This is a brief excerpt from the book "
God Is Not A Homophobe - An Unbiased Look at Homosexuality in the Bible", by Philo Thelos.
While
I do not agree with everything this author, a Christian minister, has
written, I believe that the serious Bible student will review and
contemplate his writings, not from a preconceived perspective, but from
that of an open mind, considering that perhaps you don't know everything
on the subject. Please understand that just because I posted this here
does NOT automatically mean that I endorse the ideas presented. It
means I think they are worthy of
careful consideration by thoughtful Christians.
My
intent is not to upset anyone, but rather provide food for thought. I
felt the timing was appropriate, given the Supreme Court decision
regarding gay marriage. Perhaps it can contribute to a mature
discussion. If you haven't carefully read and pondered this excerpt,
then may I ask that you be careful about commenting here? All I ask is
for civil dialogue.
I pose one simple question to you: Is is
possible
that what you have learned and have been taught regarding this issue
may not be comprehensive nor completely accurate? (Remember: Just
because a teaching is popular, or long-standing, does not automatically
mean that it is accurate or true.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt from the
Forward:
"Now the church is the chief
voice suppressing the rights of homosexuals to lead a quiet and peaceful
life, with all the benefits that come automatically to heterosexually
inclined people.
"Without question the church believe she is
right. Church leaders will preach from the Bible as long as anyone will
listen, that “homosexuality is abominable to God, and will lead you
straight to Hell.” They are absolutely convinced they are right. They
have their verses memorized and their arguments well honed. But:
So did those who led the Inquisitions and Crusades.
So did those who tried to silence the Reformers.
So did those who demanded the murder of “witches” in Salem.
So did those who argued for slavery.
So did those who worked hand in hand with segregationists.
So did those who betrayed Jews to Gestapo murderers.
So do those who demand, “women keep silent in the church.”
"In
light of the church’s penchant for taking the wrong position on social
issues, we think it is not out of order to suggest that the church’s
present position relative to homosexuality is one that will eventually
require “repentance,” just as in these other cases." -
Philo Thelos
The New Testament and Homosexuality.
Since the foregoing OT evidence does not, in our estimation, provide anything definitive on the subject of consensual adult homosexuality, we turn to the NT.
As a beginning point, let us state the fact that
in the NT there is neither explicit command nor outright prohibition against homosexuality. This, in and of itself, is not
determinative. But it is of consequence if we should find that there are no NT passages that unambiguously categorize homosexuality as sin. We have shown that the OT simply does not address homosexuality as such. Its references to homosexual acts are all related either specifically to violent rape and exploitation, or contextually to idol worship. Since none of those
qualifiers apply to adult consensual homosexual orientation then they are not determinative in prohibiting it. Just to keep our thinking straight, we repeat this comparison: there are many references to heterosexual acts that relate either specifically to violent rape and exploitation, or contextually to idol worship. Since none of those qualifiers apply to adult consensual heterosexual orientation then they are not determinative in prohibiting it. So our position seems clear enough: We do not find direct prohibition of consensual homosexual orientation in the OT. If we fail also to find direct prohibition of homosexuality in the NT, then our conclusion is obvious and necessary: i.e. The Bible does not condemn homosexuality as a consensual adult sexual orientation. And if neither OT nor NT prohibits such, then it is allowable for those who choose it. We find three NT texts that appear to place homosexuality in prohibited status.
Romans 1:24-27.
God abandoned a segment of humanity to, “sexual impurity and degrading their bodies with one another” (NIV), to degrading passions and to “unnatural acts.” We have been trained to believe these are homosexual acts. Once that thought is put into our minds it is easy to read these verses as transparent condemnations of homosexuality.
They may indeed be just that. But the necessity for honest exegesis compels us to prove the proposition rather than just taking it for granted from a superficial reading. Again our task is very simple.
We must discover what the words of our text actually mean. This discovery is made by 1) Correctly defining the words; and 2) Correctly interpreting the words in their context.
Firstly, there is no word in this text that means “homosexual.”
And there is nothing in the words “lust,” “impurity,” or “dishonor”that has anything inherently to do with homosexuality. Thosewords are used over and over in specific reference to heterosexual sin. Thus their occurrence in Rom. 1 cannot automatically refer to“homosexuality.”
The word “exchange,” (vs. 25, 26) comes from the Greek,
metallasso, which means “To exchange, alter, substitute.” (
The Complete Biblical Library, Greek-English Dictionary, (word # 3207). Continuing in its explanation of this word, the author says,
“…The root verb
allasso is used several times to denote a fundamental or elemental change, as in 1 Cor. 15:51, where the thorough change in the body of the believer at Christ’s coming is discussed. In Heb. 1:12,
allasso is used to describe the fundamental change to be made in the heavens at the destruction of the world.
Metallasso, in contrast to
allasso, is an intensive compound meaning “to exchange” one thing for another.
Rom. 1:25 notes the “exchange” of the truth of God for a lie. In Rom. 1:26 women “exchange” natural sexual relationships for that which is not according to nature…”
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, defines
metallasso this way: “To change,” “to exchange.” In Rom. 1:25, God’s truth, i.e. His self-revelation, (1:18ff.), is “changed” into a lie,
i.e. the idolatry that sets other things in place of God. This leads in Rom. 1:26 to the “exchanging” of natural relations for unnatural; this sexual perversion is the consequence of the religious perversion.”
The Greek word translated “degrading” in Rom. 1:26, is
atimias.
It’s Biblical usage is discussed as follows in
The Complete Biblical Library, Greek-English Dictionary, (word # 813).
“…The principal terms (in the Septuagint, D.C.) translated by
atimia, include
qalon, “shame, dishonor…”
“…
Atimia appears only in Paul’s writings. In his corpus, it is restricted to Rom. 1:26; 9:21, 1 Cor. 11:14; 15:43; 2 Cor. 6:8; 11:21; 2 Tim. 2:20.
Atimia ranges in definition from simple “embarrassment,” (1 Cor. 11:14, cf. 2 Cor. 6:8; 11:21), to an “ordinary” or “base position,” (of vessels that are “ignoble,”
RSV, 2 Tim. 2:20); cf. Rom. 39:21.
“Sinful” men “disgrace” (
atimazo) their bodies, (Rom. 1:24), by succumbing to “disgraceful” (
atimia) passions, (Rom. 1:26). Here the idea exceeds mere social embarrassment and moves to “shameful” behavior that is totally unacceptable to God.”
The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, defines
atimia and its relatives this way:
“
Atimadzo: to dishonor, to slight, to treat with indignity, to abuse, debase.”
“
Atimao: to dishonor, outrage, treat shamefully.”
“
Atimia: dishonor, infamy, shame, meanness, vileness, a dishonorable use, slightingly, disparagingly.”
“
Atimos: unhonored, without honor, despised.”
Discussing the word “natural,” in Rom. 1:26, (Gr.
phusiken), these comments come from The Complete Biblical Library, Greek-English Dictionary, (word # 5282).
“
Phusikos is the adjectival form of the noun
phusis…”nature”
Phusis had to do with the constitution of something – what a thing really is.
Phusikos refers to that which is natural – inherent to an object…
Phusikos appears three times in the New Testament. In 2 Pet. 2:12 the Apostle described apostate men as “unreasoning animals,” born as “natural” (
phusika) creatures. From this it appears that the behavior of animals is
phusikos behavior – they behave in a “natural” way. Men are to have mental and spiritual
faculties that differentiate them from the unreasoning beasts.
In Rom. 1:26, 27 Paul used
phusikos in the context of sexual relations. It is unnatural – contrary to the basic inborn nature of man – for men and women to engage in homosexual practices.
It is important to remember though, that to Paul what is “natural” is that “which is in accordance with the intentions of the Creator,” not merely the product of chance evolutionary factors. Thus the view that understands homosexuality as the product of prebirth hormonal influences is clearly contrary to Scripture…Heterosexuality is “natural” – an inborn quality generated by the Creator.”
