Scripture, Stonings, and Homosexuality

Traditionalists often argue that homosexuality is supposedly condemned by the Bible, and that's that. But as many have said, if the literal words of Scripture held the once-and-for-all answers to all moral questions, then we would still be stoning rebellious sons at the town gates, as commanded by Deut. 21:18-21.

(I mentioned the stoning-rebellious-sons business to my parents not long ago. I'm sure my mother was recalling my brother's adolescence when she laughed and replied, "so?")

Moreover, some traditionalists can be selective in their reading of Scriptural rules --

• They believe that the Bible prohibits homosexual acts as "detestable," (e.g., e.g., Lev. 15:18, 18:22. See also this site for more scriptural analysis -- it looks pretty even-handed. Scroll down till you get to "Analysis of key passages."
• But these traditionalists seem to have no problem with eating shrimp or crabs, which are likewise "detestable" because they have neither fins nor scales (see, e.g., Lev. 11:12).
• One wonders whether the men among them always refrain from sex during a woman's menstrual period, which is one of the prohibited "detestable things" in a laundry list of sexual misconduct (see Lev. 18:19, 26).
• And let's not forget that the same book of the Bible explicitly permitted God's people to enslave foreigners (see Lev. 25:44-46), just as it prohibited punishing a slave-owner for beating his slave if the slave recovered in a day or two, "since the slave is his property" (see Ex. 21:20-21).

Some traditionalists argue that, for example, "the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament were set aside by Jesus Christ" (emphasis added), but the moral laws of the Hebrew Scriptures supposedly remain unchanged.

I find that argument wholly unpersuasive. Jews consider the dietary laws which Jesus set aside to be moral laws, as explained for example by this commentator: "the dietary laws occupy a central position in that system of moral discipline which is the basis of all Jewish laws."

Moreover, how can traditionalists possibly say with a straight face that the explicit endorsement of slavery in Leviticus, quoted above, was merely a "civil" or "ceremonial" law? The argument is an outrage. And remember, in Luke's Gospel, Jesus speaks of slaves in a distinctly unsympathetic tone: ""Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, `Come here at once and take your place at the table'? Would you not rather say to him, `Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink'? Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded?" (Luke 17:5-10, NRSV; the NIV more delicately refers to the slave as "the servant.")

Traditionalists are certainly entitled to argue that homosexual activity is a bad thing. For all I know, they may be right. But they don't help their case when they selectively quote scriptural rules out of historical- and cultural context.

Comments

[Pontificator]

QC, I think your questions and criticisms have already been well answered in the various writings of Robert Gagnon. It seems to me you are setting up a number of strawmen.

[D. C.]

Pontificator, thanks for the pointer. I found Robert Gagnon's Web site (www.robgagnon.net). I'm reading a 97-page journal article in which he addresses what various people have had to say, as well as this article from Presbyterian Today.

In what I've been able to read so far, it does not appear that Gagnon even addresses the questions and criticisms mentioned in my main posting above (which are certainly not original thinking on my part). The point of those questions was not that Scripture can be interpreted as permitting homosexual activity. That interpretation is a stretch, at best. The point was that the orthodox are severely inconsistent about the primacy of scriptural authority. If they're going to oppose the sanctioning of homosexual activity, they need to find better arguments than just repeatedly invoking Scripture, as though that somehow settles the matter.

[Pontificator]

D.C., wade your way through Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice and then get back to us. Gagnon's exegetical work is grudgingly admired even by his opponents.

As a Presbyterian, unfortunately, Gagnon is at the disadvantage of not being able to locate himself authoritatively within an authoritative tradition. But I think it is fair to say that since the publication of Gagnon's work, no one can reasonably say that the Bible does not proscribe, quite unconditionally, all forms of homosex.