The Biology and Spirituality of Human Sexuality
Class 3: What Does The Bible Say About Sexuality?
June 15, 2003
(Notes revised June 17, 2003)

Introduction

     Kelsey and Kelsey wrote that "The attitudes of Christians and the Christian Church has been mixed regarding the place and value of women in society and the church. The Church's view of the place of sexuality in human development and experience has also varied, from seeing sexual expression as an evil to be renounced for the sake of one's salvation to perceiving sexual love as a symbol of the Divine-human encounter and as one major pathway to an experience of the God of Love."[1] (Slide 2) The breadth of this spectrum is not just historical; these different attitudes toward the expression of sexuality pervade our culture today, and are reflected in the different attitudes of denominations toward sexual expression (see Class 2).

     These different attitudes are probably influenced at least to some degree by the authority ascribed by different people (and denominations) to (1) the viewpoints expressed in the Old Testament; (2) the teaching and practices of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus' followers described in the epistles; (3) the history and tradition of the early Roman Catholic church; and, (4) the teaching and doctrine of individual denominations. For the next few weeks, we will begin to sift through these attitudes, beginning first with reading and studying together what the Old and New Testaments have to say about sexuality. Note that we will focus on sexuality in general, not on homosexuality. We will turn to that subject in Class 4.

     How Might We Regard and Read Biblical Texts? The Bible is a book, and like all books, is interpreted differently by different readers. There are in general, three ways of reading the Bible. (Slide 3; )

• The first is the literal approach, which takes the text simply for what it says. Biblical fundamentalism takes this approach, but here too, there is rule of interpretation. That rule is that the text means whatever it means to a person reading it today.
• The second approach is a historical-critical approach in which the reader tries to figure out what the text might have meant to the people who wrote it. This method of reading became very popular in the 19th century (particularly in Germany), and has many adherents today.
• The third is a more complicated approach, in which the text is examined for its meaning to the original writers/readers as well as to how the text might be interpreted today. (Slide 4; ) This third method examines the culture and social setting of the period in which the text was written (this is often called the world behind the text), then examines the text itself for specific characteristics, literary structure, and contextual meaning (often called the world of the text), and then finally looks for connections between the worlds behind the text and of the text with our present situation (the world in front of the text). The third method also takes into account that it is pretty hard, if not downright impossible, to examine the past without being influenced by our own present (in other words, we carry our own baggage into the past with us). The advantage of the third method is that the reader/interpreter of Biblical texts is at least (hopefully) aware of the personal, cultural, and social biases s/he is bringing to bear on the world of the text and the world behind the text. This approach to interpretation of scripture is not unique to out times. First century Jews like Philo and Josephus interpreted scripture in view of their own cultural context. We'll discuss this in Class 5.

     Many people have noted that the Bible seems to contain elements of historicity, mythical stories, and theological interpretations. All of that is true. An important feature of Biblical literature is that it is not meant to be just historical, or only theological. It is a work that serves to see the actions of the Divine in our world over time, and it both relates stories about that and interprets those stories at the same time. Jack Miles, an influential scholar and writer of our time summarized this very well in his 1995 book, God: A Biography. In the Bible, he wrote, "... God becomes a historical character, and conversely, history acquires the status of myth. Along the way, folk tales that have been caught up in this mix, pure fictions clearly created for their entertainment value, take on a mingled mythic and historical gravity. The argument over whether this narrative is really history, really myth, or really fiction is misbegotten. It is really a mixture of the three. The mixing is precisely what is distinctive about it as a form of literature."[2]

     Patrick Miller points out the difficulty of reading instructions directly or literally from the Old Testament in this way: "The believing reader of the Old Testament is met by a kind of dialectic or tension that cannot be resolved easily and is discernible in a close look at the laws, their order, sequence, and interrelationships. The present shape of the law, as well as what we can discern of its formation, points to a dual reality - a core of perduring foundational law or instruction, and a congeries of specifics or particularities of that foundational law that are worked out over the passage of time and changing circumstances. The 'core' is clearly the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments."[3]

     What Bible To Read? There are many different translations of the Bible, and a good one for Bible study is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). I recommend the Harper Collins Study Bible as a Bible. The Oxford Annotated NRSV Study Bible is another publisher's edition of the NRSV. Both of these have excellent footnotes and other references. There is also an on line version of the NRSV. (Slide 5; )

     A couple of resources for reading and interpreting the Old Testament are as follows:

• Terence E. Frethheim. The Pentateuch. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996.
• Lawrence Boadt. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1984.
• Bernhard W. Anderson. Understanding the Old Testament, 4th Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986.

Back to Top

Sexuality in the Old Testament

     As we begin our study of the Old Testament, it is important to keep in mind that the Old Testament was not written at one time. It took many writers over ten centuries to produce the Old Testament. There are at least four authors or schools represented in the first five books of the Bible. Their works are interwoven with each other, and together they do not represent a consistent view of sexuality and love. Adapting the work of Kelsey and Kelsey, we can divide what the Old Testament has to say about sexuality into three categories:[4] (Slide 6; )

• Sexuality and procreation as natural parts of life
• Sexuality as the privilege of men
• Sexuality as Romantic Passion

Back to Top

Sexuality and Procreation as Natural Parts of Life

     Views of the World. The Old Testament writers in general saw the physical world as a good thing (e.g., Gen 1:4-31), unlike the Greeks who through Plato and Aristotle introduced the concept of worldly things (i.e., the flesh) as inherently evil. The Old Testament writers saw that this natural world was good, and was the one that Yahweh would redeem. (Slide 7; )

     Sexuality and Procreation. The creation accounts in Genesis (Gen 1-3) are fundamental to a discussion about sexuality.[5] (Read Genesis 1-3) In Gen 1, God is portrayed as the sovereign creator who orders the universe in order to ensure procreational ability. God's created world is orderly, self-sustaining, and procreative. In the second account of creation (Gen 2:4b-25), the emphasis is less on creation as it is on establishing the relationship between human beings and the rest of creation. In this account, God creates a garden and humankind are placed into that garden to be participants in the ongoing process of creation by "tilling the ground" (2:5). In addition, the relationships between male and female, and the other creatures of the earth are described. Sexuality in the second creation story implies companionship, a sharing of the work of caring for the garden, plus the enjoyment of each other and the rest of creation.

     After Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden for disobeying God's commandment, death emerged in Genesis 3 as a natural part of life. Consequently, procreation took on a new meaning: propagation of the species, a process that will involve painful labor.

     Sexual relations are regarded as good in these creation stories, because they produce offspring. However, it is also important to remember that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) is devoted to the identification of the Hebrew people as God's own, and it describes the covenant established between God and God's people. Abraham was promised that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars in the sky (Gen 15:5), and that they would inherit the land (Gen 12:7, 15:7). As a sign of his understanding of that promise from Yahweh, Abraham circumcised himself, his son Ishmael, and all the males of his household (Gen 17:23-27). As Abraham's descendants moved into Canaan and established the nations of Judah (Southern Kingdom) and Israel (Northern Kingdom), it was crucial for the people to do everything necessary to ensure that the descendants of Abraham and inheritors of Yahweh's promise were numerous.

     When famine struck and the Hebrew people went to Egypt, they were very prolific. Indeed the text indicates that Pharaoh was a little afraid of the sheer numbers of Hebrews in Egypt. After a long period of captivity and slavery by the Egyptians, the Hebrews escaped under the leadership of Moses. On their sojourn in the wilderness, God reestablished God's covenant with God's people at Sinai. The ten commandments form the "core" of that covenant, and they were given to the people (not just to Moses). But the law did not stop with the decalogue. Moses made a total of twelve trips up and down Sinai and during those sojourns, he received additional instruction. Many of the practices of the Hebrew people and the laws as preserved in Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy were designed to maximize offspring and preserve the God's people, as they headed toward the land of Canaan which was promised to them via their ancestor Abraham.

     Prohibition of Certain Forms of Sexuality. The ten commandments form the "core" or foundation of the law that governed the holy people of God. There are two accounts of the revelation of the commandments at Sinai, the first is the long one beginning in Exodus 19:1 and running through Numbers 10:10, and the second is in Deuteronomy 5. It is important to note that the ten commandments were given directly to God's people, while the rest of the material (including the Holiness code we will discuss shortly) was given to Moses for him to teach to the people. Thus, because the specific rules and regulations spelled out in various books of the Old Testament arose under different circumstances and at different times, they do not necessarily agree with each other. For example the law codes in Dt 5 are not necessarily exactly like those in Ex 21-23, and the Dt and Ex codes are not the same as the codes in Leviticus and Numbers. In the ten commandments there is only one prohibited sexual act, and that is adultery (for a more complete discussion of this, see a previous class on this subject).

     The Holiness Code is a portion of Leviticus that delineates more detailed rules about sexual behavior beyond the proscription against adultery given as the eighth commandment. The Code spells out what was sexually required for the Hebrew people to remain holy in the sight of the Lord. This includes Leviticus Chapters 18 and 20 (Read Lev 18 and 20). Prohibited were sexual relations

• between close relatives (Slide 8; )
• with one's own mother (because it dishonors one's father)
• with sisters or step sisters
• with aunt's
• with daughters-in-law (Slide 9; )
• with brother's wife (became it dishonors one's brother)
• with female grandchildren
• with sisters-in-law (while one's own wife is living)
• with menstruating women
• with neighbor's wife (because it defiles one's self)
• between men (Slide 10; )
• between people and animals (men and women are both named - Lev 18:23)
• Also prohibited was the sacrifice of children to idols (Lev 18:21)

     The above list from the Holiness Code is a good example a place where we need to look at the world of the text and the world behind the text in order to understand what these text may mean for us today. If we look back in Leviticus to the beginning of chapter 18, which deals with sexual relations (Read Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus), God tells the people there that they are not to do the things that the indigenous (Gentile) peoples of Canaan do. They are not to do these things because they are holy people of God, and to violate God's commandments would defile them (Lev 18: 24-28). It was also their understanding that the reason the Hebrew people were victorious over the indigenous peoples is because the indigenous peoples did not deserve the land became of their defiling religious practices, and so the indigenous peoples were "vomited" from the land they inhabited before the Hebrews arrived. It is especially crucial to note that all kinds of things were abominations - not just certain sexual practices. Such things included using mediums and spiritists, and eating impure foods (Lev 20:25). The principal issue with the Holiness Code is that it establishes a way of life for the Hebrew people that distinguished them from other peoples. The point was that the Hebrews were set aside, and they were to remain holy (as it was defined for them). The question for us then becomes what does the Holiness code mean today?

     The following table summarized the prohibitions against certain kinds of sexual behaviors: (Slides 11 and 12; )

Sexuality as the Privilege of Men: Patriarchy Enforces Purity (Slide 13; )

     The Old Testament is patriarchal, and principally discusses sexuality from a male perspective, addressing what males are not to do. Only rarely are female prohibitions discussed (e.g., bestiality). Kelsey and Kelsey describe the situation this way: "In the patriarchal view, sexuality was a good a beautiful thing for a woman within marriage as long as it did not interfere with the pleasure of males. If the male was not satisfied he was free in Hebrew culture to divorce his wife, take another wife, or visit a prostitute. Women were not given the same options" (for example of the treatment of women in the Old Testament regarding adultery, see the Story of Tamar in Chapter 38 of Genesis).

     Sexuality and Property Rights. Patriarchy also brings with it the issue of primogenitor, inheritance of property, continuation of the family line, etc. This brought about a deeply rooted belief in sexuality as an extension of property. The legitimacy of heirs and the purity of the family line were crucial issues. Relationships that threw doubt on the line of inheritance were eschewed. In addition, the Torah encourages Jewish purity, and consequently relationships with persons other than Jews were frowned upon or forbidden. Jewish men were reluctant to marry a woman who was not a virgin (the issue of other inheritors), and he was anxious to keep his wife from having relations with other men. Outsiders who had intercourse with a married woman committed theft of a husband's right to legitimate heirs. This is why the commandments against theft and adultery are adjacent. The prohibitions against incest were similarly viewed: incest contaminates the intrafamily hierarchy.

     The prominence of the family (or clan) and the preservation of clear lines of inheritance indirectly explains the condemnation of prostitution. Although the Old Testament does not speak directly about prostitution as a social institution, it was the fact that prostitution took sexual relationships out of the context of family, property, and patriarchal hierarchy that prostitution was problematic. William Countryman, in referring to Prov 5:15-23 summarized the advice given in the Old Testament against prostitution this way: "One might sum up the sage's message [the author of the proverb] by saying that in matters sexual, one should buy, not rent."[6]

Sexuality as Romantic Passion (Slide 14; )

     The Song of Songs is attributed to Solomon who purportedly had 700 royal wives and 300 concubines (Read the Song of Songs). This is a sensual work that celebrates sexuality between a woman and a man. Its inclusion in the canon of the Old Testament demonstrates that sexual expression and pleasure are cherished gifts of creation. They are not things to be shunned. It is of importance to note that Solomon is regarded by the Biblical redactors as a less-than-sterling ruler of Israel, but not because of polygamous practices. Rather he was criticized because some of his wives were foreigners and that he followed some of their (non-Yahwistic) religious practices.

Old Testament Summary (Slides 15 and 16; )

     The ten commandments and the Holiness Code(s) comprise ways by which Jews distinguished themselves as separate and holy people before Yahweh. This need - to bear marks of Jewish identity as a symbol of holiness before God - is best illustrated by circumcision. Circumcision was required to qualify as a Jew. The life and faith of all Jews no matter whether they were in the Jewish community of Jerusalem or in isolated communities among the Gentiles (the Diaspora), rested on identification with the Torah. The Torah, and its emphasis on purity, was a reminder of Jewish identity. Jewish identity in turn is dependent on the Jewish conception of the cosmos, and part of that conception was that God created order from chaos, and that everything has its place. Sexual relations have their place in that created order, and it is predominantly for procreation and continuation.

     However, it must be emphasized that even to Jews, Gentiles could also be just and holy, and could enjoy God's approval. Daniel Helminiak writes, "The prophets of Israel often praised the righteousness of Gentile people even while condemning Israelites for abandoning God's ways."[7] Indeed, and as we will discuss below, Paul quite consistently praised the Gentiles for their insight and comprehension of God through nature and their godly ways (see Romans 1:18-20; 2:10-11, 3:21-31).

Back to Top

Sexuality in the New Testament

     The New Testament is also concerned with purity. Jesus' teachings point to the difference between being a good Jew and being a good person who was righteous before God. Jesus was clear that keeping the requirements of Jewish law and being a good person were not the same thing. This is made particularly clear in these two stories from the Gospel of Matthew in which Jesus explains the differences between purity of the heart and in his acceptance of a Gentile woman who violated many Jewish taboos (Mt. 15:10b-28, NRSV): (Slide 17; )

     “Listen and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.” Then the disciples approached and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?” He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit.” But Peter said to him, “Explain this parable to us.” Then he said, “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."

     Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

     The theological difference between following the law and purity of the heart is also stated concisely by Paul in several of his letters, most notably the Letter to the Romans (Rom 3:1-5:11). It is from this argument that the distinction arises between faith and works as salvific actions. For Christians, a relationship with God is not dependent on physical purity. Christians did not abandon trying to distinguish the holy and the profane, but they did reject the link between physical purity and access to God.[8]

      Given this background, it is possible to divide what the New Testament has to say about sexuality into two categories. But understand from the outset, that this division is artificial; the distinction I am about to make is not a distinction one can identify within the canonical texts themselves.

• The first category is a general one dealing with interpersonal relationships, of which sexual relations are a part. (Slide 18; )
• The second is a category that some have claimed to deal specifically with the issue of homosexuality. However, rather than call it that, I prefer to refer to it as a category dealing with what was considered natural; that is, looking at relationships from the point of view that what was natural or normal in God's created order is morally right. (Slide 19; )

     Under these two categories, we can subdivide the works into the Gospels, the Pauline literature, and the Pastoral Epistles. Why? Because the voices of these three parts of the New Testament are quite different. The Gospel writers grapple with the person of Christ and the kingdom of God; Paul's letters address specific issues pertaining to the early churches of Asia; the pastoral epistles are works written much later regarding issues relevant to the more institutionalized church body.

Principal New Testament Texts Dealing with Sexuality (Slides 20, 21, and 22; )

Back to Top

Interpersonal Relationships (Including Sexual Ones) in the New Testament

     One of the first things we can say about Jesus is that he did not look at his world the way others of his generation did - whether Jew or Gentile. He was a radical, and the view presented of him in the Gospels shows him turning conventional views on their heads. Jesus' view of family illustrates this, as he tackled the issues of patriarchy, exclusiveness (i.e., clannishness), subordination of women and children, divorce, and adultery all at the same time while challenging that most sacred of Jewish social institutions, the family. (Slide 23; )

The Gospel Challenge to Patriarchy and the Family

     The patriarchal Biblical world viewed the wife (or wives), as property, and all property was hierarchically arranged. Women in Hebrew marriages were given an odd status. Because they could be divorced (and only the man could divorce the wife under the Law), they were not considered fully part of the husband's family. Children were necessary to the continuation of the family, but beyond that, they were given no status. Jesus' teaching bumped the family from its previously unquestioned value at the center of the Jewish tradition. The intention here, I think, was to break through the patriarchal structure of society, and pave the way for a more egalitarian one based on dignity and respect for all persons (in fulfillment of the great commandment). This is particularly evident in the Gospel of Mark (see esp. Chapter 10).

     Jesus' "attacks" on family structure were directed mainly toward illustrating that the previously held goals of the family (patriarchy, legitimate heirs, acquisition and passing on of wealth, etc.) were in contradiction to the egalitarian view of God. Jesus subordinated family and family hierarchies to the reign of God by issuing a call to discipleship. But at the same time, Jesus saw that access to sexual expression was part of the created order, and so his teachings were directed toward forbidding activities that would deprive others of sexual expression. Women were granted equal status, and everyone in the family structure - including the father figure - were told to become like children or slaves. This decreased competition among siblings, and made everyone equal. Jesus also broadened the concept of adultery to include sexual intercourse outside marriage on the part of the husband as well as of wife (which was the Hebrew definition of adultery) (see the Matthean texts). This was very, very radical stuff for the time.

Gospel Teaching on Divorce: It is Outside God's Intention

     When confronted by the Pharisees to explain the law on divorce, Jesus turned the argument on its head, and cited Genesis to indicate that men and women were created equal in order to become one flesh (see Mt 19). Since separation of that one flesh is not discussed in Genesis, Jesus effectively abolished divorce! This, of course seriously undermined the patriarchal order, which seemed to be Jesus' intention. For example, in his teaching on adultery, Jesus indicated that it was not just genital intercourse that was adulterous, but also lustful intention toward a woman (MT 5:27 ff). One interpretation of this is that Jesus was saying that covetousness - the desire to deprive another of his property - is the essence of adultery.

The Gospels Are Silent On The Issue of Homosexuality

     It is important to note that the Gospels themselves record nothing about Jesus' views of homosexuality itself. Daniel Helminiak has proposed that Jesus encountered a man engaged in a homosexual relationship based on the healing recorded in Mt 8:5-13 and Lk 7:1-10.[9] We will discuss this at length in Class 4.

Back to Top

What the New Testament Considers Natural

     Under this heading we will discuss the Letter to the Romans as well as other Pauline and pseudopauline texts. There are two issues that impact on our study of sexuality. The first is the "right ordering" of human beings relative to each other and to God, and the second issue is the specifics of particular sexual practices. (Slide 24; )

The Natural Order of Things

     Paul himself acknowledges that there is a natural order in the world which can provide instruction to those savvy enough to appreciate it. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those 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. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made" (Rom 1:18-20a, NRSV). That natural order consisted of things that were "good" and that were "bad."

     Vice Lists. Paul was a dualist (influenced by Greek philosophical norms), and saw the flesh as in opposition to the spirit (Gal 5:16). Consequently, Paul saw some human activities as so vile that they would prevent justification before God (Gal 21b). Lists of these vices - activities considered impure, unseemly for a Jew or Christian - were included in his letters; scholars agree that these lists were not Paul's compositions, but were rather lists of things "everybody knew were bad" at the time. A good example of one such list in Gal 5:19-21 in which fornication (also called 'harlotry'), impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and "things like these" are listed. Sexual laxity was high on Paul's vice lists, and he often warned against fornication (1 Thess 4:3, 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13 and 18; Gal 5:19). It is important to note that the prohibitions against certain forms of sexual expression Pauline tradition is different from theLevitical (Old Testament) tradition. Old Testament tradition is more concerned with physical defilement or dishonor (see above), whereas Pauline tradition was more concerned with the social or cultural implication of doing things that hurt one's neighbor or caused widespread social disruption. Thus, adultery (and fornication) are impure acts because they not only constitute theft and can be socially disruptive, they imply an impurity of the heart of the adulterer or fornicator. And it is the latter that Paul sees as the major sin.

     Sexual Excess. The catholic epistle, 1 Peter concerns itself, in part, with making sure that the early churches to whom it was written (about 75 C.E.), were following "true" doctrine. This is not unlike the situation with Paul and his churches as Corinth; Paul was also concerned that the Christians in the churches he founded were not swayed by "false teachings." In a very real sense, the struggle for orthodoxy began with these early letters. In 1 Pet 2:1-3, Peter worries about teachers who will teach licentious ways. He worries that they will teach the ways of fornication, adultery, and sexual excess. He condemns licentiousness (without defining it, however). Peter reserves special condemnation for "those who indulge their flesh in depraved lust, and who despise authority" (1 Pet 2:10). Peter is mainly concerned here with the practice of sexual greed (promiscuity). To these people sexual gratification has become an idol. Peter says that they are like irrational animals, mere creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed (v. 12). They have eyes full of adultery, and are insaitiable for sin (v. 14a). Peter is especially concerned with these people as teachers of the Christian way, becasue they will constantly entice good people away from good Christian virtues.

     Women. Paul also believed that women had a place in the natural order. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul discusses how men should have short hair, and women long hair. If a man wears his hair long it is a dishonor to him (i.e., it is unnatural). Women were to have long hair, and since that hair was an adornment of their head, it was natural for them to have their head covered when in worship. This is the origin of head coverings for women in church (and some women still practice this). Hair length for the two genders was a "natural" way for things to be. Although physical appearance seemed to be derived from the natiral order, Paul was not anti-women. Indeed his hand-picked successor was a woman named Thecla.

     The author of 1 Timothy (one of the pastoral epistles) had a much more conservative view of the role of women in the natural order of things - including the church and the household.  In 1 Timothy we hear what I would characterize as the oppressive patriarchal voice of the early church. Women were to be subordinate to men in worship situations, and probably elsewhere in life, such as her marriage and the household:

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Tim 2:8-15)

The author of 1 Timothy was highly interested in restricting the status of widows, apparently including expression of their sexuality and/or whether they could remarry (1 Tim 5:3-16).

     Marriage. Marriage had a place in the natural order. Paul preferred celibacy, but accepted marriage as the place for sexual expression. In 1 Cor 7:1-8 he wrote to the Corinthian church in response to a question that they posed to him (we do not have their letter, only Paul's response in 1 Cor 7). The question the Corinthians had was whether sexual intimacy was compatible with the Christian faith. We can presume that some married people in the Corinthian church had decided to forego or withhold from sexual relations. Paul responded to this question about household morality:

"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is well for a man not to touch a woman.' But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (1 Cor 7:1-9, NRSV)

     The Christian household also had a "natural" moral ordering as described in Ephesians 5 (a pseudopauline text), a text often read at weddings:

Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing er with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband. (Eph 5:21-33, NRSV).

Although patriarchial in tone (v. 22), this pseudopauline text is one of the few to discuss relationships between men and women with at leasty a nod toward equality toward each other, and subordination to Christ. Compare this with the reading from 1 Timothy above.

The Unnaturalness of Homosexuality

     Rom 1:18-32 is the single New Testament passage that specifically deals with the issue of homosexuality (Read the Romans text). In this passage, Paul states that God, as a punishment for the sin of idolatry (as a result of not understanding the natural order of things), abandoned the Gentiles to the sin of homosexuality, which is a sin that deserves death. Countryman believes that this common interpretation of the text is improbable.[11] First, Countryman argues, Paul did not apply the vocabulary of sin to homogenital acts. What he did do was to describe homogenital acts as "being unclean, dishonorable, improper, 'over and against nature;' [they were] integral if unpleasingly dirty aspects of Gentile culture."[12] Thus, they were "unnatural" in the context of the procreative purpose of sexual relations. Second, Countryman makes a compelling argument that Paul chose the issue of homogenitality as a rhetroical device to get his readers to hear the distinction he makes in the second chapter of Romans between sinfulness and impurity. Countryman writes, "The argument is simply this: 'We all know Gentiles have sinned. Only look at the dirtiness into which God plunged them as a consequence. But what of the Jew who criticises them? Are you claiming to be sinless'?" [13] One can hear Paul echoing Jesus' Gospel warning against judgement.

     Countryman's argument makes good sense especially in view of the Greek words Paul used. The word Paul used was parallel the similarly used word in Leviticus; both words carry the connotation of "dishonorable" or "abomination." Neither the author(s) of Leviticus nor Paul used words that meant "ethically wrong." Indeed, Paul did use such a Greek word in the Letter to the Romans - but not in reference to homogenital relations.   Again, Paul seems to have regarded homogenital acts as unclean, but, being unclean did not make them sinful.   

Condemnation of Wrongdoers

     In 1 Cor 5 and 6, Paul tells the congregation of the church in Corinth not to associate with people who are sexually immoral:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” (1 Cor 5:9-13, NRSV)

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. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:9-11, NRSV)

     With regard to sexuality, these passages warn against association with idolaters, the sexually immoral, fornicators, adulterers, male prostitutes, and sodomites. However, as with all Biblical texts, it is important to see them in context.

     Corinth was a cosmopolitan city, in which there existed many sects and cults from all over the Mediterranean world. The new Christian church there was seeking definition. Some members of the church were "weak," that is, unfamiliar with Christian values, and needed instruction from more experienced Christians. There were also competing Gospel voices, and Paul was insistent that his was to be heard. Paul was very concerned that the church on Corinth was adopting practices that were not consistent with his teaching - practices that may have come from pagan sources as well as from other Gospellers (competing Christian voices). Paul was very worried that the weak ones would be easily swayed by their human desires, and experience idolatry as they sought to clarify their own faith. Therefore Paul wanted to be sure that his people avoided people who engaged in pagan sexual religious rituals; he also wanted to be sure that such practices - most especially temple prostitution - did not find their way into the Corinthian church. The same kind of concerns are expressed in the fifth chapter of the Letter to the Ephesians (a pseudopauline text).

     Two phrases in the above texts from 1 Cor deserve special mention: "male prostitutes" and "sodomites." These words in Greek (malakoi and arsenokoitai) are of uncertain meaning, and have been variously translated into English over the years. Many scholars, however, insist that we do not know enough about how the words were used in context. Consequently, the terms are ambiguous, and so we cannot really know whether Paul meant to condemn males for homosexual relations or prostitution, or both.[14] We will discuss this more completely in Class 5 when we look at sexuality in the ancient world.

New Testament Summary (Slides 25, 26, 27, and 28; )

     We might summarize Jesus' teachings on sexuality (and perhaps many of his teachings in general) this way: Jesus knew what is was to be human, and he understood that human beings were imperfect - human beings would fail in their principal vocation: none of us loves God or our neighbor like God does and none of us is in a position to judge each other (or God, for that matter). Jesus understood that human beings would be tempted to place other things ahead of God (breaking the great commandment). Our human passion, feelings of love, and strong sexual urges can become idolatrous. Jesus warned us about this; many of the teaching examples in the Gospels deal with sexual matters, like adultery. Kelsey and Kelsey wrote,

"any emotion, any attachment, any sexual experience, any value, any practice that becomes more important to us that the way of Love and forgiveness that Jesus taught and lived, can become an idol and lead us away from the mark (the Greek word for sin, hamartia, means missing the mark) ... [Even practices like] chastity, celibacy, honesty, 'righteousness,' courage, prudence, knowledge, spiritual gifts, and ectsasies [ - things that the church commends - ] can be sins. Indeed, these types of sins are often far more serious than the more obvious human failings. No wonder so many in the Church have failed to practice this kind of love; it requires daily dying and rising again. When men and women have succeeded in some small measure in living this way, they have been called saints."[10]

     Jesus made it clear that husband and wife were co-equal; the wife was not disposable property. Paul, and the Pauline disciple that wrote Ephesians, follow in this tradition. Jesus often spoke about adultery, and retained that act as a sinful activity. However, by including lust and divorce/remarriage as adulterous behavior, adultery was not restricted to a few wrongdoers, but was widespread in society. At the same time that he reformulated what constituted adultery, he saw that the sinfulness of adultery was in its indiscriminate character (i.e., seeking pleasure becomes an idol), or in its covetousness. Paul agreed, in that he viewed the sin of adultery as an impurity of the heart. Both Jesus and Paul regarded adultery as a form of theft; denial of the right of the sexual access provided as part of the created order.

     Jesus also toppled the patriarchial view of the family. The restored the created equality of women, and decreased the chance of family or clan purposes themselves becoming idols. Paul saw value in a family structure, but wanted to ensure that the familty structure was subordinate to the Kingdom of God, or the Body of Christ.

     With regard to same-sex relationships, male-male relationships (but not female-female ones) are discussed in the New Testament. There is no direct prohibition of homogenital relationships in the Gospels. While the language present in the Pauline, pseudo-pauline, catholic and pastoral epistles indicates that male-male relationships are immoral, care must be exercised in reading, interpreting, and applying these texts. The original Greek that is often translated into "sodomites" or "male prostitutes" in these passages is far from clear in meaning and intent (and consequently so is what is defined as immoral). It is most likely that Paul and his followers were attempting to keep pagan sexual temple practices from contaminating the early churches - including the practice of male temple prostitution.      

Back to Top

COMMENTS? E-MAIL ME

Next Week (June 22): What do scripture and tradition say about homosexuality?

In this class we will look at how Christian church tradition has interpreted the scriptures over time.

[1] Kelsey, Morton and Barbara Kelsey. Sacrament of Sexuality: The Spirituality and Psychology of Sex. (London, England: Vega. 2002), 89.

[2] Miles, Jack. God: A Biography. (New York, NY: Random House, 1995), 166.

[3] Miller, Patrick. "What the Scriptures Principally Teach." Homosexuality and Christian Community. Seow, Choon-Leong (Ed). (Louisville, KY: John Knox press. 1996), 53-63.

[4] Kelsey and Kelsey, 90-116.

[5] Whitaker, Richard E. "Creation and Human Sexuality" Homosexuality and Christian Community. Seow, Choon-Leong (Ed). (Louisville, KY: John Knox press. 1996), 3-13.

[6] Countryman, William L. Dirt Green & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. 1988), 165.

[7] Helminiak, David A. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Millennium Edition). (Novato, CA: Alamo Square Press. 2000), 69.

[8] Countryman, 95.

[9] Helminiak, 127-130.

[10] Kelsey and Kelsey, 106-107.

[11] Countryman, 104-143.

[12] Countryman, 117.

[13] Countryman, 123.

[14] Countryman, 117-123..

Biology & Spirituality of Human Sexuality Class Index Page

Bill Stroop's Sunday School Class Index Page

Bill Stroop's Home Page

Visits Since 10 June, 2003:

This publication, ie. this page and the preceding document that has a link to this page, are copyrighted. Except as permitted by the Copyright Act, no part of it may in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or any other means be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or be broadcast or transmitted without the prior permission of the publisher.