There are a handful of verses that people use to clobber homosexual acts. I first want to take you to Genesis 19. This whole book is used to condemn homosexual acts. However, let us evaluate it. Genesis 19 is about the angels who came to visit Lot. Now, first, before any homosexual acts occur, YHWH had decided that the city of Sodom was to be destroyed. That is important for later evaluation, because people make the claim that the city was condemned for homosexual male actions. This isn’t known, as the acts the Bible describe occur after the condemnation of the city by YHWH. It is an incorrect assumption that all the evil acts were because of events described after the fact that YHWH decided to destroy the cities.
Now, the next thing we note in Genesis 19, occurs in verse 5-9. The men of the city ask Lot to turn over the men, so that they may rape them, and Lot states that his daughters are willing virgins as opposed to the forced public sexual assault the men are proposing. At least this is how the story is told. The Bible reads, “5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.”
Let us first talk about the Hebrew tradition of how to treat guests. It was tradition to take in guests and meet their needs before first even knowing their names or their business. A guest in a Hebrew house was protected, by the master of that house. In the case of Lot, and his guests, he first had to take care of their needs, and protect them. That is why he went out to the town in the first place. It would have been sinful to do otherwise.
However, the men of the city wanted them delivered to them, so that they might rape them. The angels, and moreover YHWH, were condemning the city first for its actions, and then secondly for its treatment of travelers and guests. Moreover, the notion of wrongdoing (and by proxy is therefore sinful) is that it is wrong to rape. Consensual homosexual relationships are in fact not rape, and therefore have nothing to do with the scenario described by Genesis 19.
The next logical clobber passage to discuss is Jude 1:6-7 which reads, “6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” The part about “going after strange flesh” is what is most often used to condemn homosexual activity. However, the term used here in the original Greek is “sarkos heteras”. I find It ironic that “heteras” is used to formulate the modern term “heterosexual” or for those who are being intentionally obtuse about this, we are in fact talking about adult male – female relationships, or straight, as in heterosexual relationships. The verse clearly isn’t referring to homosexual activity, and is more likely referring to the fact, given the verse before it, men in Sodom trying to rape angels. One could infer that Jude is condemning rape, or sex with angels, or both. However, it does not make logical sense to conclude at all that Jude was writing about males attracted to males, nor was he writing about females attracted to females.
The next verse I wanted to discuss is in Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 22. The verse reads, “22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” However, many who quote this verse use only this verse. The book of Leviticus is actually talking about something different than what modern people use this verse for, let us investigate. Leviticus 18:3 reads, “3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.” The same chapter, a few verses earlier in the introduction clues us in that in fact the works is referring to how the Egyptians lived. What was it that the Egyptians were doing that was so bad?
Verses 6 through 18 describe incestuous sexual behavior. Verse 19 and 20 leaves the topic of incest, and continues the theme of sexual immorality to discuss the topics of menstruation and adultery. Now here is the key to understanding, verse 21 discusses pagan rituals of throwing children into a fire.
We have indeed left the discussion of sexual immorality, and began the discussion of pagan ritual. Moreover it discusses a known Egyptian deity: Molech. Molech worship involved two things: ritual sacrifice of either children or animals. Additionally, it was in conflict to YHWH, as Molech worship meant accepting Molech as king. Thirdly, Molech worship also has been referred to as involving pagan ritual sex with temple prostitutes to increase fertility. Often these temple prostitutes were male, and those engaging in the ritual sex were also males. However, verse 21 doesn’t address this does it?
In fact, verse 22 does not change the topic back sexual immorality, it continues with the discussion on Molech worship. Indeed, the next verse (23) is also referring to the ceremonial behavior of bestiality in Molech pagan temple worship. It doesn’t make logical sense to assume that verse 22 is a standalone verse on sexual behavior sandwiched between two verses concerning pagan temple worship.
To further investigate this, let us look at the original Hebrew of this verse: In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." Which would read in English, “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman.” That doesn’t make a great deal of sense, so conservative translators (like the KJV) added two words to the translation, so that it reads, “And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman.” That isn’t exactly correct, as it is just an assumption. One could as easily add, “And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." One would translate to all homosexual activity is forbidden, and the other that it is only forbidden in the “lyings” or bed, or a woman. However, context is key to understanding, as the verse in context of the surrounding verse should read along the lines of “Do not have ritual pagan sex in a temple with a man, as you would have sex with your wife at home.” The key difference is marriage in place, the intentions of the sexual activity, and the fact that it would be to a deity in defiance of YHWH. The verse simply does not condemn homosexual activity.
Next, we have Leviticus 20:13, which reads in the KJV: “13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” The transliterated Hebrew reads, “V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam.” The translation here is similar to the KJV, however there is some context being left out. In Hebrew, there are subtle text differences that make context and intent have meaning. For example, “V’ish” means two words. In this example, it would mean And (V) man (ish). “V” cannot exist by itself, therefore it is attached to “ish” with an apostrophe. We do not know what it should mean, other than to read it with context clues, to get either “and a man” or “man also”, depending on how you would translate the next words. The word that is up for discussion in this example, is “mishk’vei”. The word “shk’v” as a noun, would mean “bed”, and overall it would mean “lie down bed” Now, also, “mishk’vei” is also in a plural state, meaning or referring to “beds”. If we did not also add in some English words to this translation of “mishk’vei” the translation would make no sense, for example the verse would read, “And men who with other men lie down bed.” That doesn’t make much sense, so we add the word “in”. I know this sounds trivial, however there is a point. The next word involved “ishah” refers to a singular woman. Add that to the sentence we just translated, and it makes even less sense: “And men who with other men lie down bed woman.” This is another spot, in the same verse, that we must add English words to construct any sense. The correct translation of this verse should read, “And if a man lies down in the bed of a woman with another man.” We know this because of the context clues in the translation.
In our modern society, we don’t understand the significance of that translation. They didn’t in 1611 England either. However, in ancient Hebrew culture, it made perfect sense. You see, the woman’s bed was considered a holy thing. It was her bed for one purpose: completing procreation for her husband as part of a duty to YHWH. The woman’s bed was very holy.
Why would any of this be important? Reflect back to Leviticus 18:21-22 and you have your reasoning. In just two chapters back we are dealing with pagan ritual sex, and how it went against YHWH; it makes sense to conclude that this is no different. Leviticus 20:13 as been misrepresented to condemn homosexual activity, when it fact it was referring to keeping the sanctity of a wife’s bed. The verse should read, “13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, with the intention to defile her bed as the pagans (Molech) do, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Or, to understand easier, “If a man has ritual sex with a man in his wife’s bed, then both men have committed an abomination…”
It is clear that the verse is not referring to everyday homosexual actions, and rather the actions of pagans.
