New worldviews vs Biblical worldview
 |
| Lot leaving Sodom, Woodcut from the Nuremberg Chronicle (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Ethical issues that have become matters of public morality—such as abortion, state lotteries, euthanasia, and homosexuality—have become storm-centers of debate. Until recently, homosexuality referred to disgusting practices that brought shame and were confined behind closed doors. This is no longer the case. Now questions about its morality, its legality as a civil right, and its acceptability as a religious ethic are freely, openly, ubiquitously, and passionately discussed.
The traditional Christian view was that homosexuality displeases God so much that its practice was the reason God destroyed the city of Sodom. From that account in the book of Genesis on through Revelation, scholars have found that Scripture consistently disapproves of homosexual behavior. This view has prevailed in the Christian church until the closing years of the twentieth century. It is anyone’s guess what the third millennium will bring.
The traditional view as I’ve just described it is under discussion, debate, and even outright denial. At this writing, even such historically conservative denominations as the Southern Baptist Convention in the United States have discussed the biblical teaching regarding homosexuality and how to react to applications for membership by practicing homosexuals. Other churches, among them the Episcopal and Roman Catholic communions, are debating whether to ordain practicing homosexuals—gay men and lesbian women—as bishops and priests.
The role of religion in the debate is central and obvious. For the last twenty years or longer, books and articles have been published, seminars held, and media frontiers crossed to explore every alternative to the traditional understanding of biblical and nonbiblical materials.
Significant studies have asserted such bold new (but wrong) interpretations of the material as:
1. The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality but inhospitality. Neither the Hebrew text nor its Greek translation in the LXX will sustain a homosexual interpretation of Sodom’s sin in Genesis 19 and other biblical references to that disaster.
2. English translations of the Old Testament references to sodomy or sodomites have been influenced by the LXX, which wrongly read homosexuality into the text.
3. The Old Testament limits the prohibitions against same-gender sexual behavior in Leviticus 18 and 20 to the ritual or cult of Israel. This related to Israel’s distinctive status before God and not to morality. These passages have no impact on the New Testament/Christian moral code.
4. The Mishnah and other ancient rabbinical writings do not support a homosexual interpretation for the Old Testament passages.
5. Out of a reaction to growing Greek homosexuality in the culture surrounding Israel, the intertestamental literature of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha wrongly assigned a homosexual interpretation to Sodom and the Old Testament passages. This literature also wrongly influenced the New Testament to find homosexuality in the Old Testament.
6. In describing homosexuality as “against nature” (Rom. 1:26 KJV), Paul does not condemn homosexual orientation or any committed mutual relationship. Instead, he condemns perversion of what comes naturally. It is “against nature” for homosexuals to practice heterosexuality or for heterosexuals to practice homosexuality. Paul does not condemn people for having been born homosexual, nor does he condemn the homosexual orientation (inversion). Further, there is no universal moral principle to be found in Romans 1 or anywhere else in the words of Paul. Early Christians had no concept of a universal natural law.
7. In his unique use of arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10), Paul does not refer to homosexuals who are in monogamous relationships of mutual respect. Rather, he condemns homosexual prostitutes, pederasts, or those who are ritually impure. His statements have no relevance for today’s homosexual couples.
8. References to “strange flesh” and homosexuality at Sodom as recorded in 2 Peter and Jude follow the erroneous interpretations of the intertestamental literature. These authors are wrong in their view of the Old Testament account of Sodom.
9. As the popular saying in some Christian circles goes, “Jesus did not condemn homosexuality, and neither should we.”
10. The earliest Christians and church fathers did not condemn homosexuality. The essence of the gospel is the ethic of love lived out in freedom. To restrict homosexual behavior would deny these crucial values of liberation.
11. The ancient Greeks and Romans allowed homosexual behavior and would not have considered proscribing or prohibiting it by law.
12. There is no biblical or Christian justification for legislating or restricting homosexual behavior by law.
13. Within Scripture itself we find beautiful expressions of homosexual relationships—David and Jonathan, Naomi and Ruth, Jesus and John.
14. God’s pattern of creating human beings as male and female has to do only with procreation of the race and does not inherently proscribe same-gender sexual expression.
15. Our modern worldview includes advances and discoveries unknown to ancient peoples, making biblical pronouncements on homosexuality incomplete and even erroneous.
1. The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality but inhospitality. Neither the Hebrew text nor its Greek translation in the LXX will sustain a homosexual interpretation of Sodom’s sin in Genesis 19 and other biblical references to that disaster.
2. English translations of the Old Testament references to sodomy or sodomites have been influenced by the LXX, which wrongly read homosexuality into the text.
3. The Old Testament limits the prohibitions against same-gender sexual behavior in Leviticus 18 and 20 to the ritual or cult of Israel. This related to Israel’s distinctive status before God and not to morality. These passages have no impact on the New Testament/Christian moral code.
4. The Mishnah and other ancient rabbinical writings do not support a homosexual interpretation for the Old Testament passages.
5. Out of a reaction to growing Greek homosexuality in the culture surrounding Israel, the intertestamental literature of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha wrongly assigned a homosexual interpretation to Sodom and the Old Testament passages. This literature also wrongly influenced the New Testament to find homosexuality in the Old Testament.
6. In describing homosexuality as “against nature” (Rom. 1:26 KJV), Paul does not condemn homosexual orientation or any committed mutual relationship. Instead, he condemns perversion of what comes naturally. It is “against nature” for homosexuals to practice heterosexuality or for heterosexuals to practice homosexuality. Paul does not condemn people for having been born homosexual, nor does he condemn the homosexual orientation (inversion). Further, there is no universal moral principle to be found in Romans 1 or anywhere else in the words of Paul. Early Christians had no concept of a universal natural law.
7. In his unique use of arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10), Paul does not refer to homosexuals who are in monogamous relationships of mutual respect. Rather, he condemns homosexual prostitutes, pederasts, or those who are ritually impure. His statements have no relevance for today’s homosexual couples.
8. References to “strange flesh” and homosexuality at Sodom as recorded in 2 Peter and Jude follow the erroneous interpretations of the intertestamental literature. These authors are wrong in their view of the Old Testament account of Sodom.
9. As the popular saying in some Christian circles goes, “Jesus did not condemn homosexuality, and neither should we.”
10. The earliest Christians and church fathers did not condemn homosexuality. The essence of the gospel is the ethic of love lived out in freedom. To restrict homosexual behavior would deny these crucial values of liberation.
11. The ancient Greeks and Romans allowed homosexual behavior and would not have considered proscribing or prohibiting it by law.
12. There is no biblical or Christian justification for legislating or restricting homosexual behavior by law.
13. Within Scripture itself we find beautiful expressions of homosexual relationships—David and Jonathan, Naomi and Ruth, Jesus and John.
14. God’s pattern of creating human beings as male and female has to do only with procreation of the race and does not inherently proscribe same-gender sexual expression.
15. Our modern worldview includes advances and discoveries unknown to ancient peoples, making biblical pronouncements on homosexuality incomplete and even erroneous.
