CONTENTS
|
MISAPPLIED PASSAGES
(and etceteras)
Many laws have been written with a limited scope which people, in either their interpretation or enforcement, attempt to broaden. For instance, it is a federal felony to alter, counterfeit, or otherwise attempt to falsify an official identification. However, there is no law against making an unofficial identification that provides false information. Hence, many juveniles purchase "residents cards" with a false birth date which makes them old enough to purchase alcohol, and there is nothing illegal about this. Residents cards are not official identification. However, some store proprietors will confiscate these false identifications thinking that they are enforcing the law against falsifying identification. Two of the cases we consider in this section are like the law against altering, counterfeiting or falsifying official identification. The third case is nothing more than a misinterpretation of the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra, which we have already discussed.
WHAT IS A SODOMITE?
Deuteronomy, in the KJV, has a law which states that you shall not allow a sodomite to live. Along with this are a few passages in Kings which describe instances when that law was enforced in the history of the Hebrew people. When I ask the question, "what is a sodomite?" the answer appears to be easy. A sodomite, in the English, is a person who commits the sin of sodomy. We don't need to be familiar with the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra to know that answer. All we need to do is look it up in the dictionary. In a good dictionary, it might even mention that story. However, that isn't all there is.
The Hebrew word which the KJV and many subsequent translations interpret as "sodomite" means a male temple devotee. It is pronounced something like "kaw'-dashe." The translators knew that this word was referring to a male temple prostitute, made the legitimate assumption that most likely this prostitute serviced other men, and translated it "sodomite."
There is a problem with this. First, the law giver was not referring to homosexuality in general, but specifically to male homosexual temple prostitution. This is a limited form of homosexuality. But, secondly, there is a female version of this Hebrew term. It is usually translated harlot or whore, but refers specifically to the female temple prostitute. Knowing this, it should be obvious that the law giver wasn't condemning homosexuality as much as he was condemning temple prostitution. While homosexuality was indeed a part of the law against male temple prostitution, this specific law does not cover all forms of homosexuality, only those form where one of the partners is in service of a false god and where both of the partners commit the act as a means of worshipping this false god.
The New International Version recognizes this problem and translates "kae'-dashe" as "male temple prostitute." It also translates the female form of this word as female temple prostitute. (This female version is to the masculine form as actress is to actor, in our language.)
the "MAN LOVER" and the "SOFT MAN"
These terms are used twice in the New Testament, once in one of Paul's legitimate letters and once in a letter written by pseudo-Paul. In both instances, these words are part of a comprehensive list of sins which will prevent a person from inheriting heaven. The term "man lover," as the literal Greek says, has been translated homosexual or some derivative of that term in most English translations. But the church has not known what to do with the "soft man."
Recent scholarship suggests that these terms, when used in conjunction, are referring to a practice known as "pedastery." In Roman times this practice consisted of a prostitute styled relationship between a boy, who had not yet gone through puberty, and a grown man. The man would pay the boy for his services and the boy willingly entered into the relationship. Most often this boy was an orphan who had no other means of support. While he willingly entered into this life style, he was a victim just like the prostitute is most often a victim today. Like most prostitutes of today, once he lost his appeal he either had to find some other means of supporting himself, or perish for lack of support.
I can neither deny or affirm this interpretation of these words. It makes perfect sense to me. I am aware of the fact that this form of prostitution did exist in Roman times. It is even speculated that Mark Antony started out as a "soft man," and used the favors of his "johns" to move up the ladder to the position he held at the time of Julius Caesar's death. I also know that when the Greeks ruled, Greek generals often took a young male lover, the son of another high official, whom they mentored to become officers. However, unless I could see these terms used in extra-biblical Greek documents where this was the obvious meaning, I can't affirm that this is what Paul was referring to. And...since I do not know Greek, but have to rely on tools such as the lexicon portion of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the possibility that I will see such evidence is remote.
Still, this interpretation makes enough sense to me to continue. If this interpretation is indeed correct, and I have no reason to suspect that it isn't, it is another instance of a limited aspect of homosexuality. Neither Paul, nor pseudo-Paul, would be referring to all instances of homosexual congress, but only to those occasions where such a prostitution-styled contract existed. Using these passages to condemn all of homosexuality is like using the law against murder to condemn all guns. These passages are not sufficient to prove the case.
JUDE, et al
Finally, we turn to those passages where the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra is used to prove that God can and will do the same thing again to those who are unfaithful. Jude was specific, stating that the men of Sodom were destroyed because they went after "strange flesh." Some have suggested that Jude was referring to the fact that the intended victims were angels, however I cannot agree. For Jude to take this stance, he would have to assume that the men of Sodom knew of the nature of the visitors. Or, he would have to assume that God wouldn't care if the men knew or not, but that God would punish for the crime regardless if it were intentional or not. I cannot read either one of those assumptions into Jude, so I conclude that Jude was referring to the homosexual aspect of the intentions.
Peter was not so clear, merely referring to the corruption of these cities and how it affected Lot who later had sexual relations with his two daughters.
Both of these passages are designed to warn the faithful by arousing the fear of God in them, fear in this case meaning dread, not respect. Instead of encouraging the faithful, by citing the promises of God, and those occasions in which such promises have been fulfilled, these passages arouse a fear of punishment and condemnation. They are unspiritual because of this, and probably have no place in scripture.
By comparison, when Jesus refers to Sodom, he cites this city for unbelief, not for its sexual practices.
Also, Ezekiel, who is the more specific, cites Sodom for its lack of concern for the poor and needy, not for its sexual practices. He is joined by both Jerremiah and Isaiah in this interpretation of the story. While Jeremiah and Isaiah aren't as clear as Ezekiel, that is their intended meaning.
Consequently, both Jude and Peter are problematic, not only because they attempt to inspire faithfulness with dread of retribution, but also because they misinterpret the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra.
All of the above passages are used as proof-texts in the arsenal of those who would use the scripture to condemn homosexuality. For the variety of the reasons described above, none of them are suitable to serve such a purpose. Even more, those who insist on continuing to misuse these passages would clearly realize this if they would just stop squinting at the Bible, half closing their eyes so that they can convince themselves that they can actually see what they want to see.
The man who proudly carries his New International Version, to prove that he is up to date, until it comes time to discuss homosexuality, is an interesting case in point. When the topic of conversation turns to homosexuality, he will go to his closet, find his old KJV, dust it off and turn to Deuteronomy where it says, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." He does this because the New International Version reads, "No Israelite man or woman is to become a temple prostitute," and that does not suit his purpose.
Such a person would be clearly aware that none of these passages serve his case, if he only took a moment to think. Sub-consciously, he must be aware, otherwise he would not trade his NIV for his KJV, just to make his case. His continued reliance on these lame arguments suggest his lack of confidence in his position on the issue in the first place. He is guilty of thinking that he will be heard because he has much to say. He is like the junior-high student who writes a sloppy but long term paper, hoping that the teacher will grade on the weight of that paper and not on the content.
|
