Leviticus about gays
Leviticus, Jesus, and Homosexuality: Some Thoughts on Honest Interpretation
Conservatives and liberals alike exploit the Bible to justify their political positions. Frequently, politicians take verses of Scripture out of their original context to validate whatever policy argument they wish to make. Think about, for example: "An eye for an eye" (to justify capital punishment); "The least of these" (in support for government anti-poverty programs); "Blessed are the peacemakers" (the promotion of pacifism).[1]
One of the most striking examples is President Obama's statement endorsing gay "marriage" based on the Golden Rule. On May 9, 2012, the President said:
[Michelle and I] are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to set us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we consider about is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Principle, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.[2]
Promoting a harmful public policy- which essentially is what the President has done- is an intellectually dishonest application of this ethical directive
Has 'Homosexual' Always Been in the Bible?
Reprinted with permission from The Forge Online
The word “arsenokoitai” shows up in two different verses in the bible, but it was not translated to intend “homosexual” until 1946.
We got to sit down with Ed Oxford at his dwelling in Long Beach, California and talk about this question.
You have been part of a research team that is seeking to comprehend how the decision was made to put the word homosexual in the bible. Is that true?
Ed: Yes. It first showed up in the RSV translation. So before figuring out why they decided to employ that word in the RSV translation (which is outlined in my upcoming book with Kathy Baldock, Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay) I wanted to see how other cultures and translations treated the same verses when they were translated during the Reformation 500 years ago. So I started collecting old Bibles in French, German, Irish, Gaelic, Czechoslovakian, Polish… you name it. Now I’ve got most European major languages that I’ve collected over time. Anyway, I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could assist me with some pa
Leviticus 18:22
“You shall not stretch with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”[1] It is not a surprise that this verse seems to say that lgbtq+ male sex is forbidden in the eyes of God. The dominant view of western Christianity forbids same-sex relations. This verse is one of the clobber passages that people cite from the Bible to condemn homosexuality. This essay first looks at the various ways the verse is translated into the English Bible and then explores some of the strategies used to create an affirming understanding of what this alley means for the LGBTQ community. More specifically, it presents the interpretation of K. Renato Lings in which Lev. 18:22 refers to male-on-male incest.
While Lev. 18:22 is used to condemn homosexuality, we must realize that the word “homosexuality” was only recently coined in the English language. So did this term exist in ancient Israel? Charles D. Myers, Jr. confirms that none of the prophets in the Hebrew Bible refer homosexuality.[2] He also contends that in ancient Israel same-sex relations were viewed as an ancient Nearby East problem. The ancient Near East tradition included pederasty and relations between an older man and
The Bible on Homosexual Behavior
One way to argue against these passages is to make what I contact the “shellfish objection.” Keith Sharpe puts it this way: “Until Christian fundamentalists boycott shellfish restaurants, cease wearing poly-cotton T-shirts, and stone to death their wayward offspring, there is no obligation to heed to their diatribes about homosexuality being a sin” (The Gay Gospels, 21).
In other words, if we can disregard rules fancy the ban on eating shellfish in Leviticus 11:12, then we should be allowed to disobey other prohibitions from the Ancient Testament. But this argument confuses the Old Testament’s temporary ceremonial laws with its permanent moral laws.
Here’s an analogy to facilitate understand this distinction.
I think of two rules my mom gave me when I was young: hold her hand when I cross the street and don’t drink what’s under the sink. Today, I own to follow only the latter rule, since the former is no longer needed to protect me. In fact, it would now do me more harm than good.
Old Testament ritual/ceremonial laws were love mom’s handholding rule. The reason they forbade the Israelites from using certain fabrics or foods, or interacting with bodily
.