Sodomy; Homosexuality in the New Testament

I wanted to start this entry with something that I omitted last night – the Biblical story of Sodom. Every preacher in the world starts their lessons of hate and intolerance with the story of Sodom. Bad, right? Sodomites, sodomy, all means homosexual, yeah?

Well, let’s see. In its entirety, here is Genesis 19:1 to 19:14, the story of Sodom…

“And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? Son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: for we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it. And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.”

First off, show of hands… if two men or angels arrived at your door and a group of men outside wanted to “KNOW” (assuming a sexual relationship) with the men, who would offer their two virgin daughters instead? That’s reprehensible, and yet somehow these homo-hating Christians use this as an example of the evils of homosexuality (which is only present by the barest of tangents) and NOT as an example of what a bloody, cock-rotted bastard Lot was! And any of you who are prepared to start throwing the new covenant with me would do well to know that in 2 Peter (2:7 and 2:8) Lot is called a “just” man and a “righteous” man. I will stress that Jesus didn’t mention him. Probably didn’t want to sully his mouth with this bastard’s name.

Second off, another show of hands… who among you knows that God destroyed Sodom because the men were homosexual? Yeah? Most? All? But look at 19:13 again. “for we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.” Before they arrived in the city, they had their marching orders from God. “The LORD hath sent us to destroy it.” They were THERE to destroy the city. So, obviously, the presumed homosexuality of the men isn’t the reason that Sodom was destroyed. Then why? Because it was inhabited with bastards like Lot who are ready to give up their virgin daughters to be raped and possibly killed at the drop of a hat?

This actually ISN’T a mystery. For anyone who bothers to study the Bible instead of simply taking someone else’s word for what it says, we have Ezekiel 16:49 which says “This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness ... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”

Let’s see… pride, check. Fullness of bread, check. Abundance of idleness, check. Not strengthening the hand of the poor and needy, check.

Here’s what I suggest – remember what happened to Sodom the next time that you want to talk about how “America’s the greatest country in the world” – that’s pride. Remember what happened to Sodom the next time that you eat so much at Thanksgiving that you have to unfasten your pants to let your fat gut out and then throw food away – that’s fullness of bread. Remember what happened to Sodom the next time that you find yourself spending hours on end doing absolutely nothing – that’s abundance of idleness. Remember what happened to Sodom the next time that you vote for a politician who can come up with ANY reason not to provide food, shelter and health care for less fortunate Americans – that’s not strengthening the hand of the poor and needy. Do you get it? THE SINS OF SODOM WERE NOT HOMOSEXUALITY OR SEXUAL PERVERSITY – THE SINS OF SODOM WERE THE SINS OF 21ST CENTURY AMERICA! WE ARE SODOM.

Okay, so a story where a traveler is put up for the night instead of sleeping in the street, the house is ringed around with men who demand that the traveler be sent out so that the men can “know” him and the master of the house offering two send two women out instead so that the men can “do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing” and the men refuse. Sodom, right?

Except…

The story that I just mentioned is from Judges 19 when an unknown Levite was traveling though the city of Gibeah. Take a look. In almost all particulars, this story is IDENTICAL to the story of Sodom, all the way down to the wording used. Except that in this story, it is the man’s concubine and his virgin daughter that he offers. The men refuse, just like in the story of Sodom, but this unnamed Levite chickens out at the last moment and pushes his concubine out to the crowd, but not his virgin daughter, thank God. So the men “knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.” The next morning, half raped to death, the men toss the concubine up on the steps and, presumably, go away. So now, this unnamed Levite nurses this woman back to health and rewards her for saving him from rape, right? WRONG. He “he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel” (Judges 19:29). He killed her, divided her dead body into twelve pieces and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. And so what then? Did God destroy Gibeah as he did Sodom, since they had the same threatened rape? Nope. Nothing. No punishment for Gibeah. I think that this shows pretty clearly that homosexuality was not at issue here.

Personally, I hope that this unnamed Levite and Lot are sharing the same especially hot corner of Hell.

Okay, so we’ve finished with the repulsive hew and cry of the Old Testament, thank God. On to the new covenant.

Just like most modern Christians, we’re going to skip over the words of Christ here, because Christ didn’t address homosexuality at all. Some believe that he did when he said told wives to keep to their husbands and husbands to their wives. I disagree. This seems pretty clearly a caution against adultery to me. We also have to remember that marriage was a very different thing in the time of Jesus than it is now. No birth control, rampant STD’s. Today, two people meet, date, fall in love or not, become lovers or not, and make a decision whether or not to marry. And even if they do marry, many people choose not to have children, which was the sole reason for marriage in Jesus’ day. They are free to do this. In the time of Jesus, an arrangement was generally made by parents about children who did not love, frequently did not even KNOW each other and they were married when they came of age. And the fruit of that marriage was expected to be a swelling of the tribe through copious childbirth. And if the wife did not bear children, then the husband went out and negotiated with another girl’s parents to marry her as well in the hopes that she might bear children. Personally, I think that the best way to address this, instead of denying some couples the legal protections of modern marriage, we just need to get the government OUT of the marriage business entirely. Let’s leave marriage in the churches where it belongs, and let each church decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriages, and let the government worry about the civil side of it – denying civil marriage to no one, respecting the separation of church and state.

So what does the New Testament say about homosexuality? Well, from Romans 1:26 and 1:27, we have “For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.” Look closely at that passage: “GOD GAVE THEM up to vile passions”. This is something that God has done, who are we to undo it? Or to even try? Didn’t Saint Augustine call it “ultimate hubris” to try to know the mind of God? And in Romans, the death penalty isn’t even called for regards homosexuality like it is in the Old Testament. So what DOES deserve death? Well, according to Romans 1:29 to 1:32, “being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.” If the mess in Iraq is an evil thing, as many Americans believe, doesn’t that mean that the people who approve of the war are worthy of death, going by this quote? And I think that pretty much covers all of humanity. I know that I am, on occasion, envious, malign, a whisperer, proud, boastful, and have been disobedient to my parents, am frequently implacable (not to be appeased, mollified, or pacified; inexorable) and enjoy debate. Why don’t the fundamentalists list these things as great sins as well, especially considering that homosexuals, which he apparently covered under “without natural affection” is third from last on the list?

Which brings us to the last quote on the subject, Corinthians 6:9 and 6:10, where the following people are listed as being “unworthy of the kingdom of God”: fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners”. Modern fundamentalists take “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” to mean homosexuals. I don’t know about “effeminate”, I know some extremely masculine homosexuals (both men and women). Also, the Greek word that is translated as “effeminate” here is “malakoi”, which actually means “soft”, meaning “soft men”. Since Jesus himself was a very gentle (soft) man, it might take some thought as to what this ACTUALLY means rather then simply making an ASS of U and ME and immediately jumping to homosexual. And what about “abusers of themselves with mankind”? I believe that when the Bible refers to “mankind” it is not talking about malekind, but rather humanity. So I think that this covers people who abuse themselves at the hands of other people. I think that this applies to people who remain in abusive relationships, drug abusers, and just about anyone who uses sexuality in a personally destructive fashion.

We also have to remember that Paul himself, like many modern fundamentalists, consider the God-gift of sexual pleasure itself something repulsive. When it came to sex, Paul said that married men should live as if they have no wife, but if they absolutely MUST have sex that it’s better to marry than to burn in hell. (First letter to the Corinthians, 7:9).

I know (he said with a heavy sigh) that this will not convince modern, Biblically-ignorant Fundamentalists to just leave homosexuals alone to give God any answer that he might require of them, but it’s the best that I can do.

Peace.

Randal