The Biology and Spirituality of Human Sexuality
Class 4: What Do Scripture and Tradition Say About Homosexuality?
September 3, 2003
(Notes Revised 11 August, 2003)

Introduction

     Review of Last Class. In last week's class, we discussed what the Bible had to say in the Old and new Testaments about sexuality, and we touched on what the Bible said about homosexuality. But the main emphasis of last week was on the totality of sexual expression. We looked at sexuality from a Biblical perspective, recognizing the patriarchal society that gave rise to the Bible itself. We looked at sexuality in the context of the patriarchal family unit, examining at the same time the low status given to women. Next, we looked at how Jesus' teaching challenged exclusionary purity systems and patriarchal views. Finally, we spoke a little about the Pauline and pseudo-pauline perspectives on sexuality in the epistles.

     In this class period, we will review the Biblical texts that deal specifically with homosexuality, since as we learned from Class 3, this is a major issue facing the Episcopal church as well as other denominations today.

     Definition of Homosexuality. (Slide 1; )Before beginning to talk about the Bible and homosexuality, we need to establish as best we can what we mean by "homosexuality." In Class 1, we discussed thirteen different factors that contribute to our sexual identity, ranging from the effect of the X and Y chromosomes, to a spiritual sense of our own gender identity. The fact that so many factors contribute to our sense sexual identity indicates how complex the whole topic of sexuality really is. Therefore, the clarity that we think we have about even male-female heterosexual relationships begins to blur. Homosexual relationships are even more unclear. Although the word"homosexual" may seem to be easily defined, it is not. In fact the term "homosexual" was coined about 150 years ago as a name for a disease or a crime. Many today use the term to distinguish between sexual behavior (what one does with one's genitals) and sexual orientation (what gender one identifies with). (Slide 3; ) For the time being, let's assume that the term homosexual refers to orientation that takes form in human behavior. That is a person is a male homosexual if (1) he feels sexual attraction toward other males; (2) acts upon that feeling; and (3) forms a loving bond with another male.

Back to Top

The Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality

     Given our definition of "homosexual" noted above, what does the Bible have to say about the subject? this is where we need to remember our previous discussion about how to read the Bible. In speaking of seeking guidance about homosexuality in the epistles of Paul, Maria Harris and Gabriel Moran wrote, "the person who assumes Paul condemned homosexuality thinks it is obvious that he had the same idea in mind as the contemporary reader."[1] Given this, Harris and Moran make the point that condemnation of a contemporary person for a homosexual practice is reading into the Biblical text modern values (cultural, social, political, religious, etc.). "The person who assumes Paul condemned homosexuality thinks it is obvious that he had the same idea in mind as the contemporary reader. The fact that the term homosexual was invented in the nineteenth century is not considered relevant."[2]

     We cannot deny that there are references to sexual practices in the Bible that are considered by the Biblical writers to be perverse. As noted in the table below, there are five references in the Bible to male-male sexual relations, two in Leviticus, and three in the epistles. There is only one reference to female-female sexual relations in Romans. There is one story involving a close relationship in the Gospels that may refer to a close sexual relationship between a male slave, and the male slave owner in the Gospel of Luke. Our job in this class is to look at these Biblical references and see how they have been interpreted by the Church in formulating contemporary views on homosexuality. (Slides 4 and 5; )

     There are several texts in the bibliography that deal with the biblical texts. Some of these are more liberal in approach (e.g., Helminiak) and others are more conservative (Gagnon). To really get a feel for this area, it is prudent to read at least one text from each camp.

The Levitical Holiness Code (Lev 18 and 20)

     In the last class, we began our discussion of the Holiness Code. This code, which reached its final form in the 6th century B.C.E. while the Israelites were in exile in Babylon. The Holiness Code can be found in Lev 17-26. The 18th and 20th chapters deal with male-male sexual relations. The 18th chapter is reproduced below:

1 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am the LORD your God. 3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes. 4 My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes you shall keep, following them: I am the LORD your God. 5 You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the LORD. 6 None of you shall approach anyone near of kin to uncover nakedness: I am the LORD. 7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is the nakedness of your father. 9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born abroad. 10 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or of your daughter’s daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, begotten by your father, since she is your sister. 12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s flesh. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s flesh. 14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law: she is your son’s wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. 17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are your flesh; it is depravity. 18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive. 19 You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. 20 You shall not have sexual relations with your kinsman’s wife, and defile yourself with her. 21 You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 You shall not have sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it: it is perversion. 24 Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these practices the nations I am casting out before you have defiled themselves. 25 Thus the land became defiled; and I punished it for its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and commit none of these abominations, either the citizen or the alien who resides among you 27 (for the inhabitants of the land, who were before you, committed all of these abominations, and the land became defiled); 28 otherwise the land will vomit you out for defiling it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 29 For whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people. 30 So keep my charge not to commit any of these abominations that were done before you, and not to defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God. (Lev 18:1-29)

The code stresses the concern of the Hebrews for purity (being clean and undefiled before God). It is important to note that to be unclean in this tradition does not imply immorality; instead it means "unpolluted." That is also why the Hebrews in the Holiness Code forbade the wearing of fabrics made of two different materials, sowing a field with two different kinds of seeds, or breeding different kinds of animals.

     As we discussed in the last class, the Hebrew world was a patriarchal one. (Slide 6; ) That fact and the need for purity to distinguish the Hebrew people from all other peoples are what lead to the condemnation of sex between males. Sex between males requires one of the partners to be submissive (passive). This was the natural order of things in the Hebrew world, and it was the role of a woman. If a male is passive and is the receptive partner in a sexual encounter, that person has compromised his maleness. He is now a "blemished" creature, no longer pure and undefiled before God. The fact that one partner is unclean, makes the whole relationship sordid, so both partners are unclean. (Slide 7; ) Victor Furnish writes that "this levitical rule takes no specific account of what is 'good' or 'just' or 'loving.' The single concern is for purity, understood in an objective, literal sense."[3]

Back to Top

Wrongdoers Excluded from heaven: Malakoi (soft ones; young, male, passive prostitutes) and Arsenokoitai (sodomites; male/bed)

     There are three explicit references to homosexuality in the New Testament, two in Paul's letters and one in 1 Timothy. We will deal with the Corinthian and 1 Timothy references together.

       1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 9-10.

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. (1 Cor 6:9-10, NRSV)

This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Tim 1:9-11, NRSV)

     In 1 Cor 6:9 two Greek works appear, malakoi and arsenokoitai. (Slides 8, 9 and 10; ) The first literally means "soft ones" and in the first Century referred to effeminate men. It was also the term used to describe pederasty between older men who purchased the services of boys for sex (male prostitutes). Arsenokoitai is a combination of two Greek words meaning "bed" and "male." This coined word may have originated with Paul, since 1 Cor is the earliest known use of the word. The word is like the same word in the Greek translations of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 that means "male" and "bed" and refers to intercourse. This same word, with the same meaning, is contained in the vice list in 1 Tim 1:9-10 (see the description of vice lists in Class 3).

     Knowing the translations of these key words illustrates an important fact about Paul and the author of 1 Timothy. To be sure, they disapproved of homogenital contact between men (note that women are not mentioned) . However, because of how malakoi and arsenokoitai were used in the texts, it is hard to say whether Paul and the author of 1 Tim condemned all homogenital contact or just contact male prostitution (pederasty in particular). (Slide 11; ) Daniel Helminiak makes the point about homogenital contact in these texts that when first century moralists objected to male-male sexual behavior "they objected to exploitation, inequality, abuse, and lust. That is also what the Greek-speaking Jews were likewise condemning in Roman society. Supposing that arsenokoitai does refer to male-male sex, we must conclude that the term condemns some kind of abusive sex."[4] Helminiak concludes that "it may not be all together possible to translate in one or two English words what arsenokoitai really means. So, caught in a distorting time warp, the Christian testament may ever continue to support unchristian attitudes and behavior ... These texts intend no blanket condemnation of homosexuality, nor even of homogenitality."[5] Furnish and Countryman also agree with this assessment.[6]

     Romans 1: 18-32.

     It is only in the 26th and 27th verses of Romans 1 that same sex intercourse between men as well as male female relationships is discussed with any directness. Below are these verses (Read Romans 1:18-32):

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Note that the subject in these verses is God, not homosexuality. (Slide 12; ) Paul is simply stating in these verses that idolatry can lead to various forms of sexual immorality including the interchanging of sexual roles. Such intercourse between men (instead of between men and women) was viewed as unnatural. This was because it was "natural" for the woman to be the passive, receptive partner, not the man. The interchanging of sex roles or same-sex intercourse were considered sexually immoral (see the Wisdom of Solomon 14:12 which was a work of the late first century BCE).[7]

     Victor Furnish makes the point that Paul's opposition to same-sex male relations is not evident from Paul's own writings. The best we can do, he explains, is to look at what other writers of Paul's era had to say, since Paul would probably have known of these opinions. There were four objections to homosexual relations, all of which fall under the general heading that homosexuality is against the natural order (and hence against God's will):[8]

• It was presupposed that anyone who sought same-sex intercourse was overriding his/her own "natural" desire for the opposite sex. (Slide 13; )
• Homoerotic acts were so intrinsically lustful, they represented an unnatural (insatiable) sexual appetite.
• Nature assigned the role of penetration to the male and passive reception to the female of the species
• Homosexuality would lead to extinction of the species (interestingly this was based on the erroneous medical belief that same-sex intercourse rendered the penetrator sterile). (SLide 14; )

      Summary. Stanley Grenz, an evangelical Baptist and professor of theology and ethics at Carey/Regent College in Vancouver, summarizes the Pauline opposition to homosexuality this way:

In his critique of homosexual acts as practiced in Gentile society, Paul is upholding as his standard God's intention for woman and man. In keeping with the injunction of the Holiness Code, the apostle declared that this model is natural, for it alone fits with the Creator's design for sexual activity. Homosexual relations ... are "against nature," because they are contrary to this divine intent. And for Paul it comes as no surprise that in an idolatrous culture, which sacrifices the truth of God, homosexual acts would emerge."[9]

Theologically, Paul's use of sexual relations helps him to relate to the reader the human condition and pave the way for his explication of the gospel (see Romans, chapters 3-8). In this, Paul demonstrates that our lives are broken when we are apart from God. (Slides 15 and 16; ) All human beings (Gentile and Jew) have fallen short of God's will. The construction of Paul's argument is not unlike that of the Psalmist who described how Yahweh turned away from the people when they forgot who Yahweh was and what Yahweh did for them:

There shall be no strange god among you;
    O Israel, if you would but listen to me!
I am the Lord your God,
who brought you out of the land of Egypt and said,
    "Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it."
And yet my people did not hear my voice,
    and Israel would not obey me.
So I gave them over to the stubbornness of their hearts,
    to follow theur own devices. (Ps 81:9-12, NRSV)

To Paul, sin is the refusal to properly acknowledge God as the one from whom all life has come. Trying to go it alone without God, not allowing God to be God (or placing ourselves above God) is the mistake. Making ourselves into self-sustaining creatures - independent of God is the greatest sin, Paul would argue. Paul's argument using sexuality is a very graphic way to illustrate that idolatry - including pursuit of sex to excess - is at the root of sinfulness, because it alienates the sinner from God.[10] Sexual misconduct therefore, Paul would say, is a consequence of sin, not the sin itself or even the cause of sin (idolatry is the cause). The important thing to remember about Romans is not the condemnation of same-sex relations, but the good news Paul brings in ROM 3:21-8:39 in which he says that God's grace, as disclosed in Jesus, is given to human beings as sheer gift without condition.

Back to Top

Did Jesus Meet A Homosexual Man?

     Daniel Helminiak has written an argument based on the healing recorded in Mt 8:5-13 and Lk 7:1-10. Below are these two stories (Slide 17; ):

When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.” And he said to him, “I will come and cure him.” The centurion answered, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.” And the servant was healed in that hour. (MT 8:5-13, NRSV)

After Jesus had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly, and who was ill and close to death. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. When they came to Jesus, they appealed to him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy of having you do this for him, for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us.” And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But only speak the word, and let my servant be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, he said, 'I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.' When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health." (Luke 7:1-10, NRSV)

     There are three Greek words in these texts that are important: pais ("my boy," or "my servant" or "my son"); doulos (generic word for "servant"), and entimos ("valuable" or "dear"). Luke describes the servant as a doulos (servant), but Matthew describes him as pais (young boy). Luke also describes the boy as entimos ("dear"). Helminiak therefore proposes that the slave was a young, male house slave (not his biological son) that the soldier had fallen in love with (Roman heads of house holds often used slaves for sex).[11]

     Whether one accepts Helminiak's interpretation or not, Jesus treated the situation with characteristic compassion and mercy. Jesus did not delve into the living arrangements of these two people, no more than he did of other people he encountered with similar needs. Jesus simply commended the faith of the centurion, and healed the slave. It is a model we can all live by.

Back to Top

Two Views: Contrasting Views of What the Bible Says

     Good and faithful people, who care sincerely about the Church, and who love God will come down on opposite sides of the issue of homosexuality. Looking to the Bible for precedent and clarity, they will arrive at opposite opinions. Two such views are presented in the following arguments.

Back to Top

The Ecclesiological (Church) View on Same Sex Relationships[12]

     Many people assume that the church is consistent on its view of homosexuality. As we know from Class 2, and the Two Views described immediately above, this just isn't so. There is no unbroken line of thought from the Biblical record to the present. As we will see in a future class, the Church did not significantly censure homosexuals during the first 1000 years of church history.

The Patristic Period (Slide 18; )

     The patristic fathers were not terribly concerned with homosexual behavior, although the early church was concerned about pederasty. The Epistle of Barnabas (70-135 C.E.) condemned adultery and pederasty. Church councils and synods in the early 500 years of the Church also condemned sexual relations with boys. In addition the early Church leaders also adopted prohibitions against lesbian relationships based on Rom 1:26-27.

The Early Church (Slides 19 and 20; )

     In response to what was viewed as immorality in Roman society, early Christian moralists called Christians to chastity, called for sexual expression only within marriage, and elevated celibacy. Basically all kinds of sexual expression were suspect. Basil and Gregory of Nyssa viewed pederasty about as sinful as adultery, more sinful than fornication, but less sinful than murder or apostasy. By the fourth century (at the beginning of the era of Christendom), civil legislation condemned male homosexuals ("acting the part of a woman's, to the suffering of alien sex") to death by burning. By the sixth century, the emperor Justinian, often considered the most fanatical Christian emperors who penalized homosexual practices, was convinced that God would condemn Rome like God condemned Sodom.

The Middle Ages: Thomas Aquinas (Slide 21; )

     In the middle ages, the church developed official policies against homosexual practices. It was Thomas Aquinas who, by moral argument, placed homosexual practices among the six kinds of lust (rape, seduction, incest, adultery, fornication, homosexual activity). His argument, like Paul's, was based on natural law. Homosexuality, masturbation, bestiality, and unnatural heterosexual sex were contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race. In other words, they were contrary to procreation (see Class 3). Masturbation, homosexual practices, engaging in intercourse in the wrong posture, fornication, and adultery were all on the list of Penitentials. Homosexual activities included same-sex kissing, use of phallic devices by lesbians, and male-male intercourse. When Charlamagne was made Holy Roman Emperor in 800, he reformed the monastic orders to decease sexuality laxity in those institutions.

     Homosexual activity was regarded by all of the denominations that arose from the Protestant reformation as sinful. The Roman Catholic stance against homosexuality strengthened even more after the Catholic counter-reformation. Ignatius of Loyola supported excommunication for priests involved in homosexual behavior. As nationalism spread throughout Europe and colonialization began in earnest, nations enacted legislation against homosexual activity. Puritanical New England, Geneva, England, France, and other countries enacted civil and/or religious laws against homosexual practices.

The Modern Era (Slides 22 and 23; )

     Grenz notes that there has always been a primary interest in prohibiting male-male sexual relationships, with little attention paid to lesbian ones. One explanation for this is that society up until the modern age was patristic (and some would argue that it still is!). To the such a partiarchalist, homosexual behavior is unnatural because it transforms the male into a "lowly female." Grenz, a conservative, suggests that the reason for this focus was the fact that the clergy was male, and that the church was concerned that its clergy were pure. Because people looked to priests, monks, and nuns as examples of "right" living, the Christian moralists of the middle ages were anxious to ensure moral, righteous behavior in the ranks of the clergy. Grenz believes that there is an unbroken line from the second century to the present time that condemns illicit sexual practices - including adultery, fornication, and same-sex behavior.

     It is important to note, however, that became what we now know about the biological and psychological features of sexual identity was not known prior to the last 50 years or so, all of the arguments prohibiting homosexual behavior saw God's creation through non-nuanced eyes. As this course continues, we will explore in more detail the breadth of God's creation, male and female, and many sexual forms in between.

Back to Top

COMMENTS? E-MAIL ME

Next Class (July 6): Sexuality in the ancient world and pre-modern church views of sexuality. There will be no class June 29!

Did you know that same-sex marriages were relatively common during the Greco-Roman period? Did you know that prior to 1215 CE, the Roman Church had prayer rites for uniting two men?

These are some of the topics we will discuss.

[1] Maria Harris and Gabriel Moran. "Homosexuality: A Word Not Written." Walter Wink (ed.). Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 74.

[2] Harris and Moran, 73.

[3] Victor Paul Furnish. "The Bible and Homosexuality." Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate. Siker, Jeffrey S. (Ed.). (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 20.

[4] Helminiak, David A. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Millennium Edition). (Novato, CA: Alamo Square Press. 2000), 113.

[5] Helminiak, 115.

[6] See William L. Countryman. Dirt Green & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. 1988), 109-123 and Victor Paul Furnish. "The Bible and Homosexuality." Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate. Siker, Jeffrey S. (Ed.). (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 24-31.

[7] Furnish, 25.

[8] Furnish, 25-28.

[9] Stanley J. Grenz. Welcoming but not Affirming: An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality. (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press. 1998), 56.

[10] Grenz, 55.

[11] Helminiak, 127-130.

[12] This discussion is adapted from Grenz, 64-80.

Biology & Spirituality of Human Sexuality Class Index Page

Bill Stroop's Sunday School Class Index Page

Bill Stroop's Home Page

Visits Since 18 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.