens. Instead, it is very clear that God's judgment fell upon these people, even though they did not have an explicit statement given to them that these things are wrong.

Now, how could that happen? Well, because the fact that they knew it was wrong, their conscience testified of the fact that these things were wrong. There is no person who has ever taken their child to be offered as a burnt sacrifice to Moloch that walked away with a clean conscience.

That's not a possibility. And so, these things are not just for the Jews. The people of the lands, even before the giving of the law, had defiled themselves by engaging in bestiality and incest and homosexuality.

It defiled the land, and it brought punishment. Verse 25, the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. And so, when people say, ah, that Leviticus stuff, it's just, you know, it's just for the Jews, that isn't even a meaningful reading of the text in its own context.

That doesn't even make any sense when you just simply read more than three or four verses on either side of the statement that says that you shall not engage in homosexual behavior. A man shall not lie with a man as he lies the female.

It's not to happen. It is an abomination. And because the Canaanites did it, God's punishment came upon them, and the land spewed them out. That is simply what the text says. But that's not all it says, because you go to Leviticus chapter 20 now, and you discover that there is here punishments given if, in fact, these activities take place.

For example, Leviticus chapter 20 verse 11, if there is a man who lies, this father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness, both of them shall surely be put to death, their blood guiltiness is upon them.

Now, I think it's somewhat interesting to note that this passage is the basis of Paul's condemnation of the church at Corinth for having put up with someone who had done this. Paul evidently thought this was still an important thing.

Paul hadn't just dumped the law out the back door and said, ah, it was just Moses, ah, that's just Old Covenant, let's just throw that out, not worry about it. There is no repetition of this up to the point of time of Paul.

There was no repetition of this in anything that had been given to the Corinthians. The Corinthians were to understand that this was an abomination in God's sight from what the Old Testament scriptures said.

And so they are to be put to death. This is a capital crime, their blood guiltiness is upon them. Verse 12, there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death, they have committed incest, their blood guiltiness is upon them.

And then verse 13, if there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act, they shall surely be put to death, their blood guiltiness is upon them.

Now, again, I think it is important to note that here in Leviticus 20 .13, we again have the word arsenos for male. Then we also have coete, in the accusative form, for the marital relationship or the sexual relationship.

It is the term that eventually gives rise to our term coetus. It is very explicit, it is very clear, it is truly unquestionable as to what it means. And I asked you to note that before, and I note that here again, when the death penalty itself is announced within the nation of Israel on this issue of homosexuality, just like incest is to have the death penalty, etc., etc., even verse 14, if there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality, both he and they shall be burned with fire, so there will be no immorality in your midst.

Then verse 15, if there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, you shall also kill the animal. Verse 16, if there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal, they shall surely be put to death, their blood guiltiness is upon them.

Obviously connected directly with Leviticus 18, the same sins which the people are warned about Leviticus 18, here the penalties are prescribed for them in Leviticus chapter 20. And so we have the same words being used in verse 13 that we also had back in Leviticus 18, and that's gonna become important because it's become a basis of understanding what the words mean when we get into the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy chapter 1.

Now, a couple things to point out. When people say, well, you know, there are all sorts of things that were said to be wrong in the Old Testament that we don't worry about today. There are lots of things that were said to be toevah, an abomination in God's sight, and some of those things you all don't worry about anymore.

Some of those things just simply aren't relevant anymore, and therefore this is one of the things that isn't relevant. Well, if you take that perspective, then A, you're gonna have to explain why God brought punishment upon the people of the land of Canaan because it would have been irrelevant to them, too.

So you've got an inconsistency here, and obviously most revisionists really don't believe God did any of the things the Old Testament says he did anyhow, so they really wouldn't struggle with that one.

They would say, well, I don't know that Israel went in there wreaking God's justice and havoc anyways. There's a very low view of Scripture for most of these revisionists anyways. But beyond that, if Leviticus 20 .13 is not relevant any longer, then is Leviticus 20 .12?

Is incest okay as well? How about Leviticus 20 .11? Does that mean that that form of incestuous relationship is okay as well? Because these revisionists will say things like, oh, you know, Leviticus, it's not relevant.

Jesus never mentioned these things. Well, Jesus never mentioned incest either, did he? Well, what about the Leviticus 20 .15? Bestiality. 20 .16, bestiality with a woman. Verse 15, a man. Verse 16, a woman.

Does that mean it's okay, too? Jesus certainly never mentioned that. In fact, there's nothing in the New Testament about it at all, is there? So does that mean it's okay? Logically and consistently, a person would have to say yes.

A person would have to say yes. And there are those who do say yes. There are those who say, hey, as long as it doesn't detract from general societal happiness, as long as it doesn't hurt the person, then if it feels good, do it.

It's okay. There are those who would say that. But many of the revisionists would struggle with such a statement because the fact that they are operating within somewhat of a religious environment. And so if they're going to be consistent, then they're going to have to say that if Leviticus 20 .13 does not reveal to us something about God's character and how God has created us and what is good and what is bad in human sexual behavior, then neither does Leviticus 20 .15 and 16.

And therefore, bestiality is okay and incest is okay. And you might as well just go all the way down the line. And that is why we raise issues like pedophilia, having sex with children. Why isn't that wrong?

Oh, well, that might hurt somebody. Now you see the absolutely arbitrary nature of an ethical system where revisionists have now ripped out the heart of God's law. And basically, they've gagged God. If they will not read these passages in their context and put a little thought into thinking, they have gagged God.

They have said, God cannot speak to what is right and wrong in human sexual behavior or in any other element of human experience. Many others will say, well, obviously, back at the time of the writing of this, Moses, and of course, I can't think of a single revisionist that would actually think Moses had anything to do with this, but the people at the time of the revision of this material into its current form knew nothing about inversion.

They knew nothing about loving, monogamous, homosexual relationships. And so this just simply can't be relevant today because it's based on too much ignorance. In other words, it's not truly the Word of God.

It's not what Jesus thought it was. It's not what the apostles thought it was. And therefore, it should not be given any status to speak to the issue. And in essence, Christians, again, are left without anything to say to what is right and wrong in the behavioral area at all.

It's very clear that if 2013 refers to homosexuality and it remains a revelation of God's moral law, that then the whole issue of monogamous, loving, homosexual relationships is irrelevant, utterly irrelevant, because it absolutely denies the propriety of the behavior itself.

If there is a man who lies to a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them, both of them have committed a detestable act, they shall surely be put to death. That means it is a serious offense. It corrupts the people of Israel and, folks, it corrupts our society as well.

The Gospel of Grace, the Meaning of Sin, and the Need for Moral Clarity

866 -854 -6763 is the number if you'd like to become involved in the discussion today. 866 -854 -6763. We'll be right back. What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen But Free?

A New Cult? Secularism? False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

In his book, The Potter's Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, but The Potter's Freedom is much more than just a reply. It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded.

Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself. In a style both scholars and laymen can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of scripture.

The Potter's Freedom, A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free by James White. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at amen .org. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with us this coming Lord's Day.

Our morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. and our worship service is at 10 45. Evening services are at 6 30 p .m. on Sunday and Wednesday prayer meeting is at 7. We are located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 26 grace or look us up on the web at www .prbc .org.

More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and many evangelicals are finding the history, tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.

This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language?

James White's book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatorian indulgences and Marian doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to.

Our website at aomin .org. Incorporating the most recent research and solid biblical truth, Letters to a Mormon Elder is a series of personal letters written to a fictional Mormon missionary. Examining the teachings and theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style.

James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity. With well-defined arguments, James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the Book of Mormon, the prophecies, visions, and teachings of Joseph Smith, the theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism, and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the LDS Church.

This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons, and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons. Letters to a Mormon Elder. Be sure to get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at aomin .org.

A Caller’s Question About a Homosexual Friend in a Pentecostal Church

Hello. Oh, there I am. I was trying to talk, but someone didn't want me to talk. Welcome back to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. I don't see that anyone wishes to chat about this subject today, but be that as it may, I'd like to at least finish it off so those listening by archive can have the information that is available there to folks.

And of course, I've got, just mentioned in passing, good old Jimmy JoJ is back, and he's messaging me right now. And I just updated the information on Jimmy JoJ on our website. Those of you who haven't looked at it for a while, www .aomin .org slash JimmyJoJSaga .html.

Just go to the Roman Catholic section, and it's linked down at the bottom. Had a little discussion with him, and what a maroon. Maroon, isn't that one of the terms that they use in the cartoons? That's right, cartoons.

Isn't that what, not Daffy Duck, what's his name? Oh, the rabbit guy. Who's the rabbit guy? I'm just going to sit here and wait. Bugs Bunny. Thank you very much. That's what Bugs Bunny. What a maroon.

In fact, that's probably, I think we have that sound in the chat channel somewhere about being a maroon. Anyways, I don't have time to play with Jimmy JoJ. Those of you who'd like to look at his interesting assertions and circular reasoning, as I said, we updated that file and it's on the website if you'd like to take a look at it.

Now, we continue on looking at this issue. We've looked at Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, and we have considered well the context of both passages, which of course is a context that you need to be looking at when you present these things and be able to explain it, be able to explain it clearly, be able to respond to what is most often surface level objections to the conclusions you're presenting.

People frequently freak out, shall we say, when someone provides even the smallest objection to their position and if you freak out, it's because you haven't spent the requisite time thinking through what the issues are.

We have seen Leviticus 18 and 20 clearly prohibits homosexual behavior. We saw that Paul did the same thing in Romans chapter 1, that he was very clear. Now, if you'll turn to the New Testament, to 1 Corinthians chapter 6, here you have a passage where the Apostle Paul is dealing with the church at Corinth, which obviously had some real problems and there was some real difficulty going on in the church.

There was, in essence, a tremendous amount of ethical misbehavior. There was immorality in the church. There was immorality of every kind. It wasn't just sexual immorality, but there was also backbiting and fighting and lawsuits going back and forth and just a whole lot of non-Christian behavior taking place in the church at Corinth.

And so, in the context of discussing this, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6, 9, or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God. Then, right afterwards, Paul says, all things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable.

All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. And so, he's talking about this issue of freedom, and he's talking about the fact that there is a balance in the Christian life, that while we are not bound to perform certain acts to gain God's favor, yet it does not mean that unrighteousness should be something that is named amongst the saints.

And so, he asks the Corinthians, do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? And he warns of deception, that there will be those who would seek to deceive us. And he says, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers.

Now, what's fornication, idolatry, and adultery? Are these sins? Yes, they are sins. Let's skip over the next two and go to thieves, covetousness, drunkards, revilers, swindlers. What are those? Well, again, we recognize these are sins as well.

Thievery is a sin. You shall not steal. You shall not covet. Drunkenness is identified in the Old Testament as a sin, a lack of self-control. Those who revile authorities above them, whether that be God or governmental authorities.

Swindlers, that's a subcategory of those who steal. Paul lists these and says, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. But, then he says in verse 11, such were some of you, past tense, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.

There was a break. There was a change. There was a radical departure. Verse 9 and 10 describes the past life of some of the Corinthians. Not all. Not all of the Corinthian believers had been involved in every single one of these types of activities.

But, some had. Some had experienced the forgiveness of God. They had experienced that radical work of regeneration. But, Paul says they are no longer that. He does not say such are some of you. There were no people who were practicing fornication.

And, there can be no people who are practicing fornication within the congregation. You do not have Christian fornicators. You do not have Christian idolaters. You do not have Christian adulterers. There's no such thing as Christian thievery, Christian covetousness, Christian drunkenness, Christian reviling, Christian swindling.

Those are all oxymorons. Those people do not inherit the kingdom of God and, therefore, to say, well, we can add the name Christian to this and say, well, you know, let's look at the word adulterers. God made me this way.

It is a part of the way that God made me. We just need to come to understand that Paul didn't know about individuals who would have my proclivities and my desires. He didn't understand hormones. He didn't understand how some people can have glands that produce more hormones than others.

So, we can't take something that was written 2 ,000 years ago and make it normative for me today. I want to be able to love Jesus, but also have my multiple sexual partners. And, they're all women. I'm not a homosexual.