Homosexuality And Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9 (Part 2)

 

Homosexuality And Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9 (Part 2).

Brett A. Todd

Romans 1:26-27 is the New Testament passage it seems most anti-gay individuals like to quote in their attempt to prove that homosexuality is sexual deviation and morally wrong.  This is how these two verses read:

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Since the Bible is a guidebook for most Christians, it is understandable why some Christians would view homosexuality (LGBTQ+) as unethical and sinful.  And yes, it is clear from Paul’s words that more than likely he was aware of and did condemn what he knew and understood of same-sex relationships (See Jewett). However, it is doubtful he was aware and understood what our modern society would call a committed relationship between two adult men or two adult women or the idea of sexual identity and orientation.

So what was Paul writing about in these two verses? In all likelihood, Paul was condemning slave prostitution, orgies, sex between an older man and an adolescent boy (pederasty), and men who prostituted themselves by becoming passive recipients of sexual intercourse.  In short, Paul was condemning the domination, exploitation, abusive and oppressive pagan practice of sex and prostitution.  One has to wonder if Paul was aware and was thinking about the stories of Tiberius Caesar Augustus’ sexual shenanigans and the likes.

This brings us to a difficult question: how do we properly make comparisons and contrasts between what Paul said nearly 2000 years ago and our present understanding and knowledge of homosexuality today? 

First, we must be honest and admit there is a lot we do not know and probably will never know.  Secondly, and this is important if we ever hope to have some clarity on what Paul was addressing: we must look at it from a historical perspective, from what we do know and not what we think.  And what we do know is this: Paul was not talking about a committed relationship between two adult men or two adult women or one’s sexual identity or orientation.

In our next study, we will continue exploring Romans 1:26-27.

Homosexuality And Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9 (Part 1)

 Homosexuality And Romans 1:26-27;

1 Corinthians 6:9 (Part 1)

Brett A. Todd

Interlude: Before we can actually talk about Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, we must first look at the meaning of the word “homosexual” and how its meaning has changed over time.  This is important for a couple of reasons: first, what you may mean by the word homosexual may be different from another person’s definition. How are you going to talk about homosexuality if you are both talking about something different? Case in point, many conservative Christians’ definition of the word homosexual is completely different from that of progressive Christians.  Indeed, one’s understanding of the complexity of words and language is important in any study, especially, the study of homosexuality and the Bible.  

The meaning of words is always changing.  We have numerous examples of this, but let me give you two:  When I’m reading a book, I may say to someone that I’m perusing, meaning that I am lightly reading or scanning a book.  However, when the word was first used in the late 1400s, the word meant that a person was thoroughly examining something. Here is another one, you may refer to a person as being silly, meaning this person is foolish, but originally the word silly meant that a person was blessed. Again, the meaning of words changes over time.  This is also true of the word homosexual, its meaning also has changed over time.

First and foremost, keep in mind, the word homosexual never appeared in the Bible in its original languages.  Actually, the word homosexuality did not exist until Karl-Maria Kertbeny coined the word in 1869.  More than that, what Kertbeny meant by the word homosexual was that it was something inborn and unchangeable.  Over time, however, the word homosexual took on a more negative connotation of abnormal behavior and sin. Today, much of this has changed.  In modern psychiatry and most other academic fields, the word homosexual has reverted back to Kertbeny’s original definition, denoting one’s sexual identity and orientation.  Some have altogether chosen not to use the word homosexual because they feel this word is offensive (DSM-5).

So, we must ask, is using the original and modern definition of homosexuality appropriate when referring to same-sex activity in the Bible?  I think the answer is obvious, no, it should not be used.  What the Bible describes as same-sex activity is both abusive and exploitive.  

One instance in the Bible where same-sex activity is described as abusive and exploitative occurs in Genesis 19:1-11.  Here, the men of the city of Sodom (this is where we get the word “sodomy”) surround the house of the godly man named, Lot, and demand him to send out the two men, who were really angels, so they could have sexual intercourse with them (Genesis 19:1-11).  Clearly, this violent and obtrusive behavior does not match up with Kertbeny’s or modern psychiatry’s definition of homosexuality. It would do us well to use a different word when talking about this abusive and exploitive behavior.  If we had sufficient space, we could talk about this more.

In our next three studies, we will look at two passages used by some who think modern homosexuality is a sexual deviation and sinful according to the Bible.

What Is The Best Bible Translation?

 What Is The Best Bible Translation?

Brett A. Todd

What is the best Bible translation?  To put my bias out on the table for everyone to see, I have to tell you that I am very excited for the new edition of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible to be published in 2022.  The plan is to have a printed version sometime this summer, one that you can smell the ink on its pages.  By far, in my mind, this is the best Bible translation on the market.

Is there a best Bible translation?  You will get different answers from different Bible scholars simply because so much of translating ancient languages like Hebrew or Greek has first to do with “interpretation”.  Anyone who has skills in translating ancient languages knows exactly what I’m talking about.  Translating is not an exact science, rather, it is what I call “Getting a feel for it”.  A translator has to get a sense or a feel for what the ancient writers were trying to say thousands of years ago.  So, one could say, translating the Bible requires a lot of interpretation before the translation is put on paper.

As one might guess, this can be a problem.  Rather than getting a translation of what an ancient author might have said, what you get is a modern Bible translation of interpretations.  Let me give you an example from the Bible.

In Romans 7:18 we read these words in the New International Version of the Bible, “For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature…”  The two words I want you to note are “sinful nature”.  These two words are the translators’ modern theological interpretation of what they think the Greek word “sarx” (σάρξ) means in English.  Rather than translating this Greek word literally and correctly “flesh”, they have given it a little twist and translated this word to agree with their conservative Evangelical doctrine that we all have this part (sinful nature) in us that makes us sin and rebel against God.  Whether you believe in this type of doctrine or not, this is not what the Apostle Paul intended by Romans 7:18.

You might ask, how does the New Revised Standard Version translate this verse?  Let’s take a look, “For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh….”

There are many other examples from Bible translation that are more interpretations than translation, but this gives you a little sample of the problem faced in translating the Bible or any other ancient writing.

So, what is the best Bible translation? There are a lot of good Bible translations, and honestly, none of them are perfect.  Personally, as you know, I think the New Revised Version of the Bible is a great place to start.

In the next four articles, we will discuss what many consider a hot-button, topic—homosexuality and the Bible.  Specifically, we will discuss “Homosexuality and Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9”. 

Stories, Myths, And The Bible

 

Stories, Myths, And The Bible

Brett A. Todd

I’m convinced if we removed one of the stories from the Bible, change the setting and the names of the characters, and had the average Bible reader read this story for the very first time, they would probably respond, “This is some crazy weird stuff!” Take a look at this story: 

The daimons besought Apollonius of Tyana not to send them out of the country [Athens]. Now there was nigh unto the mountains a great pack of hyenas. And all the daimons besought him, saying, Send us into the hyenas, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Apollonius gave them leave. And the daimons went out, and entered into the hyenas: and the pack of hyenas ran violently off a cliff headlong and died.

The story above is sort of a fictitious story that by now you may recognize as derived from the story of Jesus casting out a demon from a man and the spirits entering a herd of swine who then in return ran off a cliff and drowned in the sea (Mark 5:8-13).   All I did was change the names and location.  So, for a moment, imagine someone, even a Christian, never hearing Mark’s story of the swine and reading the above story of Apollonius of Tyana and the hyenas for the first time. They might think to themselves, this is pretty bogus, or even comical!

One might reply by saying that Jesus was unique and he was the only one who could do miracles.  Well, this is not quite accurate, even the Bible talks about other healers, miracle workers, and exorcists.  Actually, historians know there were literally hundreds of healers and exorcists traipsing around before and after and at the same time as Jesus.  One of them was Apollonius of Tyana who I mentioned above.  He was a real man who lived around the same time as Jesus, and who also had followers.  Here is an excerpt where Apollonius of Tyana is casting out a demon from a young boy:

Now when Apollonios gazed on him, the Eidolon (demon) in him began to utter cries of fear and rage, such as one hears from people who are being branded or wracked; and the Eidolon (demon) swore that he would leave the young man alone and never take possession of any man again…the young man rubbed his eyes as if he had just woke up, and he looked towards the rays of the sun, and won the consideration of all who now had turned their attention to him; for he no longer showed himself licentious, nor did he stare madly about, but he had returned to his own self… (Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 4. 20 ff).

Here is a question and thought: why do we choose to believe one story and not another just because it is or is not in the Bible?  Or maybe these stories, whether in the Bible or not,  are the literary strategies of these authors to catch the attention of their readers, like in a movie or a book?   We will talk about literary strategies another time.

What Came First, The Wine Or The Bread?

What Came First, The Wine Or The Bread?

Brett A. Todd

Do you remember the old riddle: What came first, the chicken or the egg?  Hopefully, you have not lost any sleep over this riddle, but indeed, it is an interesting question.  In the Bible, we could ask the same question about Communion: What came first, the wine or the bread?

In most churches, not all, the sharing of the bread and the wine in Communion usually means eating bread first and drinking the wine last, and of course, there are reasons for this order.  However, there are churches that drink the wine first and eat the bread last, and they too have their reason for their order. Interestingly, some churches reaching back to ancient times take both the bread and the wine simultaneously by intinction.  They dip the bread into the wine and eat.  Luke, who also wrote the book of Acts wrote that the early church only shared bread. Wine is never mentioned (2:46). Some ancient churches not only offered wine and bread but also fish.

Order hoarder. In an attempt to stave the chaos in our lives we cling intensely to any kind of order we can get, this includes the order of Communion.  But what does the Bible teach?  Once again, it is important to understand that each author or writer of the New Testament has a different and unique perspective and this is true of Communion.

For Matthew, Mark, and John’s order, the bread comes first and then the wine.  Luke, on the other hand, the wine came first and the bread last.   This is how Luke reads, 22:17-21:

“Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table.”

To keep this discussion brief, note the underlined portion of the above reading.  This section is what textual critics call a Greek variant.  Someone added this section to Luke’s original reading in an attempt to make it agree with the other Gospels.  However, if we remove these added words underlined above one can read Luke’s authentic words that clearly state the wine is first and the bread is second:

Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body.” 

So, what came first, the bread or the wine?  It all depends on which Gospel you read.  

In our next study, we will look at the stories, myths, and the Bible.