The Bible and Homosexuality
This article is a resource that provides an overview of the main texts cited against homosexuality. Each text can
be examined individually via the index, below. The first section introduces the the major six texts cited and
provides links to the relevant commentaries. The second section serves as an index to the main commentary,
which follows the index.
Section 1
HOMOSEXUALITY:
JUST WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?
Strictly speaking, the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. The term, 'homosexuality',
belongs to our modern vocabulary and within modern concepts of the origins and formation
of human sexuality. The original Biblical languages contain no words for "sexuality",
"heterosexuality" or "homosexuality". Until the modern period, no distinctions between
"homosexual' and 'heterosexual' sexuality were made. That is not to say that same-sex
practices were unknown to the biblical writers. Comments on same-sex practices occur in
three places within the bible, Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; (proscriptions in the Holiness Code) and
Romans 1:24-27 (Paul's stinging rebuke of Gentile society). Such comments are within the
context of the ancient, patriarchal understandings and customs through which they were
interpreted and are never the topic of sustained discussion. In some places, reference to
homoeroticsm or to same-sex practices has been inferred or added during the process of
translation into Latin or into English, as is shown to be the case in Genesis 19:4-11 (the Lot
and Sodom story), Judges 19 (the story of the Levite and his wife), 1 Corinthians 6:9 (Paul's
reprobate list) and 1 Timothy 1:10(a modified, Pauline reprobate list). Sometimes reference is
made to texts in Genesis, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel , 1 Kings and Jude, with respect to
homosexuality, all of which are spurious interpretations.
Section 2
EXAMINING THE OFTEN QUOTED BIBLICAL TEXTS.
The following texts are considered in the body of the paper.
Judges 19:1-25
Romans 1:2427
Genesis 1-2:4a
Genesis 1:27-31
Song of Songs
Genesis 19:1-20
Ezek. 16:49-50
Deuteronomy 23:1718
Leviticus 18:22;
20:13.
1 Kings 14:24.
1 Corinthians 6: 910
Romans 1:2427
1 Timothy 1:8-11
Jude 7
THE GOOD
NEWS
COMMENTARY
This commentary uses literary criticism and historical-critical methods and the approach is
consistent with the Uniting Church in Australia's Basis of Union (Paragraphs 5 and 11), and
seeks to engage the Scriptures openly and critically, in our time. It begins with reading the
text as given in the New Revised Standard Version of the English language translation of the
Bible. Where necessary to explain or comment upon translation from the original Hebrew or
Greek, a transliterated form of the original language is used, to make understanding easier for
those unfamiliar with Hebrew or Greek script. It is recommended that readers refer to other
English translations of the Bible and The Jerusalem Bible, the New English Bible, the New
International Version, and the New King James Version are recommended for study, giving
consideration to the textual criticism given here. The Good News Bible (Today's English
Version) and The Living Bible are not recommended for study, as these are paraphrases of
the bible and not translations from the original texts.
These studies are aimed at the level of a well informed adult and are not intended for
children. An adult Reading Age comparable to a completed secondary education is assumed.
A glossary of some theological and ethical terms is given below the main commentary.
For further background information giving guidance on reading the Bible, see the following
link to an article by Prof. Bill Loader, Murdock University, Approaches to Scripture:
Considering the Options. (An External Link)
For an introduction to ethics, see Macquarrie, J. and Childres, J., A New Dictionary of
Christian Ethics (SCM Press, London, 1986).
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
Genesis 1:27-31. A Creation Story
So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and
female he created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply,
and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds
of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." God said, "See, I have
given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with
seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every
bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of
life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw everything that he had
made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth
day. (Genesis 1:27-31. NRSV)
If all things exist through God's creative action, then, from our modern perspective, our
sexuality derives from God, too. It is part of our given, personal being, and pronounced
"good". This is what the church means when it declares sexuality to be "god's good gift"
(Uniting Church in Australia, Assembly resolution 97.31.05). There is difference of opinion
among believers whether or not this implies that sexual orientation is to be understood as a
gift from God as distinct aspects of human sexuality. In the delimiting case, sexual orientation
is argued to be a chosen state, originating with the Fall of humankind from original
blessedness: heterosexuality only is seen as the given state. In some evangelical
interpretations, sexual orientation is accepted (presumably as part of God's gift of sexuality or
as a human condition after the Fall) but engaging in sexual acts is forbidden and held sinful.
In this case, "love for the sinner" is preserved and "hate for the sin" is declared. Liberal or
progressive Christian communities are both accepting and affirming, with some celebrating
all sexual orientations. Thus Christian communities vary in the degree to which they accept
homosexual persons or affirm same-sex practice. Much depends on how those communities
understand Creation.
It is clear that the ancient understanding in Genesis 1:27 is that human kind is created in the
image of God as relational beings, male and female. Men and women are created as beings
who are open to the future within the full context of the world (cosmos) and within the full
context of their humanity or human potential. Their destiny is as relational beings and is not
tied to an anatomical destiny that is bound and determined by procreation. Any primacy
given to heterosexual relationships is a secondary association that is read into the text and is
not implicit to it. This relational understanding is well developed by Phyllis Trible,(2) who
uses Gen.1:1-2:4a as her beginning text in exploring a theology of sexuality. She shows that it
is "male and female" (zakar uneqeba) or ‘humankind’(3) that is presented as being "created
in the image of God," where male and female form a unit comprising two creatures that are
distinct, harmonious equals.
They have two responsibilities; procreation and dominion as "male and female". It is in the
totality of "male and female" that the responsibility for procreation exists. That totality does
not necessarily imply that all, individual males and female must procreate. It is human
relationality and not procreation that highlights the uniqueness of humankind in creation, as
created in "the image of God". The divine command to procreate parallels the same
command given to the fish of the sea and birds of the heavens, who are not designated male
and female. The designation is biological, not sociological, thus the text gives freedom to
interpret male and female as unique beings and masculine and feminine stereotypes are not
imposed. This interpretation fully accommodates a post-modern understanding of sexuality as
a psycho-social orientation that is diversely experienced across the spectrum of human
existence. It allows for a full expression of male and female, without stereotypes, in which
both heterosexual and homosexual relational experience make possible the imaging of God.
In Genesis 1-2:4a, the notion of sexual identity as "male and female," is so tied rhetorically to
the metaphor of "image of God", that it does not serve to differentiate sexual stereotypes but
identifies the relational character of the human beings. As the "image of God" it is
humankind that bears a unique relationship to God. This relationship stands on its own and
is not dependent upon procreational activity. As single beings, their relationship to each other
is implicit also. They are equals, regardless of role definition in terms of procreation or any
other mark of distinction. While Trible's intent is to highlight improper differentiation
between women and men, as a feminist critique of Scripture and its application, her criticism
also highlights the inappropriateness of all stereotypical applications of the text. Thus the
persistent claim, that God created people as heterosexual beings only, reflects an
anachronistic, androcentric, patriarchal view that, while being an inherent part of the biblical
canon and church history, does not stand up to post-modern criticism. Heterosexual union
and procreation are not definitive factors of being human.
Genesis 2-3: the Creation of Sexuality
In unfolding her interpretation of Gen. 2-3, Trible dispels arkhonic (4) notions regarding the
explicit and implicit meanings of the text. She describes the narrative as the development of
Eros (love of life), in four episodes of a love story, that began with the forming of the earth
creature, ha-‘adam, and continued in the planting of a garden, the making of animals, and the
creation of sexuality. The love story had gone awry however, when the fulfilment proclaimed
when ’íš, 'man' and ’íššâ, 'woman', became one flesh, disintegrated through human
disobedience. (5) However, the Bible does not leave the account there.
The Song of Songs is seen to redeem this love story, restoring Eros and enhancing the creation
of sexuality in Genesis 2, and emphasizing equality and mutuality between man and woman as
lovers. The main voice of the Song is female. Thus Trible says, "Women, then, are the
principal creators of the poetry of eroticism." (6) That is not to say that the poetry of
eroticism stays with women. We are all able to express the joy of our sexual being, in the
poetry of our own lives as well as in words. In this way we celebrate the joy of erotic
relationships, as a response to the God-given gift of sexuality and erotic intimacy. While
God's voice is absent from the Song, the divine voice is borne by the breath of the poet, the
very respiration of lovers, that cries in the cosmos, to affirm their own being, confirming their
own togetherness, their own becoming. Through our personal delight in love-making our
body's song or poetry becomes a responsive voice that rises to God in joy and in gratitude. In
this sense, love-making transcends sexual gratification, to become a hymn of thanks and
praise to God, for the gift of our embodied selves. More than that, it celebrates the
relationship between the lovers, in the simple joy of sexual encounter. That is why God's voice
is absent in the Song, as it is in Genesis 2, where poetry of eroticism first appears and ha‘adam says,
"This, finally, bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh.
This shall be called ’íssâ (Woman)
because from ’ís (Man)
was differentiated this." (Gen.2:23)
Trible's interpretation is post-modern and inclusive. It is not only erotic, but traces God's
initial blessing of harmony, pleasure and fulfilment in the creation of sexuality, as being prior
to the actualization of procreational applications to sexuality. In the Song, the seeking of one's
lover finds harmony of encounter and fulfilment in sexual embrace. Sexuality is thus
celebrated in the longing, the pursuit and the embrace. The focus is delight and joy in
relational connectedness. We can appropriate that spirit, for it is the spirit of mutuality and
relational activity that not only celebrates life but also makes God present in the world,
through love-making. It is relational connectedness that lifts human sexual relationships
above those of the animals. The choice for gay and lesbian persons is not between
heterosexuality and homosexuality but to be able to celebrate their sexuality, to form
relationships and to seek relational intimacy in ways that are not cut off from their God-given
nature.
Love-making possibilities re-envision our own sexuality as well as re-vision God, as an erotic
God, full of life and passion. Sexual activity is a relational process of making erotic
connections. It is God-given and blessed. The connection of sex and sexuality with The Fall
has denigrated sexual activity, robbing it of its blessedness. Through mutual sex we
experience personal communication, intimacy, the harnessing of desire and sexual truth. We
touch our own erotic strength and liberate that of our partner. We share erotic power,
transcending the self in the full inclusiveness of love-making. In this way it is also justicedoing, for it empowers the other. Carter Heyward expresses this dynamic empowerment as
"godding", in which the verb, 'godding', points to the truth of God's erotic activity. She
says:
"Godding, we experience our personal lives as profoundly connected at the root of who we
are, rather than as separate and disconnected from our professional lives and from one an
other's places of deepest meaning. Godding, we share how we really feel about our body
selves-in-relation, in our living and working, our living and dying. We share, we act, we are
together." (7)
In this way, we find relational empowerment through creative energy that finds and releases
God's image in the other. It is in this way that homosexual relationships can be God-centred
through relational connectedness and we all can say, "this is my beloved and this is my
friend." (Song of Songs 5:16c). In this, love is discovered in the subjective encounter of
friendship and not in the objective, dualistic designation male and female.
of Genesis 1-2 section only. Back.
Genesis 19:1-20: The Story of Sodom
The story is this: two angels (Heb. mal’akim), human-like companions of God, visit Sodom on
a reconnoitre to see if the city is as evil as reported, for God has decided to destroy Sodom and
Gomorrah unless ten righteous persons are found there (Gen. 18:21-33). They arrive at the
city in the evening (without God) and meet Lot who invites them to his house for the night. At
first the angels refused the invitation, preferring to spend the night in the square. Lot persists
and so they eventually join him for a meal. During this time, a mob of locals gathers at Lot’s
house, surrounding it, demanding that the guests be brought out to them so that they "may
know them" (Gen. 19:5). Lot is reluctant to hand over the guests. He implores the mob not to
act wickedly and offers his two daughters to them to placate them. Lot’s obvious concern is
preferential shelter of the guests rather than his daughters. Now the mob gets angry and
indignant that Lot, a foreigner (Heb. ger), should make such judgement on them and the
house is attacked. The guests inside grab Lot and bring him safely into the house with them
and shut the door. "And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the
house, both small and great, so that they were unable to find the door." (Gen. 19:11) The
next day the angels remove Lot and his entire family from Sodom before divine punishment is
brought upon it with a rain of sulphur and fire.
Interpretations of the sin of Sodom have varied through the ages. The connotation of
homosexual practices with the Sodom story (Genesis 19:1-20) is a late development, in which
reference to homosexuality has been read into the original account. (8) Homosexual nuances
have assumed popular association with the text of Genesis 19:1-20. However, such nuances
are features outside of the text and upon closer examination are not necessarily inferred in the
text. This fact is demonstrated where the Bible itself comments upon the sin of Sodom. It is
primarily viewed as one of inhospitality and greed, as in Amos 4:11; Isa. 1:9-19, 13:19; Jer.
49:18; Lam. 4:6; Ezek. 16:46, 48-50, 53, 55-56; Zeph. 2:9; Deut. 29:22; 32:32; plus Sir. 16:8;
Wis. 19:13-14; Matt. 10:12-13; Luke 10:10-12. The only exception is Ezek. 16:49-50, which
reads:
"This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of
food,
and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did
abominable things before me: therefore I removed them when I saw it."
(Ezek. 16:49-50 NRSV)
Back.
The word that is rendered as 'abominable' (NRSV) or 'abominal' (NIV), is the Hebrew word
to'evah ( or to'ebah), meaning 'unclean' or 'uncleanness.' It is the same word used in the
Leviticus prohibition of particular same-sex acts (Lev.18:22; 20:13: see discussion below). To
interpret the Ezekiel text to be a reference to homosexuality is very dubious exegesis, reading
more into the text that it implies. (9) Boswell points out that to'evah, 'unclean', has a
connectional nuance with idolatry. (10) The word to'evah certainly has the meaning of ritual
uncleanness, in Lev.18:21-22 & 20:13, where the context concerns ritual and ethnic purity, in
relation to neighbouring peoples and Jewish distinctiveness. It is clear that the Ezekiel text
places emphasis on other sins, such as lack of charity and idolatrous living, rather than
inhospitality, and it remains that an association of Sodom with homosexuality is not an
inherent feature of biblical applications of the story in Genesis 19.(11) So from where does
the homosexual connotation come? What are the grounds for it?
Homosexual connotations to the story derive from interpreting yadha', ‘to know’, to mean
carnal knowledge. This is a surprising understanding, and a harsh contraction of meaning, for
the Hebrew word, yadha', implies carnal knowledge in only ten of the 947 occurrences of the
word in Scripture.(12) What is even more surprising, is that the word is commonly taken to
imply carnal knowledge of a homosexual kind! If that interpretation is correct, it is the only
occurrence of such meaning in the Old Testament. It is not good exegesis to say simply that
because yadha' means "to know by sexual intercourse" in ten occurrences of the word in the
Bible (each one as a heterosexual act resulting in the conception of a child) that yadha' means
same-sex intercourse in the Sodom story.
Source criticism identifies the story of Sodom with the Yahwist redaction and, in other
Yahwist texts, yadha' means ‘sexual intercourse’. (13) This meaning is implied where Lot
says of his daughters, "they have not known a man" (Gen. 19:8), which is the second
occurrence of the word yadha' in the story. This heightens the story by conferring a sexual
connotation, albeit of a heterosexual kind. It is this second usage of yadha' that is used to
interpret the first as carnal knowledge of a same-sex kind, as it is the only explicitly sexually
connotated usage of the word in the text. Further more, the usage comes from the mouth of
Lot, who appears to misunderstand the intent of the men of Sodom.
Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my
brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let
me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they
have come under the shelter of my roof." But they replied, "Stand back!" And they said,
"This fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with
you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to
break it down. (Gen. 19:6-9)
The interchange between Lot and the men of Sodom makes it clear that the concern was for
local dominance and power over the strangers and Lot. The Sodomites sought to establish the
identity of the strangers whom Lot has taken into his house. Sodom had recently been
engaged in a war (Gen. 14:1-2) and wariness of strangers is understandable. Also, as a
resident alien in Sodom, Lot probably had exceeded his rights as a foreigner by offering
hospitality to strangers- a customary obligation of the Sodomites. Lot's invitation had
usurped the obligation of the Sodomites and the strangers presented a further affront in
accepting it. The Sodomites seek after identity of the strangers and challenge them. Are they
relatives of Lot's and therefore his primary responsibility to host? They are clearly foreigners
who have not allowed the local people to offer hospitality, originally having prepared to spend
the night in the city square. Their actions may be the source of affront in that they accepted
hospitality from Lot, another foreigner. As a result, the men of Sodom are angry, indignant
and challenge the strangers. Lot misunderstands the intent of the mob. That is why Lot’s
daughters did not pacify the mob but rather inflamed it, as the mob's xenophobic intent was
not met. This underscores the understanding that the men of Sodom intended to gang rape the
angels as an act of priapic, male dominance. Phallic aggression towards strangers, with
threats of domination and subjugation by the men of Sodom, is the point in the story and the
source of their disgrace and not the homoerotic act implied in doing it. (14)
Comments within Scripture reinforce this understanding. In Wisdom 19:13-14, the
punishments did not come upon Sodom without prior warning. The people were destroyed
because their bitter hatred of strangers and for inhospitality and for enslaving guests who
were their benefactors. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 16:8 comments on the Sodom story, teaching
that God did not spare the Sodomites as God abhorred their pride or arrogance. While both
these texts are apocryphal to Jewish and Protestant canon, they serve to illustrate that the
notion of a "homosexual sin" in relation to the destruction of Sodom was not an interpretation
or tradition held at the time of the writing of those texts. Homosexual connotations of the
Sodom story were not a part of the more ancient traditions and are clearly a later
development that subverts the meaning of the original texts.
It is ironic that in the story of Sodom, God condemns the people for their inhospitality, their
insensitive treatment and harassment of others. In applying this text to attack gays and
lesbian people today, the very same sin is being perpetuated.
The real story of Sodom involves a mob driven by xenophobia, fear and hatred, confronting a
group of persons that they do not know and threatening to humiliate them by rape or
intimidation. They highlight the otherness of the strangers, a situation that has sad parallels
to gay-bashing today. That the church is engaged in this activity denies its own hospitality for
those seeking shelter from the mob.
of Genesis 19 section only. Back.
Judges 19:1-25: Gender, Power and Manly Honour
In the story concerning a Levite and the rape of his wife of secondary rank, (15) Judges 19
gives the reasons for the sundering of the tribes of Israel and the massacre of the
Benjaminites. It shows strong parallels with the story of Sodom. (16) Both stories are
prefaced with an account of one person offering good hospitality (Abraham in Gen. 18:1-5, the
father of the Levite’s wife in Judges 19:3-10). Like the Sodomites, the Gibeathites are
extremely unfriendly to strangers and are destroyed. Two strangers enter the city and
prepare to spend the night in the square. One friendly man, who is not a native Gibeathite,
shows the proper hospitality and takes them in. The host's house is surrounded by an angry
mob that demands that the male guest comes out, "so that we may know him" (the NRSV has
"so that we may have intercourse with them."). The host is horrified and offers his virgin
daughters instead.
But the mob would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine (Heb. ‘ishah pilegesh),
and put her out to them. They wantonly raped her, and abused her all through the night until
the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. As morning appeared, the
woman came and fell down at the door of the man's house where her master was, until it was
light. In the morning her master got up, opened the doors of the house, and when he went out
to go on his way, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the
threshold. (Judges 19:25-27 NRSV).
Comparing the story with that of Sodom, shows that a homoerotic association of the word,
yadha' occurs in the same place in both stories, with the story in Judges presenting the
eventual gang-rape as being upon the woman. It is her rape that causes dishonour to the man
and his host, as the rape of the woman is a de jure rape of the Levite. He is shown as a
coward, failing his obligations to protect his wife and his own honour. Thus defamed by the
Gibeathites, he precipitates vengeance that decimates the tribe of Benjamin in a civil war
approved by God (Judges 20) to avenge male honour. The link between the story of the
Levite’s wife and the story of Sodom highlight's the issues of xenophobia, inhospitality and the
rights of men implicit within the stories. No interpreter has used the story of the gang-rape of
the Levite’s wife to condemn heterosexuality. Gang-rape, as an act of humiliation against
strangers or foreigners (male or female) condemns homosexuality no more than it condemns
heterosexuality, regardless of the homoerotic associations in the story. Power over strangers
or those who are different through ethnicity and gender, as a breach of hospitality, is the
issue. Over time, through an encoded language of ‘sodomy’ and ‘sodomites’ that has entered
the English translations of the stories, the sin of social infraction has been transferred to issues
of sexuality. This has contributed to homophobia, antisocial violence, vilification and
harassment of homosexual persons. Those against whom these stories have been turned,
know this very well. Sexually based aggression against those who are different, defines the sin
of Gibeah (and Sodom) in our time.
of Judges 19 section only. Back.
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. Prohibition and Penalty.
The Torah contains two sentences concerning same-sex acts between males. Leviticus 18:22
provides a direct prohibition against same-sex acts, which reads,
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination [Heb. to'evah].
(Lev. 18:22 NRSV)
In Leviticus 20:13, the death penalty is specified for both participants in male-male same-sex
practice. These form part of a series of prohibitions of sexual conduct, including incest,
intercourse during menstruation, adultery and coupling with animals. These laws stand
within the so-called "Holiness Code" (Lev. 17-26) which is a collection of laws to regulate
worship, ritual cleanliness and other behaviours such as the injunction in Lev. 19:18, teaching
love of neighbour as oneself, where ‘neighbour’ means ‘fellow citizen’, ‘intimate’ or ‘friend’.
Lev. 18:22 is part of the Holiness Code concerning ritual and cultic purity. The list of sexual
infractions is framed by a sermon teaching people to separate themselves from neighbouring
peoples and their practices. (17) It is not concerned with distinctions of moral or spiritual
purity but things to'evah, 'unclean', which are seen as distinctive features of the ways of the
Canaanites. Within the narrative it relates to the time prior to the conquest of Canaan
during the Exodus from Egypt. However the text dates from the post-exilic time (fifth century
BCE), during which the community sought to separate itself from neighbouring peoples to
establish a Jewish distinctiveness. It is to that purpose that the Code is directed. It defines
accepted behaviours, in comparison to the otherness of Canaanite culture which is designated
to'evah, delimiting one culture against another. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to
refer to a moral violation, a sin, the Hebrew words chata', chatta'ah or chet' would have been
used.
Familiar examples of things to'evah include eating pork or shrimp and men cutting the hair at
their temples. The Code regarded things "pure" as long as they were perfect examples of their
kind, unblemished or unpolluted by mixing kinds. Blemished animals were unacceptable as
sacrifices and cripples, dwarfs and eunuchs were excluded from ritual practices of the cult.
Things regarded as to'evah included mixed marriages (between ethnic groups), mixing things
of another category such as fibres in a cloth, different seeds in one field, cross-breeding
animals and dressing like persons of the opposite sex. The objective purity of Lev. 18:22
considered similar mixing of roles to be undertaken in same-sex activity. In Lev.18:21-22 &
20:13, the context concerns conduct in relation to neighbouring peoples and Jewish
distinctiveness, as the community sought to re-establish itself among post-exilic struggles for
identity. These textual references to same-sex acts have no bearing upon modern
understandings of sexuality. Such understandings were not known at the time the texts were
written and to project modern understandings back into the text does a mischievous injustice
to the integrity of the Scripture.
Christians do not follow other aspects of the Holiness Code and are free to eat rare meats or
pork, throw a shrimp on the barbie, play football with a pig-skin ball, wear polyester-cotton
blends, seed their lawns with a grass mixture, and get their hair cut. Yet, through selective
application of the Code with respect to same-sex activity, conservative Christians stress these
two laws as being against homosexuality. It is difficult to argue the logical retention of these
laws, except through application of prejudice and ignorance.
of Leviticus section only. Back.
Deuteronomy 23:17-18. Contempt for Holy Ones and Dogs.
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 contains prohibitions against kadeshah and kadesh from among the
daughters and sons of Israel. However, precisely who or what kadeshah and kadesh are, is
unknown. (18) Their role is nowhere specified and all sexual connotations are inferred from
usage in parallel with zona, ‘prostitutes’ in Gen. 38:21-22, Deut. 23:19 and Hos.14:14. In 1
Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 2Kings 23:7, kadeshim are linked to the worship of Astarte in pre-exile
Israel. The later tradition, as recorded in 2Kings 23:7, has…
He (king Josiah of Judah) broke down the houses of the kadeshim that were in the house of the
LORD, where the women did weaving for Asherah (groves sacred to the worship of Astarte).
From this it is interpreted that kadeshah and kadesh are cultic prostitutes and that rendering
is read back into the texts of the Deuteronomic history. Those texts reveal a contempt for
kadeshim, and in Deut. 23:18 the word "dog' is used to denigrate kadeshim and what ever
cultic practices they observed. Nowhere is there evidence of a homosexual role in those
practices. The prohibition concerns cultic purity, as elsewhere in the Deuteronomic history,
and the provision of a homosexual service by the male kadeshim is not implied. (19) Yet,
despite this, there is a persistent rendering of kadeshim as ‘sodomites’ (as in the KJV) to imply
condemnation of homosexuality in these texts. That translation is based on error, as
mistranslations were carried into the LXX, then into the Vulgate then into English
translations. (20) Recent commentaries strongly dispute this rendering, with Phyllis A. Bird
arguing that the kadeshim were a literary creation of the Deuteronomic writers. (21) The
original intent of the passage was to highlight and speak against evils of false worship.
Something of the contempt for idolatry, for dogs and a loathing for prostitutes is carried over
into the application of these texts to homosexual persons when "sodomite" is used to translate
kadesh / kadeshim. Such usage is based on ignorance and has served to generate loathing and
to foster hatred.
of Deuteronomy section only.
Back.
Mark 10: 2-12: Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce
Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to
write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her." But Jesus said to them, "Because of your
hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation,
'God made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but
one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." Then in the house
the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife
and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and
marries another, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:2-12 NRSV)
The context here is a concern for divorce. After a reference to the Law of Moses (Deut. 24:4),
there are two references to Genesis; firstly, to Gen. 1:27 where the creation of human beings
as ‘male’ and ‘female’ is established, and secondly, to Gen. 2:24, where the origin of marriage
or union of man and woman is mentioned; "For this reason (Gk. heneken toutou) (22) a man
shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one
flesh…". From this the teaching against divorce is made. Jesus establishes biological
function, ‘male’ and ‘female’, then the social roles ‘man / husband’ and ‘woman / wife’
against which the relational function, ‘shall become one flesh’ is held inseparable. It is being
created ‘male’ and ‘female’ by God, that makes this union possible and also gives the status of
being ‘joined by God’. However, nowhere is it expressed as a delimiting case that all men and
women must marry. Just as we saw in Genesis 1:27-31, marriage is not a definitive basis for
human relationships or for establishing the ethics of all human relationships. We must look
elsewhere to find a standard for human relationships and that is given in Mark 12:31, "You
shall love your neighbour as yourself." Love is the fundamental Christian relationship. It is
also implicit in the relational connectedness that we saw in the Song of Songs, where the cry,
"this is my beloved and this is my friend" (S. of S. 5:16c), releases God's image in the other.
of Markan section only.
Back.
1 Corinthians 6: 9-10: of 'softies' and 'male prostitutes'
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes (Gk. malakoi), sodomites
(Gk. arsenokoitai), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will
inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NRSV)
In interpreting 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10, it is crucial to understand the meaning of the Koine
Greek words, malakoi (sg. malakos) and arsenokoitai (sg. arsenokoites), used by Paul in this
list. Apart from the Greek, literal connotations of 'softies' and 'men lying the bed', there is no
agreement in opinion as to what the words mean. Difference in opinion exists, also, as to
whether the words stand separately (as with the other words in the list) or are to be taken as a
linked pair. In the first case, malakoi may be a general, derisive term for a class of "softies"
and arsenokoitai may refer to ‘male prostitutes’, servicing either sex. There is no reason to
assume that the two words are a linked pair because of their proximity in Paul’s list. To
argue that they refer to ‘passive’ and ‘active’ partners in a pederastic or homosexual
relationship, is problematic. With reference to the words as a pair, Eva Cantarella claims that
they refer to the active and passive sexual partners in a homosexual relationship. (23) Thus
she maintains that Paul, "condemned homosexuality on a global basis". (24) However,
Cantarella uses the word, 'homosexual' in a particular way, in relation to pederasty, as the
same-sex aspect of a bisexual phenomenon in ancient Graeco-Roman sexual practice .(25)
Her consideration of a "global" (Catholic?) condemnation is thus specific in regard to location
and time, within the ancient Graeco-Roman world, and it is not appropriate to make the
semantic shift to any modern understanding of the term. Other modern interpreters project
modern social prejudices back into the texts, taking the words to refer variously, to temple
prostitutes, to 'heterosexual' persons only, to specific sexual practices such as pederasty or to
'homosexuality' generally. Choice of meaning is probably decided by the personal, communal
or corporate bias of the translators, both in the ancient world and in modern times.
The adjective, malakos, is used as a plural noun, malakoi, by Paul. Malakos literally means
'soft' as when referring to inanimate objects such as clothes (see Lk. 7:25).(26) Matthew uses
the word to designate soft or effeminate persons (see Matt. 11:8) and a related word, malakia,
to mean 'sickness', or 'weakeness' (Matt.4:23; 9:35; 10:1).(27) In passing, it is notable that
the English rendering "soft clothes / robes / raiment" (KJV, NRSV ASV), is not a direct
translation of the Greek in Matt. 11:8, but an addition made by English translators to provide
a gloss to the text. Thus a reference to ta malaka is removed from Jesus' mouth.
Early English translations rendered malakoi to denote a generalised, degenerate class of
persons. Thus Wyclif (1380) renders malakoi as ‘lechouris ayens kynde’; Tyndale (1534),
Coverdale (1535) and Cranmer (1539) give the rendering ‘weaklinges’; the Geneva Bible
(1557) has ‘wantons’ and both the Douai-Rheims (1582) and the King James Version (1611)
render malakoi as 'effeminate'. Later translations changed the rendering to ‘catamites’ (JB,
1966) and 'male prostitutes' (NIV, 1973; and NRSV, 1989) to give a specific sexual
connotation. There is no philological or historical evidence to warrant this semantic shift.
Malakos has various usage in ancient literature, contemporary to Paul, showing that it did not
mean homosexuality in any way. Epictetus uses malakos to refer to 'soft-headed' persons,
whom he regards as too dull to absorb true philosophy. (28) Dio Chrysostom uses malakos to
refer to those made soft or demoralised by too much learning! (29) Other ancient writers use
the word to refer to a 'soft' person who is in need of exercise or is lazy. Vettius Valens
followed Aristotle's use of malakos to denote unrestrained indulgence in bodily pleasures, or
licentiousness. (30) A similar viewpoint was held by of Stoic philosophy that one was
"softened" by too much sexual activity or by licentious living or over indulgence. Josephus
used malakos to denote moral condemnation in men who appeared ‘soft’ or ‘weak’ through
lack of courage in battle, reluctance to commit suicide in defeat or the enjoyment of luxury.
(31)
Paul could not have meant malakos in the literal sense of 'soft', other than to apply a critical
stereotype such as "softies", perhaps with Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish influences in the
background. What makes the persons "soft" is unclear and unspecified. Some interpreters
have argued that it could refer to a man who undertakes a passive sexual role, thus
resembling a woman in practice. (32). That interpretation relies heavily on reading Leviticus
18:22 into the text. The Greek nuance could be given as 'effeminate’, which may be close to
the meaning, as the KJV and ASV render the word. However, we have another interpretative
problem here, for the KJV, 17th C. Elizabethan meaning of 'effeminate' may not carry the
same meaning that we apply today. What is clear is that the term is derogatory and appeals
to prejudice. Paul most likely used the word in the same way within a broadly based social
connotation of ridicule of the effeminate person. (33) Such ridicule appealed to sexist
prejudices of the time, in which being soft, lazy, cowardly or enjoying a life of luxury and ease
were characterisations of things feminine. This is the proper way to render Matthew 11:8,
also, where malakoi and malaka designate effeminate, "soft" persons, as found in king's
houses ("queens"?) . However, if effeminacy was the intended Pauline usage, Attic Greek
had available two other words that Paul could have used. These are androgunos, from which
we derive the modern word 'androgyny', and thelubrios. Neither word was used by Paul so
his meaning may have had broader connotations, suggesting a class of persons such as that
carried by the term "'queers" or "queens" today.
In Plutarch's Erotikos the similar word, malthakos, is used in relation to passive sexuality in
men. (34) Similar usage by the imperial physician, Caelius Aurelianus, shows that the word
related to heterosexual men. (35) Thus malakos does not mean 'homosexual' or 'male
prostitute.' It could be taken as a reference to effeminacy or perhaps to the passive partner in
a pederastic relationship. However, this latter interpretation may be reading more into the
word than Paul intended, for 'malakos' is not one of the usual words used to describe
pederastic partners. These are the words 'erastes', (the lover), 'eromenos', (the beloved), and
'paidika' (the beloved 'boy' or youth). (36) Thus 'malakos' appears to be used by Paul as a
technical term and its meaning is unclear. (37) The most likely rendering is ‘effeminate’ or
‘softies’, with distinctly derogatory, misogynous connotations.
Malakoi is followed by the rare word, arsenokoitai, which is more difficult to translate than
malakoi. Morphologically it is a compound word: arseno - 'man' + koitai - 'lying the bed', thus
the transliteral meaning is, 'man lying the bed'. The etymology of the word is problematic,
however, being ambiguous as to whether the word means 'a man who lies the bed (with
anyone)', in which the first part of the word, arsen- is the subject, or whether it means 'one
who lies with men', with arsen- taken as the object. John Boswell takes the former, subjective
usage of arsen, and translates arsenokoitai to mean 'male sexual agents', that is, active male
prostitutes. (38) In this case it is not a specific reference to homosexuality, as such persons
may service either sex. Boswell bases this on comparisons with other compound words
beginning with arsen, in which the meaning 'man' is applied as subject, pointing out that the
form arreno- is used where an objective sense exists. This pattern is not always followed in
Greek, however, so homoerotic association with the word is not removed, necessarily.
Arsenokoites could have been derived from the Septuagint as a new word (neologism) coined
by Paul based on Leviticus 20:13, which reads: kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten
gynaikos ... (and whoever lies with a man as with a woman... ) in which the words arsen and
koite that come next to each other are joined to create a new word. In which case the objective
sense of the arseno- compound may be used an the word rendered as 'one who lies with men'.
In translating the word from the Greek LXX to the Latin Vulgate, Jerome followed this
meaning and rendered it masculorum concubitores. Such usage does not of itself clear the
ambiguity of the original Greek, however.
Looking behind the LXX, it has been argued that arsenokoites appears to be a compound of
the translation of mishkav zakur ('lying of a male'), two Hebrew words that are used in
Rabbinic literature to refer to same-sex, pederastic practice. (39) This is conjecture, since the
Rabbinic term, mishkav zakur appears in written sources dating from well after Paul.
Pederastic associations of the words certainly appear in Rabbinic and Early Christian
writings that post-date Paul, also. (40) That does not mean that the words held that meaning
for Paul. At best, the intentional meaning of the Greek words is unclear and three recent
commentaries differ markedly in their interpretation of the words. (41) Lexicographically, it
does not necessarily imply or deny that same-sex acts are involved. The word is therefore
imprecise. However, it neither means 'sodomite,' as rendered in the NRSV, nor is the word
properly to be translated as, 'a man who has intercourse with males', as rendered in some
modern discussions of the usage in the Pauline texts. (42) To its shame, the revised version of
Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon renders arsenokoites as, 'a male who practices homosexuality,
pederast, sodomite'. Such renderings read more into the word than the Greek allows and
perpetuate homophobic, heterosexist prejudices.
Arsenokoites is variously translated in English Bibles, following the objective sense discussed
above. Thus, we read ‘thei that don leccherie with men’ (Wyclif); 'abusers of themselves with
mankind' (Tyndale, Coverdale, Cranmer, Geneva Bible, KJV and ASV); and ‘the liers vvith
mankinde’, (Douai-Rheims). Modern translations extend this view, rendering arsenokoites as
'male homosexual offenders, perverts' (NIV) and 'sodomites' (NRSV and JB). The "Good
News Bible" (TEV) 1966, the Living Bible, 1971, and New English Bible, 1970, conflate
malakoi and arsenokoites with the renderings as ‘homosexual perversion’ (TEV),
'homosexuals' (LB) and 'guilty... of homosexual perversion' (NEB). There is no evidence for
such usage elsewhere in ancient Greek literature. To argue that the two words, malakos and
arsenokoitai refer to passive and active partners in homosexual intercourse, belies the
historical and lexicographical evidence and perpetuates a homophobic prejudice. (43) Either
a grave error in mistranslation has occurred or a deliberate act of mistranslation has injected
a bias into the texts. What once was a specific concern with justification through faith (Paul's
concern in writing to Corinth), with certain rhetorical references that play on community
prejudices of the time (Paul's series of reprobate lists- 1 Cor. 5:10; 5:11 and 6:9-10), has been
accommodated to become a blanket condemnation of homosexuality. Graeco-Roman
pederastic practices and/or prostitution may lay behind the text, but there is no reference to
homosexuality generally or in a universal way that can be applied today.
of 1 Corinthian section only.
Back.
Romans 1:24-27 Concerning Dishonourable Passions.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to he degrading of
their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie
and
worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!
Amen
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged
natural
intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural
intercourse
with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless
acts
with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
(Rom. 1:24-27 NRSV)
Rom.1:26-27, Paul gives an account of homoeroticism in same-sex behaviour, of both men and
women. The context is in regard to idolatry, in which worship of the true god is exchanged
untrue worship. As a result, their sexual conduct changes from 'natural' to ‘unnatural'. In
fact, Paul uses Jewish prejudices concerning the Gentiles rhetorically, to ensnare his readers
into engaging judgmental views in order to turn those views against them. In short, he pulls a
literary sting! Paul does not engage a discussion of same-sex practices with the intent of
sustaining that judgement. His rhetoric was the means by which he highlights God's role as
judge. Paul teaches that, by putting yourself in the role of judge, you usurp God's role and
function and engage the root of all sin which is idolatry. (44)
In Romans 1, Paul is arguing that "the righteousness of God" is needed because of the
unrighteousness of all human beings. All people have sinned, Jews and Gentiles alike. Paul
gives reference to the Gentiles first. They have had a prior knowledge of God, he claims,
through God's revelation through nature and his will in the created world. Paul says that
Pagan worship and philosophy have not seen this revelation clearly and Paul criticises pagan
idolatry and culture for abandoning the truth. More than this, he is reflecting theological
attitudes and beliefs that derive not only from his Jewish background regarding the kadeshim,
but also from differing attitudes in the pagan world, towards pederasty. Paul's concern is
with wider issues of unrighteousness. Significantly, Paul does not discuss gay or lesbian
persons, in Romans 1. The persons whom Paul condemns are not homosexual, for it is clear
that they are 'heterosexual' persons who have turned from their "natural" ways. As Boswell
writes:
"The whole point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling,
gotten off the true path they were once on. It would completely undermine the thrust of the
argument if the persons in question were not "naturally" inclined to the opposite sex in the
same way they were "naturally" inclined to monotheism." (45)
To have the text refer to homosexual persons, one has to argue that homosexuality is a
"deviation" from the normative "heterosexual" orientation or what is perceived as
"natural". Thus homosexuality is "normalised" in reference to "heterosexuality" and is
labelled "unnatural". Arguments that homosexuality is "against nature" are very
problematic. Apart from being based on a misunderstanding of Paul's argument in Romans
1, they risk the naturalistic fallacy in trying to argue a moral precept from an empirical state
(arguing from ‘is’ to ‘ought’). They impose a normative standard that recognises only one
"natural" sexual orientation and denies the experience of homosexual persons who regard
their sexual orientation as "natural" to themselves. To counter this, a secondary argument is
often adopted with the view that homosexuality is a "chosen" state, an act of choice and not of
"nature". In this there is often a link to arguments based on Genesis 1:27-31 that assume a
totally heterosexual Creation. Thus arguments that homosexuality is "against nature" apply
a restrictive viewpoint, that of heterosexism, in which heterosexual experience not only
dominates but is imposed as the delimiting case. Such interpretation stands contrary to the
experience of homosexual persons and modern understandings of human sexuality.
To apply Paul’s rhetoric passionately, directing implications at others, however misconceived
those concerns may be, setting yourself up as judge and moral arbiter, falls into Paul’s
rhetorical trap. To do so engages dishonourable passion, risking arrogant religiosity and
reproach. God judges all persons, regardless of outward appearance, by the things of the
heart (Prov. 16:1; Romans 2:16). Paul teaches us that those things are known through hope
and faith and not by directing passionate censure at others.
of Romans section only.
1 Timothy 1:8-11 Concerning Legitimate Use of Law.
This passage figures in discussions because of the reference to arsenokoitai in verse 10 among
the list of
those for whom the law is laid down. Just who comprise the arsenokoitai has been discussed
above and the word is inappropriately translated as "sodomites" in the following translation.
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means
understanding
that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for
the
godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or
mother,
for murderers, fornicators, sodomites (Gk. text has arsenokoitai), slave traders, liars,
perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the
glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Tim. 1:8-11. NRSV)
As can be seen from the text, the passage concerns legitimate use of the Old Testament laws
and follows the Decalogue. This was a problem being addressed in the letter to Timothy to
counter exploitation of some early Christians by those promoting their own speculative
interests contrary to the teaching of Paul. Just what does constitute "legitimate" use of the
Law or even of Scripture? Is it legitimate to apply mistranslation to words such as
arsenokoites in order to push a particular social bias (as is done in the text quoted above)? As
all biblical references to same-sex activity are negative, is it legitimate to interpret them as
anti-gay texts? Such usage corrupts the integrity of the Bible's own witness by applying texts
to situations and moral questions that the biblical writers did not face. All texts are properly
interpreted in light of their own context and are interpreted through our own contexts and
experiences before being applied to modern situations. Some quite biblical positions are now
questionable and irrelevant, as in relation to the place and role of women, attitudes to the
environment, the killing of recalcitrant children or keeping of slaves. We no longer follow the
Levitical Law in regard to food and cooking or the wearing of mixed fibre cloth. Nor do we
prohibit women, eunuchs, dwarfs and cripples from leading worship. We follow a principle of
diminishing relevancy in deciding which laws are to be followed and which are seen as
anachronisms. Proof-texting to support an anti-gay stance is equally irrelevant, and an
illegitimate use of Scripture.
Jude 7 is a passage in point, as the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah "going after strange
flesh [lit. other, hetero, flesh]" (KJV) is a not a reference to homosexuality but to seeking
sexual intercourse with angels. The letter makes a coded reference to those who seek sexual
license as a rejection of the social order that the angels represent. The NRSV perpetuates an
anti-gay bias by rendering the text to read, "they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued
unnatural lust," which is a blatant corruption of the Greek text. Where the writer of Jude is
making proper use of Scripture to make a point, the NRSV and those who follow their bias
and apply a corruption of the text to project their own meanings into the text. Some
evangelical Christians read "other flesh" (Gk, sarkos heteras) as "unnatural lust" as a pointed
reference to homosexuality. The intent of the original text was to refer to angels! Within the
context of the epistle, v. 7 is part of a standard technique (polemic) directed against heresies,
especially Gnostics, who are characterises in reprehensible ways, directing attack at unnamed
opponents by naming them licentious (v.4), engaging unnatural lust (v.7), corrupting the flesh
(v.8), carouse together (v.12) and follow ungodly passions (v.18). (46)
Before passages of Scripture are used to further hatred or demonise some groups of people
whose sexuality is characterised as "unnatural", ""unclean" or "inherently evil", it is well to
remember that throughout history the Bible has been cited to enflame hatred. Crusades,
pogroms and witch hunts have been launched and countless Jews, Gypsies, people of colour,
women and gay men have been persecuted and even killed in the name of Scripture and
religion. The early church itself suffered misrepresentation and the passages from the New
Testament mentioned above witness to that persecution. It is ironic that such texts of terror
are used to harass, vilify and discriminate against gay and lesbian people today.
of Timothy section only.
Hear the Good News!
God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.
(Genesis 1:31a)
Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm;
for love is strong as death, passion fierce as the grave.
Its flashes are flashes of fire, a raging flame.
Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it.
If one offered for love all the wealth of his house,
it would be utterly scorned.
(Song of Songs 8:6-7)
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him
may not perish but may have eternal life.
(John 3:16)
For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.
(Romans 3:28)
For in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were
baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek,
there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in
Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according
to the promise.
(Gal. 3:26-29)
In Galatians 3:26-29, Paul speaks of a new creation in which dualistic differentiations of the
ancient world are negated. The new humanity in Christ overcomes or transcends division by
status, especially as "male and female". As all are one in Christ, as individual selves
regardless of sexual differentiation, in our post modern times we can discern a moral order
that is not determined by sexist typologies. The formula, "one in Christ" grounds all through
baptism, cancelling all pollution systems and their derived ethical norms.
To God Be the Glory
Amen
NOTES
(1) Macquarrie, J. and Childres, J., A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics (SCM Press,
London, 1986) p. 58.
(2) Trible, P. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1978.)
(3) In Genesis 1, zakar uneqeba, ‘male and female’, is used; in Genesis 2-3, ’íš, 'man' and
’íššâ, 'woman', are the terms used. The woman is named ‘Eve’, Chavah, meaning ‘living’, in
Gen. 3:20.
(4) 'arkhonic' - to lord it over another; a word coined by Rev. Dr Lee Levett-Olson,
pertaining to androcentric, patriarchal culture and history; from Gk. arkhon, a ruler.
(5) Trible, P. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. p. 144.
(6) Ibid. p.145.
(7) Carter Heyward, Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of God.
(Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1989.). p.189-190.
(8) Boswell, J., Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. (University of Chicago
Press, Chicago and London, 1980) p.93; Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality:
Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate. (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983) p. 14.
in the text and n. 38 & n. 39, where Scroggs bases his assessment on work by Bailey, D. S.,
Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London, 1955.); McNeill, J., Church and
the Homosexual. (Kansas City, 1976.), pp. 42-50; and Nissinen, M., Homoeroticism in the
Roman World: an Historical Perspective. (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1998) pp. 111- 118 et
al.
(9) Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality. p.74. n.16.
(10) Boswell, ibid. p.100. See 1Kgs 14:24. 2Kgs 16:3.
(11) Boswell, Ibid. pp.100-102. Boswell, Scroggs, Bailey and McNeill agree on this point.
(12) Boswell, J., Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. p.94.
(13) See Gen. 4:1, 17, 25; 24:16; 38:26.
(14) Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Roman World, pp. 47-49. See also Tosefta Sota 3:11-12,
where Rabbinic commentary views the sin of Sodom as maltreating strangers in order to
inhibit encroachment upon their city.
(15) Ibid, p. 49, where it is noted that the Heb. ‘ishah pilegesh denotes a wife of secondary
status.
(16) The story in Judges 19 is part of the Deuteronomic redactions and the Sodom story is
from the Yahwist redaction.
(17) See Lev. 18:1-4, 24-30; 20:7-8, 22-26.
(18) Heb. n. fem. kadesha, masc. pl. kadeshim, sg., kadesh; lit. 'sacred', 'holy ones,' perhaps
referring to sacred, pagan, temple prostitutes. See Gen. 38:21-22; Deut.23:17-18; 1 Kings
14:24, 22:47.
(19) Boswell, ibid. pp.98-99.
(20) See Deut. 23:17 & 1 Kgs 14:24 KJV, where ‘kadesh’ is mistranslated as 'sodomites'!
(21) Nissinen, Martti, op. cit., p. 40, who cites Bird. P. A., "The End of the Male Cult
Prostitute: A Literary-Historical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew qades-qadesim" in
Emerson. J.A., ed., Congress Volume Cambridge 1995. Supplements to Vens Testamentum 66.
Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1997, pp. 37-80.
(22) Also note the rendering of heneken toutou, as ‘for this cause’ (KJV, ASV) or ‘this is
why’ (JB), or ‘for this reason’ (NIV, NRSV, NEB); where ‘created male and female’ is the
antecedent.
(23) Cantarella, Eva., Bisexuality in the Ancient World. Trans. Cormac O’ Cuilleanain. (Yale
University Press, New Haven and London, 1992.) p.353.
(24) Ibid. pp.192-193.
(25) Ibid. p.193. Cantarella signals this distinction in the title of her book, Bisexuality in the
Ancient World, in which she uses "bisexuality" to describe pederasty as the same-sex aspect of
a bisexual phenomenon.
(26) Trans. lit . adj. malakos means 'soft'.; n. sg. malakos means 'soft one', n. pl. malakoi
‘softies’; the condition, malakia referred to a general weakness or ‘softening’ of person and/or
character, as in the malaka phorountes of Matthew 11:8.
(27) Boswell, op. cit.. p.106 also states that patristic writings also use the word malakos to
mean 'liquid', 'cowardly', 'refined', 'weak willed', 'delicate', 'gentle', and 'debauched'.
(28) Epictetus, Discourse 3:9, as quoted by Boswell, ibid. p.106.
(29) Dio Chrysostom (49[66]:25).
(30) Vettius Valens (113:22) c.f. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 7.4.4.; See Boswell, ibid.
p.106-7. n.51.
(31) War 7.338; Josephus Antiquities 5.246; 10.194.
(32) This is a development derived from the way the translators of the King James Version
(1611) render the word and may not be the same meaning that 'effeminate' carried in the
early seventeenth century.
(33) Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality. p.62.
(34) Boswell, ibid. p.107.
(35) Ibid.
(36) The derivative noun, pais, means 'boy', 'son' or 'slave', hence 'sex boy/slave' is a possible
inferential meaning.
(37) Scroggs, ibid. p.64.
(38) Boswell, ibid. p.344.
(39) Ibid. p.83 & n.43.
(40) Scroggs, ibid. p83.
(41) Namely, John Boswell, of Yale University, Eva Cantarella, of the University of Milan,
Martti Nissinen, University of Helsinki. Cantarella takes the words as categorically referring
to homosexuality and Boswell does not. Martti Nissinen discusses Boswell's interpretation
and lexicographic difficulties with the word. See Nissinen, M., ibid, pp. 114 - 118, for an indepth discussion of the words malakos and arsenokoites.
(42) Scroggs, ibid. p.63.
(43) Ibid. p.341. For a full discussion of lexicography and Paul, see Boswell, ibid., Appendix
One, pp.335-353. See also Nissinen, M., ibid, pp. 114 - 118.
(44) Barrett, C. K., Reading Through Romans. (SCM Press, London and Fortress Press,
Philadelphia. 1977.) p.8.
(45) Boswell, ibid. p.109.
(46) Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never
Knew (Oxford University Press, New York, 2003) pp. 197-198; For a detailed discussion of
Jude and heresiology, see Frederik Wisse, "The Epistle of Jude in the History of hesiology."
In Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Alexander Bohlig, ed. Martin Krause, Nag
Hammadi Studies, 3. Leiden: Brill, 1973, pp. 133-43.
References
Boswell, J., Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. (University of Chicago Press,
Chicago and London, 1980)
Brawley, R. L., (ed.), Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture. (Westminster
John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1996)
Cantarella, Eva., Bisexuality in the Ancient World. Trans. Cormac O’ Cuilleanain. (Yale
University Press, New Haven and London, 1992.)
Ehrman, Bart D., Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
(Oxford University Press, New York, 2003).
Heyward, Carter., Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of God. (Harper
& Row, San Francisco, 1989.)
Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate.
(Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983)
Macquarrie, J. and Childres, J., A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics (SCM Press, London,
1986)
Nissinen, M., Homoeroticism in the Roman World: an Historical Perspective. (Fortress Press,
Minneapolis, 1998)
Trible, P. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1978.)
Glossary
malakos is the singular noun here; malakoi is the plural.
arsenokoites is the singular noun, arsenokoitai is the plural. In transliterating the Greek I
have not used diacritical marks. The precise meaning of this word is unknown.
exegesis: the process of interpreting a text; systematic interpretation of a text. The opposite
is eisogesis- the projection of one's own notions into the text.
plain reading: a way of approaching the Scriptures without further reflection beyond the
printed word; a naive exegetical approach that allows no consideration of historical, social,
literary or other aids or processes of interpretation other than those brought to the text by the
reader; reading for plain meaning, with a literal, ordinary, natural sense. This approach
derives from both ancient Jewish exegesis through plain reading (peshat) and that of the
Reformation and early Protestantism. Jewish peshat involved elucidation and grammatical
analysis of the text and the early Reformed tradition sought for a single, simple meaning, free
of multiple meanings such as the allegorical or symbolic meanings of the Middle Ages. The
problem with this approach is that what is "ordinary", "natural" or "plain" differs from
reader to reader, depending upon their theological stance, culture and history. Thus context
became a crucial consideration. Modern exegesis stands against naive applications of plain
reading and involves reason and consideration of historical and social context of both the
reader and the text being read, as well as other forms of textual criticism.
Creation: all that God has made, including humanity; the created order, cosmos.
arkhonic: adj. meaning to lord it over another; to rule over another; derived from the
Greek word, arkhon, a ruler or judge, and pertaining to androcentric, patriarchal culture and
history.
Septuagint, the Greek version of Jewish Scriptures rendered into Greek in the Third
Century BGE; also known as the LXX; the Jewish Scriptures that were in use in Paul's time.
Sodomites: the people of Sodom.
ethics: here refers to Christian ethics. For a discussion of the Bible and Christian ethics, see
Macquarrie, J. and Childres, J., A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics (SCM Press, London,
1986) pp57-61.
Holiness Code: a part of the Torah, strictly Leviticus chapters 17 to 26, which is a
collection of laws to regulate worship, ritual cleanliness and other behaviours; the Holiness
Code is distinct from the moral codes of the Torah.
homosexual: an adjective pertaining to the same sex. Using the word as a noun referring to
persons of homosexual orientation is improper. 'Homosexuals' carries negative, clinical
connotations with a restricted focus on genital associations in the description of same-sex
oriented persons. Many homosexual persons refer to themselves as being 'lesbian' or 'gaymen'.
to'evah or to'ebah:: A Hebrew word meaning 'unclean', 'uncleanness', 'impure'; the Greek
Septuagint translation is bdelygma, meaning ritual impurity. Naming things to'evah delimits
cultic and cultural practices and erects barriers of distinction. It does not mean 'sin' or
'sinful', for if the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, the
Hebrew words chata', chatta'ah or chet' would have been used. See cross reference to external
link to'ebah.
FOR FURTHER READING, see the following ...
Boswell, J., Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. (University of Chicago Press,
Chicago and London, 1980)
Perhaps still the single most important scholarly work on homosexuality and early
Christianity. Boswell rejects the idea that homosexual subcultures are a recent
development and proposes that prior to the 13th Century, homosexual persons
experienced a degree of acceptance. Criticized by gay radicals for letting the Church
off the hook. Boswell's work is controversial and virtually all of Boswell's specific
conclusions have been called into question. The book is significant for the debate that it
has precipitated.
Brooten, Bernardette J, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female
Homoeroticism, (Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1996)
Arguably the most important book on the classical and early Christian history of
Lesbianism. Brooten attacks the constructionist idea that there was no general idea of
"homosexuality" in these periods. She criticizes Boswell for avoiding discussion of
women, and taking classical acceptance of some forms of male homosexuality as
applying to homosexual relations between women as well.
Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate.
(Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983)
One of the most often quoted sources, providing a well grounded discussion of the
origins of the sexuality debate, with reference to ancient sources and contemporary
life. Recommended.
Pronk, Pim, trans. Vriend, John, Against nature? Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding
Homosexuality. (Eerdmanns, Grand rapids, 1993)
Questioning a singular, moral value-system in a pluralistic society, Pronk enters a
critical dialogue with Christian ethicists, in terms of political and social morality,
ethical rights and concepts of value in regard to male, homosexual persons. Highly
recommended reading.
Macquarrie, J. and Childres, J., A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics (SCM Press, London,
1986)
Provides an overview of Christian ethics and has valuable material on sexuality and
faith. A tool for the serious consideration of ethics.
Nissinen, M., Homoeroticism in the Roman World: an Historical Perspective. (Fortress Press,
Minneapolis, 1998)
At the time of publication, Nissinen was Reader of NT Studies, University of Helsinki
and Senior researcher of the Finnish Academy. The book provides a background for
contextualising Biblical references in reference to same-sex relationships and custom.
It examines homoeroticism as part of gender identity and is thorough in its breadth
and depth, scholarly and easy to read. There is a very useful Appendix: Creation,
Nature, and Gender Identity, that discusses problems with the terms 'nature',
'creation'. This awarded book is very highly recommended for reading.
Grenz, Stanley J. Welcoming But Not Affirming: An Evangelical Approach to Homosexuality.
(Westminster John Know Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1998.)
A well presented evangelical opinion, for which the title says it all. This view is not
followed in the above presentation, and , while I disagree with Grenz on just about
every point, I recommend this book for reading- at least know the opposing view.
Vasey, Michael, Strangers and Friends: a new exploration of homosexuality and the Bible.
(Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1995.)
Written from an evangelical position, Vasey explores biblical traditions in historical
context and also evaluates recent studies into the history and sociology of
homosexuality. Vasey does not adopt the "not affirming" stance of Grenz and ends
with an invitation to join "Jesus the outsider", pointing to gay people and their
experience of exclusion as being among those who share Jesus' position "outside the
gate" (Heb. 13:13-14). Recommended.