The Evangelical Alliance
The following is my submission to EA
(and some subsequent 2-way correspondence)
thus:
I am still awaiting a promised point-by-point
reply!
(I did receive a letter containing a personal
attack,but don't count that as a reply).
===========================================================
Rev J Edwards, General Director, Evangelical Alliance
2 Oct 2000
Dear Rev Edwards
Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus. I am
writing as someone having the same love for the scriptures and concern
for their accurate translation and interpretation as you. Having studied
several versions of the Bible carefully, (see below) I am concerned about
an issue that has been seriously mistranslated - and thus misinterpreted
- and which has caused much damage. It is something I have shared with
several Bible Societies, as God has called me to do. I should first
introduce myself.
I am a trained and accredited preacher in the
evangelical tradition, and a member of District Synod. Since my conversion
in 1954, I have studied the Bible diligently. It is precious to me, and
I endeavour to study with the utmost integrity. The Bible has informed
my life and my marriage (44 years); it is 'daily bread' in our home, and
I have read it through several times.
My Bible study is done prayerfully and with great
care. I use several well loved versions, and study;
*analytically, - using original language interlinear
texts, lexicons/dictionaries and analytical concordances, as well
as other references that enable study of word usage and analysis,
*contextually ie Biblical context (whole
Bible as well as verse, chapter etc), comparison and cross-referencing;
using knowledge of the culture, religious ideas, thinking and world-view
etc of the writers, as well as the history and culture of the societies
to whom the writers were referring.
My scientific background enables objective study,
and I do my utmost to work with correct facts and information as my past
experience shows that incorrect data/assumptions lead to wrong conclusions/results.
I take great care in Bible study, because I have seen the damage done by
literalism and misuse, both within our wider family, and in the world community
- apartheid; cult suicides etc as well as such past evils as the Inquisition
and slavery. More recently I (who am not gay, nor is my wife or any of
our family) have come to understand the major part that current translations
of the Bible play in the condemnation, oppression, beatings and murders
of homosexuals.
The responsibility for much of this damage falls
on those who are either prepared to misuse scripture, or unprepared to
open their minds to what the scriptures are actually saying to them, but
is one for which the translation community, (as well as those who interpret
the scriptures), bear a heavy responsibility, although probably out of
ignorance of the people and the issue at the heart of the matter. My concern
in writing to you is about EA's interpretation of scripture on this issue.
The poor quality translation of those Biblical texts thought to condemn
even responsible homosexuals, including those who love the Lord Jesus,
has confused many.
I respect that the translation community has done
its best, but sadly it has sown confusion and misled people, as you will
see clearly in this submission. This is almost certainly due to traditional
but wrong perceptions of the people and the issue, which influences translation,
as the Director of the Bible Society has admitted. I appreciate the difficulty
- I had the same perceptions until challenged by the Lord to find out for
myself. 'New eyes and understanding' enabled prayerful study of the
scriptures on this matter and was enough to show me the need for repentance.
Since that time in 1992 exegesis has prayerfully continued to the point
where I am confident in the Lord to approach you and Bible Societies regarding
translation on this issue. My wife and I now have over 7 years experience
of sharing Christian fellowship with homosexual Christians, and have amassed
much knowledge of the people, the issue, and its relationship to scripture.
The story of how we came to be led by the
Lord to a ministry of 'support, affirmation and Christian love for homosexuals,
Christians especially', is found in my booklet 'RELUCTANT JOURNEY' a copy
of which I enclose, which is now in its 4th print. Written to be easily
read while containing the essential information, it is necessarily short,
but does set out the essence of what we had learned up to 1996 (when it
was completed), as well as the essence of the Bible study. However,
exegesis continued, and this accompanying submission contains more material
on Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9,10; 1 Timothy
1:10 and Jude 7.
An important stage leading to my change of heart
was going back to the Bible prayerfully and carefully on this issue, asking
of it this question 'If there are people who are made that way and have
no choice in their sexuality, and if they are capable of loving, faithful,
committed, covenant relationships with their (same-sex) beloved, what has
the Bible to say about that?'.
I studied using the following definition, (as
I realised that the word 'homosexuality' was being ignorantly used as a
'catch-all'); "True homosexuals are like heterosexuals in all respects,
except when attracted or falling in love, then it is with another of the
same gender, usually another homosexual".
Thus defined, neither heterosexuals who
get involved in same-sex acts, nor bisexuals (who are attracted to both
genders), are 'true homosexuals', although there is a homosexual side to
the nature of bisexuals, which for some is dominant. There is also a small
number of people who are confused about their sexuality, usually resulting
from child sexual-abuse. My Bible study, based on the above premises (which
were confirmed by the experience of the many homosexual Christians we met,
and supported by professional opinion), led to my repentance, following
which the Lord called us to our ministry. And it is the Lord who has led
me to write to you and the Bible Societies.
We have learned that while same-sex sexual expression
in its various forms is quite un-natural to us, it is as natural to a true
homosexual as opposite-sex sexual expression is to us. There are homosexuals
who 'act out the media image' but my Bible study is/was primarily concerned
with those who live in loving, faithful, covenant same-sex partnerships,
many of whom have sought God's blessing on their union. There are also
homosexuals who live celibate lives, including some in celibate partnership,
but celibacy is a gift not given to many of them, just as it is not given
to many of us heterosexuals.
In over seven (7) years of ministry, we have seen
at first hand the confusion, distress, depression and despair of homosexual
christians who, finding they are different and among those condemned by
church and society, have tried everything to change. Prayer for years,
'ex-gay ministry' counselling, deliverance ministry - nothing changed,
and they found that they had to eventually accept themselves as they are.
Any need for additional counselling arises from their 'given difference'
and the prejudice and bigotry with which they are treated, often creating
self-hatred which leads to self- damage, or even suicide. Such treatment
is wicked, and invariably 'backed' by Biblical quotation!
When I began to seriously study this issue, I
read the Bible thro for reference and context, then struggled prayerfully
and carefully for months with the texts that I later found from our new-found
homosexual Christian friends were those that were used by others to condemn
them. That, and more recent Bible study based on 7 years experience of
ministry, serves to show that all translations on this issue are confused
and wrong. Some translators are now re-examining their translation
following my submission, and others who recognise the need to 're-evaluate
for clarification, and possible re-translation, those five Biblical passages
often cited in discussions of homosexuality, as those passages have no
relation to the modern concept of homosexuality'. When re-reading the Bible
I felt this was the case, but had no firm evidence for it, and continued
to study as in this letter.
But this is all background to the study, which
I offer as evidence of the need for EA to carefully reconsider its interpretation
of those texts that are used to condemn even those homosexuals who are
responsible, faithful and loving Christian people. =================================================
I proceed now to the study summary, apologising
for its length, which is unavoidable.
GENESIS 19:1-11 (and 13:13)
This is a story that, as translated and interpreted,
has wrongly done great damage to homosexuals and their image. The NIV (New
Int'l Version); GNB (Good News Bible), JB (Jerusalem Bible), LB (Living
Bible); and NWT (New World) all contribute to that damage by incorrectly
inserting into v.5 words like 'have sex/intercourse with'. This is
contrary to the prophets and Jesus, who provide the only evidence of Sodom's
sin - thus words for which there is no Biblical foundation, as follows;
a) While we know from Gen 13:13 that these were
wicked men, we are NOT told in the story;
1. Specifically, what form their wickedness
took, (but the prophets and Jesus tell us) OR
2. who these men were (other than 'men
of Sodom') who were going to attack Lot's messengers. There is no
basis in the story or in any other Biblical evidence that these were homosexuals,
OR that the intended offence was same-sex rape or intercourse.
The Hebrew derivative of 'yada' (to know) used
here is misconstrued as denoting sexual intercourse. 'Yada' and derivatives
occur nearly 700 times in scripture, meaning 'know' in the sense we use
'know'. It is used only 13 times when it means sexual intercourse, and
it is always made clear by an accompanying statement eg 'Abraham knew Sarah
his wife, and she conceived and had a son'.
Such a clarification does not occur in v.5.
b) Why was Lot not raped when he went out to them,
if this is a story about same-sex rape? This is incontrovertible evidence
that this story is not about same-sex rape, per se.
c) Why when offering his daughters, does Lot state
that they are virgins? If they were being offered simply as sexual
playthings, virginity did not matter. Indeed they would not have been so
after the first encounter. So his statement about their virginity was significant!
d) Even if Lot had offered his daughters as sexual
playthings, it cannot be reliably inferred that this was to prevent a sexual
attack - he could just have well have done so for reasons of diversion
from physical violence to, or murder of, his guests.
e) Much more likely, (knowing Lot's background,
see f. below) is that he recognised that the gods of Sodom had to be appeased
by sacrifice of some kind. Human sacrifice was common then, and a female
must be a 'virgin'. An alternative was to appease the local gods by offering
his daughters as shrine prostitutes, which also required 'virginity' offered
to that god - this would show that Lot was 'nodding' his recognition and
offering appeasement to that god.
f) Lot was a man of obscene wealth and different
culture, who brought his own God, into the territory of the gods of Sodom
who would (be considered by the men of Sodom to) be displeased.
Now he was abusing that privilege by entertaining his God's messengers.
Furthermore 'Lot sat at the gate' ie he was an elder of Sodom
and thus 'judged', or helped judge cases. Verse 9 gives clues
clues to the reasons for the attack,'Get out of our way...this fellow came
here as an foreigner, and now wants to play the judge!'- not uncommon reasons
given by xenophobes, that Lot had upset.
g) Not only is it NOT made clear that the story
in Gen 19 is about homosexuals and same-sex rape, but we are told by the
prophets and Jesus quite differently. Most references in the Bible to Sodom
do not specify what their sin was, but some do. The sins of Sodom;
1. according to Isaiah 1:10ff, were idolatrous
worship, and injustice.
2. according to Ezekiel 16:48-50, were pride,
stubborn-ness and injustice.
3. according to Jesus Matt 10:11-15; 11:23,24;
Mark 6:11; Luke 10:10-12; 17:26-30 were inhospitality, unbelief and unpreparedness.
Thus neither our Saviour, nor these great
prophets, interpreted the story, (and thus the sin) of Sodom according
to present tradition! This for me is of the greatest significance. It means
that Christians and others who translate and/or interpret it traditionally,
are doing so at variance with the Lord Jesus, the Living Word, and in spite
of the Biblical evidence!
The story in Judges 19 is a significant comparison
- the criminals - Benjamites - are clearly identified, and the woman offered
is raped to death. This story is similar to that of Sodom, but more vicious.
Why are homosexuals (who are NOT identified in Gen 19) condemned, while
Benjamites who are identified in Judges 19 never mentioned. The reason
is not hard to find - prejudice and bigotry!
LEV 18:22 (and 20:13)
1.It is vital to recognise this as the *only reference
in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) to same-sex activity, that when
read literally as translated appears unconnected with all other OT refs
to same-sex activity ie male shrine prostitution. However, the 'New American
Standard Bible' and the 'Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament'
by JR Kohlenberger 3rd states that the literal translation is "you shall
not lie with a male as those (plural) who lie with a female (singular))",
something I have found by textual study. This of itself suggests male prostitution,
and taken together with the following evidence, confirms that this
reference is indeed about male shrine prostitution.
*NOTE: Lev 20:13 is the same as Lev
18:22, but with the addition of the penalty for the offence.
2. That this is a unique reference in the Old
Testament/Hebrew Bible is most significant, as these were the scriptures
of Jesus, the apostles (including Paul), and the early church. The NT Canon
was not agreed for many years, and these scriptures together with the Gospels
informed the New Testament writings, including those of Paul and Jude.
3. Importantly, a single reference on a matter
of such moral importance is entirely atypical of these scriptures. God
does not say 'I will say this only once'. Consider the sexual sins of adultery,
prostitution, fornication etc which are not only condemned many times,
but became part of the spiritual imagery of unfaithfulness of Israel toward
God. There are 100s of references to heterosexual sexual sin. So
what is this single reference about? I proceeded as follows:
4. When comparing the laws in Exodus/Leviticus,
with those in the copy of the law, (Deuteronomy), in the same way as Kings
is compared with Chronicles, and the Synoptic Gospels are compared to help
understanding, so in Deuteronomy is found the law comparable to that in
Lev 18:22. The only law in Deuteronomy about same-sex acts is Deut 23:17,18
and concerns shrine prostitution.
5. An examination of the Hebrew words translated
'abomination' or 'God hates that', and an analysis of their use, gives
the following;
a. 'shequets' which relates to food regulations
in Lev 11;
b. 'shiqquts' which relates to unacceptable
and unworthy worship of God and desecration of the Temple;
c. 'toe'bah' is the Hebrew word for 'abomination'
used almost exclusively of idolatrous worship, statutes and practices.
Where 'abomination' is used in the references in Deuteronomy, 1 and 2 Kings
to condemn shrine prostitution, 'toe'bah' is the word used. And 'toe'bah'
is the word used in Lev 18:22 and 20:13.
6. The context of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 is of the
idolatrous fertility religion of Egypt and Canaan and its statutes, (Lev
18:3; 24-30; and Lev 20:23).
7. The history of Israel is concerned primarily
with how their Kings dealt with idolatrous worship. Kings were judged
in their history not by greatness in battle or extending 'empire', but
whether they had rid the land of 'the high places' ie idolatrous worship,
which included fertility rites.
Thus the whole thing is of a piece; and points
to the Leviticus references being about male shrine prostitution, just
as all the other references to same-sex sin in the Hebrew scriptures.
It speaks volumes that there are no references
to same-sex sin other than shrine prostitution, in the Decalogue, (Exodus
or Deut); the associated Books of the Covenant; the Blessings and Cursings
of Moses; the Great Prophets; or the Gospels. These 'great' books are silent
on the matter, and there is but one doubtful reference which when analysed
points, like all other OT references, to same-sex acts associated with
idolatrous fertility worship, ie male shrine prostitution.
Thus, my conclusion is that there is no condemnation
of loving, faithful same-sex relationships in the OT - the scriptures of
Jesus and the early church - only of male prostitution, which may have
been committed by any man. (NB. Even if Gen 19:5 could be construed as
same-sex rape/intercourse, contrary to the evidence of Jesus and the prophets,
it does not alter this conclusion).
In particular, any references to 'homosexuals'
when interpreting the Bible, should be used with the utmost care, and preferably
not at all, as the concept of 'homosexual' as understood today, was not
defined until the 1890s. Thus the writers of the Old (and New) Testament
could not be writing with this same concept in mind, and to use the word
in this way will mislead.
======================================================
NEW TESTAMENT
GOSPELS
It is significant that there is no sign of condemnation
of loving, faithful same-sex relationships in the Gospels either! The 'Living
Word' is silent, although not on heterosexual sin! There is enough evidence
from his welcome to those on the margins of society, eg Luke 15:1-7, that
Jesus would equally welcome such people.
Luke 7:1-10 This story of the 'healing of
the Centurion's servant' is, from a consideration of culture and
language, almost certainly about a loving homosexual relationship. Slaves
in Roman culture were simply 'possessions' who were sexually abused at
the whim of master or mistress, unless they were 'loved', as this servant
was. It was said in Roman society that a man's 'sexual preference' could
be seen by the gender of his favourite slaves. Centurions often took a
'love slave' with them when on a difficult tour of duty, (as was Israel).
When the language of the story is examined, the centurion first refers
to his servant as 'doulos' ('servant'). Later he speaks of his servant
as 'entimos' ('precious/beloved') - most unusual for a member of a brutal
society with its cruel games, its cruel form of execution ie
crucifixion, and its sadistic and hedonistic sexual practices. Finally,
he refers to his servant as 'pais' or 'son/child'. To refer in such terms
to someone who was not family, especially to a servant, was one way in
his society of saying 'this is my love'.
The story's language agrees with cultural considerations
to strongly suggest that here was a loving, homosexual relationship. And
there is no condemnation, only commendation of the centurion's faith.
SO WHY DOES THE TONE CHANGE WITH PAUL?
Paul saw on his travels the corruption that idolatrous
fertility worship brought to societies. It was practised widely by farming
communities around the Mediterranean, who saw the fertility rituals as
a 'sympathetic waking up' of the gods to make fertile the fields and flocks.
For example, in Cyprus, no young woman could marry
until she had served in the Temple of Aphrodite and been selected, with
payment to the temple, for prostitution services. And at the annual 'Aphrodisia'
festival, all eligible women in the area had 'to serve as temple prostitutes'
when pilgrims came from around the Mediterranean to take part in the temple's
sexual liturgy. These practices were common to many lands bordering the
Mediterranean, the scene of Paul's travels.
Such practices corrupted societies. And in the
same way that the prophets of Israel fought to keep idolatrous worship
and its corrupting practices out, so Paul fought this in relation to the
early churches. He saw the degradation, particularly bad in places like
Rome, which Tacitus described as 'the common sewer into which everything
infamous and abominable flows like a torrent from all quarters of the world'
- the price paid for being influenced by the nations it had subdued.
Romans were a brutal people, who worshipped various
gods, and had their 'vicious games' and initiations (sometimes brutal and
sexual) and festivals, which were at times orgiastic. Their forms of 'marriage'
allowed the paterfamilias to find his sexual satisfaction where he wished.
It was no business of his 'wife'who was there to care for the home, and
bear the free-born children. He had power of life and death over his family,
and 'freedom' where to find sexual satisfaction.
ROMANS 1:18-32
Just as the Deuteronomic history of Israel was
based on a cyclic pattern, so Paul saw a pattern in the way that societies
were brought low by idolatry. Romans 1:18-32 is a 3-stage argument setting
out Paul's thinking on how humanity goes wrong. The immorality of Rome
is its backdrop.
The argument goes as follows;
a) summarising vv18-22 - Humankind rejects the
plain truth about the Creator God, even though the evidence of God's work
is plain for all to see.
b) summarising vv23-25 - Then humankind turns
to idolatry, exchanging the truth of God for a lie; and the glory of God
for images resembling humans and beasts; idolatrous images of their gods.
c) summarising vv26-32 - Consequently humankind
no longer acknowledges God, and becomes debased in life, with passions
perverted, and filled with every kind of wickedness.
This passage is about what happens when people
refuse to acknowledge the living God and turn to idol worship - Paul was
certain, he had seen it! The argument hinges around vv 23-26, the latter
verse of which starts 'because of this ....'. Every kind of immorality
was practised in Rome, including prostitution (male and female),
pederasty, adultery, incest etc. It was epitomised by the Empress Agrippina
serving in a brothel out of sheer lust. People were dissatisfied with expression
of their natural sexuality, and were turning to, what were for them, unnatural
sexual acts.
This picture painted by Paul has no relevance
to the loving, christian people we know, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
Paul is not addressing the true love of homosexual or heterosexual people,
but the depravity resulting from idolatry. Those who tear a verse or two
out of context here to condemn all homosexuals and all same-sex relationships,
especially those who are Christians in loving, faithful, covenant relationships
which honour God and each other, are sadly abusing the scriptures. See
eg Romans 8:30-34, and 1 Jn 4:11-13.
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9
Corinth was also a wicked, sexually immoral place
like Rome, to whom it owed allegiance, and whose influence overshadowed
Corinth. To behave like a 'Corinthian' was to be debauched; the Temple
of Aphrodite left its mark on this port city, where people were away from
home influences, and anything went. Same-sex, as well as opposite-sex
prostitution were common in Corinth. But Biblical translators do not seem
to properly appreciate either the cultural background or the meaning of
'malakoi' and 'arsenokoitai'.
Paul identifies various wrongdoers in 1 Cor 6:7-9,
and he includes 4 Greek words to identify those guilty of sexual immorality.
He uses two words to condemn heterosexual
immorality;
a) pornoi - 'male whoremongers'; (porne
= harlot)
b) moichoi - 'male adulterers'.
Paul uses two other words that are translated
(and used) incorrectly to condemn all homosexuals;
c) malakoi - 'soft men', in this context
the passive partner in same-sex prostitution, and
d) arsenokoitai. Paul was refering directly
back to Lev 20:13 '.. koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos...' which from
the Leviticus study refers to 'men who lay with male shrine prostitutes'.
But how are these words translated?
1.'pornoi' meaning 'male whoremongers'
is translated as;
'fornicators' (NWT/KJV/NRSV- too general);'people
who are immoral' (GNB- can mean many things); 'sexually immoral' (NIV-
right ballpark, but could mean many things); 'people of immoral lives'
(JB- can mean many things); 'the immoral' (RSV- can mean many things);
'those who live immoral lives' (LB- can mean many things).
Confusion can be seen even with this relatively
simple word, with its root 'porne' meaning harlot.
2. 'moichoi' is consistently and correctly
translated 'adulterers'.
But confusion is shown again in the translations
of 'malakoi' and 'arsenokoitai';
3.'malakoi' is translated as 'men kept
for unnatural purposes' (NWT - what does this mean?); 'male prostitutes'
(NIV, NRSV- good); 'sexual perverts' (RSV- can mean many things);
'homosexuals' (LB- clear but wrong); 'homosexual perverts' (GNB- those
homosexuals who are perverted?); 'catamites' (JB- utterly wrong); 'effeminate'
(KJV- foolish).
These translations give the impression of a man
who thinks if he shoots with a blunderbuss is bound to hit something! The
JB translation is very wrong, for it is stating in effect that 'sexually-abused
children are wicked and will not inherit the Kingdom of God'.
4. 'arsenokoitai' is variously translated
as 'men who lie with men' (NWT - very misleading); 'homosexual offenders'
(NIV- what offence?); 'sexual perverts' (RSV- can mean many things); 'homosexuals'
(LB- wrong); 'sodomites' (NRSV, JB - misleading, see **NOTE below); 'homosexual
perverts' (GNB- perverted in what way?).
When the meaning of 'arsenokoitai' derived from
Lev 20:13, is strictly 'men who lay with male shrine prostitutes', these
translations are not only confusing but wrong. Again it gives the impression
of the blunderbuss. 'Homosexual' and 'sodomite' (which many equate,
usually incorrectly, see **NOTE below) are the only two reasonably clear
meanings, but they are wrong. 'Sodomite' is close, although it has to be
remembered that male temple prostitution was for both men part of the
religious liturgy - as for the rest, what do they mean? From men
and women with skills of language and expression, one expects far better.
More seriously, these translations of 'malakoi' and 'arsenokoitai'
give reason to those who wickedly oppress, damage and destroy homosexuals.
** NOTE: A sodomite may be either homosexual or
heterosexual - a homosexual may or may not be a sodomite. The term 'sodomite'
is always used pejoratively; thus it is wrong to use it of those in faithful,
loving, covenant partnership, which is not condemned in scripture. Indeed,
the justification for such loving partnerships is that God gives to many
in such partnerships His Spirit, seen in the Spirit's fruit. If God ......(see
Acts 10:esp v44ff).
1 TIMOTHY 1:10
The same confusion is shown with the translation
of key words in this letter of Paul's. He was writing to Timothy who was
at Ephesus, the city of the Temple of Diana, or Artemis, another
fertility goddess, who influenced society there. Ephesus was the main Roman
city of Anatolia, and the same influences were found as in Rome and Corinth;
and the same sexual immorality born of idolatry.
This time, Paul, (according to the Nestle text),
used only two Greek words ie 'pornois' and 'arsenokoitai' to describe opposite-sex
and same-sex sexual immorality respectively;
a) 'pornois' - a word with the same root
as in the letter to Corinth. Translators give us;
'fornicators' (NWT/NRSV- too general);'adulterers'
(NIV- too restricted); 'whoremongers' (KJV - correct); 'immoral persons'
(RSV- can mean many things); 'all who are immoral and impure' (LB- can
mean many things); 'the immoral' (GNB- can mean many things); 'immoral
with women' (JB - inadequate, what does it mean? ).
b) 'arsenokoitais' - whose meaning strictly
is 'men who lay with male shrine prostitutes'. Translators give us;
'men who lie with males' (NWT- misleading); 'sodomites'
(RSV, NRSV- misleading); 'homosexuals' (LB - wrong); 'perverts' (NIV -
means what?); 'abusers of themselves with mankind' (KJV - means what?);
'sexual perverts' (GNB - who/what?); 'immoral with boys or men' (JB - in
what way?).
These translations are no better than those of
the Corinthian letter - confusing and largely wrong or irrelevant! They
are highly dangerous translations as far as homosexual people are concerned.
How are people who have to rely on these translations meant to deal with
these variations, most of which sow confusion and are wrong?
The translation community is letting its readership,
and those who have to interpret these references, down badly. It clearly
does not understand the people or the issue as it comes to do its work
on these texts, and seems not to have discerned that Leviticus 18:22; 20:13
inform 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10.
PAUL'S OTHER LETTERS - AN IMPORTANT POINT!
The final point to note is that neither Paul,
nor any other New Testament writer used 'malakoi' or 'arsenokoitai' again.
Paul condemned sexual immorality in his every letter, and if 'arsenokoitai'
were a universal condemnation of homosexuals, Paul would have used this
word in every letter. That he did not shows that those who claim the Leviticus
reference as a universal condemnation of homosexual acts are wrong.
The most sensible conclusion is that there was
a particular problem at Corinth and Ephesus, ie male prostitution associated
with idolatry, for which he used the word 'arsenokoitai' drawn from Leviticus.
For Rome he gave a graphic description of the things troubling him; but
in none of these is there any indication that he includes loving, faithful
homosexual relationships in his condemnation.
OTHER WRITERS - JUDE v7
Here, Jude refers to false teachers in the context
of 'Sodom and Gomorrah, and like cities..' The Greek of Jude 7 includes
'..ekporneusasai (fem. pl.) kai apelthousai (fem. pl.) opiso sarkos eteras...'
Using the feminine plural in this context is an example of the way idolatry
is frequently described in the Hebrew scriptures eg 'daughters of Sodom
who have prostituted themselves and gone after other gods etc'.
Also, sexual acts have little relevance when referring to the teaching
of false teachers. The Greek has nevertheless been translated to 'accord
with current tradition' thus;
*KJV gives 'giving themselves over to fornication,
and going after strange flesh..'
*JB gives ' fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah
and other towns nearby was equally unnatural..'
*NIV gives 'gave themselves up to sexual immorality
and perversion...'
*NRSV gives 'indulged in sexual immorality and
pursued unnatural lust...'
*RSV gives 'acted immorally and indulged in unnatural
lust...'
*LB gives 'all full of lust of every kind, including
lust of men for other men..'
*GNB gives 'indulged in sexual immorality and
perversion..'
*NWT gives 'committed fornication excessively,
and gone out after flesh for unnatural use..'
The evidence in Isaiah 1:10ff, Ezekiel 16:48-50
and the Gospels has been ignored (as well as the evidence within the story
of Sodom itself - see Notes on Gen 19 attached) to make Jude 7 read incorrectly
as actual sexual acts. Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jesus refer to the
'sin of Sodom' (either specifically or in the context of another town's
actual or potential sin), as idolatry, injustice, pride, unbelief etc.
Jude was written well after the prophets and Jesus, so should be informed
by their clear understanding, and translated acordingly.
Ezekiel Chapter 16 should be read to see the context
in which vv.48-50 are set, and it becomes clear why the Jude keyword references
are in the feminine plural. This is just one of many instances where idolatry
was referred to as 'spiritual prostitution, fornication or adultery', which
indicate that Jude 7 should be translated in spiritual terms eg ' like
the daughters of Sodom who prostituted themselves, and went whoring after
other gods, and perverted justice etc'.
Bible translators have misled their readers in
Gen 19, by not considering the full Biblical evidence about Sodom and its
sins. Its resulting mistranslation, confusion and inaccuracy continues
in other references like Jude 7, and fuels condemnation of homosexuals
by people who do not understand them, even those homosexuals who love the
Lord and live 'blamelessly in love before God'.
And for much the same reasons as apply to Jude
7, so should 2 Pet 2:10 be similarly re-translated.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
Study and analysis has shown that;
a) there is no condemnation of loving, faithful
covenant homosexual relationships in the Bible.
b) translators have brought confusion to the translation
of those texts traditionally thought to condemn all homosexuals and the
expression of their sexuality, and have translated key phrases and words,
and used footnotes in a way that is highly dangerous to the well-being
of homosexuals. Thus the present translations on this matter not only come
under the judgment of God, but give bigoted, prejudiced people a Biblical
weapon to hurt and damage even those homosexuals who are loving and responsible,
including those who are faithful Christians who live in love with God and
others according to the teaching of Christ, and to whom God has given His
Spirit.
Thus, translators bear a grave responsibility,
and I have requested those I have contacted to correct the matter without
delay, indicating clearly the position by re-translation and/or suitable
footnotes. In doing so, they have clearly to better understand the people,
the issue and the Biblical context and linkages that operate for the texts
dealing with same-sex immorality in the Bible.
It also means that until the offending, mistranslated
references are corrected, interpreters and those who influence others on
the scriptures have a Christian responsibility to make clear what the scriptures
actually do say to us on this matter.
Rev Edwards, I have been challenging and honest,
but trust that I have not been ungracious - I have certainly not intended
to be so, and apologise if I have given that impression. But I do care
very much for Biblical integrity, justice and truth, and have concluded
that the scriptures are badly mistranslated and seriously mislead readers/students
on this issue. Until this situation is corrected by translators, it falls
to those like ourselves, who interpret the Bible, to help readers and students
understand. As EA is 'looked to' for Biblical guidance, it has a responsibility
to help 'put the record straight' on this.
If there is anything you wish to question, or
on which you think I could provide further assistance, I will be glad to
assist. I look forward very much to a reply from you. Meanwhile may
I wish you the blessing of God in your work.
Yours in Christ; George S E Hopper
C Eng (Ret'd)
The first reply:
evangelical alliance
27 October 2000
Dear Mr Hopper
Thank you for your letter dated 2"" October.
Your booklet 'Reluctant Journey' was one of many
sources from various perspectives consulted in preparation of our report,
'Faith, Hope and Homosexuality'. Although you mention 'EA's interpretation
of Scripture on this issue', you seem to make no direct reference to this
report, nor to its supporting references. I think it might be easier for
us to respond to your arguments if they were applied more specifically
to our (admittedly brief) study, and to the more detailed theological work
which we cite in defence of our case.
Yours sincerely in Christ
REV DR DAVID HILBORN; Theological Adviser
===============================================
My reply was as follows:
Rev Dr Joel Edwards; Director, Evangelical
Alliance
7 Nov 2000
Dear Rev Edwards
Thank you for the reply received from Rev David
Hilborn a few days ago. In it he mentioned that my booklet 'Reluctant
Journey' was consulted when 'Faith, Hope and Homosexuality' was produced,
and am pleased that you have a good starting point for your response.
But things have moved on for EA, and for ourselves.
My submission was not just about my booklet, (written 1996; published 1997),
which I offered as essential background to the additional notes included
which contained further exegesis. And EA's understanding of
homosexual orientation must surely have been profoundly challenged recently;
the sexual orientation of true homosexual men and women is a 'given'; some
go into denial to protect themselves, some hoping for change in time,
but change does not happen. Their only choice is in the expression of their
sexuality.
We did read EA's 'Faith, Hope and Homosexuality',
and were encouraged by the steps forward EA appeared to be making on the
matter. But in the light of our experience (since Feb 93) in regular fellowship
and support of homosexual Christian men and women, in which we have learned
a great deal about them and their life issues - far more than other Christians
- we felt that EA's booklet was more about ideology than people, and had
a touch of unreality about it.
I have made a point-by-point reasoned Biblical
statement, and I hope that you will find it possible to respond to it point-by-point,
and await your reply.
Yours in Christ; George S E
Hopper; C Eng (Retired)
================================================
To which I received this reply;
evangelical alliance
16 November 2000
Dear Mr Hopper
Thank you for you letter dated 7th November in
which you ask for a point-by-point response to your Biblical notes.
Your letter has been passed to Rev David Hilborn for a reply as this subject
falls within the remit of the Theology Department.
Please be assured that 1 will pass your letter
on to David. However, he is away from the office a lot at the moment
working to a tight deadline to col-nplete a forthcoming publication.
Once this is completed he will consider your letter and respond in due
course.
Yours sincerely
CAROLYN SKINNER; Secretary - Theology Department
==============================================
I patiently await Rev Dr David Hilborn's reply.