HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE
BIBLE STUDY
20
Matthew 5:21-22 (KJV)
The words of Jesus:
“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, ‘Thou shalt not kill;’ And
whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment; But I say unto you,
that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of
the judgment; and whosever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be in danger
of the council; but whosever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell
fire.”
Matthew 5:21-22 (NIV)
The words of Jesus:
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and
anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who
is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to
his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You
fool!’ Will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
Anger and name-calling. It is easy to see that Jesus was opposed to both, but more so about name-calling than anger. It seems that here Jesus has created a hierarchy of contemptible behavior. He begins by reminding his listeners of one of the Ten Commandments–Do Not Murder. Anyone who murders will be subject to being brought to trial. But Jesus’ commandment of love extends this commandment to the exclusion of even murder of the spirit by non-causative anger and name-calling. Anger is bad enough, Jesus says, to make the angry one worthy of being brought to trial, but name-calling is worse.
According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, the word Raca is an Aramaic word akin to the Hebrew req, meaning empty. It was a word of utter contempt, signifying empty, intellectually rather than morally, empty-headed…As condemned by Christ (in Matthew 5:22) it was worse than being angry, inasmuch as an outrageous utterance is worse than feeling unexpressed or somewhat controlled in expression; it does not indicate such a loss of self-control as the word rendered “fool,” a godless, moral reprobate.
Rev. Bob Arthur, author of Homosexuality and the Conservative Christian, a former professor of linguistic studies at Bob Jones University, has written the following:
We all know that Jesus spoke Aramaic during his life
on earth. Aramaic was the popular language of the Hebrew people at that time.
Hebrew and Aramaic are very close to each other linguistically and much of the
vocabulary is the same.
Most commentators have traditionally thought that the word Raca was from
the Aramaic word reyqa’ or reyqah in Aramaic which means empty
one. The Greek of Matthew does not translate the Aramaic word in Greek, but
rather transliterates it into Greek letters: raka.
Now, if the commentators are correct in their surmise that the word is from reyqa’ or reyqah in Aramaic, that is a derivative from the verb riyq which means to be empty, thus making the modern translations of “empty-headed” or “foolish” appropriate. However, since the Greek transliterates the word raka, not reka (the closest Greek could come to the Aramaic reyqa’ or reyqah), I suspect it actually is a transliteration of the Aramaic rakkah. Rakkah comes from the Aramaic verb rekak, which is the same as the Hebrew verb rakak, which means to be tender, weak or soft. That in itself does not have any special significance….However, what makes this interesting is the fact that raka is the feminine form of the adjective used to describe the word “brother.” We have no other Biblical example of this adjective used in the feminine form to describe a masculine noun. This in essence makes it have a very derogatory significance. In a patriarchal culture where the Hebrew man praised God every morning that he was created a man and not a woman, to have someone call him weak in the feminine sense was a great insult. About the closest we can come in the English idiom would be to call someone who valued his macho image a sissy…Now, whether the Aramaic use of this term has the same homosexual undertones as the English epithet sissy does is unclear. However, the calling of such derogatory names is condemned by Jesus in Matthew 5:22.
Barclay, in his Daily Study Bible Series on Matthew (5:22) writes:
Raca is an almost untranslatable word, because it describes a tone of voice more than anything else. Its whole accent is the accent of contempt…It is the word of one who despises another with an arrogant contempt…The sin of contempt is liable to an even severer judgment. It is liable to the judgment of the Sanhedrin, the supreme court of the Jews…It is as if Jesus said, “The sin of inveterate anger is bad; the sin of contempt is worse”…We should never look with contempt on anyone for whom Christ died.
In a society where so many churches and denominations regard the GLBT community with contempt, whether or not the word raca actually addresses homosexuals, the bottom line is that contempt for any child of God, in Jesus’ eyes, is reprehensible.
I Timothy 1:8-10 (NIV)
We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for good people but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, Who entrusted it to me.
1 Timothy 1:10 (KJV)
…for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
The word that the KJV translates as them that defile themselves with mankind and that the NIV translates as perverts, is arsenokoitai (arsenokoites), the same word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Please refer to that section for further edification on that verbiage.
When I wrote the section on the so-called negative scripture references to homosexuality in the Bible, it might have appeared that I inadvertently missed one–1 Timothy 10–even though I made a brief reference to it in the section on 1 Corinthians 6:9. Not so.
Rather than see this section as a supposed condemnation of homosexuality, we need to see the captioned verses as they apply to Paul’s thesis in this chapter, which is the necessity to preach a true doctrine of the gospel and the condemnation of those who don’t. As before, we need to see these specific verses in the context of the larger subject addressed.
Paul tells us in verse 5: The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. He goes on to speak of the goodness of the law, when used properly, and says (tongue firmly in cheek) that the law is not made for good people but for sinners. I say tongue-in-cheek, because we remember that Paul firmly teaches that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, (Rom. 3:23) which is to say that the law was made for everyone. Christ came into the world to save sinners (1:15a), including Paul, to whom Jesus showed mercy and unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on Jesus and receive eternal life. (1:16)
I should mention that there are scholars who believe that 1 Timothy is one of the letters which was not written by Paul but by a later writer in Paul’s name. But for purposes of this study we will presume the author to be Paul.
Paul’s doctrine of Christianity is not specifically spelled out in his letter to Timothy, because we can safely assume that Timothy already knew it. That doctrine is contained in its entirely in Paul’s letter to the Romans, which I will attempt briefly to sum up by saying that every human being is a sinner and subject to the dictates of the law, but those who accept Jesus Christ as Savior are freed from the strictures of that same law through their faith in Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit to guide them into all the truth. In other words, there is, therefore, no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life has set them free from the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:1) In other words, anyone, anyone, ANYONE, who accepts Christ as Savior, including homosexuals, are not condemned. Thus when Paul exhorts Timothy to uphold the doctrine he has been taught, Paul’s letter to Timothy upholds the same teachings described in Romans.
Now let us focus on the word pervert. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate dictionary defines the verb pervert as:
to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right; to corrupt; to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted; to misdirect; to divert to a wrong end or purpose; misuse; to twist the meaning or sense of; misinterpret; debase.
Homosexuals frequently are described as perverts–the noun–presumably, those who implement the definition of the verb.
For over 1500 years life for homosexuals was precarious. Beatings, imprisonment, torture, burnings at the stake (from which we get the term faggot) were all too commonplace, and all justified in the name of biblical “interpretation.” Not until the middle of the twentieth century did hardly anyone do any research on the subject. The discovery of the library at Ugarit in the 1930’s, with its texts of the Canaanite religions and the temple or cultic prostitution provided a great leap forward in its presentation of written evidence. In the last fifty years, much research and study has transpired, and much evidence has been brought to light which demonstrate the findings that have been shown here–that nowhere in scripture is there any condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality as we know it today.
For that matter, even if homosexuality was a sin, the teachings of Paul in Romans that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but are justified freely by God’s grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus (3:23-24), negate any scriptural interpretation that would justify any attitude of rejection towards the GLBT community.
Still, for over 1500 years, churches wrongly kept their doors closed. Well, maybe they didn’t know better. We can give them the benefit of the doubt. But ignorance of scripture can no longer be any excuse. The research is available to all who would choose to look. Those churches which have undertaken sincere steps to seek out the truth have not found themselves wanting for evidence. In almost every case where a denomination has commissioned a task force to research the evidence, the response from the task force on completion of the work has been, “We’ve been wrong in condemning these people–wrong in keeping our doors shut to them.” What is so shocking to me is how often the denominations have subsequently turned around and either shelved or simply rejected the findings of their own task forces.
As this is being written, a controversy is threatening to split the American Episcopal Church. Just one week ago, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson was elected in New Hampshire as the first openly gay bishop. Under church rules the election needs to be certified by the denomination’s coming General Convention, which is being strenuously opposed by the denomination’s conservative element. Hardly a month goes by where one doesn’t read of another division in a church, temple or mosque somewhere over the issue. Has it not yet occurred to the traditionalists that the reason there are so many divisions in the denominations is because more and more people are discovering for themselves the irrefutable evidence we have been offering all along?
There was a time when churches could reject the research and the findings on the basis that the only ones doing the research were homosexuals themselves (because no one else had any reason or interest in doing it), and they all knew that the evidence was biased. But that no longer is the case. As interest and controversy over the subject grew, more heterosexual joined with homosexual scholars and found out for themselves that what we were saying was true.
Which brings up the question: who are the perverts? If as our collegiate dictionary tells us, to pervert is to misdirect; to divert to a wrong end or purpose; misuse; to twist the meaning or sense of; misinterpret; debase; then where do those rejecting denominations and churches fit in? If incontrovertible evidence is presented to them that their traditional teaching has been wrong, yet they refuse to relinquish their tradition, where do they fit in? Don’t they, by their rejection of the evidence, inadvertently or otherwise, become one with those who incur the wrath of God because they “…suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them?” (Rom.1:18-19). By choosing to stick with their traditions instead of acknowledging the abundant evidence to the contrary, they have “…exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served created things rather than the Creator…” (Rom.1:25)
Even worse, I believe what many of these churches
fail to realize is that by their repeated vilification and rejection of GLBT
folk, over time they in effect force GLBT folk to turn their backs, not only on
the church but on God. Every child wants to be good. Tell someone he or she’s
not good long enough, and you’re probably going to eventually push them to the
point of saying, “Well, if I can’t be good at being good, then I’ll be good at
being bad.” At that point these rejecting churches become part of the
condemnation Jesus spoke of when He said, “…if anyone causes one of these
little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for that one to have a
large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the
sea.”
(Matt. 18:6)
Pervert has taken on a new mantle. One cannot ignore the evidence forever with impunity. God never did like arrogance very much.
This ends today’s study. Next week: Human sexuality and the bible.