Click here to return to the main site
This article courtesy of www.extatica.com--Enjoy!
When I first read that Dr. Rocco Errico was going to be in the San Francisco area conducting a class on "God, Sexuality and the Bible," I tracked him down by phone. I caught him at his office in New Mexico. We talked about his study and teachings on the subject, but what struck me the most of everything he said was, "Sex is not a gateway to the divine, sex is divine!"
I attended his six-hour course sponsored by a local Unity Church. Raised Roman Catholic in an Italian-American family, Dr. Errico has been a minister with the Unity Church since 1965.
He opened with The Lord's Prayer in Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke. It was a beautiful reminder that we have to step into the cultural context of the Biblical writers to gain more than a superficial understanding of the Scriptures. This is what Dr. Errico spent most of his adult life studying. The extraordinary depth and breadth of his knowledge and understanding became apparent. He gave us a thumbnail sketch of the cultural context, perspective, influences and belief systems of the times when Old and New Testament stories were written, and I came out with many vivid mental pictures which he beautifully painted.
The following is the transcript of an interview with Dr. Errico, held later.
Dr. Errico, you're an expert on Biblical texts. What sparked your interest in the particular topic of God, sexuality and the Bible?
During rap sessions that I've done all over the country, people have always asked me questions about sexuality, human sexuality, and the Bible. Does the Bible condemn it? What does the Bible have to say about solo sexuality? What does the Bible have to say about this and that and the other? This is the reason why I finally had to put together a seminar for it.
In your opinion, is the Bible a true account of history?
[Laughs.] You're asking a loaded question there. It's a mixture. You have stories along with historical events; or should we say historical events that have been bent a little bit? That's another way to put it.
Well, let me put it this way: Is the Bible, as we know it today, a true reflection of the original intent of the Scriptures?
Well, again, that's another loaded question; because, you see, scribes are the ones who gave us the final copy of these books and writings. With regard to the Hebrew bible, the scribe for the king was sometimes slanted in one direction politically. And then also, when we come to what we call the New Testament, we have that same problem. You have the early church putting some sayings upon the lips of Jesus that probably did not originate with him. Now, some of it does go back to Jesus, but not exactly the way he would have put it, you see.
So, there's always that mixture there. People read the Bible mostly on a surface level. And for that reason, we have so many splits, and so many denominations. Everyone gets their own particular idea, without enough historical research into the language, customs, cultures, psychology, and background of the Scriptures; which is so needed. When you read it only on a surface level, you can come up with any odd idea you wish to come up with.
Yes, so I understand that you've been researching and studying the Biblical texts in the original Hebrew and Aramaic languages, as well as the cultural contexts, for years. Is that correct?
Oh yes, because you see, I studied with a Middle Eastern theologian. He was from northern Iraq, where the culture when he was growing up was not touched by the western world as it is today. So they maintained a lot of the ancient customs. The British scholars who went into that area, for example, Dr. Wigram, and a few American scholars that went there too, made the statement that if Abraham were to come alive - now, we're talking about someone 4,000 years old - if he were to come alive, he'd feel perfectly at home in that area there, because the customs hadn’t changed. This is the area from which my Middle Eastern theologian mentor came. And that's where those ancient customs, and ideas, and the cultural habits of the people were kept. So these scholars said that if Abraham were to come alive, he'd feel perfectly at home! And that's an amazing statement for them to make. And they said, nowhere else in the entire Middle East, were the customs kept in that ancient form, as they were in that ancient area in the mountain vastness of Kurdistan, and all that entire region.
So that gives insights into the interpretations one might make, of what the Bible says.
Yes. This is especially true of some of the things that even Jesus said, or even some of the things that we might read in the Hebrew Scriptures that sound harsh to us. You'd have to know the cultural habits of the people; to them, it wouldn't be harsh. They needed a stern hand in those ancient days. And so, too often, when we read Scripture, whether the people interpret from a literal point of view, or from a strong modernistic point of view, where everything is fable - which I do not agree with - but where they say that, both of those types of thinking do damage to Scripture.
So what's the appropriate way to think of Scripture?
The appropriate way to think of it is, in its own cultural and linguistic setting.
Good. Well, you said that Christianity is anti-body, anti-woman, and anti-sexuality. How did that become incorporated into a religion based on love?
I need to make a little correction here. What I said was, that over the centuries, the Church had become anti-body and anti-sensuality. Jesus was never anti-body. His apostles weren't. And they were not anti-sensual.
Where did we pick up our anti-body expressions? Let me tell you what goes hand in hand. The moment you're anti-body, or afraid of the body, you are naturally afraid of females. The root of misogyny, the root of the hatred of women, comes from anti-body. Why? Because the woman represents the body with all its sensuality. If you really want to show sensuality, really want to show an energy that is sensual, what image are you going to conjure up? A woman. A woman, not a man; you can't think of a man that way. But you think of a woman more as an energy that is all enveloping, and surrounding you. It's different.
So where in the Western world did we get these anti-body, anti-sensual attitudes? We got it from the Greeks. Anti-feminism, and misogyny, believe it or not, come from the Greek culture. The Bible is not anti-female. Even though people use the Bible to promote misogyny, it is not anti-female.
Gradually, over the centuries, certain philosophical notions entered the Church. Greek philosophy included an attitude of contempt for the body. When the Church began to mix with the Greeks, churches adopted some of these different philosophies until it crystallized. All these philosophies helped scar the church in the 3rd and 4th centuries. So basically, a lot of anti-women or anti-feminism, anti-body, anti-sensuality attitudes came from Greek influence and Greek philosophy.
So what would be included in a better understanding of what the body is?
The body is the sacred "'pressed out' image of God." Because the body is dense, flesh, we think of it as something solid. What is the body? In Unity we say, "The body is the expression of consciousness." I say, "Spirit has congealed, and it has congealed as your body. When you realize that your body is not just the expression, but the actual spirit as form, that's a definition of the body, the closest we can get to it." So, if you realize spirit as form, then you have a sacred attitude and respect for the human body and all of its functions.
Quit thinking God is in you, God is not in you. Christ is not in you. The being itself is the expression of the Godhood. The body is sacred. The body has the energies for healing, for love, for joy, and the emotions are the sacred channels through which spirit flows. And you need your body to express them. We are a body, and we have a body. We're both. But my body isn't some suit I put on. We've got to understand what the body is. The body is not a suit. The body is not some garment to clothe your spiritual wonderful self. The body is the expression of that self. And you know what the word expression means: expressed, pressed out. So the body is your "pressed out" self, not something that houses the self. Do you understand the fine line on that detail? We're constantly dividing ourselves, separating ourselves, when we're one whole unit.
When you're down on anything about your body, you hurt it, you absolutely hurt it, because the body is sensitive. If you have negative attitudes about your body, or try to suppress it, you hurt yourself, you're absolutely hurting yourself.
You said that sexual phobia, or fear of the erotic, is prevalent, because the erotic speaks of feelings. And we suppress feelings in this culture. What is the root of eroti-phobia?
The root of eroti-phobia is the fear of the body itself. Because of the natural energies, forces, feelings, and powers that run through our bodies, we naturally have a strong aversion to it, fearing that they are going to get out of control. In our particular culture here in the States, we're in for control. That's our strong, habitual inclination. We like control over everything, not just our bodily feelings. We like control over mostly everything, other people, people's beliefs, people's way of living. It's got to be a certain way. And we're in for control in that. Even government is not free of that, because government is run by human beings. And human beings here in our own country have that control thing. We've got to control it. And that's why we keep making more laws, and more laws, and more laws, and more laws. And the problem with that is, as the Chinese say, the more laws you have, the more lawless you become.
Instead of trying to understand the energies of our bodies, and work with them, we fight them, suppress them, and attempt to control them. But suppression brings on the reign of terror that does come from the body.
So how would you suggest people relate to the body and sexuality?
Understand their sensuality, what it is in them, in particular, and how they can find appropriate expressions for their drives and energies.
Also, we must disentangle healthy erotic sexuality from violent, abusive sexuality. The more we disconnect from our bodies, the more violent we become. In order to violate you, I have to violate myself first. The more love and respect I have for my body, the less violent we become. Also, making women objects makes men objects.
Does the Bible condemn sexual activity for non-procreative purposes?
Absolutely not. The Bible actually teaches, and Jewish interpretation is, sexual activity is for two reasons: One, for procreation; Two, for companionship. This is how they teach it, for companionship as well as for procreation. Both are important. This is what they reason: If sexual relationship, or intercourse, is repulsive, then the sexual organs are repulsive, and God doesn't make anything repulsive.
If you do really good research, not just surface research, but really in-depth research and you check the ancient writers, not the modern writers, I'm talking about the ancient Jewish writers, and if you check in the Talmud and all the other writings, there are many, many works on that. They show that the Hebrew Bible itself was never against sexuality for recreation, as well as procreation. The ancient writers and authorities felt that the ideal state for a human being was marriage, and the sexual activity between the couple. This is what the Bible teaches. And it says so, even in the Scriptures. Judaism at the time of Jesus held the view that the more sexual you are, the more spiritual you are.
What about the New Testament?
The New Testament as well. There is no anti-sensuality in the New Testament.
Other religions at that time were involved with idol worship. They worshiped idols along with sensuality. For instance, to stir the men up, they would have the statues of naked women; and to stir the women up, they would have the statues of naked men, showing the full, erotic power of the body, both for the male and the female. And then they would worship the body.
It is in Paul’s letters that we find a lot of the anti-sexual material and not in Jesus' teachings, but in Paul's letters. Because the churches that were guided by him were clashing with these other religions that were involved in idol worship and the erotic.
This is where the negative comes in. We've got to remember that Paul's letters are just what they are, epistles, letters. He did not know we were going to take his letters, put them with the Gospels and with the Hebrew Bible, and call his writings the word of God! It would be like I'm writing to someone who's asking for some help. And I'm giving them the knowledge that I have that is appropriate for that time. And all of a sudden, someone takes my letter and puts it in with the Bible! That's what has happened. And it would become God's word! And you know how I would feel? Awful! I'm sure Paul feels that way today! But we don't know. [Laughs.] But this is what happened.
For instance, Paul was even against women becoming ministers. That's anti-female. The moment you cut women off from being ministers or being able to administer the teachings or the spiritual energy, what have we gotten? We become anti-female.
But they're basing it solely on Paul. Paul says that women should keep silent in the church, because he is saying something that has to do with the culture of the time! Women couldn't get up and speak, because they would have had to unveil. And the men would be staring at them; because most women would veil their faces. And if they were to learn anything, they would learn it from the men at their home, or from their mothers or grandmothers. It was passed down, by word of mouth, by the family, rather than in church. But that was cultural.
Again, Paul had no idea that we were going to take his writings and make them the word of God, make them edicts coming directly from God's mouth! This is where we make a mistake. For instance, I get many letters. Sometimes, when I am talking about the good things that the writers in the Bible have given us, I still get letters from certain feminists, who just jump down my throat. And they're quoting all these different things. They're doing the same thing with the Scriptures. These feminists are doing the same identical thing that the people who are against women are doing. They're taking certain Scriptures, not knowing its full cultural background and they're slamming it.
But, it's because of misunderstanding. I'm not faulting anyone. It's strictly because we didn't know. Now we have access to this understanding. Years ago, I was called into a university at Lubbock, to lecture on women and the Bible, and anti-feminism. I did a whole college program just on that, to show what was cultural, and that it was not an edict from God. This is what our problem with the Scriptures is. We make every single thing written between the lids of that book, an edict and a special word from God which is our mistake.
Well, this leads to the next question. Was Mary a virgin, as we know the term? I'm sure you get that one a lot.
Oh yes, I do. And, you see, the word "virgin" is not there in the Hebrew Scripture. In the Hebrew Scripture, it uses the world "alma," "Ha alma" is what they say, which is a young maiden. That's in Isaiah, the 7th chapter, the 14th verse. When it comes to the New Testament, it does use the word "virgin." And Joseph did marry a virgin girl. You have to marry a virgin girl. Otherwise, the dowry would not be good. They always paid a dowry for their women, through a matchmaker, or through the parents. They make this agreement; and then they have to show the tokens of virginity after the first evening that they've been together. And the reason why that's there, was to protect the woman. Because if the man decides he didn't like her, he could accuse her of not being a virgin, and kick her out. But as long as that could be proven with the tokens of virginity from that first night, she is protected. The tokens of virginity was to protect the women.
The Scripture says that Mary was a virgin. It would be natural; we're talking about the New Testament now. We're talking about the Gospel of Matthew.
So, the real question is whether she was still a virgin after she conceived Jesus? Was it an "Immaculate Conception?"
Course Quote: Now, the virgin birth story didn't appear until the 60's to 70's A.D. Jesus is known as the Son of God by the resurrection, not by birth. Only in the Gospel of Matthew is it inferred that there was no man involved in Jesus's conception. The angel speaking to Mary really means, "Hi, Mary. I've got news for you. God is blessing you with child." Women of that time would often go off and seek a vision when wanting to be pregnant, so any such woman would be happy to get this message. "He will be called 'son of the highest.'" This meant, when she is with a man, she'll get pregnant. The Gospel of John says Joseph was Jesus' father.
The Hebrew people believe it takes three: God, the man, and the woman. And it says then the Holy Spirit came upon Mary. But then again, there are other places that talk about Joseph being his father. Like in the Gospel of John, it says Joseph was his father.
So a huge cultural concept, though, is built around this idea of her being a virgin.
Yes, but, well, all women had to be virgins at that time in history.
And you mentioned the Holy Ghost. What is its power? What is the Holy Ghost's power in the sacred, sexual union?
Near Easterners always believed that with sexual activity, there was always three involved. You have to understand the ancient belief. They actually believed the man planted the seed. They didn't understand the role the woman played at all, the way we understand it today, because of our sciences. They believed that the woman was like a garden, and that the man planted the seed. But it takes God or the Spirit to grow it, to bring it to fruition.
Yes, of course. So, now, back to the virgin issue.
Okay, now you see, what we're getting into, when we get into the virgin issue and the New Testament, and the Gospel of Matthew, we're getting into theological areas.
Well, it has a huge cultural impact. For example, Oprah Winfrey quotes recent studies that say that more than 40 million women in America no longer want to have sex with their husbands. Now, many of these women claim to have had good sex lives for year before having children. A good percentage of the women who have lost their desire to have sex with their husbands, feel that it's because once they had children, their image of how they should be as a mother, that sort of Virgin Mary image, is in conflict with being a great lover.
It's too late, though! [Laughs.]
Right. But they pick up a cultural notion that they should be this virginal role model for their children. So they find it difficult to have desire for their husbands, and be the sexual lover they once were.
Ah, but I think that comes from our cultural notions that sex is a little bit unclean. Those notions, that sexual activity is unclean, comes from Scripture, the Hebrew Bible, because at that time, they had to go through certain purification laws. This is our culture. Really, it comes from a misperception and a misunderstanding of what sexual activity is. See, people don't understand that the sexual act itself is the sharing between two people of their spiritual, soulish, fleshy energies.
Can you say a little more about that?
We only think one way, fleshy. But it's soul participation, and it's spirit participation. There are actual energies that pass back and forth between each other. And it is healthy, for both the male and the female who are involved in this activity. We're talking about females right now. It is healthy for them, for their hormones and for everything else; and for the caressing and time of intimacy. To me, the root of fearing the sex act is a fear of intimacy.
Well, one could say, that a lot of men want to have sex but they have a fear of intimacy.
Absolutely. Men have that too.
Back to your talk about spirit. I was struck when, in a previous conversation, you said that our sexuality is not a gateway to the Divine; it is Divine. What do you see is the distinction?
Well, when we think of it as a gateway, we think, "I've got to pass through this door." But, you see, I don't pass through any door; I am the door.
So, that means my sexual gender is the spiritual, I prefer the word "spiritual," rather than "Divine," because when I think of Divine, I think of mythology. And, whereas, to me, when I do use the word "Divine," I think of it more as our spiritual nature. And that's something we're born with; not something that, all of a sudden, I'm going to find a doorway to it.You say that our sexual energy and spiritual energy are one and the same.
They're one and the same. Only, it has come down to another level, to procreate, or to heal the person we are active with, or even with ourselves.
What insight could you offer those who find it difficult to reconcile being both spiritual and sexual in the context of Biblical teachings?
Our sexual energy and spiritual energy are one and the same. That's what people don't want to recognize. If you study anything about mysticism over the centuries, and your mystics or Saint Francis and all the different saints, it's what they've experienced, the energy that passes through them. If you know anything about Sufism, anything about these things, you know they move with that sexual energy because it is a creative, divine energy.
What do you advise about sexual healing and its practices?
Sexual energy is a healing energy, it is a creative energy. It is an energy that heals people, heals the individual, heals the one you are participating with, if you haven't reduced it to just the physical and hormones, to the exclusion of everything else. . . It is more than hormones; it includes it, but when we reduce it to that, we shut out everything else. Sexual energy is the highest energy passing through our bodies that we share with ourselves, as individuals, and with others. So, it cannot be reduced to just hormone levels or just genital interaction.
If you understand sexuality, not from an unclean perspective, but from the true nature of what it is; it's a God-given gift that we're born with. Not all of a sudden is it bestowed on us; it is part of our nature.
We're looking at sexuality from a spiritual point of view. That's why I call my seminars, "God, Sexuality and the Bible," because we have to understand what Scriptures say about it; and what does it have to do with God? What it has to do with God is, we're all children of God. The Scripture says, "And God said, let us make humankind in our image and our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the wind creatures of the sky," etc., etc. Then he said, "Be fruitful and multiply"; which means we are now children of God. We are, all of us, children of God. So if I'm a child of God, that means I have this spiritual nature. So when I am sexually active, it imparts that spiritual nature. So it's not a doorway; I am the door!
Right. And you also had a quote: "Sexuality prefigures union with God." What does that mean?
Well, because of the union that there is between two people that comes about when they are sexually active together, that is a figure of speech, it prefigures our union with God; because our union with God is the same thing. It's when we're overwhelmed in spirit, I say, saturated with that presence which is more than just physical.
Lovely. Did Jesus teach celibacy?
No, he didn't.
What do we know about his own sexuality, or lack thereof?
Your second part of that is correct: Lack thereof. We have no hard, historical evidence about Jesus' sexuality. We do know this: He was, as far as we know, and again, we weren't there, so I'm speaking from the best knowledge I can. He was a normal human being, and he happened to be of the male species. So you know he went through the normal male energies; because the Hebrew people, and the Semitic people, are not anti-sexual. So there would be no guilt connected with his male sexuality. And there wouldn't be any for the women either! But you were asking me about Jesus; so we're focusing on Jesus. So he would have the normal, natural, sexual expressions and energy of any human male.
Later on, when he went into his ministry, women were around him all the time. Now he loved women, but, as far as we know, he was not active with them. It would have been very difficult in that culture, to do so. Now, there is a possibility, a possibility - it cannot be proved - but a possibility that he was married. Because they normally marry when they pass puberty, or a marriage has been set up. That would be the normal, cultural range of things at that time. Whether he went through with it or not, we don't know. And if he did get married, we don't know whether his wife died, or she left him, because she thought he was crazy. We don't know, because we have no historical evidence for this, whatsoever.
What is the real message of the Adam and Eve and the creation story?
Scripture may be interpreted on many levels. To me, I interpret the story of Adam and Eve on a cultural level. It is an existential explanation of the human condition. Existential meaning, why do women suffer during childbirth? And the ancient writers answered that by giving us this story. We must realize it is a story. And it's the birth of civilization. For the Hebrew people, this is their particular take on the beginnings of civilization. The serpent, and them putting on clothing, with the fig leaves, and that wasn't sufficient. And so God made them clothes. It says he made them, meaning he sewed them some clothes, so there would be more decency and to protect them from the weather. This means that anytime you have anything about clothing and nudity, this is introducing the idea of civilization.
So the story of Adam and Eve was introducing the idea of civilization, not original sin. Augustin introduced the concept of original sin. But it's done in these metaphorical terms. It's done in the parabolic way of teaching. So, that's why I say it is an existential explanation of why we do certain things. At that time, it was explaining why the Semitic people had certain ideas about nudity, about clothes, about all these things. And they boiled it all down to breaking away from God's law. And in this particular case, it happened to be a tree. And he told them not touch it; and they went ahead with it - both of them, not just the woman. That's another fallacy we have there. Because Adam was with Eve the entire time. However, in the conversation she responds to the serpent and Adam says nothing. If you read it in the original text, of Hebrew and Aramaic, the serpent talks to them in a plural form. The "you" is plural. In other words, the serpent is carrying on the conversation with both of them. But the response is only coming from the woman.
So women don't have to take all the blame! [Laughs.]
[Laughs.] Right. But they don't teach it properly, because they're not reading it from the original text. The problem is English. The word "you" in English means both singular and plural. But, if you read it in the original, either Hebrew or Aramaic, it doesn't make any difference, it is in the plural form. So he's talking to the both of them, but Eve responds! And then to prove that he was there, it says, when she gave him the fruit, "her husband, who was with her." So even the preposition "with" is there, meaning he was there the entire time, because the serpent was talking to the both of them.
Speaking of Aramaic, I thought the translation for the word "church " in Aramaic was interesting.
Oh, yes. The Aramaic word for "church" is "etta". We pronounce it in the throat, "etta". It means to gather, to assemble, an assembly, a gathering. But, the root of that means to throw a party [laughs.], to have a feast, to celebrate. All of that comes from that same word, to celebrate. So, it's an assembly that celebrates; it's a gathering that celebrates life. In this particular case, of course, it was to celebrate the teachings of Jesus, to implement his teachings: How to love your neighbor; how to be more inclusive; how to take care of envy; how to take care of things. Jesus' teachings are the antidotes to our problems we have with jealousy, and envy, and hatred, all of that. So that's why we were gathering together, to celebrate those teachings and to implement them.
And all those issues get tied in with sexuality, don't they?
Oh, of course they do.
What does the Bible say about sex before marriage? Or how does it give us advice about sex before marriage in this culture today?
Well, actually the Bible does not condemn sexuality before marriage. The problem, especially for the women, was that they must retain their virginity, in the ancient eastern culture. Whereas, the man was more at liberty than the woman.
So, what is your view about Biblical teachings, and how they might apply to sexual life today, with regard to premarital sex?
Well, premarital sex must bear with it the responsibility. I don't think we can escape that.
That responsibility being ….
Being responsible for the other person, whoever you're getting involved with, whether they are willing, that you both realize, what you are doing, what you are involved in. And, you know, especially between a man and a woman, you have the responsibility of perhaps bringing in a child. All this is involved. And to me, I think that the male, especially, doesn't take much responsibility. [Laughs.] I hate to say that, even though I'm male.
So, beyond the responsibility, which is inherent, you don't see anything that admonishes premarital sex or condemns it?
No, it does not condemn it. It's the natural thing that is happening. But, I think where we go wrong is, we refuse to face our responsibility in getting involved in it. And especially today, where there are so many illnesses connected with it.
What is your view relative to safe sexual practices and birth control?
Safe. Exactly, you just said it. You've got to take care of it. Again, it's avoiding responsibility if you don't protect yourself or the other person.
So given a responsible context, as you've described it, what views do you have about pre-marital sex?
Well, I don't see anything wrong with that. But, regardless of what my opinion may be, people are going to do what they want to do.
You also mentioned Jesus' teachings of all-inclusiveness and tolerance. What about homosexuality, or bisexuality, or any other non-hetero, conventional practices?
Again, as far as science is concerned, we still don’t have full reports on that. But it does seem that, within certain natures, there is that expression for bisexuality, or homosexuality. And then there's the asexual, as well. So, we don't condemn them.
The Bible doesn't use the word homosexuality. That is an English word, derived from the Latin language. In the Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no proper noun, or substantive, for that word. They have to use an entire phrase. And when it's phrased in Levitical law, it only talks about males, male to male sexuality. The Hebrew Bible says nothing, it's absolutely dead quiet, on female homosexuality. That's very interesting. It's in the New Testament that we find it.
Interesting. And what does it say about male homosexuality?
It does talk about that. And what it says is, the phrasing exactly in Hebrew, and it's the same in Aramaic, is "A man shall not lie with another man as with a woman." The wording here is very difficult; because it infers several things. It infers male rape, and it's against it. The Levitical law is against it. It says, "A male shall not lie with another male as with a female." In other words, a man is using another man like he would use a woman. So, we're talking about anal intromission. That's rape. A male shall not, lie with another male as with a woman, the same way you would with a woman. So it is talking against this, because of the sacredness of the male seed. Because that's how, you remember we discussed this earlier, the seed was planted in the woman. They didn't understand the full role of the woman, what's taking place in the woman too, how she gives the egg to be fertilized.
Right. Do you think there was a concern that a man might have a baby?
No, never. No, no, no. It's the sacredness of the male seed. And then also, some scholars say, it may be involved with male prostitution. That's another thing they suggest. But the Bible is not talking about homosexuality as we know it today, in our culture and age, where two men fall in love with each other, or two women fall in love with each other.
That was the in the Old Testament. The New Testament makes no mention of either, or does it?
It's mentioned in Romans, in the first chapter, where it talks about the female, desiring another female. But remember, we also discussed this earlier, when we talked about idol worship. They worshiped the body because it became an idol. And, therefore, men began to lust for men, and women for women, because it became an idol. It had to do with idol worship. Paul is really talking about idol worship, and not just the sexual activity itself.
So, there's no prohibition against homosexuality, in your view?
There would be for the Hebrews. It would be the Semitic people who came under those laws. He's talking about the Gentiles there, because that activity was common among other races. Now, we're not talking about when young boys, entering puberty, go through all that experimentation. We're talking about when they become adults, where a male deliberately goes after another male to use that male as a female.
I would recommend several readings to those who really want to go into it, with detail that explains the background and the customs on that. For the New Testament, there is "Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and the Implications for Today," by L. William Countryman. That is very, very good. And for the Jewish teachings, and Hebrew ones, there is one written by a rabbi, a very good rabbi, Gershon Winkler, called "Sacred Secrets: The Sanctity of Sex in Jewish Law and Lore." Another excellent one is "Sexuality and the Sacred: Sources for Theological Reflection," by James B. Nelson and Sandra Longfellow.
Great. So, is there anything else that you think is important for people to know or consider, as they're thinking about the Bible and sexuality?
That we are sexual, spiritual, physical beings. And we should not be ashamed of our nudity, or of our sexual expression; as long as it does not harm us or anyone else.
Thank you so much. I think this will be very helpful to a lot of people.
Rocco A. Errico, Ph.D., Th.D., is the founder and president of the Noohra Foundation. He is a lecturer, author, Bible authority, translator, Aramaic instructor, educator and ministerial counselor. Please see the Noohra Foundation for information on his current and publications.