THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY
from the Ontario Center for Religious Tolerance
Topics covered in this section are:
Summary & Caution Biblical references People’s beliefs about the Bible Verses in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) Verses in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) Same-sex relationships in the Bible Conclusions Internet & published references.
A Summary
When one compares the original Hebrew and Greek writings with various English translations of the Bible, discrepancies emerge. There are many passages in English Bibles which clearly condemn same-sex activities. But when the original Hebrew or Greek text is studied, the passages are either ambiguous or are unrelated to consentual homosexuality within a committed relationship. Two words which are often mistranslated in many places in the Hebrew Scriptures are:
* qadesh means a male temple prostitute who engaged in ritual sex; it is often mistranslated as “sodomite” or “homosexual.”
* to’ebah means a condemned foreign Pagan religious cult practice, but often translated as “abomination.”
We have concluded the following:
* The Bible has a lot to say about temple prostitution, including homosexual ritual prostitution. This was a common practice within the Canaanite fertility religion; some believe that the practice was also taken up by some ancient Israelites.
* God’s destruction of town of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality
* The Bible says little about homosexual feelings.
* It says nothing about sexual orientation; the concept of orientation dates only from the late 19th century.
* A number of homosexual relationships are described positively or neutrally in the Bible
* Of the many hundreds of Jesus’ instructions and prohibitions, few have a sexual component and none condemn homosexuality.
* Paul may have condemned same-sex sexual activities by homosexuals, but the passages are unclear; there are many possible interpretations.
* Bible translators must be aware of the errors that have been made in previous versions of the Bible; they are widely discussed in theological literature. But it would probably not be economically possible at this time to produce a translation of the Bible that was accurate. People are so used to expecting homophobic references in a half-dozen locations in scripture that they probably would not buy a Bible that was accurate to the original text, or which admitted that the meanings of certain words are unknown.
A Caution
The words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” do not appear in the Bible—at least they are absent from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. The authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation; this concept was only developed in the late 19th century. The writers had little or no comprehension of same-sex committed relationships. Their languages had no words for these concepts. Rather, they assumed that everyone was heterosexual, but that some heterosexuals engaged in sex with persons of the same gender. Thus, when you see one of these terms in an English translation of the Bible, it is important to dig deeper and find what the original Hebrew or Greek text really means.
Bible References
In Biblical times, same-gender sexual interactions could take many forms. Some were:
1. kings of conquered tribes were sometimes raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation. Homosexual rape was also a way of humiliating visitors and strangers. These were acts of power and domination and had nothing in common with consentual sex by gays and lesbians.
2. some non-Jewish tribes in the area had male prostitutes in their temples who ritually engaged in same-sex activities; this horrified the ancient Israelites. Temple prostitution is no longer found in most areas of the world.
3. it was common within the Roman Empire for male adults to keep boy prostitutes for the purpose of sexual activity. The boys were often slaves. In modern times, this is considered child abuse, a criminal offense.
4. it is reasonable to assume that many loving gay and lesbian relationships existed in Biblical times, but these would normally have been conducted in secret.
Only the last type would have any similarity to today’s gay and lesbian consentual, committed, loving relationships.
People’s Beliefs Regarding the Bible
People differ greatly in their view of the Bible:
* Generally speaking, Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians believe that:.........{mospagebreak}
o the Bible, as originally written, is inerrent (infallible) and that God prevented the authors from making even a single error
o every verse is useful in their understanding of God’s intentions
o one should initially attempt to interpret each passage according to its literal meaning
Many conservative Christians believe that certain translations are essentially free of error; e.g. the King James Version and the New International Version. Thus, when they read some of the passages that clearly and unmistakably condemn homosexuality, they are inclined to trust the translators and conclude that God hates homosexuality. Unfortunately, many groups of translators have been heavily biased against certain people, including Witches, gays and lesbians; many have tended to warp their translations accordingly.
* More liberal Christians tend to look upon the Bible as containing many translation errors, whose verses should not necessarily all be taken at their face value. Sections which accept and regulate slavery, limit the rights of women and condemn homosexuality are some examples.
Each Bible translation reflects the world view, beliefs and mind sets of its translators. Their personal biases distort their work. There is an additional complexity facing translators: today’s society is very different from that of Biblical times. It is sometimes difficult to find a current English word that closely matches a Hebrew or Greek term.
Specific Verses from the Hebrew Scriptures
VERSES FROM THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) ON HOMOSEXUALITY
Genesis 19
This chapter describes how two angels visited Sodom and were welcomed into Lot’s house. The angels were sent to warn Lot that God was displeased with wickedness of the city’s residents and had decided to destroy the city. The men of the city gathered around the house and demanded that Lot send the strangers to the mob so that they might "know" the angels.
The Hebrew verb which is commonly translated as "know" is yada. Its meaning is ambiguous. It appears 943 times elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). In only about a dozen of these cases does it refers to sexual activity - all heterosexual. It is not clear whether the mob wanted to rape the angels or to meet with them, and perhaps attack them physically. Perhaps they were concerned that the strangers were spies who were sent to the city to determine its defensive fortifications. From the context, it is obvious that their mood was not friendly.
Sensing evil intent by his fellow citizens of Sodom, Lot refused. As an alternative, he offered his two virgin daughters to be heterosexually raped if that would appease the mob. The offer was declined. Later, the angels urged Lot and his family to flee and to not look back. Unfortunately, Lot’s wife seems to have had an inquisitive mind. She looked the wrong way, so God killed her for her curiosity.
God was apparently not critical of Lot for offering his two daughters to be raped. However, God was angry at the other inhabitants of the town. He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone (sulfur). He presumably killed all of the men in the mob, their wives and other Sodom adults, as well as innocent children, infants, newborns, etc. It is unclear from these few verses in Genesis whether God demolished the city because the citizens habitually:........{mospagebreak}
1. were uncharitable and abusive to strangers
2. wanted to rape visitors
3. engaged in homosexual acts
4. wanted to engage in bestiality (the mob may have wanted to rape the angels; angels are not human beings; they are considered to be a different species)
One has to look elsewhere in the Bible for references to Sodom in order to determine which of the four interpretations is correct.
The Church has traditionally accepted the third explanation: that the crime of Sodom was homosexual activity. In fact, the English word sodomy which means homosexual or heterosexual anal intercourse was derived from the name of the city. But the first explanation appears to be the valid one. Consider:
* Many Jewish stories mentioning Sodom are cited in the Ethics of the Fathers and the Talmud. The phrase "middat Sdom" was used. It may be translated as "the way the people of Sodom thought". It meant a lack of charity and hospitality towards others; ignoring the needs of the poor, etc. In the Middle East, a person’s survival could depend upon the charity of strangers. To help strangers was a solemn religious duty, as mentioned in Leviticus 19:33-34 and Matthew 25:35, 38 and 43.
* Isaiah 1; The entire first chapter is an utter condemnation of Judah. They are repeatedly compared with Sodom and Gomorra in their evildoing and depravity. Throughout the chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. Homosexuality and other sexual activities were not mentioned at all.
* Ezekiel 16:49-50:
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.
God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom’s sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned.
* Matthew 10:14-15: Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers.
* Luke 10:7-16: This is similar to the verse from Matthew.
* 2 Peter 6-8: Peter mentions that God destroyed the adults and children of Sodom because the former were ungodly, unprincipled and lawless.
* Jude, Verse 7: Jude disagreed with Jesus and Ezekeiel; he wrote that Sodom’s sins were sexual in nature. Various biblical translations describe the sin as: fornication, going after strange flesh, sexual immorality, perverted sensuality, homosexuality, lust of every kind, immoral acts and unnatural lust It would appear that the translators were unclear of the meaning of the verse in its original Greek, and simply selected their favorite sin to attack.
We are faced with the inescapable and rather ironic conclusion that the condemned activities in Sodom had nothing to do with sodomy. As one Christian editor (9) wrote: "To suggest that Sodom and Gomorra is about homosexual sex is an analysis of about as much worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on fishing." There is still another level of irony associated with this passage: God seems to condemn the citizens for insensitive treatment and harassment of others. But, this is the favorite Biblical passage that some Christian faith groups use to attack gays and lesbians.
Leviticus 18:22
Some English translations of this verse are:
* KJV: (King James Version):
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination
* LB: (Living Bible):
Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin
* NIV: (New International Version)
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
* NLT: (New Living Translation):
Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin
* RSV: (Revised Standard Version):
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination
It is interesting to notice that some English translations condemn only gay sex, whereas other versions of the Bible condemn homosexuality, presumably including both gay and lesbian sexual relationships.
Conservative Christians typically.......{mospagebreak}
interpret this verse as condemning homosexual behavior of all types: from rape, to casual sex to monogamous sexual activity within a committed relationship. Its meaning appears to be clear and unambiguous. This verse is often quoted in Evangelical churches and on ministry radio and TV programs.
This passage is a part of the Holiness Code which is described in Leviticus 17:1 to 26:46. The code lists 614 ethical and ritual laws which were to be followed by the ancient Israelites. The purpose of the laws was to differentiate the Israelites from their neighbors - to keep them pure. They appear to be a grouping of several older collections of laws, because many rules are replicated. A consensus exists amongst Christian theologians, pastors and teleministers that 612 out of the 614 components of the Holiness Code are no longer in force for today’s Christians. The code permits:
* slavery (25:44)
It requires:
* a child to be killed if he/she curses their parent (20:9)
* all persons guilty of adultery to be killed (20:10)
* the daughter of a priest who engages in prostitution to be killed (21:9)
* the bride of a priest to be a virgin (21:13)
* ritual killing of animals, using cattle, sheep and goats (22:19)
* observation of 7 feasts: Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of Firstfruits, Feast of Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles (23)
* a person who takes the Lord’s name in vain is to be killed (24:16)
It prohibits:
* heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (18:19)
* harvesting the corners of a field (19:9)
* eating fruit from a young tree (19:23)
* wearing clothes that are made from a textile blend (19:19)
* cross-breeding livestock (19:19)
* sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19)
* shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27)
* tattoos (19:28)
* even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18)
* charging of interest on a loan (25:37)
A minority of Christian churches (e.g. Seventh Day Adventists) teach that worship is to occur on Saturday. (19:30) However, essentially all conservative Christian leaders teach that only one Holiness Law, the one which deals with homosexuality, is still valid today. Christians are free to wear tattoos, eat shrimp, pork or rare meat, wear polyester-cotton blends, seed their lawns with a grass mixture, and get their hair cut. But homosexuality is somehow taboo. We have been unable to find any logical explanation that would justify retaining this one law against homosexuality while abandoning all of the rest. We find their stance to be less than ethical.
Some liberal Christians interpret this verse as referring to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. They note that to’ebah, often translated "abomination", is a religious term, usually reserved for use against instances of idolatry. If the writer(s) of Leviticus wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word zimah. The word "abomination" that we see in English translations of the Bible could better be translated "foreign religious cult practice." The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to’ebah" into Greek as bdelygma, which meant ritual impurity.
One source (4) makes a word-for-word translation of this verse from the original Hebrew as:
And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination.
In modern day English this could be translated as:
Men may not engage in homosexual sex while on a woman’s bed; it is an abomination
That is, "rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other instructions in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Israelites were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials. or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman’s bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.
Leviticus 20:13
In various translation it states:
* KJV: (King James Version):
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
* LB: (Living Bible):.........{mospagebreak}
The penalty for homosexuality acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves.
* NIV: (New International Version)
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
* NLT: (New Living Translation):
The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense.
* RSV: (Revised Standard Version):
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
This verse is essentially identical to Leviticus 18:22 discussed above, except the death penalty is added. Religious conservatives generally interpret the passage as condemning all homosexual activity. Some liberals believe it refers to temple prostitution. One source (5) interprets the prohibition as relating to two gay males having sex on a woman’s bed. Their word-for-word translation from the original Hebrew is:
And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is upon them.
In modern English, this could be translated as:
It is an abomination for two men to have sex on a woman’s bed. They are to be executed; it is their own fault.
Deuteronomy 23:17
This verse states:
* KJV: (King James Version):
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
* LB: (Living Bible):
No prostitutes are permitted in Israel, either men or women.
* NIV: (New International Version)
No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.
* NLT: (New Living Translation):
No Israelite man or woman may ever become a temple prostitute.
* RSV: (Revised Standard Version):
There shall be no cult prostitutes of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a cult prostitute of the sons of Israel.
The translators of the KJV made an error in this verse, which was probably intentional. The word qadesh in the original Hebrew text was mistranslated as "sodomite". Quadesh means "holy one" and is here used to refer to a man who engages in ritual prostitution in the temple. The Living Bible also contains an error; they refer to prostitutes in general, whereas the original Hebrew refers to only those prostitutes who engage in ritual sex in a temple. Other Bible translations use accurate terms such as shrine prostitute, temple prostitute, and cult prostitute. The term "cult" in this case means type of religious service, not an evil, mind-controlling religious group.
The entire verse seems to condemn temple, ritual, prostitution, whether heterosexual or homosexual. It has nothing to say about gay or lesbian sex within either a casual or a committed relationship.
Judges 19
This chapter describes an event much like that at Sodom. Most Conservative theologians would consider this event to be entirely separate in time and place from Sodom. Similarities between the two stories are simply coincidences. Most Liberal theologians would assume that this is simply a retelling of the original Genesis story, in a different location and era. Either or both events may have been mythical.
An unnamed Levite visited the town of Gibeah with his slaves and concubine. He met an old farmer and was made welcome. A gang of men appeared and demanded that the old man send out the Levite that they might homosexually rape or assault him. (It is again not clear what the precise meaning of the verb to know was). The old man argued that they should not abuse the visitor. He offered to give them both the Levite’s concubine and his own virgin daughter to be heterosexually raped. The mob accepted the former, and serially raped her all night. She finally died. The Levite sliced up her body into 12 pieces and sent one to each of the tribes of Israel. This triggered a war between the inhabitants of Gibeah and the Israelites during which tens of thousands died. There was no condemnation against the Levite for sacrificing his concubine, or for committing an indignity to a body. Judges 20:5 emphasizes that the aim of the mob was to kill the stranger - the ultimate act of inhospitality. It appears that these passages condemn abusive treatment of visitors. If they actually refer to homosexual activity, then they condemn homosexual rape, which a crime of power and is unrelated to consentual homosexual activity.
I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46; II Kings 23:7
These verses refer to prostitution in a Pagan temple. The original word qadesh is again mistranslated as sodomite (homosexual) in the King James Version, but as male prostitute, male cult prostitutes, and male shrine prostitutes in more accurate versions. As mentioned before, the verses are unrelated to consentual homosexual activity.
Specific Verses from the Christian Scriptures
VERSES FROM THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES (NEW TESTAMENT) ON HOMOSEXUALITY
Matthew 8:5-13
These verses describe how a Roman centurion asked Jesus to cure his pais who lay paralyzed and in great agony. The centurion stated that all Jesus had to do was to say the right words to effect the cure. Jesus praised the centurion for his faith. The Greek word pais contains the suggestion of a young male slave kept for sexual purposes by his owner. The English word "pederasty" comes from "pais". Various versions of the Christian Scriptures have suppressed the sexual component of the term and translated the word simply as a "servant boy", "serving boy", "young servant" and "my boy." A current relationship of this type would be considered child sexual abuse, a serious crime. However, such arrangements were common in the Roman Empire at the time, and were tolerated by society. It is worth noting that Jesus condemns neither the master-slave status, nor the same-sex relationship, nor the obvious abuse by an adult having sex with a minor.
The Gospel of Luke told a different story. The boy was changed into a slave of undefined age who was "dear to" (KJV) the Centurion. The author used the Greek word doulos which is a generic term for servant or slave, He was described as being very sick and near death; this contrasts with the author of Matthew who description of a boy being paralyzed and in great pain.
Romans 1:26-27
The King James Version translates these verses as:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural 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 indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
The translators are showing their biases again. The Greek phrase para physin is commonly translated into the English word "unnatural". This is an error. Unnatural implies that the act is morally condemned. In Greek, the phrase really means "that which is beyond the ordinary and usual." "Unconventional" would be a good word to have used.
The preceding verses are important to consider:
* Verse 23: The people being described had once been followers of God, but had fallen away from the faith. They made images of Pagan gods in the form of men, birds, animals and reptiles for their religious rituals, presumably in their temples.
* Verse 24: Next, they engaged in [presumably heterosexual] sexual orgies with each other as part of these pagan rituals.
* Verse 25: They worshipped the images that they had made, instead of God, the creator
Because of these forbidden practices, Verse 26 (above) explains how God intervened in these religious sex-rituals and changed the people’s behavior so that women started to engage in sexual activities with other women. Verse 27 describes how the men also engaged in same-sex ritual activities. They (presumably both the men and women) were then punished in some way for their "perversion."
There are a number of interpretations of the exact meaning of the word "perversion" in Verse 27, and "such things" in Verse 30. Paul may be referring to:.......{mospagebreak}
1. all homosexual activities under all circumstances. This is the belief commonly followed by Conservative Christians
2. all homosexual activities outside of a committed two person relationship; i.e. casual homosexual sex was forbidden, but monogamous gay and lesbian sex within a lifetime partnership was and is OK
3. group homosexual practices which are engaged in by members of a congregation
4. group sex practices (heterosexual or homosexual, during religious rituals. This was a common practice among Pagans at the time; e.g. in the temples dedicated to the Goddess Aphrodite)
Liberal Christians tend to interpret the passage as referring to options 2, 3 or 4. Some commentators interpret the passage quite differently:
* In Greek and Roman society of the time, bisexuality was regarded as quite natural; people in some walks of society were expected to engage in bisexual relations. Since most of them were heterosexual, bisexual activity would be against their personal nature. A current example of this type of behavior is the practice by a few women at some women’s colleges to be "lugs" (Lesbians Until Graduation); they engage in same-sex activity because the university culture expects it of them. After they graduate, they revert to heterosexual behavior. This would be condemned because it is against their nature. One source (6) states
…God created each of us with a sexual orientation. To attempt to change it is, in effect, telling God that He created us wrong. The creation (us) does not have the right to "re-create" itself.
* Some interpret the "men…with other men" clause to be a translation of the original Greek word for "pederasty" which was commonly practiced at the time by adult males with male children (often slaves). Thus Paul might have been criticizing child sexual abuse.
Traditionally, translators have carried their own beliefs about sexual orientation to this verse and interpreted the passage accordingly. The passage appears to be somewhat vague, and may not have been intended to be a blanket prohibition of same-sex activities.
I Corinthians 6:9
Paul lists a many activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God (heaven). We have studied this verse as it appears in 24 English versions of the Bible and found that two activities in Verse 9 have been variously translated as:
* effeminate which covers a wide range of male behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility, decadent, soft.
* homosexuals, described as men who have sexual relations with other men, abusers of themselves with men, sodomites and perverts. Apparently, lesbians are not included in this condemnation.
* male prostitutes, also described as men kept for unnatural purposes. It is not clear whether the term male prostitutes is restricted to homosexuals or may also include men who are heterosexual prostitutes.
* catamites, also described as boy prostitute. This is a young male who is kept as a sexual partner of an adult male.
The original Greek text describes the second of the two behaviors as malakoi arsenokoitai. Malakoi means soft. It translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. The meaning of arsenokoitai has been lost. Some sources in the early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. That may well be the correct meaning, because presumably people from that era would have still known the meaning of the word arsenokoitai. Others in the early Church thought that it meant "temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967. Each translator seem to take whatever activity that their group particularly disapproves of at the time and inserts it into this verse. To compound their error, they have not the decency to indicate by a footnote that the meaning of the word is unknown. One can be certain that "aresenokoitai" has nothing to do with same-sex activity; much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived from the early centuries CE; none of it contains the word.
The correct translation for the first behavior appears to be catamites, a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men. A footnote to the New American Bible (3) reads:
The Greek word translated as "boy prostitutes" [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world….The term translated "practicing homosexuals" refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys.
It would appear that the best guess translation for these two behaviors might be: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse". We agree with the Roman Catholic translators that the two behaviors probably relate to that small minority of male homosexuals who are child rapists and the male children that they sexually abuse. The verse has no relation to consentual sex between adults of the same gender.
1 Timothy 1:9-10
These verses also refer to malakoi arsenokoitai which has been variously translated as homosexuals, sexual perverts, etc. Again, the original meaning of the text as been lost, and the comment would appear to have no relationship to consentual homosexual sexual activity.
Jude 7
In the KJV, This refers to the people of Sodom as "giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh". "Strange flesh" has been variously translated in other versions as perverted sensuality, unnatural lust, lust of men for other men, and perversion. Again, it is unclear what is being referred to here. Some biblical scholars interpret this as relating to an ancient Jewish legend that the women of Sodom engaged in sexual intercourse with angels.
Same-Sex Relationships in the Bible
The Bible describes three emotionally close relationships between two people of the same gender. They appear to have progressed well beyond a casual friendship:
* Ruth and Naomi
* David and Jonathan
* Daniel and Ashpenaz
CLOSE, SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS IN THE BIBLE
There are three emotionally close relationships between two people of the same gender which are described in the Bible. They appear to have progressed well beyond a casual friendship:
Ruth and Naomi
Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during heterosexual marriage ceremonies and Lesbian union services:.......{mospagebreak}
Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me.(NIV)
This book was probably included in the Hebrew Scriptures because Naomi became the great-grandmother of King David. Although this friendship appears to be very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship.
David and Jonathan
Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a loving relationship between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul.
Most conservative theologians view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. Some others (7) seriously consider that they had a consentual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today’s gay partnerships. Some important verses which describe their relationship are:
* 1 Samuel 18:1
…Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself.(NIV)
or
…the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
* 1 Samuel 18:2
From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father’s house. (NIV)
David left his parent’s home and moved to Saul’s where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close.
* 1 Samuel 18:3-4
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. (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical.
* 1 Samuel 18:20-21
Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. "I will give her to him," he thought, "so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law (NIV)
In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:
Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain.(KJV)
Saul’s belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David’s first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul’s son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul’s two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:
Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain.
In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan’s homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal’s heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.
* 1 Samuel 20:41
After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most.(NIV)
Other translations have a different ending to the verse:
o …and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded. (KJV)
o …and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself. (Amplified Bible)
o and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more. (Living Bible)
o They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself. (Modern Language)
o They kissed each other and wept aloud together. (New American Bible)
o Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most. (New Century Version)
o Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David’s grief was even greater than Jonathan’s. (Revised English Bible).......{mospagebreak}
o …and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself. (Revised Standard Version)
The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they simply said the two shook hands! This is less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became large; i.e. had an erection. Again, the thought of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either ignored the ending entirely or created one of their own.
* 2 Samuel 1:26
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.
In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David’s only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. Since it would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.
Daniel and Ashpenaz
: Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. Here, various English translations differ greatly:
*
Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel (NIV)
*
Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs (KJV)
*
Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs (Amplified Bible)
*
Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament (Living Bible)
*
Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs (Modern Language)
*
Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain… (New American Bible)
*
God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel (New Century Version)
*
And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs (Revised Standard Version)
*
God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill (Revised English Version)
The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v’rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V’rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". The most reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to the translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.
Daniel’s relationship appears to have been a committed homosexual partnership; the others may or may not have been sexually active.
Conclusions
* There may be as many as three references in the Bible to committed homosexual relationships, none of which was condemned.
* Homosexual activity in the temple by male prostitutes is clearly prohibited by the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).
* Prostitution, both heterosexual and homosexual is generally condemned.
* Sexual abuse of boys by adult males is condemned
* St. Paul considered at least some male and female homosexual acts to be forbidden, but it is unclear precisely which acts are included. He may have been referring to:
o temple prostitution,
o people who are not innately gay, lesbian or bisexual, but who engaged in homosexual acts,
o to child sexual abuse, or
o group sexual orgies.
Paul was certainly aware of sexual orgies in Pagan temples, including both heterosexual and homosexual encounters. He would have been aware of the practice of male adults keeping a boy for sexual purposes. These may have been the only forms of same gender sex that he knew of. He did not appear to make any references in his writings to consentual, committed homosexual relationships. He probably did not know of any.
One should note that Paul also condemned women preaching (1 Cor 14:34) or wearing gold or pearls (1 Tim 2:11). He also accepted and did not condemn the institution of slavery. Many Christians feel that his writings reflect his own prejudices are not a particularly useful guide for ethics and morals in the 20th Century.
* Jesus made many hundreds of statements regarding belief and behavior. However He never mentioned homosexuality.
* It is the subject of endless debate whether St. Paul’s prohibition of at least some homosexual acts was:
o for the people in the vicinity of the Mediterranean during the 1st Century CE, or
o for all people, forever.
One can argue that the ancient Israelites were surrounded by warlike tribes. Their fertility was very important if the group was to survive. The early Christian church was persecuted by the Roman government and by the Jewish religious leaders. Homosexuals tend to have few children; thus their presence would be met with opposition. At the end of the 20th Century, conditions are the exact opposite; we are threatened by our excessive fertility. Perhaps Paul’s criticism of homosexuality is no longer valid, like his various prohibitions against women’s behavior.
Internet and Published References
1. For more information on the Sodom, Gammora and Gibeah stories, see: http://student.uq.edu.au/~s101014/HMPGE2.html#page2
2. For an analysis of some of the references to homosexuality in the Bible, see: http://www.theshop.net/information/homo1.htm
This is the home page of Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D., author of the book: “What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality”, Alamo Square Press, San Francisco CA (1994)
3. Dignity, New York has an extensive “Lesbian, Gay Bisexual Catholic Handbook” which is available at their site: http://www.bway.net/~halsall/lgbh.html#c3
4. “New American Bible”, Catholic Book Publishing Co., (1986), P. 249
5. Anon, “What does Leviticus 18:22 really say?”, National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA), PO Box 1391, Schenectady NY, 12301-1391 (1996)
6. Anon, “What does Leviticus 20:13 really say?”, NGPA (1996)
7. Anon, “Romans 1:26-27”, NGPA (1996)
8. Anon, “A Biblical Perspective on Same-Sex Marriage”, NGPA, (1994)
9. Father Basil Isaacs, “Proofx booklet”, Fountain of Life Western Orthodox Church Catholic Mission. Available for $2.50 from 1928 E. Highland, Suite F104-142, Phoenix, AZ 85016.
Old -
Old Category
