Are Biblical Laws About Homosexuality Eternal?

[Ahimsa]

A very interesting, careful analysis of the Levitical prohibition against certan sexual acts. (Of course, this would have little bearing on what the Church teaches, but it’s an interesting analysis nonetheless.) :

“You shall not lay a male the layings of a woman; it is a to’ebah” (offensive thing)
(Leviticus 18:22).

“And a man who will lay a male the layings of a woman: the two of them have done a to’ebah (offensive thing). They shall be put to death. Their blood is on them”
(Leviticus 20:13).
…
The text identifies male homosexual acts by the technical term to’ebah, translated in English here as “an offensive thing” or in older translations as “an abomination.” This is important because most things that are forbidden in biblical law are not identified with this word.
…
The question is: Is this term to’ebah an absolute, meaning that an act that is a to’ebah is wrong in itself and can never be otherwise? Or is the term relative – meaning that something that is a to’ebah to one person may not be offensive to another, or something that is a to’ebah in one culture may not be offensive in another, or something that is a to’ebah in one generation or time period may not be offensive in another – in which case the law may change as people’s perceptions change?

When one examines all the occurrences of this technical term in the Hebrew Bible, one finds that elsewhere the term is in fact relative. For example, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that, if the Pharaoh asks them what their occupation is, they should say that they’re cowherds. They must not say that they are shepherds. Why? Because, Joseph explains, all shepherds are an offensive thing (to’ebah) to the Egyptians. But shepherds are not an offensive thing to the Israelites or Moabites or many other cultures. In another passage in that story, we read that Egyptians don’t eat with Israelites because that would be an offensive thing (to’ebah) to them. But Arameans and Canaanites eat with Israelites and don’t find it offensive. See also the story of the Exodus from Egypt, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the things that Israelites sacrifice would be an offensive thing (to’ebah) to the Egyptians. But these things are certainly not an offensive thing to the Israelites.
…
An act or an object that is not a to’ebah can become one, depending on time and circumstances. The word to’ebah does not automatically mean that something is immoral. Depending on the context, the period and the persons involved, it means that it offends some group.

Now, one might respond that the law here is different because it concerns an offensive thing to God – and is therefore not subject to the relativity of human values. But that is actually not the case here. The Bible specifically identifies such laws about things that are divine offenses with the phrase “an offensive thing to the LORD” (to’ebat yhwh). That phrase is not used here in the law about male homosexual acts. It is not one of the laws that are identified as a to’ebah to God!

If this is right, then it is an amazing irony. Calling male homosexual acts a to’ebah was precisely what made the biblical text seem so absolutely anti-homosexual and without the possibility of change. But it is precisely the fact of to’ebah that opens the possibility of the law’s change. So, (1) whatever position one takes on this matter, left or right, conservative or liberal, one should acknowledge that the law really does forbid homosexual sex between males but not between females. And (2) one should recognize that the biblical prohibition is not one that is eternal and unchanging. The prohibition in the Bible applies only so long as male homosexual acts are perceived to be offensive. This could involve arguments and evidence from specialists in biology, psychology and culture. They are beyond our range of expertise as Bible scholars. Our task here has been to make the biblical evidence known.

 

[thistle]

A very interesting, careful analysis of the Levitical prohibition against certan sexual acts. (Of course, this would have little bearing on what the Church teaches, but it’s an interesting analysis nonetheless.) :

The Church teaching on homosexual acts is infallible and can never be changed.

 

[followingtheway]

Of course, this would have little bearing on what the Church teaches

That’s because there are new passages on homosexuality in the New Testament (i.e. Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

 

[babylonsfalling]

A very interesting, careful analysis of the Levitical prohibition <—Actually it’s just a weak, Gay-Gospel attempt at watering down the Word of God to conform to the authors point of view against certan sexual acts. (Of course, this would have little bearing on what the Church teaches***<—That’s a VERY VERY good thing. The Church should completely ignore all such nonsense.*** but it’s an interesting analysis nonetheless.) :

That was pretty weak.

All the author of that article did was glom onto a softer sounding interpretation, (offensive instead of abomination), in order to justify HIS message rather than God’s message. And then he starts implying that even the offensive interpretation was relative to what culture you might be in.

What the article ignores is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, which is the fact that homosexual behavior was punishable by death, by command of God, which obviously means that it’s the perspective of God which counts, not the perspective of different cultures, situations etc.

The article also fails to consider other verses/passages on homosexuality, which is always a sign that the author wants to trump God’s Word with his own interpretation, rather than present God’s Word objectively and truthfully. Paul wrote to a culture that was more accepting of homosexuality and had the following to say…

Romans 1
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Homosexuality is condemned in both testaments and the idea that being a gay friendly culture makes it uncondemned or less condemned is ridiculous.

 

[thistle]

That was pretty weak.

All the author of that article did was glom onto a softer sounding interpretation, (offensive instead of abomination), in order to justify HIS message rather than God’s message. And then he starts implying that even the offensive interpretation was relative to what culture you might be in.

What the article ignores is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, which is the fact that homosexual behavior was punishable by death, by command of God, which obviously means that it’s the perspective of God which counts, not the perspective of different cultures, situations etc.

The article also fails to consider other verses/passages on homosexuality, which is always a sign that the author wants to trump God’s Word with his own interpretation, rather than present God’s Word objectively and truthfully. Paul wrote to a culture that was more accepting of homosexuality and had the following to say…

Homosexuality is condemned in both testaments and the idea that being a gay friendly culture makes it uncondemned or less condemned is ridiculous.