Conclusion

 

Summary:

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 describe male to male anal intercourse and condemn it as abhorrent to Yahweh and therefore not to be practiced. It was rejected by the Hebrews simply because it was rejected by Yahweh.

 

Commentators cite Deuteronomy 23:17,18 as evidence for “male cultic prostitution”. While it is unlikely that the qadeshim/qadeshot functioned in that way, it is certain that the Hebrew mind understood it to be so. This might provide background for the prohibition in Leviticus.

 

Two similar stories, that of Lot (Genesis 19:1-11) and the unnamed Levite and his concubine (Judges 19) describe threatened same-sex rape. It is commonly accepted that these passages do not concern homosexuality but are about the abuse of hospitality through sexual violence. This theme is present in most of the references to Sodom in the Second Temple writings.

 

Second Temple texts condemn homoerotic behaviour on two bases: the transgression of gender roles, and the lack of procreative potential. It is important to keep these factors in mind when examining the New Testament references.

 

In Romans 1 Paul condemns homoerotic behaviour as a specific example of organised idolatry. His attitude to it is probably formed by the active/passive paradigm of sexual relations and the Philonic concept of kata/para physin related to procreation. The Galli (and to a lesser extent the cinaedi)form part of the background for Paul’s statements.

 

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 the traditional translations of arsenokoites and malakoi as homosexual acts are most likely incorrect. Arsenokoitai probably refers to a type of exploitation using sex, not active homosexual sex. Malakos may refer to a heterosexual sensualist, someone who indulges to excess.

 

The overall thrust of these passages has been to condemn homoerotic activity in the context of idolatry, that is, when it is part of the worship of something other than God. There is sufficient background in the surrounding cultures for us to see where these ideas have come from.

 

While one cannot make an argument from silence and claim that the Bible supports homosexuality, neither can one say that the Bible condemns homosexuality. In fact it can be clearly stated that the Bible condemns homosexuality. In fact it can be clearly stated that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

 

Which raises a question: If there is strong evidence that the Church’s traditional condemnation of homosexuality is wrong, then why does it choose not to revise its opinion?

 

That many in the church do not revise that understanding indicates that they are not committed to the truth, but to an unChristian bias against homosexual people.

 

Bias and selectivity

The call for the church to correct its view on homosexuality is not a call to “rewrite Scripture”. The church has historically made decisions about what Scripture does or does not apply to Christians today – for example, dietary laws, teachings on divorce and remarriage. “The fact is that we do not simply quote texts. We make decisions on theological and pragmatic grounds about what is applicable and what is not.” (Seow 1996:19)

 

This is not a bad thing. We have biblical precedent for it. It occurred in New Testament times, for example in the discussion of clean and unclean foods (1 Cor 8). Even in the Old Testament we have the example of 1 Sam 21:1-6. The holy bread could be eaten only by consecrated priests (Lev 24:9), but David redefined the terms of what is holy, arguing that his men could eat it.

 

This case is cited by Jesus when he and his disciples are attacked for picking grain on the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-8, Mk 2:23-27, Lk 6:1-5). His comment “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath,” (Mk 2:27) releases and empowers us to re-evaluate traditional teachings and their applicability. We are not tied to restrictive statements and interpretations, but are in fact permitted to re-interpret scripture for the good of humanity. We are free to make choices about what is or is not relevant.

 

Unfortunately this freedom to be selective has been exercised with bias and self-interest as the motivating factors.

 

The very same books which are thought to condemn homosexual acts condemn hypocrisy in the most strident terms, and on greater authority: and yet Western society did not create any social taboos against hypocrisy, did not claim that hypocrites were “unnatural”, did not segregate them into an oppressed minority, did not enact laws punishing their sin with castration or death. No Christian state, in fact, has passed laws against hypocrisy per se, despite its continual and explicit condemnation by Jesus and the church. In the very same list which has been claimed to exclude from the kingdom of heaven those guilty of homosexual practices, the greedy are also excluded. And yet no medieval states burned the greedy at the stake. Obviously some factors beyond biblical precedent were at work in late medieval states which licensed prostitutes but burned gay people: by any objective standard, there is far more objurgation of prostitution in the New Testament than of homosexuality. (Boswell 1980:7)

 

It is essential that all interpreters be aware that they come to the Scriptures with ideas and understandings of their own time and conditions, ideas and understandings which are not necessarily true or correct; and that these can influence our reading of Scripture if we choose to. If we are honest we will try to minimise that influence. If we do not admit it, we are putting out own biases in the way of the truth. Martin describes this as the worst kind of fundamentalism:

 

And do not be fooled: any argument that tries its ethical position by an appeal to “what the Bible says” without explicitly acknowledging the agency and contingency of the interpreter is fundamentalism, whether it comes from a right-wing Southern Baptist or a moderate Presbyterian. We must simply stop giving that argument any credibility. (Martin 1996:130)

 

Widening the focus

Most of the arguments and evidence here are directed at the more fundamentalist end of the church, the one that believes that all answers can be found in the Bible. But there is good reason to believe that what the Bible says about homosexuality, whether pro or con, is irrelevant to today.

 

The concept of homosexuality/ies today is vastly different to that in Paul’s world. Greek and Roman homosexualities were based on class distinctions and gender roles.

 

The image of homosexuality in the Bible and other ancient sources differs basically from modern images in that no distinction is made in the ancient sources between gender roles (man/woman), sexual orientation (homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual), and sexual practice. In these sources, erotic/sexual interaction on the part of people of the same sex is not considered a question of individual identity  but a question of social roles and behaviour. “Identity,” like “sexuality,” is an abstraction that became conceptualised only in modern times. (Nissinen 1998:128)

 

Nissinen argues (1998:126) that the issue of personal sexuality must be seen as part of a larger whole. Is it realistic (or fair) to treat a person on the basis of their sexuality alone? There are other aspects of a person’s behaviour, personality, character and history that influence what scriptures one uses to form a biblically-based attitude to the person. To focus on one characteristic is unrealistic and devalues the individual.

 

This is the approach to sexual ethics that many conservative commentators take. There is more to sexuality than behaviour. There are aspects of love, responsibility, violence, excess, fidelity, and suppression on which the Bible also speaks. Any sexual ethic that does not examine these factors is incomplete and unethical.

 

The challenge to the church

 

It may well be that unless we totally oppose homosexuality, we have to diverge from the “clear word” of the Bible. But this is true also when one professes that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. Changes in worldview have forced people to adjust even to things and views that appear contrary to the Bible, because all biblical interpretation happens in concrete circumstances. (Nissinen 1998:126)

 

The challenge to the church is that it needs ot humbly admit that it has been wrong and seek to correct itself. This is not impossible. It took 350 years for the Vatican to admit that Galileo was right. But eventually they did apologise.

 

Previous | Home | Bibliography