The Irrefutable Claim that Homosexuality is Wrong
VIDEO INTRODUCTION TO THIS ESSAY
Throughout the history of Christianity there has been an evolution of consciousness that any amateur historian can map out: From the treatment of menstruating women in Mosaic Times, to the legalistic law of Sabbath in Second Temple Judaism, to the murder and torture of elderly women and the mentally ill during the Spanish Inquisition, to the Southern Baptist Convention who fought to keep slavery alive. This list only touches the surface of the many points in history where large Christian groups strongly held to immoral ideologies. The terror of these outdated beliefs were not to be underestimated, for all of the above had strong roots in authoritative Biblical doctrine. The moral evolution that was required to surpass these lethally executed laws, in fact, always required a revolution: The Christian Revolution, the Protestant Revolution, and the Civil Rights Movement; just to name a few. The question being posed in this essay is: Has the Church evolved, revolted and sharpened enough of itself, that it is now free from change or correction? If not, what immoral practice or corrupt ideology of the Church persists today, despite the moral evolution of consciousness that has surpassed most sects of Christianity? One ideology comes to mind that fits this pattern that we have witnessed throughout history: Homosexuality.
Using the strongest Biblical arguments used against homosexuality, I will determine the significance and impact that these have on Christianity as a whole. First I will analyze the historical and cultural context of homosexuality throughout circa. 1400 BCE to Present day. Then I will address some linguistic observations within the original Koine Greek that referred to the topic of sexual immorality in the New Testament. Lastly I will cross reference the theme of homosexuality in the Bible and modern Christianity with the evolution of slavery abolition and feminism.
The purpose of analyzing the historical and cultural context of homosexuality within Jewish laws and Christian doctrine is to see the difference in the Christian and LGBTQ+ community today. After analyzing the differences between these societies over the millennia, we can see where else cultural groups and the view of them have evolved and in the context of morality and doctrine in Scripture.
There is much speculation as to when the Mosaic law was written. Depending on the theory of who wrote it, the date could range from 1400 BCE to 700 BCE. Nonetheless, the original Jewish law against homosexual acts was written sometime in this period, 2600 to 3400 years ago. This law is found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 where it states that homosexuality is an abomination and the punishment is death. Reading this alone, it seems clear that the Torah/Bible states it is wrong. Exploring the context however, we quickly see that one cannot simply say this is a timeless truth. In the scriptural context of other laws in the Torah found alongside this one, we see many which have been widely dismissed today. The following list are some Mosaic laws with harsh penalties, which may include death, that no longer are recognized in Christianity today: Being a stubborn son (Deut 21:18-21), being uncircumcised (Gen 17:14), having sex with a woman who is menstruating (Lev 20:18), eating rare meat (Lev 17:10), doing work on the Sabbath (Ex 20:10), cutting your hair for style (Lev 19:27), wearing clothing with more than one material (Lev 19:19). The reason these are no longer taken seriously today is because most people have adopted a mature reading of ancient Scripture and decided these laws and the original reasoning behind them aren't relevant anymore.
Modern Christians have also recognized that these laws no longer apply because Romans 10:4 and Hebrews 8:13 dismiss the authority of Mosaic law. Yet some Christians still use these passages to condemn homosexuality. The argument against homosexuality using these passages should therefore be dismissed along with all other Mosaic laws that have been dismissed over time. Of course, there are other reasons this law wasn’t dismissed with the rest, as there are other places in the Bible that seem to condemn homosexuality.
The other Old Testament reference to homosexuality is found in Genesis 19 during the story of Sodom and Gommorah. God’s response to homosexuality in this story is widely exaggerated for the Scriptures have no such reference to it [see note]. There is a reference in Sodom when a group of men attempted to gang rape some visiting angels. This incident, of course, does not correspond to love between two men or two women. This instance is an attempted rape of angels. Otherwise, the only other times the Bible talks about “the sin of Sodom and Gommorah”, it says that is was great and the people cried out to the Lord. The place was unsafe; therefore the people were lawless. When we look at other times God destroyed large numbers of people, it was because they were violent (Gen 6:11), or they were oppressors who were worshipping false Gods through violent religious practices (Ex 11-12, Num 21:2-3, Deut 20:17, Josh 6:17, 21, 1 Sam 15). When Ezekiel reflects on Israel’s great sin in Ezekiel 16, the Lord speaks of Sodom and describes her iniquities, none of which pertained to anything sexual (Ez 16:49). Instead the Lord named her sins as greediness, gluttony, selfishness, pride, and idleness. He recalls their abomination, which many interpret as homosexuality, but in fact in the context of the entire chapter of this passage, including the following verse 17, the very same "abomination" of Israel which is being addressed clearly refers to the worship of false gods (Ez 8, 20:7). This is the theme found countless times throughout the prophets while they recall the entire story of Israel: From the first two commandments, “You shall have no other gods before me” and “you shall not make idols” (Ex 20:3-6), to the sin of Jeroboam and the rise of idols in Israel which led to Israel’s exile (1 Ki-2 Chron.). It’s all about idolatry. Which leads me to my next point.
The New Testament references to homosexuality can also be seen through this lens of idolatry. During the time it was written, in the 1st and 2nd century, the culture was overtaken by the Roman superpower. The main expression of same-sex relations in Roman culture was not as we know it today. Paul recognizes the specific situation in Rome and speaks to it. The New Testament was written in Greek, and some words couldn’t be directly translated into English because they simply don’t exist in the English language (a main example is the translation of various words into "hell"). When we see the word “homosexuality” in the Bible, a direct translation for the original word, arsenokoetai, does not exist. In fact, the word does not exist in the Greek language either. After researching this word and the historical context, I personally believe the most direct translation is "male prostitution", with a cultural and phonetic relation to god or temple worship. Therefore, homosexuality as we know it today should not be compared to temple prostitution in ancient Roman culture. Those who are gay are not synonymous with men involved in the sex trade nor are they engaging in pagan idol worship. This supports my claim that the translation of this ancient teaching to present times is not simple.
Jane Abbott Lighty, left, and Pete-e Petersen embrace after receiving the first same-sex marriage license in Washington state in 2012.
I will not go into the deep hermeneutics that are involved in discussing the linguistic arguments of Paul’s claims about homosexuality, as it is a circular process. The Greek words Paul used in reference to homosexuality are hard to translate and their true meaning is, I admit along with any honest theologian, uncertain. The word Paul used, arsenokoetai, cannot be fully confirmed or denied in whether it refers to male and male sexual relations, or pederasty or male prostitution. Certainty, here, does not exist. Serious Biblical Scholars have not given up on finding clarification surrounding this word, however, and therefore have looked to Paul’s contemporaries to find the true meaning of Paul’s teaching on this subject. Both liberals and conservatives find adequate support to their claims. To measure the credibility of the sources of their support, liberals have the higher credibility in the writings of Philo. Philo is a respected and appointed ‘Church Father’ who interprets Paul’s teaching clearly and strictly in reference to the historical context of male prostitution (Philo, 37). Philo also believed that the verse where this word is argued to be coined from, Leviticus 20:13, was also referring to male temple prostitution in Persia (Philo, 40-42). Conservatives use Josephus as their source into the true meaning of Paul’s teaching; however Josephus was not a teacher in the church, but a military general and first century historian. He also believed that any sexual relation, including heterosexual, should be against the law except for procreational purposes. Josephus is a great source for information on ancient military campaigns, however he has no credit in church history as an honoured moral teacher (thankfully). Another source of support in Paul’s conservative meaning is from Eusebius, a third century historian, who taught homosexuality is worse than murder (Malick, 479-492)—an extreme and theologically incorrect statement as sins are not comparable (… also wtf). For Eusebius and Josephus, their stance on homosexuality is solely under these problematic contexts. Therefore, Josephus and Eusebius are controversial and weak sources in divining the true interpretation of Paul.
I would be remiss if I did not address the main argument that religious people have historically and traditionally held as to why exactly homosexuality is wrong. The main argument is not to do with the idea that men and women are made to be together and homosexuality is a deviation from that (for all religions accept that both men and women can deviate from this purpose and lead honourable, celibate, lives). The main argument which Philo, Josephus, Eusebius, and a thousand other sources hold as to why homosexuality is unnatural, for men specifically, is because it strips the man of his manliness, his humanity (Philo, 39). In a patriarchal society, this would be the ultimate shame, as women were sub-human. The sin of being in the male position was that you were destroying the masculinity of another man, hence why Eusebius considered it worse than murder. The sin of being in the feminine position was in that it would create an abomination, a sub-human man. As a feminist in 2018, this reasoning is irrelevant. In this view, a woman who brings home the bread while the husband rears the children would be just as shameful for the same reasons. Femininity is, fortunately, no longer considered a shameful, weaker attribute in neither men nor women (at least, we're getting there). Many modern Christians have unwittingly held onto the idea that homosexuality is wrong but have let go of its original, misogynistic reasoning. Just something to be aware of.
I’m glad to address Romans 1:21-32: at face value. Paul is talking about lust, the idolatry of the body, and the ways these are being manifested in Rome. Lust is wrong for whichever orientation you have and sexual idolatry can escalate in many ways: gay or straight. People are not objects and it’s harmful for oneself and others to view people primarily as sexual objects. Mature Christians would agree that romantic love and attraction does not imply lust and uncontrollable passion. Being brought up in an environment where ‘lust and uncontrollable impulses’ were synonymous with ‘homosexuality’, I understand why I may need to repeat that statement: Love and attraction can be separate from lust and uncontrollable impulses. We understand this for heterosexuality easy enough, but for the well-trained Western Christian, this might be a hard pill to swallow when applied to homosexuality. The best way to swallow it is to make friends with a gay married couple or self-identified "quiet queer". Just because two people of the same sex can love each other, doesn't mean all sense of sexual morality is thrown out the window.
I will briefly touch on the argument of “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” The main argument here is that God’s design was for the feminine and masculine to complete each other. However, to make that idea literal and irrefutable, you run into some issues. God’s design is contradicted by Jesus when he said [paraphrased], “If you can forsake marriage for the kingdom of heaven, do it,” (Matt 19:12). Before saying this, he also honours intersex people and eunuchs who naturally adopt feminine qualities. Many people in the Bible did not take wives or husbands, including Jesus. So is that not in contradiction with God’s perfect design where man belongs with woman and vice versa? Also, it is my belief that the feminine and masculine are abstract. The Holy Spirit is traditionally feminine, the Father is masculine; many men have traditionally feminine qualities such as tenderness and many women have traditionally masculine qualities such as assertiveness. There is beauty in this, yet, the toxic ways in which religion has coerced society into a gender binary is another essay. I could say more about the power and richness in the Creation Poem, but I will only add one last thing that is compelling for me regarding this argument. Countless have used (and continue to use) this exact same literal, legalistic interpretation to argue that women being made second means that it is “unnatural” and "against God’s design” for a woman to lead or teach a man in any way. To that I say this: What’s unnatural is taking a poem meant to communicate the truth of God's beautiful relationship with humanity and creation and making it into something it's not. What's unnatural is a human using Biblical conjecture to assert God's support of inequality.
Next we will look at the relationship between slavery and homosexuality. I will not attempt to compare the sufferings of these two demographics; merely the evolution these groups have had throughout history. The Bible explicitly approves of slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 and Ephesians 6:5. Other passages in the Bible assume the approval as well. The opposition of authority which was required for the Abolition movement to eradicate slavery was strictly against Biblical teaching (Rom 13:1, 1 Pe 2:13). Martin Luther King Jr's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' explains in detail the Christian justification to oppose authority when the authority is infringing upon human rights. When measuring Biblical clarity and interpretations, the acceptance of slavery and prohibition to oppose authority are much clearer and inarguable teachings than the shaky verses that are used against homosexuality. In other words, Dr. King had his work cut out for him. I still meet Christians today who believe slavery is not necessarily wrong if the slaves are treated well.
To compare the modern plights of these communities is another striking conviction. The struggle of Black Americans over the past 400 years in their efforts to legalize and normalize their place in society has been met with fierce opposition due to cultural norms being dismantled and Christine doctrines being put to question (sound familiar?). The correlation between the moral evolution of slavery and of homosexuality is undeniable, as with other modern issues of Biblical morality. Slavery is not the only Biblical doctrine to be dismissed over time; Paul’s call for women to be silent in church (1 Cor. 14:34), mental illness being demonic (Mt 4:24, 8:16; Mk 1:32, 4:41), God’s disapproval of birth control (Gen. 38:10), and much more have seen their moment in church history (mind you, these things are still debated today). To those who take the whole Bible literally and at face value, I have slightly more respect for because at least they are not picking and choosing what to read with humility and what to read with blind certainty.
There are things marked as sinful in the New Testament that are widely agreed as acceptable to God today, and vice versa; things that were acceptable to God are now agreed upon as unacceptable. So how does one determine, without bias, what should be read as irrelevant in today’s culture and context and what should remain as timeless truths?
This is the kicker. There is no equation given to us to help us select what is still right and what is still wrong, or to discern whether Paul was referring to all women being unsuitable to speak in church or just a certain group of women in Corinth, or whether we should make a distinction between those in Ancient Rome and Persia that were involved in the sex trade within a hedonistic pagan culture and modern people who identify as LGBTQ+ and are searching for a loving partner to spend their lives with. I mean… there is James 1:26 which teaches that if we don't follow our heart, our religion is worthless. And there is 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 which says about the same thing but calls it foolishness. And there is that Biblical teaching found in Genesis 1: What humanity has been forbidden from since creation, the very thing that causes the most divisions in God’s family: The attempt or perceived acquisition to know fully what is good and what is evil. Also theres that thing Jesus gave us as an ultimate tool to measure the law against: To love God and love your neighbour (Mt 22:36-40). There's also those verses that teach all things can be compared to the character of Jesus (1 Jn 2:6, 1 Pe 2:21). So how does this apply to Christians who retain that homosexuality is a sin? Jesus defended the sexually immoral in the face of condemnation (Jn 8:1-11). He was only rash against the religious leaders who drew a line between the holy and unholy, the chosen and the unchosen, the clean and unclean (Mt 23:33). Therefore the priority for Christians, now and always, is to preserve the message of a welcoming love, and rashly address the prejudice and hypocritical spirit among other Christians and within our own hearts (1 Cor 5:11-13).
These arguments may not disprove all countering interpretations of this Biblical topic, but it certainly weakens them. I believe this analysis weakens the claim that homosexuality is wrong to a degree that must cause all God-fearing Christians to think twice before declaring, with certainty, God’s thoughts on the subject; and consider the consequences that this possible error can evoke. Every Christian should ask him/herself if they are the Pharisee holding the stone, or the Saviour stooped down with the oppressed; if they are the one craving the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, or are content with their state of humility in the face of God’s complex and marvellous truth which no man can fully understand.
Bibliography
Philo, “The Special Laws.” III. VII. http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book29.html
Malick, David E., “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 600 (1993): 479-492.
Williams, Craig A, “Romans Homosexuality”, Oxford University Press. New York: 1999.
Note: There are many contributing factors as to why the belief that homosexuality is wrong has been so prevalent throughout history. I've heard many use this symptom of culture as proof that homosexuality is inherently wrong. However, there are other more acclaimed theories for the cause of this pattern. With sociological, psychological, and historical evidence we can understand the influence of the affluent and powerful on Biblical interpretation. We can map how the powerful who immeasurably profit from preserving societal norms have left their mark on widespread "Christian" beliefs. We have studied how the natural human condition can react adversely to that which contradicts how we believe the world works. Many use this adverse reaction to seeing a man kissing a man as proof that it’s inherently wrong. However this is only proof that it contradicts your mental schemas, your preconceptions of how the world works. This reaction is similar to how many people have felt seeing a person use their left hand, or a black person kiss a white person, or a woman wearing a lab coat, or a disabled person missing a limb, or a clown being evil, and so on and so forth. The power of societal norms and our mental schemas are strong, and they inform more about ourselves than about God.