There are few attributes more likely to consign you to the social sin bin, in Western society at any rate, than an inability to laugh at a joke made at your expense. Christians, in particular, appear very reluctant to look po-faced regardless of how hurtful or blasphemous a wisecrack has been. Particularly so following the reaction of some Muslim groups to portrayals of the prophet Mohammed. It is with some trepidation therefore that I wish to call foul on one of the more popular comedians on radio and television.
Driving home from the railway station on Friday night, I caught the tail end of The News Quiz on Radio 4. Jeremy Hardy was in full flow apropos of I know not what, but as he was making a very precise scripture reference he caught my attention. Scallops, he averred, were an abomination according to the Bible and he quoted Leviticus 11v12 “Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.”
Now there were several things that struck me about this contribution. Firstly, as soon as he gave a chapter and verse reference he got a huge laugh from the audience. In few areas of public life is displaying ignorance of a subject seen as socially advisable but it is increasingly the case that even basic knowledge of the Bible has become one of these. Quoting a precise reference was clearly ( to his audience) facetious and subversive!
More importantly, however, was the realisation that some of the panel, and probably many of the audience, would take what was said at face value and repeat it – Susan Calman for one said as much. Hardy’s point in referring to this scripture was to contrast the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality with its teaching on dietary rules and by implication to suggest that both were ridiculous. Frankly Jeremy, this is theological illiteracy on a thumping scale! If you don’t accept the Bible’s teaching on morality, that is your prerogative ( and in my view, your loss) but please do not misrepresent its teaching.
If I were to make a point about the current law of England using as my starting point the assumption that trial by ordeal remains in force, no-one would find that remotely convincing (or funny) for the obvious reason that trial by ordeal was removed from English legal process several centuries ago. Only an astonishing lack of knowledge about the most basic and uncontroversial teachings of Christianity allowed Hardy to get away with his stunt.
Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Bible will be familiar with the story of the Apostle Peter’s vision when God showed him a sheet, “Wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air”, Acts 10.12. The sort of animals that are prohibited in Leviticus in fact. The instruction is given that he should arise, kill and eat. Peter, as a devout Jew, followed the dietary laws of Leviticus and replied that he could not do so for he had never eaten anything profane or unclean. The direct revelation of God to him was, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common”. The clear message to Peter was that the dietary laws had been superseded ( as, in the context, had Jewish social contact with Gentiles, which was the main point of this vision). The Apostle Paul reiterates this teaching in several places. Writing to a mixed group of Jewish and Gentile Christians at Corinth he says, “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake”, 1 Cor. 10.25-27. Again, he writes to the church at Colosse, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ … Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? “, Colossians 2.16-22.
A fuller explanation as to why these rules, together with the ceremonial law, the temple and blood sacrifice, were being set aside is set out in the letter to the Hebrews. For example, the writer says that these physical laws were, “a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us”, Heb. 9.9-12. In other words, all of these practices were simply illustrations of the need for man to be made right with God but following the advent of Christ, such illustrations are set aside.
So, on this basis, was Jeremy Hardy partially correct? If these laws have been set aside in the New Testament can we also set aside the Old Testament laws on morality, at least those parts of them that don’t fit with modern thinking? Well, no. Rather than setting God’s moral standards aside, they are reiterated and reinforced throughout the New Testament, including by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Now I acknowledge that Jeremy Hardy probably does not regard himself as any sort of a christian, which does beg the question why he is appealing to the Bible at all, but for those who regard themselves as such, then the word itself denotes one who is a follower of Christ. Surely such cannot ignore the words of the One they claim to follow! He said concerning marriage, “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh”, Matthew 19:5. Speaking of the human condition He said, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies”, Matthew 15:19. Indeed He raised the bar on moral standards generally when He said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart”, Matthew 5:28.
In the specific context of homosexuality, the New Testament is equally clear, Paul writes in Romans chapter 1, “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves … For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet”. And again, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” 1 Corinthians 6.9.
As I said, it is with some trepidation that I take up this subject, but the Bible is absolutely clear in its teaching. We can choose to ignore it, at our peril, but please do not misrepresent what it is teaching.