The Bible and homosexuality

Main article: Homosexuality and Christianity

The Bible has been used by supporters and opponents homosexuality to justify their views. The following passages from the Bible are commonly used to illustrate their respective points of view.

Disputed passages

Saints Sergius and Bacchus. Circa 700 AD. Officers of the Roman Army in Syria who were tortured to death for their refusal to worship Roman gods. Yale historian John Boswell argues, on the basis of his translation of a single 9th century (hence much later) manuscript which has Sergius seeing a vision of Bacchus, which Boswell translates as:
*"Why do you morn and grieve, beloved? I have been taken from you bodily, but in the bond of our love, I am with you still."
This is one translation, and an alternative has terms like "friend" in place of "beloved". Boswell also asserts this icon depicts adelphopoiesis with Jesus as "best man" . Other scholars regard it as a typical dual portrait of two saints who were martyred together, asserting that there is no indication that it depicts a wedding, and that the image of Christ which appears above the two is something found in religious artwork throughout Christian history, such as in the icon of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, or the icon showing the Virgin Mary, angels, and members of the Church and numerous other paintings: These scholars argue that Christ's presence above the scene does not mean that Christ was serving as "best man" at a wedding unless one is arguing that the large crowds of people depicted in the above icons were also being married as a group.

Sodom and Gomorrah

Anti-homosexual view

God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality. Jude 7 explicitly says, "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion". In response to the liberal argument that Christ allegedly contradicted this interpretation in the statement "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement", conservatives point out that this quote does not contradict the above interpretation, and in fact does not address the reasons for the cities' destruction at all. In response to the argument (cited below) that these cities must have been bisexual and therefore were destroyed for promiscuity, conservatives would point out that this argument hinges upon the idea that God would make a distinction between promiscuous versus monogamous homosexual sex, which is contradicted by the fact that no such distinction is made either in Leviticus nor in other revealed sources such as St. Hildegard's writings. (Bingen, 278-279)

Pro-homosexual view

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their exceedingly grave sins (Gen 18:20), including attempted rape (Gen 19:5) of asexual creatures (i.e. angels). In the earliest versions of the story their gravest sin was inhospitality, greed and contempt for the misfortuned not sexual immorality. Ezekiel 16:49-50, ancient Jewish oral traditions and Christ's words: "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement" (Matthew 10:15; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12) Furthermore if the cities truly were homosexual they would not exist due to the lack of procreation, thus their sexual immorality was being promiscuous since the men would have had heterosexual intercourse and homosexual, meaning more than one partner, thus this passage says nothing about monogamous homosexual relationships and is irrelevant when condemning them. (Crompton, Louis)

Leviticus

Anti-homosexual view

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 state

• "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
• If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

God condemns sexual intercourse between men, in conformance with the Biblical descriptions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman (Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, cited by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:3–6 and Mark 10:5–9. This principle is also stated bluntly in other revealed sources which forbid sex between two men or between two women. In response to the liberal interpretation (below), conservatives would say that such speculation cannot be used to contradict the clarifications of the matter in the above mentioned sources; moreover, the idea that Leviticus is only condemning people who act contrary to the inclinations of their flesh (i.e., heterosexuals having homosexual sex) would contradict one of the Bible's main themes - the inherent sinfulness of most of our physical impulses and the need to overcome them. Nowhere does the Bible ever claim that such impulses reflect God's will, but rather quite the opposite.

Pro-homosexual view

The literal translation is

• "with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman; it is an abomination."
• If a man with a male lays layings of a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

The phrase lay layings of is actually quite ambiguous, and although conservatives, and translators, render it lay as with, this is because they don't accept the alternative, and equally justifiable, rendering lay in the bed of, which is clearly a (now revoked) cleanliness law. The passage does not mention either procreation or marriage. Even with the conservative translation, it states that a man is not to lie with another man in the same way as he would with a woman, and as homosexuals are not likely to choose to sleep with a woman sexually, this cannot be a condemning of homosexual acts, only ever those of bisexuals. The prohibition, in the conservative translation, is based on gender behavior, for example one of the men emulating a female gender role (Gagnon, page 136). If anything this passage condemns heterosexuals having homosexual intercourse out of their nature because it would be promiscuous as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Matthew

In Matthew 15:19–20, it states

• For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.

Anti-homosexual view

Adultery - sexual intercourse outside of marriage - is condemned since homosexuals are not wed their actions are sinful. In response to the liberal rebuttal (below), conservatives say that human decisions to bless same-sex marriages cannot change the Divine law: the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Genesis 1:27 and 2:24; 19:3–6 and Mark 10:5–9

Pro-homosexual view

If this argument is ever used against same-sex marriage, it becomes a catch-22 and many denominations bless same-sex unions or facilitate same-sex marriages thus these relationships are not adultery making this passage irrelevant. The passage does not condemn the ancient practice of adelphopoiesis, which is ordained purely for same-sex relationships.

Romans

In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27, it states

• 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.

Anti-homosexual view

Homosexual intercourse is unnatural, and is a degrading passion. For Paul the natural thing was heterosexual intercourse, so all other forms are unnatural

.

Corinthians

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says

• • Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers — none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Anti-homosexual view

Homosexuals are condemned to Hell for being adulterers and sodomites. Paul used a most unusual word, ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoitēs, meaning ‘male who has coitus with a male’ (Greek ἄῤῥην/ἄρσην arrhēn/arsēn = male), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. Rather, Paul's source is 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) = You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. In response to the rebuttal (below), conservatives point out that a human construct such as the modern blessing of same-sex marriages cannot override the Divine Law, and these "marriages" are therefore null and any associated sex is sodomy and therefore sinful: the Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. [Genesis 1:27 and 2:24; Matthew 19:3–6 and Mark 10:5–9]

Pro-homosexual view

Many denominations bless same-sex unions or facilitate same-sex marriages thus these relationships are not adultery making this passage irrelevant. The residents of Sodom had homosexual intercourse and heterosexual intercourse which would make their "sexual immorality" being promiscuous since the men had more than one partner, thus this passage is irrelevant when condemning monogamous homosexual relationships. The reference to Leviticus is likewise irrelevant since a homosexual has no attraction to women and therefore would not lie with one in the first place.

Jonathan and David

Jonathan and David
The Biblical account of David and Jonathan, in which David declares,
I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (2 Samuel 1:26; KJV)
It has been read by some as the story of two lovers. For example, the anonymous Life of King Edward II, ca. 1326 AD, has:
"Indeed I do remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David, Achilles loved Patroclus."
We are also told by the Monk of Malmesbury that King Edward II wept for his dead lover Piers Gaveston as:
"...David had mourned for Jonathan."<br
"La Somme le Roy", 1290 AD; French illuminated ms (detail); British Museum

The Story of Jonathan and David, from 1 Samuel that can be found here, has several homosexual themes alleged in it.

Pro-homosexual view

This passage contains many euphemisms. It states that their love was stronger than that between any women they had contact with. Intimate sexual love is generally considered stronger than the platonic variant therefore Jonathan and David had a sexual relationship. It is true that David also had multiple wives, but with the acceptance of polygamy this would not automatically exclude any relationship with Jonathan. King Saul, Jonathan’s father even made David the next King which is usually reserved for hereditary lines suggesting a close relationship between David and Jonathan. King Saul also states that David will become his son-in-law again when he offered one of his daughters hand in marriage – this was before David had any wives – this would suggest that Saul recognized Jonathan and David’s relationship on a martial level. Other passages within the tale have David stripping completely naked in front of Jonathan – highly unusual for it to occur between men at the time outside of bathing - and then holding each other extremely closely and kissing. (Religious Tolerance) (Crompton, Louis)

Anti-homosexual view

The love was not sexual: unlike the account of David's adultery with Bathsheba, there is no explicit mention of sex, and the word used for "love" ['abahah in the original Hebrew] was a general term for any type of love. 1 Samuel

The "Pais" of the centurian

This refers to Matthew 8:5–13 — the Story of the Centurion

Pro-homosexual view

The term translated from the Greek as “servant” is Pais. Textural analysis shows that this word was often used to denote a man’s gay lover. The text even goes so far as to use the term Slave or Servant (Gr. Doulos) in the same passage making the distinction even more clear. This would have been a perfect time for Christ to condemn homosexuality, but rather he aids the Centurion, allowing him to continue his homosexual relationship.

Anti-homosexual view

The homosexuality reference is purely innuendo, and it is quite possible that the servant was not a homosexual love-slave at all; moreover, this is an argument from silence.

Equal love in Peter

In 1 Peter 4:8 it states

• Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

Pro-homosexual view

If a modern homosexual relationship actually contains legitimate love, it cannot be condemned.

Anti-homosexual view

The Greek word here is not eros, but agape. Agape refers to a nonsexual/brotherly platonic love, not a sexual sort of love. Hence, the passage does not apply to the homosexuality debate.

Condemnation of the term "raca"

Matthew 5:22

• ...I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, "raca", is answerable to the Sanhedrin.

Pro-homosexual view

Here Jesus criticizes the usage of the inflammatory term "raca" to describe effeminate homosexuals. The term according to an ancient Egyptian papyrus ca. 257 BC was on par with the Roman word "kinaidos" for "queer". According to Professor Halsall the word "raca" (which is common in many Semitic languages and loosely means soft), was used at the time with an effeminate connotation. The Akkadian word "raq" is used to indicate a woman's name or occupation. The symbol in that language derives from a Sumerian symbol for "woman". It can be argued securely that Raca is an accusation of "sissy" or "catamite". This drew a sharp contrast to the Romans and Greeks, such as Aristophanes, who openly criticized effeminate homosexuals holding only masculine homosexuals as the acceptable form. Since Jesus openly criticized the Roman insult for one specific type of homosexuality He surely would have opposed subjecting people to physical violence. Furthermore Jesus never attacked homosexuality in any of his sermons or speeches.

Anti-homosexual view

The meaning of the term "raca" is unknown; and while Christ's compassion for all persons is not disputed, it would not logically follow that Christ was defending homosexual intercourse here even if "raca" was an insult used for effeminate men - forbidding someone to use an insulting term does not imply endorsement of whatever the term refers to, just as forbidding the use of the vulgar term "whore" would not imply endorsement of prostitution. Concerning Christ's lack of any specific denunciation of homosexuality, it was also the case that Christ's recorded sermons never specifically condemned many other sins nor specifically re-iterated many of the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't mean that Christ wished for these Commandments to be overturned. There was presumably no need for Christ to re-iterate the entire Divine Law.

References

• Halsall, Paul, Homosexuality and Catholicism: A Partially Annotated Bibliography
• Hildegard of Bingen, "Scivias," Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, translators; New York: Paulist Press, 1990

External links

• Homosexuality and the Bible: A Case Study in the Use of the Bible for Ethics by Loren L. Johns the Academic Dean of the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary.
• Homosexuality and the Bible by The Rev. Dr. Walter Wink.
• How religious conservatives and liberals interpret the Bible.
• Pro-Gay texts in the Bible.