Awesome cover of Buy You a Drank

Homosexuality and the Bible (Part 4)

In my last post on homosexuality and the Bible, I made the case that David and Jonathan are portrayed as being in a homoerotic relationship in the books of Samuel. There a number of other people in the Bible that are thought by some to have homosexual tendencies. Here are a few of them.

Some believe that Elisha had some homosexual tendencies. In 2 Kings 4:34-35 Elisha’s healing of a young boy could be interpreted as a homosexual ritual. The passage records, “And he went up and lay on the boy, and put his mouth on his mouth and his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands. And he stretched himself on the boy. And the flesh of the boy became warm.” The staff mentioned in verse 31 could be viewed as a phallic symbol. This passage can also be interpreted to have no homosexual intent, as the passage never clearly states any type of act took place.

Ruth is thought to have attempted to begin a homosexual relationship with Naomi in Ruth 1:14. The verse reads, “And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.” The word “clave” gives some the idea that Ruth may have intended a relationship of a sexual nature. דּבק is used is Genesis 2:4 to refer to the relationship of a husband and wife. Yet it can also be argued that the word has a number of meanings, as it is even used to describe the people of Israel’s relationship to the inheritance they would have.

Daniel and Ashpenaz are said by some to have entered into a homosexual relationship. This is based off of Daniel 1:9, “Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.” The word translated “tender love,” though is רחמים which means “womb,” and figuratively “compassion;” the word is used with this meaning in 2 Chronicles 30:9 as well. To those against homosexuality, there is no reason to assume that the love of David and Ashpenaz was in anyway romantic.

It has been asserted that Jesus had a homosexual relationship with the apostle John. This is derived from John John 13:23, 19:26, 21:7, and 21:20, which refer to John as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” In John 13:23 John is said to have laid his head on Jesus’ bosom. Yet there is nothing that clearly states in the text that that relationship did exist. Furthermore, it can be argued that had it existed, the synoptics surely would have recorded some aspect of it, but such a record does not exist.

Honestly, I have my doubts that any of these characters were intended to be viewed as homosexual. I find the Elisha argument interesting, but ultimately I find it hard to believe that the author of the story intended a homoerotic meaning. Nonetheless, it is an intriguing study.

Sam Harris makes a very interesting joke

The West Wing on Biblical Ethics

Homosexuality and the Bible (Part 3)

Jonathan and David

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
-2 Samuel 1:26

There are number of people who propose that Jonathan and David had a homosexual relationship in the Bible. They suppose that what has been traditionally thought to be a simple friendship was actually homoerotic in nature. I personally doubt that these stories are historical at all, but I do find this interpretation of the literature very interesting.

The first time we hear of Jonathan and David together, it is right after the famous story of David and Goliath. David has just come back a victorious hero, literally carrying the head of Goliath in his hand. David presents the head to Saul, and then we read, “And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” (1 Samuel 18:1). This in itself seems particularly homoerotic in nature, but in verses 3-4 the passage continues, “Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.”

The word used for “love” in 1 Samuel 18:1 is אהב, which like the English equivalent has a number of meanings. In the same chapter it describes Judah's love for David (18:6) and the love of Saul's daughter for David (18:28). More interesting is the phrase, “the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David.” The word translated soul is נפשׁ, which depending on the context carries with it a sense of passion, desire, or lust. קשׁרה, translated here as “knit,” simply means “tied” or “bound.” So the text is literally saying that the souls (passions, desires) of David and Jonathan were bound together and Jonathan loved David like his own soul.

After this preface of the love of Jonathan toward David, Jonathan promptly strips off his clothing in front of him. This action can be understood as symbolic, similar to the stripping of Aaron in Numbers 20:28. (And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there in the top of the mount: and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mount.) It could be that Jonathan is symbolically giving David the right to the throne. Though this interpretation certainly seems to fit the context of the story, it certainly does not negate the potential homoeroticism of the act.

Jonathan's interest in David is repeated in 1 Samuel 19:2, “But Jonathan Saul's son delighted much in David.” In this scenario, Jonathan actually saves David's life. The story continues in chapter 20 where David fears that Saul knowns that David has “found grace” in Jonathan's eyes (vs. 3). (Perhaps even more interesting is Jonathan's response, “Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.”) In verse 17 it is reiterated that Jonathan loved David, “for he loved him as he loved his own soul.” And at the end of the chapter we read that “and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.” The word translated “exceeded” literally means “grew.” It is not difficult to see the sexual overtones here.

Jonathan's death is recorded at the beginning of 2 Samuel. When David heard the news of this, he of course mourns. But as he weeps, the text records him saying, “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” The part most pertinent to this post is of course the phrase, “passing the love of women.” During the entire story of Jonathan and David, never once does the reader see David confess his love for Jonathan while he is still alive. But at this point, after the death of Jonathan, he not only confesses his love, but admits it to be “passing the love of women.”

Though other passages in the Bible clearly condemn homosexual behavior, it seems at least one story actually seems to present the act in a positive light. Neither Jonathan or David are ever condemned for their actions (unlike David's other sexual sin). In fact, they are the protagonists of the story. It seems that there was at least one Biblical author who had a positive view on homosexuality.

Happy Towel Day, Everyone!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towel_Day

Richard Dawkins- "What if you're wrong?"

Homosexuality and the Bible (Part 2)

Romans

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.
-Romans 1:26-27

This passage seems remarkably clear in its condemnation of homosexuals. Paul refers to homosexual acts as “vile affections” and “against nature.” He considers the act to be ἀσχημοσύνη (here translated “unseemly”), meaning that it elicits disgrace.

It is argued by some that this passage refers not simply to homosexuality, but to the homosexual pagan rituals that took place in Cybele's temple in Rome. Cybele's followers, known as Galli, were known to castrate themselves and dress in women's clothing. They would then lead a type of homoerotic orgy.

It is worth noting that homosexuality is connected at times to pagan practices in the Bible. The prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus 18 takes place immediately after the command, “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech.” And the word frequently translated as “sodomite” in the KJV throughout the book of 1 Kings is קדשׁ, meaning “sacred male,” and it refers to male prostitution in the temple.

Paul's use of the phrase, “changed the glory” (ἠλλάξαν τὴν δόξαν) in Romans 1:23 is extrmely similar to Jeremiah's use of the phrase in the Septuagint rendering of Jeremiah 2:11 (ἠλλάξατο τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ) in which the people's glory is changed bevcause of their worship of Baal and Asherah. This perhaps an intentional parallel to highlight the sin of pagan worship.

Though it is possible that Paul had this ritual in mind when he wrote the passage, the text still condemns homosexuals. Paul viewed men and women together as “natural” and any other combination was considered “against nature.” Paul gives no room for a different interpretation; he believed the act to be sin.

Homosexuality and the Bible (Part 1)

1 Corinthians and Leviticus

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 Corinthians 6:9-10

Paul is trying to prove a point to the church at Corinth in this passage. He is attempting to show that those who are claiming the name of Christ should not also be involved in sinful activities. Corinth apparently had a problem with iniquity, and Paul intends to rebuke “the unrighteous.” He then decided to list a few of these sinful groups, one of which is translated above (KJV) as “abusers of themselves with mankind.”

The word used here by Paul is ἀρσενοκοίτης, which comes from ἄρσην (male) and κοίτη (bed).This word is never seen in any Greek literature before this point, and a number of scholars believe the word was invented by Paul. Because if its root word, some believe it to mean homosexuality (men in bed together), while others hold that it could simply refer to a man having sex immorally (or perhaps as a form of pagan worship). It is probable in my opinion that Paul makes reference to Leviticus 20:13, which contains both words in the Septuagint (ἄρσενος κοίτην). The word probably referenced whatever Paul interpreted the Levitical passage to mean.

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

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.
-Leviticus 20:13

Leviticus clearly condemns homosexuality. It refers to the act being תּועבה, or an “abomination.” Some attempt to get around the passage by claiming that this was not about morality, but Jewish ritual. Pastor Steve Payne is a clear example of this. He writes, “Arguments in Leviticus are religious, not ethical or moral. No thought is given to whether the sex in itself is right or wrong. All concern is for keeping Jewish identity strong!” This is absurd in my opinion. First, nothing in the text seems to indicate that this was anything but a set of moral laws. These were the ethics that Israel lived by. Second, if this was simply a matter of Jewish identity, the punishment for violating the rule (death, for those of you playing at home) seems a little harsh.

Both 1 Corinthians and Leviticus condemn homosexuality. In Leviticus it was considered to be a sin, punishable by death. Paul never condones killing homosexuals, but he does state that they “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Paul's punishment for these people is eternal damnation. In both scenarios, the act is not looked on kindly.

Quote by Steve Payne taken from his article, “Leviticus and the Holiness Code,” http://www.whosoever.org/v5i2/steve.html