IS THE BIBLE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY?
Romans 1:18-28

14. “For the anger of God is being revealed from heaven against all the evil and wickedness of men, those who are holding the truth with evilness; Because the knowledge of God is revealed in them, for God has revealed it in them. For the secrets of God from the foundation[s] of the world are appearing to His creatures (or creations) through understanding (or intelligence), even His power and His eternal Godhead, that they shall be without defense (or excuse). Because they knew God and did not glorify Him and give thanks to Him as God, but became deprived (or empty) in their thoughts, and their heart was darkened so that it was not understanding. And while they were supposing in themselves that they were wise, they became fools, And they changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into the likeness of the image (idol) of corruptible man, and in the likeness of birds and of four-footed beasts and of creeping things on the earth. Because of this God gave them up to the unclean desires of their heart, that they shall be dishonoring (or treating shamefully) their bodies by them; And they changed the truth of God for lies, and they revered and served the created things more than their Creator to whom belongs praises and blessings for ever and ever. Amen. Because of this God has given them up to griefs of shame; for their women changed their natural use, and in the thing that wasn’t natural was used (or familiar with); and likewise also their men in this way have left the natural use of [their] women and were ravished with (or unrestrained in) desire one against another, even the male against the male, they committed shame (or behaved unseemly), and the recompense that was right for their error they received in themselves. And as they did not determine in themselves that they should know God; God has given them over to an empty mind that they shall be doing the thing that is not appropriate (right, proper or ought to be done),” (Romans 1:18-28 Peshitta). Romans is often quoted as scripture that forbids relations between persons of the same sex. But Romans is actually referring to idolatry. It says of the people “…And they changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into the likeness of the image (idol) of corruptible man, and in the likeness of birds and of four-footed beasts and of creeping things on the earth.” These people glorified and worshipped their idols of man, birds, four-footed beasts, and creeping things. It also says of these idolaters “..And they changed the truth of God for lies, and they revered and served the created things (idols) more than their Creator to whom belongs praises and blessings for ever and ever. Amen.”

          Additionally, Romans says that God gave these idolaters up to their unclean (or abominable, wrong) desires. Romans 1:21 tells us that these pagans hearts were darkened (i.e. they were in ignorance). This led to both the women and the men changing their natural (or instinctual) use of each other. The root word cyan means: nature, disposition and instinct. The only specified similarity between these heterosexual or bisexual women and men is that they both abandoned the natural sexual use of the opposite gender. Thus the use of these words doesn’t necessarily mean that the women or men slept with the same gender. The reader could also conclude that the women may have remained celibate (1 Tim. 4:3) or maybe were practicing bestiality (see Rom. 1:24). The end result being that the men attacked other men either by killing them or perhaps raping them. When it says the men "committed shame," this can mean the men raped the man's (husband's) wife, concubine or daughter (s). There are Biblical stories about this treatment of foreigners. Otherwise, the "shame" committed by these men may have been male rape. The text doesn't say which meaning is correct. Both meanings could be correct.

          The words saying that "the women changed the instinctual use [of their sex into] that which is against their instinct" and "the men have left the instinctual use of women" (Lamsa) does not sound like gay people. It is natural for gay people to be with the same gender and is according to their instinct / disposition. Gay men or women have not left the opposite gender because they were never with them to begin with. What you are seeing in this modern age of some gay men leaving their wives (or lesbians leaving their husbands) is because they have been lied to by the religious leaders that God didn't make them homosexual and that they needed to get married to the opposite sex. This would not have been the issue when Paulus (Paul) wrote this letter to the Roman Christians.

          The Aramaic text says that these men were ravished with (or unrestrained in) desire against one another. "Ravished with desire" means the men "had excessive desire." The verb ishtarah often carries the meaning of "exceeded," but can also mean unrestrained at: (Jude 1:11, 1 Pet. 4:4, and Ezek. 16:21). This same verb is also used with the word "joy;" in the statement: "to be ravished with joy," meaning, "to be overjoyed." Secondly, the Aramaic word al specifically means "against" when between two nouns. The words "against one another" is literally in the Aramaic "one against one." Those words are there to let the reader know that the following noun (i.e. male) is singular, for the words "the male against the male." Otherwise those words would say "men against men." A few examples of al between two nouns are at the following: "nation against nation..." (Matt. 24:7), "mother against her daughter" (Lk. 12:53) and "Complain not against one another (Lit. one against one), my brethren..." (James 5:9).

          I reject understanding the word al to mean "for" here; which would make the text say "one for one" and "male for male." That is an irresponsible attempt to get a meaning that is similar to or conforms to the Greek text (translation); which is often bias against gay people. The Greek text says "for one another" and "men with men." The Aramaic text has shown that khad al khad means "one against another" (James 5:9) and not "one for another." A better way to say (or write) "for one another" would be khad l'khad (Titus 3:3) or khad am khad "one with another" (2 Macc. 14:26). There is no way to say that khad al khad doesn't mean "one against another." If those words also mean "one for another" then that would make the reader not know which meaning is correct. I don't believe the Aramaic text would be that ambiguous.

            The text says that the men "committed shame" or "did a shameful thing" or "treated [others] shamefully." The Aramaic word biht-tha (shame) also means "shameful thing (or act)" at (Jeremiah 11:13, Deut. 22:21, Judith 14:20). Those words could refer to men raping or assaulting other women or men along with theft (Jer. 2:26), among other things. A synonym for biht-tha is saạ-ra "shame, dishonor, insult, wrong." The verb root is saạr, and in the ethpaal form, the text literally says that the women shall be "treated shamefully or dishonored" at (Isaiah 13:16 & Zechariah 14:2 Peshitta). That means they were raped. The Apostles were treated shamefully [or suffer[ed] abuse - LAMSA] (Acts 5:41). That statement is referring to them being scourged (Acts 5:40).

            Verse 27 of Romans says "and the recompense that was right for their error they received in themselves. The Aramaic words ba-qnom-hon mean “in their essence (or self),” but can be translated as they also are by Dr. Lamsa as in themselves. These men and women received shame and mental grief in their very self as a recompense from God because they were committing shameful acts against others and did things against their instinct. Qnoma means "essence" (CAL), "hypostasis, substance, existence, the individual self, person, etc" (Compendious Syriac Dictionary) and "individuality" (Chaldean Grammar). Oraham's Dictionary defines qno-ma as "...that which underlies all outward manifestations; most important element in any existence, person, etc."

            These men and women were either heterosexual or possibly bisexual. We know this because these men and women had sexual desire for the opposite sex and went against their instinct, whatever that led to.          

            If someone still wants to entertain the thought that the Aramaic text may say "one for another" or "the male for the male" and hence carry the meaning of "men [sleeping] with men," then that would just mean that these heterosexual people were having homosexual sex because they were brainwashed by their religious beliefs. I reject this interpretation of al "against" because the Aramaic Bible doesn't give any support for this interpretation and I believe the word am "with" would have been a better and clearer word to use. So remove any interpretive conditioning you may have and look at what the Aramaic text says in the translation I have given.

Is the Bible Against Homosexuality? by Preacher Mattai © 2016. All rights reserved.
 


 
 
 
 
 

Sub Pages: Rebuttals

Deut. 23:17-18                            Lev. 18:22

1 Cor. 6:9                                   Rom. 1:18-28

Is Homosexuality a Sin?              Romans Road


          
sc