The Bible and homosexuality
There are a number of passages in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that have been interpreted as involving same-sex sexual acts and desires. These interpretations form the basis of Jewish and Christian attitudes towards homosexuality.
Hebrew Bible
Leviticus 18 and 20
Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code and list prohibited forms of intercourse, including the following verses:- "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22
- "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." Chapter 20 verse 13
"To interpret these passages of Leviticus, it’s important to know that this book of the Bible focuses on ritual purity for the Israelites, and setting guidelines for the Israelites to distinguish themselves from their pagan neighbors, the Egyptians and Canaanites, who lived in the lands before they were settled by the Jews. This is shown in Leviticus Chapters 18 and 20 by three specific scripture passages that state that the Israelites should never do what the Egyptians and Canaanites did."Bible scholar Idan Dershowitz concludes "there is good evidence that an earlier version of the laws in Leviticus 18 permitted sex between men."
Sodom and Gomorrah
The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis does not explicitly identify homosexuality as the sin for which they were destroyed. Some interpreters find the story of Sodom and a similar one in Judges 19 to condemn the violent rape of guests more than homosexuality, but the passage has historically been interpreted within Judaism and Christianity as a punishment for homosexuality due to the interpretation that the men of Sodom wished to rape, or have sex with, the angels who retrieved Lot.While the Jewish prophets spoke only of lack of charity as the sin of Sodom, the exclusively sexual interpretation became so prevalent among Christian communities that the name "Sodom" became the basis of the word "sodomy", still a legal synonym for homosexual and non-procreative sexual acts, particularly anal or oral sex.
While the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos and Zephaniah refer vaguely to the sin of Sodom, Ezekiel specifies that the city was destroyed because of its commission of social injustice as well as its commission of 'abomination':
The Talmudic tradition as written between c. 370 and 500 also interprets the sin of Sodom as lack of charity, with the attempted rape of the angels being a manifestation of the city's violation of the social order of hospitality; as does Jesus in the New Testament, for instance in Matthew 10:14–15 when he tells his disciples that the punishment for houses or towns that will not welcome them will be worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Later traditions on Sodom's sin, such as Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, considered it to be an illicit form of heterosexual intercourse. In Jude 1:7 the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are stated to have been "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh", which may refer to homosexuality or to the lust of mortals after angels. Jewish writers Philo and Josephus were the first to assert unambiguously that homosexuality was among the sins of Sodom. By the end of the 1st century Jews commonly identified the sin of Sodom with homosexual practices.
David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi
The account of the friendship between David and Jonathan in the Books of Samuel has been interpreted by traditional and mainstream writers as a relationship of affectionate regard. It has also been interpreted by some authors as of a sexual nature. Theologian Theodore Jennings identifies the story as one of desire for David by both Saul and Jonathan, stating, "Saul's jealousy has driven into Jonathan's arms." Michael Coogan addresses the claim of their homosexual relationship and explicitly rejects it.One relevant Bible passage on this issue is 1 Samuel 18:1:
- When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
- I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
New Testament
Romans 1:26–27
This passage, part of a larger discourse in 1:18-32, has been debated by some 20th and 21st-century interpreters as to its relevance today and as to what it actually prohibits and whether it represents Paul's view or rhetoric that Paul is actively arguing against. Although Christians of several denominations have historically maintained that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexual activity, some 20th and 21st-century authors contend the passage is not a blanket condemnation of homosexual acts, suggesting, among other interpretations, that the passage condemned heterosexuals who experimented with homosexual activity or that Paul's condemnation was relative to his own culture, in which homosexuality was not understood as an orientation and in which being penetrated was seen as shameful. These interpretations are in a minority.Scholars, noting that Romans 1:18–32 represents an exception in the book of Romans as a whole and uses vocabulary elsewhere not seen in Paul's letters, have for decades puzzled over the passage. Several scholars believe these verses are part of a much larger non-Pauline interpolation, a later addition to the letter. Others argue that the grammar of the Greek original demands that Romans 1:18-32 be read as a rhetorical set up, a summary of Hellenistic Jewish legalist rhetoric that Paul actively forbids followers of Christ from using in Romans 2.
1 Corinthians 6:9–11; 1 Timothy 1:8–11
In the context of the broader immorality of his audience, Paul the Apostle wrote in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 6 verses 9-11,In 1 Timothy 1:8–11 Paul the Apostle states:
In the letter to the Corinthians, within the list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul uses two Greek words: Malakia and arsenokoitai.
Arsenokoitai is a compound word. Compound words are formed when two or more words are put together to form a new word with a new meaning. In this case, Arsenokoitai is from the Greek words 'arrhēn / arsēn' meaning "male", and koitēn meaning "bed", with a sexual connotation. A direct translation would be “male-bed”. Its first recorded use was by Paul in 1 Corinthians and later in 1 Timothy 1. Some scholars consider Paul to have adapted this word by translating, to Greek, the verse from Leviticus 20:13 “males who lie with males.” with additional adaption from the wording of the Septuagint translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:23" Due to its unclear definition, English translators struggled with representing the concept of arsenokoitai. It has been variously rendered as "sodomites", "abusers of themselves with mankind", "men who have sex with men" or "practicing homosexuals"
Malakia is an ancient Greek word that, in relation to men, has sometimes been translated as "effeminacy". Also translates to “of things subject to touch, "soft" ; of things not subject to touch, "gentle"; and, of persons or modes of life, a number of meanings that include "pathic". However in modern Greek it has come to mean "masturbation", and its derivative μαλάκας – malakas means "one who masturbates".
Interpretation
Bishop Gene Robinson says the early church seemed to have understood it as a person with a "soft" or weak morality; later, it would come to denote those who engage in masturbation, or "those who abuse themselves"; all that is factually known about the word is that it means "soft".Most scholars hold that Paul had two passages of the Book of Leviticus, and, in mind when he used the word ἀρσενοκοῖται with most commentators and translators interpreting it as a reference to male same-sex intercourse. However, John Boswell states that it "did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers", and that in later Christian literature the word is used, for instance, by Aristides of Athens clearly not for homosexuality and possibly for prostitution, Eusebius who evidently used it in reference to women, and in the writings of 6th-century Patriarch John IV of Constantinople, known as John the Faster. In a passage dealing with sexual misconduct, John speaks of arsenokoitia as active or passive and says that "many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives". Although the constituent elements of the compound word refer to sleeping with men, he obviously does not use it to mean homosexual intercourse and appears to employ it for anal intercourse, not generic homosexual activity. Particulars of Boswell's arguments are rejected by several scholars in a way qualified as persuasive by David F. Greenberg, who declares usage of the term arsenokoites by writers such as Aristides of Athens and Eusebius, and in the Sibylline Oracles, to be "consistent with a homosexual meaning". A discussion document issued by the House of Bishops of the Church of England states that most scholars still hold that the word arsenokoites relates to homosexuality. Another work attributed to John the Faster, a series of canons that for various sins provided shorter though stricter penances in place of the previous longer penances, applies a penance of eighty days for "intercourse of men with one another", explained in the Pedalion as mutual masturbation – double the penalty for solitary masturbation – and three years with xerophagy or, in accordance with the older canon of Basil the Great, fifteen without for being "so mad as to copulate with another man" – ἀρρενομανήσαντα in the original – explained in the Pedalion as "guilty of arsenocoetia " – ἀρσενοκοίτην in the original. According to the same work, ordination is not to be conferred on someone who as a boy has been the victim of anal intercourse, but this is not the case if the semen was ejaculated between his thighs. These canons are included, with commentary, in the Pedalion, the most widely used collection of canons of the Greek Orthodox Church, an English translation of which was produced by Denver Cummings and published by the Orthodox Christian Educational Society in 1957 under the title, The Rudder.
Some scholars consider that the term was not used to refer to a homosexual orientation, but argue that it referred instead to sexual activity.
Other scholars have interpreted arsenokoitai and malakoi as referring to weakness and effeminacy or to the practice of exploitative pederasty.
Jesus's discussion of marriage
In Matthew 19, Jesus is asked if a man can divorce his wife. In that context, Jesus replies:,Robert Gagnon, a theologian, argues that Jesus's back-to-back references to Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 show that he "presupposed a two-sex requirement for marriage".
On the other hand, Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, states of Jesus's references to Genesis 1 and 2, "Yeah, not actually defining marriage. He’s answering a specific question." Ehrman notes further "And here the conversation is quite easy. In our surviving records Jesus says nothing about same-sex acts or sexual orientation. Nothing. Nada."
Matthew 8; Luke 7
In Matthew 8:5–13 and Luke 7:1–10, Jesus heals a centurion's servant who is dying. Daniel A. Helminiak writes that the Greek word pais, used in this account, was sometimes given a sexual meaning. Donald Wold states that its normal meaning is "boy", "child" or "slave" and its application to a boy lover escapes notice in the standard lexica of Liddell and Scott and Bauer. The Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott registers three meanings of the word παῖς : a child in relation to descent ; a child in relation to age ; a slave or servant. In her detailed study of the episode in Matthew and Luke, Wendy Cotter dismisses as very unlikely the idea that the use of the Greek word "pais" indicated a sexual relationship between the centurion and the young slave.Matthew's account has parallels in Luke 7:1–10 and John 4:46–53. There are major differences between John's account and those of the two synoptic writers, but such differences exist also between the two synoptic accounts, with next to nothing of the details in Luke 7:2–6 being present also in Matthew. The Commentary of Craig A. Evans states that the word pais used by Matthew may be that used in the hypothetical source known as Q used by both Matthew and Luke and, since it can mean either son or slave, it became doulos in Luke and huios in John. Writers who admit John 4:46–53 as a parallel passage generally interpret Matthew's pais as "child" or "boy", while those who exclude it see it as meaning "servant" or "slave".
Theodore W. Jennings Jr. and Tat-Siong Benny Liew write that Roman historical data about patron-client relationships and about same-sex relations among soldiers support the view that the pais in Matthew's account is the centurion's "boy-love" and that the centurion did not want Jesus to enter his house for fear the boy would be enamoured of Jesus instead. D.B. Saddington writes that while he does not exclude the possibility, the evidence the two put forward supports "neither of these interpretations", with Wendy Cotter saying that they fail to take account of Jewish condemnation of pederasty.