Read on Twitter
THE BIBLE IS NOT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY, a thread
Leviticus and Romans
Leviticus and Romans
DISCLAIMERS:
- all Bible verses cited are NRSV
- due to space constrictions, i cannot go into too much detail. i can always explain more if you are curious or doubtful about anything.
- i will cover Timothy and Corinthians if this gets enough support
- all Bible verses cited are NRSV
- due to space constrictions, i cannot go into too much detail. i can always explain more if you are curious or doubtful about anything.
- i will cover Timothy and Corinthians if this gets enough support
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
The most cited verse against homosexuality
The most cited verse against homosexuality
Leviticus 18:22 states “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13 states “ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
Leviticus 20:13 states “ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
Unlike Sodom, I’m not here to argue these aren’t condemning sex between two men. They are. However, this does not apply to Christians at all, or anyone in the modern era for that matter. It was written for two reasons. Impurity and paganism.
The ancient Jews believed mixing things would bring impurity to the land. Historically, we can see why the Jews would be so protective over their land’s purity. This applied to seeds, fabrics, and gender roles. Gay sex was seen as feminizing the giver and a mixing of sexual roles
As for Paganism, the Pagans at their time were participating in fertility rituals. Big orgies of sex (often between men) were believed to bring abundant harvests and good weather. The Jews wanted to separate themselves from the Pagans at all costs, and this included m/m sex.
This does NOT apply to Christians WHATSOEVER. If you don’t think people who mix fabric are sinning, neither are homosexuals. St. Paul even outright states condemnation against homosexuality does not apply to Christians in my next topic.
Romans 1:18
The only explicit mention of homosexuality in the Christian New Testament
The only explicit mention of homosexuality in the Christian New Testament
This, surprisingly, directly ties into the Leviticus verses I addressed prior.
Please read the full passage here or keep it aside for reference as I don’t want to make this thread longer than necessary. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A18-32&version=NRSV
Please read the full passage here or keep it aside for reference as I don’t want to make this thread longer than necessary. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A18-32&version=NRSV
Interestingly, this was an attempt by St. Paul to DEFEND the ethical nature of homosexuality by declaring it amoral, neither immoral or moral. The proof for this claim lies in Paul’s vocabulary, structure of writing, and history of his similar work.
The words Paul uses to describe homosexual acts are dishonorable and unnatural. I will be addressing these terms individually.
UNNATURAL
Paul did not mean homosexuality is against the laws of nature. Instead, he meant that it is against what is typical within human sexuality. He never uses the word natural to mean “follows the laws of nature”, but rather “follows what is normal and expected of them.”
Paul did not mean homosexuality is against the laws of nature. Instead, he meant that it is against what is typical within human sexuality. He never uses the word natural to mean “follows the laws of nature”, but rather “follows what is normal and expected of them.”
He uses the same word to describe men with long hair. Men grow hair by the laws of nature, but society views it as unconventional. He even uses it to describe GOD HIMSELF in Romans 11:24 to prove that God defies the boundaries of what is typical or expected by humans.
DISHONORABLE
Similarly to the phrase translated to “unnatural,” the word translated to dishonorable has SOCIAL implications, not ethical or moral. The word is “atimia,” and it is used to describe something not respected, honored, or acceptable by society.
Similarly to the phrase translated to “unnatural,” the word translated to dishonorable has SOCIAL implications, not ethical or moral. The word is “atimia,” and it is used to describe something not respected, honored, or acceptable by society.
Like with unnatural, St. Paul uses the word atimia throughout the Bible in the same context I am describing here, even towards himself. It does NOT mean something is ethically wrong, it only means it is looked down upon by society.
Why did St. Paul even mention homosexuality in the first place? To make a point to the Romans (who viewed homosexuality as natural at the time) that Christians do not condemn it like the Jews. That’s why the passage is broken into two sections.
In the first section, St. Paul is describing homosexuality with the word atimia, used to mean “unaccepted by society.” In the second section, St. Paul makes a point to describe a list of sins as “adikia.” Adikia means something morally wrong, like really wrong. It is pure sin.
Paul uses this word to describe “...envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”
Why didn’t St. Paul use this word to describe homosexuals? Because his entire point is that something being deemed “impure” or “socially dishonored” in Jewish law is not grounds to be considered sinful by Christians.
St. Paul is making a crucial distinction between “socially unnaceptable, not respected, ritually impure” and “ethically wrong, immoral, sin”
