Lesbianism Not Addressed in Bible?

[Buzz Dixon]

Our church is starting an in-depth stury on several of the Epistles. We're starting with 1st Corionthians. I read this last night (translation below from the NIV):

1 Corinthians 7

Marriage

1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So, ideally we should be so full of agape (love of God) and philos (brotherly love) that we don't need eros (romantic love). However...if we do have a need for eros, it is to be expressed in a monogamous marriage to a person of the opposite sex.

Seems pretty explicit and unambiguous.

 

[larryicr]

Buzz,

I agree with your post. It's not just a matter of whether or not homosexuality is condemned, it's also a matter of what sexual acts are condoned. Clearly only sexual acts within the confines of a male-female marriage are condoned in the bible.

Those having sex outside of marriage will be judged...

Heb 13:4 - Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (NASB)

Marriage is between man and woman...

Mat 19:9-10 - "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." (NASB)

Notice how it is a "man" and a "wife"/"woman".

1 Ti 5:14 - Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; (NASB)

That would be awfully hard to do if she married another woman.

 

[Ananel]

Our church is starting an in-depth stury on several of the Epistles. We're starting with 1st Corionthians. I read this last night (translation below from the NIV):


So, ideally we should be so full of agape (love of God) and philos (brotherly love) that we don't need eros (romantic love). However...if we do have a need for eros, it is to be expressed in a monogamous marriage to a person of the opposite sex.

Seems pretty explicit and unambiguous.

Save that it's not a dictate that we must marry. Unless you severely stretch the blessing of Genesis 2-3, you can't turn marriage into divine command. Besides which, Paul doesn't even here, and says so quite stringently. It's not a command.

Suggestions on the avoidance of immorality only ring true here if the action you indicate is immoral, which brings us right back to Acts 15 and Colossians 2, along with Romans 1.

 

[Ananel]

Ananel,

It's not that marriage is a command, but it is the only way scripture prescribes moral sexual union.

*taps his fingers irratibly* I'm well aware of the Natural Law argument. I AM Lutheran, you know. Luther tossed out the Levitical Law LONG ago. The Natural Law is pivotal to orthodox Lutheran condemnation of homosexuality and is the 'stronger' exegetical standpoint (over and above direct use of Leviticus, Romans and other specific texts that have huge gaping flaws in such usage.). That doesn't make it right.

Edit: To find verification of the position stated by Luther, please check into his writings on Galatians for one. http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal1-07.html has a translation of part of his commentary on Galatians. I'm afraid that I don't have page numbers from the text, and that really wouldn't help if you had a different printing. Still, check some of his commentary on Galatians 1:14. There should also be a far more direct essay specifically on the place of the Mosaic Law in the modern context. I'll have that at some point, and list the appropriate page for the curious when I get the chance.

The flaw in the Natural Law argument is that positive blessings of a particular act do not equate to negative prohibitions of the opposite act. You cannot turn "Be fruitful and multiply" into a condemnation of homosexual sex, for example. In that case specifically, there are several passages (including the cited one itself, wherein companionship is listed as another motive for marriage) that emphatically deny its usage as moral law.

Edit: To take the passage carefully, Imperative tense need not specify command. Take for example the phrase, "Have a good day." The tense is itself imperative. However, the meaning is not of a command. So too with Hebrew. The imperative does not necessarily imply moral command. Check Waltke and O'Conner's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, pages 564-580 (Eisenbrauns, 1990).

On page 565, it writes specifically on degrees of meaning, "In fact, these forms may express varying degrees of volition, as do comparable constructions in other languages. Through the volitional forms a speaker aims to impose his or her will on some other person. The force with which that will is exerted depends on various factors ..."

On page 571, "The dominant use of the imperative, as suggested, involves direct commands. An imperative may also grant permission or convey a request or a wish. Imperatives may be used sarcastically." The examples used to depict a wish were as follows:

Genesis 24:60, "And they blessed Rebekah and said to her,

"Our sister, may you increase
to thousands upon thousands;
may your offspring possess
the gates of their enemies.""

Numbers 5:19, "May this bitter water that brings a curse leave (you) innocent."

Contextually, the wish usage (It is worth noting that it is an imperative, not Jussive.) fits most closely with the situation listed in Genesis. While it is possible that it is a direct command, the phrasing, the placing and the fact that Christ and Paul both later expound upon the value of celibate lifestyles and the lack of condemnation of non-procreative marriages all combine to make it unlikely that this is a command.

(This has been your basic Hebrew lesson for the day. Thank the fine makers at Eisenbrauns Publishing, who brought us the carefull toils of Waltke and O'Connor. By their assistance I have developed my skills in the translation of Hebrew slowly but surely.)

Positive suggestions by Paul to protect against sin do not equate to moral laws from God. Positive blessings of one practice do not become condemnations of all else. The Natural Law is seen in the Law of Love, and you're stretching it to cause this to become the 'proof' that it somehow continues to apply in this specific regard.

Edit, Mark 12:28-31,
28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

From Christ's statement of the greatest commandment, we see His stress in the Law. Commentary reliant upon Matthew 5 to state that Christ wanted the Mosaic Law kept ignores passages such as these, passages where Christ allows His disciples to defy sabbath law and passages where He comments on dietary requirements. Further, to say that the Mosaic Code remains flies directly in the face of Acts 15, the decision of the Council of Jerusalem. Even were one to disagree with my application of Natural Law, there remains the insurmountable fact that the Levitical Law is dead and it is upon the Law of Christ that we lean for moral guidance. The Law of Moses was but a shadow of what was to come. The light has come, and the shadow is dispelled.

 

[larryicr]

I did not mention "natural law", i spoke of the scripture. But my point was mainly that we are not only supposed to avoid what scriptures tell us are wrong, but also do what scriptures tell us is right. We are not only supposed to avoid homosexuality, but we are supposed to accept marriage between a man and woman as the proper means of have sexual relations.

 

[Ananel]

I did not mention "natural law", i spoke of the scripture. But my point was mainly that we are not only supposed to avoid what scriptures tell us are wrong, but also do what scriptures tell us is right. We are not only supposed to avoid homosexuality, but we are supposed to accept marriage between a man and woman as the proper means of have sexual relations.

No offense, but back up the assertion that 1 Corinthians 7 is more than a suggestion to believers? Paul Himself specifies that it is not a law or requirement in verse 6. It is HIS view on an effective way to protect against immorality. However, though I accept Scripture as the divine word of God, this does not mean that I take suggestions and turn them into commands when the people who wrote them don't even do that.

 

[The_White]

Just referring back to the OP having not had time to read it all this topic seems based on 2 basic principles.

1) Paul never specifically mentioned womon/woman relations but did man/man
2) Leviticus 18 and 20 make it clear about male homosexuality but not female.

Due to a lack of time I am only going to point out that the enirety of Leviticus 18 and 20 (barring maybe 1 or 2 verses) is male oriented due to the patrichal society of the time so using an omminsion from there hold no backing what-so-ever and that it is entirely possible that it just wasn't an issue at the time of Paul's writings hence the ommision there.

 

[larryicr]

No offense, but back up the assertion that 1 Corinthians 7 is more than a suggestion to believers? Paul Himself specifies that it is not a law or requirement in verse 6. It is HIS view on an effective way to protect against immorality. However, though I accept Scripture as the divine word of God, this does not mean that I take suggestions and turn them into commands when the people who wrote them don't even do that.

No offense taken
You're right, it's not a command.
The thing is that the only way in scripture ever talked about in terms of legal sexuality is between a husband and wife. And that's not just confined to 1 Cor 7. I happen to think that we can glean things about God and about how we are supposed to live by many things in the bible, not just by the commands contained in it.

 

[fashionably_lonely]

How could it not have been an issue? I'm sure women have explored each other sexually throughout history, even in Paul's time.

 

[Ananel]

No offense taken
You're right, it's not a command.
The thing is that the only way in scripture ever talked about in terms of legal sexuality is between a husband and wife. And that's not just confined to 1 Cor 7. I happen to think that we can glean things about God and about how we are supposed to live by many things in the bible, not just by the commands contained in it.

Frankly, to return fire here would require an unbacked position, as (aside from the biblically citable verifiable point that you make that there is no specifically positive affirmation of homosexual behavior) the decision to view things in the way you or I have is a hermeneutical choice. It is a basic core principle upon which we found the translation and interpretation of the text as we see it.

My stance is derived from the simple logic that the lack of affirmation is not condemnation. There are too many things not affirmed in the Bible that are yet retained in the modern era. New modes of communication and transportation, the printing press and universal education. Realistically, I could continue to list useless examples until dawn and it wouldn't get across my point because we would explain each of those we permit based upon what we see as God's innate qualities and the nature of Natural Law.

I view Natural Law to have been cited for us clearly in Mark 12. It is the Law of Love, and we see its impact throughout Scripture, permeating the divine order itself. The Levitical Law, in accordance with Acts 15, Colossians 2, Galatians and more citations from Christ and the Pauline Epistles than I can think of easily, is dead. We center our understanding of what is God's Will upon the Law as He Himself stated it.

When I see commentary on the overall order of creation, I point people to Colossians 2, wherein it warns not to allow the condemnation based upon the ceremonial laws and remind my opposition that this too runs throughout the Scriptures, especially the New Testament (For OT, "I do not desire the blood of bulls..." and other similar passages.). The lack of clear links to the Natural Law and specific condemnation are what might see as the pillars of the argument. However, despite Scriptural backing, these are inevitably my positions and not yours.

 

[Ananel]

Just referring back to the OP having not had time to read it all this topic seems based on 2 basic principles.

1) Paul never specifically mentioned womon/woman relations but did man/man
2) Leviticus 18 and 20 make it clear about male homosexuality but not female.

Due to a lack of time I am only going to point out that the enirety of Leviticus 18 and 20 (barring maybe 1 or 2 verses) is male oriented due to the patrichal society of the time so using an omminsion from there hold no backing what-so-ever and that it is entirely possible that it just wasn't an issue at the time of Paul's writings hence the ommision there.

entirely possible =/= was. Take the context truly into account or don't address it. Do you have a source to back up this line of argument, or are you relying upon raw possibility?

 

[larryicr]

Ananel,

the decision to view things in the way you or I have is a hermeneutical choice.

I agree with you that the core issue with our difference is based on how we interpret the bible and its context.

There are too many things not affirmed in the Bible that are yet retained in the modern era. New modes of communication and transportation, the printing press and universal education.

You mention only new things that have no moral implications.
Modes of transportation and communication are not moral activities. What you communicate may be immoral, but it makes no difference as to what medium is used to communicate.
Sexual activity does have moral implications biblically.
I do understand your point though, maybe you could have picked better examples??
Cloning for instance would be something new that does have moral implications, but it is not directly spoken of in the bible.

 

[mindbender]

Of course the bible doesn't say anything clearly condemning lesbianism. It was written by MEN for Pete's sake. What do you expect? hehe (c'mon! I kid )

 

[Ananel]

Ananel,

I agree with you that the core issue with our difference is based on how we interpret the bible and its context.

You mention only new things that have no moral implications.
Modes of transportation and communication are not moral activities. What you communicate may be immoral, but it makes no difference as to what medium is used to communicate.
Sexual activity does have moral implications biblically.
I do understand your point though, maybe you could have picked better examples??
Cloning for instance would be something new that does have moral implications, but it is not directly spoken of in the bible.

Example of mode of transportation in the moral sense:
Petroleum powered vehicles create pollution. In accordance with Genesis 1-3, we are placed as stewards over the entirety of Creation. Considering Jesus' description of the servants and their investments of the talents, this may also be viewed (along with spiritual implications of stewardship and evangelism) as how we have cared for the creation. By one token, the rampant production of pollution, damage to the environments visible in the existence of such things as high Ozone alerts ( http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/air/monops/o3explain.html ) could be seen as improper stewardship of God's creation.

In essence, it can be argued that an automobile is against the Natural Law, that it is improper stewardship of God's Creation and as it shows a lack of love for the neighbor as per Mark 12 (in harming their body through neglect of care for the environment), it is sinful.

Yet, an opposing view can also be presented, equally from the Scripture. I won't bother with it for the moment. It's really immaterial. The point is that one can find many situations that have no appearance of moral weight in the modern era which in fact have a great many things that the Scriptures can say on them. Modes of Transportation was a carefully chosen example for a clear reason. Communications could stand a slight rewording, but education of the general populace is actually a rather significant moral/ethical question.

Again, without clear links to the Natural Law, it is a matter of interpretation of the greater part of Scripture, where we take different attitudes as to the application thereof.

 

[Starcrystal]

Just wanted to document some evidence for my post #8
Here's a link that shows more male homosexuals are HIV positive than female:
http://www.aidsvancouver.org/basics/virus/stats/index.php

 

[larryicr]

deleted

 

[rnmomof7]

Mod note

Interesting discussion guys

Thank you for complying to the rules

RN

 

[The_White]

entirely possible =/= was. Take the context truly into account or don't address it. Do you have a source to back up this line of argument, or are you relying upon raw possibility?

yes, you are right, possible =/= was and it was not a line of argument since I try not to get caught up in the homosexuality stuff as much as possible, I was simply pointing out a possibility that noone seemed to have concidered. I am more than willing to accept that it probly was an isssue in Paul's time but also realising that it was very much more a male dominated world than today and writers at the time (Paul or otherwise) may not have cared as much as we do now. Again I have no proof I am just stating a possibility to consider.

 

[Starcrystal]

This post got deleted by accident when someone else requested their post deleted:

We must also understand Pauls letters are sometimes opinions, and as he himself says "I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgement."
Sexual relations scripturally appear to involve intercourse. Only a male is capable of performing that. Two women cannot perform intercourse with each other.
Things such as kissing or "touching" (so I don't go into details which might be forbidden here) are simply not addressed at all in scripture.
A man having sexual relations with another man would be considered "abomination" because there is intercourse and the two become one flesh. A woman being intimate with a woman involves no intercourse and they don't become one flesh. Therefore the marraige issue is irrelevant. "A Man shall cleave to his wife and the 2 shall become one flesh." ~ Implies intercourse.
Does not apply to woman/woman intimacy.

 

[RVincent]

RVincent, trying to use the OT quote about clothing is really stretching things! First I've ever heard of it! And besides, the woman cannot play the role of a man sexually because by nature she is simply not equipped! She cannot become one flesh with another woman, but can only become one flesh by intercourse. Now if we start talking about the use of certain man made sex objects (which I won't mention type & usage here) then we might start crossing some bounderies. Sex objects would be unnnatural.

If the text is to be taken literally, then men would have to wear skirts today.