Does the Old Testament Prohibit Homosexuality?
The textual pros and cons of the Old Testament prohibition of homosexuality
Facts
The word homosexual does not appear in the Bible, nor in any extant text or manuscript, Hebrew, Greek, Syrian, or Aramaic. In fact, none of these languages ever contained a word equivalent to the English “homosexual,” nor did any language prior to the late 19th century when the word was invented. It does not occur in any English translation of the Bible (not in the King James version, for example) until the Revised Standard Version of 1946.
1. Genesis 1-2 The Creation Story
pro: The Genesis story is about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
con1: Heterosexuality may be the dominant form of sexuality, but it does not follow that it is the only form of appropriate sexuality.
con2: The Genesis story reflects the cultural assumptions of the world in which it was written: woman, for example, was subordinate to man. Modern society rejects that cultural assumption, so why not others?
con3: Because the story does not mention same-sex relations, it cannot be inferred that they are wrong. It does not refer to friendship, but we would not infer that friendship is wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------
2. Genesis 19:1-9 Sodom and Gomorrah, with parallel passages of Judges 19 and Ezekiel 16:46-56 (also see Matthew 10 and Luke 10)
pro: The men of Sodom ask to “know” the visiting men (angels), meaning that they want to engage in homosexual intercourse with them. The city is then destroyed for its wickedness. Thus, homosexuality is wicked (and homosexuals should be destroyed).
con1: The plan to destroy the city for wickedness (of what kind, we are not told) was formed by Yahweh before the angels visit the town. It is destroyed as planned, not because of this request of the men of Sodom.
con2: The verb “to know” may not refer to carnal knowledge, but merely cognitive knowledge—to know whether these angels are indeed angels of death who have come to destroy the city as was God’s plan. Of the 943 times the verb is used in the Old Testament, only ten of those refer to carnal knowledge.
con3: The closest term for homosexuality prior to the nineteenth century was the Latin sodomita which derives from this story about Sodom, but its meanings have varied throughout history. Historian John Boswell reports that sodomy "has connoted in various times and places everything from ordinary heterosexual intercourse in an atypical position to oral sexual contact with animals. At some points in history it has referred almost exclusively to male homosexuality and at other times almost exclusively to heterosexual excess." In the King James version, when the term sodomite is used, it always refers to male prostitutes associated with places of worship who are condemned not for same-sex relations but worship of alien gods.
con4: Of the multiple references to this story elsewhere in the OT and NT, no text claims that homosexuality, as the term is used now, constituted the crime committed in Sodom and Gomorrah. In Ezekiel 16:48-49, Sodom’s sins are described as pride, excess of food, prosperous ease, and not aiding the poor and needy. In Isaiah 1:1-11, we are told that Sodom’s sins are vain sacrifices and general iniquity. Jeremiah 23:14 cites adultery and lies. The apocryphal book Sirach cites arrogance (16:8), and another apocryphal book, Wisdom of Solomon, notes wickedness and inhospitality (10:6-8; 19:13-14). In Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:10-12, Jesus is under the impression that Sodom was destroyed because it was a place lacking hospitality. Jude 1:6-7 (interpreted through the commentary in the pseudepigraphal book, the Testament of Naphtali) cites the desire for unnatural mingling of humans and angels.
con5: In sum, nowhere in the Old Testament or New Testament is the sin of Sodom, which caused its destruction, equated with homosexuals or homosexuality.
----------------------------------------------------------------
3. Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 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.
pro: These statements are clear condemnations of homosexuality.
con1: These statements are clear, but their context and application are not. They are part of the Holiness Code which is designed to provide a standard of moral behavior that will distinguish the Jews from the Canaanites. The price for the promised land is this code of conduct. The sentence for violations is death: death for adultery; death for incest; death for children who curse their parents. Thus, these rules were designed for the purpose of nation building. Other rules included keeping the Sabbath, showing hospitality, forbidding the inbreeding of cattle or the sowing of fields with two kinds of seeds, forbidding the use of garments made of two kinds of material. Fruit trees may not be harvested until the fifth year, and kosher laws must be kept. Round haircuts are forbidden, as are tattoos or consultations with mediums or wizards. A man may not have sexual relations with his wife while she menstruates. Such actions are condemned because they defy purity and weaken the cultural identification of the children of Israel. Thus, we can understand the context: cultural identity, protection, and procreation. In this context, homosexuality is a risk to all three. It resembles the identity of the Canaanites; it threatens their unity as a group and thus their protection from enemies; and it negates the procreation which the new nation desperately needed. Is this context the same as our context? Not at all.
con2: Homosexuality, according to Leviticus, is ritually impure, not intrinsically wrong. When the term abomination is used, it frequently refers to ritual impurity, and that refers to whatever the Gentiles do. Homosexuality, like round haircuts, is an abomination because Gentiles are known for it, not because it is intrinsically wrong.
con3: Paul says he is no longer bound by these rules of the Holiness Code. Both Jesus and Paul are concerned not with ritual purity of which Leviticus speaks, but the purity of heart. For Christians, it is central to the faith that the law cannot provide salvation; only Christ as God’s gift of grace does so.
con4: Christians typically ignore most of the Holiness Code and regard its precepts as irrelevant to the New Testament understanding of purity of heart, and yet many cite the Leviticus prohibitions against homosexuality. Is this selective attention and observance anything more than a prejudice, similar to the prejudice that justified slavery for many Christians in the 19th century?
Facts
The word homosexual does not appear in the Bible, nor in any extant text or manuscript, Hebrew, Greek, Syrian, or Aramaic. In fact, none of these languages ever contained a word equivalent to the English “homosexual,” nor did any language prior to the late 19th century when the word was invented. It does not occur in any English translation of the Bible (not in the King James version, for example) until the Revised Standard Version of 1946.
1. Genesis 1-2 The Creation Story
pro: The Genesis story is about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
con1: Heterosexuality may be the dominant form of sexuality, but it does not follow that it is the only form of appropriate sexuality.
con2: The Genesis story reflects the cultural assumptions of the world in which it was written: woman, for example, was subordinate to man. Modern society rejects that cultural assumption, so why not others?
con3: Because the story does not mention same-sex relations, it cannot be inferred that they are wrong. It does not refer to friendship, but we would not infer that friendship is wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------
2. Genesis 19:1-9 Sodom and Gomorrah, with parallel passages of Judges 19 and Ezekiel 16:46-56 (also see Matthew 10 and Luke 10)
pro: The men of Sodom ask to “know” the visiting men (angels), meaning that they want to engage in homosexual intercourse with them. The city is then destroyed for its wickedness. Thus, homosexuality is wicked (and homosexuals should be destroyed).
con1: The plan to destroy the city for wickedness (of what kind, we are not told) was formed by Yahweh before the angels visit the town. It is destroyed as planned, not because of this request of the men of Sodom.
con2: The verb “to know” may not refer to carnal knowledge, but merely cognitive knowledge—to know whether these angels are indeed angels of death who have come to destroy the city as was God’s plan. Of the 943 times the verb is used in the Old Testament, only ten of those refer to carnal knowledge.
con3: The closest term for homosexuality prior to the nineteenth century was the Latin sodomita which derives from this story about Sodom, but its meanings have varied throughout history. Historian John Boswell reports that sodomy "has connoted in various times and places everything from ordinary heterosexual intercourse in an atypical position to oral sexual contact with animals. At some points in history it has referred almost exclusively to male homosexuality and at other times almost exclusively to heterosexual excess." In the King James version, when the term sodomite is used, it always refers to male prostitutes associated with places of worship who are condemned not for same-sex relations but worship of alien gods.
con4: Of the multiple references to this story elsewhere in the OT and NT, no text claims that homosexuality, as the term is used now, constituted the crime committed in Sodom and Gomorrah. In Ezekiel 16:48-49, Sodom’s sins are described as pride, excess of food, prosperous ease, and not aiding the poor and needy. In Isaiah 1:1-11, we are told that Sodom’s sins are vain sacrifices and general iniquity. Jeremiah 23:14 cites adultery and lies. The apocryphal book Sirach cites arrogance (16:8), and another apocryphal book, Wisdom of Solomon, notes wickedness and inhospitality (10:6-8; 19:13-14). In Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:10-12, Jesus is under the impression that Sodom was destroyed because it was a place lacking hospitality. Jude 1:6-7 (interpreted through the commentary in the pseudepigraphal book, the Testament of Naphtali) cites the desire for unnatural mingling of humans and angels.
con5: In sum, nowhere in the Old Testament or New Testament is the sin of Sodom, which caused its destruction, equated with homosexuals or homosexuality.
----------------------------------------------------------------
3. Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 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.
pro: These statements are clear condemnations of homosexuality.
con1: These statements are clear, but their context and application are not. They are part of the Holiness Code which is designed to provide a standard of moral behavior that will distinguish the Jews from the Canaanites. The price for the promised land is this code of conduct. The sentence for violations is death: death for adultery; death for incest; death for children who curse their parents. Thus, these rules were designed for the purpose of nation building. Other rules included keeping the Sabbath, showing hospitality, forbidding the inbreeding of cattle or the sowing of fields with two kinds of seeds, forbidding the use of garments made of two kinds of material. Fruit trees may not be harvested until the fifth year, and kosher laws must be kept. Round haircuts are forbidden, as are tattoos or consultations with mediums or wizards. A man may not have sexual relations with his wife while she menstruates. Such actions are condemned because they defy purity and weaken the cultural identification of the children of Israel. Thus, we can understand the context: cultural identity, protection, and procreation. In this context, homosexuality is a risk to all three. It resembles the identity of the Canaanites; it threatens their unity as a group and thus their protection from enemies; and it negates the procreation which the new nation desperately needed. Is this context the same as our context? Not at all.
con2: Homosexuality, according to Leviticus, is ritually impure, not intrinsically wrong. When the term abomination is used, it frequently refers to ritual impurity, and that refers to whatever the Gentiles do. Homosexuality, like round haircuts, is an abomination because Gentiles are known for it, not because it is intrinsically wrong.
con3: Paul says he is no longer bound by these rules of the Holiness Code. Both Jesus and Paul are concerned not with ritual purity of which Leviticus speaks, but the purity of heart. For Christians, it is central to the faith that the law cannot provide salvation; only Christ as God’s gift of grace does so.
con4: Christians typically ignore most of the Holiness Code and regard its precepts as irrelevant to the New Testament understanding of purity of heart, and yet many cite the Leviticus prohibitions against homosexuality. Is this selective attention and observance anything more than a prejudice, similar to the prejudice that justified slavery for many Christians in the 19th century?
posted by wk at 2:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home