pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/24/83)
This article is a response to two articles submitted by Robert Wahl on
Christianity and homosexuality. The only point of this article is to
show that homosexuality is not supported by the Bible.
[from Rob:]
The story of Sodom and Gomorrha is a parable on the breach of hospitality,
which was considered much more heinous than rape. Many references are
made to Sodom, and none of them imply a homosexual connection; in fact,
in Ezekiel, the sins of Sodom are enumerated, and homosexuality is
noticeably absent. And in Matthew, Christ uses Sodom as an example of
inhospitality, not of sexual proclivity.
The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is in Genesis 19. There
is no indication that this is a parable of anything. It is meant to be
a record of an actual historical event.
The first mention of the moral character of Sodom is in Gen. 13:13:
"Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against
the LORD."
No specific sin is mentioned here. In Gen. 18 to messengers (angels)
stop to talk to Abraham on their way to Sodom. God reveals their mission
in vv. 20-21:
"Then the LORD said, 'Because the outcry against Sodom and
Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down
to see whether they have done altogether according to the
outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know.'".
The purpose of the angel's mission was not to save Lot, as many assume,
(Abraham pleaded with God to save the righteous after the angels had
continued on their way) but to act out (presumably for the benefit of
Abraham and Lot) God's taking note of the sin of those cities, and
to destroy them.
Gen. 19:1-11 records the experience to the messengers at Sodom.
The men (angels) were not in need of hospitality from anyone in
the city. They wanted to spend the night in the street, but
yeilded to Lot's strong urging not to do so, staying with Lot instead.
In the evening all the men of the city gathered around Lot's house and
clearly expressed their desire to have sexual realtions with Lot's house
guests. Lot refused to send the men out to them, going so far as
to offer them his own virgin daughters in their place. The offer
was refused in anger and they began to attack Lot, but the angels
pulled him back into the house and blinded all the men. This
experience seemed to satisfy the mission of the angels. From that time
the fate of Sodom was sealed and Lot was told to flee for his life.
I suppose that the agressiveness of the homosexual desires of the Sodomites
could be considered a "breach of hospitality". But I find it hard
to believe that homosexuality was not part of it. Jude v. 7 seems
to indicate that it was:
"... just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding
cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged
in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing
a punnishment of eternal fire".
I assume the passage in Ezekiel that Rob makes reference to is 16:49-50:
"Behold, this was the guilt to your sister Sodom:
she and her daughters had pride, surfeit 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."
Rob makes the point that mention of homosexuality is not made in this passage.
But it is not an enumeration of the sins of Sodom, as he says, but a
general mention of them. The fact that homosexuality is not mentioned
proves nothing. It could easily fall into the category of "abominable
things". There is no attempt to list all the sins of Sodom.
I also assume the reference in Matthew Rob mentions is 10:15. Here
Jesus says that the punisment of the cities that do not recieve the
twelve diciples on their preaching mission through Isreal will have
a worse punishment than Sodom and Gomorrah. I think the sin in Jesus'
view here was not inhospitality but resistence to the diciples message.
In Matthew 11:24 Jesus says the same thing of several other cities,
upbraiding them because they would not repent, accepting him as the
Messiah (which they should have done because of the works he had done
in those cities), not because of their inhospitality. If the sin of
these cities was the same as Sodom and Gomorrah, why does Jesus make
their punishment greater? Christ is not using Sodom as an example of
anything, except to compare the punishment they recieve with others.
There is not even evidence in
the literature of the day to assume that homosexuality would be thought of
as a sexual proclivity - no social distinction was drawn between
homosexuality and heterosexuality, nor were the Jews noted for being
"straight", a fact which would have stood out.
The literature of what day? Lots? Ezekiels? Christs? If homosexuality
was considered normal and good by the Jews, why is it not encouraged
anywhere in the Bible? Why isn't there a homosexual version of the
Song of Solomon? Or why aren't Paul's numerous instructions concerning
husband-wife relationships in the N. T. complemented with instructions
for gay relationships? To me the Jews being "straight" would not have
"stood out". Stood out from what? The Jews stood out from the Greeks,
Romans and other peoples in many ways. I wonder where Rob gets the idea
that the Jews were not know for being "straight". Even if this is true
Scripture does not condone it. Not everything the Jews did had its
blessing from God. (The same goes for Christians, of course).
The word in I Corinthians which is usually translated as "homosexuals" is
"arsenokoitai", which at the time referred to male prostitutes, not
homosexuals in general. It was not until several centuries later that
this word became confused with homosexuality. The distinction was
recognized even as late as the 800's - Thomas Aquinas (13th c.) was the
first major theologian to use this passage as a basis for hostility toward
gays.
Is there an ancient Greek word that is used to refer to homosexuals in
general? If not, how do you know that Paul is making a distinction?
It seems to me that *arsenokoitai* is a blanket term denoting sexual
perversion. It literally means "abusers" (of the sexual function) in
dosen't specifically refer to a male prostitute, although it certianly
included them.
Rob does bring up an important point though about Christian hostility
toward Gays. Considering homosexual behaviour to be sin does not give
Christians a license to persecute them (or any "sinner" for that matter).
Someone who doesn't want to "repent" can't be harassed into doing so.
As I have said in another article, the limit to which a Christian can
go is to remonstrate--in love. Beyond that it is between them and God.
Repentance is a volitional act. The hatred of Gays in many Christian
circles is biblically unjustifiable. Loving homosexuals dosn't mean
accepting homosexuality. It means caring enough to help them change--
change willingly. I'm sure God loves me (no more or less than anyone
else), but I'm also shure he hates my sin.
[from Rob:]
In particular, Christ's remarks on sexuality pertain almost
entirely to the subject of adultery, i.e., a married person having sex with
someone other than his/her spouse. This does not cover extramarital sex.
Can we see some quotes directly condemning extramarital sex?
(The sanctity of marriage is insufficient evidence.)
Look up the work "fornication" in the dictionary. In the N.T. the greek
is *porneia*. It is used in several passages including John 8:41;
I Cor. 5:1; 6:13,18; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Rev. 2:21; 9:21
to mean illicit sexual intercourse. In Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 it stands for,
or includes adultery; but it is distinguished from it in Matt. 15:19 and
Mark 7:21. I also do not agree with Rob that "the sanctity of marriage
is insufficient evidence". It is enough evidence in itself.
[from Rob, in response to someone named Sargent:]
He also holds up his near brush with homosexuality as living proof that
homosexuality is wrong. Actually, all he proves is that homosexuality is
wrong for him; the whole point of Romans 1:26-27 quotes, is missed if the
people which Paul discusses are not, by their individual natures,
heterosexual. The position of homosexuals is not discussed (it is,
after all, an analogy, not a prescription for behavior), but then Mr.
Sargent would have us believe that homosexuals are only perverted
heterosexuals. My experience would indicate that heterosexuality is
wrong (for me), and is supported by implication of Paul's use, here and
elsewhere, of the phrase "against (beyond) nature".
I think Rob's discussion here is flawed for two reasons:
1) In his interpretation of Romans 1 he ignores the obvious in favor
of his own theoretical meaning.
2) He uses his own experience to interpret what the Bible means by "nature".
In Romans 1:18-32 Paul refers to the revelation in nature of God's existence,
his eternal power and deity. Nature is an oblique revelation of God's
character, but it reveals some moral standards. Paul is making the point that
homosexual relations are unnatural. He ties "natural" to Gods created order
Rom 1:20, not to what individuals feel are natural to them. If God
desired men to have homosexual relationships as well as heterosexual, why
when he made Eve as a partner for Adam didn't he also make another man
and let Adam take his choice?
Paul Dubuc