Rose G
How have Biblical interpretations, and their encompassing faith, been utilized to push for and justify both the oppression and the embrace of LGBTQ+ people?
“Rather than being a rule book, religion has become a resource, to be utilized when it is expedient and ignored or rewritten when it is not. As one bisexual man explained to me: ‘I take from the Bible what I can use, and I disregard a lot of what I can't use.’ (interview 1154).” (When Sheila's a Lesbian, by Melissa M. Wilcox, 500-501)
“In reality, we do believe differently from the biblical authors on certain moral issues because of the great cultural chasm between us and them. The church and individual denominations should craft official theology off the biblical texts, not our scholarly reconstructions of their thought. Of course, for many Christians, theology is also crafted off natural knowledge, the reigning philosophical paradigm, human existential need, and inner spiritual insight. All the more should such theologians be cautious about making biblical texts say more than they actually did.” (Seven Gay Texts: The Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality, by Robert K. Gnuse, 84)
“If groups of Christians define abortion and LGBTQ rights as the most foundational ethical questions, then issues such as racism and the long-term effects of slavery and its aftermath, sexual and other gender-based violence, massive incarceration, police killings, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiments, war and militarization, fair working conditions, climate change, and healthcare for all will be peripheral.” (Research on the New Testament and Early Christian Literature May Assist the Churches in Setting Ethical Priorities, by Bernadette J. Brooten, 232)
Notes Document
Bibliographic Information:
Author: Robert K. Gnuse
Title of article or book: Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality
Title of publication (if article in magazine, newspaper, or journal): Biblical Theology Bulletin
Volume and page numbers (if article in magazine, newspaper, or journal): 45:2 (68-85)
Publisher: Sage Journals
Date published: Apr. 22, 2015
URL (if applicable): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0146107915577097
Paraphrased Notes: Include Page #s
-The common interpretation of the story of Noah and Ham is that, while Noah was asleep and naked, his youngest son had anal sex with him, implied to establish dominance in their relationship. Because this is established as an obvious sin, many people attribute the sinfulness of the activity as homosexual behavior, when in actuality, it is sinful because Ham committed an act of rape and of incest, for the purpose of dominating and humiliating his father (not because he was gay, if he even was. Because of these reasons, it very well may have not even been considered a homosexual act, at least in the way we think of homosexuality today). (69)
-Still in the case of Noah and Ham, it is quite possible that the sin that the Bible describes is not a sexual act of any kind. The phrase “see the nakedness” may not be a euphemism at all, but rather a literal reference to Ham’s true sins: viewing a close relative while they are naked (a violation of purity), and not helping a parent when they need it (a social violation). (70)
-By looking at the incredible similarities between Genesis 19 (Sodom and Gamorah) and Judges 19, we can establish that the offense in Genesis 19 was not one of homosexuality, but rather one of rape. If we were to assume that the threat of rape of male angels was to be condemned because it involved homosexuality, then we must also assume that the rape of two women in Judges 19 is to be condemned because it involves heterosexuality. Many people who argue that Genesis 19 condemns homosexuality like to ignore Judges 19 for this reason; by their logic, the Bible also condemns heterosexuality. (72)
-The grave sin of the people of Sodom was not a sexual one, nor was it ever implied to be. The true sin of Sodom was disgrace, inhospitality, and an abuse of power for domination and demoralization. (74)
-The Leviticus passage that prohibits homosexual behavior follows a statement that also prohibits having sex with a woman who is on her period, among other sexual acts that do not lead to procreation. The Levitical sexual laws emphasize maximizing reproductivity, so it would make sense that they would advise against any sexual act that explicitly cannot be used for procreation. It is interesting, then, that people who use this Leviticus passage do not condemn period sex as they do gay sex.
-Although the Biblical authors almost certainly held opinions about the things they were writing about, the text does not necessarily reflect such attitudes. For example, the First Testament advocates for the rights of women and slaves, although it does not reflect the culture or common attitudes of the time. Biblical text often leads us to values ahead of their time. We must, then, theologize based on the text, rather than the cultural values of those who wrote them. (78)
-Lesbians are never actually mentioned in the Bible. This is presumably because women loving and having sex with other women was unoffensive. It was non-penetrative, and therefore could not be used to dominate or humiliate or affect procreation. (82)
Direct quotes: Include Page #s
“If Ham actually had sex with Noah, we are talking about rape, an act designed to humiliate and subordinate someone. The same humiliation and subordination occurs in heterosexual rape, but we do not thereby condemn heterosexuality, a point that is overlooked by critics of homoeroticism (Pizzuto: 165–66).” (69)
“In the ancient world those men who are penetrated would be equivalent to what we might call ‘gay,’ but those who penetrate might be seen as equivalent to what we might call heterosexuals (Carden: 83–96). The latter would have sex with men, women, or animals because they were manly ‘men.’” (69)
“The account of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality between free consenting adults in a loving relationship.” (73)
“Often for Jews and Christians in that era ‘unnatural lust’ referred to sex that did not explicitly seek procreation, which could be homosexuality, but it could refer to something else.” (75)
“The equation with homosexuality was made by the Jewish philosopher Philo and the Jewish historian Josephus, and probably they equated pederasty with homosexuality. On the other hand, in later years some church fathers, such as Origen, St. Ambrose, and John Cassian, commented upon the sin of Sodom as crass inhospitality to strangers (Boswell: 98, 346). Not until the 4th century ce do church fathers consistently begin to clearly make the equation with homosexuality.” (75)
“People quote Levitical passages on homosexual activity to advance the argument that all homosexuality is a sin, and they observe that some of the laws in Leviticus describe activities that we today would regard as criminal and sinful, and homosexuality is one of these universally evil acts.” (75)
“The explicit condemnation of foreign practices in verse 24 would seem to imply cultic activity. Thus, it might appear that those particular cultic activities are the last three activities mentioned in the prohibition list: infant sacrifice, homosexuality, and sex with animals. Furthermore, the word ‘abomination,’ which is used in the text at this point, very often describes foreign behavior, especially cultic activity. If so, then what is condemned by the homosexual prohibition is not general homosexual behavior, but cultic homosexual relations in particular, and a strong indication of this may be that it follows the prohibition of infant sacrifice and precedes reference to sex with animals by women.” (76)
“I believe the especially blameworthy nature of this passive sexual role in Leviticus 18:22 is that it is a form of cultic prostitution, and that is why the earlier form of the law condemned the only passive recipient and not the person who undertook the active penetration. The later law, which condemns both partners to death, is a stern attempt to destroy this cultic religious activity altogether.” (77)
“Though Christians may appropriate some of the moral guidelines of the book of Leviticus, we do not use all the purity guidelines, which were designed to make Israel an exclusive people. This creates a debate as to whether the homosexuality guidelines in Leviticus are purity guidelines that are no longer relevant for us.” (78)
“Whatever these individuals are, they are clearly cultic prostitutes, and their behavior is condemned because they are cultic prostitutes, not homosexuals in general (Scroggs: 71). Female temple prostitutes dedicated to the goddess Asherah are also condemned, and no one concludes from this that heterosexuality is being condemned.” (78)
“But the bottom line is that we theologize off the texts, not our scholarly reconstruction of the cultural values of the authors. The texts appear to condemn rape and cultic prostitution, not generic homosexuality; we should not therefore conclude that all homosexual behavior is condemned (Stiebert & Walsh: 119–52).” (78)
“The word for ‘male prostitute’ in Greek is malakoi, a word that literally means ‘soft person’ or ‘passive one.’ It may refer to the receptive, penetrated partner in sexual relations between men. Literally the biblical word simply means ‘soft,’ and it is often used with that simple meaning, as in ‘soft’ clothing (Matt 11:8; Luke 7:25).” (79)
“The New Revised Standard Versions translates these two words in both passages as ‘male prostitutes’ and ‘sodomites,’ giving them a specialized meaning. The New King James Version and the New American Bible translate these words likewise. However, the old King James Version and the New International Version translate the words as ‘homosexuals,’ so that readers of those translations will quote their bibles emphatically to condemn homosexuality.” (81)
“In reality, we do believe differently from the biblical authors on certain moral issues because of the great cultural chasm between us and them. The church and individual denominations should craft official theology off the biblical texts, not our scholarly reconstructions of their thought. Of course, for many Christians, theology is also crafted off natural knowledge, the reigning philosophical paradigm, human existential need, and inner spiritual insight. All the more should such theologians be cautious about making biblical texts say more than they actually did.” (84)
Summary of Source (2-4 sentences)
This source delves into the seven texts most often used by Christians to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and it disects each of them and offers alternative meanings. The author suggests that the passages said to condemn homosexual beahvior are actually condemning rape, bestiality, domination and demoralization, and cultist sexual rituals. He also points out the hypocrisy of many Chrstians who call upon these Bible passages and use them to prosecute queer people, saying that, in many cases, they would then need to use the same (or very similar) passages to condemn heterosexuality. In a similar vein, he also calls attention to the obvious sifting that many evangelicals do to further their points about the immorality of homosexuality, when they never prosecute such things as period sex. Ultimately, the Bible never actually condemns loving relationships between two free, adult men.
Does this help me answer my question? Why or why not?
YES. Yes yes yes yes yes. This source is amazing. It lays out every Bible passage that is used by past and present Christians to condemn homosexuality, and it lays out a rebuttal to every one of those points. This entire source essentially proves my question, showing that the text used to prosecute gay people is completely open to interpretation, and that the issue is a cultural one, not a textual one rooted in objective fact.
Lingering Questions
I believe the Bible was first written in Hebrew and first translated into Greek. How do those interpretations vary? Since so much of this source (and of general Biblical interpretation) has to do with language and syntax, how do we know that anything we’re interpreting is correct, when it wasn’t even written in English? It seems that a lot of intricacies would literally get lost in translation.
Why was the Bible written this way? Even if the focus on Leviticus was not on homosexuality, but rather any non-procreative sex, why was that the focus? Why was procreation so important to the Israelites?
Who wrote the Bible?
Why and how specifically did the interpretation of Sodom shift from inhospitality to homosexuality?
One point that I thought of, while reading this article, is that there’s a difference between gay people, and even gay relationships, with gay sex. What about asexual, homoromantic people?
Connections to other sources
There was mention of this exact type of interpretation in the last source I read, When Sheila’s a Lesbian. It also talks about sifting in both of the sources, which is super relevant to my question. Additionally, this source mentions how culture is relevant to a lot of these interpretations, which is the main premise of Christian Intolerance of Homosexuality.