The Bible and homosexuality is a contentious subject that influences how homosexuality and homosexual sex are regarded in societies where Christianity has made a strong impact. The Bible is generally considered by believers to be inspired by God or to record God's relationship with humanity or a particular nation. Some Christians view the Bible as fallible, perhaps being in part divinely inspired, but suffering from the shortcomings resulting from being written, censored, translated, and revised by humans who wrote down the prior oral traditions. Conservative Christianity sees the original texts of the Bible as inerrant, or at least infallible, regardless of the many versions due to differing translations, interpretations, additions and omissions; as the literal word of God. Some Christians, along with many non-Christians, see the Bible as mythology, purely symbolic or didactic folklore, which contains relevant and obsolete morality. The Eastern Orthodox Church regards the Bible as the deposit of the Apostolic Tradition, handed down from the Apostles who had personally known Jesus Christ.

The understanding of many Biblical interpreters is summarised by David Hilborn (2002, p.1) who argues: "It must be granted that direct references to homosexual activity in the Bible are relatively few. However, these more explicit texts belong to a much broader Biblical discourse on creation, love, holiness and human relationships - a discourse which goes to the heart of God’s purpose for humankind". Additionally, within Christian groups such as Catholicism these passages have traditionally been interpreted in light of other accepted revealed sources, such as the revelations to the mystic- saints, which often do contain more explicit and detailed descriptions clarifying the matter (e.g., St. Hildegard von Bingen's visions in Scivias). Protestant denominations generally do not make use of such sources.

The interpretation of these passages and their place within the religion's wider understanding of God's purpose for humankind therefore has important implications for homosexuality and Judaism, homosexuality and Christianity, and homosexuality and Islam. However, there are those who argue that reason, tradition and experience are also important elements in the interpretation of the biblical texts (see, for example, Richard Hooker). Some also dispute whether or not these passages refer to other forms of sexual behavior between members of the same sex ( pagan rites, casual sex, pederasty, and same-sex rape, for example), or to all types of homosexuality as a general category like heterosexuality.

Passages from the Hebrew Bible

The Hebrew Bible (part of the Old Testament, according to many Christians, but generally considered by Protestants to be identical with the Old Testament) is widely regarded by both Jews and Christians as having been written directly or inspired by God. "Mainstream Christianity has always recognised the authority of many of the ethical commands of the Old Testament". ^[1] For example Article 7 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England says that Christians are still bound by the moral commandments, although not the ceremonial, ritual or civil laws.

Genesis 1 and 2: Creation

The first two chapters of the first book of the Bible, Genesis describe God's creation of the world and his creation of man and woman. In the King James version that for many centuries was the most common translation of the Bible in English, Genesis 1:27-28 states:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2 says:

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

(KJV; Genesis 2:23-24).

Hilborn (2002, p.1) therefore argues that these verses are: "foundational for the classical Judaeo-Christian teaching that sexual intercourse is designed for expression solely within the life-long, marital relationship of a man and a woman."

However, it has also been argued that this line of reasoning is an example of the is-ought problem and that these verses do not exclude other types of relationship. ^[2] For example, many people in the Hebrew Bible are in polygamous marriages, which are not condemned. Furthermore, Williams (2002, p.23) has argued that while Genesis 2 describes a relational norm, it cannot therefore be used to argue that it prohibits other forms of relationship. One critic said the arguments amount to "an extraordinary evasion of the plain sense of the biblical text" (Hilborn 2002, p.1f). In the end, it is not surprising that a story purportedly about the ancestors of the human race would involve a heterosexual couple capable of producing offspring. This has no obvious implications one way or the other regarding the possibility, much less the appropriateness of, sexual activities that may not or cannot result in the production of offspring. For those who hold that these stories are not to be interpreted in a literal-factual manner, they are a depiction of humankind in symbolic terms, and in this case as well there are no obvious automatic implications regarding other possible relationships at other points in history.

Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (December 2007) ( Learn how and when to remove this message)

Genesis chapters 18 and 19 are concerned with the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by God. In the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the Hebrew of Genesis 19:4-8 is rendered as:

Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.

The NASB's "relations" has been translated in other versions as "know". The most common interpretation is that Lot offered his virgin daughters to be raped, to prevent the rape of the angels (male visitors unknown to the citizens of Sodom). This interpretation is based on the idea that "to know" in reference to the men and the daughters is sexual; therefore, the daughters were offered sexually as a distraction and/or consolation. This interpretation is strengthened by the reasonable assumption that hospitality toward divine male guests can be imagined to have been more important to Lot than anything else, even the safety and virginity of his daughters (however, this argument is weakened in that Lot apparently did not know of the divine nature of his guests until after Lot's offer of his two daughters). It has been argued that yada ("to know" in Hebrew) refers to sex in a minority of instances in the Bible. It has even been suggested that Lot was not serious about the offer, and was using hyperbole as a rhetorical strategy. This interpretation also could involve differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex rape, viewing the former as being an act of domination and the latter as being about sexual gratification. Such a differentiation is reminiscent of interpretations made by biologists concerning same-sex sex acts among animals as being about displays of dominance, rather than sexual pleasure. ^[3] However, it is possible to make this differentiation in the context of the Lot story without arguing that all same-sex sexual activity is rape by arguing that rape and sex for pleasure are two different things, always or usually, and that context is the determining factor.

Although gang rape of visitors is regarded as an evil action in this story, this action tells us nothing about the 'sexual orientation' of the inhabitants of these cities, and in the narrative we are told that God had already decided to destroy the city before this incident occurred. Among the various reasons that have been proposed as to why exactly God chose to destroy them, including inhospitality, rape, and greed. According to some, Ezekiel 16:49-50 (TNIV) gives one of the first interpretations of the events:

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

In the New Testament, Jude 1:7 (TNIV) says:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.

While this translation specifically mentions "sexual immorality" it is not clear whether or not it is condemning homosexuality as such. It is agreed by some interpreters on all sides of the debate that while the sins of Sodom may include sexual sins, the ambiguity means that it cannot be used to condemn homosexual relationships outright (Hilborn 2002, p.3; Compton 2003). The reference in the Letter of Jude to their going after "strange flesh" more naturally applies to the crossing of the human-angelic divide, which is elsewhere in Genesis said to have brought disaster upon the earth, when the sons of God took wives from among the daughters of men. Hilborn (ibid.) argues that the men's actions are "a manifestation of much deeper-seated sins of idolatry, pride and rebellion". There is a close parallel to the Sodom and Gomorrah story in Judges 19 (Issues in human sexuality, para 2.12). This same report (ibid.) also argues that the other references in both the Old and New Testament are general and that while Sodom became "a stock image for extreme sinfulness" it was not "a symbol for one particular sin". Other interpreters see the context of Genesis 19:4-8 as a clear indication that homosexuality is at least one specific sin responsible for the destruction of Sodom (Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective, Q. 3; White-Neill 2002; Bahnsen 1978).

The story's morality, as a whole, has been called into question, not just specifically the debate concerning whether or not it condemns homosexuality. Lot's daughters are offered by their father to an angry mob to be gang raped, Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking behind her and both daughters have sex with their father, each becoming pregnant and delivering healthy children. Critics argue that a story that includes condoned incest, a father offering his daughters for gang rape, the destruction of cities, and the killing of a mother for looking behind her cannot be used to justify condemning homosexuals. These critics argue that those who attempt to justify condemnation of homosexuality with this story willfully and unfairly ignore the incest and rape. This idea, however, assumes that simply because an event is recorded, it is condoned, and that a choice between two evils requires endorsing the lesser evil as good in and of itself. The inclusion of the "don't turn around" idea from classical antiquity has been used to argue that the story is folklore, rather than the literal recording of events.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah had never been interpreted as relating to one single, particular sin before two law novellizations by Byzantine emperor Justinian the Great in the 500s CE.^{[ citation needed]} It was Justinian who in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis was the first to declare that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them in order to create homosexual scapegoats for recent earthquakes and other disasters of his time, but most of all to enact anti-homosexual laws that he used upon personal as well as political opponents in case he could not prove them guilty of anything else. Justinian's were not the first Roman laws prohibiting homosexual behavior (earlier such measures had been included in the Lex Scantinia dating from the year 149 BCE and the Lex Julia dating from 17 BCE, both constituting death penalty for homosexual behavior, while we have allegations that even before Lex Scantinia, such laws existed but direct evidence was lost), however while sticking to death penalty Justinian's legal novels heralded a change in Roman legal paradigm as in that he introduced a concept of not only mundane but also divine punishment for homosexual behavior. Individuals might ignore and escape mundane laws, however they could not do the same with divine laws if Justinian declared his novels to be such.

Justinian's interpretation of the story of Sodom would be forgotten today (as it had been along with his law novellizations regarding homosexual behavior immediately after his death) had it not been made use of in fake Charlemagnian capitularies, fabricated by a Frankish monk using the pseudonym Benedictus Levita ("Benedict the Levite") around 850 CE, as part of the Pseudo-Isidore where Benedictus utilized Justinian's interpretation as a justification for ecclesiastical supremacy over mundane institutions, thereby demanding burning at the stake for carnal sins in the name of Charlemagne himself (burning had been part of the standard penalty for homosexual behavior particularly common in Germanic antiquity, note that Benedictus most probably was Frankish), especially homosexuality, for the first time in ecclesiastical history in order to protect all Christianity from divine punishments such as natural disasters for carnal sins committed by individuals, but also for heresy, superstition and heathenry. According to Benedictus, this was why all mundane institutions had to be subjected to ecclesiastical power in order to prevent moral as well as religious laxity causing divine wrath.

Leviticus 18 and 20

These chapters of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code. Leviticus 18:22 says:

And with a man you shall not lie with as a man lies with a woman; it is an abomination.

and Leviticus 20:13 states:

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

It is widely argued that the things condemned in these chapters are "deemed wrong not simply because pagan Canaanites indulged in them, but because God has pronounced them wrong as such." (Hilborn 2002, p.4; cf. Issues in human sexuality, para. 2.11; Amsel). This was also the interpretation taken in the rabbinic interpretations in the Mishnah and Talmud, which also extended this to include female homosexual relations, although there are no explicit references in the Hebrew Bible to this.

Some scholars (e.g., West 2005, p.2) argue that the prohibition was to prevent men using sexual intercourse to gain domination over other men (as, West argues, was common in other cultures at the time). These arguments are summarized by West (ibid.): "These verses in no way prohibit, nor do they even speak, to loving, caring sexual relationships between people of the same gender."

Counter-arguments also include that these chapters were concerned with purity codes to keep Israel separate from the Canaanites and that as Jesus rejected the whole purity code they are no longer relevant (Johns 2004). Others (e.g., White-Neill 2002) claim that unless the passage is taken as an absolute condemnation of homosexuality, the issues in the proceeding verses, bestiality in vss. 15-16, and incest in v. 17, would have to been seen as contextual condemnations also. In other words, bestiality or incest may not be sinful given certain qualifications (e.g., not attempting to dominate others, done out of love and caring).

Another argument is that the attempt to use Leviticus to condemn homosexuals requires strict adherence to all of its laws, which most of those who want to use Leviticus in this way do not follow. Such verses include Leviticus 19:27, which condemns cutting the hair on the sides of the head and trimming ones beard, and Leviticus 11:7, 24-25, which condemns contact with the flesh of a dead pig ( pigskin), as well as Leviticus 11:10-12, which labels eating shellfish "abomination." [2] This argument is that Leviticus is not suitable as a foundation for such a significant moral judgment for contemporary Christians, as it is impossible for those Christians to live by all of its rules strictly, and that it is wrong to pick and choose, making convenience the criteria. However, critics argue that just because one person does wrong (e.g., themselves), does not mean that others are justified in doing wrong also.

Analysis of the Hebrew text

A difficulty in interpreting Leviticus is that Hebrew, Greek and other relevant languages may have been ambiguously or incorrectly rendered into English. Thus the word translated as "detestable" (often also translated as "abomination"), has a different meaning in Biblical Hebrew than in English. (See: Abomination (Bible) ). In Biblical terms, "abomination" simply signifies that which is forbidden or unclean. Likewise the phrase translated as "do not have sexual relations" ("lo tishkav") in these passages literally means "do not lie down with". In other passages (e.g., Genesis 19:34; Exodus 22:16; 22:19 and many others) to "know" or "lie [down] with" is a euphemism for sexual intercourse (whether heterosexual or homosexual).

The Book of Ruth

This book concerns the love between Naomi and her widowed daughter-in-law, Ruth. Naomi's husband and her two sons die and Naomi tells her daughters-in-law to return to their homes:

At this they wept aloud again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-bye, but Ruth clung to her

(Ruth 1:14; TNIV).

Instead of leaving Naomi, Ruth pledges to stay with her (Ruth 1:16-18). This relationship has therefore long been commended as an example of self-sacrificing love and close friendship (eg. Issues in Human Sexuality para. 2.7). However, some have interpreted this relationship as probably sexual in nature. For example, Tom Horner (1978, p.20) argues: "Whether there existed a relationship of physical love between Ruth and Naomi cannot be demonstrated. However, the right words are there." Bible scholars reject this however, as it runs counter to the author's intention^{[ citation needed]} of portraying King David's ancestress, Ruth, as a particularly chaste and godly woman.

The word Horner is primarily concerned with is the word translated as clung in Ruth 1:14, which is the Hebrew word "dabaq". This word is also translated in Genesis 2:24 as united "to his wife" and in Genesis 34:3 as drawn "to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman". The context of these passages is one of sexual attraction.

However, the same word is also used in different contexts (Brown et al.). For example it is translated as stay in Ruth 2:8 (TNIV):

So Boaz said to Ruth, "My daughter, listen to me. Don't go and glean in another field and don't go away from here. Stay here with the women who work for me.

In this context the word obviously has no sexual connotation,^{[ citation needed]} while at the end of the book Ruth marries Boaz, with Naomi's encouragement (Ruth 3:1-4). BA Robinson (2005) therefore concludes that "Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship." Although it is often argued^{[ who?]} that, since Ruth marries twice and has children, she could not have been involved in a same-sex relationship, this does not logically follow: not only does it remain true that people who are homosexuals nevertheless end up in heterosexual marriages even today for a variety of reasons,^{[ original research?]} and that people can be bisexual, but the primary reason why Ruth marries the second time is because widows were extremely vulnerable and by doing so she protects both her mother-in-law and herself.^{[ citation needed]} There is no indication of romance in the relationship between Ruth and Boaz,^{[ citation needed]} nor was this to be expected in a typical marriage relationship in this historical setting.^{[ citation needed]}

Books of Samuel: David and Jonathan

The account of the intimate relationship between David and Jonathan was recorded favourably in the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 18; 20; 2 Samuel 1) and there is an ongoing debate whether this relationship was platonic, romantic but chaste, or sexual.

The two most significant passages are 1 Samuel 18:3–4 (TNIV):

And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

And 2 Samuel 1:26 (TNIV):

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.

Biblical scholars have widely and traditionally interpreted this as a very close but non-sexual relationship (cf. Issues in human sexuality, para. 2.17). However, a minority have argued that it was a sexual relationship ^[2] whilst acknowledging that "in neither case does the text mention a sexual aspect to the relationship" (Greenberg 1988, p.113). The possible euphemisms in the text and actions such as Jonathan disrobing (1 Samuel 18:4: "stripped himself of the robe that was upon him" KJV), perhaps in front of David (something not explicitly stated in the text and that is thought would be highly unusual at the time, outside of bathing), and kissing ( 1 Samuel 20:41) - a customary greeting between men (cf. 2 Samuel 14:33, 15:5, 19:39, 20:9 etc.) - are grounds on which these scholars have declared: "If modern readers do not see 'sexual relationship' in this story, it is because they cannot accept the plain implications of the story itself" (Johns 2004; cf. Crompton 2002). A useful exercise for heterosexual readers of the story is for them to replace the names of one of the male characters with a female name, and to see what impression they get. This will give a sense of how the story comes across to a homosexual reader. Nevertheless, a sexual relationship is not made explicit, and for many scholars the relationship is a "classical Biblical example" (Hilborn 2002, p.2) of close non-sexual friendship, such as the friendship eloquently described by Gregory of Nazianzus in Oration 43, 19-20 as existing between him and Basil of Caesarea, when they were students in Athens.

Books of Kings

In two parallel events in the Books of Kings, Elijah (1 Kings 17:1-24) and Elisha (2 Kings 4:8-37), respectively, bring a young boy back to life by lying on top of the boy. In 1 Kings, Elijah lays the dead boy on his bed and then:

he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried out to the LORD, "LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!" The LORD heard Elijah's cry, and the boy's life returned to him, and he lived.

(1 Kings 17:21-22; TNIV).

In the near-parallel in 2 Kings, Elisha is told by the boy's mother that he has died and sends his servant to put his staff on top of the boy, but this fails. Elisha then visits the boy:

When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the LORD. Then he got on the bed and lay on the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out on him, the boy's body grew warm. Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out on him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes.

(2 Kings 4:32-35; TNIV).

Koch (2001) argues that the staff is a phallic symbol and the description of the boy sneezing is a sexual reference to ejaculation, therefore this is a homosexual ritual (or, since it involves a boy, pedophilia or pederasty, or, since a corpse, necrophilia). The traditional view holds that, based on the passage's description of bringing the boy back to life, the passage describes a resuscitation ritual rather than a sexual ritual.

Another passage in 2 Kings which Koch sees as significant is the meeting of King Jehu and Jehonadab, in 2 Kings 10:15-16 (TNIV):

[Jehu] came upon Jehonadab son of Rekab, who was on his way to meet him. Jehu greeted him and said, "Are you in accord with me, as I am with you?"
"I am", Jehonadab answered.
"If so", said Jehu, "give me your hand." So he did, and Jehu helped him up into the chariot. Jehu said, "Come with me and see my zeal for the LORD." Then he had him ride along in his chariot.

This passage is interpreted by most scholars as the formation of a political alliance (cf. Burns 2002, p.14), but Koch argues, rather, that this is a romantic homosexual "pick-up". However, Koch's interpretation of these passages has been criticised by a number of scholars (cf. Burns 2002, p.13f) as including "sheer fantasy" and of being "a construction [which] is imposed on the text that is highly individualistic, not to say self-centered." Writing of the collection of essays of which Koch's is one, Burns (2002, p.14) writes: "this collection does not effectively present a credible application of queer theory, but one that is narrow and exclusive. In most cases there is no serious struggle with the text and few reasonable justifications for the claims that are made."

Book of Daniel

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (December 2007) ( Learn how and when to remove this message)

The Book of Daniel, a book in both the Hebrew Bible ( Tanakh) and the Christian Old Testament, Daniel (Daniel 1:9) refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon. "Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV).
Religious conservatives view the friendship of Daniel and Ashpenaz as non-sexual but some religious liberals point out that the original Hebrew used is "chesed v'rachamim" which is translated differently for every version of the Bible. "Chesed" translates to English as "mercy" while "V'rachamim" can be translated as either "mercy" or "physical love". This allows for two possible direct translations: "Now God had caused the official to show mercy and mercy to Daniel" which is very unusual grammatically or "Now God had caused the official to show mercy and give physical love to Daniel". It has been pointed out that both were eunuchs making this version unlikely but when castrated after puberty, males retain their sexual drive and only lose the ability to procreate. ^[4]

Passages from the New Testament

The New Testament tells of Jesus Christ and the first Christians and so is only recognised as inspired by God by Christians, not Jews. The attitude of most Christians to the Bible is based on 2 Timothy 3:16 (TNIV):

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

Matthew 5:22: "raca"

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is reported as saying:

but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

(Matthew 5:22; KJV).

This verse involves Jesus criticising people for using words of contempt, some which have been interpreted as referring to homosexuals. The untranslated word "Raca" is an Aramaic term of contempt, but its precise meaning is debatable. The word "raca" and similar words are common in many Semitic languages and some writers allege that they mean weakness or effeminacy, and are frequently used as terms of abuse for homosexuals (Robinson 2004; Halsall). Furthermore, it is alleged that the word translated as "fool" (μωρός, from which we derive the English moron) has a number of other meanings, including "sexual aggressor" and "homosexual aggressor". Robinson (2004) therefore concludes that "One could argue that Jesus was condemning homophobia in this passage; but it would be a weak case at best, because of the multiplicity of meanings of the key words."

In the article "WWJD: Jesus on Anti-gay, Anti-pedophile, Anti-incest Slurs", the word is said to be "racha", and evidence is presented that the word doesn't mean "fool", but instead refers to effeminacy. Matthew 5:22 presents a hierarchy of punishment, where calling someone a "fool" is the third and most serious offense, while calling a brother racha is second. Joseph Wallfield, writing under the pen name Warren Johansson, argued in support of the 1922 analysis of philologist Friedrich Schulthess, who claimed racha should be equated with "rakh", which means "sissy". Wallfield argued that racha is synonymous with the Greek "malakos", which refers to the receptive partner and carried the connotations of effeminacy and passivity. The term is found in Paul's Epistles. Also, in 1934, an ancient Egyptian papyrus was published written in Greek in 257 B.C. that used the word "rachas" with a parallel text suggesting that the word meant "kinaidos" (faggot). Wallfield discovered that German slang, which makes use of Hebrew and Aramaic words, uses the word "rach" for meanings such as "cowardly", "timid", and "effeminate".

Wallfield concluded: "What the text in Matthew demonstrates is that he forbade acts of violence, physical and verbal, against those to whom homosexuality was imputed, in line with the general emphasis on self-restraint and meekness in his teachings."

An argument against this rendering points out that if "racha" means "effeminacy" (denoting homosexuals) then it would confirm that homosexuals (effeminate) are excluded from the kingdom of God 1 Corinthians 1:9). Moreover, the argument that Matthew 5:22 completely forbids contemptuous titles cannot be justified in the light of the clearly denigrating language that both the Lord and Paul used in reproving evil men ("fools and blind," "generation of vipers", "liars, evil beasts"). The warranted interpretation therefore is that Jesus forbade the unwarranted or unholy use of such titles.

Matthew 15; Mark 7: What defiles

In Matthew 15: 19-20 (KJV) Jesus is reported as saying:

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

In Mark 7: 20-23 (KJV) it says:

And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Whether these lists include homosexuality depends on the translation of porneia (sexual impurity). Translations of these passages generally translate porneia as fornication. As Jesus does not specifically include homosexuality, it has been argued that he did not condemn it. However, it has been pointed out that this is an argument from silence which has also been criticized on the grounds that the rabbis of the 1st century generally included homosexuality within their condemnations of sexual immorality (Satlow 1995). And as "fornications" is plural, it would cover all unmarried sexual unions.

Porneia appears a number of times in Paul's letters, always with 'arsenokoitais'. In, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality", John Boswell argued that the word 'arsenokoitais' in 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 1 Timothy 1:10 refers to male prostitution specifically.

Matthew 8; Luke 7: "pais"

This event is referred to in both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 and tells of Jesus healing a centurion's servant.

Luke 7:2 (TNIV) says:

There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die.

The term translated from the Greek as "servant" is pais. This can be translated in a number of different ways including "child" (eg., Matthew 2:16; Lk 2:43, 8:51-54 where it refers to a girl), "son" (John 4:51), "servant" (Lk 15:26, Acts 4:25), or be unclear whether "son" or "servant" is meant (Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, 4:30) (Marston 2003). However, it has also been argued (eg, Horner 1978) that the most common meaning was a young slave who was also used sexually. Horner (1978) goes on to argue that this interpretation is made more likely as the "servant" was "valued highly". As the NET Bible (2005) note (Luke 7, note 7) makes clear the word (ἔντιμος; entimos): "could mean 'highly valued,' but this sounds too much like the slave was seen as an asset, while the text suggests a genuine care for the person." Better translations might be "was dear to him" or "was highly regarded", showing that the centurion was genuinely concerned about the boy and making it more likely that they were lovers (Helminiak 2000). As Jesus commended the centurion for his faith (Matthew 8:10; Luke 7:9), it is therefore argued (eg, Horner 1978) that Jesus approved of his relationship, as otherwise he would have condemned him.

However, Marston (2003) rejects this interpretation, arguing that as the relationship was probably involuntary it is difficult to believe that Jesus would have condoned it, while Chapman (2005) argues that this is an argument from silence, and notes that while Jesus did not condemn other practices (such as slavery) this does not necessarily mean he approved of them.

The disciple whom Jesus loved

In the Gospel of John, there are four verses (John 13:23; 19:26; 21:7; 21:20) which refer to the "disciple whom Jesus loved", generally interpreted to be John himself.

Several scholars have used these verses to argue that Jesus and John had a homosexual relationship, recently most notably by Jennings (2003). Jennings argues that these verses and the intimacy displayed between Jesus and John, especially at the Last Supper where John is described (John 13:23) as "reclining next to him" (TNIV) or "leaning on Jesus' bosom" ( KJV), strongly implies that they were in a homosexual relationship.

However, this interpretation is rejected by most Biblical scholars. For example, Vasey (pp.121-124) uses the "deepest intimacy" of the friendship of Jesus and John to affirm homosexual relationships, but rejects the idea that Jesus and John themselves were in a homosexual relationship. ^[2]It is also dismissed by Gagnon (2001) in his large-scale study The Bible and Homosexual Practice, not least as the word translated "loved" is the Greek word agape (used, for example, in John 3:16; "for God so loved the world"), rather than the Greek word referring to sexual love, eros.

Responding directly to Jennings' claims, Gagnon argued that Jennings misunderstood ancient culture, as people would recline while eating, so the man "leaning on Jesus' bosom" was simply "reclining next to" Jesus, with no homoerotic implication. Gagnon argued: "the idea that Jesus was a homosexual or engaged in homosexual acts is complete nonsense" that no "serious biblical scholar" had ever proposed (Ostling 2003).

Romans 1

In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (TNIV), Paul writes

Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

This has been described as "the most important biblical reference for the homosexuality debate" (Hilborn 2002, p.5). It is also the only explicit reference in the Bible to female homosexuality. Hilborn (2002, p.6) argues that in the wider passage (Romans 1:18-32) Paul writes that the "global scope of salvation history has been made manifest not only in ‘the gospel of God's Son’ (cf. v.9), but also in the very ‘creation of the world’ (v.20)." In common with many traditional commentators, Hilborn (2002, p.7) goes on to argue that the condemnation of homosexual sex (whether consensual or not) is derived from the "broad contours" of Paul's argument, rather than from the selective reading of individual words or phrases.

However, a minority of more recent interpreters (eg., Boswell 1980, p.109f; Vasey 1995, p.131f) argue that Paul does not have in mind a system of natural laws (as this is an Enlightenment concept) ^[2] and that "Paul did not discuss gay persons, but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons" (Boswell 1980, p.109). McNeil (1993) argues that a proper understanding of this passage should focus on heterosexuals who "abandoned" or "exchanged" heterosexual sex for homosexual sex, which is against nature and therefore idolatrous.

This usually appears to be based on the argument that the ancient world did not have a concept of homosexual orientation. However, having reviewed the evidence the report Issues in Human Sexuality (para 2.16) concluded: "It can be said, therefore, the phenomena which today would be interpreted in terms of orientation were present and recognised." These considerations therefore lead many Biblical interpreters to conclude that "the most authentic reading of Rom 1:26-7 is that which sees it prohibiting homosexual activity in the most general of terms, rather than in respect of more culturally and historically specific forms of such activity" (Hilborn 2002, p.9). However, there are classical scholars who reject this, arguing that the ancient Greeks and Romans did not possess the concept of sexual orientation as it is understood today as a fixed, unchanging attraction to a member of the same sex caused by an interaction of many factors, including biology, environment, genetics, social influences, etc. (Medwid, Linda. 2005)

Nonetheless, this broader interpretation of what was known about orientation is rejected by a minority of interpreters (eg West 2005, p.3), who argue that sexual behaviour was always undertaken amongst unequals and that Paul is talking to a Gentile audience in terms that they would understand to show that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). It is therefore argued that what Paul condemns in Romans 1 is particular types of homosexual sex, such as temple prostitution or pederasty (cf. Hilborn 2002, p.8).

But many scholars would say that interpreters such as West fail to take Paul's language seriously. "In Rom 1:27, Paul may have meant 'men with boys,' but he said 'males with males'" (Howard, 1996, p.50). It can thus be argued that Paul's use of "females" in verse 26 and "males" in 27 would seem to cover the spectrum of all types of homosexual conduct. According to this argument, the Apostle could have specified pederasty or temple prostitution if he had so desired, but he condemned all homosexual acts--regardless of modern concepts of homosexual love and commitment--when he said "indecent acts" (NASV, emphasis added) in verse 27 and "to do these things which are not proper" (NASV, emphasis added) in verse 28.

1 Corinthians 6; 1 Timothy 1

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The word translated as "practicing homosexuals" has challenged scholars for centuries, and has been alternately rendered as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "sodomites" (YLT), or "men who practice homosexuality". The original term is very unusual, ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs), thought to mean "one who has sexual intercourse with a male" (Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην [arrhēn / arsēn] "male"; κοίτην [koitēn] "sexual intercourse"), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. Within the Bible, it only occurs in this passage and in a similar list in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Paul may have been drawing from the Greek ( Septuagint) translation of Leviticus 18:22: καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν (kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gunaikos. bdelugma gar estin "And you shall not have sexual intercourse with a male as with a female. For it is unclean.") Boswell (1980) argues that this is a term specifically created by Paul. Given its unusual nature, the fact that Paul did not use one of the more common Greek terms, and given its direct reference to the Levitical laws, it is a matter of debate whether Paul was referring generally to any person having homosexual sex, or whether he was referring to a narrower range of practices (such as heterosexuals having homosexual sex), or whether (as discussed below) it referred only to anal sex of any form (cf. Elliott 2004). Other translations of the word include Martin's (1996), who argued it meant "homosexual slave trader" and Boswell (1980) who argued it referred to "homosexual rape".

The term arsenokoitai was rarely used in Church writings (Elliott 1994), with Townsley (2003) counting a total of 73 references. Most are ambiguous in nature, while St. John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, seems to use the term "arsenokoitai" to refer to pederasty common in the Greco-Roman culture of the time^{[ citation needed]} , while Patriarch John IV of Constantinople in the 6th century used it to refer to anal sex: "some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives" (Townsley 2003).

Perhaps even more challenging is the word translated as "male prostitutes" (TNIV), "effeminate" (NASB), or "catamites" (in the footnotes of the NKJV). The Greek word μαλακός – malakos carries a root meaning of soft, luxurious or dainty, but here it used in a much darker way, most likely referring to the more passive partner in a homosexual relationship. ^[5] The two terms are sometimes rendered as "men who practice homosexuality" in the ESV, which notes that together they "refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts".

One difficulty also lies in the fact that, whatever arsenokoitai means, it denotes males and not females. It is difficult to believe that Paul would condemn all homosexual men but not homosexual women, and given his remarks in Romans about female homosexuality, one might ask why he did not create a special word for that as well, if homosexuality is in fact what he was referring to.

See also

• Religion and homosexuality
• Homosexuality and Christianity
• Homosexuality and Judaism
• Homosexual readings of Jesus and John
• Homosexuality in ancient Greece
• Malakia (effeminacy)

References

Literature

• Amsel, Nachum Homosexuality in Orthodox Judaism.
• Bahnsen, Greg L. 1978 Homosexuality: A Biblical View. ISBN 0-8010-0744-5
• Bahnsen, Greg L. 1994 In the Shadow of Sodom: Does the Bible Really Say What We Thought About Homosexuality?
• Biblical Studies Press 1996-2005 The NET Bible.
• Boswell, John. 1980 Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-06711-4
• Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. Hebrew Lexicon entry for Dabaq. The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon.
• Brunson, Hal. 2007 Lesbos, Narcissus, and Paulos: Homosexual Myth and Christian Truth. ISBN-10: 0595405967 [3]
• Catholic Answers 2005 [ http://www.catholic.com/library. iuniverse, 2007

/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp Early Teachings of Homosexuality].

• Durns, John Barclay 2002 Lot’s Wife Looked Back. Journal of Religion and Society 4, p.1-16.
• Chapman, Patrick 2005 Homosexuals in the Bible: Jesus, John, the Centurion and the Slave?. Rainbow Journal Olympia, vol 2(1) (November 2005).
• Crompton, Louis, et al. 2003 Homosexuality and Civilization. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press ISBN 0-674-01197-X
• Elliott, John 2004 No kingdom of God for softies? or, what was Paul really saying? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in context Biblical Theology Bulletin Spring 2004.
• Gagnon, Robert 2001 The Bible and Homosexual Practice. Abingdon Press. ISBN 0-687-08413-X
• Greenberg, David 1988 The construction of homosexuality. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-30628-3
• Halsall, Paul, Homosexuality and Catholicism: A Partially Annotated Bibliography
• Helminiak, Daniel 2000 What the Bible really says about homosexuality. Alamo Square Press. ISBN 1-886360-09-X
• Hilborn, David 2002 Homosexuality and Scripture. Evangelical Alliance.
• Horner, Tom 1978 Jonathan Loved David. Westminster Press. ISBN 0-664-24185-9
• House of Bishops 1991 Issues in Human Sexuality. Church of England. ISBN 0-7151-3745-X
• Howard, Kevin L. Paul's View of Male Homosexuality: An Exegetical Study. M.A. thesis (unpublished). Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Deerfield, Illinois. June 1996.
• Jennings, Theodore 2003 The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives From the New Testament. Pilgrim Press. ISBN 0-8298-1535-X
• Johns, Loren 2004 Homosexuality and the Bible: A Case Study in the Use of the Bible for Ethics (The Academic Dean of the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary).
• Koch, Timothy R 2001 Cruising as methodology : homoeroticism and the scriptures, In Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible, ed. Ken Stone, Pilgrim Press. ISBN 0-8298-1447-7
• Martin, Dale. 1996 Arsenokoites and malakos: Meanings and Consequences, pp.117-136. In Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality. Ed Robert Brawley. Westminster Press ISBN 0-664-25638-4.
• Marston, Paul 2003 'Christians, Gays and Gay Christians'. Free Methodists.
• McNeill, J. J. 1993 The Church and the Homosexual. Beacon Press. (4th edn.). ISBN 0-8070-7931-6
• Ostling, R. N. 2003 Book claims Jesus had homosexual relationship Chicago Sun-Times 29th May 2003.
• Robinson, B. A. 1996-2005 What the Bible says about homosexuality. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.
• Satlow, Michael 1995 Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality. Scholars Press. ISBN 0-7885-0159-3
• Townsley, Jeramy 2003 All known references to arsenokoit*
• West, Mona 2005 The Bible and Homosexuality. Metropolitan Community Church.
• White, James and Neill, Jeffrey 2002 The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality. ISBN 0-7642-2524-3
• Williams, Rowan 2002 ’The Body’s Grace’, in Eugene F. Rogers (ed.), Theology and Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary Readings, Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-21277-9

External links

• A pro-gay look at the Bible passages on the subject of homosexuality (Link Down)
• What the Bible says about homosexuality (summary of pro- and con- points of view by pro- website
• Biblical passages on homosexuality
• The Bible on Homosexuality
• Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective (discusses Biblical verses concerning the subject)
• APA: Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality
• The Tomb of the Diver (homosexuality in the ancient world)
• Porneia
• Literal Genesis
• The Old Testament and Homosexuality
• Homosexuality and it's marriage arguments refuted