Modern Questions about Homosexuality and the New Testament
 |
| Painting by Rembrandt of Paul, one of the most notable of early Christian missionaries, who called himself the "Apostle to the Gentiles." Paul, a Hellenistic Jew, was very influential on the shift of Christianity to Gentile dominated movement. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
1. Is Paul making a blanket pronouncement that homosexuality is sin against God in Romans 1:26–27 when he speaks of a behavior (“men with men” and “women with women”) that is “against nature”?
The Revisionist Answer
It is not possible to read here a reference to a crime against nature or a so-called “natural law” because such a concept is Greek and was unknown to Paul.
The Biblical Answer
Natural law was known to Philo and Josephus, contemporaries with the apostle Paul, and it is reflected in literature contemporary with, or antecedent to, Paul. For Jews, it represented creation and God’s law brought into harmony (see pp. 149–62, 239–51).
The Revisionist Claim
In Romans 1, Paul condemns men and women who leave their natural state. He does not condemn those who are born homosexual, who have the homosexual condition, for that is their natural state. Ancient peoples did not know of the modern ideas of a mutual, permanent homosexual union and homosexual orientation. Rather, Paul condemns either homosexuals or heterosexuals who leave their natural condition and act as something else.
The Bible’s Answer
Paul makes no distinction about those who are born in a particular way. Rather, he deals in Romans 1 with how Gentiles reject general revelation of God in the creation and turn to idolatry and accompanying evil behavior, including homosexuality. In verses 24, 26, and 28, he says that God has given people over to evil vices. It is inappropriate to make a distinction to limit homosexuality to a Jewish purity taboo within any one of the groups if one does not do it in all three groups.
The ancient Greeks and Romans both knew of and practiced homosexual mutuality and permanence, and they knew of homosexual orientation. Thus, Paul’s condemnation must encompass them (see pp. 152–53, 205–13).
The Revisionist Claim
The theology of liberation could never contemplate a situation in which the liberating ethic of love should be restricted by a code requiring a certain kind of conduct or behavior. Homosexuality is the behavior of the strong, which the weak are to recognize.
The Biblical Answer
While the ethic of love is crucial, the Bible calls us to repent of behavior that transgresses God’s holiness. Freedom, or liberation, is found in Jesus Christ (Gal. 5:1). The theology of liberation makes freedom the end, and anything is the means to achieve it. It is totally subjective. Carried to its logical extreme, no behavior is unacceptable, providing it has the motive of love and liberation. The conduct that comes under the strong/weak concern is that which is morally neutral, such as drinking wine or eating meat sacrificed to idols. No biblical basis exists, however, for putting homosexual behavior under the classification of moral neutrality (see pp. 142–47).
The Revisionist Claim
One must understand Paul’s words within their context. He condemns Gentiles as part of a rhetorical device. He speaks from the Jewish aversion to gentile homosexuality to gain their attention and favor so that they will listen to his indictment of the Jews’ own hypocrisy. It is not Paul’s idea to condemn homosexuality; rather, he is giving the Jewish point of view. The prohibition of homosexuality is part of the Jewish code of purity derived from Leviticus, and no one ever intended the words to be a universal moral prohibition for Gentiles.
The Biblical Answer
To take chapter 1 as a rhetorical device is unwarranted. The vices of the context before (vv. 24–25) and after (vv. 28–32) the reference to homosexuality (vv. 26–27) are not merely part of Paul’s rhetorical device, but other texts make clear that Paul views these acts as truly sinful behavior. If this is so, there is no warrant for taking the vice of homosexuality as merely rhetorical. This position is reinforced by Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality elsewhere. Further, the prohibitions of homosexuality do not fit Israel’s purity code but are universal (see pp. 159–62).
The Revisionist Claim
Romans 1 and Paul’s statements about what is “against nature” cannot be used as evidence against homosexuality. This passage might tell us that homosexuality has a theological dimension and is a concern to God; it does not tell us whether abstention from homosexuality is God’s will for us today. Only the whole community acting in concert and through rational argumentation can decide whether the prohibition still pertains.
The Biblical Answer
This passage not only informs us of the reality of homosexuality as a moral issue, but it implicitly prohibits the behavior by placing those who practice it in the position of being abandoned to evil by God (v. 26), along with the others of verses 24 and 28. Morality is not determined by majority vote of any community or by discussion in the world generally (see pp. 145–46, 165–73).
Arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy
12. What is the meaning of arsenokoitai, which Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:10–12?
The Revisionist Answer
Arsenokoitai cannot refer to “homosexuals” because there is no preceding occurrence of this word with such a meaning. In the lists of vices, the word means “homosexual acts,” “pederasts,” or “active male prostitutes” or refers to ritual impurity. These were the prevalent forms of homosexual activity that found some disapproval in contemporary codes or among the Jews. Paul’s word cannot refer to those of a homosexual orientation or to those who live in a mutually respectful and committed homosexual relationship; these are modern phenomena, unknown to Paul.
The Biblical Answer
The English term homosexuals is an appropriate correspondent to arsenokoitai, given both ancient sexual practice and today’s usage. We have ample evidence that ancient Greeks and Romans knew about homosexual orientation and that some Greeks practiced a mutually respectful, committed homosexual relationship (see pp. 184–95, 205–13).
Arsenokoitai (lit. “male beds”) does not occur prior to Paul, because Paul probably coined it as he coined other terms. He almost certainly derived it from two words that occur together in the LXX of Leviticus 20:13 (arsenos koitēn, “whoever shall lie with a male a bed as a woman”). This rendering suggests that Paul had in mind the prohibition of adult homosexuality in Leviticus. Support for this position comes from 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10, lists of vices that correspond, even in word order, to the Ten Commandments. In either list, Paul adds “homosexuals” to “adulterers” to expand and contemporize the prohibition of adultery, just as he does with the other commandments (see pp. 195–99).
The Teaching of Jesus and Other Apostles
What was Jesus’ and the apostles’ attitude toward homosexuality?
The Revisionist Answer
Jesus did not condemn homosexuality, and neither should we.
The Biblical Answer
Jesus did not mention the word homosexuality, but He referred to Sodom and its destruction more frequently than did anyone else (Matt. 10:15; 11:23; Luke 17:26–37). In each context, Jesus assumes the divine judgment on Sodom, which He links to the Flood as an example of divine intervention. It becomes a portent of His own second coming. “Remember Lot’s wife,” he warns (Luke 17:32). He views the sin of Sodom as a serious matter.
Jesus also upheld the monogamous, permanent, heterosexual marriage as a universal norm. He linked the outward deed to the inner thought or motive (for example, Matthew 5). He cited the heart, the inner being, as the origin of evil deeds (for example, Matthew 15). He warns against annulling even the least commandment, which He came to fulfill, not destroy. Jesus perhaps hints even at pederasty when He warns about causing little children to sin (Mark 9:42). It is more plausible than not to believe that Jesus would condemn homosexual behavior and thinking.
Four other references to Sodom occur in the New Testament (Rom. 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6–11; Jude 7; Rev. 11:8). Peter and Jude identify homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. The apostolic view surely echoes Jesus’ understanding.
Finally, homosexuality occurs implicitly in at least twenty-seven lists of vices or sins at various places in the New Testament. These lists contain general, broad terms from earlier Jewish literature that refer to or encompass homosexual behavior, or they contain words often associated with homosexuality. Specific terms, such as abomination and dog, also build strong connections to Old Testament references to homosexuality. It is a fair observation that the New Testament continues the attitude toward homosexuality expressed in the Old Testament
The Ethic of Love
In the New Testament era, should not the ethic of love prevail, allowing for homosexual or gay living?
The Revisionist Answer
The Bible sets forth the liberating ethic of love as the chief principle of the Christian. Establishing such rules as forbidding homosexual relationships brings Christians under bondage and violates the ethic of love. If our ethic is love, should not freedom prevail in such questions? Isn’t it a question of respect for the stronger (homosexual) brother (Romans 14–15)? The church should accept into its membership and among its clergy, those who live in committed, homosexual arrangements (marriages).
The Biblical Answer
Our attempt to obey the second greatest commandment, to love our neighbor as ourselves (Levit. 19:8), cannot violate the first commandment, to love God with our total being (Deut. 6:5–9). A significant way to love God is to “be holy” (Levit. 19:2). Love motivates obedience to God’s commands (John 13:34, 35; 1 John 3:23; 2 John 6). Homosexuality violates any honest definition of purity and holiness. As with other sexual sins, it is not morally neutral, so it does not fall into the category of the “stronger” and “weaker brothers” (see pp. 26–146).
The Revisionist Counter-argument
The voice of the community fashions our morality. Although the Bible can give us our theology, only the whole community acting together can decide which ethical standards should currently prevail.
The Biblical Counter-argument
As much as we might like to customize our morality around current fashion, ethical principles are based in the character of the unchanging God. Neither does God shape morality around majority vote. Would the Israelites have voted for the Ten Commandments? Many of them were violating the laws even as Moses received them on Mount Sinai. God made His will clear, though not many agreed with it (see p. 171).
Other Questions About Homosexuality
Ancient Practice
How can we say that homosexual behavior is wrong in light of such biblical examples as David and Jonathan, Naomi and Ruth, and Jesus and John?
The Revisionist Answer
Examples from the Bible show that homosexual or lesbian couples existed throughout Bible history. It is unfair and un-Christian to forbid homosexual or gay unions because of distaste for homosexuality, where mutual respect and love prevail. The church is large enough to encompass all people, gay and straight.
The Biblical Answer
No evidence within the text of Scripture supports the claims that these or any other godly people of the Bible were part of a homosexual bond or gay marriage or union. The examples from the Old Testament show within the contexts of the stories themselves that these people were married and led heterosexual lives. Indeed, David’s sexual weaknesses lay in heterosexual lust. That these people had a high level of love for and devotion to another person has no sexual connotations. Jesus formed close friendships with men and women and had an especially close relationship with John and perhaps James, but these relationships are never presented as sexual. To the contrary, these persons all lived under a law that clearly forbade a homosexual relationship and set the death penalty for offenders. The Jews’ tradition articulated in the Mishnah and targums similarly would make it impossible to be gay and not to come under the condemnation of both the people and the interpreters of the law.
Since many ancient peoples practiced homosexuality, what role should the Bible’s negative view about homosexuality have in modern thinking and culture?
The Revisionist Answer
Homosexuality existed in many ancient cultures, including Egypt, Greece, and Rome. We can learn from these ancient cultures how to be tolerant of homosexuality alongside heterosexuality. These cultures should contribute to our culture as much as Jewish-Christian views.
The Biblical Answer
All ancient societies whose laws we have discovered restricted homosexual behavior, even though there usually was a level of acceptance. More to the point is the truism that any culture must be wary of tinkering with its foundational ethical underpinnings by embracing other societies’ standards. Other cultures have influenced modern Western culture, yet the morality of the West has flowed from a biblical ethic. Ancient cultures embraced slavery, recreational drugs and alcohol abuse, abortion, the killing of the young by exposure, idolatry, totalitarianism, repression of women, adultery, bestiality, incest, and a host of other sins and crimes that are historically rejected in Western society.
If ancient peoples, including the Jews, did not know about people born with a homosexual orientation or couples who mutually commit to one another, should their uninformed negative judgments prevail in contemporary society?
The Revisionist Answer
The existence of mutual, respectful, permanent homosexual or lesbian relationships where love prevails was unknown in the past. Ancient disapproval of homosexuality concerns homosexual rape, pederasty, or other aggressive forms that most homosexuals also condemn. It is inappropriate to carry over this situation to address the kind of homosexual living taking place today.
The Biblical Answer
Ancient writings show considerable knowledge of committed homosexual relationships. Probably these peoples knew of respect, mutuality, and love experienced in some homosexual relationships. Symposium of Plato and other sources discusses these matters in a very positive light. Surely, many Greeks and Romans probably lived this way. However, even Plato came to question the costs of this liberality in the last work of his life. In Laws, he called on religion and the state to prohibit homosexual behavior to enable a person to be a virtuous citizen (excursus 3).
Restriction of Homosexual Behavior by Law
Are the ancient law codes relevant to today’s discussion, either those that tolerated homosexual behavior or later codes that dealt harshly with homosexuals?
The Revisionist Answer
The later Christian emperors used their influence to change the legal standing of homosexual behavior so that law came to restrict it. They did this out of a Christian bias and a misinterpretation of Scripture. These prejudiced laws should have no standing in today’s culture.
The Biblical and Historical Answer
Because proscription of homosexuality begins with regulations of Leviticus 18 and 20, calling for the death penalty, this dismissive attitude seems premature. Paul (1 Tim. 1:8–10) includes homosexuality in his list of immoralities that he believes society should proscribe. The Mishnah and targums, intertestamental literature, Philo and Josephus, and early Christian church fathers share this emphasis in any reference remotely dealing with the subject.
Even the Greeks did not allow unbridled homosexual behavior. The increasing restriction of homosexuality by law under Christian emperors was a consequence of decisions informed by biblical conviction. It witnesses to a common Jewish and Christian interpretation of the Bible regarding homosexuality. The rulers saw the event of Sodom as having portent for future societies, since Sodom itself was a pagan or worldly society. Even before Christ, ancient Greek and Roman law codes began a tradition of restricting homosexual behavior that has carried forward to modern law codes and legislation (excursus 4).
Homosexuals in the Church
Should gay people be accepted as members in the community of faith or ordained to church leadership?
The Revisionist Answer
The liberating ethic of love demands that a local church accept gays and allow them to participate fully in membership, including leadership. The Bible does not concern itself with the modern idea of mutually committed relationships of people who have been gay from birth. The Bible does not condemn such. It is obvious, then, that churches should ordain gay people for ministry.
The Biblical Answer
Ample evidence exists that the ancients knew and sometimes practiced gay relationships and mutuality. Paul’s discussion in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, and 1 Timothy 1:8–10 must include this understanding of homosexual relationships. In addition, Paul’s vice list—including “homosexuals” (arsenokoitai)—occurs in a broader context of those who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–11) and who should, like the person involved in sexual immorality, come under the discipline of the church or be excommunicated if there is no repentance (5:1–6:11). Homosexuals should repent, as should all those whose acts and lifestyles are condemned as an offense before God (1 Cor. 6:9–11). Obviously, ordination of homosexuals for ministry violates biblical teaching.
Homosexual Orientation
Does homosexual orientation fall within the same scope of biblical understanding as homosexual behavior?
The Revisionist Answer
The ancients, including writers of the Bible, knew nothing of homosexual orientation. Thus, even if Scripture condemns homosexual behavior, orientation cannot come under the Bible’s prohibition. The church should fully accept people who are born gay. At the least, homosexual thoughts arising from homosexual orientation are not sinful.
The Biblical Answer
Homosexual orientation was known in the generations in which Scripture was written. Paul gives no indication that it does not fall under his general condemnations of homosexuality in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. Lustful homosexual thoughts are not as grave in consequence as are the acts, just as adulterous or murderous thoughts have fewer consequences than do the overt actions. But the moral culpability for thoughts is the same as for deeds, as Jesus makes clear in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). Scripture certainly associates evil desires and thoughts with the evil deeds belonging to a Christian’s unregenerate past (Eph. 2:1–3). Christians are exhorted to think heavenly thoughts (Col. 3:1–4), right and pure thoughts (Phil. 4:8). We must “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5 NIV).
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 285–294). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
