Well, that's a problem. A big, big problem.
Any conversation about a text that doesn't include textual evidence would not be accepted by any serious scholar in any field - including biblical studies. In fact, that wouldn't even pass in any good middle school class.
In this post, and the next, I invite you to open up your Bible (oremus is my favorite online Bible).
Sounds easy enough, right? But, again, there's a problem.
We live in 21st century American, not in the ancient Near East or ancient Rome. And that makes any attempt to read and understand the Bible very difficult. To read the Bible well requires a knowledge of ancient languages and ancient cultures that most of us lack. Even if such knowledge weren't a problem, however, we'd still have to figure out how to transfer ancient stories and teachings to life in America today.
In short, reading the Bible is hard. No wonder so many people just skip the reading part!
If we're going to talk about what the Bible says about homosexuality, though, we're going to have to do the hard work of reading it, using our knowledge of ancient languages and cultures to find its meaning, and then figuring out how to apply that meaning today.
In this post, we'll do just that, with a focus on the Old Testament. Then, in the next post, we'll turn to the New Testament.
So, without any further adieu, what does the Bible actually say about homosexuality?
Old Testament Views on Homosexuality
There are only two passages in the entire OT that relate to the issue of homosexuality. A third has historically been taken to apply, but upon closer inspection does not. Let's address that one first.Probably the most famous biblical passage on homosexuality is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, found in Genesis 19. It's from the city of Sodom that we get our word "sodomy," which is defined as anal sex (or sometimes also oral sex).
The story most people know about Sodom is that God destroyed the city because the men of the city were gay.
Obviously, these people didn't actually read the story printed in the Bible. Because, if they did, they would know that the story is about a lack of hospitality, even to the point of violence, not sex.
Shocking, right? That's not what I was taught about Sodom either. But, seriously, read Genesis 19. (This is a big time trigger warning text, by the way.)
Here's the real story:
- A couple of angels, disguised as men, arrive at Sodom. Lot greets them at the city gate and invites them to stay the night at his house. It's evening time.
- The men turn down the offer, stating that they plan to spend the night in the town square.
- Lot convinces them to stay with him.
- Before they turn down for the night, the men of Sodom come knocking on Lot's door, demanding that Lot hand over his guests so that the men of Sodom can "know" them.
- Lot goes out to bargain with them, even offering up his virgin daughters.
- This makes the men of Sodom angry, and they go after Lot.
- Lot's guests save him from the angry crowd.
- Not long after the incident, God destroys the city.
The one thing you can't say is that this is a story about same-sex partnership. It's a story about attempted violence, about attempted gang rape, about not welcoming the stranger in your midst. It is not, I repeat, a story about homosexuality.
Yes, the men of Sodom seek sex with the men who are guests in Lot's home. But the problem is not that men are seeking sex with other men. The author of the story may very well think that sex between males is wrong, but that's not the point here.
Simply put, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah does not apply to 21st century discussions about homosexuality.
Not convinced? Flip over to Ezekiel 16.49-50, which is worth quoting in its entirety:
49This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.Notice that Ezekiel fails to mention anything sexual. And, again, the point is not that Ezekiel or Genesis is in favor of homosexuality, but rather than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not concerned with that issue.
Leviticus 18.22, on the other hand, does very much speak to the issue. And it appears to be unambiguous in its denouncement of male-male sex:
22You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Likewise for Leviticus 20.13:
13If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.These are pretty strong words. What do we make of these two verses?
First, context. Before we consider these two verses, let's look more broadly at the book in which they are found: Leviticus. Earlier in the book, eating fat prohibited, as is eating pork; if this is the case, then we here in Memphis, pork BBQ capital of the world, are in big trouble! Touching a pig's skin is also prohibited - so much for football! On the other hand, Leviticus has no problem with slavery.
I could go on, but President Bartlet (from The West Wing) makes the point about as well as anyone could, so watch this.
Here's the point: If you don't follow Levitical Law, then you can't cite Levitical Law to make your point. That's just hypocrisy. If you reject the parts of Levitical Law you don't like, how do you justify using it when it serves your interests?
Secondly, assume that we accept Levitical Law as valid. What does it mean for a man to lie with another man as with a woman (emphasis mine)? Remember, there were strict sexual hierarchies in the ancient world, including in the Bible. Men and women were not equal, and so sex always involved power dynamics. In sex, the man was the "top," the penetrator, while the woman was the "bottom," the penetrated. Thus, the male-female hierarchy was reinforced in sex.
According to this logic, a male who is penetrated takes on the female role, the bottom, an affront to the divine hierarchy that put the male on top.
To make matters worse, if a man can take on the female role, well, pretty soon you'll have women trying to take on the male role - and we can't have that, now can we!?!?
These verses are certainly about male-male sex (though, curiously, not about female-female sex). But the point here is more about upholding the male-female hierarchy than the sex act itself.
After all, the author could have simply said, "Don't lie with another man." That would have been a clear argument against male-male sex. But that's not the argument. The author specifically adds the phrase, "...as with a woman." And the reason is that, a man playing the role of a woman is, according to the philosophy of Leviticus, degrading to the man - and, in fact, to all men.
When we reject the male-female hierarchy of the ancient world, these verses cease to apply. If men and women are equal, then "...as with a women" loses its meaning. If men and women are equal, then male-female sex becomes sex between equals. And, in that case, "...as with a woman" would be no different than "...as with a man."
In sum, once you reject the male-female hierarchy, once you assert that men and women are equals, then the prohibition against male-male sex in Leviticus no longer holds. The prohibition is built upon sexual norms we don't accept.
The point, again, is not that Leviticus supports homosexuality, but rather that the book fails to offer a compelling reason to forbid it.
Conclusion
The Old Testament cannot be used by 21st century Christians to prohibit homosexuality. At no point is female-female sex even mentioned, and male-male sex is implicated with a set of laws and a sexual hierarchy we simply don't accept.
* * *
Stayed tuned. The next post will be will look at the New Testament and what it has to say about homosexuality. After that, we'll make some recommendations.If you are just joining this discussion, make sure to catch up with the previous entries:
No comments:
Post a Comment