The New Testament and Homosexuality:
- some reflections
(Feb '05)
Introduction
Since last
year's march on Parliament by
When we come
to the Bible with a question about a moral issue there are a few things we need
to consider FIRST before pulling verses out and throwing them around left,
right, and centre. To begin with, we
need to recognise some basic facts about the Bible, and realise the
significance of such facts:
So, when we
want to look at a particular verse, we need to acknowledge the HUGE distance
between us and the text. We have become
so familiar with the Bible, and might I add, our own favourite translation,
that something as simple and yet as significant as this is usually forgotten.
Now, we are
not looking at the OT tonight - save that for another day! Save to note the
letter Steve has here to read to us[1]
which reminds us how selective we are when it comes to applying OT law to
situations today, ie. while sexual acts between men are seen in Leviticus as
"an abomination" so is eating shellfish! In addition, there is no mention of sexual
acts between women, so does that make lesbianism ok?!
So! To the NT
we go.
There are only
three "bits" in the NT which deal with some form of homosexual
behaviour. Just before we look at each
of these in turn, we must also bear in mind that these will not necessarily be
the only verses we would want to consider when thinking about this issue. There are no NT references to:
Yet, as
Christians, we are pretty sure that we could use the NT to debate the moral
issues involved in each of those topics! This is not a minor point, but one we
do not have time tonight to delve any further into.
So. What does
the NT have to say about homosexuality?
On one level,
I could be smart and say "nothing." And I would be right! The word homosexuality is not in the NT. And, in act, one could
search any fist-century writing and one will not find the word homosexuality. There was NO Greek word for
homosexuality. Homosexual (including
lesbian) acts or behaviours were discussed, but what most
classical scholars are confident about is that sexual orientation was
NOT a concept that fitted with a first-century person's view of life. People were NOT categorised, as
hetero- or homosexual, but sexual acts or behaviours were.
This is
something worth pausing over. It is
radically different to the way we think.
We will come back to this issue shortly, but now I think we are ready to
look at the three NT passages that mention homosexual behaviours.
None of these
verses are in the Gospels. Jesus never discusses or mentions the issue. It appears only in the letters, and as
mentioned, only three times. Paul refers
to it twice, in 1 Cor 6.9 and Rom 1.26f, and it also appears in 1 Tim 1.10. In two of these three verses
the issue of homosexual behaviour is mentioned only in passing; only in Romans
is the topic part of a larger discussion.
Just before we delve into these in detail, I need to mention one other issue regarding how we read the Bible. When we pick up the NT and turn to a letter, we have to remember that first and foremost we are reading someone else's mail! And we are reading only one letter (and even then often just one verse, or one "bit" of the whole letter) that was often part of a series of correspondence (letters, visits) by one party to the other, and vice versa. We do not know the whole story!
1 Cor 6.9
"Do you not know that wrongdoers
will not inherit the
What we have here is a "catalogue of vices," a popular list in Greco-Roman and Jewish literature. Paul uses such lists frequently as well as the corresponding catalogues of virtues (see Gal 5.22f for example). One thing is clear from a study of such lists; the users (or creators) of such lists do NOT carefully select the individual items to fit the context. What was important was the list itself, and perhaps its length. The more vices included, the greater the impression on the reader - the bigger the "club."
When we look at 1 Cor chapters 5 & 6 we
find three such lists. These lists do
not match the following sections exactly, but it is worth noting that in these
chapters Paul is addressing three issues in the church at
Let's examine these lists more closely. I have added the new items on each list in a new colour, and also placed significant words in italic (in Greek transliteration).
1 Cor
5.10 1
Cor 5.11 1
Cor 6.9-10
the
immoral (pornoi) sexually
immoral (pornos) fornicators
(pornoi)
the greedy greedy idolaters
robbers idolater adulterers
idolaters reviler malakoi
drunkard arsenokoitai
robber thieves
the greedy
drunkards
revilers
robbers
Notice that the list grows each time - Paul's club increases! One might think that the items which appeared in the first list, which appear in all three, might be more significant in the context, but they do not appear to be. Their order varies in any case; only "immoral" remains in the same place - at the top. This does seem to be significant for the issues Paul is addressing. While we do not have the time to go into the meaning of pornoi (pornos is the singular), it is also the word used by Jesus when discussing divorce (Matt 5.32) and is where our word pornography comes from. It is also used in G-R literature to refer to male prostitutes - a point that we will return to in our discussion on 1 Tim 1.9-11. But with regard to the specific terms that appear to refer to some form of homosexual behaviour, we cannot say that they are any more significant here than any other term on the list.
So what do the two words malakoi and arsenokoitai mean? The NRSV translation given above said "male prostitutes" and "sodomites" although the original RSV simply said "homosexuals." The KJV has "effeminate" and the phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind." The NIV has "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders," while The Message says "those who use and abuse sex."
But what does the Greek say?
Malakoi
This word literally means "soft" or "weak" and is used this way in the NT, for example in Matt 11.8 where there is a description of a soft cloth. Metaphorically it means "effeminate" - like a woman. However, when we look at how the word was used in first-century Greco-Roman culture, its meaning with regard to sexual behaviour is ambiguous. Nevertheless, we can say with some certainty that by association it appears in some places as pointing (in a pejorative way) to the "call boy" - the youth who consciously imitated feminine styles and engaged in PASSIVE homosexual activity for money.
Arsenokoitai
This literally means arsen (male) and koite (bed), thus meaning "one who lies with a male." Interestingly, this reference in 1 Corinthians is the earliest known use! It would seem that it is a literal translation (by Paul?) of the Hebrew phrase from Leviticus. And so what we proably have here is the male who hires, or keeps the malakos, paying for his services, a form of homosexual behaviour that even the Greeks disapproved of!
Just to summarise then:
But more on that shortly! Let's move on to the other verses.
1 Tim 1.9-11
"… the law is laid down not for
the innocent but or the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful,
for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for
murderers, fornicators, sodomites, salve traders, liars, perjurers, and
whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious
gospel of the blessed God …"
Once again we have a catalogue of vices and the word that concerns us is one we met above, arsenokoites. The words in this list appear to be grouped, and 'our' word is grouped with pornoi and andrapodistai. The first is common in Greek usage and can refer to a male prostitute - the second is one we have discussed already; the male who procures sex from another male (and pays for it, usually). The third word means a kidnapper or slave dealer, with kidnapper meaning someone who kidnaps people in order to sell them into slavery (not in order to extract a ransom), and this could well be into the brothel houses. The three words fit together; male prostitutes, males who lie with them, and slave dealers who provide them.
Again, we cannot conclude anything here about homosexuality in general, nor even the common Greek practice of pederasty. Only the condemnation of the enslaving of youths for sexual purposes, and the use of these boys by adult males.
Rom 1.26-27
"For this reason God gave them
up to degrading passions. Their women
exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 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."
These two verses are the major reference to homosexual behaviour in the NT, and are part of Paul's bigger theological argument in chapter one. We do not have time here to do justice to the theological context of Paul's argument, of chapters 1-11, suffice to say that it is about the fall, about human sin and that all are guilty, and that grace/salvation is entirely God's free gift.
In this particular passage in chapter 1 we also have a vice list! Of 20 items! But the points he makes about homosexual behaviour aren't part of that; they come just before it and illustrate the idea that "God gave them up to dishonourable passions."[3]
With regard to what the women are doing we have to note right at the outset that "unnatural sex" included the woman being on top in a heterosexual relationship! So we are not even sure that we are dealing with lesbian behaviour here. However, the second verse is without doubt an attack on male homosexual behaviour, so many scholars suggest that the first is thus also about lesbian behaviour - something quite remarkable given the almost complete lack of discussion about it in Jewish or G-R literature.
What we must highlight here is that Paul is pointing to a problem of passion or desire. For many G-R writers what they condemned with regard to sexual matters was rarely the choice of sexual objects a man might make, but an unrestrained manner in pursuing his desire. A male was to be in control of his passions, and this extended to how he related to others - male or female - sexually. Self-control, decency, order; control over others - prestige, honour, and power - these were the things that a man stood for and should seek.
For a G-R man of high social status, it was not who you had sex with that was important; it was that YOU were the one who was in control, the dominant partner. This was what was seen as natural. Others of a lower social status - women, slaves, youths - were expected to submit, to be penetrated, to be passive. This was what was seen as natural for them. Sexual freedom was granted to freeborn males in relation to anyone of a lower social standing - male or female. Sexual relations were an expression of domination, not of orientation.
Now, realising that many of those
Christians in the church at
I do need to say however, that these verses
are very difficult to understand in both their literary context of
Romans chapter one, and in their historical context of first-century G-R
society. Hundreds of pages have been
written on these verses! It's not likely that we could have done justice to them
here tonight! But hopefully even just this brief discussion on them has
highlighted some of the complexity of them in relation to applying them to our
21st century,
Paul lived in an aggressively bisexual society where sexual acts were primarily about control and domination. Our society is predominantly heterosexual. The patterns of abuse and exploitation are therefore very different; discrimination today is largely directed at those who dissent from the heterosexual norm. A text such as this one in Romans, which functioned as liberating in a bisexual environment thus appears discriminatory in a heterosexual context.
Conclusion
So. In conclusion, what can we say? What we have seen is a few verses that speak of certain homosexual behaviours in a condemning fashion. But these behaviours - male prostitution, sexual domination over others, procuring sex or money - these are all things that Christians ought to condemn.
The question is, can we apply such condemnation to the sorts of homosexual and lesbian relationships that exist today, but which were unheard of in Paul's day? None of these verses applies to those who are in stable, committed, mutually respectful partnerships. We cannot really extend what is said here about some aspect of certain forms of homosexual behaviours to a general understanding of homosexuality or homosexual/lesbian relationships.
The best analogy I can think of in this respect would be if we took the examples of heterosexual behaviours that the NT speaks of negatively (many of which we saw were being addressed by Paul in 1 Cor 5-6) such as adultery, visiting prostitutes, divorce etc., and decided that heterosexuality or heterosexual relationships were wrong as a result. Yet we know that just because there are forms of heterosexual behaviours condemned in the NT, this doesn't mean that heterosexuality, or heterosexual relationships are wrong! And so it seems to me that this is the same way we need to approach the issue of homosexual behaviour in the NT. Yes - certain homosexual behaviours are abusive and 'wrong' but that doesn't mean that homosexuality is also wrong.
[1] See attached.
[2] Unless otherwise states, all biblical quotations will be from the NRSV.
[3] The list is as follows: "They were filled with every kind of wickedness - evil, covetousness, malice, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (Rom 1.29-31)