Thoughts on the subject of Homosexuality in Modern Christian Scholarship

* New Bible Dictionary article (the NBD is considered by many to be the top evangelical one volume dictionary available).

* Eerdmans Bible Dictionary article (the EBD is a wonderful piece of scholarship, and probably the best one volume Bible dictionary on the market today, edited by Noel Freedmon who also was General Editor of Anchor Bible Dictionary)

* Mercer Bible Dictionary article and excerpts from the Mercer Commentary (the MBD is an award winning Bible dictionary done by the National Association of Baptist Professors of religion).

All articles are unabridged and unaltered, emphasis in the commentary excerpts are my own.

New Bible Dictionary

Homosexuality. The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV translation of 1Co. 6:9), but it's condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much.

The exegesis of Sodom and Gibeah stories (Gn. 19:1-25; Jdg. 19:13-20:48) is a good place in point. We must resist D. S. Bailey's widely-quoted claim that the sin God punished on these occasions was a breach of hospitality etiquette without sexual overtones (it fails to explain the double usage of the word 'know' (yada) the reason behind the substitutionary offer of Lot's daughters and the Levite's concubine); but neither accounts amounts to a wholesale condemnation of all homosexual acts. On both occasions the sin condemned was attempted homosexual rape, not a caring homosexual relationship between consenting partners.

The force of the other OT references to homosexuality is similarly limited by the context in which they are set. Historically, homosexual behavior was linked with idolatrous cult prostitution (1 Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46). The stern warning of Levitical Law (Lv. 18:22; 20:13) are primarily aimed at idolatry too; the word 'abomination' (to eba), for example, which features in both these references, is a religious term often used for idolatrous practices. Viewed strictly within their context, then, these OT condemnations apply to homosexual activity conducted in the course of idolatry, but not necessarily more widely than that.

In Rom. 1 Paul condemns homosexual acts, lesbian as well as male, in the same breath as idolatry (vv. 1:23-27), but his theological canvas is broader than that of Leviticus. Instead of treating homosexual behavior as an expression of idolatrous worship, he traces both to the bad 'exchange' fallen man has made in departing from his Creator's intention (vv. 25f.). Seen from this angle, every homosexual act is unnatural (para physin, v. 26), not because it cuts across the individual's natural sexual orientation (which, of course, it may not) or infringes OT law (contra McNeill), but because it flies in the face of God's creation scheme for human sexual expression.

Paul makes two more references to homosexual practice in other Epistles. Both occur in lists of banned activities and strike the same condemnatory note. In 1Co. 6:9f. practising homosexuals are included among the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God (but with the redemptive not add, 'such were some of you'); and in 1Ti. 1:9f. they feature in a list of 'the lawless and disobedient'. The latter is especially important because the whole list represents an updated version of the Ten Commandments. Paul parallels the 7th commandment (on adultery) with a reference to 'immoral persons' (pornoi) and 'sodomites' (arsenokoitai), words which cover all sexual intercourse outside marriage whether heterosexual or homosexual. If the Decalogue is permanently valid, the significance of this application is heightened still further.

It has been suggested that the meaning of arsenokoites in 1Co 6:9 and 1Ti 1:10 may be restricted to that of 'male prostitute' (c. Vulg. masculi concubitores). Linguistic evidence to support this view is lacking, however, though the word itself is certainly rare in literature of the NT period. It seems beyond reasonable doubt that Paul intended to condemn homosexual conduct (but not homosexual people) in the most general and theologically broad terms he knew. His three scattered references fit together in an expression of God's will as he saw it. As Creator, Law-Giver and King, the lord's condemnation of such behavior was absolutely plain.

--D. H. Field

Memoranda by DWF:

Note that if the 'Levitical Law' primarily aimed at aimed at idolatry, the word used (and most likely created) by Paul in 1Co./1Ti. should be regarded as being spoken against idolatry, for the roots of the compound word used are found in the translation of the Lev. 18:22; 20:13 in the LXX. Indeed it is pointed out that the Corinthian passage mentions idolatry and sexual sins here to point out the immorality of Greek religions with it's temple prostitutes. And the Romans passage is again shrouded in a context of Idolatry. It quickly becomes apparent that homosexuality is always tied to either gang rape or idolatry in the Bible. The Bible does not condemn homosexuality apart from idolatry, glory to God for His wonderful grace, Spirit Divine illumine all minds.

Erdmans Bible Dictionary

HOMOSEXUALITY

The terms "homosexuality" and "homosexual" are coinages of the 19th century c.e. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts. The term "homosexual" appears in some modern English translations (usually in 1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim. 1:10), but the key Greek term involved (arsenokoítes) is rare and of uncertain meaning.

Passages that do refer to same-gender sexual acts or life commitments may be summarized as follows:

Male-male rape

In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:16-33) the men of Sodom threaten Lot's guests by saying that they want to "know" them. Since the verb "to know" would be used in Hebrew as aeuphemism for the sexual act, they may mean to commit anal rape on them, thus violating their sacred duty toward strangers. The later idea that the Sodom story condemns all male-male sexual acts does not appear in the story itself or in the references to Sodom elsewhere in the Bible, but first emerged in ancient Greek-speaking Judaism. In the NT Jude interprets the sin of Sodom as the desire to have sex with angels ("strange flesh"; Jude 7).

Same-sex intercourse as violation of purity

In Leviticus male-male sexual intercourse is condemned as an "abomination," i.e., a serious violation of purity (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). (There is no reference to female-female sexual intercourse in the OT.) In Rom. 1:18-32 Paul treats same-sex intercourse as a prime example of the impurity characteristic of Gentiles. He regards it as unclean and dishonorable and as a punishment visited on the Gentiles for their failure to worship the true God. He does not specifically say that it is sinful.

Same-sex commitments

Same-sex commitments sometimes take precedence over heterosexual connections. Ruth left her people to go with Naomi (Ruth 1:15-18). David and Jonathan were bound by covenant and love (1Sam. 18:1-5; 20:1-42; 2Sam. 1:17-27). The centurion's "boy" (Gk. país) whom Jesus healed at a distance (Luke 7:1-10) may have been his master's eromenos ("beloved"). In none of these cases can we say had a genital dimension or not. Modern discussions of homosexuality take some or all of these passages into account, but their meaning and authority are interpreted differently by different interpreters. None of them appears to address modern questions directly.

Bibliography. R.J. Brawley, ed., Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality (Louisville, 1996); L. W. Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Philadelphia, 1988); R.Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia, 1983); M.L. Soards, Scripture and Homosexuality (Louisville, 1995).

L. Wm. Countryman

Mercer Bible Dictionary

Homosexuality in the Bible. Biblical imagery has been an enduring part of anti-homosexual polemic of both church and society in the western world. Numerous laws and court decisions through the centuries have cited biblical precedent as an authority in actions directed against homosexual activity on the assumption that the biblical tradition speaks forcefully and unequivocally against such activity.

In reality, the biblical record on this issue is subject to more than one interpretation. There are only a few specific references to homosexual activity, and their meaning and relevance for issues raised in the modern world are not agreed upon by all.

Homosexuality in the Old Testament. (1) Lev 18:22 and 20:13. from the sixth century B.C.E. priestly Holiness Code (Lev 17-26), are only specific condemnation of homosexual acts in the OT. The Holiness Code forbids acts that are "abominations" (to eba), that is ritual uncleanness or sins associated with gentiles (cf. 2 Kgs 16:3; Isa 44:19). The references to homosexual acts may therefore, be regarded as a reference to otherwise unknown acts associated with pagan shrines.

(2) The KJV used the word "sodomites"-usually regarded as an equivalent-in Deut 23:17-18, 1 Kgs 14:24, 15:12, 22:46 and 2 Kgs 23:7. There is, however, no justification for such a translation. The term in question, qades, simply means a male cultic figure, probably a prostitute, whose function parallel the female cultic figures also mentioned in the texts. There is no indication of homosexual activity in the texts.

(3) The Sodom story in Gen 19:1-26 (cf. Jud 19-21) has been interpreted as referring to homosexual acts. Derrick S. Bailey and others have argued that the demand by the men of Sodom to "know" Lot's guests had no inherent sexual connotation. Most commentators disagree, citing the substitute offer of Lot's daughters as having clear sexual implications. If homosexual acts were intended, however, they were clearly a certain type-i.e., same sex rape which was intended to show the dominance of the men of Sodom over these strangers. (A similar story appears in the Egyptian myth, "The Contending of Horus and Seth." where Seth dominated Horus by raping him.) OT references to the moral indignation felt toward Sodom-Ezek 16:49-50, Isa 1:10, 3:9, Jer 23:13, Wis 10:8, 19:4, Sir 16:8-refer to moral and social corruption, cynical selfishness, and lack of justice in Sodom, but makes no reference to sexual sins of any sort. It is only the first century C.E. (Philo and Josephus), when Jews were coming into contact with the homosexual practices accepted in the Hellenistic world, that the Sodom story was interpreted in terms of sexual sins. These sexual references were not, however, necessarily homosexual. Sodom's sin is describe as "licentiousness" and "lust of defiling passion" in 2 Pet 2:4-10, while Jude 6-7 refers to their indulging in "strange flesh" (as in the Book of Jubilees, most likely a reference to the potential sexual relationship between humans and angels).

Homosexuality in the New Testament. NT references to homosexuality came at a time when even Hellenistic writers (e.g., Seneca and Plutarch) were increasing critical of the exploitation and self-indulgence of homosexual acts directed against slaves and young boys.

(1) 1 Cor 6:9-10 (cf. 1 Tim 1:10) are often regarded as referring to homosexual acts, but in fact the exact nature of what is condemned is not clear. In 1 Cor 6:9-10 two terms are used. Malakoi has a basic meaning "soft" or "weak," and there is no compelling reason to translate the term as "effeminate," which is a euphemism referring to me subordinate partner in a relationship. While not a technical term for pederasty (the love, including sexual love, of young boys), malakoi is occasionally used in first century C.E. to describe people involved in pederatic practices. "Thus the use of malakos would almost certainly conjure up images of the effeminate call-boy, if the context otherwise suggested some form of pederasty" (Scroggs, 65). Arsenokoitai is a combination of words meaning "male" and sexual intercourse," but the precise nature of this sexual activity is not known for certain. Boswell points out that, as late as the twelfth century, Peter Cantor's listing of passages condemning homosexuality did not list either 1 Cor 6:6-10 or 1 Tim 1:10- a strange omission if general homosexual activity is the clear meaning of the language. The passages may be taken to refer to male sexual activity such as prostitution, or pederasty, but whether such prostitution included homosexual prostitution is less certain. What is reasonably clear in these texts is the condemnation of exploitive sexual acts such as prostitution (whether heterosexual or homosexual) and the use of children as sexual objects by adults.

(2) Rom 1:26-27 is the only unquestionable reference to homosexual acts in the NT. Here same sex acts that are contrary to nature (para physin), or contrary to human custom, are seen as the result of a denial of God's sovereignty. Modern applicability of this passage, however, depends upon the weight one gives to the social context of this passage and the possibility that that Paul is alluding to the abusive, exploitive forms of homosexual behavior-e.g., the holding of slaves as sexual objects, sex with young boys-characteristic of the disbelieving Hellenistic world.

Both OT and NT writers would certainly have assumed heterosexual relations as a social and religious norm. Heterosexual marriages were arranged early and usually without consultation with children. Biblical references to sexual activity (e.g., Gen 1-3) take for granted that they are heterosexual.

Homosexual activity associated with pagan worship and exploitataive homosexual activity are clearly condemned. What is not clear, because it was not an issue in the biblical period, is whether involuntary homosexual orientation-the idea of a sexual orientation that is not voluntarily chosen is as recent as the nineteenth century-or committed, loving relationships between consenting persons of the same sex was to be condemned. Contemporary answers to theses questions are based on theological and social considerations and are not simply and directly derived from the biblical material itself.

--T. FURMAN HEWITT

Mercer Bible Commentary

Gen 19....It seems clear enough that the attempted assault on Lot's guests threatens homosexual violation of them. The full meaning of the episode may be less obvious, however. References to Sodom and Gomorrah elsewhere in the OT use the cities either as a simile for total destruction (e.g., Jer 50:39-40; Deut 29:22-23; Isa 1:9; 13:19), or as a standard of comparison regarding false worship, social injustice, or general lawlessness (Isa 1:10-17; Eze 16:48-50). None of the references cite homosexuality as defining the wickedness of Sodom.

Three central features of the episode outside the door of Lot's house can be stated Simply. First, the evil portrayed is not homosexuality per se, but an attempt at gang rape. Second, Lot's offer of his daughters to the mob, in place of his guests, seems outrageous from any perspective. It also suggests there is a social pattern working at some level that subordinates women to the perceived interest of men. In this connection, it must be pointed out that Abraham and Isaac, are willing to put their wives at risk for the sake of their own welfare (Gen 12:12-13; 20:11; 26:7).

The third noteworthy feature of the assault on Lot's guest is no mere stereotype of lust run amok, but a more troublesome "type scene". What is dramatized is the cruel practice--attested from time to time in human society--to subject strangers and new comers to homosexual humiliation as a way of impressing upon them their subordinate status. Thus the particular act threatened in vv. 4-9 is that of a proud and self righteous citizenry (cf. v. 9).

--Bruce T. Dahlberg

Rom 1....God gave them up to dishonoring of their bodies in homosexual relationships (1:24-27). Homosexuality then is not in Paul's view so much sin itself as a consequence of sin, and yet it is evil for Paul in that it is destructive of the human self.

Present knowledge makes it difficult to agree with Paul that sinful rebellion is the sole or even a primary cause of homosexuality. But Paul's apparent underlying principle may be right. Rebellious rejection of God deforms the depth of human life where the roots of all sexuality lies.

Some Greek moralists defend pederasty (sexual relations between adult men and young boys) as superior to heterosexuality. Among the arguments were (1) it contributes to the wisdom of youth; (2) it is more masculine; and (3) it is more "according to nature". Other moralists condemned pederasty with such arguments as:(1) it is effeminate; (2) it lacks mutuality permanence; (3) it is exploitative; (4) it is the expression of insatiable lust; (5) it is contrary to nature.

Paul essentially agreed with the opponents of pederasty. He held homosexuality to be generated by insatiable lust--consumed with passion (v.27). And he believed that it was chosen--they exchanged (v.26). And perhaps most emphatically he held it to be contrary to nature, against God's created intention as an order immanent in the world of humankind.

People will debate whether homosexuals are more lustful than heterosexuals. That homosexuality is simply chosen and not biologically or socially determined is too facile an assumption. What about "contrary to nature"?

For Paul and the ancient world generally there is no such thing as a homosexual nature or orientation. There is one nature--what we would call a heterosexual one. Thus what Paul is condemning as unnatural is homosexual acts by people whom he takes to have a heterosexual nature. His underlying principle, then, is that people when they act should do so in accordance with their nature. If Paul then could be confronted with the reality of a homosexual nature, he would not be consistent with himself if he claimed that homosexual acts by people with a homosexual nature are contrary to nature.

--Dan O. Via

Memoranda by DWF:

Note how it is actually some leaders in our churches who more closely fit the mold of a sodomite ie. by their social injustice and proud self-righteousness. Also it must be noted that para physin (unnatural) cannot have a moral connotation for Paul simply because he refers to God's acts as par physin when He saves gentiles (Rom 11:24). We remember that "The LORD is near to them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as are of a contrite spirit. Evil shall slay the wicked: and they that hate the righteous shall be desolate. The LORD redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate."(Psalms 34:18, 21-22 KJV). Our God knows the evil done to his homosexual children and how their spirit's have been crushed by those who should be leading them, how we have been made to feel sub-Christian because God made us different, they hate us because of it. But it is God's role to judge and he shall make them desolate, (asham) literally "be guilty". Hatred and animosity, as well as violent deeds to which these emotions lead, are under the Judgment of God (Matt 5:21-22; 1 John 2:9-11; 3:15). But praise be to God for our Lord redeemeth (present tense "is redeeming"), salvation is continuous as well as instantaneous, for those who trust Christ, will not be denied, even when faith is weak, for we've become part of Him and He will not deny Himself (2Ti 2:13).

Return to Saint Jerome's House

Return to Integrity