KarMel
Scholarship 2007
|
“Sacred Prejudice” By Benjamin
Yde |
Description of Submission: An exploration of homosexuality in
connection with Christianity with a specific concentration on the old Testament
The
duration of civilized society and human conflict sets man as a witness to
discrimination on a host of levels. Whether as a spectator through any level of
media observing mass genocide in Africa, as a modern reader of bygone wartime
atrocities such as the holocaust, or most simply as an active observer of
spoken bigotry, all peoples experience different levels of prejudice. Of these
levels of discrimination the most difficult conflicts to solve are those which
stem from religious conviction through varying interpretive approaches; among
the multitudinous conflicts resultant of religion, the specific
misinterpretation and selective reading of the Jewish and Christian Bible
resultant in homophobia affects discrimination on all levels: genocide, wartime
atrocities, and spoken bigotry. During the Spanish Inquisition and Witch Trials
of the 15th through the 18th centuries not only were
Jewish people subjected to tortures and executions, but also those who were in
any way subversive to the cultural “cleanliness” including (but surely not
limited to) homosexuals both male and female. Discrimination of the subversive
continued into the 20th century apparent most pervasively with Nazi
control of
Both
the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition and those committed by Nazi Germany
were fuelled by misinformed religious zeal. As Catholics and Hitler, in the
Inquisition and WWII respectively, misinterpreted Leviticus and Genesis to
condemn homosexuality many modern Christians also interpret a confused,
discriminatory message of the scripture. With a concentration on the Old
Testament, or Hebrew Bible, one may easily extract any number of disapproving
messages in reference to homosexuality that are a perversion of the scripture
as a whole.
Whenever
Christians focus upon the debate of homosexuality as addressed in Biblical
verse many employ the account of
“But
before they [the two angels of the Lord] lay down, the men of the city, the men
of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the
house; and they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight?
Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.’”
Some homosexuals, or people who
wish for the scripture to look more favorably upon homosexuals, sometimes argue
that the men of Sodom wanted nothing more than to know the angels of the Lord
on a purely psychological level, but this is simply a means to ignore the
Biblical language in which “to know” is a classic euphemism for sexual conduct.
To ignore correct lingual interpretation is a deplorable lose
for the homosexual community when disputing an assertion of condemnation given
that it doesn’t address the truth of the passage. While the story of God’s
destruction of
“Although
it is only by a forced political correctness that the Bible as a whole can be
read as neutral on the subject of homosexuality, what counts in this episode is
not the difference between hetero- and homosexual but that between human and
divine. The ‘men’ whom the Sodomites want to ‘know’ are God. The virginal
daughters whom
Miles, albeit well argued, may
separate the human and divine element too far by claiming the men of
In
modern language Sodomy is a derivative of the story of
“it is unfortunate that a great portion of the public
identifies all homosexuality with the conduct of the men of
The author also expounds that not once in the
subsequent books mentioning
Anal
intercourse condemned as a tool of dominance and humiliation is further
scrutinized in Leviticus 18 explaining laws regarding sexual relations. Just as
previously discussed, many interpret Leviticus 18:22 to condemn homosexuality
as inherently sinful; conversely, just as previously stated in reference to
Sodom, the verse suggests that anal intercourse between men as a tool of rape,
dominance, and or humiliation is sinful. This verse in contrast to Genesis 19
though, is more difficult to interpret: “You shall not lie with a male as with
a woman; it is an abomination.” At surface level in English, this verse seems
to obviously condemn any male homosexual sex act, but with consideration of
Hebrew interpretation and historical context one has more interpretations to
choose from and accept. One interpretation that is easily extracted is that the
passage reads, “do not have sexual relations with men as you have sexual
relations with women.” According to this interpretation some readers would read
that having confusion of sexuality by engaging in comparable sexual acts with
both men and women is sinful, instead of following one’s inherent sexuality
with only one sex whether same or opposite. Another interpretation as Rabbi
Steven Greenberg avows in an article Parshiyot
Aharei Mot-Kedoshim is, as previously stated, that the use of anal
intercourse as a tool of dominance and humiliation is an abomination. In
connection with the account of
“’Abomination’ is a
translation of the Hebrew word tô’ebâ. It is a general term with
strongly negative connotations and which denotes a transgression of a divinely
sanctioned boundary…often used in connection with different, usually not fully
defined customs of a mostly cultic nature affiliated with worship of foreign
gods” (p. 39).
The negative connotations still
exist, but for the reason that the act is performed as a ritual of idolatry,
not in accordance with the ideal of love. According to Tom Horner, the
condemnation of homosexual sex acts first found in Leviticus 18:22 is
completely consumed by the very word tô’ebâ, a word which implies idolatry
(p.52). Cultic implication clarifies the meaning of the passage in relation to
Noah and Ham since Ham’s descendents (Canaanites) were considered a cultic,
impure society. Though the change in inference is minute, the hateful
connotations toward innate homosexuality cannot exist due to the collective
reading of previous verse. Just as Rabbi Greenberg asserts, to define this
verse as a condemnation of forced anal intercourse is given extra credence when
combined with Genesis 9:20-27 in which Noah is, by Rabbi Greenberg’s account,
raped by his son Ham. Yet again this is a controversial idea, but with
observance to Biblical language and the enraged reaction of Noah, the reader
will understand that Ham did something deplorable to his father in the form of
a non-consensual sex act. Rabbi
Greenberg’s argument, though valid, is flawed for its connection to the laws of
sexual relations in which the same wording of the “father’s nakedness” is
equated to the “mother’s nakedness” (Leviticus 18:7), so Ham very well may have
raped his mother, AND his father by relation but not the genuine act;
nevertheless, the previous connection gains more integrity when connected to
Leviticus 18:3 and 20:23, 26, Martti Nissinen avows, “The Holiness Code thus
presents sexual activity between two men as an example of the repulsive ways of
the so-called Canaanites, which the people of Yahweh should avoid” (p. 38)
because Noah cursed Ham and his son Canaan’s descendents, the Canaanites, for
rape. Regardless of the interpretation of who was raped, the true sin remains
rape, not homosexuality.
Genesis
further develops the interconnectedness of the scripture, especially pertaining
to this interpretation, concerning homosexuals with a connection between the
Canaanites and the cities of
“The
Canaanites deserve to be dispossessed of the land and made slaves because they
are, and always have been, avid practitioners of immoral activity. In the new
post-diluvian world, it was their ancestor that committed the most heinous act
imaginable—not just rape, but incest; not just incestuous rape, but rape of
one’s own father, to whom supreme honor and obedience is owed” (p.67).
Gagnon explains this sin more articulately and more
horrifyingly than the more obviously repulsive wanton of the men of
Contemplation
of interpretation is important to the educated interpreter even if the
individual returns to the scripture convinced that it truly debases homosexuals
as inherent sinners for one important question still remains: are all the laws
of Leviticus still applicable today? After a careful appraisal of the laws one
might understand them, as a collective, to hold little relevance to the modern
world. Respectfully, when the church adamantly resolves to uphold Leviticus
18:22 it must also resolve that man must make food offerings to God, but if
eaten on the third day the digester must be cut off from the liturgical
community (19:5-8). It shall also resolve that slavery is acceptable as are
forced sexual relations with a slave (19:20). Moreover, the Church shall
resolve that no one is to shave, or receive a tattoo (19:27-28). Finally, the
Church shall resolve that it (as reader) “shall not take vengeance or bear a
grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as
yourself,” (19:18). Truly there are verses found in Leviticus that man should
pay heed to in modern times; however, as a whole we cannot regard Leviticus as
reverential laws applicable to modern life. Christians specifically should hold
little significance in Leviticus because it stems from the old covenant, not
that of Jesus.
Accurate
modern interpretations of Biblical verse must make observance of historical
context both past and present to attain applicability to our modern times. If
the Bible is literally a timeless tome of morality then it surely requires the
analysis of historical context to deduce its message accurately. To cite the
above assertion that anal intercourse was a tool of subjugation the modern
reader must understand that rape was often exercised by conquering armies to
emphasize their dominance and imply to the enemy they were now (in caste)
slaves. Arthur Frederick Ide addresses this context in Gomorrah & the
Rise of Homophobia stating,
“Conquering
armies, when captives were taken, singled out the virile and young men who they
forcibly raped—usually in the view of the community—so as to humiliate them and
demonstrate their own superiority over the vanquished who would, thereafter, be
enslaved and made subject to their will—collectively and singularly. The
Heterosexual rape of men by men was an act of contempt, depersonification of
individuality, and the ending of psychological manhood according to and in line
with customs and consensus.” (p. 4)
Upon this historical knowledge
these liturgical texts with the previously asserted hypothesis of
interpretation are without doubt often misread due to the lack of explanation
within the verses themselves.
Although
many refuse to believe, the Bible includes at least one story embracing
homosexual love between the son of a God-anointed king and the Hebrew Bible’s
greatest hero (David), I Samuel and II Samuel contain many accounts of the deep
love that David and Jonathan felt for each other. Some attempt to modify the
scripture to look upon the committed love between these two men as pure
camaraderie despite the clear language supporting the contrary. Their
relationship according to narrative begins,
“When
David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul
of David and Jonathan loved him as his own soul…Then Jonathan made a covenant
with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of
the robe that he was wearing and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his
sword and his bow and his belt.” (I Samuel 18:1, 3-4)
While one
could account for a close-knit friendship from the tale, the use of the
language, “bound souls,” reveals a deeper relationship, which hasn’t entered
Biblical verse until this situation. Possibly not convincing enough alone, the
previous passage when coupled with II Samuel 1:26 at the scene of Jonathan’s
death proves David’s love was unmistakably more than that of a friend: “greatly
beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of
women.” If David’s love for Jonathan were simply congenial why would David
illustrate the love between Jonathan and himself surpassing his love for women
and their love for him? David and Jonathan loved each other in the sense that
committed couples love each other, there is no shame is this love and David
exhibits none in his lament. Tom Horner testifies for any doubters a
Middle-Eastern historical context in Jonathan Loved David by the
following account:
“These
words are denied—or simply called metaphors—by those who believe that the
people of the Hebrews could never have been so drastically influenced by the
peoples around them to the extent that they would succumb to such an
undignified and “unmanly” type of love! But this is contrary to the point: it was both dignified and manly—in fact,
often associated with heroes—in the cultures that surrounded
Horner maintains this argument
with the ancient tale of Gilgamesh, a great warrior and hero, who falls deeply
in love with another man named Enkidu. Gilgamesh loves Enkidu as a wife, mourns
over his body as a woman would, and while their homoerotic relationship is not
the focus of the epic tale, it is detailed as most intimate and erotic (p
21-23). David and Gilgamesh are similar characters; both are cared for by a
god, both are heroes and rulers of men, both are moral men, both inspire tales
of great deeds, both have homosexual relationships, and both bewail the loss of
their “better-than-female” counterparts. The significance of another heroic
chronicle which displays homosexual love between two men is the simple fact
that homosexuality was widely accepted by the ancients and was not, as some
contend, an anomalous circumstance regarded with fear and loathing…the latter
attitude is relatively modern.
Historical
context also influenced the laws of marriage and importance of progeny among
the Israelites. As a nation,
Marriage
as a covenant with God is truly about love and loving relationships, just as
David loved Jonathan and enjoyed holy covenant with God so then shall all
peoples enjoy the gift of love. Song of Solomon declares, “Many waters cannot
quench love, neither can floods drown it. If one offered for love, all the
wealth of one’s house it would be utterly scorned.” Despite the confusion of
love many face, this passage elevates love as a non-diminishing covenant with
God none can argue against.
Introspective
interpretation of the Bible proves, despite arguments to the contrary, that
homosexuality is not an inherent sin, and most assuredly that homosexual sex is
also not a sinful act so long as it is fulfilled in the light of a loving
covenant. Although Old Testament scripture in particular, on the facade for the
modern interpreter, may seemingly condemn homosexuality, the Bible is not a
book of surface level instruction. As God explains to Job, no man can understand
the infinite knowledge or will of God, his mysteries are great,
and his love for his creation greater yet. Despite the arguments of
interpretation in vain attempts to prove homosexuality or homosexual sex as a
sinful act or not, those who follow the law of God must bear in mind that those
who judge will be judged in heaven.