Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414
edits
Changes
Homosexuality and biblical interpretation (view source)
Revision as of 00:08, April 2, 2009
, 00:08, April 2, 2009→1Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10
ARSENOKOITAI (lit. "male beds") does not occur prior to Paul because Paul likely coined it as he coined other terms. He almost certainly derived it from two words that occur together in the LXX of Lv. 20:13 (aresenos koiten) "whoever shall lie with a male a bed as a women"). This suggests that Paul had in mind the prohibition of adult homosexuality in Leviticus. Support for this position comes from the list of vices in 1Cor. 6:9-11 and 1Tim. 1:10, which correspond, even in word order, to the 10 commandments. In both lists, Paul adds "homosexuals" to adulterers in expanding the range of prohibited sex, as he does with other commands.<ref>(cf. pp. 195-99) Homosexuality By James B. DeYoung</ref>
ARSENOKOITAI (lit. "male beds") does not occur prior to Paul because Paul likely coined it as he coined other terms. He almost certainly derived it from two words that occur together in the LXX of Lv. 20:13 (aresenos koiten) "whoever shall lie with a male a bed as a women"). This suggests that Paul had in mind the prohibition of adult homosexuality in Leviticus. Support for this position comes from the list of vices in 1Cor. 6:9-11 and 1Tim. 1:10, which correspond, even in word order, to the 10 commandments. In both lists, Paul adds "homosexuals" to adulterers in expanding the range of prohibited sex, as he does with other commands.<ref>(cf. pp. 195-99) Homosexuality By James B. DeYoung</ref>
Calvin Smith adds,
Calvin Smith argues,
Wright has highlighted a major problem here. If Paul simply borrowed an existing vice list referring to very general sexual vices, including widespread and very general forms of pederasty, how can Scroggs then suggest Paul is identifying a very precise form of this vice?<ref>Wright, `Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible’ (op. cit.), 296.</ref> A number of other exegetes concur. .... example, malakos could mean `call-boy', or something similar, and both words together could be referring to the active and passive roles in the homosexual act (thus malakos would be the male But Malick argues the terms clearly mean more than this, that linguistically they cannot be limited to this understanding alone (other traditionalists agree).http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf
Wright has highlighted a major problem here. If Paul simply borrowed an existing vice list referring to very general sexual vices, including widespread and very general forms of pederasty, how can Scroggs then suggest Paul is identifying a very precise form of this vice?<ref>Wright, `Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible’ (op. cit.), 296.</ref> A number of other exegetes concur. .... example, malakos could mean `call-boy', or something similar, and both words together could be referring to the active and passive roles in the homosexual act (thus malakos would be the male But Malick argues the terms clearly mean more than this, that linguistically they cannot be limited to this understanding alone (other traditionalists agree).http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf
Gagnon concludes, "the term arsenokoitai is not restricted to homosexual prostitution. Boswell was clearly wrong. Robin Scroggs back in 1983<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality</ref> acknowledged these two points, though Scroggs himself was wrong in other ways."<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoBalchHBTReview2.pdf</ref>
Gagnon concludes, "the term arsenokoitai is not restricted to homosexual prostitution. Boswell was clearly wrong. Robin Scroggs back in 1983<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality</ref> acknowledged these two points, though Scroggs himself was wrong in other ways."<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoBalchHBTReview2.pdf</ref>
==Postulations or assertions of approved homosex==
In addition to seeking to disallow laws or condemnation against homoeroticism, pro homosex advocates speculate or assert that homosexual relationships and likely homosex between virtuous persons is seen and sanctioned in the Bible. The interpretive foundation<ref>Homosexuality By F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 210-14</ref> here, consistent with other prohomsex polemics which precede it, is one that depends upon conspiratorial theory, in which the homosex which proponents mine the Bible to find was covered up<ref>Greenberg, ref. in "Welcoming But Not Affirming, Stanley J. Grenz, p. 60</ref>, in due to [[homophobia]], and also requires other solutions which effectively deny the Divine inspiration and authority of the Bible they seek to invoke on their behalf. An additional necessary basis for their speculations or assertions is that, rather being morally distinct from surrounding pagan culture, honorable Israelis would engage in homosex behavior like as they.
===Ruth and Naomi===
"And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother's house: the LORD deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me. {9} The LORD grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept."
"And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her. {15} And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law. {16} And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:" (Ruth 1:8-9; 14-16)
The context here is that of a family, of Elimelech, his wife Naomi, and their two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, who flee from a famine in the land of Israel, and go to sojourn in Moab, Rth_1:1, Rth_1:2. Here his two sons marry; and, in the space of ten years, both their father and they die, Rth_1:3-6. Naomi sets out on her return to her own country, accompanied by her daughters-in-law Orpah and Ruth; whom she endeavors to persuade to return to their own people, Rth_1:7-13. Orpah returns, but Ruth accompanies her mother-in-law, Rth_1:14-18. They arrive at Beth-lehem, the former residence of Naomi, in the time of the barley harvest, Rth_1:19-22. Naomi was taken notice of there by her old friends and acquaintance, to whom she related her present circumstances. (Ruth 1:19)<ref>Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., (1715-1832)</ref><ref>Dr. John Gill (1690-1771)</ref>
Thomas Horner Horner sees the oriental customary displays of affection as well expressions of commitment and close family relationship, and also pagan homosex in surrounding cultures, and spends much time speculating that Ruth and Naomi were engaged in a homosexual relationship, and infers it would have involved eroticism.
Horner<ref>quoting E. M. Good</ref> and others also see the love of God for man being erotic and supporting homosex,<ref>Ken Stone, Queer commentary and the Hebrew Bible</ref> and that that the Tree of Knowledge may be associated with sex, and expects Israelite women would do as the Greeks did, as he infers that it was unlikely that Old Testament women, being "inventive" and having free time, would not become sexual involved with each other.<ref>Tom Horner, Jonathan loved David, p. 40-46</ref>
Greenberg, while seeing no hint of an erotic bond in this story, sees the word ''cleave'' in Ruth 1:14, and the similarity of Ruth's forceful language in expressing the willingness to stay, as indicating an "erotic pull."<ref>Steven Greenberg, Wrestling with God and men, p. 105</ref>
In contrast, neither Jewish or traditional Christian scholars have seen this account as evidencing anything more than platonic love, expressed within the context of a more expressive culture, which many are today.<ref>Regan, P. C; Jerry, D; Narvaez, M; Johnson, D. Public displays of affection among Asian and Latino heterosexual couples. Psychological Reports. 1999;84:1201–1202</ref>
The depth and language of Ruth's commitment in expressing her decision to stay may be indeed likened to marriage commitment, but the Bible substantiates that love and commitment itself is not marriage, and that faith in God and commitment such as Ruth expressed is akin to what Jesus required of His disciples, (Lk. 9:57-62; 14:33; Jn. 21:18,19) and which they expressed to Him (Mk. 10:28; 14:31; Jn. 11:16), who would never leave them (Mt. 28:20) In contrast, when marriage is in view then the Bible makes it evident, with descriptions and elements<ref>Albert Barnes, Judges 14:10</ref><ref>Sketches of Jewish Social Life. Cp. 9 (Edersheim)</ref>which set it in contrast to platonic commitments.<ref>Grenz, ibid. p. 138]</ref> As Gagnon notes, "Sexual bonds have their own distinct set of requirements".<ref>Gagnon, A Book Not To Be Embraced: A Critical Review Essay on Stacy Johnson’s A Time to Embrace 2008 Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd.</ref>
Relative to that distinction, the Bible provides no sanction for sexual relations outside marriage, nor of celibacy within marriage if able, (Prov. 5:15-19; 1Cor. 7:2-5) and the story here lacks the phrases that the Bible elsewhere uses to describe sexual relations. In addition, out of the many euphemisms used for such ("know/knew/known, "in unto her", "bed of love" "lay with her") only the Hebrew word ''dâbaq'' (cleave) occurs, but as with multitude other single words, it requires context for its meaning. In its sixty occurrences in the old Testament, dâbaq is only used sexually three times, with a clear description denoting such a use. (Gn. 2:24; 34:3; 1Ki. 11:2) Moreover, if dâbaq is held as being sexual in 1:14, then it could also be held as such in Ruth 2:8,21,28, which, along with the proposed homosex perception of Ruth and Naomi, would render her utterly contrary to the ''virtuous'' women Boaz declares her to be. (Ruth 3:11) It may also be considered that if Naomi was married to Ruth, then she would not only be committing incest, (Lv. 18:6,15; 20:13) and possibly adultery or polyandry when later marrying Boaz.
== See also ==
== See also ==