Blog Post 13

Last time we saw that many excellent biblical scholars have concluded that the most common translations of 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 1 Timothy 1:10 related to gay people are actually mistranslations.  Today we continue . . .

In fact, when the executive director of the translation committee for the first edition of the New International Version was asked what the translators meant by the term “homosexual offenders” in the NIV’s original translation of I Corinthians 6:9, he replied that they were not referring to homosexual people per se but rather to people such as homosexual child molesters or rapists.  This explanation is consistent with the conclusions of multiple biblical scholars.

We should address one more argument that people have used in favor of the traditional interpretation of these passages.  Some biblical scholars have observed that the word arsenokoitai could be derived from a Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint.  The Septuagint’s translation of the laws in Leviticus 18 and 20 that condemn same-sex sex includes words that could easily have been the root of the word arsenokoitai.  In other words, it could be that Jewish scholars coined the word based on the Septuagint’s (Greek) translation of Leviticus 18 and 20.

I have studied this carefully, and I think this is almost certainly true.  However, that does not mean that therefore I Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 condemn marriage for gay couples.  We still have to ask what Paul would have had in mind when he used this word.  As any student of language development knows, words change meaning over time.  So we still have to ask what sort of same-sex relationships Paul had in mind when he used the word arsenokoitai.  So once again we need to look at the historical context and ask what particular expression of same-sex relationships was most prominent at the time.  That is most likely what Paul would have had in mind. 

In summary, it appears very likely that these two passages have often been mistranslated—and that they do not refer to the loving, mutual, adult marriages of couples who are gay in orientation.  At the very least, we need to acknowledge that reputable scholars disagree about the translations, and so we must not use them to condemn gay people or marriage for gay couples.

This concludes our study of the Bible passages typically used to condemn gay people and marriages of gay couples.  We have seen that none of these passages condemn gay people or the marriages of gay couples as we understand them today.  So does that mean that the Bible doesn’t have anything to teach us related to marriage for gay couples?

No.  There is much biblical teaching that can provide indirect guidance as we consider the morality of marriage for gay couples.  That is where we are going to turn next.

Blog Post 12

Doesn’t the New Testament say gay people won’t inherit the kingdom of God—and that some of them changed from being gay?

I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10

These two passages include lists of people who “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9) or who are “lawbreakers” (1 Timothy 1:10).  In most Bible translations we see“homosexuals” or some version of the word included on the lists.  Many people have concluded on this basis that gay people (at least those who are in a marriage or other relationship that includes sex) are going to hell or that they are at least living in a way that displeases God.  Some who read these passages also conclude that gay people can become heterosexual since the I Corinthians passage goes on to say that some of the people on the list had been changed through Christ.

The problem with this interpretation is that it is based on a very questionable translation of two crucial words. In fact, many biblical scholars are convinced that the common translations are simply wrong, and I find the case for this conclusion very compelling.

These passages (and the entire New Testament) were originally written in Greek.   The two Greek words that some versions of the Bible translate as “homosexuals” or something similar are very difficult to translate.  The reason is that one of the words (malakoi) is common but has several possible meanings, and the other word (arsenokoitai) is very uncommon and difficult to find in other literature of the time.  Furthermore, since the words appear on lists, it is difficult to tell from the context what they might mean.  By the way, arsenokoitai appears on both lists, and malakoi appears only on the 1 Corinthians list.

Because of this difficulty, translators (who are apparently not allowed to leave blanks) have translated the words in a variety of ways.  Here are some examples of translations of the words in 1 Corinthians 6:9.  Note that in some translations the two words are translated together as one word:

• “effeminate . . . abusers of themselves with mankind” (King James Version)
• “homosexuals” (New King James Version)
• “male prostitutes and homosexual offenders” (New International Version 1973)
• “men who have sex with men” with a footnote saying, “The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts” (New International Version 2011)
• “sexual perverts” (Revised Standard Version 1971).

It’s true that the two Greek words seem to refer to some sort of same-sex sexual acts, but what sort of acts? Many astute Bible scholars now believe (based on studies of other literature and art from the ancient Greek-Roman world) that these words do not refer to healthy, loving gay relationships as we know them today. Rather, these words refer to specific kinds of same-sex sexual relationships that were common in the ancient Greek-Roman world, such as a practice called pederasty (older men taking boys as sex partners), prostitution, or sex with slaves—all practices that nearly everyone would condemn among heterosexual people as well as gay people. 

We will conclude our study of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 in the next post.

Blog Post 11

For many Christians Romans 1 clearly condemns the gayorientation and gay relationships, but does it? Let’s take a look.

Romans 1:26-27

This passage refers to those whom “God gave over to shameful lusts” and to women and men who “exchanged natural relations for unnatural.”  It speaks of men who “committed indecent acts with other men.” Some people read this passage as saying that all gay relationships are shameful, unnatural, and indecent. Is that really what it is saying?

No.  Take a careful look at the passage.  It clearly does not say that all same-sex sexual relationships are lust-filled, shameful, unnatural, and indecent.  Rather, it uses these adjectives to describe (as an illustration of a larger point) certain people who engaged in same-sex sexual relationships.  Who were these people?

Let’s look at the context and the passage itself.  Romans 1 and 2 teach that we all sin and need to be restored into relationship with God, and this leads in Romans 3 to Paul’s declaration that God has provided this needed restoration in Christ. 

As part of this larger theological point, Romans 1 talks about Gentiles who have completely turned away from God.  It then says that God “gave them up” to various extreme behaviors.  These behaviors sound like a description of people going wild in their rebellion against God and against any healthy boundaries.  But what about good Christian people who have not turned against God—people who realize they are gay in orientation and want to marry someone of the same sex?  For that matter, what about any gay people who choose to channel their sexual desires within the bounds of faithful, loving marriages?

Also consider the description of the people under consideration.  The passage says they “exchanged natural relations for unnatural.”  Does this sound like a description of what we today call gay people?  Not at all!  It sounds more like a description of people we would call heterosexual acting out in homosexual ways. 

Note also that the passage refers to relationships characterized by lust.  But what about gay relationships based in love?  The passage simply does not talk about these.

In fact, scholars have found numerous historical documents that refer to people in the ancient Roman world whose behavior fits Paul’s description, including high-profile figures such as the Roman emperor Caligula.  The behavior of these people was characterized by excessive lust, multiple sexual encounters, and sexual exploitation of boys, slaves, and men in positions of less power.  Those are the sort of same-sex sexual relations Paul would have heard about, and so those are the relationships he would have been referring to in Romans 1. 

But what about the mutual, loving, faithful marriage relationships of adults who happen to be gay in orientation?  The passage simply does not refer to such relationships.  In Romans 1 the Apostle Paul is referring to a situation quite different from that of gay people as we know them today.  And so we may not legitimately use this passage to say anything about the loving, faithful marriages of gay couples.  It simply does not apply.

Ah, but what about the New Testament passage that say gay people will not inherit the kingdom of God?  We will take a look at that in our next post.

Blog Post 10

If the Old Testament isn’t a reliable basis for condemning the marriages of gay couples today, surely the New Testament is, isn’t it?  Let’s take a look.

Matthew 19:4-6

This passage does not refer to gay people, but many people use it to condemn the marriage of gay couples.  How?

In this passage Jesus affirms marriage between a man and a woman:

⁴ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ ⁵ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Yes, in this passage Jesus affirms marriage of opposite-sex couples, but is he thereby condemning marriage for same-sex couples?  To answer that question we need to look at the wider context. 

What is the situation that Jesus is responding to?  It’s not a question about whether it’s legitimate for a gay couple to get married. Rather, it’s a question about whether it’s legitimate for a married couple to divorce.  Jesus responds by teaching that God intended for marriage to be permanent.  So it’s not an appropriate use of the passage to insist that it answers a question that Jesus is not responding to.

Furthermore, in spite of the very clear teaching by Jesus against divorce, the Christian community does permit divorce and remarriage.  It makes an allowance for failed marriages in light of human brokenness, and it asks about the most life-giving response to failed marriages.  Most Christians now respond by lamenting the breakdown of a marriage and even speak of it in terms of sin, but they still ask what is best within the larger picture of Christian morality. They conclude that sometimes divorce is better than keeping a marriage together—and sometimes remarriage after divorce is better than singleness after divorce.

Given this flexibility in our interpretation of Jesus’ words in Matthew 19, couldn’t we be similarly flexible in our treatment of gay people?  Even if some Christians were to see the gay orientation as an example of human brokenness, couldn’t we conclude that for at least some gay people marriage is more life-giving than a life of singleness?

Matthew 19:12

There is no record in the Bible of Jesus saying anything about gay people.  However, Jesus did speak about people who had a sexual difference—a sexual difference similar to that of gay people.  In Matthew 19:12 we read,

“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Isn’t it significant that Jesus teaches acceptance for a group of people who do not and cannot fit the pattern of male-female marriage and procreation?  Is Jesus perhaps teaching that we should do the same?

In our previous post we looked at the Sodom story and began to look at Leviticus.  Today we conclude our study of Leviticus–and the Old Testament.

Understanding the relevance of Old Testament laws can be difficult for Christians because we still do follow some of the laws in the Old Testament.  Why we do follow some and not others?  The reason is that we learn from the rest of Scripture, particularly the New Testament, that certain laws have enduring application.  These laws are clear and enduring expressions of love, which Jesus and the apostles call us to.

Scholars suggest possible ways that the laws in Leviticus against same-sex sex violated the law of love in their historical context.  How?  First, scholars point out that the laws could have been a reference to religious practices of neighboring nations in which men had ritual sex in temples with other men.  The laws would then be saying, “When you worship, don’t have ritual same-sex like the Canaanites.”

Second, other scholars point out that these laws prohibit a man from “lying with” with a man “as with a woman.”  In the Hebrew culture of that day, for a man to have sex with another man was to treat that man like a woman.  And in a patriarchal society in which women were considered greatly inferior, this would have humiliated the other man (a distinctly unloving thing to do).

Third, the laws imply that they are referring to sex without an enduring relationship.  In a culture where all men were expected to marry women, having sex with a man would be inherently promiscuous—without a committed, enduring relationship.

The faithful, loving, equal partnership—the marriage—of gay couples is very different from any of these possible meanings.  So the laws in Leviticus simply do not apply to gay couples as we understand them today.

What about the word “abomination” (the Hebrew word toevah) in the Leviticus law against men having sex with men?  Doesn’t that designation show that same-sex sexual relations are especially deplorable in God’s eyes and that these particular laws therefore endure?  No.  Leviticus calls many practices toevah that we do not see as sinful or detestable today.  These include having sex with a woman during her menstrual period (Leviticus 18:19) and a man remarrying a woman who has been divorced or widowed by her second husband (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

Well, that’s it for Old Testament passages that the church has traditionally used to condemn same-sex couples.  Some people employ an additional argument, namely, that the Old Testament never refers to gay couples in positive terms.  Isn’t this a weak argument, though?  There are many practices that are not mentioned in the Bible that we now accept today.

Of course, for Christians the New Testament brings greater clarity to God’s work in the world—and to our understanding of morality.  So let’s turn there next.

We just finished looking at the first category of Bible passages traditionally used to condemn the marriages of gay couples, namely, the creation accounts and Jesus’ reference to those accounts.  Now we turn to the second category, namely, the passages that explicitly condemn same-sex relations.

Genesis 19 – Sodom

In this passage we read that the men of Sodom surround the house where two out-of-town male guests (who are really angels) are lodging with Lot, the nephew of Abraham.  The men demand that Lot send out the guests so that they might have sex with them.  Later we find out that God destroys the city.

A traditional interpretation says that God destroyed the Sodom for its homosexuality, but this clearly does not make sense.  The passage is talking about intended gang rape, which was a common practice in the ancient world by which men humiliated other men in order to show dominance over them.  The passage says nothing about loving gay relationships.

It is also significant to note that when later passages in the Bible refer to the sin of Sodom, they never refer to its sin as being same-sex sex.  For example, Ezekiel 16:49-50 lists Sodom’s sins as being arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned with the poor and needy.  And in Luke 10:12 Jesus compares Sodom to towns that reject his disciples.  In other words, the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, which is supremely ironic in view of the church’s traditional inhospitality toward those of us who are gay.

Some people interpret a reference in Jude 7 to the sexual perversion of Sodom (literally,  “lusting after strange flesh”) as a reference to same-sex sexual desires, but scholars tell us that this obscure phrase is far more likely referring to the attempt by the men of Sodom to rape angels.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 – Laws

Many people point to these passages because they are the only verses in the Bible that explicitly prohibit a man from having sex with another man.  Furthermore, both passages call such a practice “an abomination” (King James Version) or “detestable” (New International Version).

Although these laws seem very clear, we must consider their contexts and applicability today.  The book of Leviticus is filled with many laws, and there are over 600 laws in the Old Testament as a whole.  Few if any Christians believe that we are morally obligated to follow all the Old Testament laws.  So why pick out two of the laws and say that they are still in force?

In our next post we will complete our study of Leviticus.