"Bible & Homosexuality"

Share:    

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT INVESTIGATION

The Bible has not even the slightest hint of ambiguity about what is permitted or forbidden in this aspect of sexual conduct. The men of Sodom were anxious to interrogate the strangers to find out if they were spies. Therefore, he argues, the story does not refer to homosexuality at all. The sin involved was not homosexuality, but gang rape. Lot had angered these residents by receiving foreigners whose credentials had not been examined. The men were angered by this omission, and were showing extreme discourtesy to these visitors by demanding to know their credentials. Bailey a Christian scholar and writer argues that the demand of the men of Sodom to know the strangers in Lot's house meant nothing more than their desire to get acquainted with them. The problem, argues Bailey, was nothing more than inhospitality

1. Scholars' View:

The Biblical story demonstrates the seriousness with which these early Eastern people took the important customs of Oriental hospitality. It appears that, if necessary, they would even allow their own daughters to undergo abuse in order to protect guests. The sexual aspect of the story is simply the vehicle in which the subject of demanded hospitality is conveyed. It is clearly interpreted in Ezekiel 16:49: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."
Share:    

2. Did Sodom Practice Homosexuality?

The Hebrew word for "know" (yada), can be translated "to get acquainted with" or "to have knowledge of" or "to have intercourse with." The word "yada" appears over 943 times in the Old Testament and only 12 times does it mean "to have intercourse with." The intercourse, as a means to personal knowledge, depends on more than copulation. Therefore, the circumstances in Sodom could not fit the sexual connotation of the word "know." By reasoning from the fact that Lot was a "gur" (Hebrew word), a resident foreigner. As such, Lot had exceeded his rights by receiving two foreigners whose credentials had not been examined.

The first problem is the fact that the meaning of a word in a given passage is not determined solely on the basis of the number of times it is translated that way in the Bible. The context determines how it is to be translated. Of the 12 times the word "yada" occurs in Genesis, 10 times it means "to have intercourse with."

(a) Statistics are no substitute for contextual evidence (otherwise the rarer sense of the word would never seem probable), and in both these passages the demand to "know" is used in its sexual sense (Gen 19:8; Jdg 19:25). Even apart from this verbal conjunction it would be grotesquely inconsequent that Lot should reply to a demand for credentials by an offer of daughters.

(b) Psychology can suggest how to know acquired its secondary sense; but in fact the use of the word is completely flexible. No one suggests that in Judges 19:25 the men of Gibeah were gaining knowledge of their victim in the sense of personal relationship, yet know is the word used of them.

(c) Conjecture here has the marks of special pleading for it substitutes a trivial reason ("commotion . . . inhospitality") for a serious one for the angels' decision. Apart from this, it is silenced by Jude 7, a pronouncement which Dr. Bailey has to discount as belonging to a late stage of interpretation.

3. Lot and Sodom Community

The whole scene in Genesis 19 takes on near-comic proportions if Lot, on hearing the demand of the crowd that they wished to "get acquainted with" the men in his house, said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please let me bring them out to you and do to them as is good in your sight, only do nothing to these men . . ." (author's translation). In verse 8 the same verb, "yada" with the negative particle is used to describe Lot's daughters as having "not known" a man. The verb here obviously means "have intercourse with." It could hardly mean simply "be acquainted with." In narrative literature of this sort it would be very unlikely to use one verb with two different meanings so close together unless the author made the difference quite obvious. In both verses 5 and 8 "yada" should be translated "to have sexual intercourse with." The context does not lend itself to any other credible interpretation.

4. Historian Josephus' View

Jude 7 gives a commentary on the same passage mentioned above. It clearly states that the sin of Sodom involved gross immorality and going after strange or different flesh "sarkikos heteras (Greek). It is no accident that Jude describes their actions by using "ekpornusasai" (Greek). The verb "pornuo definitely refers to sexual immorality and the preposition "ek" explains that it means that "they gave themselves up fully, without reserve, thoroughly, out and out, utterly. The term "strange flesh" could imply unnatural acts between men or even of human beings with animals. The inhabitants of Canaan were guilty of both of these sins (Lev 18:23-29). This definitely includes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. History and archaeology confirm these same conditions. Josephus, who wrote around A.D. 99-100, said that the Sodomites "hated strangers and abused themselves with sodomitical practices."

Boswell the writer says that Lot was following local customs in offering his daughters to appease the angry mob. "No doubt the surrender of his daughters was simply the most tempting bribe Lot could offer on the spur of the moment to appease the hostile crowd . . This action, almost unthinkable in modern Western society, was consonant with the very low status of female children at the time . . ." But what Lot did was not right. Just because Lot offered his daughters to them in accordance with local customs does not mean that his action was morally acceptable in God's sight. It is much more probable that Lot's offer was motivated by the thought that however wrong rape is, homosexual rape was even worse. Lot's offer was simply what he thought to be the lesser of two evils.

V. HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE MOSAIC LAW

VI. THE INJUNCTIONS IN THE LAW

God's command concerning homosexuality is clear: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22). This is expanded in Leviticus 20:13. "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." These passages are set in the context of God's judgment on sexual crimes and are an expansion of the seventh commandment.

Moses was not trying to establish an exhaustive code on the subject of sexuality; rather he was dealing with certain gross offenses of the seventh commandment that were common in the nations surrounding Israel at the time. Pro-homosexual advocates usually dismiss these passages by relegating them to simple religious prohibitions rather than taking them as moral prohibitions. Blair exhibits this line of reasoning.[ii]

That the very pronounced Old Testament judgment against a man's having sexual relations with another man is included in the priestly Holiness Code of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) is significant because the concern of the priests was one of ritual purity. It was not the moral preaching of the prophets. From this priestly point of view, it is clear that above all else, Israel was to be uncontaminated by her pagan neighbors. In all things, she was to remain a separate "pure vessel unto the Lord." At this time, male prostitutes in the temples of the Canaanites, Babylonians, and other neighboring peoples, were common features of the pagan rites. There, it is understandable that this "homosexuality" connected with the worship of false gods would certainly color Israel's perspective on any and all homosexual activity.[iii]

Blair, and those who follow his line of thinking, assumes that ritual purity and moral preaching are always distinct. Therefore the passages in Leviticus, they argue, are not really speaking against homosexuality as such, but only against identifying with the practice of alien religions.[iv] The issue was religious identity, not the righteousness of God.

But this type of reasoning begs the question on several counts. The first major fault is in assuming that ritual purity and moral purity are always distinct. Those who make this dichotomy argue that Leviticus 18 and 20 cannot be of an ethical or moral nature. But the prophets preached to the needs of their day.[v] Anything not included in their teaching is more logically explained by that particular sin's absence among the sins of that generation, rather than by a rigid distinction between ceremonial and moral purity. To hold to such a distinction one would have to conclude that adultery was not morally wrong (18:20), child sacrifice had no moral implications (18:2 1), and that nothing is inherently evil with bestiality (18:23). The point is that ceremonial purity and moral purity often coincide.

These passages, again, are consistent with God's purpose for human sexuality, as presented in Genesis 1-3. When these passages are studied, it becomes obvious that God's purpose is to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the home.

VII. THE RELEVANCE OF THE LAW

Pro-homosexual advocates spend much effort and time trying to show the irrelevance of the Law to Christians today. Scanzoni and Mollenkott are an example of this. "Consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the Israelite Holiness Code is to be invoked against twentieth-century homosexuals, it should likewise be invoked against such common practices as eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the menstrual period."

It is interesting how lightly evangelicals have taken other proscriptions found in the same Old Testament Code, e.g.: rules against the eating of rabbit (Lev 11:26), oysters, clams, shrimp, and lobster (Lev 11:10ff), and rare steaks (Lev 17:10). Evangelicals do not picket or try to close down seafood restaurants nor do we keep kosher kitchens. We do not always order steaks "well-done." We eat pork and ham.[vi] The wearing of clothes made from interwoven linen and wool (Deut 22:11) does not seem to bother us at an. Evangelicals do not say, in accordance with these same laws of cultic purification (Lev 20:13), that those who practice homosexual activity should be executed as prescribed.

Evangelicals do not demand the death penalty for the Jeane Dixons of this world (Lev 20:27) nor do we "cut off" from among the people, as is demanded by this same Code, those who have intercourse with women during menstruation (Lev 20:18) and those who marry women who have been divorced (Lev 21:14).[vii] Evangelicals do not keep out of the pulpit those who are visually handicapped or lame or those "with a limb too long" (Lev 21:18ff).

1. Christ is the Christian's High Priest

The writers pay a great price in trying to justify their position. It would have been easier for them to say that Christ brought an end to the entire Law (Rom 10:4). The Ten commandments are also included in this termination (2 Cor 3:7-11). Christ is now the Christian's High Priest, which shows that a radical change in the Law has come about (Heb 7:11). The Law has been superseded (Heb 7:11).

When the statement is made that the Law had ended, this does not mean that God no longer has any laws or codes for His people. This does not mean that there are no moral precepts to be followed. The New Testament speaks of the "law of the Spirit" (Rom 8:2), the "law of Christ" (Gal 6:2), and the "royal law" (James 2:8). This "law" includes numerous commands, both positive and negative, which form a distinct code of ethics for today. It is here that the pro-homosexual exegetes have made their mistake. As a unit the New Testament code is new, but not all the commands in the New Testament are new. There is overlap, deletion, and addition. Some of the commands in the Mosaic code have been reincorporated into the New Testament code.[viii]

But if the Law was done away, how can parts of it be repeated in the New Testament? The answer lies in the distinction between the Old Testament code and the commandments which were contained in that code.

The Mosaic law has been done away in its entirety as a code. God is no longer guiding the life of man by this particular code. In its place He has introduced the law of Christ. Many of the individual commands within that law are new, but some are not. Some of the ones which are old were also found in the Mosaic law and they are now incorporated completely and [are] forever done away. As part of the law of Christ they are binding on the believer today.[ix]

This throws much light on the statements made by those who would justify homosexuality from a biblical standpoint. It serves to bring their emotional rhetoric into proper focus. The laws concerning diet, punishment by stoning, or wearing mixed fabrics have been abrogated. However, the proscriptions against homosexual behavior have been repeated in the New Testament code (Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:9-10). This should be a major concern of pro-homosexual advocates simply because it totally destroys the point they attempt to make with regard to the Old Testament law. It is false to say that something which was sin under the Law is no longer sin under grace.[x]

What this all means is that the commands dealing with homosexuality in Leviticus 18:23 and 20:13 are still highly relevant because they have been reincorporated into the New Testament code. A moral unity exists between the Old and New Testaments. It has always been wrong to murder, rape, steal, to have sexual relations with animals, and to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex. God has dealt with people in different ways at different times, but His standard for righteousness has never changed. If morality has changed then the character of God has changed, because the basis of morality is in the character of God who is immutable (Mal 3:6).

2. Jesus' Teaching on Homosexuality

Jesus never taught for or against homosexuality. This raises the question, if homosexuality truly is a sin worthy of eternal condemnation, as some believe it is, then why didn't Jesus discuss it? He certainly preached at length concerning every other sin listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Timothy 1:9-10. Why would He leave this one out?"God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33) therefore I cannot see Him leaving out such a critical' sin from His discussions.[xi] A more plausible explanation is that God has never been concerned about homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter. Each are equally part of God's plan of creation. It is only mankind's fears and prejudices that have concocted this monstrous imaginary sin, not God. Jesus talked at great length concerning many other issues such as love, mercy, grace, reaching the lost, the ministry of reconciliation, stewardship, and the healing of body, soul and mind.Yet at times the church seems more preoccupied with a subject He never taught about, than about the matters He did.

Scripture says that when we see Jesus, we have seen the Father (John 14:9; Hebrew 1:3). Since Jesus never talked about the issue we can deduce that neither Jesus nor the Father is concerned about homosexuality. Instead, He preached "the good news to the poor" and proclaimed "freedom for the captives and recovery of sight for the blind", to "release the oppressed", and proclaimed the "year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19) to all who would accept Him. Teaching us that we would do well to focus our thoughts upon Jesus and turn away from the prejudices of men.[xii]

http://homosexvsthebible.wikia.com/wiki/Romans

[ii] Ibid.,

[iii] http://homosexvsthebible.wikia.com/wiki/Romans

[iv] Ibid.,

[v] Ibid.,

[vi] http://homosexvsthebible.wikia.com/wiki/Romans

[vii] Ibid.,

[viii] http://homosexvsthebible.wikia.com/wiki/Romans

[ix] Ibid.,

[x] http://homosexvsthebible.wikia.com/wiki/Romans
Share:    

[xi] Ibid.,

[xii] http://homosexvsthebible.wikia.com/wiki/Romans

"Bible & Homosexuality"

By: Anandan Arles

POST COMMENT

"PRACTICE OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN EAST ASIA " "HOMOSEXUALITY AND AIDS" GENERAL REASONS WHY HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS HARMFUL SEXUALITY AND GENDER IDENTITY Response to Homosexuality Discussing Cervical Spine Surgery: The Right Way To Get My Ex Back Lost Your Keys? Get Expert Boca Raton Locksmith Services Female Artist And Her Rich And Aggressive Use Of Watercolor Pigment Wedded Women Looking For Males Thinking of Sex When Stressed - Do Stress Really Affects Sex Negatively? Pouvez-vous tre Sexy 12 Sans tre Un Vulgaire Petit Peu? Sexual Poses You can Try While Performing Sex During Pregnancy