Event
Sermon
I want to start this off with some of my personal belief statements.
- Jesus (Yeshua) is the Messiah (HaMashiach) for all people. For all time.
- The Bible is the inspired voice of God (Yahweh) through the lens of man.
- I have a profound sense of faith.
- I trust the ever guiding presence of the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh). The Advocate that is within and surrounds us all.
- There is nothing that can affect my faith in Yeshua.
With the above said. For some. Learning HOW our Bible came to be as we have it today can be challenging. It can be painful to unlearn what we have been led to believe. Even by scholars who have access to the tools that prove what we are going to learn here. I pray that you are able to open your minds and hearts. Let us learn together. Let us honor our Scriptures by placing them in the context they were written in. Let us honor our Holy book by not reading our modern societal norms back into the text. And with that. Let’s dive in.
To understand what I mean by the word “context” let me ask you a question. Slavery existed in the Bible. It was even written in the Law (Torah) with guidelines on how slavery legalities took place. Do you believe we should condone slavery in our modern times? If you said yes to this question then we have way more problems to deal with. If you said no, why? A likely answer may be, “Because it was another time. Slavery was common in their culture.” What if I said, “Aw Papaw may make racist remarks but he doesn’t know any better. He’s a product of his time.” Does that connect the dots a little better? Understanding why Papaw said what he said doesn’t excuse it. It gives context to his worldview. How his cultural background influenced his perception. Not an excuse. Just explains how he got where he is.
What about women? Should they still be considered men’s property? Should they be married off to a man’s brother if she didn’t bear him a son? To be his heir? No? Why not? The Bible condoned it. Even had laws about it. Time. Place. Culture. These and so much more give us our why. We don’t agree because we do not see these as commandments from Yahweh that transcend time. They were a product of their time. We look at the original author’s and audience’s understanding. They didn’t have the experiences and knowledge we have now. Context is key. With that in mind. Why don’t we us this very same logic with the verses that are used against people?
Now, let’s look at the Bible passages commonly used against the LGBTQ+ community. We will read them together. Use whatever translation you’d like.
“So God created humans in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” – Genesis 1:27 NRSVue
“But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house, and they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.’” – Genesis 19:4-5 NRSVue
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” – Leviticus 18:22 NRSvue
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.” Leviticus 20:13 NRSvue
“For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” – Romans 1:26-27 NRSVue
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV
“understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,” – 1 Timothy 1:9-10 ESV
“just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,[a] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” – Jude 1:7 ESV
““A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord your God.” – Deuteronomy 22:5 NRSVue
I want to preface everything with this. You will not be getting everything there is to know in this lesson. I will be addressing the key points. But there is so much more. If you think the Bible is “clear” about something. And you only read the surface level. You are missing everything. It can be disgraceful even. If you use it against another person. So, please, keep digging.
Let’s start at the beginning. The Bible was not originally the canon as we see today. Each book existed separately. In its own time. Had different authors. Influenced and inspired differently. Ancient Israelites separated their world into binaries. Things. Categories opposite from each other. Think about dietary laws. Clean versus unclean foods. Genesis 1:27 does this as well. This is a Hebrew literary device called “merism”. However, God said, let there be day and night. But we have sunrises and sunsets. We don’t have just land and sea. We have ponds. Lakes. Swamps. We don’t just have male and female. We have intersex people. Those with both male and female characteristics. Both chromosomes. Or androgen sensitivity syndrome. Ambiguous genitalia. In ancient times these people were seen as hermaphrodites. This is a spectrum. This is also only looking at it from a biological level. This doesn’t even get into gender expression. Granted science is showing transgender brains are reflecting the opposite sex characteristics even prior to introducing hormone replacement therapy. Bodies are weird. Bodies are beautiful. Using this text as a weapon ignores how the ancient ancestors of the text actually read it. A kaleidoscope of human experience and possibilities.
Genesis 19:4-5 is historically cited as proof that God destroyed Sodom due to “homosexuality”. The text describes an attempt at gang rape and violence against angels. Later prophets explain what Sodom’s sin was. “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease but did not aid the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49). Pride. Excess food. Refusal to aid the poor and those in need.
Understanding the story also helps if you read 1 Enoch. A book not included in the mainline biblical canon by councils of men. However, it was a sacred text for many of the biblical authors. Jesus pointed to its themes as well. The key is angels. We see this again in Jude. These verses speak about cosmic boundary violation. As well as the cause of Noah’s flood. Angels and humans mixing sexually. What came from those unions? “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went into the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. The Lord saw that the wickedness of humans was great in the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made humans on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, ‘I will blot out from the earth the humans I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air—for I am sorry that I have made them.’” (Genesis 6:4-7 NRSVue).
Corruption of oneself with angels. That is the story of Jude and Genesis 19. 1 Enoch goes into what those in Jesus’ time thought. It’s a much deeper commentary I highly recommend if you truly want to see into Jesus’ worldview. “For centuries, Jewish readers understood these stories through principles repeated by prophets: principles of social justice, divine boundaries…rather than modern sexual categories.” (Forging A Sacred Weapon by Kathy Baldock).
Moving on to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. In the ancient world the Levitical laws were written, women were considered property. Excessively low legal statuses. Men’s honor and safety was the priority. Women’s rapists were legally obligated within these laws to marry their victims. Women were the burden bearers of adultery cases. The Leviticus verses did not, however, prohibit female same-sex acts. Why? Because women taking a dominant role in their worldview wasn’t possible. They had no ability to comprehend that to have even been an option. For the patriarchal society, the only way sex acts could be completed was through penile penetration. Women on women intercourse did not threaten that. Also, belief that life existed in the sperm and thus female-female sex did not risk pregnancy nor was a “wasted” seed. It would not threaten inheritance rights either. So lesbians. Ya’ll are good! (Ha ha!)
Men could have intercourse with prostitutes and unmarried women. This would not be adultery in the context of the time. However, if the woman was married. He would be committing a property offense to the husband. But the woman, the wife? She would be under adultery. Any woman that had sex outside of marriage was guilty of it. But a man? He could do quite a bit more and get away with it. All permissible.
Outside of the ban on bestiality for women. Leviticus is only about the behaviors of men. Abominable. Abomination. Toevah. This means “highly offensive” or “culturally abhorrent”. A word used for idolatry, eating unclean animals, sacrificing blemished animals, witchcraft, incest, bestiality, specific sex acts between men. Cultural boundary violations. Not universal morality. Not connected with a covenant violation. This was about their cultural identity. There is no scholarly consensus on what the sex acts were that involved these men. There are seven prevailing theories. Four out of those seven point to incest. The others claim it condemns only the penetrator, only the penetrated, or two men having sex with the same woman. These texts are in no way addressing committed same gender committed relationships. For them, marriage was contractual. Inheritance focused. Not about love. About property.
Now, what about Romans 1:26-27? Paul was a Jew living in an ancient Greco-Roman culture. This included the social hierarchies we saw in Leviticus but also with male classes as well. Power dynamics. Exploitation and abuse. The only male same-sex acts known to Paul would have been masters with enslaved or prostituted people, citizen adult men with young boys, and male citizens with foreign born men. He would also be familiar with avoidance of excess (lust of things and sex) used as a political tool. The upper classes didn’t have to follow it. Everyone else did though. They were the loudest voices about it but never followed themselves.
When the ancient audience in Paul’s letter read “given up to unnatural desires”, they would have understood this to be pointing a finger at imperial corruption. Paul had to do this in coded language. Just as in Romans 1:23 he mentions types of animals that his audience would have understood to reference Egyptian Cult symbols. For Paul his letters were about idolatry and exploitation as well as where it leads. Not about same-sex relationships. Abuse. Not love.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 things get interesting. Terms often translated in these verses to “homosexual” are “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai”. Modern translations disagree on how to translate them. As a reminder, the audience of Paul would have been in the first century Roman Empire. This culture understood sexual practices as property, slavery, prostitution, abuse, exploitation, and class hierarchy. Not orientation. Not gender identity. Not committed love same-sex equal relationships. Modern languages have changed the meaning of words. Take “girl” for example. Today we know this word to mean a female child. However, in Medieval times “girl” was referring to any child. Male or female. With that in mind, let’s look at “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” in context of their time.
“Malakoi” in the most literal sense means “soft ones”. Not physical characteristics. This was about integrity. Lacking self-control, courage, or even endurance. They were men who didn’t fit into the socially expected behavior their culture demanded from them. In a sexual nature the word takes on another use. Ancient Greek sources tell us that “malakoi” refers to prostituted boys. This is also found in early Jewish and Christian writings. Not consensual. Imposed by status. Soft. Exploited. Abuse.
But what about “arsenokoitai”? Well, it seems to be a new term. Likely one from the area the audience was in. It appeared in other texts outside the Bible though. In those uses “arsenokaoitai” was about treating others badly. Exploiters. When we look at the Corinthian verse again we can see that the term is about exploitative sex. Abuse. A man and a young boy. Pederasty, which was a common legal practice in ancient Roman times. A slave owner and a slave boy. An enslaved adult male used for sex by another man. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 is often used alongside 1 Corinthians. But this also condemns “arsenokoitai”. Abuse. Slave traders. Kidnappers. Predatory behaviors found in ancient Roman society. And even today.
Finally, we are at Deuteronomy 22:5. In ancient times both men and women wore similar clothing. Tunics. Robes. Sandals. The phrase “a woman shall not wear…” literally means “an item of a warrior shall not be upon a woman.” And for men to not put on a cloak of a woman in parallel. This reflects society in which men held the power to regulate what women could or could not wear. Other items were regulated as well, not just for women either. Prohibiting the mixing of wool and linen in a single garment. Mandating people to build guard rails around the roofs of buildings. Prohibiting the planting of two different types of seed in the same vineyard. In this culture, a woman taking up a man’s tool of war was seen as trying to usurp male authority. And a man putting on a woman’s clothing item was seen as him abandoning his governing responsibility. This text is about preserving the social boundaries that kept the power structure intact. Not about transgender people. Not about gender expression. Power.
I know this is a lot to take in. This is so much more you don’t know. Like how we got where we are with translations today. Translations that enabled the mistreatment of LGBTQ+ people for decades. The trigger happened in 1946. But you’ll need to read Forging A Sacred Weapon by Kathy Baldock to find out more for now. But please take this away if nothing else. The Bible in no way condemns LGBTQ+ identities or relationships. Loving. Committed. Fruitful. No. It only condemns abuse. Power imbalances. Don’t let anyone ever again use the Scriptures to condemn who you are and who you love. We are the remnant. Fight on.
Amen.
Further Study Resources
Pastor Alex Burchnell