|
|
|
that passed between a Christian and his friend who embraced a lifestyle of sodomy. No names are used in these articles. As far as discussing the specifics of the Bible I know them. The specific passages most commonly used by "Christians" to condemn homosexuals and support their prejudice and fear are listed below. The problem with this is that the passages are taken individually without reviewing the context in which they are being written. Almost any viewpoint can be supported by selectively choosing passages out of context. To each passage I respond thus: 1. Genesis 19:1-5 (KJV) "And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."
2. Leviticus 18:22 (KJV) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 3. Leviticus 20:13 (KJV) "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
This attitude isn't new. Early Christians didn't want to let go of their "Laws" and were especially keen to enforce them on the Gentiles whom they considered an abomination (sound familiar?). It was Paul who pointed out that if any one tries to follow Levitical Law or enforce the Law upon others. God will hold us accountable for following each and every one of the Laws - - no exceptions (Gal. 5:1-6). If that were to happen then you would have to put your children to death for cursing or disobeying you, or kill someone for reading their horoscope. You could have as many wives as you wanted and if any of them cheated, they would have to be stoned to death. My point is this — "law" has no more bearing than all of the laws that are conveniently "left out" when using these passages to support the point of view that homosexuals are an abomination. I also don't want to discount the intent behind such laws either. The intent of Levitical laws was to promote holiness, respect, family, and health. All four tenets are as valid in today's society as they were when the Levitical laws were written. Jesus responds to the nature of these laws in Matthew 22:34-40 ESV in which he replies to the question "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" Jesus replies: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." 4. Deuteronomy. 23:17 (KJV) "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
LB: (Living Bible): "No prostitutes are permitted in Israel, either men or women." NIV: (New International Version) "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute." NLT: (New Living Translation): "No Israelite man or woman may ever become a temple prostitute." RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "There shall be no cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a cult prostitute of the sons of Israel." 5. 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 (NAS) "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 6. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJ) "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."
In an an article by Paul R. Johnson for "Second Stone" magazine titled "A New Look at Arsenokoitais" (1994 January/February issue) he wrote, "The Greek compound term arseno-koitais literally means 'the male who has many beds.' The word arsen means 'male', the adjective "o" means 'the', and the term koitais is defined as 'many beds.' Thus, the entire phrase means a male with multiple bed-partners; a promiscuous man. Everywhere that the word koitais is used in the plural in the Bible denotes promiscuity. However, when the same word is used in the singular form, the Bible gives approval because the singular denotes monogamy." The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai." Although often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paid-erasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. Thus common sense would conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior and more likely towards promiscuity or selfish behavior (like that of the sodomites.) 7. Romans 1:21-31 (NAS)(excerpt) "...For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error..."
So what is natural? This perhaps is the crux for anyone questioning whether or not homosexuality is a choice. So let's look at Paul's use of the Greek phrase "Para physin" which in this case is translated (perhaps with bias) as "unnatural." But when used elsewhere in the Bible it is translated as "unconventional." In First Corinthians 11:14, Paul uses the phrase to refer to long hair on men as unusual and not ordinary. In Romans 11:24, Paul used it to describe God's positive actions to bring Jews and Gentiles together. My point being, the term natural is subject to the inclination of the translator or even the person reading, however who is to say what is natural to God? We exist don't we. What is "natural" to me is not to you and vice versa. So how is that homosexuals have existed throughout time and exist in nature everywhere. It can only 'be' because homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon in nature, affecting every species including humans. For some reason, in God's magnificent plan of creation, He has planned us to be this way. "As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God the Maker of all things" (Eccl. 11:5 NIV). In closing, I did not take offense to any of your comments but I had to exercise my right to take exception. I also hope that you know that I am not taking aim at you and meant no offense in my response. I do still consider you a dear friend that I love, as I always have. You, as well, will always be welcome. I admit that your letter forced me to study intensely what the passages you listed teach, and I like to think I did so with an open mind by considering that you may have been correct. 1. Genesis 19:1-5
Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words by Vine, Unger and White lists several definitions for the English word "know" and its variations, but "rape" isn't one of them. According to page 130 of Vine, et al., "The 'knower' has actual involvement with or in the object of the knowing. In Gen. 4:1 Adam's knowing ["yada,"] Eve also refers to direct contact with her in a sexual relationship." The context of the passage you cite does not warrant translating "yada" as "rape." "Yada" is used in the context of rape in Judges 19:25. "But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." But the word "alal", translated "abused," clarifies that rape is discussed. No such clarification exists in Genesis 19:5, and the context doesn't demand rape. According to page 394 of The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, "yada" may involve sexual intercourse, but rape is not implied. That's why "alal" was added in the Judges passage. Passages in which rape is discussed:
2 Samuel 13:14, 22 — Rape is also discussed using the English word "forced" which is translated from "anah." Lamentations 5:11 — Rape is referred to as "ravished," also translated from "anah." Isaiah 13:16; Zechariah 14:2 — Rape is also referred to as "ravished," though translated from "shagal." If rape was the sin under consideration in Genesis 19:5, any of these three words above could have been used. Or "alal" could have been added to explain the non-consensual nature of "yada," but it wasn't. 2. Leviticus 18:22; 20:13
You seem to concede that God condemned homosexuality under the Law of Moses, but you maintain that the prohibition isn't applicable under Christ's covenant. Is this correct? Question: If you do concede that homosexuality was condemned under the Law of Moses, how could God make certain people that way, and then condemn them for it? That would make Him arbitrary and cruel. Though the Law of Moses isn't applicable today, couldn't this be a lesson for us regarding God's view of homosexuality? God's moral law preceded and succeeded the Law of Moses. An example is God's prohibition of murder in Genesis 9:6 before the Law of Moses was given and in force. It was wrong to murder before the Law of Moses, and it's still wrong after the Law of Moses. Both Leviticus passages refer to homosexuality as "abomination." According to Ezekiel 16:50 — a passage you cited — Sodom was destroyed for "abominable offense." 3. Deuteronomy 23:17
4. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:9-1
The same lexicon gives the following definition for the Greek word "arsenokoites": "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite." The emphasis is on what is forbidden is any sexual activity between males. The context indicates "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV)/"homosexuals" (NAS) isn't dealing with promiscuity. Paul has already addressed "fornication" — general sexual sin — and "adultery" — sex with someone besides your spouse. The next two terms/phrases deal with a different class of sexual sin — homosexual sin. 5. Romans 1:21-31
Regardless of what "natural" means, what is condemned in Romans 1:26-27 is men leaving women for men and women leaving men for women. Obviously homosexuality is under consideration. What is "natural"? The word in these two verses is defined by Thayer as "agreeable to nature." The context indicates it is natural for men and women to share a marital/sexual relationship. It doesn't indicate that what is natural for one person isn't for another, and what is sinful is not being true to yourself. Look at the context — men leaving women for the same sex and vice versa is under consideration and condemned. God made man, then made woman for him. The man and woman are to come together and "be one flesh." Man and man are not. The same is true for woman and woman. Considering this is the only way for the species to continue — the compatibility of the male and female reproductive organs illustrates this — it's what God designed as natural. This is why Jesus gave His divine stamp of approval to this (male and female) marriage arrangement as God instituted it (Matthew 19:4-6). Nowhere in the Bible is divine approval given to homosexuality, to two women or two men becoming "one flesh" — it's always and only a man and a woman. We don't read of any homosexual Christians in the New Testament. It's never spoken of as an acceptable lifestyle, and there are no examples in the Bible of homosexuals acceptably serving God. Paul addresses the husband-wife relationship in Ephesians 5:22-23 and Colossians 3:18-19. Homosexuals existed, so why isn't the husband-husband or wife-wife relationship ever addressed, if God approves of homosexuality? Children are commanded to obey their parents in the New Testament. Paul even references the 5th commandment to honor father and mother (Eph. 6:1-2). Marriage and the family all revolve around man and woman coming together. That's God's plan. That's what's natural. Men turning to men and women turning to women for the marital/sexual relationship is not. Conclusion I would like to get back to your assertion that the Bible is fallible. If it is, why go to the pains to exegete passages of the book to make your case? If it's errant, why bother? Which parts of the Bible are true, and which are false? Could it be that you've attempted to harmonize God's word with the lifestyle you've chosen? To do so takes some extreme contorting of passages to make them mean, or not mean, what you wish. You are interpreting passages from the viewpoint that God created you as a homosexual, so He must approve of the lifestyle. But set aside the issue of whether you were born a homosexual and consider this: Is it possible, just possible, that you've chosen this lifestyle? Is it even possible that psychological and emotional factors played a role in the emergence of this form of sexuality? If you grant the intellectually honest position and concede just the possibility that homosexuality is a choice and not the result of genetics, the biblical evidence opposing homosexuality appears strong and clear. Again, I hope you receive this in the spirit in which it is intended. I have your best spiritual interest at heart. Note: The friend never replied following the Christian's response. |