Book Review: "A Study of 7 References to Homosexuality in the Bible"

Image of Those 7 References: A Study of 7 References to Homosexuality in the Bible
by John F. Dwyer
BookSurge Publishing 2007
Paperback 116

John Dwyer is a gay Episcopal priest who is married to another man. Dwyer’s book is a valuable survey of the revisionist interpretations of Genesis 19, Judges 19, Leviticus 18 and 20, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1. Dwyer makes no original contributions and produces his survey of the texts on a five-step process:

  1. The biblical authors know nothing of loving, monogamous same-sex relationships. Rather, sex was about power, lust and violence that stemmed from a society that devalued women.
  2. Sexual relationships in the 21st century are different.
  3. The biblical authors cannot have a Jewish worldview informed by the Tanakh, they are influenced by secular culture.
  4. In the passage’s context, the text is really about something else. This is typically done by only a cursory examination of the Scripture.
  5. Therefore, these passages are inapplicable for loving, monogamous same-sex relationships today.

Rather than provide a detailed look at how Dwyer handles each text, I’ll examine how he handles Genesis 19. His behavior here is a representative sample of what he does with each text. Dwyer says the following:

  1. Abraham’s hospitality to the angelic visitors is a deliberate contrast with that of Lot and especially the townspeople1
  2. The townspeople’s goal was rape, not sex2
  3. The townspeople’s sin was inhospitality3
  4. The idea that the sin is homosexuality is a “minority view” in commentaries4
  5. No references to Sodom and Gomorrah in the entire Bible have to do with homosexuality (Isa 1.9; Isa 13.19; Jer 23.14; Jer 49.18; Amos 4.11; Zeph 2.9; Ezek 16.46; Deut 29.23; Deut 32.32).5 “These other biblical passages focus on a societal expectation that widows, orphans, strangers, the poor are cared for and treated accordingly.”6

Is this last statement true? Let’s examine the texts Dwyer cites:

  • Isa 1:9; 13:19; Jer 49:18; Amos 4:11; Zeph 2:9; Deut 29:23; Mt 10:15; Lk 17:29. In these cases, Sodom is used as a watchword for utter destruction. They say nothing about homosexuality or any sin at all. That was not their purpose.
  • Jeremiah 23:14. The reference gives the sense of “beyond the pale” or “irredeemable”
  • Ezek 16:46f. This is a reference to sexual sin. Not only did Judah copy Sodom and Samaria’s ways “according to their abominations” (the word toevah is used here), she shortly became “more corrupt,” (Ezek 16:47). This “abomination” was sexual sin. Indeed, Judah exceeded Sodom in her sin (Ezek 16:48). Sodom was full of pride; “[t]hey were haughty and did an abomination [toevah] before me. So I removed them, when I saw it,” (Ezek 16:50). Context, and the use of toevah to match the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20, indicate this was homosexual behavior.
  • Deut 32:32: a rejection of God is the vine that produced Sodom’s sin (cf. Romans 1)

Therefore Dwyer is wrong. This is typical of him; he never walks through a text in the entire book. He assumes you will believe his summaries. For example:

In Zephaniah 2 and Ezekiel 16 the prophets warn Israel’s enemies against pride and arrogance, and their ignoring of the poor and needy, and prophesy their destruction like Sodom and Gomorrah.7

This is false. In Zephaniah 2:9f there is no condemnation for ignoring the poor and needy. Rather, there is judgment on Moab because of her pride manifested by taunting God’s people and, thus, Yahweh and His character. Ezekiel 16 is directed at Judah (not “Israel’s enemies!”) for spiritual adultery, not for pride and arrogance!

Dwyer believes sex in the age of Abraham wasn’t about relationships; it was about power. He argues our preconditions for sex, masculinity and femininity must be modified. “The alignment of male and female, or male and male was not in the gender construction/orientation of ‘relationships,’ the alignment was about power in those relationships.”8 He explains, “[t]hese stories are all about power, who has it, and how that power is utilized.”9

For support, Dwyer only cites one secular classicist10 who wrote about Greco-Roman culture, not Ancient Near-Eastern culture!11 Dwyer not only asks us to believe Moses was controlled by a secular worldview when he wrote Genesis 19. He also asks us to believe Moses was controlled by a secular Greco-Roman worldview, too …

In sum, Dwyer says Genesis 19 (and Judges 19) teach us how God’s people ought not to act. “These passages are not about mutual sexual relations, but are about the inappropriate activity on the part of humans in the wrongful taking, rape, of another and focus on power, and the abuse of power.”12

Here is a summary of what this hermeneutic looks like regarding each passage

  1. Genesis 19 and Judges 19. “These stories are all about power, who has it, and how that power is utilized.”13 They teach us how to not show love and righteousness.14
  2. Leviticus 18 and 20. The texts are about patriarchy and how to keep it.15 The world is different now, so these passages do not apply.16 Again, he cites as support a scholarly work about Greco-Roman culture and its impact on early Christianity,17 then exports it back into Moses’ mind and demands we understand that as Moses’ worldview. The biblical author cannot define his terms; he must be defined by secular culture – even if it’s a culture over 1000 years in the future …
  3. Romans 1. The text is about how to honor God, with a rhetorical trap for the reader. It is not about loving relationships. Dwyer’s point is unclear. He both (1) claims Paul is influenced by a culture of power and patriarchy,18 and (2) says Paul is writing against the misuse of power in one’s relationship with God.19
  4. 1 Corinthians 6. The passage is about litigation, not sex.20 Loving same-sexual relationships were unknown to Paul, so the passage is inapplicable.21
  5. 1 Timothy 1:10. The passage is about lawbreakers; exploitative homosexuality is just an example. Loving same-sexual relationships were unknown to Paul, and the culture viewed sex as about power, lust and violence, so the passage is inapplicable.22

Dwyer’s value for the traditionalist perspective is that we see the fruits of a redemptive-movement hermeneutic unshackled from any fidelity to the text. Dwyer argues, “The living and breathing words of God that live in these pages argue for a radical and complete love of all people, the inclusion of all people, and a protection of those who are abused, used, utilized, taken.”23

In other words, Dwyer argues for a trajectory that goes beyond the text. Once you go that way, it is difficult to justify an objective place to stop. William Webb tries to place reasonable and commonsense guardrails on this movement in his redemptive-movement approach.24 Dwyer is what happens when pragmatism and subjectivity are the guardrails.

I emailed Dwyer, quoted his statements that sex in Ancient Near-Eastern and Greco-Roman times was all about power, lust and violence, and asked:

how does Song of Solomon play into your view? Is this not a book that exalts traditional marriage based on a healthy and blessed sexual relationship? Where is the power, domination and strength? Where is the violence?  Of course, I’m not certain about your views on the Song’s authorship or its date, but regardless – is it not a book from the Tanakh that exalts a tender, loving sexual relationship? How does this book impact your views of Biblical sexual ethics, and their implications for these seven references?

He did not respond.

Notes

1 “The story of Lot and Sodom is sandwiched in the middle of the Abraham story. This allows the reader to more fully understand: Abraham’s journey of faith; to highlight the manner in which Abraham treats guests; and to emphasis God’s keeping of the covenant promise made to Abraham,” (John Dwyer, Those 7 References: A Study of 7 References to Homosexuality in the Bible [CreateSpace, 2007; Kindle ed.], pg. 6).

2 “Although by referring to the demands of the townspeople as ‘sex’ or ‘sport’ is not accurate either, as rape is not sex in the mutual connotation of the word. Rape is something far different,” (Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 7).

3 “Many commentators agree that the ‘sin’ of Sodom is that the townspeople were guilty of the social sin of inappropriate conduct to other human beings,” (Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 8).

4 Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 7.

5 Dwyer provides the list in footnote 12 (7 References, pg. 8).

6 Dwyer, 7 References, pgs. 8-9.

7 Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 8. 

8 Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 18. 

9 Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 19. 

10 See the biography for Dr. Craig Williams at https://classics.illinois.edu/directory/profile/cawllms.

11 See fn. 43-44 (Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 18), which cite Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity, 1st ed. (New York: OUP, 1999).

12 Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 20.  

13 Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 19. 

14 “Genesis 19 and Judges 19 are about living into God’s covenant through the lens of a negative storyline: of living into righteousness and justice. Genesis 19 and Judges 19 are focused on examples of humans not living into God’s covenant but who instead are degrading others,” (Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 20).

15 “The prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were not about sex and sexual relations as we understand them in the 21st Century. These prohibitions had to do with keeping a rigid and male-dominated society distinct from that which surrounded it: to clearly delineate roles and societal rules,” (Dwyer, 7 References, pgs. 39-40). 

16 “Much of sex and sexual relations as we understand them in the 21st Century are different from what was experienced and understood when Leviticus was written. Much of the sexual conduct was about taking, power, and what we would consider, in most instances today, rape. To utilize these verses as weapons of condemnation against people who have been made in God’s image is a disservice to the text, a misuse of the Torah and an insult to God’s word as it is made known to us. God’s word is not meant to be frozen in time, but heard anew today and looked at with fresh perspective and understanding based on the world that is hearing these words anew,” (Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 40).

17 See fn. 110 (Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 38). He cites Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988). This is a curious resource to cite to help us understand Moses’ mindset in an Ancient Near Eastern culture …

18 “The kind of sexual activity that existed at the time Paul was writing was from a patriarchal, male dominated viewpoint in a society severely stratified by class and role and status. Those in the lower strata of society were treated unequally and abusively: physically, psychologically and sexually. This cultural overlay is an important lens through which understanding this text must be viewed. The loving natures of relationships that exist and underpin current understanding of relationships between people today, whether heterosexual or homosexual, were not unknown to Paul, but there existed a mindset that tolerated a taking of another individual, of what we would consider rape and abusive misuse of others,” (Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 57). Emphases added.

19 “By taking this rhetorical device of Paul’s, the only direct reference in Romans to what we think of as same sex sexual relations, but to Paul was something different, and utilizing this literary device as a categorical and divine denunciation of homosexuality, we fall into the same rhetorical trap Paul set for the initial reader. Paul’s particular selection of the word chresis (‘to use,’ ‘utilization’) proves the point that Paul is making a rhetorical stab at the heart of the community: they must worship God appropriately, not “use” each other in a sexual or other inappropriate way. Paul is not talking about mutuality or love in chapter 1 of Romans. Paul is talking about use, and misuse, of power and authority, and how that impacts one’s relationship with God. He is talking about violence and a wrongful taking, and how those impact one’s relationship with God. Paul is pointing his readers to a proper relationship with God demanding they put away false idols that can and do corrupt that relationship,” (Dwyer, 7 References, pgs. 57-58). Emphasis added.

20 “Faithful attention to these 12 verses of chapter 6 will show that it is inappropriate to use this text to condemn one or two of the ‘sinners’ listed in Paul’s vice list, when the focus of the passage is on litigation and greed, and not sex,” (Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 61).

21 “There is no concept of mutuality, or love, or monogamy in what Paul is describing. It is about power and violence and the satisfaction of sexual desire in any available manner, by a person in a higher stratum of society as against a person in a lower stratum. The type and kind of same sex relationship that is mutual, loving, monogamous and entered into freely based upon mutuality, respect and love is not Paul’s focus. This passage, and the list of vices that illustrate a mindset of cruelty and abuse, cannot be utilized, in all good conscience, as against same sex relationships as they exist and are understood in the 21st Century,” (Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 70).

22 “This passage is not a condemnation of gay and lesbian people in the 21st Century, but rather is a further example of a condemnation of a type of behavior gay and lesbian people, as well as any civilized individual today, would condemn: violence, rape, the unwanted sexual taking of another person. These actions are not homosexuality as it is understood today. The behaviors which are included on the vice list are ones emblematic of a stratified, paternalistic society where power, and sex, and one’s station in life, were intricately intertwined. This passage has nothing to do with a mutually agreed upon, loving relationship between adults, and to use it as such is a misuse of the text that perpetuates an unneeded harm,” (Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 80).

23 Dwyer, 7 References, pg. 84.  

24 William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001; Kindle ed.).  

1536 reads

There are 8 Comments

Nord Zootman's picture

Thank you Tyler for this review. I would not have taken time to read this book, but appreciate your summary and analysis. It is good to have at least a cursory understanding of how those with differ with us think. Much appreciated.

G. N. Barkman's picture

Thanks, Tyler, for an excellent review.  I've noticed that "Christian" defenders of gay sex do not usually deal with either II Peter 2:6-10, or Jude 7.  Do you know why they skip these?  I can only guess that they find them harder to miss-interpret, or else assume that they are obscure enough that most Christians are unaware of them.  But, given the way they manipulate other texts, I'm sure they can find a way to similarly avoid the teaching of these two.  Any insights?

G. N. Barkman

TylerR's picture

Editor

Matthew Vines dealt with them. These are the typical responses:

  • 1 Pet 2:6-10 never says the sin was homosexuality; rather, the sin was inhospitality manifested by attempted gang rape. The alleged homosexual component is irrelevant. Genesis 19 isn't about that, anyway. 
  • Jude 7 and the "strange flesh" refers to attempted sex with angels, not other men.

James Hamilton, writing in Southern Seminary's response book to Vines, likened this representative approach to someone claiming gravity did not cause a plane to fall to earth; it was really the engine failure.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Bert Perry's picture

If the Biblical authors knew nothing of loving, monogamous same-sex relationships, why not?  Don't activists tell us constantly that it's an innate behavior that we're going to see in a certain percentage--like 10%--of the population?  Given the number of loving opposite sex relationships portrayed in the Torah, it's certainly counter-intuitive that there would be no such relationships seen by Moses if indeed they existed at the rate that Kinsey et al would suggest.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Don Johnson's picture

For a thorough, scholarly, conservative treatment of this subject see Unchanging Witness, by Fortson and Grams which I reviewed on P&D here. A truly outstanding book.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

G. N. Barkman's picture

Thanks, Tyler, for the reminder.  It's been five years since I read Vines, and I forgot that he dealt with the texts in Second Peter and Jude.

G. N. Barkman

Bert Perry's picture

Even if the human authors of Scripture had, by some statistical fluke, not known any loving same sex relationships, what about the Divine Author?  If we have--and even Episcopalians should honor this--a notion of the omniscience of God, then we would assume that if indeed same sex relationships can be loving and acceptable before God, that precisely that would have come off the pen of Moses, Paul, and the other human authors of Scripture,no matter how biased those human authors were.

So is this a legitimate analysis of Scripture, or is it Mr. Dwyer saying "when Scripture disagrees with me, I will not believe it--I may come up with a fine-sounding reason not to believe it, but at the end of the day, it's all about rejection of the first Fundamental."

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

John E.'s picture

First off, Tyler, thank you for reading the book and reviewing it. I have placed the book on my Amazon wish list.

Secondly, and mainly to some of Bert's points/questions, after Matthew Vines published God and the Gay Christian, I read it with the intention of reviewing it. To that end, I purchased many of his primary and secondary sources, especially secular sources dealing with antiquity. During my research phase, I concluded that if I started writing the review, I would inevitably feel compelled to write a book myself. I didn't have the time nor the justification to do so. Anyway, during my research, I discovered (and not surprising me), that Vines' own sources contradict his statements/belief that the ancients didn't really have a category for loving, monogomous, same-sex relationships. In fact, the only people who really believe that are professing Christians vainly attempting to argue that the Bible doesn't say what it clearly says about homosexuality. Many of the secular writers/thinkers I've read on this topic roll their eyes at professing Christians like Vines. For those scholars, Vines and company are not only making flawed and invalid arguments, they are making pointless arguments. In their minds, who cares what the Bible says.

As I type this, I'm looking at the bottom shelf of one of my bookshelves. That shelf is filled with books about the Bible and homosexuality and the world of antiquity and homosexuality (not to mention the many books I have of primary sources of antiquity - for example, Plato has a category for loving, monogomous, same-sex relationships, but not according to Vines). One day, maybe, I'll write something specifically about the homosexuality in antiquity, but, for now, I encourage people to check out the primary and secondary sources for themselves. Whether it's just shoddy research methodology or blatant dishonesty, I do not claim to know, but Vines and company are not presenting their case in ways that fairly and honestly reflect ancient views on this topic. 

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.