최근 동성애 논쟁의 주요 쟁점들: 제임스 브론슨의 동성애 관련 구약 본문 해석에 대한 비평

Abstract

The goal of this study is to evaluate the cogency of James Brownson’s interpretation of the Old Testament texts related to the prohibition of homosexual practice. The texts selected for this study are Genesis 2:20b-25, Genesis 19:1-11, Judges 19:16-30, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Traditionalists generally interpret Genesis 2:20b-25 in terms of gender complementarity, but Brownson understands it from the perspective of kinship bond. He rightly points out the problems of the traditionalists’ interpretation from the exegetical point of view, but his idea of the kinship bond which excludes the sexual union between husband and wife does not match with the broader context of Genesis 1-2. The sexual union between husband and wife plays an important role to accomplish the cultural mandate given in Genesis 1:28. Brownson is successful in correcting the traditionalists’ misuses of the terminology but his interpretation of Genesis 1-2 should not be capitalized on to approve the legitimacy of homosexual practice. Brownson and revisionists argue that the main sins of Genesis 19 and Judges 19 were not homosexual crimes but violence, inhospitality, and rape; hence, they believe that these texts cannot be applicable to today’s consensual homosexuals. But the idea of homosexual sins should not be ruled out in these texts because the word ‘yada’ used in them must be translated into ‘having sex’ in their particular contexts. The striking similarities of words and ideas between these two texts are revealing that they are identical type scenes in the biblical narrative. If these texts are analyzed with the lens of the type scene, they deliver a clear message that the homosexual sins with inhospitality and violence bring about God’s judgment. This message is evident when the incident of Judges 19 is evaluated from the perspective of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The condition of the Israelites at the time of Judges was similar to that of the Sodomites because the Israelites had assimilated to the sexually corrupt culture of the Canaanites including homosexual practice. Brownson argues that the Levitical law prohibiting homosexual practice (Lev 18:22; 20:13) cannot be applicable to the present-day homosexuals because it belonged to the purity law of the Israelites, it was the product of the patriarchal culture, and it came out of the context of idol worship. Though parts of the Levitical laws in Leviticus 18-20 have to do with the ceremonial law, the majority of the laws belong to the moral law which is binding to the Christians of our time. It is a significant hermeneutical flaw for Brownson to reject the distinction between the ceremonial law and the moral law. Brownson’s understanding of the prohibition of homosexual practice in terms of the patriarchal culture of shame, though partially true, derives mainly from his failure to correctly analyze the historical data of the ancient time. The emperor Nero, married to two male partners, was known for taking the passive role in intercourse. If he felt shame, he would never have taken the passive role. It is a wrong interpretation of Leviticus 18 and 20 for Brownson to understand the homosexual prohibition in terms of the culture of idol worship. In conclusion, Brownson’s interpretation appears to have corrected traditionalists’ misuses of the term ‘gender complementarity.’ However, his understanding of these texts contains many fallacies, evaluated from the perspective of their historical, cultural, linguistic, and hermeneutical backgrounds. Hence, his interpretation should not be capitalized on to biblically support the legitimacy of the present-time homosexual practice.