There’s an elephant in the room and its name is homosexuality. In our age of political correctness, toleration, and open mindedness, taking a disapproving stance on homosexuality is often dismissed as homophobia, or intolerance. As Mosaic Christians, the issue of homosexuality is one of the toughest issues we have to face, because we are growing up in a culture that tells us that homosexuality is normal and ok, and if we are not accepting of someone’s lifestyle, we are just another judgmental, “holier than thou” Christian. We as people who are confronted with this issue everyday must realize that the bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong.
In this paper I would like to discuss why homosexuality is Biblically wrong by first setting forth the New testament passages that speak to the issue of homosexual behavior, and show why these passages are normative rather than cultural commands. Finally, I would like to show that the arguments against the normative nature of these command fail under close scrutiny.
First, let’s take a look at the three passages that specifically speak about homosexuality. The first passage that will be examined comes from 1 Corinthians 6:9. In this passage, Paul is reminding the Corinthians that the wicked will no inherit the kingdom of God. I will show the verse in a few different translations, in order to see the different translations of certain words.
9Or you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.[i]
First let’s look at the context of these verses. In these verses Paul is reminding the Corinthians what they once were, and how they are now justified through Christ. The translation of the phrase “effeminate” comes from the Greek word malakoi, meaning soft one. This is probably referring to the passive partner in homosexual activity. The next word that is used, homosexuals, is translated from the Greek word arsenokoitai, which has been translated as ‘male bedders. Both of these words have been highly debated, mainly because of their lack of occurrence in the scriptures, but through the work of Robin Scroggs, most scholars agree on the interpretation of arsenokoitai to be a phrase derived from the Septuagint’s version of Leviticus 18:22, which talks about not sleeping in a bed with a man as you would with a woman.[ii]
The second verse we will address, which is very similar to the Corinthians verse, comes from 1 Timothy 1:9-10.
9understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
In these verses, the Author is addressing the value of the law and how the law was made for those who rebel against it, not for those who follow it. He then goes on to list those who would be considered ‘lawbreakers’, or ‘rebels’. The author uses arsenokoitai for homosexuals, just as Paul uses in Corinthians.
The thing to be taken away from these verses is that both Paul and the writer of 2nd Timothy include homosexuality in their lists of things that are unholy, and sinful. What we also must remember is that homosexuality is just a part of this list, and it should not be looked upon as worse than the other things mentioned in the lists (I.E. murderers, slanderers, enslavers, liars, etc.)
Let’s move on to the next passage which comes from Romans 1:26. What’s interesting about this passage is that it addresses both men and women engaging in homosexual activity.
26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
In this passage Paul is making an argument that all have fallen short and need God. His point here is that only God’s righteousness can create salvation in a sinful humanity. In order to illustrate how fallen humanity has become he uses an illustration of men giving up natural relationships, and women exchanging things that are natural for those that are contrary to nature.
The thing that we must see here is the use of the word natural. What is defined as natural in these passages is a relationship between a man and women. Same sex relations are defined as contrary to nature or unnatural. It is pretty obvious that Paul is appealing to the fact that homosexuality is unnatural and a sin against God.
At first glance it seems almost obvious that the NT does indeed condemn homosexual behavior. A closer look however may yield some other views. After all, couldn’t one argue that Paul insisted that slaves obey their masters (Col. 3:22) and that women should not wear braided hair (I Tim. 2:9)? The average reader of the NT will explain these passages as being “culturally bound.” That is, that what Paul is saying is that in a culture where braided hair implies immorality, women should not braid their hair; in a culture where slavery is rampant, Christian slaves should obey their masters. Thus some commands are outside of time and culture (don’t lie; don’t steal; don’t murder) and some are based on the culture in which they were given (a woman should never wear men’s clothing, a fence should be built around the top of a house, a farmer should not sow two kinds of seed, Deut . 22). The question, of course, then is: what makes some commands (like braided hair and slavery) cultural and other commands (like homosexuality or women keeping silent in church) universal (or not bound by culture)? One of the most common arguments used to counter Christians who are speaking against homosexuality is to just claim that they are being hypocritical by choosing to follow some laws, but not others. This is an inaccurate statement because of two words, transcultural and cultural.
Transcultural means that these laws are in place regardless of the culture. Examples of normative laws would be the Ten Commandments, which are still seen as authoritative in our present day. Jesus’ command to Preach to all the nations would be another example of a normative command. These commands do not end with the culture that they were proclaimed in, but rather they are relative to all cultures. [iii]
Cultural on the other hand, can end. The bible has many cultural commands that are taken to be normative, which is a serious hermeneutical error. Examples of cultural commands would be, no tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), no sex while a woman is menstruating (Leviticus 18:19). Cutting the sides of your beard (Leviticus 19:27). All of these commands are seen in Leviticus in a section that is known as the Holiness code.[iv]
When thinking about the transcultural vs. cultural issue, the first concern that comes to the minds of most people is the process of determining what is cultural and what is normative. How can we decide what still applies to us in a biblically and theologically sound way? The approach that is beginning to become much more prevalent in evangelical circles is called the redemptive movement approach; William Webb coined this term in his book Slaves, Women, & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. In this book he argues that there are certain commands in the bible that are meant to move beyond the original ancient context and apply to us in our present culture. Dr. Mike Stallard of Baptist Bible seminary describes it like this:
“Because of the Bible’s influence and the work of God in the world, the current culture of today’s readers has actually progressed on many issues (such as the role of women) beyond what the Bible’s statements actually teach. That is, there is continued movement after the writing of the Bible. Consequently, the current culture on such issues (not all issues) would have a superior ethic than the Bible’s statements. Moreover, a reader of the Bible in the current culture might be tempted to look back at the Bible’s statements and consider them regressive in light of the progress that current culture displays. Webb would assert that this attitude is wrong-headed since it is the spirit of the biblical text as shown by the principle of movement that is the important factor to consider, not the isolated words of the biblical text.”[v]
Stallard is saying that cultures evolve, and so do cultural ethics, so some of the commands we see in Leviticus, and other biblical texts don’t apply to us, because our ethic is superior to that of the bible, because there is a continued movement in ethics after the Bible. This is the movement that Webb speaks about in his book. He contrasts it with a static narrative, which focuses on the isolated words of the text and does not recognize that the scriptures are moving. Many things are taken out of context when looking at scripture through a static hermeneutic. [vi]
In order to apply the redemptive movement, we must first determine the criterion for deciding what is cultural and what is transcultural. In his book, Webb decides what should still be applied to our culture by developing a three-step process. The first step is to develop various rationales that appear to that a part of a text is culturally relative. The second step would be to do the opposite, and establish various rationales that appear to indicate that a text is trans-culturally binding. Finally, we should weigh strengths of the data. We must keep in mind though, that cultural/transcultural analysis will never yield 100 percent certainty, but it does help find the best answer when it comes to these difficult questions.[vii]
Let’s apply this technique to one of the passages we discussed earlier, 1 Timothy 1:9-10.
Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to a sound doctrine.
First, we must develop various rationales that would make this text cultural. Roy Clements, a former Christian minister who came out as a homosexual, says this:
“The Pauline references in I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1 hinge on the meaning of two disputed words: malachoi and arsenokoitai. The first, meaning literally "soft ones", does not necessarily relate to sexual behavior at all. It could, for instance, refer to effeminacy in dress or manner. The second may well be a deliberate echoing in Greek of the Hebrew text of Leviticus 18:21. It is a very rare word, but seems always to be associated with sins of exploitation and abuse rather than sexual immorality per se.
There are strong grounds, then, for believing that these two words are heavily laden with cultural connotations specific to the first century pagan world where, for instance, male prostitution and pederasty were widespread. Certainly to translate them "homosexuals" begs an enormous number of questions, and is in any case thoroughly anachronistic since the notion of sexual orientation did not exist before modern times.”[viii]
This is a common argument for homosexuality being cultural, stating that the word arsenokotai only relates to certain aspects of homosexuality, such as prostitution, or pedophilia. These scholars would say that Paul was specifically addressing the rampant rise of homosexual prostitution, and those who did not necessarily have natural homosexual tendencies. They would say that Paul does not condemn natural homosexual tendencies.
Next, let us look at the evidence that this is a transcultural passage. Many NT scholars would say that there is no evidence that Paul is condemning only one aspect of homosexuality, but that it is quite clear that he is speaking about homosexuality as a whole. They would argue that since we do not see a shift in the commands about homosexuality from the Old Testament to the New testament, as we do with many of the commands in the Old Testament, it is pretty clear that the biblical command against homosexuality is transcultural, or beyond cultural barriers.
Now that we’ve looked at both aspects, we should weigh the strengths of each argument. While both do have valid points, it seems that the argument against homosexuality is stronger. If one were to look in the bible at certain issues ( I.E. the role of women, slaves, certain Levitical laws, etc..) he or she would see that there is a clear shift in these laws from the Old Testament, to the New Testament. These issues would be classified as Cultural. However, when the issue of homosexuality comes up, we see no shift from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Both share a similar stance, and thus this issue seems to be a transcultural issue, thus making it applicable to us today. With everything though, there will be conflicting views, many coming from the homosexual community. Let’s take a look at some of the arguments that the homosexual community is making for these same passages.
Reverend Mel White, founder of Soul force, a group advocating freedom for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender from religious oppression, has written a pamphlet responding to many of the verses the Christian community uses to “oppress” the homosexual lifestyle. He makes several arguments, some of which are: Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior, the Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality, only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today, and finally, that the bible condemns many things that we accept.[ix]
So let me respond to each of Mr. White’s arguments (On a side note, when responding to someone’s view, do it with gentleness and respect, as it says in 1 Peter 3:15. So often we respond with the mentality of trying to win a fight, and we get very defensive about our beliefs, and end up burning bridges, instead of building relationships.) His first argument, that Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior in the bible, while true, has a few problems. First of all, we must remember that God divinely inspires the entire bible, so every verse holds equal importance. It’s not as if the letters of Paul were just Paul’s own thoughts, but rather, he was divinely inspired while writing these letters. We must not hold the words of Jesus to any “holier”, or bearing more importance than the rest of the bible.
White’s second argument is that the Old Testament Prophets are silent about homosexuality. Again, we can’t hold certain parts of the bible to be “more true” than others. Just because the Jewish Prophets didn’t speak about homosexuality doesn’t mean what the rest of the bible has to say about it is now completely void! White has again fallen into the trap of holding certain passages, or writers over others.
Thirdly, White makes the claim that only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today. Let me respond to this in two parts. First, it’s a bit absurd to say that since the bible only speaks about an issue a few times, it therefore must not be applicable to us. For example, the passage that so many of these advocates for the stopping of “oppression” love to throw back at us is “Judge not, and you will not be judged.” It is quite contradictory to be using this verse, because we only see Jesus speaking about this a few times in the Gospels, so by their own rule, wouldn’t that make these verses inapplicable?
In the second part of this claim, White says that none of these verses on homosexuality actually speak about homosexual orientation, as it’s understood today. The first thing we must ask ourselves is what does White mean by as it’s understood today? Just because it’s understood differently, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the better interpretation. Let us assume that what white meant by that statement is that there was no such thing as a homosexual who was in a committed relationship in those times, only male prostitutes, pedophiles, and unfaithful relationships. The problem with this is that there are many examples of homosexual relationships in ancient Greece, the most famous being that of Alexander the Great and Hephaestion. There also documents speaking of the homosexual relationship of Euripides and Agathon. So to say that Paul was speaking of homosexuality in a completely different context, is wrong; he was speaking about homosexuality as a whole, which includes pederasty, and prostitution, but is not limited to that. [x]
White’s final argument is that the bible condemns many things that we commonly accept in our culture, and gives several examples, like If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately, If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death, and the Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
What White is missing here (which is quite ironic, after he made on how so many people don’t carefully read the bible) is that these are all quite clearly cultural commands, and they obviously shouldn’t apply to us today! He then goes on to make the argument that homosexuality is also on the list of cultural commands, and should not be a command we follow any more. Overall, White’s arguments are quite weak, and do not make a legitimate case for homosexuality.
[i] Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission
[ii] Mazzalongo, Michael. Gay Rights Or Wrongs: A Christian’s Guide to Homosexuality Issues and Ministry. Joplin, Missouri. College Press Publishing Company, 1984.
[iii] William J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis ( Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVaristy Press, 2001) 24
[iv] William J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis ( Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVaristy Press, 2001) 24
[v] Mike Stallard, “The Implications of the Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic,” Baptist Bible College and Seminary, Journal of Ministry and Theology Volume 9 (Baptist Bible College and Seminary, 2005; 2006), vnp.9.1.5-9.1.29.
[vi] William J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis ( Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVaristy Press, 2001) 30-31
[vii] William J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis ( Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVaristy Press, 2001) 68
[viii] Roy Clements “Why Evangelicals Must Think About Homosexuality” Seehttp://www.courage.org.uk/articles/article.asp?id=136. Accessed 14 April 2009
[ix] Rev. Mel White, “What The Bible Says- And Doesn’t Say- About Homosexuality” See http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian. Accessed 14 April 2009
[x] Halperin, David. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: And Other Essays on Greek Love. Routledge, 1989
Other sources used
Childs Jr., James M. Faithful Conversation: Christian Perspective on Homosexuality. Minneapolis. Fort Press, 2003.
Jones, Stanton L & Yarhouse, Mark, A. The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate. Dowers Grover, Illinois. Intervarsity Press, 2000.
Issues and Ministry. Joplin, Missouri. College Press Publishing Company, 1984.
Moberly, Elizabeth R. Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Cambridge. James Clarke & Co. 2001.
Siker, Jeffrey. Homosexuality in the Church: Bothe Sides of the Debate. Louisville, Kentucky. Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.
