 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
BACK TO SUPPORT CENTER | HOME | The Laws of Moses | Romans | 1 Corinthians | Who Are The Eunuchs? | Who May Be Saved? | Glossary | THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY: PART ONE |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| THE BIBLE
AND HOMOSEXUALITY
(PART II)
The first five books of the Old Testament are called the Pentateuch (literally 5 tools). They are traditionally attributed to Moses' authorship and contain the Law (Torah). The Law contains more than six hundred regulations governing everyday living for the Children of Israel. They cover everything from instructions on how to wear clothes and prepare ceremonial foods to laws concerning the observance of holy days and punishments requirements for certain crimes. The Law was specifically given to the Israelites and never intended to be the law for the Gentiles. In that sense, none of us have ever been under the Law and there is no need for us to be under it now. The Apostle Paul observed that the ones who have fallen away from grace (Galatians 5:4) are the ones who have put themselves under the Law. This was sect known as the Judaizers and not those without the Law. The Law was given to show the righteousness of God could not be obtained by legalistically keeping rules. It gave the people knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20) and demonstrated the impossibility of anyone being able to measure up and be accepted by God on the basis of keeping it. The major source of condemnation today against homosexuality and other social moral issues, has come from those who have fully grasped the significance of the law of Grace as opposed to the Law of Moses and their belief that homosexuality is a violation of God's Law. Nearly every argument against homosexuality has at its root the Law of Moses. They mistakenly believe that sodomy is forbidden by the Law. This is not true. The word sodomy is a modern word, coined under the mistaken belief that Sodom was destroyed because of rampant homosexuality. The word sodomy does not appear in any of the main translations (KJV, RSV, NASB, or NIV). It has taken on new meaning in this century referring to any sexual act other than copulation between a man and a woman who are married to each other. It varies from state to state in its legal definition. This variance illustrates one of the prime difficulties in understanding the Scripture in its original language. To understand and explain what the writer has written, one must understand the words the writer used as the writer understood them. Word meanings change over time and the unlearned can come away from passages with a total misunderstanding of the writer's meaning. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the traditional condemnation passages against homosexual acts and appear in our modern translations to be clear cut prohibitions. Some have said these passages would justify capital punishment of homosexuals. Would these people also bring the same judgment against adulterers (Leviticus 20:10)? Following suite, they would also have to prescribe the death penalty for their stubborn and rebellious sons (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). One thing is clear from Paul's teaching: anyone who puts themselves under any one point of the Law obligates themselves to keep the whole Law (Galatians 5:3) or they are worthy of death. In truth, it is uncertain what Leviticus 18:22 is saying. The literal transliteration reads:
"You must not sleep the sleep of a woman with a man; it is ritually impure." Many scholars believe this saying represents an idiom that has lost its meaning over time due to cultural traditions of the time long since forgotten. John Boswell makes a case in Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality that this prohibition cannot be a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, because the writer uses the Hebrew word toevah (#8441) referring to the act as being "detestable" or an "abomination". The Hebrews used special words to condemn specific wicked or abominable misdeeds. If this passage had been referring to sexual misconduct, the writer would have used the zimmah (#2154) instead of toevah. The land was full of idolatry. The Palestinian god of the sun, Baal and his consort, the fertility goddess Ashtoreth, were commonly worshipped in the area and toevah appears throughout the Law to denounce these idolatrous practices. But zimmah is used wherever immoral acts such as prostitution or rape are the subject. Whatever detestable acts here are being prohibited have something to do with idolatry. In the New Testament, we find that Jesus said nothing we can identify clearly about homosexuality. Homosexual relationships in the Greco-Roman world were common place at the time of Jesus. Had these relationships been so very detestable to God, certainly Jesus would have commented on them. Surely Paul would have commented on them. Some believe he did and in our next section we will consider Paul's writings. Of all the passages of Scripture in the Bible used to condemn homosexuality, the most frequently used is this one here in Romans. Some of the words used here have been distorted, but for the most part, the translations we have today appear to be faithful to the Greek and accurate renderings of the text. The passage is clearly speaking of homosexual acts. This may at first appear to be an admission that homosexuality is not acceptable to God, but in the context, the passage makes no such blanket condemnation. Street walkers are commonly seen in cities across America and Europe, soliciting their bodies for money. There is no blanket condemnation of heterosexuality as the result of the misbehavior of the few. In the same way, homosexuality in general cannot be condemned on the basis of its abuse by a few. In the context of this passage, Paul is exposing the practice of the pagan rites of fertility, common in Rome and throughout the known world of the time. Paul's concern (rather than a warning against homosexuals) was for the Roman Christian's involvement in these fertility rites. In Corinth, where evidently a man was sleeping with his father's wife and all knew of it (1 Corinthians 5:1), but did nothing about it, Paul took authority, exposing him and requiring his expulsion. He must have had a similar concern that the Roman Gentile believers, who had formerly been actively involved in the temple cult fertility rites, might continue to do so. Rather than a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, this passage is a slam against the hypocritical Christians who were themselves continuing to participate in the temple cult orgies. The participants were not predominantly homosexuals, but heterosexuals participating in homosexual acts. The people Paul is describing, who are involved in this temple cult worship, have some very distinct characteristics. First, they have rejected the knowledge of God (verse 20). Second, they do not glorify God or acknowledge his provision for them and their hearts and minds have become "darkened" (verse 21). Third, they have exchanged the glory of God for idolatry (verses 22-23). Fourth, they degrade one another through promiscuous sexual acts (verse 24). Fifth, they have believed lies, serving created things and not the Creator (verse 25). Sixth, they have exchanged their own "natural" sexuality for the "unnatural" (verses 26-27). Seventh, they have depraved minds that promote unbridled lawlessness (verses 28-32). These are very specific characteristics and while there may be many who fit these descriptions today, this does not describe the modern mainstream homosexual community and for sure does not even come close in describing those gay men and women who are believers, serving the Lord. The problem here is that many church-goers cannot see the difference between what Paul is describing here and committed loving relationships. There is a big difference. In verse 26 and 27, translated to our English word "natural" is the Greek word phusikos (#5446) which means intrinsic; that which is born or inherent. It does not describe something that is necessarily universally true, but intrinsic for the individual. What is intrinsic for one person is not necessarily intrinsic for the next person. For example, one person may be intrinsically tall (as height runs in his/her family) while another person may be intrinsically short. Both are intrinsically influenced, but not in the same way. Both are "natural" in their appearance but with opposite results. Those in this passage, involved in the fertility rites, were giving themselves over to do those things that were not natural (intrinsic) to themselves. Even the English word "nature" means that which is inborn or inherent to the individual. The assumption here which causes so much confusion is the belief that Paul was saying that "natural" refers to the heterosexual persuasion; that all humans are naturally heterosexual from birth. This assumption, based on the evidence of experience does not hold true. Surveys on the incidence of a homosexual orientation in identical twins was done years ago at Johns-Hopkins University. In all cases where one of the twins was homosexual, the other twin was also. More recently, in the July 26, 1993 issue of Time Magazine, the Science Editor describes recent findings that lean toward a genetic explanation for homosexuality. "This new work and the studies of the twins are two lines of evidence pointing in the same direction. But the DNA evidence is much stronger than the twins study", according to Simon LeVay whose research on the human brain differences is widely accepted. Science is progressively confirming what many gay men and women have known all along, they were created that way. When (and if) science finishes its work and proves genetic rationale for the incidence of homosexuality, this will not end discrimination. Much like racial prejudice, people will need to redefine their understanding of homosexuality to end the revulsion and hatred our culture has generated toward the gay community. As Christians, we must end this war against a segment of humanity, proclaiming God's love and acceptance rather than his rejection of anyone. Gay Christians must set an example of integrity as a demonstration of the redemptive work of God in the gay community. This example is for Christians and non-Christians, gays and straights; to be a light in the darkness of prejudice and hate.
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." The English translations have taken a great deal of liberty in this particular passage; translating three different words very carelessly. Some versions have taken two of the Greek words used here and combined them into the one word "homosexual". This passage has become one of the more quoted clobber passages used against homosexuals. An attempt to perpetuate a view that the Apostle Paul could not have possibly had concerning gay people has been forced into the meaning of these words. Assumption comes greatly into play in translating when little is known about the exact meanings of words. Meanings of words used in the biblical text are largely understood as the result of the word's usage in other places. Using biblical and non-biblical sources as a reference point, ancient languages can be best understood through the repeated use of any given word in authentic period documents. In others words, the more a term is used, the better we can understand its meaning. Fornication The King James Version has assigned the "fornicater" as the meaning for the Greek word pornos (#4205) used in this passage. The word fornication in the year 1611 meant "voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and an unmarried woman. " The word pornos, however literally means "male prostitute". Together with its counterpart porne (#4204) which refers to female prostitutes (harlots), both are derived from the root word porneia (#4202) meaning "harlotry". The more modern translations have used an even more indistinct term "sexual immorality" (New International Version) which has a much broader connotation and is way beyond the original meaning of the text. In his much used reference manual, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, J. H. Thayer admits that a much broader term "must be adopted in these passages".... because we have learned "how leniently converts from among the heathen regarded this vice and indulged in it". In other words, he says, 'we must modify our translation of the Word of God so that we can ensure a general condemnation of sexual acts outside of marriage regardless of what the text actually says. God did not put it just right, so we must, therefore, correct him.' Effeminate The second word malakos (#3120) is found in the New Testament only three times (Matthew 11:8, Luke 7:25, and 1 Corinthians 6:9). It has a double meaning in the Greek much like words in English. An example is the word light. Its usage in a sentence determines its meaning whether it is referring to heaviness or a source of illumination. In much the same way, malakos literally means first "softness" as it applies to the feel of fine fabric. Secondly, the word is used to describe a character flaw, and in this case it means "weak willed" or "easily beguiled". Our modern slang expression "softy" used to describe someone who is soft hearted, kind and easy to get along with seems closer to the meaning, except that it has a positive connotation. But malakos has something to do with a moral weakness in context. It is perhaps that inability of some to maintain moral integrity and be self-controlled because of the ineptitude of their convictions and the lusts of their heart. The word better fits the pattern we see in our modern culture to those who are addicts. Addictions to various drugs, alcohol or sex is a common problem in our culture and translating this word to addicts would not only make more sense in the context, but would be in keeping with the meaning of the word. The Latin Vulgate translated malakos to the word "mollis" which has exactly the same meaning, but the word "mollis" became a slang expression that referred to men who wore silky refined clothing. This meaning undoubtedly explains why the King James Version used the "effeminate". In one translation, malakos became "Catamite" which was a young boy slave used sexually by his master. Another translation uses the word "lecchouris" (lecherous) and another "voluptuous" and still another "sissies". The multiple ways we see this word being translated is a testimony to the confusion of the translators and biblical scholars and evidence of an attempt to prejudice scripture against homosexuals. Abusers of Themselves With Mankind The third word, arsenokoites (#733) is used only twice in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10). Its meaning is at best questionable. If it refers to homosexuals, the question arises why Paul would have used such an obscure and questionable term when he could have used other much clearer terms to describe what he meant. The Greek culture was filled with homoerotic words used to describe various homosexual relationships, but instead he used a word that does not appear anywhere in Greek homoerotic literature. Transliterated, the word arsenokoites means "man-active-bed". It could mean a male prostitute who takes the active role sexually. Modern day male prostitutes are differentiated by their trade, either for women, "gigolos" or for men, "hustlers". Similarly, the Greeks also may have identified prostitutes by their trade. If Paul had wanted to condemn a group more inclined to be exclusively homosexual, he might have chosen the term arenokoites ("man-passive-bed") which would indicate a male prostitute who takes the passive role sexually. The King James Version avoids a direct translation of this word with the phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind", but it is interesting to note that even though the word homosexual did not exist at the time and wasn't even coined until the late 19th century, a word existed in 1611 which if used by the King James translators would have left no question as to what they were talking about. This word is "invert", which meant homosexual, but they did not use it. More in keeping with the context in both this passage and in 1 Timothy 1:10, a suggested better translation might be "rapist" since it has something to do with someone who takes the active role in the sex act. The following chart demonstrates how ridiculous and far fetched some of the translations have gone with this passage. For instance, translating to "child molester" is completely ridiculous and "those with infamous habits" seems extremely vague. Some kind of male pervert is unquestionably referred to.
These obvious mis-translations do not exonerate the prevalent homosexual promiscuous lifestyle, for clearly Paul’s condemnation is against unbridled promiscuity in any form, homosexual or heterosexual. It is, therefore, the responsibility of gay Christians to redefine "gay-ness" as it relates to Spirit controlled Christian living; operating as new creatures before Jesus Christ who is Lord; setting an example to all unbelievers as a demonstration to everyone that they truly are the children of God.
"Because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." Some have taken Jesus' statements in Matthew 19:9-12 about divorce and remarriage as an indication that he condemned homosexuality by omission, confirming that heterosexuality is the only "normal" relationship possible. On closer examination, it would seem that just the opposite is true. Jesus is talking about eunuchs and defines them as those who are unable (or unfit) to function in marriage for one of three reasons:
In our culture, the word eunuch is commonly understood to be a reference to castrated males. The Hebrew word saris (#5631) often translated to the English word eunuch, is used to refer to men, who sometimes for political reasons in some eastern cultures, were castrated to insure no threat through procreation. But this condition was not synonymous with eunuchry in general. Eunuchs were often trusted officials with great responsibility and political power. The Old Testament often uses the word chamberlains, court officials or officers when translating the word saris and can easily be missed when reading the English versions. This same meaning belongs to the Greek word eunukos (#2135). Eunuchs were often in charge of harems; responsible for the protection and care of the wives of the king because they posed no threat sexually. They were overseers of the beauty treatments for the women to make them presentable to the king (Esther 2:3, 12-13). The Ethiopian Eunuch was the treasure keeper (Acts 8:27) for Queen Candace. Often Eunuchs were recognized for their spiritual sensitivity and wisdom and were chosen to advise the king. Daniel and the Hebrew children were eunuchs in the court of King Nebuchadnezzar. Isaiah prophesied that Hezekiah's children would become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon (2 Kings 20:16-18). This was fulfilled when Daniel and the three Hebrew children (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) who were described as "beautiful men" (Daniel 1:4), were presented as eunuchs to King Nebuchadnezzar's court. The chief of the king's eunuchs, Ashpenaz, gave "tender love" (Daniel 1:9) to Daniel. The Hebrew word used here is checed (#2617), meaning affectionate love. The modern translations have watered this down significantly. Checed is used 250 times in the Old Testament and translated 174 times to "love", but for some reason when referring to Ashpenaz's relationship to Daniel, the New International Version says "favor and sympathy". It is important to note and clarify that eunuchs and homosexuals are not synonymous terms. However, in Matthew 19:11, Jesus indicates that whoever the eunuchs are, they are that way because of the gift of God given to them. J. H. Thayer identifies them as being "(b) naturally incapacitated for marriage or begetting children." Sterility can certainly incapacitate a man from begetting children, but what can incapacitate one from marriage? Tom Horner in his book Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality In Biblical Times indicates from his research that wherever eunuchs were present, there is the presence of overt homosexual activity, or at least a very strong possibility of it. James Tinny, the late founder of Faith Temple in Washington, D.C. taught that eunuchs who served as royal chamberlains must of necessity be emotionally or psychologically homosexual or they would not be trustworthy. A heterosexual man, even though he may be physically emasculated, would still have a heterosexual drive to caress and kiss. Because of their incapacitation toward marriage for whatever reason, the Jews regarded eunuchs as cut-off from their heritage since children were seen as the only way of extending yourself passed this life. Isaiah 53:1-8 is the passage the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading when Philip joined him by direction of the Holy Spirit to explain how he (the Messiah) could be cut-off with no descendants (verse 8). Jesus, therefore, was also a eunuch. Eunuchs, however, who choose what pleases God and keep his covenant, have a promise from God, that he will give them a "name better than sons and daughters... an everlasting name that will not be cut-off" (Isaiah 56:4-5). This promise is for us who are set apart for God's service as eunuchs ministering to the bride of Christ, his church. In this function, we are working toward readying the bride for the return of the bridegroom in order to present her spotless and without blemish, purified to love without hypocrisy. The clear message to the gay community from the modern Church has been one of rejection. Gay people, like many other minorities or small eccentric groups, have been labeled as unacceptable to the kingdom of God. In the same way that the Jews considered Gentiles as unclean, gays have been treated as filthy; rubbish to be thrown out. Some have rejected this blanket statement and have attempted to reach out; understanding that Jesus' mission was not one of condemnation, but salvation. However, one Christian leader writes, "homosexuals are dogs." This terminology, he believes, is a slang expression used in scripture to refer to homosexuals. In his point of view, "hate" and "prejudice" are justified. Terms like "family values" are used in such a way so that gays are presented as though they do not have any redeeming value. This presents the view that rejection is the only proper response to homosexuals. But, nowhere in scripture can anyone justify hate as a proper response to homosexuals or anyone. All people are the creation of God. Instead, James says to treat all alike without discrimination (James 2:1-4). The early Church, beginning from Jewish roots, had an ethnocentric view of who they were to God and at first did not recognize any non-Jews as part of God's family. This bigotry was clearly broken by an incident that occurred in Acts 10. This lengthy story tells how Cornelius, a Roman centurion and devout Gentile man, received the message of the gospel from Peter and subsequently the baptism of the Holy Spirit. After witnessing the event, Peter declared to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem when they questioned him about his actions in going to the "uncircumcised", "who was I that I could stand in God's way?" (acts 11:17). And later, Peter reiterated the conclusions drawn from the incident (Acts 15:8) that it is God who "knows the heart" and shows who he has chosen by giving them the Holy Spirit. This same message is still true today, that it is God who chooses and shows his choice by the giving of his Holy Spirit. Paul's later clarification of the law of grace clearly says that God's free gift of grace (unmerited favor) is extended to all who by faith receive it (Romans 5:2). "For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. " (John 3:16) "Everyone who calls upon the name of the LORD shall be saved." (Joel 2:32) Paul teaches "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:12-13) "All the Father gives me will come to me, and WHOEVER comes to me I will never drive away." (John 6:37) A person who is seeking God cannot even do so unless God draw him. So it is by God's invitation that anyone comes to him. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44) These important passages paint a picture of no matter what the Church's sins are, God's love is extended to WHOEVER will respond to his free gift of grace. Jesus did not come to bring condemnation to anyone, but so that the world through him might be saved (John 3:17). Therefore, those who do not extend the free gift of God's unmerited favor to everyone as it was extended to them, are not abiding in the clear teaching of the New Testament. The witness of the Holy Spirit is all anyone needs (Romans 8:16) to come to the inward security of knowing who they really are: a child of God.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Last
Updated: Saturday, June 26, 2001 |