This is the second post in a series refuting the Free Methodist’s analysis of homosexuality according to the Bible. The first post laid the groundwork and touched on the nature of creation, women, and marriage. This post will focus on Sodom and Leviticus as they are addressed by the authors of the subject paper “Homosexuality According to the Bible.”
Sodom
This is one of the most abused passages in Scripture regarding homosexuality according to the Bible and the authors offered no additional clarity. The authors affirm traditional interpretations and I cannot blame them for it. That said, they did not dig very deeply into the context. The issue is their interpretation does not fit the overall context of creation, let alone the micro context of Sodom. Separation of good and evil was required. There must be a chasm between kinds of people, like in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, Cain from his family, Ham from his, and Judah from Israel.
Separation as Context
This separation is why Lot split from Abraham before convincing the angels to stay in his house instead of the town square. The author uses a traditional interpretation of this kind of communication as homosexual sex, but it is also oral intercourse or a kind of learning. That said, we can leave it as a sexual act, and the argument for forgiveness remains intact.
Wickedness
The author also touches on the wickedness of the town. Wickedness is the actions of one who is drawn, pulled, or wicked out of something—this is coming out of the shadows like Leviticus 18:23 forbids. They are exposed for being defiled or unmasked, like casting out demons, which Jesus said was ok to allow despite it not appearing to be within the rules (Luke 9:49-50). The disciples, therefore, become fishers of men and expose others so they may be saved.
Order of Things
Another point the author missed is the nature of things at the time. This is important in any analysis of homosexuality, according to the Bible. This was soon after the Nephilim married daughters of men, which was not what God wanted. God shuffled the languages so the tower would not be built. Lot perpetuated this, which is why it was appropriate for Lot to offer his daughters instead of the angels. That was the way of things in that era, so he thought. Daughters of men could marry sons of men, but the townspeople could not marry the angels. It was against the first law of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but Lot missed something in his righteousness.
The children may approach the elders. They can eat from the tree but not the other way around, which is why Jesus told his disciples to stop rebuking people for bringing their children to him. He continued to say it was the only way to enter the kingdom.
Blindness
The author also downplays the blindness inflicted, but that seems to be a mistake. Isaiah 6:9-11 specifically addresses this. Notably, Isaiah asked how long he should blind the people, and the Lord said until all of the cities are destroyed. Sodom, therefore, was destroyed through blindness. This blindness creates circumcision, and Joshua came, like Jesus, to separate through a division of circumcision (Mark 4:33-34; Luke 14:26; Luke 12:51).
Jesus, however, healed that separation (Jn 9:32). The veil would tear from the top to the bottom (Mk 15:38). This is only after the cities, like Sodom, are destroyed through blindness. Essentially, since they knew about the angels, they wanted to learn from them. To keep order, blindness would allow separation while being in one another’s presence.
Ultimately, the old and young men had to be differentiated. The underlying context of Sodom and Jesus’ ministry is that Lot could not differentiate, while Jesus could break the bread and divide the two sides.
2 Peter 2:7-8
The author also ignores 2 Peter 2:7-8, which depicts Lot as righteous and tormented by the process. The implication is being righteous is not a good thing, as Revelation 22:11 differentiates between the wrong, filthy, righteous, and holy.
The greatest miss by this author and other interpretations is Ezekiel 16:49-50. That short reference explains why Sodom burned, which was the lack of generosity from the wealthy. The only person to block anything from happening was Lot. The angels wanted to sleep in the town square, and the townspeople and even Lot’s daughters were happy to participate, but Lot blocked the free will of the townspeople.
Lot’s door is an important feature of this story, which also ties directly to Jesus in the New Testament (Revelation 3:20). The author fails to address the concept of a door being blocked generally, which is key to this story and central to all of Scripture, especially in light of Revelation 11:8 that says Sodom, Egypt, and Jerusalem are the same thing spiritually. It further clarifies Jesus was crucified in this common place.
The point is Sodom burned because the righteous blocked the free will to fall. They were not allowed to fall; therefore, not all people would experience grace and love, according to Luke 7:47. In the end, Sodom is forgiven, according to Ezekiel 16:63. Importantly to this point, Jesus taught the more grace we are given, the more we will love (Luke 7:47). If someone cannot fall, they cannot love.
Leviticus
The author addresses Lev 18:22 relative to Lev 20:13, which are important chapters but not the way the authors have positioned them. To apply this Scripture, one must understand what it means. The author takes verses from the middle of the chapter and applies them as though they can be applied outside of context. This is not a sound interpretation as it does not even account for the audience mentioned in Lev 18:2. Additional context of Leviticus 18 is who can and cannot uncover another relative’s nakedness or sinful nature. The authors presumably did not understand what they were discussing. If they did, they would not have used these verses as they do not apply. That said, I will review the meaning for a deeper look.
Leviticus 18:22
Lev 18:22 says one should not lie with a male like a woman. The KJV 1900, which is a more literal translation, translates the male ‘mankind,’ which would differentiate a male from a man according to Leviticus 20:13. This says a man is not to lie with mankind. These are different concepts, especially because of the change in word choice within the same verse, let alone passage, chapter, or book. Think of mankind as the younger or child and the man as the older. It is also known as pederasty, but this is also misleading. It is the cause of making one an adult too early – adultery.
The author does not seem to recognize that this is a spiritual lesson. Instead, they remain in the physical realm.
Affirming Scripture
The Apostle Paul depicted laying with another man in Acts 20:9-10. He laid over a young man who was thought to be dead after falling asleep and to the ground from a third-story window. 1 Kings 17:21 and 2 Kings 4:34 also feature this concept. This particular text pivots on the word for male and man. One is a husband ‘kind’, and one is a young man. The husband is not to cover or shield the younger with a lie. They must be exposed and learn, but they are not to be awakened. We all have to be allowed to fall, or we would lack free will. The righteous, like Lot, do not understand the order of things, hence misunderstanding the text.
This sounds like the Church today. It is blocking free will behind the veil of decency. Hypocrisy, however, is found in conducting marriages, though vows are not allowed (Matt 5:33). Context is appropriate as that verse is found immediately after Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Matt 5:31-32, hence the relative nature.
Children
Everything pivots on the children. It turns out they can come to Jesus. This correction is taught by Jesus in Mark 10:13-15. The disciples were surprised. Both Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 instruct on laying with a male, or young man. That young man can be brought to Jesus, however. It is also encouraged and does not break this law. This reverses from the time of the Nephilim, who took the daughters of men against their own free will. God’s first regret was the creation of man in Genesis 6.
Nakedness
I now return to the meaning of Leviticus 18 and uncovering one’s family members. As mentioned, the author fails to take into account the meaning of being defiled or wicked. The concept of uncovering another is removing the veil or exposing one’s naked truth. Jesus lived a perfect life, and He cast out demons. What He did not do was become defiled or expose Himself. While this appears to be patently false, I can explain. It will take more space, however. To sum it up, I point you to His testimony to Pilate. He was silent. He did not testify to His own deity or place. Nor did He in front of Herod. Jesus was silent.
This runs more deeply, but the idea of sinlessness is fulfilled in that account. He also had Simon identify Him before admitting who he was (Mark 8:27), just like John the Baptist before Jesus admitted who He was. John’s whole purpose was to testify to the light and that he was not the light (Jn 1:6-8, 19-20). One may not wake up his sibling, parents, aunts, or uncles, but a cousin seems to be fair game, according to Leviticus 18. Jesus and John are cousins; therefore, it is legal. Another interesting verse is Matt 3:15, where Jesus tells John to permit it at this time. It implies John had a choice.
The reason for creation is to witness good from evil without knowing which is which. This way, one must withhold judgment until the appropriate time, which I hope can be realized as these arguments are considered while considering “Homosexuality According to the Bible.”
