References on Homosexuality and the Bible ***************** **** Part I: **** **** GENESIS **** ***************** Taken from Is the Homosexual my Neighbor, by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott (pp 54-59): ...the men of Sodom could not have been exclusively homosexual in their orientation in the sense that the term is used today. Quite likely, they were primarily heterosexual, out for novelty, and seeking to humiliate the strangers... Every last one of the city's males is said to have taken part in this attempted gang rape! Sodom certainly was not a 'gay city'... Rape is not so much a sexual act as it is an act of violence. In.. rape... the emphasis is on displaying force and demonstrating power over someone who is perceived as weak and vulnerable... Among some ancient peoples, it was not unusual to flaunt one's triumph over enemies by treating them with the greatest possible contempt. Such contempt was demonstrated by forcing captive men to 'take the part of a woman' and be passive recipients in anal intercourse... If the modern prison's version of a gang rape was in the minds of the men of Sodom, it is understandable that they did not accept Lot's offer of his daughters. Women already had a low place in the society of Sodom... Humiliating actual women would not have provided the sense of conquest they had anticipated in degrading the male strangers and 'dragging them down' to the level of women... In the ancient Middle East, writes John McKenzie, 'that the woman should be sacrificed for the man was simply taken for granted.' No wonder that a man would dread the disgrace and punishment of being treated 'like a woman,' which is what male gang rape signified. ...rather than concentrating on homosexuality, the Sodom story seems to be focusing on two specific evils: (1) violent gang rape and (2) inhospitality to the stranger. Surely, none of us would be prepared to say that if the men of Sodom had accepted the offer of Lot's daughters... then God would have withheld judgement... Violence... is the real part of this story. To put it another way: even if the angels had taken on the form of women in their earthly visitation, the desire of the men of Sodom to rape them would have been every bit as evil in the sight of God... Concerning the inhospitality described in the Sodom story, John McNeil reminds Christians of the irony that no group has been treated less hospitably by the church than the homosexual community, and that the biblical passage used to justify such treatment has been the very one that condemns uncharitable behavior. 'In the name of a mistaken understanding of the true crime of Sodom and Gomorrah, the true crime of Sodom and Gomorrah has been and continues to be repeated every day,' argues McNeil. To underscore the sin of inhospitality in Sodom, he reminds us of Jesus' words to his disciples in Luke 10:10-13: 'When you enter a town and they do not make you welcome... I tell you it will be more bearable for Sodom on the great Day than for that town.' This brings us to a second factor to keep in mind whine examining the story of Sodom: the Bible is its own best commentary on many issues. And the Bible provides explanations for Sodom's destruction that have nothing at all to do with homosexuality. In the first chapter of Isaiah, the nation of Judah is rebuked through a comparison with Sodom and Gomorrah. The specific sins mentioned are greed, rebellion against God, empty religious ritual without true devotion to God, failure to plead the cause of orphans and widows, failure to pursue justice, and failure to champion the oppressed. There is no mention of homosexuality... In the New Testament... Jesus refers to Sodom, not in the context of sexual acts, but in the context of inhospitality (Luke 10:10) Jude 7 does refer to the sexual sins of Sodom: 'The committed fornication and followed unnatural lusts.' The emphasis here is on heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage (fornication) and on 'going after alien or other or strange flesh,' as the original Greek reads in literal translation. These 'unnatural lusts' thus could, in this context, and in view of the apocryphal texts to which Jude made an allusion, refer to a desire for sexual contact between human and heavenly beings. The Jerusalem Bible footnote for Jude 7 reads 'They lusted not after human beings, but after the strangers who were angels.' If, then, we decide to follow the time-honored principles of allowing the Bible to provide its own commentary and of interpreting cloudy passages in the light of clearer ones, we are forced to admit that the Sodom story says nothing at all about the homosexual condition. The only real application to homosexuals would have to be a general one: homosexuals, like everybody else, should show hospitality to strangers, should deal justly with the poor and vulnerable, and should not force their sexual attentions upon those unwilling to receive them. And, according to 'The New Testament and Homosexuality', by Robin Scroggs (p 73): Any claim.... that the story [of Sodom] is a blanket condemnation of homosexuality in general is unjustified. The attempt on the bodies of the guests is but an example of the general evil, which has already caught God's attention. It is, furthermore, an attempt at rape. The most that can be said is that the story judges... rape to be evil and worthy of condemnation. Scholars have noted that virtually none of the other references to this story in the Hebrew Bible (unless it is that of the Levite and his concubine) explicitly interpret the sin as sexual... later Biblical authors thus had no apparent interest in the homosexual dimension of this story. ******************* **** Part II **** **** LEVITICUS **** ******************* According to "The New Testament and Homosexuality", by Robin Scroggs (pp 72-73): "The prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 is terse: 'With a male you shall not lie (shakov) the lyings of a woman; it is an abomination' (au. trans). The awkwardness of the sentence is caused by the fact that there is no technical term for homosexuality in Hebrew. Nevertheless the meaning is clear. 'Shakov' is frequently used to denote sexual intercourse; thus, the sentence is a general prohibition of male homosexuality. "Two things must be noted. The first is that female homo- sexuality is not prohibited. The second is the wording of the verse... There is more to note than the lack of a technical term and the use of a euphemism (shakov) for intercourse. What is crucial is that the general word for 'male' is used, without any qualification of age. This lack of qualification will determine the language of all future Jewish discussions, no matter what forms of homosexuality are being attacked... "Leviticus 20 gives... penalties... The penalty for male homosexuality is death [Lev 20:13]... Male homosexuality is but one of several crimes listed as punishable by death in this chapter; that is, it is not singled out as a uniquely henious sin... "These two verses are the only legal traditions about homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible... no other biblical passage refers to this prohibition... All that can be said is that late in Israelite history a single law appears... prohibiting male homosexuality. No rationale is given for its appearance as an 'abomination.' One might conjecture that originally it was linked to pagan religious culture or with the thwarting of the intended use of semen for purposes of procreation, but it is probably best not to speculate..." And, according to "Is the Homosexual my Neighbor," by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott (pp 60-61): "...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..." ************************************************* **** Part III: **** **** I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 and I TIMOTHY 1:10 **** ************************************************* I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 reads: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. I placed two words in brackets. The first one, "malakoi", Scroggs (p. 14) says "literally means 'soft' and is no technical term for a homosexual." It apparently refers to young boys who would take the "recepient" position in anal sex, often for money. It's also translated in some Bibles as "morally weak". "Aresenokoitai", on the other hand, is clearly a sexual term but, according to Scroggs: Since... the New Testament occurrences are the earliest appearances of the word, it is not easy for us to be sure what it means. John Boswell in his recent study denies that it refers to a homosexual person in general but rather specifically to the male prostitute who could serve heterosexual or homosexual clients. At any rate, the sin is prostitution, not homosexuality in itself. (p. 14) These words are the words used both in Corinthians and in I Timothy 1:10 which are commonly translated into modern bibles as "homosexual", "effeminate," and "self-indulgent." In these enlightened times, however, there is no indication that such terms are in any way connected to homosexuality in itself. In fact, according to "Is the Homosexual my Neighbor," by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott: the idea of a lifelong homosexual orientation or "condition" is never mentioned in the Bible... Bible writers assumed that everyone was heterosexual and that in times of moral decay, some heterosexuals peopled did some strange and unnatural things with each other. Since the Bible is silent about the homosexual condition, those who want to understand it must rely on the findings of modern behavorial science research... (p. 71) In summary, despite common interpretations of the words "malakoi" and "aresenokoitai" in modern times, there is no clear evidence which links them unquestionably to homosexuality in itself. Instead, in every case in which they are used, there is an implied connection with either prostitution or child molestation. Modern research shows us, however, that such connections are fallacious. There is no research which clearly demonstrates that there is any correlation between homosexuality and the "sins" referenced alongside it in Corinthians and Timothy. ************************ **** Part IV: **** **** ROMANS 1:26-27 **** ************************ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for ther perversion. --Romans I:26-27 (NIV) This is a common passige cited to demonstrate that homosexuality is "wrong" and "unnatural." Such an assumption however, fails to take into account the fact that there are many homosexual Christians who are often monagamous. According to "Is the Homosexual My Neighbor," by Scanzoni & Ramey: The key thoughts seem to be lust, "unnaturalness," and, in verse 28, a desire to avoid acknowledgement of God.... although the censure fits the idolatrous people with whom Paul was concerned here, it does not seem to fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian. Such a person loves Jesus Christ, and wants above all to acknowledge God in all of life, yet for some unknown reason feels drawn to someone of the same sex, for the sake of love rather than lust. Is it fair to describe that person as lustful or desirous of forgetting God's existence? (p. 62) Romans does not discuss love-- it simply speaks of lust, as if it is all that homosexuals are capable of. This, simply, is not true. According to John McNeill, in "The Church and the Homosexual": If a Catholic homosexual confessed occasional promiscuity, he could receive absolution and be allowed to receive communion in good conscience. If, however, he had entered into a genuine permanent love relationship, he would be judged in "a state of sin," and unless he expressed a willingness to break off that relationship, he would be denied absolution. (p. 169) By taking such a stance, the Catholic Church practically encourages promscuity for homosexuals. Healthy monagamous relationships are treated as somehow "worse" than a series of one night stands. As far as the notion that this verse informs us that homosexuality is "pure lust," Robin Scroggs writes, in "The New Testament and Homosexuality": ...Paul thinks of pedastry, and perhaps the more degraded forms of it, when he is attacking homosexuality... Perhaps it was those particular conditions he had heard of that made him consider homosexuality unnatural, rather than some overarching abstract theological conviction.... Another point to note is that a common practice of Paul's time by non-Christians involved temple orgies in which sexual acts were performed with many people. It's quite possible that the act he has described here was one such orgy. Notice the sins involved in this that are not inextricably connected with homosexuality: Orgies, sex in a temple, turning away from one's nature and lust. These are what Paul is condemning. Possibly because he's never known of cases of homosexuality which did not include such sins he didn't choose to separate them. Possibly, he simply did not have the knowledge that we now have of what homosexuality is. Also, he possibly did not have the insight or experience to know that there are people on this earth for whom homosexuality is natural and that it can exist in a monagamous, loving relationship. For whatever reason, however, it is clear that when Paul spoke of what we often interpret to mean homosexuality, we are not referring to the same thing. In Paul's time there were no clear exaples of monagamous relationships between gay men. There were no cases of devout Christians who were also gay. Today, however, we know better. There are gay men who form covenants with one another and have every bit as much of a commitment to one another as any legally married couple. There are lesbian women who have chosen a parter for life who happens to be female. Whether we approve of this or not, it is a reality and Christians around the world will be forced to recognize that the answers given in the Bible are not so clear as they were once thought to be. CREDITS: ~~~~~~~ Received: from JNET-DAEMON by RITVAX; Mon, 12 Mar 90 22:13 EST Received: From UBVM(MAILER) by RITVAXD with Jnet id 2138 for GLP5491@RITVAX; Mon, 12 Mar 90 22:13 EST Received: by UBVM (Mailer R2.05) id 6699; Mon, 12 Mar 90 22:08:36 EST Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1990 21:01:30 EST From: Bill Sklar <86730@LAWRENCE.BITNET> Subject: References on Homosexuality and the Bible To: Greg Pratt Message-id: X-Envelope-to: GLP5491