Over the last three months we’ve explored the major Old Testament clobber passages frequently used to condemn those who identify as homosexual/gay, and now we turn to the New Testament passages. The full list of passages commonly used to condemn those who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community are: Genesis 1 & 2 (Creation – covered in the October Blog); Genesis 19 (Sodom/Gomorrah – in my November Blog); Leviticus 18:19-22 & 20:1-18 ( the Law of Moses – in December’s Blog); and Romans 1; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and Jude 1: 7, which, with a little luck we’ll get through this time. I’ve given you the link so you can have a webpage open as we go.
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father
I’m sure you are already aware of this, but it bears repeating for the sake of anyone coming to this issue afresh. The main point of the New Testament is to introduce the world to Jesus, the Son of God, who came to earth to provide a way for people to be restored to a personal relationship with God. If we want to know what God is really like, Jesus tells us to look at himself. Hopefully you are familiar with John 14: 8-10:-
8 Philip said, ‘Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.’ 9 Jesus answered: ‘Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
That comment is still necessary, because we get so absorbed in our own ideas of God that we forget. So, Jesus still says to those of us who have been Christians for many years: “Don’t you know me, [name], even after you’ve been a Christian for such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father”.
According to Jesus’ own words, what he says, comes straight from God the Father, therefore what Jesus says about sexuality also matters. So, what does he say? Perhaps surprisingly, absolutely nothing! Nada, zero, zip!
He taught about marriage and fidelity (Matthew 19: 4-6), divorce (Matthew 19: 8-9), lust and adultery (Matthew 5: 27-28), and love and respect (Matthew 22:37-39). But Jesus didn’t talk about those who don’t conform to the hetero-typical. We definitely know that there were those who we would identify as gay, bisexual and trans around at the time of Jesus, since there are historical records predating the time of Jesus. Plato, who lived well before the time of Jesus, in 424-347 BC, wrote about three sexual orientations (androgynous, male, and female) in his “Symposium”. (But even that doesn’t really match our contemporary distinctions if you read the paper.)
Origin story
The earliest reference we know of where historical records refer to people we would define as gay, dates back to at least 1200 BC in South Asia. Hindu medical texts written in India during this period document the existence of homosexuality. Within Hinduism there are recognised to be many genders – some sources talk about 11, others 52 and still others 64! Their gods seem to have all sorts of sexualities. In addition, again within Hinduism, transgenderism is recognised as normal since there are several deities whose genders are split between male and female. Because I know very little about Hinduism, I’m reticent about naming specific gods, so if you are really curious, you’ll need to do your own digging. Hinduism seems to have started around the time of Abraham plus or minus a couple of centuries, so, we can’t just pretend Jesus would have been oblivious to the issue. It would also be safe to say that people matching our definition of being LGBTQ+ have existed since time began. It’s very likely Jesus met a few, but the absence of any textual reference implies that for him, and the society of the day, it simply wasn’t an issue. To quote from my longer essay downloadable here:
“Indeed, the words chosen and used by the writer Matthew in chapter 8: 5-13 where Jesus meets a Centurion who asks for his servant to be healed, are intriguing and interesting. Matthew uses the word ‘pais’ which is odd:
“If the boy had been the centurion’s son, then the author probably would have used the Greek word “uios” (son). If the writer wanted to imply that they [sic] boy was a slave or indentured servant, then he probably would have used the word “duolos” (slave). But he did not. He used the Greek word pais which, in this situation, contains the suggestion of a young male kept for sexual purposes by his adult owner. The English word “pederasty” comes partly from this word. Various translations of the Christian Scriptures have suppressed the possible sexual component of the term and translated the word simply as a “servant boy”, “serving boy”, “young servant,” “my son,” and “my boy.” A present-day relationship of this type would be considered child sexual abuse, a serious crime. However, such arrangements were common in the Roman Empire at the time, and were tolerated by society, as was human slavery itself.
The Gospel of Luke, starting at Luke 7:2 told the same story differently. The boy was changed into a slave of undefined age who was ‘dear to’ (KJV) the Centurion. The author used the Greek word doulos which is a generic term for servant or slave. He was described as being very sick and near death; this contrasts with the author of Matthew who description of a boy being paralyzed and in great pain.”
Quoted from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc2.htm.” [Sadly, that website now seems to have disappeared. If anyone knows what happened or whether it has simply changed its name, please let me know. It was a fantastic resource – though not always correct in every detail. Nevertheless, it was worth spending a few hours reading their pages – I learned a lot from the site, and obviously checked its content from other sources. In the meantime, using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine site I finally found a link to the pages here. I can be persistent when searching for something!]
Let me be clear, we cannot be certain this centurion was in a pederastic relationship, but it doesn’t look like it can be ruled out conclusively. So, for Jesus, being LGBTQ+ probably was not an issue, given he says nothing about it, but what were issues for him were those I mentioned at the beginning. Additionally, pederasty, which we have just alluded to, was common within the Greco-Roman world, and the New Testament writers would have obviously been very aware of it, because the Romans conquered Palestine in 63 BC and had a significant presence there, for 170 years, till 132AD.
So, as Jesus says nothing, where is our first mention? In fact, it is Paul in the book of Romans as you will have noticed from the opening paragraph. This in itself raises a question before we look at the passage itself. If being gay is a sin that damns you to hell, why didn’t Jesus make that clear? Instead, we have these words in Matthew 11: 28 Then Jesus said, “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light.”
The yoke carried by the LGBTQ+ Christian is far from easy to carry – largely because of other Christians, sadly. If Jesus doesn’t call out the LGBTQ+ person, then are we correct in assuming Paul is calling out people that Jesus doesn’t, or might he be addressing completely different people? I would argue that the message of the Bible is to be trusted and that we need to be a little bit more open to asking questions about who and what the New Testament writers were addressing in their writings.
Paul is saying what exactly?
Turning then to Romans 1, which is so often cited. The verses that always gets picked up are found in 26 and 27: “26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
The first question we must ask is who is Paul talking about? Is there an answer in Paul’s previous paragraph. No, that continues the theme from the preceding paragraph to that. In fact, the subjects of Paul’s ire are revealed in verse 21: “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.” They were people who knew and recognised God for who he is (possibly Christians, or former Christians?), but who had rejected him and turned away to follow idols (see verses 22-23). It was these people who were, in our parlance, typically previously straight, but who had got involved in idol worship and presumably this led on to drug‑fuelled orgies that included sex with anyone and everyone. Whether this was in temples, or homes isn’t clear and doesn’t matter much.
If you read this passage openly and critically, it cannot be directed at the person who is LGB, even though there is a reference to same-gender sex, but it is described as a part of the fruit of the original sin, not the sin for which God was judging them – though it was still regarded as a sin, no question. If you think this is directly addressing the person who identifies as LGB you must ask yourself: looking at Paul’s writing, of those you know who are LGB, how many of them are depraved, wicked, evil, greedy, envious, murderous, deceitful, gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent etc., etc.? That’s a hell of a list!
I’m going to make a guess, but those you know who are LGBTQ+ will be morally indistinguishable from anyone else. Indeed, the sensitivity that many exhibit may often make them nicer people. As I now belong to a church largely, but not exclusively, run by and for LGBTQ+ people, I know many in the community. These LGBTQ+ Christians have the mark of the Holy Spirit on their lives. For anyone tempted to question that, I would ask you to read Acts 10: 9-35 and Acts11: 1-18. Those were critical verses for me when I was looking for a new church. This is because Peter is reported to have said in chapter 11:17: “… if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”
I also have gay friends outside the church, and one of them told me she keeps being invited to a church that I later found it to be non-affirming. My friend’s friends don’t know she is gay and simply saw her as a lovely person and want her to come to church with them. The two problems are that she is an atheist and gay! (I’m using “gay” in my writings to cover both lesbian and gay since many lesbians simply self-identify as gay.)
I’m making the point that the descriptors Paul is using in Romans 1, cannot be applied universally to all LGBTQ+ people.
So, what do you make of these verses? Surely, if these verses were directly targeting the person who is by nature gay – if the Bible is to be trusted, all the gay people you know would be exhibiting many of those traits – but they just don’t, or at least no more than the typically straight person! If they are addressing those who are not by nature gay, but people who are consumed and obsessed with various kinds of sexual deviancy, a better case can be made that Paul may be addressing them.
I am simply applying some logic to the passage. As I keep saying, we MUST look closely at the words and the context, as well as asking what the writer was meaning to convey to his readers, and if we can’t be certain, tread very carefully and lightly.
Corinthians and Timothy
We now need to turn to 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 and 1 Timothy 1: 9-10 which are both lists of vices.
1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 says: “9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
And 1 Timothy 1:9-10 says: “9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine…”
I’m taking both of these at the same time because they are similar. Right at the start, before we look at the text, I want to reiterate the point I’ve made in previous blogs. Look at each of the vices and ask which are the odd ones out. In almost every instance you can choose whether to “sin” or not. You can choose to kill, to be a drunkard or a swindler, etc. I don’t need to list them all, but additionally, they also almost all result in harm to others. The only exception is homosexuality, where loving someone of the same gender comes from something built into the very core of the person, and it precludes choice. The one exception to that is where homosexual rape occurs, usually as a means of domination and exertion of power – that is a choice. An example of that is in warfare, and in prisons. However, two gay people having a consensual intimate relationship is not done through choice, but a product of their innate nature – it is who they are. Additionally, no harm is perpetrated – indeed it is as mutually beneficial as that experienced by a consensual straight couple. Essentially, it builds up, rather than harms. So, for a start I would question whether homosexuality as we understand it, was in the authors head when he wrote the vice lists.
Then we need to look at the actual words used. The Corinthians passage talks about “men who have sex with men”. Presumably lesbians get a free pass? I’ve talked about this before, so I won’t repeat myself.
Malakoi and arsenokoitai
In the original text, when Paul writes to the Corinthians, he uses two words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, and in his letter to Timothy he uses the word arsenokoitais. The problem is we cannot be certain of what those words arsenokoitai and arsenokoitais mean. It is a word made up of two linked words “men” and “beds”, but you can’t jump to conclusions in linking the two. We have words like “yellowhammer” (the British bird), “butterfly”, “pineapple” and “ladykiller” where two words are apparently linked that don’t make the sum of their parts. (Go on! Play the game. I know you want to find others!)
Here I’m going to quote an extract from Kathy Baldock’s Canyonwalker Connections website previously quoted in my essay:
But how can we verify the essence of arsenokoitais in this passage? The only way to get closer to the intended meaning is to find it used in context in other texts around the same general time period—in this case, the first century. This, too, is problematic. Arsenokoites is found in fewer than one hundred writings over a period of six hundred years, and in most cases, it is in lists that don’t provide narrative clues. Most frequently, arsenokoites was associated with money and exploitative sex; for example:[*]
- In the Sibylline Oracle, a collection of writings from the second to the sixth centuries, arsenokoites were listed along with stealing, lying, and murder.
- In the Acts of John, a document dating from the second century, arsenokoites appeared in context with robbery, cheating, and sex with shrine prostitutes.
- In all translations of nonbiblical texts prior to the 1500s in which arsenokoites were used, it was most closely connected to exploitative sex for money.
[*] Dale B. Martin, “Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meaning and Consequences,” Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, edited by Robert L. Brawley (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 120-122.
Kathy then goes on to explain how Bible translators then translated the word particularly inserting the word “Homosexual” after 1946. So please read the full page – it is so useful. In fact, go away and read anything she has written! She has done a huge amount of verifiable research that really helps make sense of the Bible. And whilst I’m being a fanboi, a brief reminder to watch her 90-minute video “Untangling the Mess” looking at same-sex behaviour through history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziCOOdUW8OA
The word “malakoi” is easier to deal with because there are more background and contextual references to it in writings of the period. One such use was that Jesus used it to describe the “fine clothing” worn in “kings’ palaces”- Matthew 11:7-8:
7 As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 8 If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes [malakoi]? No, those who wear fine clothes[malachoi] are in kings’ palaces.
The word was associated with softness, moral weakness, lazy, lustful and was generally identified with women. Sexually it was associated with taking the submissive position in sex. Please excuse the graphic nature, but how many people in straight relationships interchange between taking both dominant and submissive roles during one period of love-making. At the time of Paul, sex was all about the role people assumed when making love – the woman was defined as the submissive partner, even if it was the man who was submissive! The man was defined as a woman. Have fun with that!
There are some helpful “Religious Tolerance” links on that Wayback Machine site at: https://web.archive.org/web/20201106232955/http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm.
The Corinthians passage is looked at here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201029025430/http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
The Timothy passage, here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201111232034/http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc7.htm
Possible meanings of arsenokoitai: https://web.archive.org/web/20201107224602/http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm
In conclusion
So, having said all that my conclusion is that in these two passages Paul is really addressing exploitative and/or abusive male-on-male sex since this would be much more consistent with the rest of the vices in those two lists.
The final “clobber” passage is Jude and verse 7 which says: “7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” As you’ll see from that, even the NIV doesn’t think there’s much of a case to claim this is homosexuality. We dealt with Sodom and Gomorrah, back in November. In the King James Version, it uses the expression “strange flesh”. “Strange flesh” in the original Greek reads: “sarkos heteras.” Oddly, our English word “heterosexual” is derived from “heteras.” Oops! Anyway, the NIV just throws its hands in the air and splutters “sexual immorality and perversion” which could be anything especially as straight people can be quite perverted when it comes to it! As we’ve said before in Sodom and Gomorrah, violent rape is abhorrent whatever the gender of perpetrator and victim.
Since Jude uses the term ‘sexual immorality and perversion’ it is unclear what Jude was specifically talking about, so it is very unsafe to conclude there is anything here to clobber the LGBTQ+ community.
If the ground is unsafe, stay away – don’t read back into the Bible what isn’t there.
Having got to the end of this series what is the point? Is my intent to get people to deconstruct their faith? Absolutely not! Well, not without being prepared to find a better way of rebuilding faith that continues to be centred on the teachings of Jesus as described in the Bible. Yes, the church has made a real mess of the issue of sexuality, but let’s rebuild our faith on the person of Jesus and trust that he will give us a true picture of God and his passion for each of us regardless of how weak or strong we think we are. Let us also try and help others understand there is no threat to the church’s future by embracing and loving our LGBTQ+ friends, and it indeed looks very bright if we can welcome our God-created diversity. Each one of us is very different and we must embrace it.
We need to stop seeing God as holding a big stick waiting for us to make a small mistake so he can bash us with it. Instead, we need to learn to see God as being in character identical to Jesus, so that when someone poor gives all she had to the temple treasury, God, like Jesus, says “Oh wow! Did you see that?” And when Jesus says to the blind Bartimaeus “What would you like me to do for you?”, God get a tear in his eye and a lump in his throat, as Jesus heals him and gives him a new life. And when the gay person says they want to know Jesus more closely, God says, “Come here, I am so glad. I know your pain, I want to give you a massive hug.”
And if you want to read how I view the clobber passages in more detail, download my essay – all 380+ pages from here.
Changing Minds 