An article [by an Australian theologian] published on the ABC website [NOTE 1] recently, made a number of claims about same-sex marriage. Included in the presentation were some statements which a number of like-minded scholars affirm as well. But are they right in doing so?
One statement is this. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 has nothing to say about homosexuality. The author of the article acknowledges that the story in Genesis 19 is where the terms “sodomite” and “sodomy” originate, and that it has long been associated with biblical condemnation of male homosexual sex. Her conclusion is that it refers to gang-rape and not male homosexual sex. In the story in Genesis 19 Lot offered hospitality to two angelic beings. However they must have seemed in appearance to be like young men. Soon after, the men of Sodom of all ages surrounded the house, and called out to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” What did they mean by saying that they wanted to “know them?” Was it simply that the men of Sodom wanted to say something to them like “Hi fellas! Welcome to Sodom! We just felt as a group that we’d like to get to know you a bit better. Do you want to join us down at the pub for a beer?”
I looked at this some time ago in blog No 85 [Note 2] where I commented, ‘{The word for “know” is (yada). It has many meanings but it can mean knowing a person sexually such as in Gen 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.” It is also used in the same way in 1Kings 1:4, where David’s servants try to keep David warm by selecting a young woman to lie in his arms. Abishag was found and brought to the king. Even though she was very beautiful and attended to the king, he “knew” her not. In other words he did not know her sexually. Another reference to (yada) being used to describe sexual relations is in the story of Rebekah where she is described as a virgin in these words, Gen 24:16 The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a maiden whom no man had known.
In the story in Genesis 19:8 Lot knew what the men were after, namely sexual relations with his guests. He offers his virgin daughters (who have not known [yada] any man) to the men so that the men of Sodom might do to them as they pleased. Rather a despicable attitude but he wanted to save face with his guests at the cost of his daughters’ well-being. However the men of Sodom lusted for the men and would not accept the offer of the daughters. Judgment followed upon those men [as Lot’s family were divinely protected.]
Many modern versions of the Bible spell out the meaning of “know” referring to sexual relations. For example the Holman Christian Standard Bible puts it, Gen 19:5 They called out to Lot and said, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so we can have sex with them!” Lot’s offer of his daughters is translated as, Gen 19:8 Look, I’ve got two daughters who haven’t had sexual relations with a man. I’ll bring them out to you, and you can do whatever you want to them. The NET Bible also puts it starkly, “Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!” The daughters are described in this version as those who have never had sexual relations with a man.
It is obvious why the term “sodomy” came into use. It described the sexual activity between males as seen in the city of Sodom.’} That is brought out in Jude 1:7 where Jude describes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God’s punishment for what He saw as evil in His sight. The reason given for the destruction was not that on one occasion the males of the city had tried to rape two visitors to town [and by God’s intervention, been unsuccessful]. Rather it was because they “indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire”. The word for “Sexual immorality” is [ekporneúō, ἐκπορνεύω] meaning to practise immorality or lewdness. The phrase “pursued unnatural desire” is made up of a number of words. They are [apérchomai, ἀπέρχομαι meaning to go after or pursue] and [héteros, ἕτερος meaning different or another of a different kind] and [sárx, σάρξ meaning flesh] ie., they were going after or pursuing strange or different flesh. As the Baker’s New Testament Commentary puts it, “Therefore, when the men of Sodom were interested in sexual relations with men, they perverted the created order of natural intercourse. That is, the men of Sodom did not desire females (see Gen 19:8-9); instead, these men demanded homosexual relations with the men who visited Lot.”
The judgment on Sodom was God’s response to what some would call a widespread sexual proclivity in the city as 19:4 indicates, “all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.” [The words, ‘All the men’. ‘From every part of Sodom’. ‘Both young and old’ show how widespread and deep seated was the lust among the males of the city. They were accountable to God for their lust. He acted to prevent them from putting their desires into action. Nevertheless a greater judgment upon the city was soon to follow.]
It would appear then that the author’s conclusion that Genesis 19 is only about gang-rape and not male homosexual sex is questionable to say the least. However we are fortunate in Australia that the national broadcaster (the ABC) is meant to be balanced in its presentations. So I am looking forward to it publishing or presenting arguments in favour of the historical interpretation of this passage. It hasn’t happened yet to my knowledge but perhaps I just need to wait a little longer!
In the meantime we will investigate in the next article whether the author’s second point is correct when she affirms that the 2 laws of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) are “the sum total of what the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) says about same-sex activities” and are not necessarily verses that can be used as arguments against same sex marriage.
[NOTE 1] The ABC stands for the Australian Broadcasting Commission and it operates under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Part of the charter has these words, “It also imposes general duties on all ABC employees to, amongst other things, act honestly, in good faith and for a proper purpose.” Many assume that this should mean in practice a fair and balanced treatment on all the topics it presents or on which it reports. (Such as a balance for the arguments for the “Yes” and “No” cases for the coming postal vote in Australia. The vote will be about altering the definition of “marriage” in the Marriage Act to include same sex relatioships.)
[NOTE 2] I have written on this and similar themes a number of times over the years and on request linked them together in one blog to enable folk to be able to click on any topic mentioned in the blog that they wanted to investigate. That blog number is 195.
Blog No.232. Jim Holbeck. Posted Friday 25th August 2017
233. What relevance do Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 have to changing the definition of marriage in Australia? Should I vote “Yes” or “No” to same sex ‘marriage’?
As I mentioned in the previous article, the ABC on its website published an article by an Australian theologian which examined some of the Bible’s teaching relating to marriage. Part of that article had these words, “Two of the laws of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) are the sum total of what the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) says about same-sex activities. They call a man lying with another man instead of his wife an “abomination”. The imagined scenario is a married man committing adultery with another male. Again, we need some context. Yes, this verse clearly condemns adulterous homosexual sex in calling it an “abomination” (to’ebah), but here are all the other things also called an “abomination” in the Bible.” The writer then listed many of those abominations. She concluded, “As you can see, there is quite an assortment of ancient laws, some of which seem to make good sense (such as no child sacrifice) and others of which the majority of Christians no longer keep (such as eating pork and wearing a wool-silk blend). To claim one set as timeless truths while ignoring the others is patently hypocritical and goes against the grain of the text itself.”
Well let’s take the advice of that writer and look at the context for these verses, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The writer of the article unfortunately [and most probably unintentionally] gives the impression that there are only a few occurrences of the word “abomination” (Hebrew to’ebah) which are those mentioned above. However, a quick look at a concordance gives the number as 126 occurrences. Admittedly they are not all translated as “abomination” but have similar meanings. The reference in Lev 18:22 in its context is immediately followed by these verses which include the same Hebrew word for “abomination”. The words are underlined as follows. Lev 18:26 “But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you. 27 (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), 28 lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 29 For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God.”
We note the seriousness of what God saw as “abominations” in these verses. God’s people had to follow the laws He had given them. That meant everybody, including those strangers sojourning among them. They were not to live in the same way as the nation in that area lived before them, for their sin polluted both the people and the land [because they had done all of the abominations mentioned in chapter 18.] The warning is given to the people of God that if they did “any” of those abominations they would be cut off from the people. Note it says “any” not some or a few but “any!” In other words they were to do none of those abominable things. They were never to practise any of those abominations and never to make themselves unclean by doing any of them. Stern words! God could not be clearer in saying to His people, you must do none of these things that I have called an abomination, not one, ever! What was included among the abominations? The practice described as an abomination in verse 22, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
The author of the article on the ABC website seemed to be suggesting that the abomination occurred when a married man had homosexual intercourse with another man, “We should note first that the imagined scenario is a married man committing adultery with another male.” To some that would seem to be reading into the text what is not there. It does indeed appear to be an “imagined scenario”. The “You” in “You shall not lie with a male” seems to be referring to all males, not just married males. The abomination seems to be in the male to male action itself and not simply when a case of adultery occurred. That is made clearer in the passage from Leviticus 20:13.
The reference in Lev 20:13 to abomination also seems to be in relation to same sex encounters, “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.” Again in this reference there is no need to see this as just a married man having sex with another man. It seems to refer to any man. The Hebrew word here for “man” is [‘ı̂ysh] which can be translated as ‘man” or husband.” But it is pushing the boundaries of common sense to say it should be translated as “husband’ in this verse. Why? Because the same word is used in this passage to say that a “man” [‘ı̂ysh] should not lie with or have sex with the following, Lev 20:10 with the wife of his neighbour. 11 with his father’s wife, 12 with his daughter-in-law, 13 with a male as with a woman 14 with a woman and her mother also, 15 with an animal, 17 with his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, 18 with a woman during her menstrual period 19 with his mother’s sister or father’s sister, 20 his uncle’s wife, 21 his brother’s wife.
In this verse, Lev 20:13, the action is described as an abomination committed by both parties and a penalty is also added. Both were to be put to death. Why was such severe punishment to take place? The answer may be found in the context where God declared in the final verses of the chapter that He wanted His people to be holy and set apart for Him. His people were privileged to be His people but they had the following obligations.
The laws in Leviticus give us an indication of the character of our God. He describes what He dislikes as being contrary to His holy nature. He expects His people to be holy like Him and that means not participating in practices that He has deemed to be abominable or detestable in His sight. That was particularly so as He led His people towards their promised land, and tried to protect them for being contaminated by adopting the customs of the peoples through whose lands they would journey.
We may not agree with or understand His reasoning in all His statutes and rules and commands, but this is His world and He sets the rules for His creatures and especially for His people to follow. He has told us in His word what He likes and what He dislikes, even calling some of those dislikes, “abominations.” The amazing thing is that He is gracious and wants to fulfil His promises for His people, 2Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” [NOTE 1]
In the meantime, we are to live for Him as Peter went on to write in 2Peter 3:14 “So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.” Seeking to become spotless and blameless before Him certainly means doing nothing He dislikes. If God expressed His displeasure with male to male sexual encounters as He appears to do in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, then there seems to be no way of broadening the definition of the God given institution of marriage to include same sex relationships. That should mean a resounding “NO!” vote in any plebiscite to change the definition of marriage to include same sex relationships.
===========================================================================
[NOTE 1] In a series of articles I wrote on “repentance” (summarised in blog No. 230 ) I made the point that repentance [metánoia, μετάνοια] means a change of mind accompanied by a change in attitude and in behaviour. It means turning from sin to God to ask Him to forgive us and to give us the grace to help us overcome the temptation to sin in that way (or in any other way) again. It is a sobering thought to realise that the so-called delay in the coming of the Lord in judgment is not a sign of weakness. Rather it is a sign of His grace being extended to all of us to give us time to repent of our sins and to turn to Him in true repentance and faith. Sadly that time is coming to an end for those who have not yet heeded His call to repent.
Blog No.233. Jim Holbeck. Posted on Saturday 26th August 2017