| dc.description.abstract | The two primary objectives of this research are (a) to solve several interpretive
problems presented by various OT interpreters over prohibition texts and their
challenging passages, which seem to discuss homosexuality directly or indirectly and
(b) to construct a biblical-theological grid on the issue of homosexuality within the OT.
This dissertation attempted to fill the gap between these two objectives using a biblical-
theological perspective with the selected exegetical works suggested by Gerhard F. Hasel
and Walter C. Kaiser. A review of pertinent literature had shown that despite the volume
of scholarly discourse on the interpretation of the cited OT texts on homosexuality, there
remains a question on how to interpret them correctly.
Guided by the criteria for the selection of passages in the suggested OT texts on
homosexuality, I analyzed the texts through the following steps: (a) arrangement of OT
suggested references on homosexuality in chronological order, (b) preliminary
considerations, (c) cultural and contextual analyses, (d) literary consideration (literary
context and analysis), (e) semantic and other exegetical considerations, (f) theological
consideration (theological analysis), and (g) summary.
After the examination of the relevant passages dealing with same-sex relations
throughout the entire HB, the following conclusion were presented: (a) heterosexual
relations between a man and a woman are the only divinely designed form of human
sexuality (Gen 1 and 2) and (b) homosexual practice is depicted and described as “a
wicked thing” (Gen 19:6) and “an abominable thing” (Lev 18:22). The earnings of male
prostitution could not be brought to the house of the Lord because it is regarded as “the
price of [a] dog” (Deut 23:18). It is an “evil act” and a “shameful thing” to the Israelites
(Judg 19:23). Israel’s righteous kings endeavored to drive out anyone engaged in this
sexual relationship (1 Kgs 14:24, 15:12, 22:47, and 2 Kgs 23:7). The biblical writer of the
Kings does not recommend such a sexual life because it could shorten one’s life (Job
36:14). Prophets constantly gave an example of Sodom’s great sins, including this
homosexual activity, but the sins of Israel surpass the wicked city; it is compared to a
whore (Ezek 16:48–50).
Furthermore, same-sex relations are explicitly defined by the HB as one of the
seriously illicit sexual sins among the people of God (Lev 18 and 20). Historically, no
form of homosexuality has ever been accepted in the community of Israel from the
creation: homosexual rape (Gen 19 and Judg 19), consented same-sex relations (Lev 18
and 20), male cult prostitution (Deut 23:18; four Kings’ references [1 Kgs 14:24; 15:12;
22:47; and 2 Kgs 23:7]), and even a homosexual lifestyle itself (Job 36:14). The HB has a
strong, unequivocal, and consistent rejection of same-sex relations, including consensual
homosexual relationships. Though only a few OT passages speak of same-sex relations
and their practice, all of them do clearly show unqualified disapproval. There is no
exception at all in the OT.
The theological synthesis presents that homosexuality is discussed from various
theological angles. The discussions on the triangle of the relationship of theology to
homosexuality (God, humanity, and community) explain how the HB depicts the issue of
homosexuality in the different theological frames. Homosexuality in the OT is a multi-
faceted theological issue in the relation of God, humanity, and the community. It cannot
be understood in a single theological frame.
It is appropriate to say that the biblical-theological discussion of homosexuality in
the OT leads to a better appreciation and rediscovery of the relevance of what the HB
states about the issue of homosexuality. More importantly, it should be stated that the
homosexual has hope in God because the only sin that God cannot forgive is the sin that
is not confessed and repented. Forgiveness and reconciliation have always been open to
every sinner. | en_US |
