(Return to Bible Basics Home Page)

What Does Scripture Say – and Not Say – About Homosexuality, and About the Loves and Relationships of Gay Men and Women?

 — adapted (with minor variations) from Rev. Donn Crail, Director

THE LAZARUS PROJECT
West Hollywood Presbyterian Church
7350 Sunset Blvd.
Hollywood , CA 90046

February, 1998

Actually, the Bible says nothing specifically about homosexuality because neither that term, nor the concept, existed when biblical literature was written down. There are very few references in the Bible to sexual acts between men, and only one reference to sexual acts between women.

This paper is intended only as a summary of more extensive treatments of those few passages that make some direct reference to sexual acts between persons of the same gender. Because of how these passages are sometimes used in discussions regarding scripture and homosexuality let us be clear that the focus of our concern here is what the Bible says about persons who have a homosexual orientation and/or about their sexual practice within committed relationships. A passage of scripture that is about one thing should not be imposed on a discussion that is about something quite different. In this context, we are not discussing sexual infidelity, promiscuity, rape, or prostitution as cultic religious practice. We are against all those things not only for scriptural reasons, but also because a reasoned moral stance itself would compel us to be against them.

There are six statements in the entire Bible – Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (Old and New Testaments), that may refer to homosexual acts. In some instances it is not altogether clear exactly what they refer to. Most of these are only a verse or two, or merely a phrase within a single verse. The six passages have been dealt with extensively by many Biblical scholars, on both sides of the “theological aisle.” One thing that should be admitted by all is that these six passages are a microscopic portion of Scripture, and that none of them is a treatment of homosexuality per se, but is mentioned in a broader context, such as the Holiness Code of Leviticus, or within the development of Paul’s discussion of sin in relation to justification by grace.

Even among Biblical scholars questions of translation and interpretation are difficult and often there is no clear consensus regarding interpretation. Though some passages are translated using the word(s) “homosexual,” or “homosexual acts,” they do not refer to homosexuality as we understand it today, having to do with a sexual orientation. There is no exact equivalent of the term “homosexual” in Biblical Hebrew or Greek. The assumption of those who wrote the passages being referred to seems to have been that they were acts committed by heterosexual persons. None of the passages is about loving, committed relationships between persons who happen to be of the same gender.

Of the six passages three are from the Hebrew Scriptures, and three from the Christian Scriptures. Of those from the Hebrew Scriptures the two, other than the Sodom story, are both in the “Holiness Code” of Leviticus. In the Christian Scripture there are three references in three letters, but all are attributed to one author, namely Paul.

In summary: of six passages, except for Genesis 19, there is one Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) source with two references, and one Christian Scripture (New Testament) source with three references.

[In the following citations, everything the Bible (RSV) says about sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is italicized, the context is in regular type.]  

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom . When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, and said, “My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the street” But he urged them strongly so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom , both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot , “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them.”   Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; but do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God ? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God .

1 Timothy 1:10

Now we know that the law is good.  If anyone uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for man slayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine . . .

Romans 1:18-27

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them . . . for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for it . . . therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.  

The Story of Sodom has a significant place in scripture being referred to in several other books of the Bible, and seeming to have been a very well known story among the Jews. What was the grievous sin of the men of Sodom that invited divine wrath? Was it homosexuality? The supposition that it was is unsupported even by internal Biblical evidence. Ez.16:49; Luke 10:10-13; Wisdom 19:13-14.

For a contemporary understanding one can see in this story a situation not altogether foreign to a racial or ethnic minority living in an urban neighborhood today. It is an incident of rioting, where Lot , an alien in the city, has given sanctuary to what are presumed to be some of “his people”. The mob which gathers outside Lot ’s house demands that he bring out the strangers so that they can “know them.” A logical interpretation is that it was a threat of homosexual rape, but it is not logical to assume that because of that threat the basic issue here, or the sin of Sodom , has to do with homosexuality. If that were the case then a threat of heterosexual rape would provide a condemnation of all heterosexual relations. Rape, be it heterosexual or homosexual, is not really about sex but about degradation. In this instance it is the threat to shame and humiliate these strangers by treating them not as men but as women.

This threat comes from men who even Lot assumes are heterosexual since he offers them his own virgin daughters for sexual purposes. In our world Lot ’s offer would have even greater moral repugnance than that which is threatened by the mob outside his door. The low value put upon women, and their status as the “possessions” of men, apparently made this less shocking to its original hearers. We would hardly think of Lot as a “righteous man,” but because he gave sanctuary and protection to his “dinner guests” God saves him and his family (though we are told that in their flight from Sodom Lot’s wife, looking back, was turned to a pillar of salt.)

So what is the “sin of Sodom ,” if it is not homosexuality, as many scholars have noted, and as is stated in Scripture itself, Sodom ’s sin was inhospitality. Most of us associate hospitality with observing certain social conventions in a proper, polite, society. We do not easily comprehend the significance of “hospitality” as an imperative of a particular people’s well being, and perhaps even their survival. For a Hebrew to give sanctuary to another Hebrew, especially in a strange and threatening environment, was of a very high ethical value. Perhaps an immigrant in America today could tell us something about what it means to be offered sanctuary and hospitality by your own people in a strange land. During the time of the underground railroad runaway slaves knew what it meant to be sheltered by friends and sympathizers. Jews understood the consequences of “inhospitality” during the Nazi Holocaust if they happened to be turned away by those from whom they had sought refuge.

The story of Sodom has virtually nothing to do with persons having a homosexual orientation, and certainly not those living in a committed relationship with another person of the same gender. To try and force an anti-gay interpretation on this story is a gross abuse of scripture. Most reputable Biblical scholars, including many conservative ones, now acknowledge that this story is not really applicable to the issue being debated in the Church.

THE HOLINESS CODE – Lev. 18:22, and 20:13 : Is this what we live by?

Today if you travel to other countries, or even explore much of this one, you should discover how easily we assume that our own cultural orientation is the universal norm, and how inclined we are to assume that “they” are basically just like “us” when in fact the differences are far deeper than we imagine. We often pick up and read Scripture like naive travelers assuming that the people and cultures we are reading about can be understood as though their culture was like our own, and that things written, or events that happen, can be understood as though they were written, or happened, in the western world of the 20th Century.

When we read the very concise and sharp words against male homosexual practice in Leviticus, we are likely to assume that those prohibitions arise from the same set of feelings and value system we have today. But they most certainly do not.  What Israel is interested in, almost exclusively, in this part of Scripture, is Israel . Their interest in what people do sexually has to do with how they define themselves and preserve themselves as a “chosen people.” Today we are concerned about the limiting of population. The Hebrews goal was the exact opposite. They wanted to produce as many of their own as possible to increase their strength by numbers and to out-populate their enemies. There attitudes about sex were altogether related to procreation, not to the interpersonal, feeling aspects that we would focus on today. Therefore what they condemned was barrenness in women, and any ‘wasted seed’ of men. Another, equally ingrained issue for them was the appropriate roles of men and women. They believed that a man was meant to be the head of the family, as God was the head of the whole human family. Male, same-sex relationships (the only kind referred to anywhere in Scripture except Romans 1) were “an abomination” from two standpoints: they were condemned because of “wasted seed,” and they were condemned because in them a male accepted being in the role of a woman.

1 Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10: To whom, and to what, do these verses refer?

“Do not be deceived, neither . . . nor sexual perverts will inherit the kingdom of God .” 1 Cor.6:9

“... the law is not laid down for the just but for . . . immoral persons, sodomites...” 1 Timothy 1:10

The meaning of these verses is dependent upon a correct interpretation of two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, the translation of which is difficult, and there is no consensus among scholars or biblical translators as to their meaning. There were far more common terms for sexual relations between two persons of the same sex at the time that Paul wrote these letters. The question then for translators is:  Why did Paul not use common terms rather than these relatively obscure words (which could have other meanings), if he were referring specifically to homosexual practice? Though some scholars have translated them with a single term such as “homosexuals;” “sodomites;” “sexual perverts,” or “homosexual perverts,” these are interpretative translations which are not by any means the only translations possible. The early Greek fathers of the Church, such as St. John Chrysostorn, saw no reference to homosexual practice in the 1 Corinthian’s passage.

“ Molokai is the plural of “malakos” and means, literally, “soft.’ “Arsenokoitai” is a combination of “koitai,” which means “those who engage in sexual intercourse” and the prefix “arsenoi,” which means “male or masculine.” Arsenokoitai then could mean male prostitutes which would certainly have meaning to those to whom Paul is writing in both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. “Male concubine” was in fact St. Jerome ’s translation of arsenokoitai in the translation into the Latin known as the Vulgate, the most authoritative translation of the Bible for the Western Church from the late 4th Century up to the Reformation. Some scholars believe that malakoi and arsenokoitai refer to the passive (soft) and active partners in a homosexual relationship. However, as has already been pointed out, that is an interpretation and not merely a translation, and it does not seem to agree with how Biblical scholars, far closer in time to the early Church, understood these passages.

For the Church to base any of its condemnation of homosexuals or homosexuality on these two passages is dangerous indeed given the uncertainty that surrounds the meaning of these Greek words.

Romans 1:18-27:  The most relevant, and difficult text.

The single passage that is probably most relied on by those who believe that homosexuality is condemned in Scripture is Romans 1:18-27. Romans has a particularly significant role in the history of Christianity because it is the source of perhaps the most foundational doctrine of the Christian faith, justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. Paul begins his development of that doctrine in the first chapter by identifying the universal sinful state of humankind. He argues that this sin is universal because even those who have not heard the explicit revelation in Jesus Christ, have an implicit revelation in nature – in creation. Therefore people have not accidentally, but willfully, turned away from the creator. As a result, Paul says, “God has given them over . . .” to various consequences; among these are same sex perversions (perversion meaning to act against ones true nature). Here, in the Letter to the Romans, can be found the only place in Scripture which mentions women as well as men being involved in same sex relations. Paul presents these same sex relations not as sin itself but as the consequence of sin, the sin being to turn away from God. It is no doubt a powerful illustration for these readers in that homosexual practice was common and accepted in Greek and Roman culture, and was part of their religious practice.

Romans is about universal sinfulness, it is not a treatise on homosexuality. And to be sure he is not misunderstood Paul follows his statement about same sex relations with an emphatic warning not to use his words here as grounds for judging others. “Judge not, that you be not judged” Paul says to alert those who read this letter not to do the very thing that much of the Church is now doing: Taking his illustration and using it to condemn others while failing to understand his point that sin is universal and applies to every reader. The last thing that Romans is intended for is as ammunition for one Christian to use against another.

If in the individual being homosexual were the result of turning away from God, then it would follow that there would be a direct correlation between unbelief and homosexuality, or conversely, that a true believer would not be “given over” to that inclination. But that correlation clearly does not exist. Does Paul mean then that as a result of humankind’s universal sinful state certain things have entered into the human condition, among them what today we would call homosexuality? If homosexual practice is a consequence that has fallen on humankind as a result of the Fall then it comes in the same category as labor in childbirth, or farming for a living, neither of which we would regard as evil today. Genesis 3:16-19  

From our own cultural perspective we tend to approach Scripture assuming its meaning is related to our own ideas about human sexuality. Therefore in a culture where sexual relationships are viewed in a psychological rather than a sociological context we are very apt to misunderstand the meaning of these admonitions and condemnations.

An illustration of the problem of trying to transpose meaning from one culture to another is that we tend to read and understand the prohibitions against “adultery” as we would understand them in our own culture: the psychological injury of “unfaithfulness.” But that is not the violation generally referred to in Scripture. Adultery, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures, is the violation of male property rights, women being thought then to be the property of men. This is evident in the story of David and Bathsheba. When Nathan charges David with adultery, the charge clearly is not about David’s “unfaithfulness” to his own wives, but a sin against Uriah for having used his property, especially when a child or heir might be conceived, which is what occurred.

When we read scriptural accounts related to sexuality, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures, there are cultural realities we must bear in mind:

1. It was a closed society and a tribal culture. Ethnic purity was primary, and depended on absolute control of procreation.

2. There was no allowable birth control except for abstinence. Withdrawal was a sin punishable by death because “wasted seed” was to reject the imperative of providing heirs (see the “sin of Onan” in Gen. 38:8-10).

3. The origin of life was believed to be present in the male “seed.” They had no concept of female “seed.” The woman was an incubator for birth.

4. If early withdrawal was punishable by death, certainly a sexual relationship between two men called for an equal punishment because it was non-procreative (‘wasted seed’. It was also considered an “abomination” because in such an act a man was treating another man as a woman, and the other man (presumably) was choosing to be in the role of a woman. In their human hierarchy, where women were the property of men, such an act was one of supreme self-degradation that shamed all males.

5. Menstruation, and male emissions, even “wet dreams”, made those persons “unclean” until they were ritually cleansed. In a world without knowledge of the nature of disease, and prone to epidemic, especially when nomadic as in the Exodus, they did what they could in the way of “preventive health care.” There was an elaborate system of law governing what was “clean” and “unclean.” A distinction between these in the biological and religious sense did not really exist (See Acts 10 for an account of the “breaking across” this cultural boundary.)