The Bible and Homoeroticism

[Soulfyre]

Because of my background, it is inevitable that I explain my understanding of the Biblical view of homoerotic behavior. This is made all the more necessary by current efforts of some Biblical scholars to re-define segments of scripture that traditionally have been understood to refer to homoerotic behavior as referring only to pedophilia, homosexual rape, or male prostitution in pagan temple worship. Others have perhaps been more intellectually honest, and simply concluded that the Bible is in error, or that others are erroneously applying scripture out of the context of its time in history.

Please understand that I don't believe that the Bible particularly singles people who engage in homoerotic behavior out for particular persecution. In fact, the Bible has far more to say about money than about homoerotic behavior. And in the same passage in Romans that decries sexual perversity, such sins as envy, deceit, gossip, slander, arrogance, and disobedience to parents are labeled as worthy of condemnation...and death. It is an unfortunate reality that these sins, being more popularly practiced by many in Christian congregations, are winked at by most people. It is equally scandalous that divorce and abortion occur with the same relative frequency among Christians as non-Christians. I fear that our indignance concerning homosexuality results from its more prurient aspect, and the self-righteousness many wrongly feel that at least they do not involve themselves with such depravity.

I firmly believe that ALL sin "falls short of the glory of God", and is worthy of death. I believe that our willingness to express condemnation should be tempered by Christ Jesus' own warning to "remove first the beam in our own eye." If we all are indeed in the same boat drifting in tempestuous seas, and are each busily drilling holes in the bottom, perhaps we should be more careful deriding others who are drilling holes while we are caught with drills in our own hands. Nevertheless, most do agree, at least superficially, that all sins are worthy of condemnation. Most would agree with defining such behavior as envy, gossip, adultery, deceit, slander...etc., as sinful. But there is disagreement concerning homoerotic behavior, so it is with this issue that I will deal Biblically.

It is important, and, in fact, necessary to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Bible, Old and New Testament (including Jesus), proclaims homoeroticism sinful. And let me define "homoeroticism" (or "homosexuality") as lusting after an individual of the same gender as one's self, or engaging in sexual activity with a person of the same gender as one's self. This avoids niggling about whether acts such as those with which President Clinton engaged Monica Lewinsky would be considered "sexual relationships". I assert that they would (although they would not be referred to as Sodomy: rather, they would be generally be related to the sin of fornication or adultery). Therefore, I will progress through the various texts which have traditionally been taken to refer to homoerotic behavior. [Note: I will not generally be using the more popular terms such as "homosexual", "homosexuality" and "homosexual behavior" because not all behavior by those who self-identify as "homosexual" is sinful. After all, people who self-identify as "homosexual" often love their parents, siblings, partners, children and friends in ways which are not specifically homoerotic. And they engage in many activities as "homosexuals" which are not sexual at all. So such a generalization as "homosexual behavior" is unnecessarily broad and wholly demeaning.]

The most well-known scriptural text is that referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, singled out among the "cities of the plain" in first in Genesis 13 and 14 as the area in which Lot decided to dwell, because of the richness of the land, then later in Genesis 18 and 19, in which God relates to Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me.." (Genesis 18:20). That the wickedness of the Sodom was already proverbial is clear from Genesis 13:13. It is clear from Genesis 18 that Abraham thought the Lord would indeed find conditions as bad as anticipated, and immediately began pleading with God that Sodom and Gomorrah might be spared in order that the righteous might not be swept away with the wicked (Genesis 18:23-33). As you can read from the passage, the Lord agreed not to destroy the city if ten righteous people might be found.

In Genesis 19, when the Lord and his companions (generally taken to be messengers of the Lord, or "angels") entered Sodom, Lot persuaded them to accept the hospitality of his house, rather than spending the night in the public "square" near the gateway to the city, where Lot was sitting, presumably as a city official. Lot and his visitors were followed to Lot's dwelling by "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, both young and old", who surrounded the house and demanded: "Who are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may know [from the Hebrew, "ya'da", compare also Genesis 4:1, in which the NIV translates "ya'da" as "lay with his wife" ] them" (Genesis 19:4-5). Although "ya'da" may simply mean "to know", it is also used specifically of what might be called "intimate" or "carnal knowledge". This passage is correctly rendered by the NIV as, "that we may have sex with them." While some have argued these men were merely demanding, in an official capacity, to investigate these visitors to the city and satisfy themselves as to who they were (sort of the "post 9/11" interpretation), there are many considerations that would mitigate against such a conclusion:

First, Lot identifies what they are requesting as a "wicked thing" (Genesis 19:7, NIV, from the Hebrew "ra", whose meanings can range from "of bad quality" to "unwholesome", "contemptible", "morally depraved", and "evil"--each of which assumes some inherent defect), hardly how one might describe a legal request of the city council. Also, Lot was moved to offer his virgin daughters to satiate the mob (Genesis 19:8). It is unlikely that he was offering to have them "investigated". This response by Lot may seem to us a cruel thing, but such were the commonly accepted laws of hospitality in the Near East, that people extended the hospitality of one's home were to be afforded every protection.

Second, additional evidence may be adduced from Judges 19:20-20:48, a parallel incident of sexual depravity. In Judges, although it was the male guest that was demanded, the home owner offered the guest's concubine instead (unknown to the guest, who was asleep), and the concubine was savagely raped and beaten until dead. I will not go into greater detail concerning the Judges passage, accept to say that its parallel incident argues persuasively for the conventional understanding in Genesis 19:5 of to know as "to have sexual relations with", and that the men, being particularly singled out in this case, indicate that the sexual activity was to be homosexual in nature.

And finally, Sodom and Gomorrah are again referred to by the Old Testament prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 16:44-63. Many make much of verse 49, which says "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: they were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned," alleging that the sin of Sodom was one of pride and inhospitality. Now while one might indeed argue that homosexual rape is indeed inhospitable, one would certainly be arguing from the greater to the lesser. Murder would also be decidedly inhospitable, but one guilty of murder could not rush to the temple and make offerings for their "inhospitality" in expectation of forgiveness. When Cain killed Abel, the Lord did not simply decide to punish Cain for "losing track of his brother." Also, many avoid the next verse (Genesis 16:50), which states that "They [i.e. Sodom and "her daughters"] did detestable things [from the Hebrew "to'evah", meaning "abominable", which is used to describe both ritual and ethical horrors, such as the sacrifice of children or sexual miscreancy] before me." Although Ezekiel doesn't specifically mention homoerotic behavior, the Hebrew certainly indicates more than "inhospitality" was going on.

Leviticus specifically prohibits homoerotic sexual behavior. In Leviticus 18, which deals with unlawful sexual relations, verse 22 states: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." It is instructive that "detestable" again translates the Hebrew, "to'evah", which gives additional support to the assumptions that the passage in Ezekiel was referring to practices in Sodom which would have certainly implied homoerotic behavior. Although many are quick to point out that Leviticus 19 also prohibits planting two types of seed in the same field, mating different kinds of animals, and weaving with two disparate kinds of cloth, these practices are not identified as "detestable", and would likely have been considered practices to emphasize the separateness of Israel from the surrounding culture...even to the point of emphasizing this separateness symbolically by legislating practices which demonstrated any semblance of "syncretism" (hence, one kind of seed, one kind of cloth, one kind of animal). That such practices would not be necessary to the church (in Jesus Christ the dividing line between Jew and Gentile was removed, making of the two a new creation, hence those practices which necessarily differentiated the Jew from the Gentile were not incumbent upon the Gentile) is taught in the New Testament. Notably, other prohibitions and proscriptions within the passage are still considered applicable (Jesus Christ approved of Leviticus 19:18, "Love your neighbor as yourself").

[to be continued...]

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Soulfyre]

Would Jesus have recognized homoerotic behavior as sin? In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus states: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill [from the Greek "plero'o", which would indicate "fill to the brim" or "complete"] them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until all is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (NIV) Jesus did not confront the Pharisees for their adherence to the Law, but for their hypocritical casuistry that allowed them to "strain at gnats and swallow a camel," that is, to appear to meticulously obey the Law while defying the intent of the Law. Jesus certainly seemed to emphasize his support for ALL of the Law (which would, in fact, have included Leviticus).

Often, however, an example is made of the woman caught in the act of adultery (cf. John 7:53-8:11)? Did not Jesus say, "Neither do I condemn you"? Yes, he did. He did not sit in judgment [condemnation] of her. But neither did he express a benign tolerance for her "alternative lifestyle". He judged [determine, in relation to a legal standard] her behavior to be a sin for which he would forgive her, and for which she must repent. He forthrightly told her, "Go, and sin no more." Hence it is clear that Jesus, in forgiving the sinner, condemned the sin. Would he do any less for the person caught in the act of homoeroticism? "...God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:17)

Although there is less confusion and disagreement about what the New Testament epistles of the apostle Paul teach regarding homoerotic behavior, some brief points should be made. Paul's clearest teaching regarding homoerotic behavior is found in Romans 1, in which such activity is viewed as evidence of the "wrath of God being revealed against all the godlessness and wickedness of men you suppress the truth by their wickedness." (Romans 1:18). Humans reject what may be freely known about God, choosing to worship the created rather than the creator. Such willful perversion of thought is rewarded by God through perverse relationships between humans. Men and women each abandon natural attraction for one another, for homosexual lust and sexual perversion. This is described in detail in Romans 1:26-27.

The argument that "natural relations" may describe heterosexual or homoerotic behavior, and that what Paul decries is for a person to exchange their "natural proclivities" (be they heteroerotic or homoerotic) for what is "unnatural to them" is to attempt to relativize an argument Paul clearly means to be specific. Paul declares "...women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflames with lust for one another." (Romans 1:26b-27a). The specificity of the second statement, which further defines the parameters of the term "natural", establishes that Paul is speaking of exchanging the natural [heterosexual] relationship for the unnatural [homosexual]. An interesting word study, which I will not publish here, is Paul's use of the word "natural" in the New Testament. More will be said concerning this issue in my conclusions.

Let me again hasten to emphasize through an excursis that Paul's purpose was not to single out homosexuality as particularly worth the punishment of God in contradistinction to other sins. As in most of Paul's epistles, Paul was writing in Romans to confront a particular problem. This is more evident if one considers the final chapters (chapters 12-16) of the epistle, which indicates "divisions" and "obstacles". Given that Romans contains a carefully reasoned doctrinal treatise concerning the nature of justification by faith, its applicability to both Jew and Gentile, and how Jew and Gentile are to relate in this new creation, one may assume that the divisions may have been produced from a conflict between Jew and Gentile. Paul's reasoning in chapters 1-3 is designed to demonstrate that all, Gentile and Jew alike: "There is no difference, for all [Jews and Gentiles alike] have have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [all, i.e. Jew and Gentile alike] being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:22b-24)

Paul used the most graphic illustration of depravity possible to the recipients of his epistle as a rhetorical device (though not only a rhetorical device) to establish assent (all, Jew and Gentile God-fearer alike, would agree on the depravity of homosexuality, which behavior was more accepted in the Gentile community-at-large), and give impact to his statement, "You therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgment on [condemn] someone else, for at whatever point you pass judgment, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." (Romans 2:1). What "same things"? homoerotic behavior? Not necessarily. Paul listed many results of God's "giving over to a depraved mind", of which homoerotic behavior was only a dramatic illustration. Equal importance was ascribed to envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, insolence, arrogance, boasting, disobedience to parents, faithlessness, ruthlessness, et al. Those who were quick to condemn homoerotic behavior thus found themselves "hoisted on their own petard."

Paul continues by addressing "...you, if you call yourself a Jew..." (Romans 2:17). His argument is simple: insomuch as you, as a Jew, have been guilty of an offense against the Law, to be guilty of one is to be guilty of all. In this he undoubtedly had in mind the same casuistic hypocrisy which Jesus derided among the Pharisees. He concludes his incisive questioning by saying: "As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'" (Romans 2:24) Circumcision has value "if you obey the Law, but if you break the Law, you become as though you had not been circumcised [i.e. a Gentile]." (Romans 2:20). Hence, having "leveled the playing ground", as it were, Paul concludes all alike (Jew and Gentile, regardless of behavior, or relationship to the covenant people) to be "under sin", requiring the same salvation. Further, salvation is not an occasion of boasting, for it cannot be based on what one deserves as a result of living a more or less righteous life (wages for work) or of being identified as a Jew, but on grace by faith Jesus Christ. Much more could be written concerning this, but since this is not an article concerning justification by faith, I shall not do so here.

To return to the topic of homoerotic behavior and the Bible, Paul later addressed homoerotic behavior in his first letter to the Corinthian church. In I Corinthians 6:9b-11, Paul states: "Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral [Greek, "pornoi"] nor idolaters nor adulterers [Greek, "moichoi"] nor male prostitutes [Greek, "malakoi"] nor homosexual offenders [Greek, "arsenokoitai"] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." The Greek words are particularly instructive at this point. The Greek words "porne" and "pornos" (pl. "pornoi") referred respectively to a female and a male prostitute. The Greek considered male sexual activity as "natural, necessary, and as justifiable as eating and drinking," according to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (much the same attitude all too prevalent in our culture today). Husbands were allowed extra-marital intercourse as long as civil marriage was not violated; wives were not allowed such extra-marital dalliances. Such was not the attitude of the church, which considered all sexual activity outside of marriage, by male or female, elicit and sinful. The word "pornoi" came to be used as a more general term for all such sexual misbehavior.

The Greek word "moichoi", however, was very specific, as were "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai". "Moichos" (pl., "moichoi") referred specifically to an adulterer, one whose sexual activity violated existing vows of marriage, of either or both partners. "Malakos" (pl., "malakoi") meant "soft" or "effeminate", and came to be applied to men or boys who allowed themselves to be used as women by other men. It was especially used of male temple prostitutes, or "catamites". It is clear, however, that the word was not restricted to cultic or temple prostitution. "Arsenokoites" (pl., "arsenokoitai") referred to men who assumed the male role (as opposed to the female role) in homoerotic behavior. It is a combination of two Greek roots: "arsen", which refers to the male (as opposed to the female), and "koite", which like its nearly transliterated relative in English, coitus, refers to sexual intercourse. Given Paul's careful selection of words, it should be evident that all forms of sexual interplay between members of the same gender (specifically that of males, although it is clear from Romans 1 that Paul included sexual activity between females) was precluded as sinful.

[to be continued...]

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Soulfyre]

In conclusion, it should be clear that the Biblical prohibition of homoerotic behavior was consistent in both the Old and New Testaments [Note: Two other scriptures in the New Testament often assumed to refer to homosexual activity, I Peter 2:6-7 and Jude 7-8, reference Sodom and Gomorrah, yet do not specify homosexuality specifically]. As referenced before, more must be said concerning the argument that Paul only forbids the "unnatural" as it applies to the specific individual. This, accompanied by physiological data which purports to indicate that sexual preference is a genetic trait that reveals itself in the anatomy of the brain (this has not been proven, as it has only been observed by making observations of the brains of deceased individuals), has been used to argue that homoerotic are as "natural" to the homosexual as heteroerotic impulses are to the heterosexual. Since homoerotic behavior appears in nature as a predictable variant among overpopulated species, it is argued that homosexuality, or homoeroticism, is, indeed, "natural". Since Paul does not use the term "natural" to refer simply to whatever variant occurs in "nature", it would be difficult to force this meaning into his words. Paul uses the word "natural" (Greek, "phusis") as "of or pertaining to the created order" (as when Paul argues that "nature itself teaches us..."). This is not the same as the word translated by "natural" in the KJV, when Paul says that the "natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit" (I Corinthians 2:14). The underlying Greek word here is better translated "soulish", or "non-spiritual".

Nevertheless, the argument of genetic preferences is one not to be taken lightly. If it were to be determined that there is a genetic component to homoeroticism, does that mean that it is unjust to condemn such behavior? Did God, in fact, create the "homosexual"? While I empathize with the depth of feeling many who self-identify as homosexual have regarding their sexual identity, whose orientation, or feeling of "differentness", is often rooted in very early childhood (I also can attest to this), this does not argue for the recognition of homoeroticism as an equally valid lifestyle. Although homosexuality as been removed from the psychological clinical reference material as a designation of psychosexual neuroses, many psychologists consider that this was in deference to an intense lobbying effort by politically active homosexuals and the disputed work of Kinsey, and not as the result of careful scientific deduction. Many still argue that those who self-identify as homosexuals still have greater problems of adjustment, including depression, anxiety, difficult interpersonal relationships than those who self-identify as heterosexual.

Yet this is not, in fact, the point. The Bible recognizes the vast ranging effects of the fall on all of the natural world, and the presence of the "sin nature" (or the "proclivity to sin") from birth. That such a proclivity might in fact be more or less specific in any individual is not improbable. In fact, genetic proclivities to alcoholism, and even emotional outbursts such as anger, exist. Are we then to say that alcoholics who drink, and whose driving in a drunken stupor results in the death of others, should have no responsibility for their behavior? Should people with a proclivity to anger not be prosecuted if, in a blind rage, they commit murder? That way madness lies. The Bible offers a solution to our fallenness, to our inborn sin: the new creation--a spiritual rebirth superintended by the Holy Spirit, through faith in the atoning death and subsequent physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. God can, in fact, change us from our innermost beings. To deny the power of the gospel, the good news in Jesus Christ, to speak to our existential despair and offer us a new life (not merely a recycled old life), is to condemn all of us to a hopeless life "beyond freedom and dignity", of little more than a salivating dog, servant to Pavlov's genetic "bell".

God has changed my life--not overnight (although the basis of change was wrought the moment I believed), but over time. And I have grown in wisdom and understanding, just as a human child, who moves rapidly from cute to messy, through obstreperous and rebellious, to an awkward maturity. I have stumbled often, but God has been my father through all, and in all. As I have admitted my sin before God, God has been faithful and just: he has forgiven me based on the finished work of Jesus Christ, who died, arose, and remains my high-priest and elder brother, and continues to cleanse me from all unrighteousness. I pray that those who read this can know that I do not condemn anyone. But I stand as a poor and thirsty beggar who has been shown the well of living water, and the bread of heaven. In humility and great joy, I am impelled to point other poor and thirsty beggars to the banquet table. I have received freely, and freely I give what I have been given:

"Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (I Corinthians 6:9-11)

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified [i.e. declared "not guility"] freely by his grace through the redemption that came through Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23b-24)

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

"If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord" and believe in your heart the God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified [i.e., declared "not guilty"], and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." (Romans 10:9-10)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:16-17)

Matthew (soulfyre)