Daniel Helminiak provides a highly particularized trial for religion, and any reader interested in spirituality would be riveted by his presentation, which is inspired by his mentor, Bernard Lonergan. According to Helminiak, people read the Bible differently, and their understanding and interpretation will depend on how they read their Bible. There are different Bible texts addressing homosexuality, but the interpretation done on these texts depends on the readers’ ability to decode the word-markings on a page to determine the meaning and understanding. Helminiak notes that there has been a transition from one generation to another, and when reading ancient texts, words might have different meanings in the present generation. Helminiak believes that the Bible does not censure homosexuality, and the present article is in agreement with his interpretation of the scripture.
Helminiak specializes in differentiating between the historical-critical approach and the fundamentalist method of interpretation. He takes a few topics from the Bible and examples to explain the issue of homosexuality. In exploring the difference between fundamental and historical interpretation, he gives the example of the texts in Luke 18:25, Mathew 19:24, and Mark 10:25. In the historical viewpoint of interpretation by some scholars, Jerusalem had a narrow and low gate (eye of the needle) in that the camels were to be unloaded and guided through the gate and then reloaded after they had crossed. Helminiak interprets the scripture and says that the text meant the rich would not enter heaven unless they unload their material worries, which is a fundamental interpretation. The argument he provides, in this case, shows how differently people interpret the Bible; the same way they may have interpreted the homosexual texts.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
From his interpretations, Helminiak tries to drive home his point by insisting that having both fundamental and historical-critical interpretation is not irreligious. Instead, it is believing in God because both ways show that God is guiding our lives. He also notes that although the Bible portrays God as a miracle worker, there is a warning against putting your God to the test. Reading Bible verses and miraculously interpreting them is putting God into a test; it is expecting extraordinary things from God because we want Him to. Helminiak also highlights the concept of having a literal reading, and one of its rules is that the text will have the same meaning to people who put it down and the people reading it today (a reading that takes a text the way it is). From my point of view, the historical-critical method varies depending on the religion or churches. This means that when it comes to some issues such as divorce, early church organizations, the origin of Baptism and Eucharist rituals, and of course homosexual, churches will have different interpretations.
In some cases, the Bible reverses long-standing interpretations that bring confusion on religion and society in general. However, Helminiak notes that even though these readings and interpretations will have different meanings, we will lastly agree on one thing; the Bible is the word of God, and it has no errors. Besides, as the Bible says, in some cases, those who were writing did not understand what they were writing themselves. And then centuries later, people are treating the Bible as a secrete message preserved for the current generation. I consider this true because the definition of words like “homosexual” was identified later in the 19 th century decades after the scripture was written.
Furthermore, the Bible writers could have their hidden meaning of some verses they wrote. Similarly, in the current century, people will say things which mean more than they know, particularly when speaking about heart-like eternal truths like “trust in God,” or “I will love you forever,” and so on. In short, as generations disappear and history unfolds, new and deeper meanings of the Bible will unfold. For example, the Catholics have updated their worshipping ways on several occasions. There is no room for inerrancy when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Therefore, both historical-critical and literal interpretations have to be right.
Helminiak then links the Bible with science. In Genesis, God gives a moral lesson on how the universe was created with care, order, and wisdom. On the other hand, through science, humans try to understand how God created nature and how it has evolved since then. There is no conflict between the two, and there are no errors in both the science and the Genesis lesson. However, there are some positives and negatives of both the historical and literal approach. For the literal approach, critical thinking is required. Therefore, a conclusion obtained by a specific group is what will be taken. In this case, people will end up believing what they want to believe, and also insist on some specific Bible verses. For the Historical-Critical Approach, those believing in this approach will have a common interpretation. However, this approach needs a dedicated study to get it all, making it a technical science (Archeology). Some texts will never be explained.
In the Homosexual perspective, looking at the historical-critical approach research, it is biologically based, and changing sexual orientation is almost impossible. The worldwide gay community is increasing, and it is evident that the Bible authors did not imagine it. Therefore, what was understood by same-sex behavior in the Bible in ancient times will apply if there is some understanding in the present day. I don’t think the Bible condemned what is currently referred to as homosexuality.
The argument made by Helminiak on interpretation reflects the modern society and application of literal reading. If I would take the Bible verse on Centurion and His Slave, for instance, Jesus met a man who was having a homosexual relationship, and He did not condemn his relationship but rather applauded him for his faith. A scholar today may justify his case by arguing that the centurion asked Jesus to heal the slave boy, who was “dear” to him and terms this to be a probable understanding of the slave’s connection with the centurion. Even though the data is somehow scant to give enough evidence, the argument is outrageous in a way that it wouldn’t pass lacking a note. Perhaps the ‘boy’ could have been old enough for the scholar to consider him a man by the current standards, but the evidence to this effect is limited. Secondly, one can observe that this centurion owned a slave. Jesus did not condemn the act of owning a human being; therefore, justifying that the scripture supports slavery. However, this should argue less for a homosexual relationship and more strongly on slavery.
Putting down the work done by Helminiak, the claims that the Bible has forbidden homosexuality is somehow a cultural bias interpreted from the Bible, and also a poor Biblical scholarship. The Bible does not address “homosexuality” as an inmate personality dimension. In Biblical times, sexual orientation was not understood. The Bible provides references for same-gender sexual behavior, all of which are undeniably negative. However, the texts in the Bible condemn exploration, adultery, and violence, which may be related to the behavior and not the same-gender type of behavior. Besides, there are no words in Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek for “homosexuality” or “homosexual.”
The sexual behavior reference between women is mentioned in Romans 1:26, where the Gentiles pursued false gods after rejecting the true God (idolatry). Orgiastic is the sexual behavior described; sexual behavior that is not a mutual, loving, caring, and committed relationship. What is condemned in this case is the worship of false gods. Sexuality tends to be something more than genital behavior. It defines how somebody expresses and embody themselves in the world.
