Yesterday, the Supreme Court redefined the meaning of “sex” in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and “gender identity.”
The Supreme Court’s legal redefinition of “sex” to include sexual orientation and “gender identity” opens the door for further left-wing lawfare against religious organizations, Severino noted.
“This had to do with the court interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Severino explained. “We’re kind of familiar with this language. It says that no employers can discriminate on the basis of sex, of religion, of natural origin, and other kinds of classic caveats that you have, but what their question was, ‘It says you can’t discriminate on the basis of sex. Does that also mean you can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity?’” . . . .
“What the Supreme Court did is, in an opinion, they basically just rewrote what that text said because there is a long-standing history where for decades, no politicians [and] no judge said that language meant sexual orientation, as well,” Severino added. . . .
“That’s really a revisionist reading of the statute dressed up as textualism, and that’s one of the things that is so dangerous because we have laws that courts can effectively rewrite,” Severino concluded. “No legislator who passed [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act] would have thought it meant that.”
What does this have to do with pretribulation interpreters, you ask?
Many do the same thing with the inspired words of the apostle Paul. Just as the legislators of 1964 did not intend the word sex to include the meaning “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” the apostle Paul never intended apostasia in 2 Thess 2:3 to mean “a physical departure,” and thereby the rapture. In fact, the term apostasia did not expand the sense of a physical departure until 500 years later. In the cross-examination of my Texas debate with Thomas Ice, he had to admit that he could not cite a single instance in Koine Greek literature where the term meant a physical departure (see the link below for the documentation and video).
So while the majority of Supreme Court justices are reading a later redefined notion of sex back into the Civil Rights Act from 50 years ago, many pretribulationists are reading a meaning of a Greek word back 500 years ago into Paul’s original document. These pretribulation interpreters are committing the same type of anachronistic fallacy as the justices of SCOTUS. In essence, they are not “originalists.”
And for this reason, these pretribulation interpreters cannot consistently object to the erroneous Supreme Court decision yesterday, because they are doing the same thing with God’s Word.