he issues about Homosexuality are very complex and are not understood
by most members of the Christian Church," according to Bernard Ramm of
The American Baptist Seminary of the West. This evangelical
authority on biblical interpretation says that, "To them, it is a vile
form of sexual perversion condemned in both the Old and New Testaments."
But as Calvin Theological Seminary Old Testament scholar
Marten H. Woudstra says: "There is nothing in the Old Testament that
corresponds to Homosexuality as we understand it today" and as
SMU New Testament scholar Victor Paul Fumish says: "There is no text on
homosexual orientation in the Bible." Says Robin Scroggs of Union Seminary:
"Biblical judgments against Homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate.
They should no longer be used . . . not because the Bible is not authoritative,
but simply because it does not address the issues involved. . . . No single
New Testament author considers [Homosexuality] important enough to write his
own sentence about it." Evangelical theologian Helmut Thielicke states:
"Homosexuality . . . can be discussed at all only in the framework of that
freedom which is given to us by the insight that even the New Testament does
not provide us with an evident, normative dictum with regard to this question.
Even the kind of question which we have arrived at . . . must for purely
historical reasons be alien to the New Testament."
Ideas and understandings of sexuality have changed greatly over the
centuries. People in biblical times did not share our knowledge of
customs of sexuality; we do not share their experience. In those days there
was no romantic dating as we know it today; marriages were arranged by fathers.
The ancients, as MIT's David Halperin notes: "conceived of 'sexuality'
in non-sexual terms: What was fundamental to their experience of sex was not
anything we would regard as essentially sexual: rather, it was something
essentially social --- namely, the modality of power relations that informed
and structured the sexual act." In the ancient world, sex was "not
intrinsically relational or collaborative in character; it is, further, a
deeply polarizing experience: It serves to divide, to classify, and to
distribute its participants into distinct and radically dissimilar categories.
Sex possesses this valence, apparently because it is conceived to center
essentially on, and to define itself around, an asymmetrical gesture, that of
the penetration of the body of one person by the body, and, specifically, by
the phallus of another. The proper targets of [a citizen's] sexual desire
include, specifically, women, boys, foreigners, and slaves --- all of them
persons who do not enjoy the same legal and political rights and privileges
that he does." In studies of sex in history, Stanford classics professor John
Winkler warns against "reading contemporary concerns and politics into texts
and artifacts removed from their social context." This, of course, is a basic
principle of biblical hermeneutics. In spite of all of this, some preachers
continue to use certain Bible verses to clobber lesbians and gay men today.
Let's take a closer look at these texts.
"God created people in His own image. In the image of God he created them;
He created male and female."
This text celebrates God's deliberate and equal creation of persons who are
male and persons who are female. Such a sense of equal creation was not typical
in the ancient world. According to Eastern Baptist Seminary professor Douglas
J. Miller: "Crude natural law ideas are . . . read into . . . the early
chapters of Genesis....This view [supports] the 'physicalist' ethical model
upon which heterosexism is built....This view of creation is based upon the
obvious anachronism of reading 13th century definitions of nature into ancient
Hebrew texts." Those who use Genesis 1:27 against homosexuals should note
Paul's statement in Galatians 3:28 in which he is emphatic that there is now
no theological significance to the heterosexual pair "male and female."
According to evangelical Pauline scholar F. F. Bruce: "Paul states the
basic principle here; if restrictions on it are found elsewhere . . . they
are to be understood in relation to Galatians 3:28, and not vice versa."
GENESIS 19 (cf. 18:20)
The story of Sodom and Lot's duty of hospitality to his guests.
According to evangelical Bible scholar William Brownlee: "'sodomy' (so-called)
in Genesis is basically oppression of the weak and helpless; and the oppression
of the stranger is the basic element of Genesis 19:1-9." Yale's John Boswell
notes that "Sodom is used as a symbol of evil in dozens of places [in the Bible]
but not in a single instance is the sin of the Sodomites specified as Homo-
sexuality." Listen to the prophet Ezekiel (16:48-49) on the sin of Sodom:
"As I live, says the Lord God, . . . This was the sin of your sister city of
Sodom: she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease,
but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this
was abominable in my eyes." (Cf. Matthew 10:15) The men of Sodom tried to
dominate the strangers at Lot's house by subjecting them to sexual abuse.
Such attempted gang-rape is about humiliation and violence, not same-sex
LEVITICUS 18:22 (20:13)
"You shall not lie with men as with woman: it is abomination."
"Abomination" (TO'EBAH) is a technical cultic term for what is ritually unclean,
such as mixed cloth, pork, and intercourse with menstruating women. It's not
about a moral or ethical issue. This Holiness Code (chapters 17 - 26)
proscribes men "lying the lyings of women." Such mixing of sex roles was thought
to be polluting. But both Jesus and Paul rejected all such ritual distinctions
(cf. Mark 7:17-23; Romans 14:14,20). The Fundamentalist Journal admits that this
Code condemns "idolatrous practices" and "ceremonial uncleaness" and concludes:
"We are not bound by these commands today."
"There shall be no female cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel nor
a male cult prostitute of the sons of Israel."
These terms, KEDESHA and KADESH, literally mean "holy" or "sacred." There is no
Hebrew derivative of the word "Sodom" in this passage; the King James Bible
supplied it erroneously. The Hebrew words here are references to the "holy"
female and eunuch priest-prostitutes of the Canaanite fertility cults, of which
Israel was to have no part. Moreover, Louisville Presbyterian Seminary Bible
scholar George R. Edwards notes that "No prophet uses the noun for male cult
prostitute or discusses the activity such a person pursued. The prophets, in
fact, are as silent on the subject of homosexual acts as is the whole tradition
of the New Testament teaching of Jesus. This is," he says, "a very significant
Pagan "women exchange natural use for unnatural and also the [pagan] men,
leaving the natural use of women, lust in their desire for each other, males
working shame with males, and receiving within themselves the penalty of
Furnish gives us perspective in turning to the writings of Paul. "Since Paul
offered no direct teaching to his own churches on the subject of homosexual
conduct," says Furnish, "his letters certainly cannot yield any specific
answers to the questions being faced in the modern church.... For Paul neither
homosexual practice nor heterosexual promiscuity nor any other specific vice is
identified as such with 'sin.' In his view the fundamental sin from which all
particular evils derive is idolatry, worshiping what is created rather than the
Creator, be that a wooden idol, an ideology, a religious system, or some
particular moral code."
In Romans 1, Paul is ridiculing pagan religious rebellion, saying that the
pagans knew God but worshiped idols instead of God. To build his case, which
he'll turn against judgmental Jews in chapter 2 --- he refers to typical
practices of the fertility cults involving sex among priestesses and between
men and eunuch prostitutes such as served Aphrodite at Corinth, from where he
was writing this letter to the Romans. Their self-castration rites resulted in
a bodily "penalty." Catherine Krueger comments in the Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society that "Men wore veils and long hair as signs of their
dedication to the god, while women used the unveiling and shorn hair to
indicate their devotion. Men masqueraded as women, and in a rare vase painting
from Corinth a woman is dressed in satyr pants equipped with the male organ.
Thus she dances before Dionysus, a deity who had been raised as a girl and was
himself called male-female and 'sham man.'" Krueger continues: "The sex
exchange that characterized the cults of such great goddesses as Cybele
[Aphrodite, Ishtar, etc.] the Syrian goddess, and Artemis of Ephesus was more
grisly. Males voluntarily castrated themselves and assumed women's garments.
A relief from Rome shows a high priest of Cybele. The castrated priest wears
veil, necklaces, earrings and feminine dress. He is considered to have
exchanged his sexual identity and to have become a she-priest." As such, these
religious prostitutes would engage in same-sex orgies in the pagan temples all
along the coasts of Paul's missionary journeys. "Paul's conception of
Homosexuality," as Thielicke points out, "was one which was affected by the
intellectual atmosphere surrounding the struggle with Greek paganism." Says
Scroggs: "The illustrations are secondary to [Paul's] basic theological
structure" (Cf 3:22b-23, Paul's own summary), and Furnish adds: "homosexual
practice as such is not the topic under discussion." Doesn't what Paul says in
the beginning of Romans better describe these pagan orgies he meant to
ridicule than it does the mutual love and support in the domestic life of
lesbian and gay male couples today?
I CORINTHIANS 6:9 & TIMOTHY 1:10
Paul's reference to malakoi and arsenokoitai.
Evangelical New Testament scholar Gordon D. Fee of Regent College says that
these two terms are "difficult." The Fundamentalist journal admits: "These
words are difficult to translate." Of arsenokoitai, Fee says: "This is
its first appearance in preserved literature, and subsequent authors are
reluctant to use it, especially when describing homosexual activity." Scroggs
explains that "Paul is thinking only about pederasty, . . . There was no other
form of male Homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world which could come to mind."
Ancient sources indicate that the malakoi were "effeminate call boys." Though
Paul seems to have coined arsenokoitai, it refers, perhaps, to the call boys'
customers, although nobody knows for sure. Paul's main point, however, is
clear: Christians who slander and sue each other in pagan courts are just as
shameful as robbers, drunkards, the greedy, and the malakoi and arsenokoitai
(whatever they were). The other kind of pederasty in Paul's day was that of the
slave "pet boys" who were sexually exploited by adult male owners. The desired
boys were prepubescent or at least without beards so that they seemed like
females. These men had wives for dowries, procreation and the rearing of heirs.
They had "pet boys" for sex - hardly the picture of gay relationships today.
The Bible is an empty closet. It has nothing specific to say about
Homosexuality as such. But the Bible has plenty to say about God's grace to
all people and God's call to justice and mercy. Jesus summarized God's law in
these words of scripture: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your mind . . . [and] you shall love your
neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-39).