The Bible and homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on LGBT topics and Christianity

Christianity and Homosexuality Transgender and Christianity

History of Christianity and homosexuality The Bible and homosexuality Queer theology Blessing of same-sex unions Ordination of LGBT clergy LGBT-affirming churches

Denominational positions

Anglican · Baptist · Eastern Orthodox · Latter-day Saints · Lutheran · Methodist · Presbyterian · Quaker · Roman Catholic · United Church of Christ · Uniting Church in Australia · Metropolitan Community Church

v • d • e

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009)

This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (August 2009)

This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Christianity or the Christianity Portal may be able to help recruit one. (September 2009)

This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject LGBT studies may be able to help recruit one. (September 2009)

The Bible and homosexuality is a subject that influences how homosexuality and homosexual sex are regarded in societies where Judeo-Christian tradition has made a strong impact. 

The Bible is considered by believers to be inspired by God and to record God's relationship with humanity and in particular, with the nation of Israel.  Conservative Christianity sees the original texts of the Bible as inerrant, or at least infallible, and being the literal word of God, though many translations exist which somewhat differ due to manuscript sources, and interpretations.^[1] Likewise, Orthodox Judaism sees the Torah as the literal word of God and infallible to error.

The understanding of some Biblical interpreters is summarised by David Hilborn (2002, p. 1) who argues: "It must be granted that direct references to homosexual activity in the Bible are relatively few. However, these more explicit texts belong to a much broader Biblical discourse on creation, love, holiness and human relationships - a discourse which goes to the heart of God’s purpose for humankind".  Additionally, within Christian groups such as Roman Catholicism these passages have traditionally been interpreted in light of other accepted revealed sources, such as the revelations to the mystic-saints, which often do contain more explicit and detailed descriptions clarifying the matter (e.g., St. Hildegard von Bingen's visions in Scivias). Protestant denominations generally do not make use of such sources. 

Traditionally, all Jewish and Christian scholars have interpreted these biblical passages as forbidding all forms of homosexual activity. However, some recent gay writers have argued that these passages refer to other forms of sexual behavior between members of the same sex (sexual activity within a committed relationship, pagan rites, casual sex, pederasty, and same-sex rape, for example), and not to all types of homosexuality as a general category like heterosexuality. 

Contents 1 Passages from the Hebrew Bible 1.1 Genesis 1 and 2: Creation 1.2 Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah 1.2.1 The text 1.2.2 The meaning of yada 1.2.3 Classic sources on Genesis 19 and homosexuality 1.2.4 Questionable morality of Lot? 1.3 Leviticus 18 and 20 1.4 The Book of Ruth 1.5 Books of Samuel: David and Jonathan 1.6 Books of Kings 1.6.1 Elisha and the dead boy 2 Passages from the New Testament 2.1 Fornication 2.2 Matthew 15; Mark 7: What defiles 2.3 Matthew 8; Luke 7: "pais" 2.4 Romans 1 2.5 1 Corinthians 6; 1 Timothy 1 3 See also 4 References 5 Literature 6 External links 6.1 Texts and definitions 6.2 Essays

[edit] Passages from the Hebrew Bible

The Hebrew Bible (called the Tanakh by Jews and the Old Testament by Christians) is widely regarded by both Jews and Christians as having been written directly or inspired by God. Orthodox and Conservative Judaism consider its laws and halakha as normative and binding whereas Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism do not.

For Christianity, it has been aserted that mainstream Christianity has always recognised the authority of many of the ethical commands of the Old Testament.^[2] For example, Article 7 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England says that Christians are still bound by the moral commandments, although not the ceremonial, ritual or civil laws. The issue of the applicability of Hebrew Bible laws to Christians today is still debated, see Biblical law in Christianity for details.

[edit] Genesis 1 and 2: Creation

The first two chapters of the first book of the Bible, Genesis describe God's creation of the world and his creation of man and woman. In the King James version that for many centuries was the most common translation of the Bible in English, Genesis 1:27-28 states:

“

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

”

Genesis 2 says:

“

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

”

(KJV; Genesis 2:23-24).

Hilborn (2002, p. 1) therefore argues that these verses are: "foundational for the classical Judaeo-Christian teaching that sexual intercourse is designed for expression solely within the life-long, marital relationship of a man and a woman." Evangelical author Joe Dallas notes that the "male-female union, introduced in Genesis, is the only model of sexual behavior consistently praised in both Old and New Testaments",^[3] perhaps most pronounced in the Song of Solomon, whereas any clear affirmation of homosexual relations, or sanction of such by marriage, is seen as absent. Together with many other texts, as woman was made in response to the problem of man being alone, despite other creations (Genesis 2:18-20), this is seen as evidencing that woman was uniquely created to fill this need, and which goes beyond simply a procreative one.

However, Vasey (1995) has argued that this line of reasoning is an example of the is-ought problem and that these verses do not exclude other types of relationship.^[4] Furthermore, Williams (2002, p. 23) has argued that while Genesis 2 describes a relational norm, it cannot therefore be used to argue that it prohibits other forms of relationship. One critic said such arguments amount to "an extraordinary evasion of the plain sense of the biblical text" (Hilborn 2002, p. 1f).

[edit] Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah

This section may be too long and overly detailed. Please consider summarizing the material while citing sources as needed.

This article should include a summary of or be summarized in another article. See Wikipedia:Summary style for information on how to incorporate it into this article's main text, or the main text of another article.

[edit] The text

Genesis chapters 18 and 19 are concerned with the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by God. In the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the Hebrew of Genesis 19:4-8 is rendered as:

“

Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may meet them." But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not met men; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

”

Ezekiel 16:49-50 (TNIV) reads:

“

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

”

In the New Testament, Jude 1:7 (NASB) says:

“

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

”

[edit] The meaning of yada

In Genesis 9:5 the Hebrew word "yada" translated "relations" in the NASB and most often "know" in the KJV and many other translations, occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and usually simply means to know someone or something in a non-sexual way. About a dozen times it is used as a euphemism for knowing someone sexually, as in Genesis 4:1, and Genesis 38:26. The common interpretation is that Lot offered his virgin daughters to the crowd as a means to sexually appease the crowd and protect his visitors from sexual abuse. Most traditional commentators interpret this to refer to the homosexual nature of the people in the crowd, especially in the light of the parallel story in Judges 19.^[5][6][7][8] However, others see it as referring to Sodom's inhospitable attitude in seeking to interrogate the visitors.^[9][10]

Hilborn (2002, p. 3) and Compton (2003) propose that, while the sins of Sodom may include sexual sins, the ambiguity of the text means that it cannot be used to condemn homosexual relationships outright. There is a close parallel to the Sodom and Gomorrah story in Judges 19 (Issues in human sexuality, para 2.12). This same report (ibid.) also argues that the other references in both the Old and New Testament are general and that while Sodom became "a stock image for extreme sinfulness" it was not "a symbol for one particular sin".

Jude 1:7 shows the fornication of Sodom to be a regional issue, and the mainstream opinion among traditional biblical interpreters maintains that, both the context of the events of Genesis 19:4-8 and other information best indicates that homosexuality is at least one specific sin responsible for the destruction of Sodom.^[11][12][13]

[edit] Classic sources on Genesis 19 and homosexuality

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2009)

Most Jewish views still regard the sins of Sodom to be "failing to practice hospitality", and even though same-sex activities are condemned most harshly in Leviticus, the opinion that Genesis 19 might refer to any other sexual act other than with Lot's daughters is alien to most ancient Jewish tradition, the culture that brought forth or was inspired by the Old Testament. See documentation at Sodomy.

The Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC - 50 AD) described the inhabitants of Sodom in an extra-biblical account:

"As men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after other women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature, and though eager for children, they were convicted by having only an abortive offspring; but the conviction produced no advantage, since they were overcome by violent desire; and so by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they also made their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of men, as far as depended on them" (133-35; ET Jonge 422-23).^[14]

The Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37 – c. 100) used the term “Sodomites” in summarizing the Genesis narrative:

“About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, in so much that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices” "Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence; and when Lot exhorted them to sobriety, and not to offer any thing immodest to the strangers, but to have regard to their lodging in his house; and promised that if their inclinations could not be governed, he would expose his daughters to their lust, instead of these strangers; neither thus were they made ashamed." (Antiquities 1.11.1,3) [1] — circa A.D. 96)

The "Book of the Secrets of Enoch," evidently written by a Hellenistic Jew in Egypt before the middle of the first century, states (10:3) that the Sodomites committed "abominable lecheries, namely one with another" and "the sin against nature, which is child-corruption after the Sodomitic fashion, magic-making, enchantments and devilish witchcraft."

More obscure sources include the Testament of Benjamin, which warned, "that ye shall commit fornication with the fornication of Sodom", (Concerning a Pure Mind, 9:1) and references in the Testament of Naphtal, (3.5) and the Testament of Isaac. (5.27. Ch. I.909)

It is argued that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah had never been interpreted as relating to one single, particular sin before two law novellizations by Byzantine emperor Justinian the Great in the 500s CE.^[15][16][17] It was Justinian who in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis was the first to declare that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them in order to create homosexual scapegoats for recent earthquakes and other disasters of his time, but most of all to enact anti-homosexual laws that he used upon personal as well as political opponents in case he could not prove them guilty of anything else. Justinian's were not the first Roman laws prohibiting homosexual behavior (earlier such measures had been included in the Lex Scantinia dating from the year 149 BCE and the Lex Julia dating from 17 BCE, both constituting death penalty for homosexual behavior, while we have allegations that even before Lex Scantinia, such laws existed but direct evidence was lost^{[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]}), however while sticking to death penalty Justinian's legal novels heralded a change in Roman legal paradigm as in that he introduced a concept of not only mundane but also divine punishment for homosexual behavior. Individuals might ignore and escape mundane laws, however they could not do the same with divine laws if Justinian declared his novels to be such.

Justinian's interpretation of the story of Sodom would be forgotten today (as it had been along with his law novellizations regarding homosexual behavior immediately after his death) had it not been made use of in fake Charlemagnian capitularies, fabricated by a Frankish monk using the pseudonym Benedictus Levita ("Benedict the Levite") around 850 CE, as part of the Pseudo-Isidore where Benedictus utilized Justinian's interpretation as a justification for ecclesiastical supremacy over mundane institutions, thereby demanding burning at the stake for carnal sins in the name of Charlemagne himself (burning had been part of the standard penalty for homosexual behavior particularly common in Germanic antiquity, note that Benedictus most probably was Frankish), especially homosexuality, for the first time in ecclesiastical history in order to protect all Christianity from divine punishments such as natural disasters for carnal sins committed by individuals, but also for heresy, superstition and heathenry. According to Benedictus, this was why all mundane institutions had to be subjected to ecclesiastical power in order to prevent moral as well as religious laxity causing divine wrath.

[edit] Questionable morality of Lot?

The story's morality, as a whole, has been called into question, not just specifically the debate concerning whether or not it condemns homosexuality. Lot's daughters are offered by their father to an angry mob to be gang raped, Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking behind her and both daughters have sex with their father, each becoming pregnant and delivering healthy children. Critics argue that a story that includes condoned incest, a father offering his daughters for gang rape, the destruction of cities, and the killing of a mother for looking behind her cannot be used to justify condemning homosexuals. These critics argue that those who attempt to justify condemnation of homosexuality with this story willfully and unfairly ignore the incest and rape. This idea, however, assumes that simply because an event is recorded, it is condoned, and that a choice between two evils requires endorsing the lesser evil as good in and of itself. Others argue that the inclusion of the "don't turn around" idea from classical antiquity's Orpheus and Euridice indicates that the story is folklore, rather than the literal recording of events.

[edit] Leviticus 18 and 20

These chapters of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code. Leviticus 18:22 says:

“

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.

”

and Leviticus 20:13 states:

“

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

”

It is widely argued that the things condemned in these chapters are "deemed wrong not simply because pagan Canaanites indulged in them, but because God has pronounced them wrong as such."^[26] (Hilborn 2002, p. 4; cf. Issues in human sexuality, para. 2.11; Amsel). This was also the interpretation taken in the rabbinic interpretations in the Mishnah and Talmud^[27], which also extended this to include female homosexual relations, although there are no explicit references in the Hebrew Bible to this.

Various counter-arguments have been suggested: Gay activist Johns (2004) claims that these texts were purity codes to keep Israel separate from the Canaanites and that as Jesus rejected the whole purity code they are no longer relevant. Gay activist West (2005, p. 2) argues that "These verses in no way prohibit, nor do they even speak, to loving, caring sexual relationships between people of the same gender", speculating that these laws were to prevent sexual abuse. However, other Christian theologians hold that the New Testament classifies ceremonial and dietary laws as typological in nature and fulfilled in Christ (Galatians 4:10; Colossians 2:16; Hebrews 9:10), and thus abrogated as to their religious observance "according to the letter," while the moral law is seen as upheld. (Romans 13:9; 1Corithians 6:9-10) ^{[28][29][30][31]} Such theologians have said that this abrogation does not extend to homosexuality, which remains in their interpretation as one of the few sins unconditionally condemned. They believe there is no evident provision of marriage being given in the Bible to sanctify it.^[32][33][34]

[edit] The Book of Ruth

This book concerns the love between Naomi and her widowed daughter-in-law, Ruth. Naomi's husband and her two sons die and Naomi tells her daughters-in-law to return to their homes:

“

At this they wept aloud again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-bye, but Ruth clung to her.

”

(Ruth 1:14; TNIV).

Instead of leaving Naomi, Ruth pledges to stay with her (Ruth 1:16-18). This relationship has therefore long been commended as an example of self-sacrificing love and close friendship (eg. Issues in Human Sexuality para. 2.7). However, some have interpreted this relationship as probably sexual in nature. For example, Tom Horner (1978, p. 20) argues: "Whether there existed a relationship of physical love between Ruth and Naomi cannot be demonstrated. However, the right words are there." There are Biblical scholars who reject this however, as it runs counter to the author's intention of portraying King David's ancestress, Ruth, as a particularly chaste and godly woman.

The word Horner is primarily concerned with is the word translated as clung in Ruth 1:14, which is the Hebrew word "dabaq". This word is also translated in Genesis 2:24 as united "to his wife" and in Genesis 34:3 as drawn "to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman". The context of these passages is one of sexual attraction.

However, the same word is also used in different contexts (Brown et al.). For example it is translated as stay in Ruth 2:8 (TNIV):

“

So Boaz said to Ruth, "My daughter, listen to me. Don't go and glean in another field and don't go away from here. Stay here with the women who work for me.

”

In this context the word has no sexual connotation, while at the end of the book Ruth marries Boaz, with Naomi's encouragement (Ruth 3:1-4). BA Robinson (2005) therefore concludes that "Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship."

[edit] Books of Samuel: David and Jonathan

The account of the friendship between David and Jonathan was recorded favourably in the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 18; 20; 2 Samuel 1) and although religious scholars have always interpreted it as referring to platonic, some secular writers have argued that it refers to sexual love.

The two most significant passages are 1 Samuel 18:3-4 (TNIV):

“

And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

”

And 2 Samuel 1:26 (TNIV):

“

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.

”

Biblical scholars have widely and traditionally interpreted this as a very close but non-sexual relationship (cf. Issues in human sexuality, para. 2.17). However, gay activists have recently suggested that it was a sexual relationship^[4] whilst acknowledging that "in neither case does the text mention a sexual aspect to the relationship" (Greenberg 1988, p. 113). The possible euphemisms in the text and actions such as Jonathan disrobing (1 Samuel 18:4: "stripped himself of the robe that was upon him" and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" KJV), perhaps in front of David (something not explicitly stated in the text, and which is thought would be highly unusual at the time, outside of bathing), and kissing (1 Samuel 20:41) - a customary greeting between men (cf. 2 Samuel 14:33, 15:5, 19:39, 20:9 etc.) - are grounds on which these scholars have declared: "If modern readers do not see 'sexual relationship' in this story, it is because they cannot accept the plain implications of the story itself" (Johns 2004; cf. Crompton 2002).

However, upholding the traditional position is that the stripping of Jonathan has a clear Biblical precedent, that of the stripping of Aaron of his garments to put them upon Eleazar his son (Numbers 20:26) in transference of the office of the former upon the latter. In like manner, Jonathan would be symbolically and prophetically transferring the kingship of himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would come to pass.^[35][36][37] In addition, "stripped himself...even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" indicates a limit, that of his outer garments and ending with “girdle, which means armor in 2Kings 3:21.^[38] Reading the stripping of Aaron by Moses and understanding its significance may be a useful exercise for modern readers to get a sense of how the story comes across to many scholars.

Those who assert the opposing interpretation agree that a sexual relationship is not made explicit, and for many scholars the relationship is a "classical Biblical example" (Hilborn 2002, p. 2) of close non-sexual friendship, such as the friendship eloquently described by Gregory of Nazianzus in Oration 43, 19-20 as existing between him and Basil of Caesarea, when they were students in Athens.

[edit] Books of Kings

Both Books of Kings (1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7), refer to historical intervals when kadeshim ("consecrated ones") rose to some prominence in the Holy Land, until purged by Jahwist revivalist kings such as Jehoshaphat and Josiah.

The kadeshim were connected in some way with the rituals of the Canaanite religion. The Hebrew Bible consistently parallels the female equivalent, a kedeshah, with zanah, the word for a common prostitute. This has led to the inference that there may have been a sexual element to the rituals. The King James version systematically translates the word as "sodomites", while the Revised Standard version renders it, "male cult prostitutes". At 1 Kings 15:12 the Septuagint hellenises them as teletai - personifications of the presiding spirits at the initiation rites of the Bacchic orgies. There may have been a transvestite element too. Various classical authors assert this of male initiates of Eastern goddess cults, and in the Vulgate for all four of these references St. Jerome renders the kadeshim as "effeminati". The sons of Israel are forbidden from becoming kadeshim, and the daughters of Israel from becoming kadeshot, in Deuteronomy 23:17-18; their activities are identified as "abominations".

Americans who take such Biblical passages seriously or literally on faith and morals, particularly if they primarily refer to the King James translation, tend to view practicing homosexuality (as distinguished from orientation) as an affront to God.^[39]

[edit] Elisha and the dead boy

In two parallel events in the Books of Kings, Elijah (1 Kings 17:1-24) and Elisha (2 Kings 4:8-37), respectively, bring a young boy back to life by stretching his arms or body over the boy. In 1 Kings, Elijah lays the dead boy on his bed and then:

“

he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried out to the LORD, "LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!" The LORD heard Elijah's cry, and the boy's life returned to him, and he lived.

”

(1 Kings 17:21-22; TNIV).

In the near-parallel in 2 Kings, Elisha is told by the boy's mother that he has died and sends his servant to put his staff on top of the boy, but this fails. Elisha then visits the boy:

“

When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the LORD. Then he got on the bed and lay on the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out on him, the boy's body grew warm. Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out on him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes.

”

(2 Kings 4:32-35; TNIV).

The mainstream interpretation holds that the passage describes a resuscitation ritual. Timothy R. Koch (2001) sees the staff as a phallic symbol and the description of the boy sneezing to be a sexual reference to ejaculation, therefore concluding that this is a homosexual ritual.

Another passage in 2 Kings which Koch sees as significant is the meeting of King Jehu and Jehonadab, in 2 Kings 10:15-16 (TNIV):

“

[Jehu] came upon Jehonadab son of Rekab, who was on his way to meet him. Jehu greeted him and said, "Are you in accord with me, as I am with you?" "I am", Jehonadab answered. "If so", said Jehu, "give me your hand." So he did, and Jehu helped him up into the chariot. Jehu said, "Come with me and see my zeal for the LORD." Then he had him ride along in his chariot.

”

This passage is interpreted by most scholars as the formation of a political alliance (cf. Burns 2002, p. 14), but Koch argues, rather, that this is a romantic homosexual "pick-up".

Koch's interpretations of these passages have been criticised by a number of scholars (cf. Burns 2002, p. 13f) as including "sheer fantasy" and of being "a construction [which] is imposed on the text that is highly individualistic, not to say self-centered." Writing of the collection of essays of which Koch's is one, Burns (2002, p. 14) writes: "this collection does not effectively present a credible application of queer theory, but one that is narrow and exclusive. In most cases there is no serious struggle with the text and few reasonable justifications for the claims that are made." Koch's rendering of 2 Kings 4:32-35 could also be used to sanction pedophilia, which conservative Christians find additionally troubling.

[edit] Passages from the New Testament

The attitude of Pauline and sola scriptura Christians to the Bible is based on 2 Timothy 3:16 (TNIV):

“

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

”

Fundamentalists interpret this to mean that the bible is God's actual words and therefore not meant to be interpreted.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Fornication

James the Just, whose judgment was adopted in the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:19-29, c. 50 AD: "...we should write to them [Gentiles] to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood..." (NRSV)

[edit] Matthew 15; Mark 7: What defiles

In Matthew 15: 19-20 (KJV) Jesus is reported as saying:

“

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual impurities, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

”

In Mark 7: 20-23 (KJV) it says:

“

And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual impurities, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

”

Whether these lists include homosexuality depends on the translation of porneia (sexual impurity). Translations of these passages generally translate porneia incorrectly as fornication rather than sexual impurity (see Leviticus). As Jesus does not specifically include homosexuality, it has been argued that he did not condemn it. However, it has been pointed out that this is an argument from silence which has also been criticized on the grounds that the rabbis of the 1st century generally included homosexuality within their condemnations of sexual immorality (Satlow 1995), although Jesus did not necessarily agree with the conclusions of the Jewish authorities of the time (e.g. his views on divorce).

Porneia appears a number of times in Paul's letters, always with arsenokoitais. In, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality", John Boswell argued that the word 'arsenokoitais' in 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 1 Timothy 1:10 refers to male prostitution specifically. Various conservative scholars have presented countering arguments.^[40][41][42]

[edit] Matthew 8; Luke 7: "pais"

This event is referred to in both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 and tells of Jesus healing a centurion's servant.

Luke 7:2 (TNIV) says:

“

There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die.

”

The term translated from the Greek as "servant" is pais. This can be translated in a number of different ways including "child" (eg., Matthew 2:16; Lk 2:43, 8:51-54 where it refers to a girl), "son" (John 4:51), "servant" (Lk 15:26, Acts 4:25), or be unclear whether "son" or "servant" is meant (Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, 4:30) (Marston 2003).

There are several instances in Ancient Greek literature of the term also having been used to denote a homosexual partner. For example, it is claimed that the connotation arises in the written work of individuals such as Thucydides (460-400 BC), Eupolis (446-411 BC), Aeschines (390-314 BC), Plato, Plutarch and Callimanchus (305-240 BC). However, every other instance of the term's use within biblical scripture has been rendered true to the precision of the Greek lexicon, excluding any sexual connotation, thus marking the alternative interpretation to be somewhat of an inconsistency. It is also unclear to what degree and in what precise manner such connotations were linguistically acknowledged in the ancient world. Such observations are much more relevant, bearing in mind the interim period of several hundred years and the ensuing significant cultural changes prior to the creation of the scriptural texts.

Horner (1978) and Helminiak (2000) suggest a homosexual theme to this text. Helminiak argues that this is implied by the broader context of the narrative suggesting an unusual level of concern about the servant, whereas Horner suggests that use of the term "valued highly" implies a sexual relationship. Horner goes on to argue that, as Jesus commended the centurion for his faith (Matthew 8:10; Luke 7:9), it shows that Jesus approved of their relationship, otherwise he would have condemned him.

Other biblical scholars largely dismiss such opinions as deliberately distorted interpretations of the text (Marston 2003). Furthermore, the Greek term for "valued highly" (ἔντιμος; entimos) clarifies the absence of any sexual connotation (NET Bible 2005, Luke 7). Marston argues that Jesus would not have condoned any homosexual relationship, in line with the weight of other scriptural evidence; while Chapman (2005) suggests that even if the relationship had been homosexual, his lack of condemnation does not necessarily equate to his approval of them.

[edit] Romans 1

In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (EMTV), Paul writes

“

For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

”

This has been described as "the most important biblical reference for the homosexuality debate" (Hilborn 2002, p. 5). It is also the only apparent reference in the Bible to female homosexuality, though some maintain that this prohibition applies only to male homosexuals.[2] Hilborn (2002, p. 6) argues that in the wider passage (Romans 1:18-32) Paul writes that the "global scope of salvation history has been made manifest not only in ‘the gospel of God's Son’ (cf. v.9), but also in the very ‘creation of the world’ (v.20)." In common with many traditional commentators, Hilborn (2002, p.7) goes on to argue that condemnation of homosexual activity is derived from the "broad contours" of Paul's argument, in addition to the selective reading of individual words or phrases.

Gay activists (eg., Boswell 1980, p. 109f; Vasey 1995, p. 131f) speculate that the text does not condemn homosexual acts by homosexuals, rather "homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons" (Boswell 1980, p. 109), or heterosexuals who "abandoned" or "exchanged" heterosexuality for homosexuality (McNeil, 1993). Boswell argues that the conceptual modality (natural laws) which would provide the basis for the blanket condemnation of homosexuality did not exist prior to the Enlightenment era In his series "Responding to Pro-Gay Theology", Christian apologist Joe Dallas contends that the apostle Paul is condemning changing "the natural use into that which is against nature" as being biologically contrary to nature—not just unnatural to heterosexuals, and to require this to mean heterosexuals experimenting with homosexuality requires unreasonable mental gymnastics.

Gay activist West argues that Paul is condemning specific types of homosexual activity (such as temple prostitution or pederasty) rather than a broader interpretation (West 2005, p. 3). West argues that Paul is speaking to a Gentile audience in terms that they would understand to show that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

Another area of contention is the apparent reference to female homosexuality. Most interpreters assume that, due to the analogy with same-sex lust between males, that Paul is referring to female same-sex behavior. This assumption is not conclusive, and it remains difficult to discern exactly what Paul meant by women exchanging natural intercourse for unnatural (Nissinen 1998, p. 108).

The more conservative biblical interpreters maintain that "the most authentic reading of Rom 1:26-7 is that which sees it prohibiting homosexual activity in the most general of terms, rather than in respect of more culturally and historically specific forms of such activity" (Hilborn 2002, p. 9; also Howard, 1996, p. 50). That "nature" in Rm 1:26 refers to acting contrary to design and man's normality is seen as evidenced by its use in Romans 11:21,24. Hays argues that Romans 1:26,27 is part of a general condemnation of humans, in which males and females, have rejected their creational (as in Genesis) distinctions, with homoeroticism being intrinsically wrong.^[43] A statement by the General Synod of the Church of England (Issues in Human Sexuality) illustrates a categorisation and understanding of homosexuality, claiming that in ancient times "society recognized the existence of those, predominantly male, who appeared to be attracted entirely to members of their own sex." (Issues in Human Sexuality para 2.16, lines 8-9) which almost parallels that of modern ideation.

The same study is careful to point out that "the modern concept of orientation has been developed against a background of genetic and psychological theory which was not available to the ancient world."(Issues in Human Sexuality, para 2.16, lines 16-18) Although some ancient Romans (i.e. doctors, astrologers, etc.) discussed congenital inclinations to unconventional sexual activities such as homosexuality, this classification fails to correspond to a modern psychological, biological and genetic distinction between homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual orientations (Brooten 1998, p. 242). In addition, the concept of sexual orientation as being separate from one's perceived masculinity or femininity (i.e. gender identity) did not take shape until the 19th century (Halperin 1990, p. 9). A argument based upon this concept is responded to by Gagnon, in upholding the traditional position.^[44]

[edit] 1 Corinthians 6; 1 Timothy 1

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:

“

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

”

The word translated as "practicing homosexuals" has challenged scholars for centuries, and has been alternately rendered as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "sodomites" (YLT), or "men who practice homosexuality". The original term is very unusual, ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs), thought to mean "one who has sexual intercourse with a male" (Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην [arrhēn / arsēn] "male"; κοίτην [koitēn] "sexual intercourse"), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. Within the Bible, it only occurs in this passage and in a similar list in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Paul may have been drawing from the Greek (Septuagint) translation of Leviticus 18:22: καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν (kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gunaikos. bdelugma gar estin "And you shall not have sexual intercourse with a male as with a female. For it is unclean.") Boswell (1980) argues that this is a term specifically created by Paul. Given its unusual nature, the fact that Paul did not use one of the more common Greek terms, and given its direct reference to the Levitical laws, it is a matter of debate whether Paul was referring generally to any person having homosexual sex, or whether (as discussed below) it referred only to anal sex of any form (cf. Elliott 2004). Other translations of the word include Martin's (1996), who argued it meant "homosexual slave trader" and Boswell (1980) who argued it referred to "homosexual rape" or homosexual prostitutes. Scroggs perceives it as referring to pederasty.^[45] Opposing these views are extensive examinations by D. F. Wright^[46], James B. De Young^[47] and Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon.^[48]

The term arsenokoitai was rarely used in Church writings (Elliott 1994), with Townsley (2003) counting a total of 73 references. Most are ambiguous in nature, although St. John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, seems to use the term arsenokoitai to refer to pederasty common in the Greco-Roman culture of the time and Patriarch John IV of Constantinople in the 6th century used it to refer to anal sex: "some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives" (Townsley 2003). Moreover, Hippolytus of Rome in his Refutation of all Heresies describes a Gnostic teaching, according to which an evil angel Naas committed adultery with Eve and arsenokoitēs with Adam^[49]. The context suggests the translation of arsenokoitēs as pederasty^[50], although it might have a different meaning^[51].

Perhaps even more challenging is the word translated as "male prostitutes" (TNIV), "effeminate" (NASB), or "catamites" (in the footnotes of the NKJV). The Greek word μαλακός – malakos carries a root meaning of soft, luxurious or dainty, but here it used in a much darker way, most likely referring to the more passive partner in a homosexual relationship.^[52] The two terms are sometimes rendered as "men who practice homosexuality" in the ESV, which notes that together they "refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts". One major problem with this interpretation lies in the fact that arsenokoitai appears on its own in Timothy, without malakos, demonstrating that the two words do not necessarily form a fixed word-pairing (Nissinen 1998, p. 114, 118). It is difficult for some to understand why Paul would condemn both the active and passive partners in male homosexual activity in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 but then in 1 Timothy 1: 9-10 he would only condemn the active partner, if the ESV and other similar translations are indeed accurate in their assertions.

[edit] See also

• Religion and homosexuality
• Homosexuality and Christianity
• Homosexuality and Judaism
• Homosexuality in ancient Greece
• Women in Christianity
• Malakia
• Biblical law in Christianity

[edit] References

[edit] Literature

• Amsel, Nachum. Homosexuality in Orthodox Judaism.
• Bahnsen, Greg L. 1978 Homosexuality: A Biblical View. ISBN 0-8010-0744-5
• Bahnsen, Greg L. 1994 In the Shadow of Sodom: Does the Bible Really Say What We Thought About Homosexuality?
• Biblical Studies Press 1996-2005 The NET Bible.
• Boswell, John. 1980 Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-06711-4
• Brooten, Bernadette. 1998 Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-07592-3
• Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. Hebrew Lexicon entry for Dabaq. The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon.
• Brunson, Hal. 2007 Lesbos, Narcissus, and Paulos: Homosexual Myth and Christian Truth. ISBN 0595405967
• Catholic Answers 2005 Early Teachings on Homosexuality, iuniverse, 2007.
• Dover, Kenneth. 1978 Greek Homosexuality. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674362705
• Durns, John Barclay 2002 Lot’s Wife Looked Back. Journal of Religion and Society 4, p. 1-16.
• Chapman, Patrick 2005 Homosexuals in the Bible: Jesus, John, the Centurion and the Slave?. Rainbow Journal Olympia, vol 2(1) (November 2005).
• Crompton, Louis, et al. 2003 Homosexuality and Civilization. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press ISBN 0-674-01197-X
• Elliott, John 2004 No kingdom of God for softies? or, what was Paul really saying? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in context Biblical Theology Bulletin Spring 2004.
• Gagnon, Robert A. J. 2001 The Bible and Homosexual Practice. Abingdon Press. ISBN 0-687-08413-X
• Greenberg, David 1988 The construction of homosexuality. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-30628-3
• Halsall, Paul. Homosexuality and Catholicism: A Partially Annotated Bibliography
• Helminiak, Daniel 2000 What the Bible really says about homosexuality. Alamo Square Press. ISBN 1-886360-09-X
• Hilborn, David. 2002 Homosexuality and Scripture. Evangelical Alliance.
• Horner, Tom. 1978 Jonathan Loved David. Westminster Press. ISBN 0-664-24185-9
• House of Bishops 1991 Issues in Human Sexuality. Church of England. ISBN 0-7151-3745-X
• Howard, Kevin L. Paul's View of Male Homosexuality: An Exegetical Study. M.A. thesis (unpublished). Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Deerfield, Illinois. June 1996.
• Jennings, Theodore 2003 The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives From the New Testament. Pilgrim Press. ISBN 0-8298-1535-X
• Johns, Loren 2004 Homosexuality and the Bible: A Case Study in the Use of the Bible for Ethics (The Academic Dean of the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary).
• Koch, Timothy R 2001 Cruising as methodology : homoeroticism and the scriptures, In Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible, ed. Ken Stone, Pilgrim Press. ISBN 0-8298-1447-7
• Martin, Dale. 1996 Arsenokoites and malakos: Meanings and Consequences, pp. 117–136. In Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality. Ed Robert Brawley. Westminster Press ISBN 0-664-25638-4.
• Marston, Paul 2003 'Christians, Gays and Gay Christians'. Free Methodists.
• McNeill, J. J. 1993 The Church and the Homosexual. Beacon Press. (4th edn.). ISBN 0-8070-7931-6
• Nissinen, Martti. 1998 Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. ISBN 0-8006-2985-X
• Ostling, R. N. 2003 Book claims Jesus had homosexual relationship Chicago Sun-Times 29 May 2003.
• Robinson, B. A. 1996-2005 What the Bible says about homosexuality. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.
• Satlow, Michael 1995 Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality. Scholars Press. ISBN 0-7885-0159-3
• Townsley, Jeramy 2003 All known references to arsenokoit*
• West, Mona 2005 The Bible and Homosexuality. Metropolitan Community Church.
• White, James and Neill, Jeffrey 2002 The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality. ISBN 0-7642-2524-3
• Williams, Rowan 2002 ’The Body’s Grace’, in Eugene F. Rogers (ed.), Theology and Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary Readings, Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-21277-9

[edit] External links

[edit] Texts and definitions

• LGBT texts Internet Sacred Text Archive
• Porneia / Fornication Internet Archive cache of gerrior.net definition page
• Literal Genesis BELIEVE Religious Information Source
• Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality American Psychological Association

[edit] Essays

• Dispelling the Myth Essay at MercyToAll.net Bible study guides
• What the Bible says and means about homosexuality Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
• One More Article Explaining That The Bible Does Not Condemn Homosexuality Adult Christianity essay
• Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective Evbible.com Apologetics essay
• Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective Bible.org FAQ discussing verses
• The Catholic Church and Homosexuality excerpt from In the Murky Waters of Vatican II by Atila Sinke Guimarães
• The Bible Is Clear About Same-Sex Sexual Behaviour Christianity.ca essay
• The Old Testament and Homosexuality Kevin L. Howard essay at neednotfret.com

v • d • e Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender topics and religion Overview: Homosexuality and religion · Transgenderism and religion Religions: Abrahamic: Bahá'í Faith · Christianity (Anglican · Baptist · Latter-day Saints · Lutheran · Methodist · Presbyterian · Quaker · Roman Catholic) · Judaism (Conservative) · Islam Dharmic: Buddhism · Hinduism (Hare Krishna) · Sikhism Taoic : Confucianism · Shinto · Taoism Other: Scientology  · Unitarian Universalism · Voodoo · Wicca · Zoroastrianism Other: LGBT-affirming religious groups (Judaism · Christianity) · Ordination of LGBT clergy (Judaism · Christianity) · The Bible · Hijra · Two-spirit · Xanith