Homosexuality in the New Testament - Part 2

Romans 1:26-27

            The second New Testament passage we will look at is found in Paul’s letter to the church in Rome.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and 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.^[1] (Emphasis added)

            Unlike the passage in 1 Corinthians, there is no ambiguity of terms that might require a significant amount of explanation.  It is important to note that the culture in Rome varied greatly from that of Corinth. 

In the Roman world, by the time Paul is writing this letter to the Church in Rome, pederasty was largely rejected as an acceptable practice.  This may be why Paul seems to not address a specific cultural expression of same-sex sexual acts, but in a broader sense addresses all homosexual sexual activity.  “Homosexuality among ‘males’, like that among ‘females’ is characterized as a departure from nature.  As in the previous verse ‘nature’ denotes the natural order, but as reflective of God’s purposes.”[2]

It is important to note that ‘natural’ expressions of sexuality, as presented in this verse, presupposes that God is the creator of all things and therefore God is the one who deems what sexual acts are appropriate for mankind.  The verse is not saying that homosexuality does not occur in nature, nor does it suggest that homosexuality cannot be inborn, but rather that it violates the parameters God set out in sexual relationships.

“Most references to homosexuality in the New Testament occur in the Pauline letters.  The clearest is Romans 1:26-27.  In the context Paul is portraying the moral disorder that accompanies the rejection of the knowledge of God in the pagan world.  Exchanging the creator for the idolatrous worship of creatures issues in God’s abandoning of women and men who they forsake ‘the natural use’ of their bodies for a use ‘against nature.’”[3]

            It is sometimes argued that because the appearance of prohibition of homosexual acts appears only in the writings of Paul, he is bigoted against homosexual people and his prejudice may have impacted his writing.

            In order to respond to this allegation we must first understand Paul’s worldview.  Paul was raised as a Pharisee, a Jewish, religious leader.  He was well educated in the Mosaic Law and the prophetic writings of what we now know as the Old Testament.  Paul was a Roman citizen, which afforded him certain civil rights that were not the privilege of all men.  Because of Paul’s education, religious and cultural beliefs, we can safely assume that he was opposed to homosexual sexual acts, as it was taught in the Law (as seen in the passage in Leviticus), as well as being looked down upon in Roman culture.

            To claim however, that Paul was somehow prejudiced against people who participate in homosexual acts does not follow logically.  In Roman culture homosexual acts were rejected as socially acceptable expressions of one’s sexuality, and in Mosaic Law (Jewish culture), homosexual acts deserved the penalty of stoning.  Had Paul been trying to push an agenda of hate, he would have easily been able to impose death or persecution as a response to same-sex sexual acts.  This is not what we see in Paul’s writing.  In both the above-mentioned passages, Paul writes not of persecution of homosexuals, but of restoration to relationship with God.

            1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is immediately followed by hope of restoration: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” ^[4]  It is important to note that in the verse Paul is speaking specifically to homosexual acts, not homosexual orientation, so he is not suggesting that someone necessarily changed their orientation, but rather, they stopped participating in same-sex sexual acts. 

            Again in the Romans passage, if we follow Paul’s argument to its conclusion, we see the promise of restoration.  Romans 1:1-3:20 present the case that all mankind, regardless of sexuality or the kind of sin in which they participate, are in need of God.  After spending nearly three chapters discussing the fallen state of man, and the separation of man from God, Paul inserts the promise of hope in one of the most powerful passages in all of his writing.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. ^[5]

Here Paul is talking about the righteousness of God being manifested apart from the Law.  That manifestation was in the person of Jesus.  The Law and the Prophets, that is, the entirety of the Old Testament, point to Jesus as the coming messiah and savior of the world.  Paul shows that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus, and that all men have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. 

            If Paul had intended to write hate letters against homosexuals, he certainly had an audience that would have been willing to listen to his agenda.  The letters, however, speak for themselves.  Paul is more interested in the restoration of all people to God than singling out any sub-culture for persecution.  Paul often referred to himself as the apostle to the Gentiles (those who were not Jewish), and was willing to give his life (which he eventually did around 64AD), in order to deliver the message of restoration to those who were apart from God, including those who participated in homosexual acts.  It is therefore quite a stretch to think that Paul’s motivation for writing had anything to do with a personal agenda, but rather, Paul genuinely believed that homosexual acts were a violation of God’s moral law.

“Paul’s purpose in [singling out homosexual activity for special attention] may not be because he regards it as a more serious sin than others but because he sees it as a particularly clear illustration of the violation of the created order.”[6]  Knowing that God’s intended plan for sexual expression was intended for a man and woman within the confines of marriage, helps us to understand why Paul would use homosexuality as one of the clearest examples of violation of this moral law.

            As much as it is important to understand Paul’s purpose in singling out homosexual activity, it is also important to note that his presentation of sexual violations includes not only homosexual, but also heterosexual sins.

“… in Romans 1:24-27, homo- and heterosexual sins are paired in a way that suggests that neither is any better or any worse than the other.  One can scarcely use these verses to claim that no one can simultaneously be a Christian and engage in homosexual actions unless one is prepared to say the same thing of one who commits adultery or exhibits greed!  But in each of these instances true Christians should acknowledge their behavior as sinful and try to change it.”[7]

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ro 1:24–27). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[2] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1996), 116.

[3] Gerald F. Hawthorne and D. F. Wright, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 413.

^[4] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (1 Co 6:11). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

^[5] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ro 3:21–26). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[6] Douglas J. Moo, The NIV Application Commentary: Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 67.

[7] Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians: The NIV Application Commentary: From Biblical Text--to Contemporary Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 121.

Homosexuality in the New Testament - Part 1

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

            The New Testament contains several references to homosexual sexual acts, all of which, after proper exegesis reveal the condemnation of such acts, but for the purposes of this paper we will only address two such references.  First we will look at a passage in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church, as it tends to be under the most scrutiny by those claiming the New Testament does not condemn homosexual acts.  “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”^[1]

The passage as translated to English seems to be as simple and straightforward as the passage found in Leviticus, but it is often argued that the translation is faulty.  The argument stems from the fact that the original Greek words, which are translated as ‘homosexuality’, contain either some ambiguity, or are just falsely translated.  In order to determine if this allegation is correct, we must review the literary and historical/cultural components of the passage.

The original Greek passage uses two terms, ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites), and μαλακός (malakos), which are then translated to homosexuality in the English translation.  The argument that the passage does not refer to consensual homosexual relationships stems from an argument about the semantics of the two Greek words, it is for that reason that we must first look at the two terms.

μαλακός (malakos)

            The literal definition of the term malakos means ‘soft’, often referring to a fabric or a freshly ploughed field.  When speaking of human sexuality however, the term is employed to mean, “being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate especially of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship.”[2]  The context of the 1 Corinthians passage is clearly speaking to human sexuality, and therefore the most acceptable definition of the term would fit that of a passive partner in a same-sex relationship.

ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites)

            Arsenokoites refers to “the active male partner in homosexual intercourse.” ^[3]  This term is not frequently used, in fact, it is used only twice in the entire New Testament.  Later use of the word would clearly point to the definition being the active partner in homosexual intercourse.

Argument for Ambiguity of μαλακός (malakos) and ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites)

            The argument that is typically made in favor of ambiguity of these two terms begins with the term malakos.  At the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians, the most common expression of ‘malakos’ as it pertains to human sexuality would have been that of young men, typically between the ages of 12 and 20, who would allow themselves to be the passive partner in homosexual sex with older men.  This is referred to as pederasty, not to be confused with pedophilia. 

Pederasty was widely practiced and celebrated in Greek culture.  Often, older men would have young male partners with whom they would have homosexual intercourse, the boys, or ‘malakos’ being the passive partner, the one being penetrated.  These boys would often participate as male-temple prostitutes.  The term arsenokoites then would apply to the active partner, the older male, and the one who penetrates the younger male.

            From this position it is often argued that the prohibition of homosexual sex in 1 Corinthians, is actually referring to the act of pederasty and that either this is a prohibition of the use of male-temple prostitutes, or a prohibition of forcefully engaging in sodomizing young men.  There are a few things we must consider when looking at this position.

            First, the argument that the prohibition is made in order to protect young men from being sodomized by older men ignores the culture at the time the passage was written.  In Greek culture, the ‘malakos’, ‘arsenokoites’ relationship was largely celebrated.  The older, active partner would often become a mentor figure for the younger men.  They would assist in providing education to the younger male, and in many cases the father of the young male (malakos) would have to be in approval of the relationship.

            This position also assumes that the boys who participated as the ‘malakos’ would have been below the age of consent.  The issue with that assumption is that it simply was not true.  The age that most boys would participate in this kind of activity would have been the same age as girls were given in marriage.  Based on the fact that the relationships were neither forced, nor culturally prohibited, the idea that the prohibition was being made because the ‘malakos’ were being forcefully sodomized by the ‘arsenokoites’ is untrue.

            The argument that the ambiguity of the terms allows for an alternate understanding of the prohibition of homosexual sexual acts ignores the culture in which the passage was written.  The fact is that the passage is not referring to sex being forced on a younger man by an older man, or pedophilia.  The concept of consensual sex seems to be apparent when we look at the culture in which the passage was written.

            Given that the cultural understanding shows the passage is not addressing pederasty or pedophilia as a forced act, or that it is an act which is not conducted between two consenting men, we are left to view this as a prohibition of consenting same-sex sexual acts.  The true weight of the argument for the prohibition of homosexual sexual acts in this passage comes not from either of the terms on its own, but the fact that both terms are present, and representing both the passive and active roles of homosexual sex.  Although there is some ambiguity in the terms as presented on their own, the cultural and literary context of the passage assures that it is referring to consenting same-sex acts.

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (1 Co 6:9–10). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[2] Walter Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrinch, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Frederick W. Danker, Third ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 613.

^[3] Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (771). New York: United Bible Societies.

The Old Testament and Homosexuality

             After roughly four hundred years of slavery, God had delivered the Israelites from Egyptian rule.  God had sent Moses to demand that the Egyptian Pharaoh release the Israelites from captivity, and upon his refusal, God displayed his power before the Egyptians, showing that He alone is the one True God.

            The Israelites, now a free people, were wandering the desert in search of the Promised Land, which God had promised to Abraham in Genesis twelve.  In the midst of their search (Exodus 20), God came to meet with Moses, and delivered to him the Ten Commandments.  At this time God had done something new in humanity, He had provided them with the law.

            Following the advent of the Mosaic Law (the law given to Moses), the Israelites, now known as God’s chosen people, were commanded to build the Tabernacle, which would house the presence of God.  The Israelites were now to become “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”^[1]  The latter part of the book of Exodus provides the Israelite people with the Law, and with the instructions on the building of the Tabernacle.  By the end of the book of Exodus the Tabernacle has been constructed and the following book, Leviticus, continues giving Law commands on how the Israelites are to fulfill the commission of being a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

            It is in the book of Leviticus that we first encounter a command addressing homosexuality.[2]  The book of Leviticus is comprised of Laws on Sacrifice, Instructions for the Priests, Institution of the Priesthood, Uncleanness Treatment, and Prescriptions for Practical Holiness.  It is in the last section, Practical Holiness, where we find commandments about the basic principles of sexual behavior, and more specifically, the commandment regarding homosexuality.

            Leviticus 18:22 appears in a series of principles or commands regarding proper sexual conduct of God’s holy people.  “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”^[3]  Leviticus 18:22, clearly shows that the Old Testament prohibits acts of homosexual sex for the Israelite nation.  As one author puts it: “The language is devastatingly untechnical, leaving no room for ambiguity.”[4]  The command is then repeated in Leviticus 20:13, but in the restatement, it attaches a penalty to the command: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”^[5]  The implications drawn from these two passages alone show that the Israelites certainly would have understood homosexual sexual acts to be condemned.

There are several things to consider when looking at this passage.  First we must look at the term “abomination”.  תּוֹעֵבָה (tôʿēbâ) abominable/abomination:

As with the verb, so also with the noun the abomination may be of a physical, ritual or ethical nature and may be abhorred by God or man… Homosexuality and other perversions are repugnant to God and fall under his judgment (Lev 18:22–30; 20:13). Idolatry (Deut 7:25), human sacrifice (Deut 12:31), eating ritually unclean animals (Deut 14:3–8), sacrificing defective animals (Deut 17:1), conducting one’s business dishonestly (Deut 25:13–16), practicing ritual prostitution (I Kgs 14:23f.), and similar acts of disobedience… were sure to bring God’s wrath on those who perpetrated them. Twelve times the book of Proverbs uses the phrase, “is an abomination to the Lord.” In Ps 88, a prayer for help written by a man close to death, the physically repulsive appearance of a tôʿēbâ is stressed; the man’s former friends avoid him because they consider him to be a thing of horror^[6]

            What is important to note about ‘abomination’ (tôʿēbâ) is that it is not reserved specifically for homosexual sexual acts.  The passage states that homosexuality (referring to the actual act of homosexual sex, not orientation) is repugnant (extremely distasteful or unacceptable) to God on the basis that it does not conform to the design God intended for mankind.  What the passage does not suggest is that homosexual sexual acts are worse than other sins, but rather, that they fit into the category of abomination, which extends to various other types of sin, including idolatry, which is often viewed as the basis for every kind of sin.

            Idolatry is putting something else before God.  For most of us in modern western culture, the idol tends to be our own desires.  Idolatry is something that is universal, as we saw in the description of the fall of mankind; idolatry led to the introduction of sin into the world and is at the heart of our sinful actions against God.  If this is the case, and if idolatry is an abomination, all of mankind stands with the same stain of guilt as those who are guilty of homosexual sexual acts, which also fit into the category of abomination.

            This is not to say that those who are guilty of committing a homosexual sexual act are acquitted from guilt, but rather, the concept that homosexual sin is somehow more abhorrent than any other sin is simply not Biblical.

            The basis of why homosexual sexual acts are condemned in the Levitical text has to do with the created order.  God, in creation, created man and woman in his image with the intended sexual acts to be within the confines of a heterosexual marriage union.  The Levitical laws surrounding homosexual sexual acts are not condemning one’s sexual orientation, but rather the actual sexual acts, on the basis that they do not conform to the intended natural order God created.  In other words, the reason homosexual acts were unacceptable, is because they went against the intended design of the designer.  As the designer of mankind, God has the right to determine which acts are deemed appropriate or inappropriate for mankind, as seen in the section on ‘Proper Response to the Gospel.’

            One might then ask why Christians no longer follow the latter portion of Leviticus 20:13, which states that those who are caught practicing homosexual acts should be put to death.  To properly understand this, we must first look to the cultural implications of the passage.  The Israelites were becoming a theocratic nation at the time when they received the Levitical Laws.  This meant that the laws were not only to govern moral conduct, but civil punishment for moral acts.  In our present context we are no longer part of a theocratic government, and are not bound to the responsibility of punishing someone guilty of committing homosexual sexual acts.  With the Old Covenant, the theocratic society was intended to be an ethnic national society, a holy nation, whereby the Israelites were required to cleanse from among themselves anyone who was considered impure or unholy.

            Under the new covenant in Jesus, we are no longer a theocratic, ethnic national society, but rather a holy people made of all ethnicities and nationalities.  The new covenant is not a theocracy and therefore we are not bound by the theocratic demands that were applicable in Leviticus, although the moral law (that we not break what is morally unacceptable to God) is tied to the character of God, not the civil requirements of the people, and is therefore still applicable.

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ex 19:6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[2] Although the first command regarding homosexuality is found in Leviticus, the first instance of homosexuality being condemned comes from the story in Genesis 19.

^[3] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Le 18:22). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[4] Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 321.

^[5] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Le 20:13). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

^[6] Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 1999 (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (977). Chicago: Moody Press.