Post by Soulfyre on Dec 17, 2004 2:37:37 GMT -5
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)
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)