I want to focus attention in the next two weeks on the three Old Testament passages that are sometimes claimed as evidence that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible. The word “sodomy” got its name from Genesis 19, when the men and boys of Sodom demanded the right to rape Lot’s (male) guests. The story ends with God protecting them, and then later in the chapter we learn that Sodom was intentionally destroyed “because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord” (v. 13)
It might seem, then, that Sodom was punished for the crime of homosexuality, but that is a disastrous interpretation. First, it is important to note that the reason given in Genesis 19 is not specific (“the outcry”) – the punishment could still be for a lot of different things. It is not until Ezekiel 49 that we learn what the biggest problem in Sodom was – its economic inequality and arrogance (see Feb post).
But still, doesn’t the actual story of Lot’s guests imply that homosexuality was at fault? After all, he offered up his daughters instead (and I hope very bad things happened to Lot because of that action). But Lot actually does state specifically what the problem is with the attempted gang rape, as he sees it: “Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under my roof”. The “for” there is meant as a justification for his statement. That is, he says, “Don’t rape those men”, and then he gives the reason: “for they have come under my roof”. The expanded sentence would read: “Don’t rape these guests of mine, and the reason that you shouldn’t rape them is because they have come under my roof”.
But this seems weird – how could the value of hospitality be more important than, say, having his daughters raped? Well, I don’t know, but I think it’s fair to say that values have changed (thankfully) over the last few millennia. In any event, Lot is worried about the potential rapes because they are guests, not because they are men, and that is exactly what he says.
4.24.2007
4.17.2007
Romans 1, Part VI
It was previously shown that Romans a could not be referring to homosexuals in general, for that would commit us to the absurd positions that a) all manifestations of homosexuality and same-sex behavior are punishment for the sin of literal idol worship, and b) all homosexuals are guilty of hating God, disobeying parents, and 20 other nasty character qualities. Anyone with the least bit of seriousness in their thought-life knows that both a & b are false. On the other hand, if we assume that Paul is speaking of the Aphrodite-worshipping Corinthians, this passage makes perfect sense (see February 16 post).
But one question still remains – despite the context of the passage, it seems that Paul goes on to condemn all homosexuality and same-sex activity in vv. 26-27. Perhaps it was not his intended target, but he does seemingly call same-sex lust “shameful”, “unnatural”, and “indecent”. Doesn’t this amount to a condemnation of homosexuality?
The answer is “no”, and the reason is that despite appearances, vv. 26-27 simply cannot be lifted out of their proper context. The question is, why are the activities and dispositions given in those verses wrong? Are they wrong because they are homosexual, or are they wrong because they are unnatural? This doesn’t seem like much of a difference, perhaps, but it makes all the difference in the world. If we have read the passage thus far as if Paul intended to condemn all homosexuality, then vv. 26-27 seem to be merely more of the same. But if we think that the perverted Corinthian worshippers are the object of wrath here, then we must wonder what is being condemned. Could it not be that they are doing some actions which are against their own nature, and hence are indecent and shameful? These actions are indeed homosexual, but only incidentally so. That is, the homosexual aspect of them is not what is being condemned. The problem with that particular manifestation of homosexual activity, then, is not that it is homosexual activity, but that it is a violation of their own nature that God had given them. That is, their homosexuality is not condemned as homosexuality, but as an unnatural act.
This amounts to asserting that some forms of homosexuality are indeed “natural”. This opens up an argument, because some conservatives still insist that homosexuality is not the result of nature but of a voluntary choice made on the part of the homosexual. I consider this position to be formed without enough experience (i.e. homophobic), but for the incredulous conservative, I will offer another piece of evidence.
In the back of the mind of the conservative, the idea that God would not make anyone homosexual in nature or disposition is motivated by the desire to “rescue” God from wrong-doing. That is, being gay is just so horrible as it seems to the conservative, that God could not possibly be guilty of creating someone with this disposition. It must be that the individual chose his or her own fate. But that just doesn’t square with the facts. We know that there are “intersex” individuals, sometimes called “hermaphrodites”, born with both sets of genitalia. By some counts, there are 50,00 of these individuals in the U.S alone. Even though we must admit that this is not the ideal of nature, we must also acknowledge that this just happens sometimes, and that it is not any one person’s fault. We must let go of this notion that nature only produces males with a masculine nature and desires and females with a feminine nature and desires. This position is not grounded in Scripture, and it is not true.
In summary, I am claiming that a reading of Romans 1:26-27 without any pre-formed assumptions is that the homosexual activity of these people is condemned as “unnatural”, indecent”, and “shameful” because they all had heterosexual natures, and flipped genders in order to engage is these orgy worship services. But this condemnation says nothing about homosexuals who did not choose or create their own homosexual disposition.
But one question still remains – despite the context of the passage, it seems that Paul goes on to condemn all homosexuality and same-sex activity in vv. 26-27. Perhaps it was not his intended target, but he does seemingly call same-sex lust “shameful”, “unnatural”, and “indecent”. Doesn’t this amount to a condemnation of homosexuality?
The answer is “no”, and the reason is that despite appearances, vv. 26-27 simply cannot be lifted out of their proper context. The question is, why are the activities and dispositions given in those verses wrong? Are they wrong because they are homosexual, or are they wrong because they are unnatural? This doesn’t seem like much of a difference, perhaps, but it makes all the difference in the world. If we have read the passage thus far as if Paul intended to condemn all homosexuality, then vv. 26-27 seem to be merely more of the same. But if we think that the perverted Corinthian worshippers are the object of wrath here, then we must wonder what is being condemned. Could it not be that they are doing some actions which are against their own nature, and hence are indecent and shameful? These actions are indeed homosexual, but only incidentally so. That is, the homosexual aspect of them is not what is being condemned. The problem with that particular manifestation of homosexual activity, then, is not that it is homosexual activity, but that it is a violation of their own nature that God had given them. That is, their homosexuality is not condemned as homosexuality, but as an unnatural act.
This amounts to asserting that some forms of homosexuality are indeed “natural”. This opens up an argument, because some conservatives still insist that homosexuality is not the result of nature but of a voluntary choice made on the part of the homosexual. I consider this position to be formed without enough experience (i.e. homophobic), but for the incredulous conservative, I will offer another piece of evidence.
In the back of the mind of the conservative, the idea that God would not make anyone homosexual in nature or disposition is motivated by the desire to “rescue” God from wrong-doing. That is, being gay is just so horrible as it seems to the conservative, that God could not possibly be guilty of creating someone with this disposition. It must be that the individual chose his or her own fate. But that just doesn’t square with the facts. We know that there are “intersex” individuals, sometimes called “hermaphrodites”, born with both sets of genitalia. By some counts, there are 50,00 of these individuals in the U.S alone. Even though we must admit that this is not the ideal of nature, we must also acknowledge that this just happens sometimes, and that it is not any one person’s fault. We must let go of this notion that nature only produces males with a masculine nature and desires and females with a feminine nature and desires. This position is not grounded in Scripture, and it is not true.
In summary, I am claiming that a reading of Romans 1:26-27 without any pre-formed assumptions is that the homosexual activity of these people is condemned as “unnatural”, indecent”, and “shameful” because they all had heterosexual natures, and flipped genders in order to engage is these orgy worship services. But this condemnation says nothing about homosexuals who did not choose or create their own homosexual disposition.
4.08.2007
Homosexuality V: Arsenokoitai
Last time it was shown that Paul’s unexplained mention of the word “malakoi” is nowhere near strong enough to condemn homosexuality. A better possibility is the next word in the list in I Corinthians 9, “arsenokoitai”, which at least shows up also in I Timothy 1:10. Similar to malakoi, the translations of arsenokoitai are varied depending on the translation (although at least they not conflicting this time). The King James in both translations is “abusers of themselves with mankind”, while the New International Version is more specific than this with “homosexual offender” in Corinthians and “pervert” in Timothy, and the English Standard Version is still more specific by maintaining in the footnotes the arsenokoitai are the active males in gay sex.
So what does this word really mean? Unlike malakoi, which has no inherent connection to sexual activity, arsenokoitai seems to indicate something sexual since arsenokoitai is built from the words “male” and “bed”. However, this word is not used by Paul or any of his contemporaries again, and so there is no way to verify its meaning from context.
But if we know that some word that involves “male” and “bed” is condemned, can’t we assume that Paul is condemning all homosexual acts? Absolutely not! By far the most common form of same-sex activity in Ancient Greece was pederasty. Pederasty was a sickening practice in which an older man “partnered” with a younger man for a mutual exchange: the older man would get the delights of the younger’s body in exchange for being a tutor in whatever field of knowledge in which the disciple was interested. I know that this was common because I was happily reading Plato one day and all of the sudden Socrates started talking about stopping by the young boy’s wrestling class – blah, blah blah, etc, etc, and use your imagination. This practice was apparently very normal and not at all shameful. In fact, the men who participated were some of the most well-respected men in the community, and they had normal families. This exploitive practice was very common in Paul’s day, and certainly deserved a rousing condemnation. To interpret arsenokoitai as pederastic offenders is not a “slam-dunk” – but it is the best guess that scholars can make.
Further evidence for this interpretation is the remainder of the list in I Timothy: nearly all the practices condemned there are exploitive practices, and so it seems that a condemnation of pederasty fits in naturally. Secondly, why would Paul specifically condemn the active partner in the male homosexual act and not any female forms of homosexuality? Or any other male homosexual acts, for that matter – after all, homosexuality is a broad concept. These are both pieces of evidence against the interpretation that arsenokoitai are the class of all homosexual males. And of course, condemning pederasty is no more to condemn all homosexuality than condemning heterosexual sex with minors is to condemn all of heterosexuality. These translations are guilty of the same sloppy scholarship, hasty conclusions, and homophobia that I accused them of in their attempted translation of malakoi. If to be liberal means to translate the word of God so as to fit your theological agenda, then there could be no more liberal translations. For this reason, I have great respect for the translators of the King James Bible – they knew that the meanings of malakoi and arsenokoitai are ambiguous, and they preserved this ambiguity in their English translation. The New International and English Standard translators imply that they know with 100% certainty what was on Paul’s mind that day, even though they do not have such certainty.
So what does this word really mean? Unlike malakoi, which has no inherent connection to sexual activity, arsenokoitai seems to indicate something sexual since arsenokoitai is built from the words “male” and “bed”. However, this word is not used by Paul or any of his contemporaries again, and so there is no way to verify its meaning from context.
But if we know that some word that involves “male” and “bed” is condemned, can’t we assume that Paul is condemning all homosexual acts? Absolutely not! By far the most common form of same-sex activity in Ancient Greece was pederasty. Pederasty was a sickening practice in which an older man “partnered” with a younger man for a mutual exchange: the older man would get the delights of the younger’s body in exchange for being a tutor in whatever field of knowledge in which the disciple was interested. I know that this was common because I was happily reading Plato one day and all of the sudden Socrates started talking about stopping by the young boy’s wrestling class – blah, blah blah, etc, etc, and use your imagination. This practice was apparently very normal and not at all shameful. In fact, the men who participated were some of the most well-respected men in the community, and they had normal families. This exploitive practice was very common in Paul’s day, and certainly deserved a rousing condemnation. To interpret arsenokoitai as pederastic offenders is not a “slam-dunk” – but it is the best guess that scholars can make.
Further evidence for this interpretation is the remainder of the list in I Timothy: nearly all the practices condemned there are exploitive practices, and so it seems that a condemnation of pederasty fits in naturally. Secondly, why would Paul specifically condemn the active partner in the male homosexual act and not any female forms of homosexuality? Or any other male homosexual acts, for that matter – after all, homosexuality is a broad concept. These are both pieces of evidence against the interpretation that arsenokoitai are the class of all homosexual males. And of course, condemning pederasty is no more to condemn all homosexuality than condemning heterosexual sex with minors is to condemn all of heterosexuality. These translations are guilty of the same sloppy scholarship, hasty conclusions, and homophobia that I accused them of in their attempted translation of malakoi. If to be liberal means to translate the word of God so as to fit your theological agenda, then there could be no more liberal translations. For this reason, I have great respect for the translators of the King James Bible – they knew that the meanings of malakoi and arsenokoitai are ambiguous, and they preserved this ambiguity in their English translation. The New International and English Standard translators imply that they know with 100% certainty what was on Paul’s mind that day, even though they do not have such certainty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)