I might as well start off the new year with a controversial subject – one of the few cases where I will probably present a more liberal perspective than many fellow evangelical Christians generally have. So here goes.
Relative Emphasis
First, it needs to be pointed out that there are, as far as I know, only seven passages in the whole Bible which deal in any way with the matter of homosexual activity. These are: Genesis 19:10; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Judges 19:22-23; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9; and I Timothy 1:10. Of these, the similar narratives of Genesis 19:10 and Judges 19:22-23 do not really speak to the general subject at all since it is obvious that the sin being condemned by the narrator in both cases is two-fold: forcible rape and the violation of all ancient conventions of hospitality, not homosexual activity or orientation per se. That the latter is not the issue is obvious from the fact that in both passages all the male inhabitants of a city (obviously not all by nature homosexuals) are seemingly just as happy to satisfy their sexual lusts on a woman as a man.
As for the other passages, all of them specifically condemn homosexual acts between two males except for Romans 1:26-27, which also mentions relations between two women. But even that lone example may not present an unambiguous condemnation of lesbian sex as a guideline for Christian conduct today, due to the various extenuating factors briefly presented below.
But before getting to those factors, a person may object at this point that lesbianism was hardly mentioned at all in the Bible simply because either (a) it was so rare an occurrence or (b) the authors of the biblical accounts were either too naive or too prudish to mention such an aberration. This last opinion is easy to refute, however, due to the numerous mentions of such sexual practices as rape, fornication, adultery, sex before marriage, bigamy, sex during a woman's period, various degrees of incest in including incestuous rape, male and female prostitution, sex between women and angels, and even bestiality. Concerning the last practice, it is instructive that there are actually four passages condemning sex between humans and animals (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16; and Deuteronomy 27:21). All four are blanket prohibitions, and two of them specifically mention women as the offending parties. So much for a prudish or naive approach to sex!
Problem Areas in Understanding these Passages
Jeffrey Siker's article on “Homosexuality” in Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics, published by the conservative Baker Academic press, is probably of more interest for highlighting the many ambiguous issues it raises concerning this subject rather than any firm conclusions it reaches. Thus, Siker says:
“The place of reason and experience as sources of authority and revelation that both contextualize and relativize understandings of Scripture and tradition on homosexuality has been an issue of much debate and disagreement among ethicists and biblical scholars alike.”
“The interpretive challenge in each text has to do with the translation of Hebrew words from the OT and Greek words from the NT, as well as with the translation of ancient cultures for modern times.”
“Certainly, homosexual rape is condemned [in Genesis 19], but does the passage indicate that all forms of same-sex relations or desires are evil in the sight of God?”
“The difficulty here [i.e. the Leviticus passages given above] is translating cultures, since Leviticus also bars practices such as crossbreeding animals, sowing two kinds of seed in one field, [etc, etc]...Are modern people of faith to pick and choose among the various Levitical prohibitions and punishments? If so, on what basis?”
“...the use of 'homosexual' is problematic because it suggest that the biblical authors had an understanding of homosexuality that parallels our contemporary understanding, resulting in potentially anachronistic readings of Scripture.”
“As best we can tell, Paul would have known about pederasty and prostitution. Does his condemnation of these forms of same-sex relations in the first century indicate a blanket condemnation of all form of same-sex relations in our time with our understanding of human sexuality?”
“What is the authority of Scripture, and how should it be interpreted? To what degree has God created humans with normative and essential standards of sexual ethics that transcend time and space? What role do human experience and reason play in discerning the leading of God's Spirit? Are same-sex relations to be condemned as a violation of God's revealed will, or are they to be celebrated as another expression of God's revealed will for human sexuality?”
“Other questions have to do with whether it is important that Jesus said nothing directly about same-sex relations in any of his recorded teaching...Do the different approaches to marriage sanctioned in the Bible (multiple wives, concubines, levirate marriage) suggest openness to changing understandings of marriage and sexuality?”
“The Bible serves as a key touchstone for this conversation within the church, though its interpretation, relevance, and application in relation to homosexuality remain points of significant contention, especially as interpreters seek to correlate and integrate the biblical witness with other sources of authority – tradition, reason, and experience.”
Cause or Effect?
In approaching this subject more specifically, one thing should be pointed out first. Blanket opponents of any form of homosexual activity generally take the stance that because the participants engage in such activities, God will reject them. But the biblical picture turns this approach on its head.
Knox, for one says that “'God gave them up', because in turning from God they violated their true nature, becoming involved in terrible and destructive perversions.”
“Moral perversion is the result f God's wrath, not the reason for it.” (Kasemann)
“In this passage sexual perversion is seen as a result of (and to that extent as a judgment on) man's sin in worshiping the creature rather than the creator. Because he has put something else in the place which can only properly belong to God, man's natural relationships have become perverted.” (Colin Brown)
D.F. Wright: “In the context Paul is portraying the moral disorder that accompanies the rejection of the knowledge of God in the pagan world.”
And L.C. Allen adds, “Because they exchanged the real God for false gods, by way of temporary punishment they exchanged natural sexual intercourse for homosexuality...The price they paid for rejecting God was to become moral rejects...”
Fitzmyer explains that “the condition of pagan humanity results from the moral degradation to which their idolatry has brought them: to the craving of their hearts for impurity
Thus, attempting to extend Paul's words beyond the pagan environment he saw around him and applying it wholesale to all same-sex relationships today causes a problem in understanding the many men and women who were raised in a Christian environment and are dedicated believers yet continue to wrestle with their feelings of homosexual attraction. For those people, it is illogical to state that they are the way they are because God is punishing them for rejecting Him in the first place.
The Purpose of Sex
Other commentators approach this question from the viewpoint that sexual differentiation was put in place by God in the first place for only one reason only – procreation. That explains the various permitted forms of sexual couplings approved in Old Testament times but viewed as sinful today. These include practices such as levirate marriage, bigamy, and having multiple concubines. Therefore, any form of sexual activity which does not have the possibility of resulting in pregnancy is sinful. The Roman Catholic Church, of course, has held to this view more or less strongly over the years and used it to condemn birth control methods.
So we have D.F. Wright explain: “The broader context of his [Paul's] teaching on sexuality supports the view that he saw same-sex activity as so self-evidently contrary to God's creative purpose as to allow of such brief – but eloquent mention.”
This view is becoming much rarer nowadays, and it should be admitted that even Paul admits that another reason for sex is the pleasure it produces in both parties. Thus, any abstention from sexual activity within a marriage should only be for a season.
Another factor to take into account is that even if populating the earth was the original purpose for sex, that hardly applies today in an already over-populated world with competition for its limited resources.
Natural vs. Unnatural
Elliott: “Paul's Jewish contemporaries criticized a range of sexual behaviors common in the pagan world. Although widely read later as a reference to homosexuality, the language of unnatural intercourse was more often used in Paul's day not to denote the orientation of sexual desire, but its immoderate indulgence, which was believed to weaken the body ('the due penalty').” If true, this would explain the words 'lust' and 'passions' in Romans 1:26-27.
P.J. Tomson alternatively says that “the majority of commentators on Romans have understood the female vice which Paul refers [as lesbian conduct]. A few, however, have interpreted it as 'unnatural' intercourse of women with men.”
This alternative explanation is critiqued by Whitmore, who says that “contemporary homosexuals insist that these verses mean that it is perverse for a heterosexual male or female to engage in homosexual relations but it is not perverse for a homosexual male or female to do so since homosexuality is such a person's natural preference. This is strained exegesis unsupported by the Bible. The only natural sexual relationship the Bible recognizes is a heterosexual one (Gen. 2:21-24; Matt. 19:4-6) within marriage.
Despite Whitmore's opinion, there is no denying that the Bible's most detailed and damning narratives concerning homosexual lust (in Genesis and Judges) involve whole cities whose male populations were obviously predominantly heterosexual by nature, unless human nature has changed drastically since that time. And the same could certainly be said regarding the pagan Gentile populations Paul is criticizing.
A minority opinion on this subject is held by Brooten, who states that “Paul sees same-sex sexual relations as transgressions of hierarchical gender boundaries. For example, 'unnatural' (Rom. 1.26) most likely refers to the women's attempt to transcend the passive, subordinate role accorded to them by nature.”
“Unfortunately, Paul uses homosexuality – a common Jewish complaint against Gentiles – as an illustration of the inversion of society. In this he follows the traditional Jewish understanding of heterosexuality as normative.” (Tamez) As one example, “Josephus mentions that 'the law [of Moses] knows no sexual connection but the natural intercourse with a wife, and that only for the procreation of children.'” (Fitzmyer)
Thus, you can see that there is little agreement among commentators as to what is natural and what is unnatural. After all, Paul stated elsewhere (I Corinthians 11:14) that nature itself teaches that men should wear their hair shorter than women, a comment that has puzzled Bible scholars up to today. Fitzmyer concludes that in “this instance, physis hardly refers to the natural order of things, but to social convention...Yet what is meant there has little relevance for this context in Romans...Only modern eisegesis could read these words of Paul and understand them as referring to female contraception.”
Orientation vs. Action
Wright states, “A distinction between persons of heterosexual and homosexual orientation was almost certainly unknown to him [i.e. Paul].”
Hendricksen points out that “A person's sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not the point at issue. What matters is what a person does with his sexuality!”
“Certainly, in terms of imagery, the Bible does not have the category 'homosexuality,' but rather 'homosexual behavior' or 'homosexual acts.' In fact, homosexuality as an 'identity' is arguably a modern construction.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)
Church's View of the Seriousness of the Behavior
Brauch's view of conditions in the ancient world of Paul may not be strictly accurate (I am no historian), but his comments bear repeating: “Most men married out of duty to their family if for no other reason. The church had only one instruction to such men and women: Your wife or husband is to be your exclusive sexual focus. Satisfy one another. There is no option of a homosexual relationship on the side. For the few who were not married the church had two options: remain celibate or marry...By stressing these two positive options (rather ranting against homosexuality) the early church appears to have had little problem with the practice of homosexuality, despite its being in the world around them.”
D.F. Wright states, “Paul does not single out same-sex intercourse as specially perverted or monstrous. He lists it alongside theft, drunkenness and perjury, as well as adultery and murder. The paucity of Paul's references is inconsistent with its being incomparably execrable, but this fact does not imply its relative unimportance.”
We could point to other sins equally condemned in Romans 1:27-32, such as libel, slander, arrogance, and lack of pity for others. This should serve as a reminder that those Christians who so vehemently want to stamp out all deviant sexual practices and deny that there is any such thing as a naturally homosexual orientation may find themselves committing even more heinous sins in the process.
One could even make the case that though Paul leads off this series of transgressions with sexual sins, the penalty stated for them is merely one in their bodies. By contrast, the “spiritual sins” listed next are actually said to disqualify a person from entrance into heaven.
But despite that fact, the good news for all of us is that because of the work of Christ, there is no final condemnation for those who accept it. (Rom 8:1)
Posts
