(34 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)
Loading...When people want to show that the Bible condemns same-sex relations – either to justify depriving LGBTQ people of civil rights, to condemn them morally, to preclude them from serving in church offices, or even to participate at all in faith communities (or for any other reason) – there are a few passages that typically get cited, usually with vigor.
I should stress that there are only a few passages that get cited, since out of the entire Bible – thirty-nine books in the Old Testament, twenty-seven in the New – there are in fact very few that appear to relate to the matter directly. I stress both the adverb “directly” and the verb “appear.”
In terms of “directly: It is possible to take thousands of passage that have nothing to do with same-sex relations and say that they are definitive for them (as in the phrase that was already worn out decades ago: Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve).
In terms of “appear”: virtually all of the passages that do seem to deal with the issue directly don’t mean what people think they mean.
It is very, very, very difficult to read ancient texts with our modern forms of common sense without (wrongly) thinking that *our* common sense is the common sense that people had in the ancient world. People who have never considered the problem have, well, obviously never seen it. They just assume that common sense is common to all people at all times in every context and every place. No wonder people have so much difficulty understanding the commonsense views of people today in other parts of the world (Middle East, central Africa, Moscow: pick your spot), let alone people in other times/places (Germany in the late 20s; Romans in the 3rd century; whenever…).
This is especially a problem in the Bible. With respect to the current thread, here’s the example I’ll get to in a few posts. If the Bible says that a certain sex act is “unnatural,” we almost automatically think we know what the author means by that. Hey, it’s not natural for a man to have sex with a man. No vagina!! Yeah, well, that’s actually not what ancient people meant by it being “unnatural.” What they thought is not at ALL what we think. If we don’t think that what THEY thought made it, then why should we agree with them that it is unnatural???
By the way, as I’ll also be arguing (just to show why this thread matters) that no one in the ancient world condemned homosexuality. In the ancient world there was no such thing as homosexuality. Ancients certainly knew that men had sex with men and women had sex with women. But no one had any conception of “sexuality.” Seems weird, right? Yup. Different world. You’ll see what I mean in a later post.
Before getting to that, I want to turn to the one passage that virtually everyone starts with to condemn same-sex relations (and “homosexuality”). It comes in a brief passage in the Law of Moses, the book of Leviticus chapter 18. It does indeed look pretty straight forward at first glance:
It’s easy to see what I have to say next: join the blog! The membership fee is less for three months than a cheeseburger at Five Guys. And the blog is so much healthier! (OK, you probably don’t have to choose. Do both!). You get five posts a week and important subjects, and your entire fee goes to charity. Good for everyone, especially you!
“we can’t use literalistic and simplistic reasoning to apply an ancient law code to the modern world…”
The problem now is about why these ancient law codes are used as a citation (rather than the basis) ; because It ((seems)) as if someone would condemn same sex marriage on the basis of the ancient law code in the first place. You did justice in taking those who hold the law accountable to the law, and I find that to be the most logical (but it seems somewhat ineffective when applied-go figure). Thank you for writing about this, I find it super helpful!
1. So you shall not lie with a male as with a woman because it is an abomination is due to both other nations doing it AND it is bad mixing?
2. In the OT, did the male dominance issue enter in to male/male not being allowed?
3. I do not think there is any way to get the Christians that I know to understand that the meaning for the ancients was different than how it is viewed now. Probably due a lot to pastors not mentioning this at all to their churches. Do you find that your Christian students do not buy into the ancients having different views/meaning?
1. definitely the former, and probably the latter. 2. Since there is no discussoin of same sex relations outside of proscriptions in Leviticus, i’t hard to know. 3. They buy it, but they often after to see the evidence first.
To what extent were Israelites aware of differences between humans and animals beyond fairly obvious lack of “speech”? Was there any suspicion that animals were created to be similar and thus tempting to humans?
My sense is that speech isn’t the main thing, or at least the only thing. Animals were simply a different order of being, meant for human use and consumption.
Could bestiality be at root of homophobia?
I wouldn’t say it’s the basis for it, but analogous to it in many minds: sex is for humans with a single partner of the opposite sex. Anything else is unnatural and to be forbidden.
Bart, don’t mingle God’s Teachings against each other and then confuse yourself or anyone else.
God was clear in what He said. The blood had to do with eating blood, rather than pouring it on the ground as God commanded via Noah.
The Law is based on equality between mankind – not man VS woman, children VS parents, or the Children of Israel VS all those other nations: all from the King to the High Priest, to the commoner to the cohort – all had to keep the same 10 Commandments.
No wonder you also won’t touch the fact that the Hebrew Matthew preceded the Greek perversions.
God said to be careful with the distinctions He made. Looks to me like you are trying to twist them against themselves… honestly.
[email protected]
I have to admit, I don’t quite understand a number of the points you’re trying to make. But I will say that there is no way that our Matthew was originally a Hebrew composition. I’m not opposed to it in principle — for me it actually doesn’t matter one way or the other. But I’m afraid the linguistic evidence is decisive.
I remember you and Richard Bauckham had a brief discussion regarding Matthew’s original composition being in Hebrew on the Unbelievable program. If I remember correctly it was Papias that said Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew?
Yup. And that it was an account of Jesus “sayings.” The problem of course, is that it was not written in Hebrew and is not a collection of Jesus’ sayings.
Regarding your statement that “there is no discussion of same sex relations outside of proscriptions in Leviticus,” I would point out that our word “sodomy” comes from the ancient city of Sodom. Do you not think that sodomy might have been one of the sins that was practiced that aroused God’s anger to the point of destroying the city?
Another example of God’s disapproval of men “knowing” other men (males in both cases) was the attempt (Genesis 19) by sodomites to break into Lot’s house to sodomize the two men he had taken in for the night. They were not interested in his offer of his daughter, which would seem to indicate that they were interested in sodomy only. They were blinded for their sinful behavior.
Do these examples not display God’s displeasure with sodomy?
Complicated question, as it turns out. Sodom and gomorrah are not said to be condemned for what we think of Sodomyand the case of Lot involves violations of the need to protect guests, not illicit sex per se. But, be that as it may, the law in leviticus definitely condemns men having sex with men
One comment on my own experience researching many issues of laws when I used to practice as lawyer and then another comment on the article.
When I used to research various statutes during my career as lawyer, I soon realized that many statutes did not make many things clear explicitly on the face of statutes; and therefore, often the controlling issues had to be determined by the IMPLICIT meaning of the statutes which requires common sense or practical understandings of broader issues of other related legal, social or cultural contexts. Now, getting to the “implicit” meaning of the Bible requires that you understand all these broader issues of the people who lived in specific regions during certain period of times, which for us can be difficult. Now, the Chinese or Mayans might have had very different takes on the homosexuality issue than the people who wrote the Bible. Also, many of the writings left from the ancient times might reflect the views of the minority because after all people who wrote books moved in the artistic or leisurely circles of the times.
Having said this, it is to me undeniable that the Bible does view homosexuality in a negative light, not for the exactly same reasons as we might, and the Bible might actually view homosexuality as an abomination because it goes against the natural order of things, i.e., need to procreate. Of course, this does not mean we need or want to condemn it now, and I strongly disagree with people who quote the Bible as if the Bible should govern our own codes of morality. For example, how many of us turn our right cheek when our left cheek is hit, or love or truly pray for our enemies?
St Augustine also didn’t distinguish, two monks he said had merely committed temptation of the flesh where as the monk that cooked the books calculated how to rip the church off when asked why he got the greater punishment.
I hope the day comes when we don’t use the bible as an authority on anything. It certainly needs to become just a book of curiosity and intellectual study and not a guide for 21st century living. Good work Bart.
Thank you and we’ll said.
Most Christians I know do not condemn homosexual acts because of what the OT says, but rather because Paul, who argues that the OT law is no longer applicable to God’s people, continues to condemn homosexuality as being immoral. Would you say that if a Christian wants to live consistently with Paul’s doctrine, then he/she must likewise condemn homosexual acts?
Yes, I don’t think he does. You’ll see in later posts.
Okay thanks! I look forward to them!
Do you think they viewed horses and donkeys as two different kinds, so they had no mules?
Don’t know!
Excellent post, and of course it will fall on deaf ears when it comes to those who use religious texts to justify feelings that have nothing to do with religion. Just as Darwin–via Herbert Spencer and other popularizers–was used to justify antisemitism and other racist beliefs. Some people will twist whatever texts they believe in to mean what they want them to mean. And ignore the parts of those texts that tell them what they don’t want to hear. The desire to have a supposedly unimpeachable authority to fall back on is pretty near universal. But there is no such thing. Authority comes from sound arguments, not brandnames.
Agreed.
I look forward to future posts explaining in what sense ancient people didn’t have a notion of sexuality. You have posted on this before, but unfortunately I still don’t get it. Regarding your claim that no one in the ancient world condemned homosexuality, surely some of the Church Fathers argued against same-sex relationships e.g. John Chrysostom: “All of these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases…[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men.”
That’s right. Sex *acts* are not the same as “sexual orientation”
Chrysostom said the mad lust after males?? This proves he was ignorant and prejudiced!
Sometimes these seemingly silly rules work to our benefit; for example, when drinking red wine with fish helps James Bond to spot the (naturally, uncultured) bad guy!
One of my pet peeves: judging people in history by today’s standards. It would be interesting to know how we will be judged by future generations according to their standards.
Yup, I think about it a lot….
One thing is almost certain, I think. Future generations will undoubtedly look at our consumption of real meat as barbaric, (albeit understandable, given our past and present technology).
I agree with you
Me too.
Hi Dr Ehrman
When is your book about hell and heaven coming out?.
About homosexuality, the answer I get from christians about the argument you made is that the new testament abolish many of the laws of the old testament but mantain the view of same sex intercourse as negative in Romans1:26-27, 1 Cor 6: 9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Are you going to post on that?
Did jews in the times when leviticus was composed really killed people for homosexual behaviour, not keeping the sabath, idolatry and so forth? is there any evidence of that? did romans allowed that after they occupied the Judea?
It comes out March 31. Yup, I’m getting to those passages! And no, I don’t no of any record of that. If they did, it was mob action, not legal.
Well… I know at least one evangelical person who knows those passages… and claims it would be un Christian of her to vote Democrat because Dems do not condemn the gay lifestyle or same sex marriages. This drives me nuts… (I am not gay.. but it still drives me nuts.) What would suggest to say to such a person who uses the Bible that way because she considers this to be part of her Christian mission?
Does she thik it’s Christian to harm the poor and refuse to help the starving, or be concerned about people who are sufferig miserably and dying but who happen to live in other countries? It’s an interesting view of “Christian.” I wonder why so many Christians don’t actually read their Bibles….
It would help us to remember that the writings were intended for the contemporary audience—their time, their place, their circumstances. Some principles can be brought forward, but that’s what we have to discern. For example, should Christians keep the Sabbath—isn’t it still valid like the other nine commandments, such as against murder and theft? Or was the Sabbath just given to the Israelites to distinguish them in their land? The early church, as it spread out from Israel and became increasingly Gentile, made the distinction between that commandment and the other nine which were considered perpetual.
Fascinating stuff! But would conservative Christians thinking homosexuality is wrong but that – e.g. – mixing fabrics isn’t be because they also see homosexuality as being condemned in the NT?
Probably. I”ll be getting to the NT soon. That’s where there is a lot of modern misunderstanding going on.
Good point about being different from other groups. Leviticus 18:3 (NRSV):
“You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes.” Which is followed by “the Lord’s” statutes.
Do you think the story of Lot and the angels in Genesis is an illustration of Lev. 19:33-34 given that Lot and his family were aliens in Sodom?
As an aside, do you think the whole story of Lot could be an long origin legend of the Moabites and Ammonites from the Hebrew Bible point of view? I’m certain they must have had a better origin story for themselves.
I don’t think that story is about homosexual relations so much as about how hosts are to treat guests under their roof.
Jewish authorities generally did not consider the “sin” of Sodom to be same-sex activities (what the men of Sodom proposed was rape, anyway). See for example Ezekiel. The Talmud’s discussions of Sodom focus on the way it treated the stranger.
Philo of Alexandria was about the Jewish thinker prior to the Middle Ages to link Sodom to homosexuality, and he lived in a Hellenistic world where such activities may have been approved, so he had a specific axe to grind, as it were.
You said the Jews we’re instructed not to eat Pork because the Canaanites ate it. In my Anthropology classes we discussed this issue a lot, and the thinking was that the Middle East was too hot for pigs (although some were raised there) and the pigs were very environmentally detrimental.
Do you think the Canaanite reason is more compelling?
Any what about the prohibition on animals that crawl on their belly, basically all invertebrates, what is the reason for that prohibition?
By the way, we were told it is quite easy to get pork in restaurants in Israel and is commonly eaten by Jewish people, if you go to a restaurant and want pork you just ask for white meat.
No, it’s not because it was too hot. There were lots of pigs in Palestine. Invertebates? Not sure where you’re getting that one? Israel: yes, there are lots of non-kosher restaurants.
dwcriswell’s anthropology professor surely was basing their lecture comment on Marvin Harris, a 1960s “cultural materialist” anthropologist who promoted the idea that pig husbandry became forbidden because it was an inefficient use of land and labor in the Near East. As you point out correctly, Bart, this argument cannot possibly be true because others before, during, and after the development of pork-avoiding Hebrews (beginning in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE, according to archaeologist Israel Finkelstein) have successfully raised and eaten pork in the Near East.
Plus archaeologists have found tons of skeletal remains of pigs.
We should have this posted on billboards across America. You could do another post, in a humorous vein, noting all the get out of jail cards in Leviticus. Burn a couple of doves. Really big sin. Kill a fatted calf.
Excellent post! It does indeed seem to be cherry ???? picking scripture to fit ones prejudices and biases when in these same passages things are condemned that nobody adheres to in the modern world. I had one Christian Fundamentalist that tried to convince me that he believed things exactly as Jesus’ disciples did!
Texts like these did begin my questioning the belief that scripture was divinely inspired. Within Fundamentalist and Evangelical circles are there those who do recognize and admit human thoughts, beliefs within historical and cultural contexts are present in scripture while still maintaining a belief in the divine inspiration of scripture?
Yup. they would say that God made sure these thoughts were not such as contained any errors, or that God had directed the thoughts, etc.
Very interesting post,indeed, Dr. Ehrman.
It is accepted that the rules present in the OT are the laws of the Israelite people. My professor at Rome University tought that we should not confuse the regulations of the religious community with the laws of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah for the preexilic period. We do not have access to the these as they are not preserved. Even accepting that differences between the religious and the political matters are product of the Enlightment and do not fit the Ancient World
Well, if I ever decided to be a certain kind of “Christian” and I owned a bakery, before I would bake ANYONE a cake I would ask them whether they wore cotton/polyester blends. And if they did I would chase them away with a Bible in one hand and a pure cotton T-shirt in the other, demanding that they shed their abhorrent duds and clothe themselves in garments suitable to the LORD! I mean, why not? That makes as much sense as asking them about their sexual orientation…
Have you read “the Year of living Biblically”? One of the most informative and still funny books I’ve ever read.
Some use Leviticus 19:28 as a verse regarding modern tatoos. What is the ancient meaning of this verse?
I think maybe pretty much what it says. I met a fairly left-wing pastor with long hair and funky dress a few months ago who had Leviticus 19:28 tatooed on his forearm, with no explanation! 🙂
What is the ancient meaning of Leviticus 20:9 and Deuteronomy 21:18–21? Obviously not to execute all rebellious children or the Isrealites would not have had any children left!
Well, there’s a difference between legislation and enforcement!
“it was because Canaanite animal sacrifice frequently involved pigs.”
Why were the Isrealites told to not eat shellfish?
We don’t know in most instances what the logic at the time was. I’m sure there are a bunch of theories on that one, but I’m afraid I don’t know!
Just wondering…do you have a guess?
No clue!
The Christian community is quick to tell you that they are “free” from the bounds of the OT Laws, since Jesus came to fulfill the laws. But in the same breath they will tell you that certain laws must be adhered to, such as these being discussed today, and of course tithing (which they completely bend to suit their requirements). Funny bunch…
Without being an apologist for traditional Judaism, I note that it too accepts “that many Ancient Israelites had all sorts of laws that simply aren’t applicable today.” The Talmudic Rabbis interpreted many laws as not applying to their own times (for example, animal sacrifices) or as not applying to their locale outside of Israel (for example, the jubilee), and some laws they virtually abolished, although without directly saying so (Leviriite marriage).
I was taught that the word we translate to as ‘abomination’ had different connotation from ‘sin’. Abomination meant something more like [ritual] impurity. Just as a woman on her period is an abomination (ritually impure and not fit to enter the temple), so too is a man who has laid with another man. For many abominations, as I understand it, the cure was to take a bath.
Care to comment, Bart?
Right, not a bath, but a ritual cleansing. I haven’t done a word study, so I know you’re right that often the issue was ritual purity. Off hand I don’t know the relationship to “sin” (which is a very different thing)
Regarding the law against pork: I find your explanation very interesting (I’ve never heard it before), but I genuinely have some questions about it. Did the Canaanites sacrifice cows, sheep or goats? Or was it exclusively pigs? I am asking as a layman.
Also, the law forbade camel and rabbit meat too. Did the canaanites sacrifice camels or rabbits?
I don’t know and I don’t know. I don’t recall camel and rabbit though: where is that?
Leviticus 11: 4-6
But among those that chew the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: the camel, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. The rock badger, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you.
I am so glad you finally brought up a topic that truly matters: Steak.
I agree that Ruth Chris is some bloody expensive steak, but you have to admit it’s really GOOD too. Not sure if the marginal difference in goodness is worth the marginal difference in COST…but still the best steak I’ve had to date.
Yes, I’ve had some amazing steaks there; but a couple not so amazing….
1. Leviticus 20:13 Why do people quote the part that men should not have sex with each other, but ignore the part about how these men should be put to death?
2. Leviticus 17:10 quoted by Jehovah Witnesses to argue against blood transfusions.
3. The concept of “homosexuality” was first used by physician Krafft-Ebing in 1886.
1. I know some people who would prefer not to ignore that part at all!! 2. Yup! 3. YUP!!
I think the distinction here is between the historian, who is supposed to analyze people and events according to their own standards and practices, which change over time, and the theologian, especially the theologian of a revealed religion, who is a priori placed in the position of arguing that these are laws revealed by an omniscient God whose standards and practices can never change.
Dr Ehrman, as I read your recent blogs and the responses they generate, the more baffled I am that the Gospel of John was included in the New Testament canon.
Clearly, the Historical Jesus was a man of his time- an apocalyptic Jew, who challenged the Sadducee order, but a human nonetheless whose message was for the people of his time. Some of his views support timeless moral principles, but other views of his time were flawed by our modern standards.
The Gospel of John attempts to elevate him to something that he wasn’t.
Christianity is not the religion of Jesus- it is a religion about Jesus. His earliest followers believed him to be fully human, until adopted by God when immersed by John the Baptist. However, the interpretation of who he was and what he talking about was taken way out of context by Paul and then the ‘Johannines’ to incorporate broader Greco-Roman philosopy.
No one seems to have mentioned that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, or for that matter of abortion. Jesus’ main focus was on helping the poor, the hungry, visiting those in prison and treating immigrants as brothers. I guess Christians are too busy stoning: disobedient children, neighbors who work on Sunday, and anyone who takes the Lord’s name in vain. No Christians actually follows the Bible, thank god(s). They cherry pick. In generations to come they will marvel that a civilization so technologically advanced could believe the nonsense from the bronze age. In no other endeavor of human enlightenment, do we blindly follow knowledge so old and unbelievable.
Regarding the statement (earlier in one of the comments) that no one in the ancient world condemned homosexuality, I have to say that’s not entirely true. In the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Middle Kingdom edition, one of the “negative confessions” is “I have not committed homosexuality.” (It’s possible this only applied to the Pharaoh).
OTOH, Trevor Bryce notes that the Hittite codes have a specific prohibition against a father sleeping his son, right after saying he shouldn’t sleep with his daughter, which is clearly a case of “specific to general” – male-male sex is generally acceptable, with this specific exception.
Yes, that’s the English translation. Ancient Egyptians didn’t have a word for homosexuality, because they didn’t have a concept of sexuality, only of sexual activity. The text is saying that the pharaoh had never had sex with another man. That’s a sex act, not an orientation.
Second point is not mixing being fair to the person journeying through the land referenced back to their sojourns in Egypt. They didn’t break the law of Egypt and demand voting rights or welfare.
Why on earth do people fail to note the examples God spoke of when saying things?
THAT is what the context is for me.
I read somewhere a gay Christian guy arguing that the prescriptions were to do with condemning prostitution in religious sites (temple?). I’ve not seen that line taken anywhere else, any truth to it?
It’s sometimes argued that way, but there’s not really any proof one way or the others. It would actualy make sense to some extent, but I don’t think we know.
Dr. Ehrman
Is there any indication on *when* did Sodom and Gomorrah start to be interpreted as primary about homosexuality? (Both for Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism)
The homosexuality interpretation makes little sense since it seems to imply that things would be less bad had the two angels appear as women…
And I’m rather astonished at some evangelicals attempting to shoehorn homosexuality into Ezekiel 16:50…
“Stinginess and arrogance alone did not draw God’s wrath. Ezekiel anchored the list of crimes with the word “abominations.” This word takes us right back to homosexuality. The conduct Moses refers to in Genesis 18 he later describes in Leviticus as an “abomination” in God’s eyes.”
(I didn’t make this up, I wish I was. I wish this is a satire but it isn’t…https://www.str.org/articles/what-was-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah#.XfBt9WQzY2w)
The first time I know of that it was interpreted this way in either the Jewish or Christian traditions is in Jude 7; although even there it is about illicit sex involving “going after other flesh” — presumably he means men with men, but the preceding example he uses about the fallen angels refers to the traditions about angels having sex with women in Genesis 6, especially as interpreted in the Book of the Watchers in 1 Enoch.
This is a disappointing post. I was expecting something better than a warmed-up, red-herring, gay apologetics argument. It’s used to no effect against fundamentalist Christians and fantastically falls flat in the case of Orthodox Jews, who do care about those laws regarding mixing, keeping kosher, and women menstruating.
Your argument that the prohibition against male homosexual acts is really about mixing and not being like the other nations is intellectually dishonest.
God didn’t cast out the other nations for mixing wool and linen or eating shellfish, but your quote of Leviticus does mention that for acts such as bestiality and male homosexual acts God did cast out the other nations. If God casted out the other nations, He was punishing them. And if God was punishing them, there had to be laws that the nations were expected to follow regarding sexuality but failed. In other words, the prohibition against male homosexual acts is a universal law, not merely a law solely applied to the people of Israel. All nations are expected to follow the laws regarding sexuality, not only the Jews.
I’m sorry to hear you think it’s dishonest. But I don’t think an interpretation different from yours is necessarily dishonest. It may simply be a different interpretation that also deserves thoughtful consideration. A dishonest interpretation would be one that an interpreter knows is incorrect but puts it forth in order to mislead others.
I would also say that there is no reason to think that if God punishes a nation it has to be for *sexual* sins. Why would it have to be that, in particular? I don’t know of any passage in the Bible that says God wanted the Canaanites destroyed because they were homosexuals! If that’s what you think, it would not be because the Bible says so.
I grew up in the Catholic Church, which taught that OT laws were divided into cultural laws, ritual laws and moral laws, and that we are to keep the moral laws. Is there actually a historical bit for this or is it just the Catholic Church being, you know, the Catholic Church?
I think a case can be made for this view from the New Tesatment. But not from the Old itself!
Dr. Ehrman Just because homosexuality is named with some lesser violations of the law don’t make it as small a crime as sowing seeds in the same field. Look in Leviticus 18:21 the verse before it says don’t sacrifice your son to another god. So is it okay to murder your son now? Look in Leviticus 20:10-21 homosexuality is named with Adultery and other sex sins and was punishable by death. Even Paul a new testament writer that said the law was done away with, still said homosexuality was a sin Rom 1:27, 1Cor 6:9. Paul’s interpretation of the Tanakh (Old Testament) of the subject was the same as the as most people’s today. “Religious Israelites” historically have NEVER embraced homosexuality. Check the record. It looks like you are trying to take a modern Hollywood philosophy and justify it by twisting the Hebrew scriptures.
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you saying that because the Bible says we are to execute disobedient children that the law should still be in force? If not, then how are you choosing which lw to enforce?
How it was explained to me: homosexual acts (and homosexuality for that matter, though I understand the distinction) are sinful because they are deviance from God’s plan for creation as set forth in Gen 1:27, “male and female he created them,” and Gen. 2:24, “man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (quoted later by Jesus when asked about divorce, and by the writer of Ephesians and 1 Corinthians).
Further, the explanation goes, same-sex relations are in opposition to God’s directive for humans to “be fruitful and multiply,” a phrase often accompanied with a blessing from God, reoccurring many times in Genesis, and in Jeremiah & Ezekiel. Since God made humans in his image as male and female, and these are the only two sexes that can procreate, any other sexual combination is deviance.
Mustn’t one holding this view go further and say that any sexual goal aside from procreation is deviance from God’s plan? I wonder if Solomon would agree with that!?
If modern audiences consider Leviticus 18:22-23 as part of the law that Jesus said he had not come to abolish, couldn’t it be argued that any sexual relations that are not between male and female, and where pregnancy is purposely prevented, are in opposition to Gen. 1:27? That seems to be the next step if people want to read Leviticus as applying to modern times.
I can’t imagine American Protestant churches getting away with openly teaching that contraceptives are sinful, yet many openly condemn homosexuality (while their members divorce and remarry). These things seem at odds with each other. Instead, we know that Leviticus was written for a certain people at a certain time.
But then, what do we do with Romans 1: 26-27?
This is my first comment; thank you for the 2 month free membership!
Yes, that is indeed the traditional explanation of the passages of Genesis, though of course neither one is talkign about the propriety of same sex relatinos Those relatinos are condemned in Leviticus; as I point out in my other posts, it also condemns not obeying parents (death sentence!) and forbids not taking care of immigrants as well as fellow citizens, but most people don’t think those laws apply any more (or that Jesus supported them). So, well, it’s a problem! thanks for your comments! And welcome to the blog.
How did Jewish marriage work in first century Palestine? I’ve heard that Jewish law allows women to marry grown men extremely early in life? What was the norm back then?
The norm was for girls to be married off as soon as they could have children, since that was their primary function.
1.Was it also the norm for men to get married just as early as well?
2. I would assume that even though child marriage was the norm, most men would get married to other adult women?
No, men tended to wait much longer, until they could support a family. So they might be in the 30s marrying a girl who was 14.
Dr Bart Ehrman, this is not convincing. I’m not sure if this post was meant to defend Homosexuality or discredit the book of Levitus entirely; It kind of looks pro-homosexually, using a comparison like eating a rare stake or wearing a garment from two unconventional materials. I agree……..picking and choosing to justify one’s point isn’t an okay thing to do. Let’s be honest, it’s the same methodology you yourself use in your books or articles. When I read something from your book, I don’t assume you are running narrative ignoring other parts the source, I know you’re making a legitimate point and supporting it with piece of information. I don’t expect you to paste the whole source in your point. The same logic goes here, what gets quoted depends on the degree significance to the point and application. In modern world If someone eats rare steak, it’s technically wrong based on the scripture but what significance does it have? I am not going to see a pride month for rare steak consumers. Yet come homosexuality it opens a whole diffrent array of problems. Am I supposed to dismiss Leviticus because most of the rules aren’t applicable today?
I’m not sure exactly which bit of what I’ve said you think is wrong. My contention is that Leviticus condemns men having sex with men but that our concept of “homosexuality” did not exist until modern times and so was not available to the author or to anyone else. They didn’t have a concept of sexual orientation — just as they didn’t have a concept that men and women could be fully equal. If all that doesn’t make sense, I’m happy to provide some books to read about it. In other word, just as I don’t think clear condemnations of wearing fabrics made of two types of cloth, or of women ever teaching a man, or of needing to stone to death disobedient children is relevant today, either is a command for a man not to sleep with a man. These are all based on certain sets of assumptions that we no longer have (about appropriate clothing, men and women, parents and children, and sex partners) If you do think that the proscriptions of same-sex relations are relevant today but the others are not, I’d need to see some reasons for it, other than a distate for it but not for the others. See what I mean?
disabledupes{306e348fb3706b40a43707a8394fc055}disabledupes
My discontentment is with how this article is phrased. I formed my comment rhetorically to ask how something significant and insignificant can be on the same comparison lens. The concept of homosexuality is a derivative from same-sex intercourse; if not, they are directly correlated. I know you’re going to disagree and say we are a tolerant society, and people don’t think that way anymore, and so on…
But let’s be honest and use common sense for once. Homosexuality is purely based on preference. The passage is there it states it plainly. Ask all majority adults from all over to see how many say this passage is misused or used as a hate tool.
I admit, I am not at the same level of textual critic as you, I went out of my way to see the original Hebrew word “Zakar” (man) used in Lev18:22-23..seeif there are any other instances where it might refer to females as well. To my surprise, the book of Numbers contains instances where the word is used in reference to both males and females (Num. 1:2-3, 26:51, 31:31-32). I’m aware you can easily debunk my findings, let’s be real… we know what Leviticus’s author is talking about.
The Leviticus author definitely condemns a man who has sex with another man, just as the Torah elsewhere condemns a person who takes interest for a loan. The author did not know about our modern views of sexuality (in fact, he had never even imagined any concept such as sexual orientation) and he did not know about our modern views of capitalism (in fact, he never imagined any concept such as economic theory). So yes, anyone who thinks that the Torah is relevant for whether bankers and, say, clothing manufacturers (who combine different fabrics in the same garment) are guilty before God as heinous sinners, should also thnk it is relevant for whether men who sleep with men are giulty before God as heinous sinners. My point is that we can’t choose the laws we think are applicable and apply them and ignore the ones that we think are inapplicable. If any are inapplicable, we need to ask why and then apply the same criteria to all the laws. Some ancient views are simply no longer relevant given what we today know and think.