Sunday Drive: Back to Rome

The Gospels of Matthew (8:5-13) and Luke (7:1-10) both have accounts of this story, and according to Helminiak, both seem to have been drawn from the same original Greek source. In the story, a Roman centurion comes to Jesus, asking Him to heal his slave. What is interesting about this is the original Greek wording. There are two different phrases that are both translated as ‘slave’— entimos pais and dulos. Entimos Pais is could be translated as “my son”, “my boy” or “honored servant.” That phrase has also been used in other non-Biblical documents to refer to a slave who was his master’s gay lover. While the idea of sexual slavery is repugnant to us today, it was common in the culture of the time. The basic way of forming familial relationships outside of one’s ‘birth’ family was a commercial transaction. ‘Wives’ of the day, and concubines for that matter, were often sexual slaves and treated as their husband’s property. Likewise, a man interested in sharing a similar relationship with another man purchased a pais.

As a distinction, the centurion’s other servants are designated ‘duloi’. Helminiak also indicates that the ‘son’ interpretation is out because Luke’s account also designates the pais as a dulos. In other words, he was definitely a slave. Entimos indicates that the boy is very dear to the centurion. Some might say that he wanted simply to protect his investment, but centurions were wealthy. They could go buy other slaves. Perhaps this pais held a key position in the household, but the wording indicates that this slave is also young, and given his age, the most probable interpretation is that this ‘dear slave’ had an emotional bond with the Centurion. This story is significant because Jesus did not condemn the Centurion. Rather, he marveled at his faith, and declared him an example of it.

Share

Sunday Drive: Let's go to David's house

Now that we've seen refutations of the "Clobber Passage" texts, let's look at some affirming passages:

King David and Jonathan


David and Jonathan’s relationship is often described as a deep, platonic friendship. However, I have a different interpretation of this story.

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle

The terminology used here—“the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David and Jonathan loved him as his own soul”—and the description of the behavior (stripping down and giving all of his clothing and weapons, and even his belt to David) does not sound like just platonic love in my book. A prince’s clothing and weapons were important symbols of his status. Imagine the passage if David had been a woman:

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of Eve, and Jonathan loved her as his own soul. And Saul took her that day, and would let her go no more home to her father's house. Then Jonathan and Eve made a covenant, because he loved her as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to Eve, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle

Had David been female, no one would question that Jonathan loved her, and their story would be celebrated as a great love. Since David was male, cultural censorship kicks in and the relationship is sanitized to ‘deep platonic friendship’.

Later, when he learns Jonathan was killed David says

“I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

Again, that doesn’t sound like they were ‘just friends.’

Share

Sunday Drive: A Quick Stop at the Temple and then on to Rome

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute. You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the LORD your God.

Like the verses in Leviticus last week, these verses deal with temple prostitution, not a loving committed relationship.

Romans 1: 21-28

If we follow [this] passage, step-by-step, we find Paul is moving through a logical progression. He is talking about people who:

1. Refused to acknowledge and glorify God. (v. 21)
2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the Creator). (v. 23)
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits. (v. 25)
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex in an unbounded search for pleasure. (v. 26-27)
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v. 29-31)

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution) and with people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone available.

There are, no doubt, modern people who engage in homosexual sex for reasons similar to those identified in Romans 1. If someone began with a clear heterosexual orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting with gay sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures, then this passage may apply to that person. But this is not the experience of the vast majority of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. (Miner and Connoley, The Children are Free)

Most of the GLBT people of faith I have met, have felt called to worship the Lord but were attracted to members of the same sex, nevertheless. They were not people looking for thrills and pursuing their own desires. Actually, those GLBT people would be guilty of this kind of sin if they stay in the closet and attempt to marry partners of the opposite sex because they are naturally attracted to people of the same gender.

Share

Sunday Drive: Leviticus Law Library

Leviticus 18 and 20

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20: 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Both of these verses seem like straightforward condemnations against any homosexual behavior. However, we need to consider what was happening in the world of the Israelites at the time these rules were issued. The book of Leviticus is a series of rules for the Israelite priesthood and laity to ensure ritual purity. Elsewhere in this book we find listings of ‘unclean’ foods, requirements for priestly vestments (no blended fibers), and requirements for males to cleanse oneself after incidental contact with women who are having their menstrual period. No one makes the argument that these laws have any application today; in fact, the arguments for rejecting these laws are often based on their historical and religious context.

In the case of the verses quoted above, let’s look at the historical and religious contexts. The laws presented in chapters 18 and 20 are meant to prevent the Israelites from doing what the Egyptians and the Canaanites did.

What did the Canaanites do?

Sunday Drive: Construction at Sodom and Gomorrah

Believe it or not, the Bible only has 6 verses in it that explicitly mention homosexual behavior, and none of those verses describe anything resembling a loving, committed gay relationship.  Case in point: Sodom and Gomorrah.

Gen 19:1-9 tells the story of the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. The term ‘sodomy’ as a reference for anal sex comes from this story because that sex act is often performed by gay men. In the story, some angels come to Sodom and spend the night with Abraham’s nephew, Lot. The men of the town come to Lot’s door to ask him to turn the angels over to them “so that we may know them." Lot asks the men not to be so wicked and offers his daughters instead, but they refuse and threaten to break down his door. Later, because the cities were so wicked, they were destroyed.


The word translated “to know” in Verse 5 is also used in Judges 19 to indicate that they raped a woman to death. Lot was more familiar with the men of Sodom and Gomorrah than we are. Would he have offered his daughters to people whom he knew were gay? Even in the most conservative estimates, the gay population is only a fraction of the entire group. It is more probable that he knew the men in the group were heterosexual, and that this ‘knowing’ was a reference to rape and sexual degradation.

These two wicked towns are mentioned other places in the bible, and nowhere does it mention that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. Rather, it indicates that the sin was inhospitality. Take Ezekiel for instance:

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

Whether you lump homosexual activity in with ‘abominable things’ or not, this passage deals with homosexual rape—not two individuals in a loving, committed relationship.

Share

Wrong Way on Heterosexism Boulevard

One of the most common ways LGBT people get attacked by the conservative Christian Church is through a missaplication of Biblical passages to support a heterosexist viewpoint.  Heterosexism says that anything that is not 'one man, one woman' is abnormal, unhealthy, (insert negative adjective here).  Personally, I think they've come to the wrong conclusion.  The Bible actually affirms gay relationships.

This discussion is very personal to me, because I have been having this discussion with my family as well as with strangers.  Over the next several weeks, I will share with you the research I did, and explain how I came to understand that the Bible that has been used as a weapon to attack me actually is supportive of me.

First up, "God made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve!"
Share