Throughout my life, I have been taught by my family and my religion to be an open-minded, accepting person with the capacity for empathy and understanding. With that background, With that background, I have never had any difficulty accepting homosexuals as who they are human beings born with a different sexual orientation than me. The difficulty for me has been in understanding the view of those who use the Bible to condemn homosexuals. Ive often heard them rattling off Bible verses call homosexuality an abomination and call for the death of all homosexuals. These verses have always confused me.
I believe strongly that homosexuality is an inborn trait, just as heterosexuality is. So, hearing people use the Bible to condemn homosexuals didnt make sense because the loving God that I believe in would not create people a certain way and then condemn them for being that way. In the literature that I have read on the subject, there seem to be six main bible passages that are utilized by many to condemn homosexuality. The first of these is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18:26-19:29. This passage is probably the most famous instance in scripture where homosexuality seems to be condemned.
In fact, it was in this story that the word sodomy was coined. The story begins with two angels arriving in Sodom and being invited into Lots home as guests for the night. But, before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may know them. Then, Lot went out to speak to the men and offer them his virgin daughters to do with as they pleased, but the men persisted.
So, the angels struck the mob blind and warned Lot to leave the city with his entire family because it was to be destroyed for its wickedness. Taken literally, those against homosexuals exert that this story means that the men of Sodom wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers and that God annihilated the city for that reason. However, for me this passage is not as clear-cut. For one, the mens request to know the strangers does not necessarily mean that they wanted to rape them. There is no really clear understanding of their intent. The verb vadha (to know in Hebrew) is mentioned 943 times in the Old Testament.
But, only 10 times does it refer to sexual intercourse, and then it is referring to heterosexual relations between husband and wife (Homosexuality in the Bible: Interpretation 2). It is very possible that the intent of the crowd was to rape the angels. However, this can be explained by looking at the context of the times. According to a major study of homosexuality in the Greek world, Anthropological data indicates that human societies at this time subjected strangers, newcomers, and trespassers to anal intercourse as a way of reminding them of their subordinate status (Witt 3).
The attempted rape is not necessarily of sexual deviance, but of an arrogant and violent society. The only homosexual practice that this passage could condemn is the practice of male rape as a means of humiliating others (Vasey 125). But, is this a condemnation of homosexuality in general? I dont think so because rape is a far cry from the act of consensual sex, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. Continued study of the Bible also points out that Sodom is referred to throughout the Old Testament as a place of wickedness, but nowhere does it state that homosexuality was the wickedness in question.
Among the sins attributed to Sodom are pride, and in Ezekiel 16:49-50 is proclaims, This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. The only terms in this passage that could pertain to homosexuality are abominable things. But, according to Hebrew dictionaries, the Hebrew word interpreted to mean abominable things is usually associated with idol worship (Witt 2).
Also, in Matthew 10:14-15, Jesus even says that Sodom was destroyed because it was a place that was lacking in hospitality to strangers (Gomes 152). This view seems clearly supported by the Bible passage. The debate about homosexuality in the Bible continues with Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which has become the central battle cry for the anti-gay movement among Christians. Leviticus 18:22 reads, You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 proclaims, If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. Literally, these statements seem to be very definitive in saying that homosexuality is a capital crime punishable by death. But, again it is helpful to look at them in context. These verses are part of the Holiness Code, a comprehensive series of ethical and ritual laws found in Leviticus, that was designed to provide a standard of moral behavior to distinguish the Jews from the Canaanites that they live among (Witt 4).
The code was necessary in order to build the nation of Israel and avoid being absorbed by the people around them. Therefore, the rules in Leviticus were designed in a very particular setting for a specific purpose. They are fundamental laws for the formation of a frontier community in which a cultural identity was forming and procreation would be the key to survival (Gomes 154). The reason that homosexual activities were a threat to cultural identity in that time goes back to abomination. Once again, the Hebrew word for it has a strong connotation of referring to idol worship.
Since the Canaanite culture included fertility rites that were actually various types of sexual intercourse in the temples, any identification with those rites was considered displeasing to God. An abomination is this context is something that the Canaanites do, but that in and of itself is not necessarily evil or an abomination of the Commandments (Gomes 154). Thus, homosexuality is an abomination in Leviticus not because it was inherently evil, but because the Canaanites did it and their pagan practices were to be avoided.
Another interesting aspect to consider is the other rules set forth in the Holiness Code. Other prohibitions in Leviticus forbid husbands from having sex with their wives during menstruation, cattle inbreeding, wearing garments made of two different kinds of material, tattoos, round haircuts, and eating unclean animals. Not only are these prohibitions part of the Holiness Code, they are considered equal to the homosexual prohibitions and thus, deviance from them is also punishable by death (Vasey 126). But, do we ever hear people asserting that these verses should be taken literally?
In order to condemn those who break the homosexual prohibitions, the rest of the rules must be considered and those who deviate from them must be condemned as well. But, before this occurs, there is one more point to make. God realized that these rules were intended for a specific time and place, and that they are no longer needed. In fact, he revoked them long ago in Romans 7:6, which reads, But, we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.
Biblical references that have been said to pertain to homosexuality are also found in the New Testament. The first of these is Romans 1:26-27, For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for the error. This is the only passage in the Bible that mentions sex between two women (Witt 5).
These two verses need to be seen within the context of the whole passage in order to be understood. Pauls central thesis in the passage is that Gods judgment is active in the social processes of society. Humanitys failure to respond to the power and goodness of God, visible in creation, by appropriate worship and thanksgiving results first of all in an intellectual futility that leads on to idolatry. This in turn leads to disordered and destructive sexual desire and then to a social disintegration characterized by greed and violence (Vasey 129). In short, Paul is writing about the fallen nature of humankind.
The proof of this is in Romans 1:24-25, which reads, Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. The two verses following these are the verses in question. When read together, the true meaning of Pauls words begin to emerge. Just as in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, these verses are a denunciation of the idolatrous worship and rituals of the Gentiles.
The condemnation of homosexual practices in the verses refers to the idolatrous sexual practices of the pagan world, which the Jews equate with impurity (Gomes 156). The reason that homosexual practices in the verses were equated with the fall of humankind can be explained by simply looking at the text. In the verses, God is describing the dishonorable passions as women giving up men to be with women and vice versa. This does not describe homosexual lifestyles as we know it. This describes the perversion of heterosexuals performing homosexual acts because that is exchanging what is natural to them for what is unnatural (Gomes 157).
Therefore, the perversion is not necessarily in the act itself, but in the fact that they are turning away from the natural order that God intended for them. Therefore, since most research today confirms that homosexuality, just as heterosexuality, is an inborn trait, the perversion for the homosexual would be to give themselves up to heterosexual sex. The final two verses that are commonly used against homosexuality can be analyzed together because the issue in both cases can be seen as mistranslation of similar terms. I Corinthians 6:9 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 sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. I Timothy 1:9-10 reads, The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. In both of these verses, the issue is the translation of the Hebrew words malakoi and arsenokoitai.
In the verses presented here, these terms have been translated as sexual perverts and sodomites. But, the translations differ in almost every version of the Bible (Witt 7). The truth is that the translators are uncertain about the actual definitions of these words because the words are adjectives used in noun form and do not appear in the form elsewhere in the Bible (Witt 7). So, the only way for the translators to surmise the unknown words meaning is from the context of the sentence, but the list form of the verse does not give itself over to this type of analysis.
One analysis is that malakee is a noun form of the root adjective malakos which literally means soft. In Matthew 11:18, this was used as an adjective to describe clothing. Malakos was also used as a term for general moral weakness, or sometimes as a reference to masturbation. In some writings, malakos came to mean dissolute and abandoned behavior, sometimes with a sexual definition, but never as homosexual (Witt 8). So, of all of the definitions that could be equated with malakoi, none of them have a specifically homosexual meaning or context. This is all the Bible has to say about homosexuality.
And, even in these instances, the Bible does not say anything about the nature of the consensual, marriage-like homosexuality that we find in our culture today. In fact, taken literally, the Bible says nothing at all about homosexuality. The word is not found in one place in the scriptures because it was not coined until 1876, and did not achieve common usage until the 1890s (Gays, Lesbians, and God 1). According to John Boswell, In spite of misleading English translations which may imply the contrary, the word homosexual does not occur in the Bible; no extant text of manuscript, Hebrew, Greek, Syrian, or Aramaic, contains such a word.
In fact none of these languages ever contained a word corresponding to the English homosexual, nor did any language have such a term before the late nineteenth century (qtd. in Gomes 148). Even if one is a biblical literalist, the handful of biblical references that can be translated, often by taking them out of context, in some ways to condemn homosexuality do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. In my eyes, the overarching biblical principles of love, grace, and the goodness of Gods creation speak more about how we should treat our homosexual neighbors than any of the verses discussed here.