What do the Bible texts used to condemn homosexuality actually mean?

[Bravus]

This thread grows out of another thread, and I feel this is also a topic that has been discussed here before, but I can't find the old thread.

I believe there are about 5 texts in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, that are typically used to condemn homosexuality.

My contention - and as always I am willing to be shown to be wrong, and if so to change my view - is that these are not applicable to consensual adult same-sex relationships.

I will list the texts that I know of, and please feel free to add to the list. The plan will then be to address each text in turn. It will require some discipline on the part of participants, to keep a focused discussion going. Once a text is 'finished' we need to move on to the next, at least in this thread, otherwise we'll never get anywhere. We'll do them in order of appearance in the Bible.

People know me, and know I have no background in theology or Biblical languages, so I'll have to draw on the expertise of others - and I realise that to some extent that leaves us open to a 'clash of experts'. 

(I am going to exclude the story of Sodom from this thread, for a reason described in the following post)

Here is the list. I've used the KJV because I like it, but we can look at other translations... and the original languages. Please let me know if there are omissions:

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, 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.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Let's get our list consistent and complete as a starting point.

[Bravus]

I'm excluding the story of Sodom and the desire of the men of the city to rape the angels (and another very similar story about a happening in Bethlehem, that comes up more rarely), because (a) we do not know that angels are male in the first place and (b) this is not a story about consensual homosexuality, it is a story about rape, and none of us are saying rape is ever OK.

The fact that, in English, much much later, the term 'sodomy' was applied to various sexual practices is not Biblical, it just reflects a misunderstanding.

[Bravus]

It may be possible to cluster the two Leviticus texts together, since they are very similar and in similar contexts, and similarly with the ones in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. The one in Romans is a bit different.

[JoeMo]

I believe the Bible addresses Homosexual activity, not same gender attraction.  If a Christian gay person is personally convicted that homosexual activity is condemned by scripture, they have three choices:

1) Repent of homosexual activity and commit by the grace of God to refrain from such activity in the future (not saying that the occasional fall is a "fail"; but one can always get up and start over).

2) Somehow reconcile one's gay life style to their Christianity; and move on.  Not being gay, it seems like this would be difficult.

3) Turn one's back on God and abandon oneself to the gay life style.

Options 1 and 2 would be difficult (IMHO); especially in a church that looked down their nose at a person because they were a "queer".  That leaves option 3 as the most likely path. Option 3 is also (sadly) the path of least resistance.

I'm glad Bravus excluded the story of Sodom and Gomorrah from this discussion.  As I have expounded (with significant opposition),  the "strange flesh" desired by those people (see Jude 7) was not referring to homosexuality; but that is not the topic of this thread.

[Bravus]

I have published a paper on this question, JoeMo, here's a link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918369.2012.724638?casa_token=F1_Lpb0KeW0AAAAA:yfNMtUAjR9hL88-OwvDIHS8MptYobbDp5EEd4ZOZzkRv-win7jc4Uy40lshX5hIR9oJrTjg0CQnsYQ

Happy to share the full text with anyone interested.

The bottom line is that yes, your list does cover the options we observed, though in some ways it's more of a continuum, with 'keep faith/change or hide orientation' at one end, 'keep orientation/reject faith' at the other, and a range of different accommodations, accompanied by a range of degrees of peace or anguish, in between.

[Bravus]

IMO the bible thoroughly addresses all major questions regarding this topic. IMO the Bible does this by telling us a) how we are to treat our fellow human beings, b) how we are to relate to those we assess to be "in open sin,"  c) and NOT just a '"what does the Bible say re homosexuality," but also a "what does it mean by what it says?"

I accept your questions (a) and (c), but question (b) presumes that homosexuality is sin, which is the purpose of the inquiry in this thread. If we accept it at this early stage we have short-circuited the whole process by assuming an answer we are in search of.

[Bravus]

We should probably also stipulate that, for most people, it is same-sex sexual activity that constitutes sin, not same-sex attraction. Presumably many would consider that attraction should be repressed and hopefully conquered, but that the attraction itself is not sinful. Except, I suppose, in the same sense that Jesus says to straight men "If you look at a woman with lust (i.e. in a way that sees her as an object rather than a person), you have already committed adultery".

[Bravus]

Something interesting about the two Leviticus texts, with which we will start, is that lesbians are off the hook. They are not mentioned at all. These texts are only about men sleeping with men.

[Bravus]

Apology for the wall of text, but although I don't know a lot about theology, I do know that 'a text without context is a pretext'. So let's look at these two Leviticus texts in the context, at least, of their chapters. Ideally in the context of the whole book, so do please check that if you have the time!

Leviticus 18 King James Version (KJV)

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.

3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.

5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.

6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.

7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.

11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.

15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.

17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.

20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)

28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.

Note the reason given for these rules: because God is God, and to differentiate the Israelites from the Egyptians and the Canaanites. Many of these sexual and other sins were related to the worship of other gods such as Moloch. The word 'abomination' is about profanation, about the worship of other gods or perverted worship, rather than about sexual sins in general.

Many of these things we would still consider to be wrong today, but in many cases for different reasons.

Note that the reasons for many of the prohibitions on sleeping with particular women is because they are considered the property of particular men - your father, brother and so on. Today we would say that sex with siblings and with animals is wrong because of the lack of free and informed consent.

[Bravus]

Leviticus 20 King James Version (KJV)

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:

5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the Lord your God.

8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the Lord which sanctify you.

9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.

21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.

23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people.

25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.

26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

This chapter includes some more new wrinkles, like witches and wizards and cursing parents, but largely repeats the various abominations from Chapter 18, and reiterates the same reasons.

[Gregory Matthews]

Earlier Bravus posted a link kto a copy of an article that he co-authored.  That link charges $43.00 to access.  The following link provides free access to that article.

 

 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f15/5b3b8a3830246d4e9f39911a93116f818478.pdf

 

[B/W Photodude]

18 hours ago, Bravus said:

I'm excluding the story of Sodom and the desire of the men of the city to rape the angels (and another very similar story about a happening in Bethlehem, that comes up more rarely), because (a) we do not know that angels are male in the first place and (b) this is not a story about consensual homosexuality, it is a story about rape, and none of us are saying rape is ever OK.

The fact that, in English, much much later, the term 'sodomy' was applied to various sexual practices is not Biblical, it just reflects a misunderstanding.

Rather convenient to exclude the main story that actually recorded the behavior of men toward men (angels who appeared as men) and their eventual destruction. This story did become a frequently used example of wicked men all through out the Bible and their behavior was also discussed as an example in the Bible. I suspicion we can twist into all kinds of shapes to prove a certain text did or didn't say something, but I also tend to think that is how the world and the church will become like Sodom and Gomorrah. Reminds me of a book by Robert Bork that he called "Slouching Towards Gomorrah."

[Bravus]

It's also worth noting, in relation to Sodom, that 1 text in the NT refers to the judgement against them as being for sexual practices, but at least 2 elsewhere in Scripture say it was because of their wealth and the way they treated the poor and vulnerable. Most of our developed countries are far more in danger of divine judgement for the latter than for the former.

[Bravus]

8 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Is it wise to presume "for most people" if we want to have an objective study here? I would question any effort here to get people/participants, to stae "what side they are on." Can we just study the subject at hand?

OK, fair point. Without appealing to what people think, then, I think it will be a more productive discussion if we confine ourselves to what people *do*, rather than who they *are*. I am in the same position as Gregory Matthews in the other thread: I believe sexual orientation is an innate quality of some human beings (there are genetic and biological differences), and I don't believe God holds how someone is born against them as sin. (Leaving aside the whole Original Sin doctrine and its variants.) Certainly I think *all* the texts we're looking at are about actions, not orientations.

[Bravus]

Even in the men of Sodom believed the angels were men and wanted to rape men, no-one at all in the conversation is advocating for rape, so that case is not relevant or worth including. If you want to discuss Sodom, start a different thread.

[Bravus]

The question of how we treat people in 'open sin' is a very important one, I'm not denying that at all.

But the question of this thread is 'What do the texts used to condemn homosexuality really mean?'

The question about open sin is a different question, for a different thread. Putting it in this thread just muddies the waters... and, as I said above, smuggles in the conclusion that homosexuality is sin.

No-one has yet suggested any texts in addition to the 5 listed in the OP that actually contribute to the question of this thread.

It may seem that I'm trying to tilt the playing field toward a conclusion I prefer, but I'm really not. I'm trying to conduct a clear, disciplined, focused inquiry into a single (complex) topic. It's something I do for a living, and my views on what belongs in and out of the discussion are informed by a lot of experience in doing this sort of thing.

[B/W Photodude]

1 hour ago, Bravus said:

Even in the men of Sodom believed the angels were men and wanted to rape men, no-one at all in the conversation is advocating for rape, so that case is not relevant or worth including. If you want to discuss Sodom, start a different thread.

Yes, they wanted to rape men, but they were given the option of having women. And they chose to do whatever their wicked hearts wanted. So, they chose homosexual rape over heterosexual rape.

Many other references in the Bible to Sodom referred not to rape situations, but to possibly male temple prostitutes. You cannot exclude men who only engaged in non-violent male-male relationships from also being referred to as Sodomites.

Beyond that, I do not believe I will really discuss these verses as to fully discuss them would result in Adventistan not being a "family safe" website. It starts to get that bad.

One other thing which continues to get proffered up regarding this is that men have no choice but are born that way. I disagree completely. Even if true, that does not excuse it. Babies will steal from one another from a very young age (Ever see one of those cute Youtube videos where a baby stoled a pacifier out of another babies mouth?!) If such a child continued to steal, would the church just say, "He was born that way, so it must be acceptable to God." I think not, but then the way things are going, maybe!

It is well known that many gay men were molested as young boys (minors) when they were unable to give legal consent. Technically, they were statutorily raped. I would mention that years ago, the International League of Gays and Lesbians had as a charter member the organization known as the North American Man Boy Love Association, but those meany conservatives in congress threatened to suspend UN funding unless they dropped the pedophile organizations from their league! (Can you believe it? The UN was funding these people!) And explain to me why the gay organizations are fighting so hard to get the age of consent for boys down to 16. One of the mottos is to get them young so they remain in the community. (And then convince them that they are born gay!)

There are times in life when certain events fixate people in certain directions. But to convince someone they were born that way and God approves of them being gay because of that, is doing a severe injury to one already injured. I have no doubt the offenders will have to give an account for it in the judgement.

[Bravus]

Several false accusations here, but they are off topic for this thread, so I am going to ignore them and move on.

[B/W Photodude]

5 minutes ago, Bravus said:

Several false accusations here, but they are off topic for this thread, so I am going to ignore them and move on.

Well, that sounds like a general non-specific accusation!

[Bravus]

Just logically, there is a problem with including the question 'how should we treat sinners?' in a discussion focused on 'is X sin?'

But sure, if it will mean that you are willing to participate, we can include that as a subtopic.

What Scripture would you want to bring to that question?

[Bravus]

I will partly withdraw the accusation of false accusations, after researching and noting that indeed briefly NAMBLA were members of IGLA, before they were ejected and disowned. 

Seeking to make the age of consent the same for all people of all sexualities is a quest for equality, not a devious brainwashing plot.

Can we get on with the discussion of Scripture now?

[Bravus]

Which bit? The last one, about property? That is how I understand "Do not 'uncover the nakedness' of your father's wife (who is not your mother), because in doing so you are 'uncovering your father's nakedness'". Same for sister-in-laws and so on. The reason given for not sleeping with them is nothing about the women, it's about the men that they 'belong' to. Do you think that is an unfair interpretation?

[Bravus]

Micah 6:8 is an awesome place to start.

If question (b) were 'how should we treat people'? we would already be in one accord. ?

[B/W Photodude]

1 hour ago, Bravus said:

I will partly withdraw the accusation of false accusations, after researching and noting that indeed briefly NAMBLA were members of IGLA, before they were ejected and disowned. 

Seeking to make the age of consent the same for all people of all sexualities is a quest for equality, not a devious brainwashing plot.

ILGA only threw them under the bus for political reasons and not for any reasons of "this is wrong behavior."

Equality had nothing to do with it. The gay community in England was lobbying quite a bit to lower the age of consent for boys to sixteen.

[Bravus]

What is the heterosexual age of consent in England?