How Narrow Is That Gate?

This concludes the series of posts inspired by one of Sid’s tweets. He said that “The Bible is anti-human sexuality outside a very narrowly prescribed range.” You should really check out the guest bloggers’ sites. This has been great.

My answer to Sid’s comment is going to be a very qualified yes. A good part of that is because human sexuality is an incredibly broad spectrum and the, imo, large slice that the Bible is in favor of is therefore narrow in comparison. I would say that most worldviews have their own narrowly prescribed range of acceptable sexuality, again in comparison. Are their people that think that “anything goes” when it comes to that emotionally charged topic? I’m sure that there are some that think they are and perhaps there are even some that are. But this isn’t about them. This is about the Bible’s own “narrow” point of view.

One of the things that I’ve been giving quite a lot of thought to recently is the concept of polygamy. Oh don’t worry, I have no intention of ever practicing it. One wife is just plenty for me. But it’s something that the Bible doesn’t seem to be against. A number of the patriarchs in the Bible practiced it. It was and remains a common custom in that part of the world. The rare places that it’s spoken against that I’m aware of seem to nail the badness down in the area of marrying people who have radically different religious views than you. There’s also the admonition that elders should be the husband of only one wife, but it’s not (too my knowledge) listed anywhere as being a sin. Certainly you could say, as some have, that since Adam and Eve were apparently “married” and monogamous that this is God’s intention for all of us. I’m not so sure about that since Adam and Eve, to my knowledge never actually had a ceremony and were what I’d call common law spouses.

That leads to the topic of sex outside of marriage. The Bible, to the best of my knowledge, never says what the act of getting married is actually like. There is no Biblically prescribed ceremony. It seems, getting back to Adam and Eve, that all that is required is for two people to pledge themselves to one another, and in the case of believers, to God. No need for a ring, a dress, or even a church and pastor. So, would it be accurate to say that in order to have sex “appropriately” all two people have to do is make such a pledge to one another? It certainly seems so. Granted there does seem to be some procedure for divorcing in the Old Testament and therefore it’s likely that there’s also a procedure for getting married, but I’m unaware of either.

The big buggaboo, and I suspect one of the things to which Sid was referring, would be homosexuality. I can’t argue there. The Bible does seem to be pretty clearly against it, both male and female. There aren’t exactly scores of verses pointing to it, but a few in the Old Testament and a few in the new are pretty clear. One of the passages that I don’t think is so completely clearly anti-gay sex is the whole Sodom incident. Those people weren’t so much homosexual as they were sexual predators. Otherwise though it is certainly clear that God designed man to be with woman and vice versa and doesn’t want it any other way. My question there is though, what percentage of human sexuality is of the homo- variety? If it’s the minority, as I understand it to be, and if it’s a large part of what people point to when it comes to God being anti-some aspect of human sex, then there’s a problem there.

Masturbation is also pointed to pretty frequently as being a no-no. The Bible doesn’t really touch on that though. Onan is the only one who is listed as performing that particular act (if that was indeed what he was doing) and he gets killed by God. What gets glossed over there is that Onan was commanded by God to get his brother’s widow pregnant and he didn’t do it. That was the real issue.

So all of this to say, are their things the Bible seems to be against when it comes to sex? Sure. A lot of what Christians say the Bible/God is against is tied up in two thousand years of tradition and our own (at least as far as Western Christians are concerned) cultural baggage. I think the Bible is certainly pro-heterosexuality and that sexuality taking place in a mutually respectful, loving, committed relationship. What that sex looks like, whether it involves something you, I, or the fly on the wall might think of as “kink”, or the granular details aren’t really touched on. I think that the Bible shows clearly that bad things can come from anything else and often does. So with that I guess I’ll don my flame retardant suit, open up the floor, and ask what you think of this. Am I way off the mark here?

  • it is narrow because not everyone can go to heaven :)
  • I think that God allowed a lot of stuff in the bible like polygamy because of the hardness of man's heart.
  • That could well be Bob. Why do you think so?
  • Why did God allow a lot of stuff? Seems like giving man choices has something to do with it. What do you think?
  • jasonfaylen
    I would add in here that God clearly frowns upon divorce, but laid out some guidelines for it nonetheless...
  • spiritualtramp
    It's certainly possible, though I see indications in scripture when God let's us have our way outside of His will. Is there such an indication about polygamy?
  • The first 9 verses of Matthew 19 seem to indicate that marriage is between 2 people. I think that God allows a lot of stuff like polygamy. It is probably not a good idea to say that a guy can have many wives just because Jacob had two official and two unofficial wives. Of course if you used that logic then wives would not be permitted to have more than one husband.. unless they were a Denobulan :)
  • spiritualtramp
    Well I mean there was more than just Jacob, but yeah I'm not saying polygamy is part of God's plan or is the ideal.
  • I see polygamy as something embraced by weak men in patriarchal cultures. I think that it is a view that is an affront to women, men and marriage in general.
  • Your reading of the Sodom story is unbiblical. The bible is quite clear that their sin was inhospitality Ezekiel 16:48-50 - read the story through that biblical lens and you end up with quite a different perspective - they were unwilling to entertain strangers. The concept of "homosexuality" is relatively new - hence the bible does not teach about it. It is like asking what does the bible teach about electricity, or the internet? Nor does the bible appear to support your contention that Adam & Eve et al "pledged themselves to each other." Onan is nothing to do with a command against masturbation - it is merely his disobeying God's injunction to reproduce. We need to let the text speak as intended - not twist it to suit our contemporary questions and force it to answer questions it has never even thought of.
  • Hi Mr. Peters. I read Genesis 19:

    4Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."

    So you're right, I think that sleeping with someone new to your town, whether they want you to or not certainly shows a lack of hospitality.

    The passage you cite says:

    "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it."

    What that leads me to believe is not that their sin was a lack of hospitality, but that their abundance and lack of hospitality to the poor hardenend their heart and led to the further abominations.

    The "concept" of homosexuality is new? With what do you back that statement up? When did homosexuality start? The Bible certainly teaches about it. Paul talks about it in the NT. If you would like me to point you in the right direction I can.

    Regarding Adam and Eve, Adam said:

    Gen. 2: 23 The man said,
    "This is now bone of my bones,
    And flesh of my flesh;
    She shall be called Woman,
    Because she was taken out of Man."

    24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

    Many point to that as the first marriage. Is it explicit in the text? Perhaps not, on that you may have a point.

    As far as Onan is concerned, you and I agree that masturbation wasn't the issue. I did qualify my statement. He's the one that gets pointed to by many regarding that particular sin, that's all I was saying. I said in my post that the real problem he had was his disobedience.

    I don't believe that I've twisted any scripture. And as far as forcing it to answer questions that it never thought of? Well that's something modern Christians (and I suspect ancient ones as well) try to do all the time. It is God's word and "is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". Since the situations in our day are different, however slightly, from those of our forefathers we must seek to apply it to our modern lives. Personally I believe that the sins we commit today are no different than the sins Abraham, Jacob, or Adam committed in their days at least not at the root of them.
  • Mr Roche, as a scripture scholar, you will know that the Hebrew verb יָדַע which you here translate as "have relations with" and then paraphrase as "sleeping with" which in your context appears to be a euphemism for "have sexual intercourse with", this verb as you should be aware is the verb "to know". They were making threatening actions to know these strangers in their town. Do you also commend Lot for offering this rowdy mob his daughters to distract them instead? Lot does hold to the requirements of hospitality, "only to these men do nothing; as they are come under the shadow of my roof." If "knowing" them immediately makes one think of homosexual sexual intercourse or its euphemisms, I do not believe the issue is with the text.

    As to homosexuality as a concept and your assertions of the antiquity of that concept. Please find me a use of the word "homosexual" in any English literature prior to 1892.
  • spiritualtramp
    I can assure you that I'm hardly a scripture scholar. I rely on the common translations available and occasionally a lexicon where I think it's helpful. I looked up that particular word and found this http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/.... One definition listed is "to know (a person carnally)". It seems to me based on the use of the word abomination, the Sodomites were guilty of more than a lack of hospitality. Lot offered to let them do whatever was "good in their eyes" to his daughters if they left the men alone. Do you see nothing sinister in what they wanted? As far as letting Lot off the hook, no I don't. No one save the messengers perhaps were innocent in this scene.

    As far as homosexuality goes, men having sex with men and women with women, are you saying that that didn't happen prior to 1892 or that the "lifestyle" that moderns associate with it didn't exist prior to then? I'm not clear. Personally I'm certain that people were having inappropriate sexual relations ever since we were created. It's part of the fall (itself having sexual connotations/repercussions).

    If the word "homosexual" wasn't in use prior to 1892 that doesn't mean the concept didn't exist. Electricity existed long before the English word for it did. I think depending on what you're arguing here, the burden of proof is on you since your reading seems to be in the minority when it comes to most commentaries I've read and given how the NIV translates it. That that particular translation is not my favorite it is certainly a reputable translation.
  • If you have never been in a situation where you are a stranger and appear different and experienced feeling threatened to the point where you might experience violence or even have your life in danger - then you are fortunate. This is the story as described about Sodom, and as understood by Ezekiel and even by our Lord himself when he speaks of inhospitality.

    If the word "abomination" leads you to only think of sexual intercourse between homosexuals, I repeat - the issue is not with the text.

    Sexual intercourse within a committed same-sex couple may very well be immoral - but you cannot use this text to justify your position. That other writers share your prejudice about this text is no defence - it took quite a while for the penny to drop for Christians about slavery, semitism, apartheid, etc. Your idea that a concept can exist prior to the word is novel - and of course by definition impossible to prove.

    In passing - you may never have experienced the abomination of inhospitality to the point of being threatened and had someone protect you as Lot did - but many homosexuals have. The story may very well be read in their favour.

    May God bless your ongoing search and allow you to be open to the surprising things the scriptures might actually be saying.
  • spiritualtramp
    Thanks for your blessing. I wish I thought it was more than you being passive agressive. I also wish you had read and responded to my questions and prose or perhaps even the citation of the use of the word "to know" from the lexicon. Instead you chose to tell me how I should read Ezekiel and implied that I have a problem because I was saying something that I didn't actually say.

    While I do believe that the men of Sodom were after the two strangers in a violent sexual fashion I don't believe that the passage itself is anti-homosexuality. I'm pretty sure I said that. If that wasn't clear then I apologize.

    So to recap - The Genesis passage doesn't justify the position that same sex intercourse is immoral. You haven't really addressed any of the things I actually said. And I thank you for your comments. If you choose to come back and comment here in the future I would appreciate it if you'd make your points clearer when asked and make fewer subtly disparaging comments about your host's prejudices, unless you know him personally.
  • Just because someone reads the texts differently to you, and does so in the original rather than questionable translations, suddenly I am accused (against your own advice to me!) of "being passive agressive (sic)." It is fascinating to me that this accusation is made directly after my reference to our Lord's teaching on Sodom - where he teaches that this blessing now returns to me - reinforced by your use of the term "host"! May Christ's denunciation in that teaching be a Middle Eastern hyperbole in your case :-)

    When I refer to your prejudice, I meant that as bringing a "preconceived preference or idea" to the text. I gave you the translation of יָדַע in my second comment - I never said that it could not be used for sexual intimacy in other contexts, I just do not see how either the interpretation of Ezekiel or that of Christ himself support your own interpretation that "they were sexual predators".

    I cannot see how I can make my point clearer: you are misreading the text - Ezekiel and Jesus have quite a different reading of the Sodom story. There appears little point in my revisiting as you yourself only appear to want to continue going down your own track rather than conversing with mine.
  • spiritualtramp
    You are fortunate that you're able to read the Bible in its original language. I don't take issue with you reading it differently than I do. I just look at the verses you point out and come to different conclusions, although not that different I suppose. As I said, the real sin of the men of Sodom was not homosexuality. Everything I have read and been taught is that they wanted to do violence to these visitors and that violence was sexual in nature. Instead Lot offers them to do what they will to his daughters. I agreed with you that there was a lack of hospitality, but the passage in Ezekiel seems to agree with me that their sin didn't end there. It went further resulting in abominations. What does that mean to you since you brought the passage up?

    You say that I am misreading the text, but you aren't giving me compelling reason to read it any other way than I do. What did the men want to do to the visitors? Is just wanting to "know them" so bad? How is that inhospitable? Why would that put fear into the men? give me something more than "the word is translated X" and "you're wrong". Where was the threat?

    It seems I have overreacted to your accusations of prejudice. Perhaps that does indeed say something about me. I will grant you that perhaps you are even right in that the men wanted nothing more than to "know" the visitors (whatever that meant). I just don't see how the passage in Ezekiel shoots down my reading. It actually seems in my eyes to support it.

    If you are going to go against majority opinion, if you want to convince me and maybe you don't or think you can't, then what you're laying before me isn't enough. If you don't want to revisit on that grounds I suppose I can't blame you. We both want to go down our own tracks and we seem to be talking past each other.

    Thanks again for taking the time to read what I've written here. And if I have been a poor host then I apologize. I don't want my passion in this to make me sin against a brother, a stranger, or anyone.

    Cheers,
    Scott
  • OK - let's try yet once again:

    יָדַע is used I think 943 times in the Bible. 10 - only 10 times does it mean "have intercourse". In those 10 cases it is always heterosexual sex.

    Let's follow your own assumption that 20% of a population could be homosexual - but the text says "the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man" EVERY SINGLE ONE is demanding in your opinion to have homosexual intercourse with these visitors.

    You also assume that homosexuality as a concept is there prior to 1892. So you would have Lot go out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and offer to ALL the men of Sodom, who, in your understanding Lot KNOWS to all be homosexuals - his daughters! Of what interest are his daughters to homosexual men? I make my point again - Lot does not think these are homosexuals. Lot does not have a concept of "homosexuals". The Bible does not have a concept of "homosexuals".

    Aside from Genesis you find 27 other references in the Bible to Sodom. Not a single one of them mentions homosexuality! Or rape!

    Jesus uses the story of Sodom to illustrate the abomination of inhospitality - not of homosexuality or of rape.

    I really am running out of ways (and time) to clarify what is IMO the only unbiased reading of the text.
  • sidfaiwu
    So it's restrictions are pretty much hetero and in marriage only. That qualifies as narrow in my opinion. The point about masturbation surprises me. They way it's treated and talked about made it seem like there's a verse that reads "Thou shalt not bring into contact thine own hand with thine genitals. In fact, don't even place them in the same general vicinity."

    My question there is though, what percentage of human sexuality is of the homo- variety? If it’s the minority, as I understand it to be, and if it’s a large part of what people point to when it comes to God being anti-some aspect of human sex, then there’s a problem there.


    It's between 2 and 20 percent depending on how homosexuality is defined, who performs the survey, and how the question is asked. Are you suggesting that because it's a minority group, being against them does not constitute anti-some aspect of human sexuality? It's not clear what you mean when you say "there's a problem there."
  • spiritualtramp
    Ah, but you said "very narrow". Yeah masturbation gets a bad wrap. I suppose it, like any other behavior, can be negative, but in and of itself? No.

    What I'm saying is that even assuming 20% of the population are homosexuals (which probably includes bisexuals I would guess) being against them does not strongly contribute to your argument that the prescribed range is "very narrow". Narrow? Yes. Very narrow? Perhaps, perhaps not.
  • sidfaiwu
    I should reserve 'very' for the Catholic Church's (as well as some other religious sects') approach to human sexuality. Apparently, considering the Bible's view is too open minded for some Christian sects. :)
  • spiritualtramp
    Indeed. The power of tradition (and alternately the temptation to fight against tradition for its own sake) is strong. Maintaining a skeptical mind on the matter is a challenge.
blog comments powered by Disqus
«
»