Challenges to the biblical teaching on homosexuality have become prominent in the last few years.^[1] Our desire to respond to these challenges should take us back to scripture, where we find guidance on the issue itself, as well as on how to interact lovingly with others when our views differ.

Those who ascribe to the first position contend that all the biblical references to those practicing homosexuality are referring to non-consensual or abusive forms of same-sex relationships, such as the practice of wealthy men having a young boy as a lover (known as ‘pederasty’). Some commentators say that those in biblical times would have had no concept that two people of the same sex could have a loving, monogamous relationship; and that if they had, there would not have been prohibitions against such relationships.^[2]

Historical records reveal that this belief just isn’t correct. Our society’s understanding of sexual orientation will have evolved in the last few thousand years, but it is not true that there was no concept of same-sex attraction or of homosexual practice outside of coercive relationships in the time periods in which biblical writers lived. In the Greco-Roman era, which is the context in which Paul wrote, Plato discussed a pederastic relationship between Agathan and Pausanias that carried on long into adulthood for the younger partner.^[3] Additionally, Achilles and Patroclus, mythological characters, were often portrayed as homosexual. Interestingly, in different accounts, both men are portrayed as both the erastes (or protector; the dominant partner) and the eromenos (the more ‘feminine’ or passive partner).^[4] This is relevant because one argument is that only the active partner in a homosexual relationship would have been condemned by Paul, if the passive partner had no choice but to comply due to the power imbalance. These mythological characters are described as alternating ‘roles’ in the relationship, indicating that homosexual relationships were not assumed at that time to always involve such an imbalance. This will come up later in the discussion of the New Testament verses about homosexuality, where both active and passive roles are alluded to in the writings of Paul and both are condemned. Additionally, there are accounts and artwork of men of similar ages engaged in homosexual activity, outside of the context of a slave/master or other coercive relationship; as well as relationships between women, who were not subject to pederasty.

The aforementioned examples are not exhaustive but do suffice to demonstrate that non-coercive same-sex relationships were not unknown in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds. And it wasn’t just that these writers were aware of homosexual behavior but didn’t understand sexual orientation, as is sometimes claimed. Some of these works contained speculation about reasons behind what we would today call sexual orientation. Aristotle said the following, about relationships that began as pederastic but continued when the younger partner became an adult: “many couples continue the relationship, if, as a result of spending time together, they come to love each other’s character, because they are of similar character”.^[6] The Romans held different theories of what led to the formation of one’s sexual orientation, including astrological influences. Few today would see any of these theories as credible, but the existence of the speculation proves that the issue of sexual orientation was known.

Some will also bolster this first argument by stating that we now know that sexual orientation is set at birth, which was not understood in biblical times.^[7] However, this assertion about homosexuals being “born that way” is far from settled science. The American Psychological Association states that “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors”.^[8] An overview of this subject, along with references to academic articles, can be found at https://www.centerforfaith.com/blog/what-do-we-actually-know-about-sexual-orientation-part-1#fn1.

Understanding that consensual and non-consensual sexual relationships both existed in the Bible is key. Otherwise, the Bible wouldn’t be helpful in enlightening us about whether the wrong lies with the consensual nature of the relationship or the existence of the relationship itself. It would be a confounding variable that would make it practically impossible to parse out whether it was the non-consensual nature of the relationship, or the existence of the relationship itself, that was being spoken against. Engaging with others on this point is important, and we should do it without being dismissive.

It should be noted that recognizing that discussion of same-sex attraction took place in extra-biblical writings is not tantamount to endorsing the content of those writings, including speculation about causes of same-sex attraction. The relevant point is simply that writers in close proximity to the period and the society in which Paul was writing did have an understanding of consensual same-sex interactions and/or relationships. The more common second argument states that the verses about homosexuality are taken out of context and/or are misinterpreted. Some dismiss these verses as only having application to the society at the time. While important to understand the culture in which biblical authors were writing and the makeup of their original audience, we must be equally diligent to consider the cultural lens that we ourselves may be using when reading scripture. Rather than explaining away these passages as only having to do with a specific culture at a specific time, we should also examine the influence of our own culture and worldview on us. Is it a coincidence that in the same few decades in which society has pushed for widespread endorsement of a homosexual lifestyle, these counterarguments have become prominent as well? We should never minimize the effects of our own biases upon our beliefs.

Scholars, as well as ancient Hebrew commentators, often break the Law of Moses into three components - ceremonial, civil, and moral.^[9] The ceremonial aspects are those rituals that pointed forward to Christ, such as circumcision, offerings, and festivals. Such rituals are no longer required because Jesus fulfilled the Law.^[10] Even in the time when the Law was in effect, we see hints that those aspects were not the point.^[11] The book of Hebrews reaffirms Christ’s preeminence over the Law. Once the temple was destroyed in AD 70, offerings and many of the ceremonial aspects of the Law could not take place anymore, and even observant Jews today don’t follow those commandments. The civil aspects of the Law had a specific relevance to Israel as they became a nation and needed to organize themselves as a cohesive society. This included instructions related to their governance, such as the commands about what to do if a stray ox gored someone.^[12] Although these principles have eternal wisdom and some still influence our justice system and organization of our societies today, few would argue that we are required to uphold them according to the exact instructions in the Old Testament. Finally, the moral aspects of the Law are those that are carried through and restated later—commands about how to treat one’s neighbor, including in issues related to sexual relationships. This moral component also includes eternal principles about our relationship to God, such as how we are to worship Him alone, something unrelated to animal sacrifices. These moral commandments and principles run consistently throughout the entirety of scripture.

One important clarification that will be relevant later is that few people argue that the prohibition against homosexuality under the Law is misinterpreted. The argument against using the verses in Leviticus to prohibit same-sex sexual relationships is not that they did not actually mean what they said, but that they no longer apply. This becomes an important point as we move into the New Testament later.

Genesis 19:1-11 and Ezekiel 16:48-50

Next, we will examine the account of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction. We know the argument for this passage being a condemnation of homosexual practices, but what’s the counter argument? Some counter-argue that this passage isn’t about homosexuality, but rather is condemning rape, trying to have sexual relations with angels, and inhospitality. Critics of the traditional viewpoint reference Ezekiel’s words, in 16:49: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” Advocates of this theory may have stopped reading there. Let’s keep going: “Thus, they were haughty and committed abominations before me. Therefore, I removed them when I saw it.”

Some may see the word “abominations” and believe this conclusively proves the traditional viewpoint, since that’s the same Hebrew word used to describe males lying with males in Leviticus. However, that word alone does not prove the case. As previously referenced, many things in the Law of Moses were considered an abomination that were related to ceremonial uncleanness and have no lasting moral implications. So, can we rightly use this word to support the point that homosexuality is still wrong today? We must admit some ambiguity here, if we are being intellectually honest. Proverbs 6:16-19 lists seven abominations: “haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.” We might see consistency with the traditional view, since these are all sins. But when we read the Ezekiel passage with the Proverbs passage in mind, we need to acknowledge that Ezekiel could have been referring to something other than homosexuality - some of those other things also mentioned as abominable in Proverbs - when he spoke of “abominations.” So, on balance, this passage does not by itself prove either case. However, the Jude reference, which we will explore next, adds necessary details that do nudge us toward the traditional view.

Jude 7

“Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” [NASB]

This phrase ‘strange flesh’ is an odd one. There are other uses of both ‘strange’ and ‘flesh’ in the Bible, but not together. Some say this is referring to the angels, making the sin not homosexuality, but attempting to have sexual relations with angels. Sometimes the previous verses are used as evidence for this interpretation. “And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day” (v.6).

Here, Jude is explicitly referencing the Book of Enoch, one of the books in the Apocrypha, which is not believed by Christian or Jewish communities to be inspired (See Bro. Steven Cox’s pamphlet, Angels That Sinned: Slandering Celestial Beings, for more details).^[13] This author also doesn’t believe Jude thought Enoch was inspired, refers to it in the same way Paul quoted a philosopher from his day on Mars Hill. Paul used the phrase, “in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28), originally referring to Zeus, even though Paul knew Zeus did not exist. Many biblical writers refer to books in the Apocrypha, which shouldn’t challenge our view of inspiration. They’re simply quoting books that would’ve been widely known at the time, but not as authoritative. The passage in the Book of Enoch that Jude is referencing may be referring to the legend, developed from Gen. 6, about angels having sexual relations with human women. The fact that it’s quoted doesn’t mean that it actually happened. He’s using it as an example from well-known literature, just as we might quote Shakespeare or a character from a TV show or movie to make a spiritual point.

This passage in Jude adds some clarity to the discussion on Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis and in Ezekiel 16. Some would argue that if it’s talking about angels, and the men in Sodom and Gomorrah were angels, then it must be condemning having sexual relations with angels. 

Consider the phrase “strange flesh.” As mentioned, that phrase isn’t used elsewhere. But the word “strange” means “other.” In Rom. 1, Paul writes about people engaging in behaviors that are “unnatural.” Thus, we see that the Bible clearly categorizes certain behaviors as strange or unnatural. Also, the word “flesh” would be an odd word to use to describe angels, since they are elsewhere described as spirit. Therefore, this reading of “strange flesh” as angels does not seem to be supported by the evidence we have. Jude is simply saying “other men,” which is consistent with the traditional interpretation. 

It should be noted that ancient commentators, such as Josephus and Philo, also understood these passages in that way. That doesn’t mean they were necessarily correct, but it’s good practice to at least consider the understanding of commentators who were much closer in time to the things being written. 

Another piece of supporting evidence for this interpretation of Jude 7 is simply that the message wouldn’t have been relevant if it had been about sexual relations with angels, neither to the original recipients in Jude’s day, nor to us. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah does not refer to a solitary act of these men trying to have sexual relations with the angels Lot was housing. God sent the angels there because of a pattern of immoral behavior, which 2 Peter 2:7,8 says “vexed Lot’s righteous soul” (KJV). Sodom’s sin could not have been this single incident, yet that is the only one that could apply if “strange flesh” had to do with angels. And finally, there is no indication that the attempted rapists knew the men were angels. All those factors make it highly unlikely that Jude’s reference to the sexual immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah was related to them trying to have forceable sex with angels, but that it referred to the act of men attempting to have sex with other men. All the other surrounding behaviors were also sin but were not Jude’s emphasis here. 

Jude’s passage has taken some analysis, and in the end helps us understand Genesis and Ezekiel better and see God’s consistent message that homosexuality is not an acceptable practice. Taken alone, the Ezekiel reference could support a view that the sins of Sodom did not include homosexuality; however, taking all three passages together - Gen. 19, Ez. 16, and Jude - this conclusion seems highly implausible.

Romans 1:26-28

This passage seems fairly straightforward. The arguments against its use for opposing homosexual practices are based on a similar argument to what we’ve covered: that monogamous, non-abusive same-sex relationships were unknown in the ancient world, and that if they had been known, they wouldn’t have been a problem. The historical record does not bear that out, as discussed previously. Paul’s words seem straightforward, and we need to have strong evidence to suggest he means something different.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10

These passages both have the same arguments made against them: that the words used for homosexuality are obscure and don’t mean what they seem to mean. Let’s explore this argument briefly by looking at the Greek word arsenokoitais translated as “homosexual” in both of these verses. Often the claim is made that this word is obscure and the meaning isn’t really understood, and that it may refer to forced sex, which is similar to the argument made about Sodom and Gomorrah. But it’s simply a compound word consisting of a word meaning “man” and another word meaning “a place for lying down”.^[14] It seems that Paul likely coined this word, and in doing so, he explicitly referred back to Leviticus, where the Septuagint uses both Greek words that make up the compound arsenokoitais in its prohibition against men having sexual relations with other men. Now even those who claim that these prohibitions are irrelevant to our culture don’t claim that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 refer to something other than same-sex relationships. The argument is not that the Old Testament did not prohibit homosexual practice, but that those prohibitions are no longer binding. Given that Paul specifically chose a word that hearkened back to Leviticus, it is logically incoherent to assume Paul meant anything other than what was intended by those words in Leviticus. This is one of the most commonly used arguments against homosexuality being a sin, but the evidence shows the coherence of the Old and New Testaments against the same practice.

Another word that has been at the root of this discussion is the Greek word malakos, used in 1 Cor. 6:9, which is a loan-word from Latin and literally means “soft”. It is generally understood by Bible scholars to be used for the passive, or effeminate, partner in male homosexual sex. Some object to this description, arguing that this word implies the young male in a pederastic - and therefore, non-consensual – relationship.^[15] However, the evidence of history, as well as scholarly consensus, does not support this view. The word malakos was commonly found in Greek literature to refer to the passive partner, not only in the context of pederasty.^[16]

There is also a theological barrier to the interpretation of malakos to mean only the oppressed younger male in a pederastic relationship. Paul uses this word in a list of those who he says won’t inherit the kingdom of God, unless they are “washed”, “sanctified”, and “justified” (1 Cor. 6:11). Why would someone who was being taken advantage of and had no choice in the matter be condemned along with adulterers, drunkards, idolaters, and other sinners? This would not be consistent with biblical teaching. One fact that seems to be ignored in the argument that this word had to do solely with pederasty is that that Greek word paiderastēs was available to Paul if he had intended it.^[17] Additionally, pederastic relationships were so prevalent in this era that both the active and the passive male roles also had specific names, respectively erastus and eromenos,^[18] as discussed above. Although an argument based on words that could have been used but weren’t is not foolproof, the fact that there were multiple words that would have expressed this idea more clearly does provide reasonable evidence that Paul intended to express that both the active and passive roles in a homosexual relationship were sinful. While this word malakos might have sometimes been used to describe the youth in a pederastic relationship, there is nothing to indicate that Paul would have condemned an unwilling partner in exploitative sex. That was not the topic being discussed in this list of sinful behavior.

When examined closely, in consultation with lexicographical and ancient source text evidence, it seems clear that Paul intended his words in the sense of their historically accepted meaning.

References

1. ^ Brownson, J. (2013). Bible, gender, and sexuality: Reframing the church’s debate on same-sex relationships. Grand Rapids: Eerdsmans.

2. ^ Martin, C. (2016). UnClobber: Rethinking our misuse of the Bible on homosexuality, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

3. ^ Plato. (1989). The Symposium. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

4. ^ Dover, Kenneth J. (1978). Greek Homosexuality. New York: Vintage Books, 197-199.

5. ^ “Adult love,” in Greek and Romans Sexualities (ed. Thomas K. Hubbard; Oxford: Blackwell, 2014), 142-149. “Peer homosexuality,” in Greek and Romans sexualities (ed. Thomas K. Hubbard; Oxford: Blackwell, 2014), 128-30.

6. ^ Aristotle, Bartlett, R. C., & Collins, S. D. (2011). Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics, 8.4, 1157a9–11. University of Chicago Press, PAGE NUMBER.

7. ^ Martin, C. (2016). UnClobber: Rethinking our misuse of the Bible on homosexuality, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

8. ^ American Psychological Association. (2008). Answers to your questions for a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality. Retrieved December 14, 2022.

9. ^ Bayes, J. F. (2017). The threefold division of the law. Reformation Today, Issue 177

10. ^ Matt. 5:17; Heb. 9:9-14

11. ^ Amos 5:22-24; Micah 6:6-8

12. ^ Exod. 21

13. ^ Cox, S. (n.d.) The angels that sinned: Slandering celestial beings. http://www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/p_sinned.pdf

14. ^ Arsenokoitēs, Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g733/kjv/tr/0-1/. Retrieved December 7, 2024

15. ^ Malick, D. E. (1993). The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Bibliotheca Sacra, 150:600.

16. ^ See Malick, The Condemnation, and Schreiner, T. R. (2006). A New Testament perspective on homosexuality, Themelios, 31(3).

17. ^ Schreiner, A New Testament Perspective, 2006.

18. ^ Ibid Schreiner.