One of
the subjects that seem to be tearing the church and
society apart today is the issue of homosexuality. The purpose of this
essay is
to look at the passages that are often quoted by those that believe
that God
condemns homosexuality and why those that make such claims are wrong.
Use of Biblical Texts
While
biblical interpretation is not the subject of this
essay it is necessary to point out, as I have elsewhere, that the
Plenary
Inerrant method is clearly wrong and is not my intent. God did not
whisper,
like the little cartoon shoulder angels, into the ears of the writers
of the
bible. Nor do I believe in proof-texting (where one seeks out biblical
texts to
prove preconceived beliefs). That being said, I do quote the biblical
texts
heavily in this essay as I do in the others on this site. This is
because the
biblical texts, being at the center of Christianity, are to be taken
seriously
and therefore must be addressed in any discussion of the faith.
Claims Based on the Old Testament
The
story of Sodom and Gomorrah has often been quoted as a
condemnation of homosexuality. It’s very important to note that the
citizens
were going to rape the visitors. In fact if we are to look at this
story for a
moral lesson on the "evils of homosexuality" then it would appear as
though it was also a justification of the rape of women since Lot gave
his
daughters to the mob. No one who defends the rights of homosexuals
would try to
justify rape, homosexual or straight. Sodom and Gomorrah is a story of
cruelty
and violence, not of the "evils of homosexuality".
In
Deuteronomy 23:17 we read, "There shall be no whore
of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." At
first glance this verse seems to be a clear condemnation of at least
male
homosexuality. But upon a closer look at the original wording we read
something
very different. The Hebrew word translated as "whore" in this verse
is "qedeshaw" and the Hebrew word "qodesh" which is
rendered as "sodomite" in this verse. "Qodesh" is the
masculine form of "qedeshaw". This verse is a reference to the male
and female pagan cult prostitutes and not of modern homosexual
relationships.
To
what degree should we follow Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13?
Throughout the Old Testament there are many passages which are not
followed by
even the strictest literalists. In Deuteronomy 23:1 we read: "He whose
testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter
the
assembly of the Lord". Leviticus also describes menstruating women as
an
"abomination". Would those who would condemn homosexuality also agree
with the biblical writers about menstruating women? The Old Testament
also
restricts priests from having a "blemish" (Leviticus 21:17). A
blemish was defined among other things as being blind, lame, have a
mutilated
face, being hunchback, dwarf, having scabs or crushed testicles
(Leviticus 21:18-20).
None of these restrictions were reversed by the New Testament. If one
is not to
follow Leviticus 21 or Deuteronomy 23 then why should one follow
Leviticus
18:22 or Leviticus 20:13?
Claims Based on the New Testament
In
Corinthians 6:9-10 we are given a long list of those who
are the "unrighteous". There are two Greek words used here that have
been translated in various ways. The words are "malakoi" and
"arsenokoitoi". The New American Standard translates them as
"effeminate" and "homosexual" respectively. Again let us look
closely at the original words. "Malakoi" translates literally as
"soft" and by extension as "effeminate". In several pagan
texts the word is used in association with a call-boy, or male
prostitute. The
word "arsenokoitoi" is made up of two words. "arsen" = male
and "koite" = bed. Because in the Greek the emphasis is on the second
part of a word "arsenokoitoi" translates literally as "lying
with a male" or "one who lies with a male". If
"malakoi" points to the effeminate call-boy then the
"arsenokoitoi" is the active partner who visits the call-boy. The
lifestyle of the modern gay community is not the issue in this verse.
It is
instead a criticism of male prostitution.
It is
Romans 1:26-27 that is used the most against
homosexuals. Both the term "male
lying with male" and the word "shame" (askemosune) were used by
Philo in this reference to pederasty. One should also note the great
similarity
between this passage and Deuteronomy 23:17. The similarities are simply
too
great to be ignored. Finally there is the reference to "receiving the
punishment". This very well may be a reference to the various venereal
diseases that are common among prostitutes. It was widely known at that
time,
as it is today, that prostitutes were carriers of diseases and that
their
"johns" often became infected. They in turn bring these infections
home to their wives. It is fair to say then that Romans 1:26-27 is
referencing
to pederasty and cult prostitution rather than a modern homosexual
relationship.
The
last passage in the New Testament is 1 Timothy 1:9-10.
The words in question in this passage are "immoral persons" and
"sodomites". These two words in their original Greek are
"pornoi" and "arsenokoitoi". The first word will probably
look familiar because it shares the same root as the modern English
word
"pornography". It is used to mean either male prostitute or a sexual
criminal in general. The second word "arsenkoitoi" as we have seen
means the "john" of a male prostitute. Therefore it only makes since
that this verse is referencing to the practice of male prostitution not
a
modern relationship, homosexual or otherwise.
Slavery and the Bible
At this point I want to stress that while the above analysis is sound there is always a danger whenever we try to analyze the biblical texts. There is always a risk of unintentionally slipping into the trap of Plenary Inerrancy, which is the same historical error made by conservatives over the centuries.
A good example of this danger is to look at how Christians have historically handled the issue of slavery and the bible. In Colossians 3:22 we read, "Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.” This verse was historically used by slave masters to try to force obedience by their slaves. Add to that the many Old Testament passages in support of slavery and which claim that a slave is nothing but property. There were those Christians in the past that refused to call slavery a sin because of these very passages and others that justified slavery using these verses. They used the same logic as those who today who use even the fewer number of passages to condemn gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered.
Conclusion
Those
today that would condemn an entire group of people for
their sexual orientation based on a few passages are as wrong as those
who used
the bible to condone slavery. It's time for the Church to acknowledge
that gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgendered relationships are sanctified by God
just as
heterosexual relationships are.