What does the Bible say about homosexuality? For starters, Jesus wasn't a homophobe

[aubiefifty 18,259]

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? For starters, Jesus wasn't a homophobe

Gerald West, Senior Professor of Biblical Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal

7–9 minutes

---

 

Getty Images

 

Pope Francis was recently asked about his views on homosexuality. He reportedly replied:

This (laws around the world criminalising LGBTI people) is not right. Persons with homosexual tendencies are children of God. God loves them. God accompanies them … condemning a person like this is a sin. Criminalising people with homosexual tendencies is an injustice.

This isn’t the first time Pope Francis has shown himself to be a progressive leader when it comes to, among other things, gay Catholics.

It’s a stance that has drawn the ire of some high-ranking bishops and ordinary Catholics, both on the African continent and elsewhere in the world.

Read more: Pope Francis' visit to Africa comes at a defining moment for the Catholic church

Some of these Catholics may argue that Pope Francis’s approach to LGBTI matters is a misinterpretation of Scripture (or the Bible). But is it?

Scripture is particularly important for Christians. When church leaders refer to “the Bible” or “the Scriptures”, they usually mean “the Bible as we understand it through our theological doctrines”. The Bible is always interpreted by our churches through their particular theological lenses.

As a biblical scholar, I would suggest that church leaders who use their cultures and theology to exclude homosexuals don’t read Scripture carefully. Instead, they allow their patriarchal fears to distort it, seeking to find in the Bible proof-texts that will support attitudes of exclusion.

There are several instances in the Bible that underscore my point.

Love of God and neighbour

Mark’s Gospel, found in the New Testament, records that Jesus entered the Jerusalem temple on three occasions. First, he visited briefly, and “looked around at everything” (11:11).

On the second visit he acted, driving “out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves” (11:15). Jesus specifically targeted those who exploited the poorest of the people coming to the temple.

On his third visit, Jesus spent considerable time in the temple itself (11:27-13:2). He met the full array of temple leadership, including chief priests, teachers of the law and elders. Each of these leadership sectors used their interpretation of Scripture to exclude rather than to include.

The “ordinary people” (11:32 and 12:12) recognised that Jesus proclaimed a gospel of inclusion. They eagerly embraced him as he walked through the temple.

In Mark 12:24, Jesus addresses the Sadducees, who were the traditional high priests of ancient Israel and played an important role in the temple. Among those who confronted Jesus, they represented the group that held to a conservative theological position and used their interpretation of the Scripture to exclude. Jesus said to them:

Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?

Jesus recognised that they chose to interpret Scripture in a way that prevented it from being understood in non-traditional ways. Thus they limited God’s power to be different from traditional understandings of him. Jesus was saying God refused to be the exclusive property of the Sadducees. The ordinary people who followed Jesus understood that he represented a different understanding of God.

This message of inclusion becomes even clearer when Jesus is later confronted by a single scribe (12:28). In answer to the scribe’s question on the most important laws, Jesus summarised the theological ethic of his gospel: love of God and love of neighbour (12:29-31).

Inclusion, not exclusion

Those who would exclude homosexuals from God’s kingdom choose to ignore Jesus, turning instead to the Old Testament – most particularly to Genesis 19, the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Their interpretation of the story is that it is about homosexuality. It isn’t. It relates to hospitality.

The story begins in Genesis 18 when three visitors (God and two angels, appearing as “men”) came before Abraham, a Hebrew patriarch. What did Abraham and his wife Sarah do? They offered hospitality.

The two angels then left Abraham and the Lord and travelled into Sodom (19:1) where they met Lot, Abraham’s nephew. What did Lot do? He offered hospitality. The two incidents of hospitality are explained in exactly the same language.

The “men of Sodom” (19:4), as the Bible describes them, didn’t offer the same hospitality to these angels in disguise. Instead they sought to humiliate them (and Lot (19:9)) by threatening to rape them. We know they were heterosexual because Lot, in attempting to protect himself and his guests, offered his virgin daughters to them (19:8).

Heterosexual rape of men by men is a common act of humiliation. This is an extreme form of inhospitality. The story contrasts extreme hospitality (Abraham and Lot) with the extreme inhospitality of the men of Sodom. It is a story of inclusion, not exclusion. Abraham and Lot included the strangers; the men of Sodom excluded them.

Clothed in Christ

When confronted by the inclusive gospel of Jesus and a careful reading of the story of Sodom as one about hospitality, those who disavow Pope Francis’s approach will likely jump to other Scriptures. Why? Because they have a patriarchal agenda and are looking for any Scripture that might support their position.

But the other Scriptures they use also require careful reading. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, for example, are not about “homosexuality” as we now understand it – as the caring, loving and sexual relationship between people of the same sex. These texts are about relationships that cross boundaries of purity (between clean and unclean) and ethnicity (Israelite and Canaanite).

In Galatians 3:28 in the New Testament, Paul the apostle yearns for a Christian community where:

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Paul built his theological argument on the Jew-Greek distinction, but then extended it to the slave-free distinction and the male-female distinction. Christians – no matter which church they belong to – should follow Paul and extend it to the heterosexual-homosexual distinction.

We are all “clothed in Christ” (3:27😞 God only sees Christ, not our different sexualities.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. Like this article? Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

It was written by: Gerald West, University of KwaZulu-Natal.

[homersapien 12,241]

This supports my contention that Christianity would be well-served by simply ditching the old testament from their bible.

Jesus was a revolutionary.  Recognize that by doing so.

 I also think that Christianity is in desperate need of reform. (See Christian Nationalism) Ditching the old testament could be the catalyst for that.

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by homersapien

[PUB78 1,413]

2 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? For starters, Jesus wasn't a homophobe

Gerald West, Senior Professor of Biblical Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal

7–9 minutes

---

 

Getty Images

 

Pope Francis was recently asked about his views on homosexuality. He reportedly replied:

This (laws around the world criminalising LGBTI people) is not right. Persons with homosexual tendencies are children of God. God loves them. God accompanies them … condemning a person like this is a sin. Criminalising people with homosexual tendencies is an injustice.

This isn’t the first time Pope Francis has shown himself to be a progressive leader when it comes to, among other things, gay Catholics.

It’s a stance that has drawn the ire of some high-ranking bishops and ordinary Catholics, both on the African continent and elsewhere in the world.

Read more: Pope Francis' visit to Africa comes at a defining moment for the Catholic church

Some of these Catholics may argue that Pope Francis’s approach to LGBTI matters is a misinterpretation of Scripture (or the Bible). But is it?

Scripture is particularly important for Christians. When church leaders refer to “the Bible” or “the Scriptures”, they usually mean “the Bible as we understand it through our theological doctrines”. The Bible is always interpreted by our churches through their particular theological lenses.

As a biblical scholar, I would suggest that church leaders who use their cultures and theology to exclude homosexuals don’t read Scripture carefully. Instead, they allow their patriarchal fears to distort it, seeking to find in the Bible proof-texts that will support attitudes of exclusion.

There are several instances in the Bible that underscore my point.

Love of God and neighbour

Mark’s Gospel, found in the New Testament, records that Jesus entered the Jerusalem temple on three occasions. First, he visited briefly, and “looked around at everything” (11:11).

On the second visit he acted, driving “out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves” (11:15). Jesus specifically targeted those who exploited the poorest of the people coming to the temple.

On his third visit, Jesus spent considerable time in the temple itself (11:27-13:2). He met the full array of temple leadership, including chief priests, teachers of the law and elders. Each of these leadership sectors used their interpretation of Scripture to exclude rather than to include.

The “ordinary people” (11:32 and 12:12) recognised that Jesus proclaimed a gospel of inclusion. They eagerly embraced him as he walked through the temple.

In Mark 12:24, Jesus addresses the Sadducees, who were the traditional high priests of ancient Israel and played an important role in the temple. Among those who confronted Jesus, they represented the group that held to a conservative theological position and used their interpretation of the Scripture to exclude. Jesus said to them:

Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?

Jesus recognised that they chose to interpret Scripture in a way that prevented it from being understood in non-traditional ways. Thus they limited God’s power to be different from traditional understandings of him. Jesus was saying God refused to be the exclusive property of the Sadducees. The ordinary people who followed Jesus understood that he represented a different understanding of God.

This message of inclusion becomes even clearer when Jesus is later confronted by a single scribe (12:28). In answer to the scribe’s question on the most important laws, Jesus summarised the theological ethic of his gospel: love of God and love of neighbour (12:29-31).

Inclusion, not exclusion

Those who would exclude homosexuals from God’s kingdom choose to ignore Jesus, turning instead to the Old Testament – most particularly to Genesis 19, the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Their interpretation of the story is that it is about homosexuality. It isn’t. It relates to hospitality.

The story begins in Genesis 18 when three visitors (God and two angels, appearing as “men”) came before Abraham, a Hebrew patriarch. What did Abraham and his wife Sarah do? They offered hospitality.

The two angels then left Abraham and the Lord and travelled into Sodom (19:1) where they met Lot, Abraham’s nephew. What did Lot do? He offered hospitality. The two incidents of hospitality are explained in exactly the same language.

The “men of Sodom” (19:4), as the Bible describes them, didn’t offer the same hospitality to these angels in disguise. Instead they sought to humiliate them (and Lot (19:9)) by threatening to rape them. We know they were heterosexual because Lot, in attempting to protect himself and his guests, offered his virgin daughters to them (19:8).

Heterosexual rape of men by men is a common act of humiliation. This is an extreme form of inhospitality. The story contrasts extreme hospitality (Abraham and Lot) with the extreme inhospitality of the men of Sodom. It is a story of inclusion, not exclusion. Abraham and Lot included the strangers; the men of Sodom excluded them.

Clothed in Christ

When confronted by the inclusive gospel of Jesus and a careful reading of the story of Sodom as one about hospitality, those who disavow Pope Francis’s approach will likely jump to other Scriptures. Why? Because they have a patriarchal agenda and are looking for any Scripture that might support their position.

But the other Scriptures they use also require careful reading. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, for example, are not about “homosexuality” as we now understand it – as the caring, loving and sexual relationship between people of the same sex. These texts are about relationships that cross boundaries of purity (between clean and unclean) and ethnicity (Israelite and Canaanite).

In Galatians 3:28 in the New Testament, Paul the apostle yearns for a Christian community where:

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Paul built his theological argument on the Jew-Greek distinction, but then extended it to the slave-free distinction and the male-female distinction. Christians – no matter which church they belong to – should follow Paul and extend it to the heterosexual-homosexual distinction.

We are all “clothed in Christ” (3:27😞 God only sees Christ, not our different sexualities.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. Like this article? Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

It was written by: Gerald West, University of KwaZulu-Natal.

 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

11 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

 

Please stop using the bible to defy the commandment of Jesus.  The bible was deemed holy by men,,, not by Jesus.  Jesus is the word.  The commandment is love.

Have you made a graven image?

[PUB78 1,413]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

Please stop using the bible to defy the commandment of Jesus.  The bible was deemed holy by men,,, not by Jesus.  Jesus is the word.  The commandment is love.

Have you made a graven image?

Only Auburn athletics.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

44 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This supports my contention that Christianity would be well-served by simply ditching the old testament from their bible.

Jesus was a revolutionary.  Recognize that by doing so.

 I also think that Christianity is in desperate need of reform. (See Christian Nationalism) Ditching the old testament could be the catalyst for that.

 

I think the fundamental problem lies in religion versus God.  Religion always has, always will be, corrupted by those who wish to use religion for garnering, "legitimizing" power. 

The "christian" church is more concerned with itself, it's own appetites than,,, spreading the love of Jesus.  We have lost God in our religion.

I do not wish to "ditch" any part of the bible but,,, I do think we need to understand what the bible is and, isn't. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by icanthearyou

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

18 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Please stop using the bible to defy the commandment of Jesus.  The bible was deemed holy by men,,, not by Jesus.  Jesus is the word.  The commandment is love.

Have you made a graven image?

Thank God you’re not God.

[AU9377 6,037]

7 hours ago, PUB78 said:

 

The same was undoubtedly said when King Henry VIII established the Church of England.  The same was said when no church recognized someone's second wife or husband if their first spouse was living.  The same has been said concerning women in the pulpit.  I could go on and on.

I will respect passages in the book of Leviticus when all of you agree to stone your daughter to death upon learning of her having lost her virginity before marriage.

Edited February 10, 2023 by AU9377

[PUB78 1,413]

21 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The same was undoubtedly said when King Henry VIII established the Church of England.  The same was said when no church recognized someone's second wife or husband if their first spouse was living.  The same has been said concerning women in the pulpit.  I could go on and on.

I will respect passages in the book of Leviticus when all of you agree to stone your daughter to death upon learning of her having lost her virginity before marriage.

And your point is?

[CoffeeTiger 5,876]

12 hours ago, PUB78 said:

And your point is?

 

His point is that the way the Christian world understands and interprets the Bible changes over time. The words of the Bible don't change, but Christians understanding and beliefs in what those words say do and have changed over time....and it will continue to change. 

 

You'd very, very likely be a different type of Christian and have different beliefs in what the bible teaches if you were born 100 years ago as opposed to today. 

500 years ago it's very likely that the Church you belong to today didn't exist...along with its specific interpretation of the Bible. 

 

[jj3jordan 2,171]

14 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The same was undoubtedly said when King Henry VIII established the Church of England.  The same was said when no church recognized someone's second wife or husband if their first spouse was living.  The same has been said concerning women in the pulpit.  I could go on and on.

I will respect passages in the book of Leviticus when all of you agree to stone your daughter to death upon learning of her having lost her virginity before marriage.

You probably should not base your belief of the Bible on what some random human does. Not a real solid standard on which to base your belief.

[AU9377 6,037]

14 hours ago, PUB78 said:

And your point is?

The point is that the church evolved in its interpretation of the scripture in recognition of the fact that some scripture is more important than others.  Jesus pointed that out, not me. 

Mark 12:31

The Greatest Commandment
…Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”

[AU9377 6,037]

10 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

You probably should not base your belief of the Bible on what some random human does. Not a real solid standard on which to base your belief.

In the book of Leviticus, we find what are known as Levitical laws. These were written by Levite priests.  They include a passage requiring homosexual men be put to death for their acts.  Many rely on these passages to justify punishing gay men and women today and to deny them fellowship in the church.  These same laws require that men have their unclean daughters, meaning daughters that are not virgin upon marriage, also being stoned to death.  It is very cafeteria Christian like to accept one passage and ignore the other.

As Christians, we should treat them both with the same level of importance.  We should ignore both, in the same manner that we ignore scripture suggesting that we sacrifice a child.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

The words of the Bible don't change

But they have.  There are more versions of the NT (in greek alone) than there are words in the NT.

When you use "christianity" to support a power structure,,, you will inevitably corrupt Christianity.  "christian" nationalism isn't about Jesus.  It is the support of a power structure.

[homersapien 12,241]

4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

His point is that the way the Christian world understands and interprets the Bible changes over time. The words of the Bible don't change, but Christians understanding and beliefs in what those words say do and have changed over time....and it will continue to change. 

 

You'd very, very likely be a different type of Christian and have different beliefs in what the bible teaches if you were born 100 years ago as opposed to today. 

500 years ago it's very likely that the Church you belong to today didn't exist...along with its specific interpretation of the Bible. 

 

Nice try, but you're talking with someone who obviously has no comprehension or appreciation for history. History began when he was born.

[homersapien 12,241]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

You probably should not base your belief of the Bible on what some random human does. Not a real solid standard on which to base your belief.

Better to base it on the literally hundreds - if not more -  of the random humans who wrote it?

Edited February 10, 2023 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,171]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Better to base it on the literally hundreds - if not more -  of the random humans who wrote it?

God wrote it. Humans transcribed it. Don’t be confused.

[jj3jordan 2,171]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

In the book of Leviticus, we find what are known as Levitical laws. These were written by Levite priests.  They include a passage requiring homosexual men be put to death for their acts.  Many rely on these passages to justify punishing gay men and women today and to deny them fellowship in the church.  These same laws require that men have their unclean daughters, meaning daughters that are not virgin upon marriage, also being stoned to death.  It is very cafeteria Christian like to accept one passage and ignore the other.

As Christians, we should treat them both with the same level of importance.  We should ignore both, in the same manner that we ignore scripture suggesting that we sacrifice a child.

I think we are. Who is putting homosexuals or fornicators to death? Oh yeah muslims, the religion of peace. Those laws of Moses and Levitical laws applied to that era of Israel and the law prior to Jesus. The law is not the path to salvation any more. While it seems to me also to be a tad bit harsh, I don’t pretend to understand God’ reasoning. I’ll wait to find out.

[homersapien 12,241]

50 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

God wrote it. Humans transcribed it. Don’t be confused.

Yep.  Every single word.  Got it.

 

 

[AU9377 6,037]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

God wrote it. Humans transcribed it. Don’t be confused.

Unfortunately, there was nobody to proofread parts of it for misunderstandings in dialect.    Seriously though, you cannot believe that men have not infused their own needs and beliefs into many parts of the Bible. The Books, especially many of those in the Old Testament, are full of historical accounts and story telling.  I'm not discounting their worth, but instead adding context.

[AU9377 6,037]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

I think we are. Who is putting homosexuals or fornicators to death? Oh yeah muslims, the religion of peace. Those laws of Moses and Levitical laws applied to that era of Israel and the law prior to Jesus. The law is not the path to salvation any more. While it seems to me also to be a tad bit harsh, I don’t pretend to understand God’ reasoning. I’ll wait to find out.

Correct, they have no application today, which is why they have no business being used to shun anyone or declare that they have no place in the church or society.

[Son of A Tiger 649]

First Corrinthians 6:9-11 in the NT speaks to this. It's pretty clear what moral laxity is and what happens if it is not forgiven/sanctified by accepting Jesus as their Savior.

[cole256 17,085]

The thought of some racist people quoting scriptures at other people telling them they are going to hell is hilarious

[PUB78 1,413]

9 hours ago, cole256 said:

The thought of some racist people quoting scriptures at other people telling them they are going to hell is hilarious

You need to look in the mirror bigot.

[AU9377 6,037]

13 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

First Corrinthians 6:9-11 in the NT speaks to this. It's pretty clear what moral laxity is and what happens if it is not forgiven/sanctified by accepting Jesus as their Savior.

"Moral laxity" is the ever evolving term.  What constituted that moral laxity in 1786 is not considered the same today.  Clearly, we can all agree on that.  To believe that is to believe that pre-marital sex will condemn you to an eternity in hell.