Boswell flawed Biblical argument leaves gay in deception
The interpreter’s attitude toward the authority of Scripture is especially significant as we approach the Old Testament. Revisionist interpreters tend to dilute Old Testament authority, especially in its references to homosexuality. For example, Boswell’s attitude appears in his statement, “Most Christians regarded the Old Testament as an elaborate metaphor for Christian revelation; extremely few considered it morally binding in particular details.”8 Boswell believes that the nonbinding details include both the dietary laws and any prohibitions of homosexual behavior.
The basis for such claims is that the ancient world, especially Roman citizens, “knew no such hostility to homosexuality,” hence, non-Jewish converts to Christianity could hold no such views. Boswell believes that Old Testament strictures against homosexuality would appear to be arbitrary to Roman citizens. They would not consider them to be different from the prohibition against cutting the beard.9
The basis for such claims is that the ancient world, especially Roman citizens, “knew no such hostility to homosexuality,” hence, non-Jewish converts to Christianity could hold no such views. Boswell believes that Old Testament strictures against homosexuality would appear to be arbitrary to Roman citizens. They would not consider them to be different from the prohibition against cutting the beard.9
Thus, Boswell places references to homosexuality in the same category as teachings about Jewish ritual. He believes that Paul would include laws against homosexuality in his exhortation that Christians must regard themselves as free from the yoke of bondage belonging to the law (Gal. 5:1–2) or Jewish fables (Titus 1:14–15).
According to Boswell, the Old Testament “had no specific positive role in creating early Christian attitudes toward homosexual acts.” Boswell argues that there is no word in classical Hebrew or Greek for “homosexual,” and neither the qĕdēšim of the Old Testament nor the arsenokoitai of the New were homosexual.10
As an example of how crucial are the standards and philosophy of interpretation that affect Scripture’s authority, Edwards appeals to modern statistics as “sources of enlightenment” to find today’s meaning for the text, a meaning to which the historical meaning of the text “may only render us blind.”11 He would use contemporary sexology and the “theology of gay/lesbian liberation” to reject “pietistic” biblical interpretation and to correct scriptural writers.12
These conclusions are startling, to say the least, and both sides would agree that they run counter to traditional Christian interpretation. How do Boswell and others come to them? Unfortunately, they take a path of exegesis or interpretation that is seriously flawed. Such interpreters begin with a goal; they seek to show that the Bible has had little influence on Western attitudes toward homosexuality. For example, Boswell:
1. casts doubt on the meaning and extent of the canon;
2. argues that the word homosexual has no corresponding term in Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, or Aramaic;13 and
3. interprets Scripture in such a way that the meaning is dissipated or dismissed as irrelevant or anachronistic.
In addition, when the text fails to support their views, revisionist interpreters appeal to personal experience or contemporary culture as the criterion of truth and to the broader concepts of liberation theology and moral argumentation. This approach subverts the biblical worldview by replacing it with a contemporary view.
As an example of how crucial are the standards and philosophy of interpretation that affect Scripture’s authority, Edwards appeals to modern statistics as “sources of enlightenment” to find today’s meaning for the text, a meaning to which the historical meaning of the text “may only render us blind.”11 He would use contemporary sexology and the “theology of gay/lesbian liberation” to reject “pietistic” biblical interpretation and to correct scriptural writers.12
These conclusions are startling, to say the least, and both sides would agree that they run counter to traditional Christian interpretation. How do Boswell and others come to them? Unfortunately, they take a path of exegesis or interpretation that is seriously flawed. Such interpreters begin with a goal; they seek to show that the Bible has had little influence on Western attitudes toward homosexuality. For example, Boswell:
1. casts doubt on the meaning and extent of the canon;
2. argues that the word homosexual has no corresponding term in Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, or Aramaic;13 and
3. interprets Scripture in such a way that the meaning is dissipated or dismissed as irrelevant or anachronistic.
In addition, when the text fails to support their views, revisionist interpreters appeal to personal experience or contemporary culture as the criterion of truth and to the broader concepts of liberation theology and moral argumentation. This approach subverts the biblical worldview by replacing it with a contemporary view.
This tactic is especially helpful when one argues that the modern phenomenon of adult-adult mutuality in a homosexual relationship was unknown in Bible times. Rather, mutuality justifies the conduct. Modern sexology must correct the unenlightened Bible. This same appeal to experience can be used to justify adultery, incest, pedophilia, prostitution, pornography, polygamy, and any other alternative to heterosexual monogamy, so long as committed mutuality was present.
Such an appeal exalts experience over Scripture and tradition. It effectively destroys any distinction between what is good or beneficial and what is evil or destructive. This approach reflects the arrogance and pride that Paul points to in Romans 1:32: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 29–30). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
Such an appeal exalts experience over Scripture and tradition. It effectively destroys any distinction between what is good or beneficial and what is evil or destructive. This approach reflects the arrogance and pride that Paul points to in Romans 1:32: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 29–30). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
