The Bible & Homoerotic Behavior
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Bible & Homoerotic Behavior
(Note: The following is taken from a presentation given at the Life Sciences & Religion Community Forum of Central Virginia at Virginia Commonwealth University on March 30, 2005.)
I have been asked to offer some perspective and clarification of the biblical view of homoerotic behavior. On one level this is a rather straightforward task, but one which has been complicated by the attempt to have the Bible support various preconceived conclusions, on both ends of the discussion, rather than allowing it to speak for itself. So, my goal is to allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves in order to provide a more concrete and accurate basis for the discussion of sexual behavior and orientation.
First, some context. Both Judaism and Christianity see themselves as “revealed” religions. By that I mean that both see themselves as holding to a faith that does not originate from human invention, but from divine revelation – i.e., from a God who exists outside ourselves and who is distinct from us in both being and nature. The history of this revelation is contained for Jews in the Hebrew Scriptures, and for Christians in both the Old and New Testaments. As my professor of Jewish studies at the University of Virginia was fond of saying, “Obedience is the essence of revealed religion.” That is, if we believe that God has revealed His will on a matter – any matter – the essence of our response is to obey. It is not to debate, to de-construct, or to rationalize, but simply to conform our behavior to what has been revealed. It is in this context that both the Old and New Testaments speak of all moral behavior, including sexual behavior. With these thoughts in mind, we turn our attention to specific biblical texts which speak to the question of homoerotic behavior. I use the term “homoerotic behavior” deliberately, because this is what the biblical texts address. The idea of people “being” either homosexual or heterosexual is a modern construct, the term “homosexuality” not being coined until the late 19th Century by German psychologist K. M. Benkert. Neither the ancient Greeks nor the ancient Hebrews had terms or concepts corresponding to the contemporary dichotomy between “heterosexual” and “homosexual.” What matters in the biblical texts, therefore, is not what we are in the sense of an innate sexual orientation, but what we do. So it is to our behavior, not to our nature, that the Bible speaks.
The Old Testament texts concerning homoerotic behavior are of basically two types: narratives in which homoerotic behavior is demonstrated, and legal codes prohibiting it. In the first category is the story of the men of Sodom in Genesis 19, who demanded that Lot surrender to them the two angels who had visited him in human form, “that we may know them.” “Know” is the Hebrew term yadah, which frequently means to “know” someone in the sense of having sexual relations with them, as in Genesis 4:1: “Adam knew Even his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain.” This is obviously the meaning of yadah in Genesis 19. To suggest that the “wickedness” which Lot begs his neighbors not to commit toward his guests is simply the violation of Eastern standards of hospitality is countered by the New Testament letter of Jude, which refers to “Sodom and Gormorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire” (Jude 7).
The legal code of Leviticus is emphatic in its denunciation of homoerotic behavior. Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Two chapters later, Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” It is sometimes argued that homoerotic behavior is prohibited in the legal code only because of its associations with the cultic prostitution which was part of Canaanite religion, and is therefore culturally conditioned and not applicable to non-idolatrous homoerotic behavior. However, this argument founders on the fact that if this is true of homoerotic behavior, then it must be likewise true of the other forms of sexual behavior outlined in this chapter, including incest (vs. 6-18), adultery (vs. 20-21), and sex with animals (v. 23).
Likewise, the context of Leviticus 18 and 20 argues against this interpretation: the issue in these chapters, as in the entire book of Leviticus, is not primarily cultural conditioning, but holiness, as indicated clearly in Leviticus 18:24-30, where the word “unclean” occurs six times within seven verses.
Turning to the New Testament, the authors accept without question the moral demands of the Hebrew Scriptures and reflect them in their own comments on homoerotic behavior.
The only New Testament writer who speaks directly to this issue is Paul, who mentions homoerotic behavior in three texts. I will address each of these briefly.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Paul writes,
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who
practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. 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. (English Standard Version)
The phrase “men who practice homosexuality” is actually two separate words in Greek.
The first is malakos, which means “soft,” and was used in secular Greek to denote men or young boys who allowed themselves to be used sexually by other men, and who served as the
“passive” partner in homosexual intercourse. The other term, arsenokoites, literally means
“one who has sex with a man,” and was used to indicate the “active” partner in male homosexual intercourse.
The latter term, arsenokoites, is likewise used in 1 Timothy 1:10, where Paul responds to the problem of some who used the Mosaic law inappropriately by saying that
the law. . . is laid down for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and
sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and
mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality,
enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in
accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been
entrusted. It is frequently said that arsenokoites and malakos do not refer to homoerotic behavior generally, but to homosexual prostitution or to pederasty (sex with children). This is reflected in the New Revised Standard Version’s translation of malakos in 1 Corinthians 6:9 by the term “male prostitutes.” However, there is nothing in the term itself that connotes prostitution. And even if this were its meaning, we must still reckon with the fact that Paul uses it alongside arsenokoites, which the NRSV translates as “sodomites.” But a study of the standard lexical resources for New Testament Greek will show clearly that the two terms are simply ways of referring to the active and passive roles of men engaging in homoerotic behavior.
Of particular significance for our discussion is Romans 1:26-27, the only biblical text which discusses both male and female homoeroticism. In 1:18-23 Paul pronounces the wrath of God on the Gentile world because they have rejected the knowledge of God that is available simply by looking at creation. As a result, he says, they have created idols for themselves rather than worshiping the true God. The consequence of this rejection is that “God gave them up” to all kinds of dishonorable behavior. Specifically, in verses 26-27 he says,
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women
exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 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 themselves the due
penalty for their error. We should note the language of strong disapproval that occurs in this text: “dishonorable passions,” “shameless acts,” and “error.” This is reminiscent of the pronouncement of homoerotic behavior as an “abomination” in the legal code of Leviticus 18 and 20. Paul’s objection to such behavior is based on the God-intended pattern of creation: “God made them male and female,” and these two are to become “one flesh.” In other words, Paul is taking the exact stance toward homoerotic behavior (minus the death penalty) that is found in
Genesis and Leviticus.
It is an obvious misinterpretation of this text to suggest that what Paul condemns is not homoerotic behavior, but whatever behavior is not “natural” for the individual – i.e., that if one
“is homosexual,” then that is how one should behave sexually, and if one “is heterosexual,” then it would be “unnatural” to act in homoerotic fashion. Paul is not discussing individual orientations or preferences, but the created order of things. What he condemns is not “acting outside your natural preferences,” but acting against the way that God has created men and women and the purposes for which He has created them.
These three Pauline texts are the only ones which specifically discuss homoerotic behavior. It is often pointed out that (1) we have only a few texts which take a negative view of homoerotic actions, and that (2) none of them come from Jesus Himself. The latter statement is undoubtedly true: Jesus made no specific pronouncement concerning such behavior. However, it is only reasonable to assume that Jesus accepted the proscriptions of homoerotic behavior found in the Levitical code. Also, it should be noted that on at least two occasions (recorded in Matthew 10:15 and 11:23-24) Jesus referred to Sodom as epitomizing sinful behavior. So to suggest that Jesus would have taken a view different from that of Paul is strongly against the biblical evidence.
As for the scarcity of texts which address homoerotic behavior, this holds true only for
New Testament texts which specifically address this conduct. Others do so indirectly. Jesus references the Sodom story not only in Matthew, but also in Luke 17:28-30. In addition to
Jude’s characterization of the sin of Sodom as “sexual immorality” and “unnatural desire,” a parallel text in 2 Peter 2:6-10 describes Sodom’s behavior as “the licentiousness of the wicked.” Likewise, Revelation 11:8 uses the name “Sodom” as a symbol for the iniquity of the city of Rome.
Taken together with the Old Testaments pronouncements against homoerotic behavior, it becomes evident that the Bible actually has quite a bit to say about it, and that the biblical witness is consistently negative. No texts indicate that such conduct is acceptable under any circumstances.
That said, I would also point out that, although the Bible consistently pronounces homoerotic behavior to be a sin, it never suggests that it is the worst of all sins, or that it is in a class by itself, as is sometimes assumed. The Levitical code mentions homoerotic behavior in the context of a host of other sexual sins, from incest to adultery, which are equally condemned. In the New Testament, the specific condemnation of this conduct invariably occurs in lists of other sins, indicating that homoerotic behavior ought not to be singled out as
“the ultimate sin.” Some of these other sins include greed, malice, envy, deceit, gossip, and disobedience to parents in Romans 1; idolatry, adultery, drunkenness, and theft in 1 Corinthians 6; and slave-trading, lying, and perjury in 1 Timothy 1. All such sins are equally violations of what God intended for His creation. This in no way lessens the severity of the
New Testament view of homoerotic sin; it is simply to say that those who practice it are just sinners, like all the rest of us.
The New Testament message is not that those who engage in homoerotic behavior are to be vilified or shunned, or that they are excluded from the love of God. Rather, it is that
God calls all of us sinners to Himself through the cross of His Son, Jesus Christ, and offers us forgiveness and cleansing from every sin, regardless of its nature, once we repent and turn to
Him. Paul’s point in Romans 1 is not that homoerotic practitioners are worse than others, merely that their conduct is indicative of what happens when God is taken out of the picture and replaced with a god or gods of our own making. But he goes on to say that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” and that salvation is available to everyone who believes. And his word to the Corinthians was not that the past homoerotic behavior of some of them put them beyond the bounds of God’s grace; rather, it was that they had been washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, a hopeful possibility held out to all who would call upon His name.
James T. (Tommy) South, Ph.D. Glen Allen Church of Christ 11064 Staples Mill Rd., Glen Allen, VA 23060 [email protected]