March 18, 2007
Homosexuality and the Bible
We live in a culture that has embraced the notion that any protest of “gay marriage” or homosexual activities is considered “homophobia” or “gay bashing.” In a sense, America has already embraced the homosexual agenda. However, the Bible has a clear position concerning homosexual activities that might not square with current cultural norms.
Differentiating between the Sinner and the Sin
One point I should make before getting into this discussion is that God created and loves every person on earth. No matter the sins they have committed or their refusal to believe in Him, He does love them and died for their sins. As Christians, we never condemn anyone (let he who is without sin cast the first stone), however we can judge an act as morally wrong and protest against that act. Abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual acts all fall into this reality.
Just as heterosexual people can sin by having sex outside of marriage, so can those with homosexual tendencies. We only judge homosexual acts as wrong and encourage all to avoid the as sinful at all times.
The Old Testament and Homosexuality
There are six verses in the Bible that deal with homosexuality: three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. I’ll start with the Old Testament. The first two, in Genesis 19:1-8 and Judges 19:23-24, both deal with men looking to essentially rape other men. For example:
[Lot] said “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and you do to them as you please; only do nothing to those men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” - - Genesis 19:8
One note of interest, Lot seems to view the sin of homosexuality as worse than other sexual sins – in other words as the height of depravity. This ties in with Leviticus 18:22, which is often quoted:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. - - Leviticus 18:22
This ties in with a punishment in Leviticus 18:29, which is being “cut off from among their people.”
So the Old Testament clearly paints homosexual acts as sinful.
The New Testament and Homosexuality
Like the Old Testament, two of the New Testament verses are similar: they both list homosexuality among a list of other grave sins (1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10). The first seems to be the strongest:
Do you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. - - 1 Corinthians 6:9
Father Jean-Baptiste Edart recently wrote Clarifications on Homosexuality in the Bible and explains:
These two texts contain a list of vices presented as unacceptable for access to the kingdom of God.In 1 Corinthians, two Greek words make reference to homosexuality:
"malakos," translated here as "homosexuals," and "arsenokoites,"
translated as "sodomites."These terms are very rare: "Malakos" appears only here in St. Paul, as for "arsenokoites," it is the first recurrence in the whole of Greek literature.
"Malakos" means, literally, "gentle, silky, delicate." In a homosexual relationship, it designates the passive partner, but it can also refer to homosexual prostitutes or very effeminate men.
The study of the meaning of "arsenokoites," and the clearly sexual context of the list of prohibitions invalidate these last two marginal interpretations.
"Arsenokoites" means literally "to lie with a man." Formed by the association of two words present in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, it quite probably appeared in the Judeo-Hellenistic context. Rabbis used the Hebrew expression "lie with a man," taken from the Hebrew text of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, to express the homosexual relationship.
They did not limit it to pederasty. All these elements seem sufficient to us to affirm that the most plausible theory is that this term refers to men having the active role in relations of a homosexual nature. The meaning of "arsenokoites" allows one to limit the meaning of "malakos" to the passive partner in a homosexual relationship.
Homosexual acts, therefore, are considered extremely grave, directly offending the divine Law. This teaching is perfectly consistent with Judaism of that time.
No distinction is related to a question of sexual orientation, or of circumstances of the act, nor is it indicated. It is the act itself which is condemned.
The third New Testament reference is Romans 1:26-27, which is a stronger condemnation:
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
So absent Grace and the call of God to holiness, we see men who choose the unnatural over the natural, which is shown by their embrace of homosexual acts.
The Catholic Church and Homosexuality
So it is clear from these verses that Scripture condemns homosexual acts in a clear and strong way. There is no misunderstanding of this without deliberate attempt to misunderstand. But notice that Scripture never condemns those with homosexual tendencies – it only condemns the act. Heterosexuals joining in homosexual acts are committing the same sins and do not escape because of their lack of homosexual tendencies. Which is why the Church teaches that we love those with these tendencies and do not discriminate against them because of it. Yet we do not embrace the sin, either.
CCC 2357. Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church also notes that we must accept those with homosexual tendencies with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (CCC 2358). And “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (CCC 2358).
Love the sinner, hate the sin. It is a difficult position, but one we must accept. But what does “unjust discrimination” mean?
Homosexuality and “Gay Marriage”
The gay lobby in America has waged a war under the notion that it is unjust to discriminate against homosexuals wanting to get married. Is marriage a “right”? It is unjust to prevent and fight against the legalization of homosexual “marriage”? Kenneth Whitehead, a former US Secretary of Education, addressed this in the magazine Homiletic & Pastoral Review:
. . . [T]he so-called “gay rights” movement defines itself [as] a movement composed of people who engage in homosexual acts and who are now, in such cases as the same-sex marriage court cases, claiming the legal entitlement to do so. Marriage, precisely, does entitle spouses to engage in sexual relations with each other, and that is exactly what same-sex couples are now claiming the legal right to do.
The moral distinction so favored by Catholics between a morally neutral homosexual “orientation” and the homosexual “acts” that alone can be considered immoral pretty much falls to the ground here. Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” means legal recognition of the moral licitness of homosexual acts.
In other words, if we allow homosexual marriage, we are in a clear way approving of homosexual acts which the Bible clearly condemns. It also puts homosexual relationships on par with heterosexual relationships, which is a clear equivocation of the truth. For natural laws tell us otherwise.
Natural Law and Homosexuality
The last angle to look at homosexual acts lies in the natural law. As Christians, we believe God created the universe with His Law “written” into the very nature of our world. In other words, just as the law of gravity means that a rock will always fall when dropped, natural laws are just as valid that explain the truth of God in a natural way. I won’t delve into this too deeply except to point out that homosexual relationships are barren by their very nature.
God could have chosen to make homosexual relationships fruitful as He choose to do with heterosexual relationships. However, since homosexual acts violate the natural law that God designed into the world, they are barren and cannot result in the creation of a new child, which is a gift from God. A husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a child and this intimate union reflects the nature of the Trinity (the Holy Spirit is the result of the love between God the Father and Jesus the Son), though obviously in a non-sexual way. Our bodies are also designed to “fit” together, which is another reality of the natural law. The fact that you are either male or female is not a mistake or a scientific game of chance, your gender informs much about you and is part of who you are.
In other words, the Natural Law along with the Bible and the Catholic Church, which Jesus founded, all condemn homosexual acts as gravely disordered and sinful. They are not the equivalent of heterosexual acts and should not be considered so. Those with homosexual tendencies must practice chastity and pray for God’s help in dealing with these tendencies.
Conclusion
The Bible condemns homosexual acts in no uncertain terms. And, as Christians, we have an obligation to preach against homosexual acts without condemning (moreso: while loving) those with homosexual tendencies. But we cannot agree with gay “marriage” or any other societal acceptance that embraces homosexual acts – including gay unions or institutionalized preference for homosexual couples over heterosexual marriage, which provides a foundation for society and a means of future population.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
A better translation of Leviticus 18:22 might be, "You shall not the lyings of a woman with a man, it is not what we do." The same word, toevah is used to describe a whole range of practices, including remarrying a divorcee who has been married to someone else (Deuteronomy24:4) and cheating in business (Deuteronomy 25:16).
Whoa! Let's think about that one for a moment.
You shall not cheat in business matters. It is an abomination.
Puts a whole new force in things.
Oh, then that's probably not what's meant by the Hebrew word toevah.
http://www.orshalom.ca/dolgin.toevah.htm
Posted by: John D at March 19, 2007 03:27 AMJohnD: Thank you for the link. I do not agree with the interpretation provided by Avi Dolgin. His first example might be the best. In the use of Exodus 8:22 as his example, A.Dolgin (Jewish) notes that "It would be absurd to suggest that Moses considered our practices as 'abomination'". He completely fails to see in the text that Moses is talking to the Egyptians and relating the practices of the Hebrews to that of the Egyptians. Since it was still Jewish custom at the time to sacrifice animals, the Egyptians would fiercely have resented the sacrifice of any animal they considered sacred! Therefore within the context of that conversation, Moses would be correct in assuming that the Egyptians would find some of the Hebrew practices to be "abominations". The context only reinforces Jay's point, it does not refute it.
Regarding the second point of remarrying one's spouse once married to someone else, the passage is difficult to understand with "secular eyes". However when read in context of the Bible as a whole, it is quite clear that God forbids a break in the marriage bond, because He is apart of that bond. (see MT 19) If you and your wife get a divorce, that is wrong in the eyes of God,--the bond has been broken, but can be repaired. They are still husband and wife. Your friend marrying your divorced wife is wrong because it is adultry... the bond between the husband and wife is now severed. To now remarry this woman after she has had another husband, it is an abonination. It not only breaks yet another marriage bond, but it has completely perverted the understanding of who is tied to who.
Finally your post regarding DT 25:16, the translation is exactly the translation in the NAB (New American Bible). Dishonesty in business IS an abomination! So I would agree with you on that point.
Take care,
MarkV
Posted by: MarkV at March 19, 2007 12:06 PMJay, you have done an excellent job of representing the Catholic position based as it is on Scripture and Natural Law.
I have noticed that you followed the terminology employed by Courage and used the terms: homosexual acts, homosexual tendencies and avoided the term homosexual people.
I commend you for this. This choice of language reflects the gospel truth that the heritage of the human heart and identity runs deeper than any sins (even mortal ones) one may have committed.
Even though our mortal sins threaten to drag us into hell unless we repent, the value and identity of the human person always remains thanks to the grace of God.
Just as we have no right to ultimately judge someone a thief, we can still speak of the immorality of the act of stealing, and we can note that someone has stolen, or has a tendency to steal.
Your choice of language on the contentious issue of homosexuality reflects well the Christian hope that God's mercy can reach anyone. Good work, Jay.
Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at March 22, 2007 09:00 AM
