Spotlight | Books | The Word | Gay & Christian? | Discussion | Churches | La Puerta | Events | Praise | GALIP | Calling the Rainbow Nation Home

By Bruce Lowe 

Appendix B

Bible Passages on Same-Gender Sex

As stated above, until 1869 there was no written idea of homosexuality as being an intrinsic part of one’s nature.  Until that time it was believed that all people were what we would call heterosexual, but some chose to engage in same-gender sex.  When the Bible writers talked on this subject, within their culture and understanding, that is what they were talking about—that kind of heterosexuality.  So if there is nothing in the Bible about homosexuality, why this section?

There are Bible passages used by some people today to condemn homosexual men and women.  But careful interpretation of those passages shows why, even if they were talking about homosexuality, they would have no application to our consideration of homosexuality today.  I am indebted to many authors who have written on this subject. 

The Old Testament

The Creation Story, Genesis 1-3

Some turn to the Creation Story for their evidence of the sin of homosexuality and/or homosexual unions.  They say that since God created a union of a man and a woman in the Garden of Eden, that is the only kind of union that is acceptable to him.  But the Creation Story is telling of God’s plan for beginning the population of the earth; nothing more is there.  No one can draw any conclusions from it about homosexuality or homosexual relationships.  If a passage says nothing, it says nothing, despite what some people want it to say.  Those depending on this passage may say it implies that any other marriage is sin.  Implications represent what the reader wants it to say that it doesn't say.  Sometimes other scripture confirms an implication.  But there is nothing anywhere in the Bible that supports this interpretation of the Creation Story. 

Dr. Gomes has this comment:

[As] Jeffrey S. Siker has pointed out in the July 1994 issue of Theology Today, to argue that the creation story privileges a heterosexual view of the relations between humankind is to make one of the weakest arguments possible, the argument from silence. … It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal.  It does not mention the single state, and yet we know that singleness is not condemned, and that in certain religious circumstances it is held in very high esteem.  The creation story is not, after all, a paradigm about marriage, but rather about the establishment of human society.[i]

One can read anything one wants to into the creation story but cannot read anything about homosexuality out of it.

Genesis 18:20 to 19:29—The Sodom Story

Some consider the sin of Sodom to be same-gender sex.  We are not told in Genesis what Sodom’s sins were, only that they were so great that God determined to destroy the city.  On the evening before its destruction two angels, in disguise as men, came to the city to lead Lot and his family out early the next day.  Hospitable Lot invited them to spend the night at his house.  During the evening the men of the city surrounded the house and demanded of Lot that he bring out the two men so that they (the men of Sodom) could [19:5]

            King James Version: “know them.”

            Revised Standard Version: “know them.”
            New International Version: “have sex with them.”

 

When Lot refused to bring his guests out, the men of the city were about to break his door down when the angels struck them all blind and the mob dispersed.  The next day Lot and his family were led out of Sodom, and the city was destroyed by fire and brimstone from heaven.

The Hebrew verb used here, “yadha,” “to know,” is used 943 times in the OT and only ten times clearly to mean “have sex,” then it always means heterosexual sex.  The word normally used for same-gender sex is “shakhabh.”  

Many scholars believe that in Gen. 19:5 yadha means know who these men are and why they are here; the city’s men may have wondered if these were enemy spies, for after all, Lot, their host was an alien.  They might have sensed the city’s impending doom and been concerned with what these strangers were doing there.  Two arguments for this are Sodom’s being used as an example of great sin numerous times in the Old and New Testaments with nothing ever said about same-gender sex, and the context of Jesus’ references to Sodom (Luke 10:10-13) which seems to imply lack of hospitality as the sin. 

Other scholars think it was the common practice of showing dominance over and humiliating outsiders by forcing them to take the part of a (an inferior) woman in a same-gender rape.

If the story is about same gender sex, it is clearly about violent, criminal, gang rape,

something utterly condemnable and not to be compared with the sex of committed gay couples. 

Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, “The notorious story of Sodom and Gomorrah—often cited in connection with homosexuality—is actually irrelevant to the topic.”[ii]

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Revised Standard Version:

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.  13 if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall be put to death. 

The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only direct references to same-gender sex in the Old Testament.  They are both part of the Old Testament Holiness Code, a religious, not a moral code; it later became the Jewish Purity Laws.  The word “abomination” is used throughout the Old Testament to designate sins that involve contamination of worship, especially idolatry.  The word relates to the failure to worship God in purity or to worshiping a false god.  Professor Soards tells us, “Old Testament experts view the regulations of Leviticus as standards of holiness, directives for the formation of community life, aimed at establishing and maintaining a people’s identity in relation to God.”[iii]   This is because God was so determined that His people who were being formed into a new nation would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship. 

God required purity in worship.  Anything pure was unadulterated, unmixed with anything else.  These Purity Laws prohibited mixing different threads in one garment, sowing a field with two kinds of seed, crossbreeding animals.  A few years ago in Israel when an orthodox government came into power, McDonalds had to stop selling cheeseburgers.  Hamburgers,

OK.  Cheese sandwiches, OK.  But mixing milk and meat in one sandwich violated the Purity Laws—it had nothing to do with morality. 

Even if we consider that morality was a factor in this rule, it is part of the Code, and when the Code became obsolete, as it is under Christ, that rule, as part of the Code, became obsolete.  These verses in Leviticus have nothing to say to us today beyond the eternal principle of the need for purity in the worship of God.  If the immorality expressed in them happens to be a principle for all time, then it will be found elsewhere in the Bible.  (For heterosexuals it is found in Roman 1 (see below) which clearly condemns same-gender sex by heterosexuals.  There is nothing in the Bible to support any finding about homosexuals.)

Another reason the rules of this Code are not pertinent to our discussion is that these rules were temporary; they were for the particular time and circumstances existing when they were given.  E.g., if you planted a fruit tree, you could not eat its fruit until its fifth year, and all fruit the fourth year must be offered to the Lord.  A worker must be paid his wage on the day of his labor.  You must not harvest a field to its edge.  We readily dismiss these as not applicable to our day and culture, and if we dismiss some of them for any reason, we have to dismiss all of them for that same reason; we cannot choose which ones we want to dismiss and which ones we want to keep.

Some commentators believe the verses apply to the common practice of one person's degrading another by making him take the place of a (more or less worthless) woman. The sin then is not lust but the degradation of another.  It was commonly accepted when the victim was an inferior or one conquered in battle.  Otherwise it was like murder.  .  Temple describes it: "Same-sex coupling with a peer or a superior robbed the victim of his prerogatives as a 'man,' rendering him unfit for further life, and it marked the perpetrator as a murderer, hence a danger to social order.   . . . For a man to permit himself to be penetrated was a form of social suicide.  These murders, thefts, and suicides defiled the purity of the land by blurring categories.  The ignoring of class boundaries constituted a category confusion and was the abominable element - not the sex of the two parties."[iv]

Helmut Thielicke remarks on these passages: “It would never occur to anyone to wrench these laws of cultic purification from their concrete situation and give them the kind of normative authority that the Decalogue, for example, has.”[v]

When we add the fact that these laws were talking about heterosexuals, it makes three reasons, any one of which would be sufficient, why they have no bearing on questions about homosexuals or homosexuality or on the morality of same-gender sex by homosexuals today. 

The New Testament

The New Testament has three passages to be considered.  

Romans 1:21, 26, 27

Revised Standard Version

21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him….  26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.  Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men…

The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing. 

Romans 1:26 and 27 clearly speak of same-gender sex by both men and women, the only Bible passage that does so.  Rom. 1:18-32 speaks of Gentiles (heterosexuals) who could and should have known and served and given thanks to God but would not, so God gave them up and let them do whatever they wanted to do, and that resulted in these heterosexuals’ being “consumed with passion” and in such lust practicing same-gender sex.  All of us recognize that those who forsake God and give themselves over to lustful living, , homosexual or heterosexual, stand condemned by the Bible.  This passage is talking about people who chose to forsake God.  Gays and lesbians coming to our churches professing Christ as Savior and Lord and wanting to work and worship with us do not fall in this category; Romans 1 is not talking about them.

Clearly the passage is talking about people for whom sex with the opposite gender is "natural."  We call them "heterosexual."  There is nothing in this passage that relates to homosexual people.

Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, “No direct appeal to Romans 1 as a source of rules about sexual conduct is possible.”[vi]

I Corinthians 6:9

King James Version:

9…Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves…, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 

New International Version

9…Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves…will inherit the kingdom of God. 

Revised Standard Version—1952 edition:

9…Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homo-sexuals [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves…, will inherit the kingdom of God. 

Revised Standard Version—1971 edition:

9…Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves…, will inherit the kingdom of God.

A comparison of how the two Greek words are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators instead of translations (as in the NIV in the Sodom story above).  In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai.  The KJV translates the first “effeminate,” a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals.  The NIV translates the first “male prostitutes” and the second, “homosexual offenders.” The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, “homosexuals.” In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation

“homosexuals” is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as “sexual perverts”; obviously the translators had concluded that the earlier translation could not be justified.

Malakoi literally means “soft” and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25.  When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts.  There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex.  Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning.  He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, “morally weak.” There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it “homosexuals.”

Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means “pederast,” a corrupter of boys, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives.  Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn’t he use one of the common words?  Some scholars think probably the second century use might come closest to Paul’s intention.  If so, there is no justification for translating the word as “homosexuals.”  Other scholars see a connection with Greek words used to refer to same-gender sex in Leviticus.  My discussion above shows why the Leviticus references have no relevance to homosexuality today.

One commentator has another reason for rejecting the NIV and original RSV translations, “homosexuals.”  Today it could mean that a person who is homosexual in orientation even

though “of irreproachable morals, is automatically branded as unrighteous and excluded from the kingdom of God, just as if he were the most depraved of sexual perverts.”[vii]

Richard Hays tells us, “I Corinthians 6:9-11 states no rule to govern the conduct of Christians.”[viii]

I Timothy 1:10

King James Version:

9…the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,…10…for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai)…

Revised Standard Version - both 1952 and 1971 editions:

9…the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for … 10 immoral persons, sodomites (arsenokoitai),…

New International Version:

9…the law is not made for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful…10 for adulterers and perverts (arsenokoitai)

Here only the RSV specifically refers to same-gender sex, using the term “sodomites,” which is the translation given in both the Old Testament and New Testament to Hebrew and Greek words for male temple prostitutes.  The KJV probably has the same thought.  The NIV does not necessarily refer to same-gender sex.  Again Paul has used the Greek word arsenokoitai, the word in I Cor. 6:9.  As discussed above, this word would have no reference to homosexuality or homosexual sex. 

So like the other two New Testament passages, I Tim. 1:10 says nothing about homosexuality or homosexuals and nothing about same-gender sex unless that of temple prostitutes or possibly the molestation of young boys by heterosexuals.

From a slightly different approach to interpretation, Dr. Robin Scroggs states, “The basic model in today’s Christian homosexual community is so different from the model attacked by the New Testament that the criterion of reasonable similarity of context is not met.  The conclusion I have to draw seems inevitable: Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”[ix]  [Italics hers]

Similarly, Walter Wink points out that every reference to same-gender sex in the Bible is “heavy with lust’; it would have no ethical teaching for other conduct.[x]

Dr. Gomes concludes his discussion of homosexuality and the Bible with these words:

The Biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer.  All they knew of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation.  These vices, as we know, are not unknown among heterosexuals, and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms is a cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting not so much prejudice, which it surely does, but what the Roman Catholic Church calls “invincible ignorance,” which all of the Christian piety and charity in the world can do little to conceal.  The “problem,” of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it.[xi]

Summary

In view of the facts set forth above, we realize there is no moral teaching in the Bible about homosexuality.  The Bible cannot be used to condemn as immoral all same-gender sex.  It clearly condemns lust, and that would be whether heterosexual or homosexual.  There is certainly nothing in the Bible about anyone’s going to hell because he or she is homosexual.  All who go to hell will go for the same, one reason: failure to commit their lives in faith to Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord.

Louise, in "Eight" above I have shown how deeply I believe that the principles of the Bible affirm loving, committed relationships between gay men and between lesbian women.  Then in this Appendix I have shown that nothing in the Bible condemns such relationships.  So why do some people believe differently?  When I began to study, I knew that if I wanted to be honest, I had to study both sides.  Those who believe differently have one or more of the following six arguments, none of which seems to me to have any foundation:

(1)  They believe the Bible condemns gays and lesbians and says they are going to hell.  What I have written above, if true, shows this is not true. 

(2)  They believe homosexuality is a choice.  In light of the facts I presented in “One” above, this cannot be true.  Sociologists, psychologists and psychiatrists do not believe it.  And the testimony and experience of lesbian women and gay men is, to me, conclusively against it. 

(3)  They believe that if homosexuality is unchangeable, then the homosexual is sinful unless he or she remains celibate.  Nothing in the Bible supports this.  I have discussed it in “Eight” above.  The principles of the Bible and of psychiatry say to me that most homosexuals should not attempt celibacy but seek a committed relationship. 

(4)  They believe God’s uniting a man and a woman in the Garden of Eden means that only a man and a woman are ever to be united.  I discussed this in Appendix B.  There is nothing said in the Garden or anywhere in the Bible to support this.   

(5)  They believe that the passage in Romans 1 shows that anything unnatural is sinful, and that homosexual sex is unnatural.  Only for the heterosexuals—Romans 1 clearly refers to heterosexuals—would it be unnatural. 

(6) They believe the homosexual sex act in itself is condemned.  I discussed this in "Seven" above.  (a) An act, itself is without morality.  (b) There is nothing in the Bible about homosexual sex acts, only about heterosexual same-gender sex acts.

If these six arguments are dismissed, as I think they must be, there is no Biblical reason for condemning and there is Biblical reason for affirming the loving, committed partnerships of gay men and lesbian women. 

Homophobics are making a mistake of devastating consequences to the millions of gays and lesbians, including, as I said above, sending many to hell because of the church's condemnation, and to the church and society that are robbed of their potential contributions.  I often come back in my mind to two quotations (sources lost):  “If I have to try to explain to God why I made a mistake about gay and lesbian people, I would rather try to explain why I made the mistake by including them than why I made the mistake by excluding them.” Similarly: “I would rather err on the side of helping hurting people than on the side of hurting helpless people.”

Louise, as I have said, most of the above is contrary to my earlier ideas about homosexuality, but that was when I really knew nothing about it.  I have prayed for an open mind that puts truth first in my thinking.  I see truth in all of the above.  This is what I have to believe now.  Josh Billings, I am so glad I re-examined this subject. 

Some remain unconvinced; it is said that you cannot reason a person out of a position he/she did not get into by reason in the first place.  So very many have no reason, only prejudice, for their homophobia, for they have never studied homosexuality.  I think that what I have put in Appendix C is something that ought to be said to them. 

™