The Bible and Homosexuality - II. The New Testament

The Bible and Homosexuality 

II. The New Testament

But what is the evidence to be found in the New Testament concerning homosexuality? Again, the few relevant passages may be interpreted more than one way. They do not necessarily say what the untrained interpreter thinks they say. In the first place, Jesus Himself said nothing about homosexual orientation or homosexual acts. He does say that God’s original provision and intention for families is that of a man married to a woman for life. Even in the time of Jesus, as in Old Testament times, however, it was lawful for a good Jew to have more than one wife, although that practice was not as common in the New Testament period as it was in the Old Testament period. Indeed, the practice continued in Judaism for several centuries after the New Testament period. Furthermore, the practice of levirate marriage was still common in Jesus’ time, as He Himself recognized and did not condemn (cf. Mark 12:18-27, paralleled in Matthew 22:22-33 and in Luke 20:27-40). 

One might reasonably ask whether the Old or the New Testaments provide any evidence for a commandment to abandon the practice of polygamy, or did it happen as a matter of convenience or of changing cultural environment, like so many other changes that later occurred. The practice of polygamy in third world cultures has often given rise to an ethical dilemma for Christian missionaries. When a person in such a culture becomes a Christian, should he then divorce all but one of his wives, in the process leaving those wives destitute in a male dominated non-Christian society? And if so, how should he decide which one to keep? And how does a Christian counselor perform marriage counseling in such a culture? But that is not our subject at hand. 

Furthermore, Jesus also was well aware, as was Paul, that divorces do occur, and that divorce falls short of God’s intention. Indeed, one might speculate that He also might have felt that a same-sex monogamous relationship falls short of God’s intention, but He certainly never said so. To argue from silence either to condemn or to condone may be possible but the interpreter must always beware of making any important judgment whose only basis is silence. 

The only references in the New Testament that may speak of homosexual acts (but not the modern concept of homosexual orientation) are in the writings attributed to Paul. Two of these references, in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, are certainly by Paul. The other reference, in 1 Timothy 1, is only possibly by Paul, but, perhaps more likely, by an admirer of Paul, writing as he thought Paul would have written. (My own guess is that 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus were written by Timothy himself, based on fragments of letters he himself had received from Paul, but which the author now addressed to a later situation). 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. “Fornicators”  [Greek: pornoi], idolaters, “adulterers”  (Greek: moichoi) , “male prostitutes” [Greek: malakoi], “sodomites” [Greek: arsenokoitai], 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 And this is what some of you used to be. . . .  (NRSV). 

1 Timothy 1:8-10 

1 Timothy 1:8 Now we know that the Torah (“Law” ) is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9 This means understanding that the Torah is laid down, not for the innocent, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10 “fornicators” [Greek: pornois], “sodomites” [Greek: arsenokoitais], slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching . . . (NRSV). 

In these two passages certain words that may or may not refer to what we know today as “homosexuality” are used. The Greek word pornos (plural, pornoi) means “prostitute,” and can refer to persons either male or female, and either heterosexual or homosexual. The Greek word moichos (plural moichoi), means “adulterer,” and can refer to persons male or female. 

The Greek word arsenokoites (plural, arsenokoitai), is almost too ambiguous to translate. In light of our examination of Genesis 19, the translation “sodomites” is appropriate only in reference to male rape, and not to homosexuality as such. Thus, translators of English and other versions who use a term like “sodomites” here probably have pre-judged the case, and have read something into the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament and the Greek texts of the New Testament that is not there. 

The Greek word arsenokoites itself is derived from the word arsene, “male,” and from the word koite, “bed,” especially, the “marriage bed,” from which the modern technical word for sexual intercourse, “coitus,” derives. The term may perhaps mean the same thing as the phrase in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 “a man lying as with a woman,” and in that case must be understood in light of the interpretation of the meaning of those texts. But as we have noted above, it is uncertain whether those texts necessarily have anything to do with consenting homosexual activity. 

The third Greek word, malakos (plural, malakoi) which occurs only in the 1 Corinthians passage, may be only an adjective, modifying arsenokoites, rather than a separate noun category, but in any case that term may suggest the meaning of both terms in the passage in question. Malakos, translated literally, means “soft” as the reference to “soft clothing” in Matthew 11:8. In the passage in 1 Corinthians it may suggest the idea of “effeminate,” and could refer to male prostitutes who were cross-dressers (i.e., “transvestites”).  it may be significant that, even in these contexts, there is apparently no reference to any form female homosexual activity (“lesbians”). 

Before we attempt to apply these texts to our late twentieth century culture, it may be helpful once more to look at the culture of the New Testament writer’s own time, the Mediterranean Roman/Greek environment in the first century, into which the Christian missionary enterprise entered, and in light of which, Paul and the author of 1 Timothy were writing. In that culture there was in fact a very common form of same-sex activity that is described in the literature of that period. It consisted of man-boy relationships in which wealthy men often took pre-pubescent boys for sexual lovers (the term for this is "pederasty"). These men, often married men, provided an education and training for these boys, who were often slaves (note the mention in the 1 Timothy passage of “slave traders”), and in turn required of them passive sexual relations. 

Then there were also male prostitutes in that society, many of whom dressed as women with powder and makeup and perfume, and who stood along the streets of places like Rome and Corinth selling themselves as did the female prostitutes. Again, while consenting homosexual relations between committed life partners, as it exists in twentieth century society, might have been present, it does not appear to have been the predominant form of homosexual practice. And the idea of permanent monogamous same-gender relationships also does not seem to have been prominent in that culture. 

Thus, in the passages that have been cited, the moral corruption of male prostitution and the subjection of young boys to adult men (probably non-consenting) are most likely what Paul had in mind. While this is not certain, again, one cannot prove with dogmatic certainty that these passages are addressing the phenomenon of homosexuality as it is experienced and practiced in our modern culture. Paul’s own culture offered much more common and more likely practices that could have led to the responses given in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians. 

But whatever the nature of the practices mentioned, they are not singled out for special attention as being especially heinous when compared with other sins. In fact, they are simply part of lists of sinful activities or sinful persons that are placed on the same level. Unfortunately, many modern interpreters have chosen to be more selective. “Liars” and “perjurers” and “revilers” and “greedy” persons and “drunkards,” and in many cases even “robbers” and  “fornicators”and  “adulterers” are not nearly so severely condemned in our society as are homosexual persons. It is amazing how selective we Bible-believers can be in singling out specific sins for the world’s condemnation! 

Romans 1:26-28 

Romans 1:26  . . . For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. . . . (NRSV). 

The context of this passage is a much longer theological argument.Therefore it is well to place this passage in its full context within the Book of Romans to see just how it fits within the total thought of the letter. Romans 1:16 f. states the theme of Romans. Here the Good News (“Gospel”; Greek: euangellion) is described as the power of God for universal salvation. This theme is developed in the following chapters in both its positive and its negative implications. Positively, Paul insists that salvation is accessible to all persons who will accept it through faith in Christ. But negatively, it is clear that all persons have sinned and are in need of salvation. This emphasis on human sinfulness is the negative pole of the theme of Romans. There is no human means of salvation; it must be Divinely given. 

Note that for Paul the starting-point, however, is not that all have sinned, but that, because of Christ, all can be “justified,” or “right-wised” before God. No human sin and no power of evil is sufficient to separate us from the love of God (Romans 8:38-39)! The tension between the possibility of universal salvation and the actuality of universal human sinfulness provides the dynamic for the development of Romans 1:16 – 8:39. In chapters 1 and 2 Paul seeks to show how the sin of every person and every race and culture is manifest in different ways. 

In Romans 1:18-32 Paul indicts the non-Jewish (Gentile) world. His point is that the “wrath” (condemnation, judgment, inevitable consequences of sin) from God does not await the end of the world, but goes into action at each present moment in humanity’s history, as God hands over the wicked Gentiles to the natural consequences of their actions. Instead of curbing people’s evil interests, God abandoned them to their self-indulgence. The “degrading passions” to which Paul refers in Romans 1:26-27 are seen, not so much as individual sins, as the consequences of a much larger sin. Despite the fact that they could know God’s will from the natural order of the world (Romans 1:19-20) they had turned their backs on that knowledge (Romans 1:21, 38). Therefore, God “gave them up” to the natural consequences of turning their backs on the true God (Romans 1:24, 26, 38). 

Then in Romans 2:1 – 3:20 Paul shows that in spite of special revelation, Jews enjoy no advantage over Gentiles in moral status before God. They, like the Gentiles, attempt to put themselves in the place of God, for they usurp the place of God by judging their neighbors, as well as by not living up to the requirements of the Torah that they profess to revere (Romans 2:1, 3, 21-23). Then, with the entire human race now declared guilty before God (Romans 3:10-19, 23), Paul displays the solution for the total problem: salvation through God’s redemptive work that is revealed in Christ Jesus for all who put their trust in God through Christ (Romans 3:21-31). In Romans 2:1-11 Paul clearly points out that Jews enjoy no real moral supremacy over Gentiles, and Jews cannot condemn the sins of Gentiles without condemning themselves. If only the so-called “moral majority” of our own time could hear Paul at this point! 

Romans 1:26-28 is in fact the only passage in the Bible that might deal with “lesbian” activity between females. Again, however, it is not clear whether these acts are between consenting adults, or between dominating and dominated partners, or between prostitutes and their customers. And it is not clear that this passage would have anything to say about a monogamous permanent same-gender relationship. Perhaps it does, but the evidence simply is not available that would allow an interpreter to be dogmatic in such an interpretation. 

It is certainly clear from all the passages cited, when interpreted in the context of the cultural situations being addressed, that prostitution is condemned, that rape is condemned, non-consenting sexual relations are condemned, sexual abuse is condemned, pederasty—sexual exploitation of young children—is condemned. It is less certain that life-long, monogamous same-gender relationships between consenting adults are being condemned. There is certainly no evidence for “blessing” life-long monogamous same-gender relationships and calling them “marriages,” but the evidence for condemning such relationships is not so certain either. Certainly, it is difficult to believe that God would not want to bless any relationship between individual persons that is a loving one, but this specific matter never comes under discussion. That is as far as the Biblical evidence goes. 

Thus, it appears that, if one is to decide a Christian response to consenting homosexual activity, especially life-long monogamous same-gender relationships, the response must be made on other, more general grounds, rather than on the basis of those Biblical texts that traditionally have been thought to refer to homosexuality. 

What are some of those other grounds? It is clear that Jesus was far more accepting of the real and the reputed shortcomings of the outcasts and “sinners” of his day than He was of those whose lives were spent defining the “will of God” for others. He ate and drank and socialized with the tax gatherers, the prostitutes, and the unwanted of society. He did not require them to be perfect for Him to love them, or to associate with Him, or to be accepted by Him. He was interested in those who “hunger and thirst” after righteousness, as much as in those who thought they had actually attained righteousness. 

When the outcasts experienced for themselves Jesus’ acceptance, they responded in gratitude by becoming responsible and moral persons, giving their lives over into the keeping and the Lordship of this loving and accepting God, Who had revealed Himself in His Son Jesus Christ. They concluded that to see Jesus was to see the Father, a Father Who welcomed His prodigal children with open arms as honored members of the family before they could even ask to be taken in as mere household servants. 

The point of this exercise in taking a close look at the traditional Biblical texts associated with homosexuality has not been for the purpose of encouraging modern homosexual practice. Nor has it been to make light of the legitimate moral concerns of Christians. Rather, it has been to show that sincere Christians can come to differing conclusions without being un-Biblical, un-Christian, or un-Baptist (my own faith tradition) in their relationships. 

We Baptists traditionally have upheld two great principles. The first principle is that of the “soul-competency” and “priesthood” of each individual believer. The second principle is the autonomy of each local congregation as it seeks the will of God, and as it comes to conclusions about what “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” A proper respect for those principles should allow believers and  congregations to come to such conclusions as those that have been suggested above, without compelling other Baptists or other Christians to agree with all of those conclusions.