So, what was the historical context of some of the verses used to condemn homosexuality? There are generally six verses in the Bible that are referred to. These are Genesis 19:1-25, known as the story of Sodom and Gamorrah; Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:24-27, I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10. Some literalist will also throw in the idea that Jesus called “one man and one woman” into the institution of marriage in order to condemn same-sex relationships. The fact is, the institution of marriage in 33 A.D and 2002 are hardly comparable. Marriages were arranged. Marriages did not come with the modern benefits of healthcare and tax relief. It was often a way to pay debt and to transfer property, which women were still considered. And Jesus’ sanctity of marriage did not automatically condemn all other types of relationships. In fact, he went on to state that some people weren’t meant for marriage. The people that Jesus was addressing would have never thought about marriage between two men or two women, however the idea of polygamy was very familiar to them – in fact many marriage contracts of the time had to spell out that the man would be faithful to his wife. Marriage has changed over the years. And we will see whether civil marriage or holy marriage will someday be available to same-sex partners. Some denominations like the United Church of Christ already have, and it is likely that the more churches that create commitment ceremonies for gays and lesbians, the more likely the legal system in our country will someday recognize them too.
Let’s first look at the historic context of Sodom and Gamorrah. The story goes that God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham’s nephew, Lot, persuades them to stay in his home. Genesis 19 records that “all of the people from every quarter” surrounded Lot’s house demanding the release of the visitors so “we might know them” or in other words have sexual relations with them. Horrified by this gross violation of ancient hospitality rules, Lot refuses to give them over to the angry crowd. Lot flees Sodom with his family and the city it is destroyed by fire from heaven. Literalist and conservatives have contended that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. However, there are at least three reasons why this story is not about homosexuality or its condemnation.
First, the city of Sodom was slated for destruction long before this homosexual incident. Ezekial 16:48-50 states it clearly, “As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”
Second, all of Sodom’s people participated in the assault on Lot’s house, and in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual.
And finally, and most importantly, no other passages in the Bible that refer to the destruction of Sodom ever raise the issue of homosexuality. If indeed the story of Sodom and Gamorrah is about sexual morality, then Lot’s gesture to allow his daughters to be raped by the crowd instead of the visitors should put into question its modern moral value.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 read: “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.” and “If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.” Taken out of historic context, these verses seem to clearly condemn sexual relationships between two people of the same sex, or at least male homosexuality. However, very few scriptural experts will contend that these passages apply to modern day homosexual relationships. American Baptist religious professor Tony Campolo, puts it this way, “You have to understand that passages from Leviticus are not a good case for condemning homosexuality. The Old Testament is not a good case because the Old Testament is divided into two kinds of law: moral law and what we call purity codes. Purity codes are what we call kosher laws. And if you read the Old Testament you will find there’s a whole host of kosher laws, of what you can eat, what you can’t eat, what kind of clothes you can wear. All of these are spelled out. There is no question that when Christ came and when Peter preached, that purity codes were put aside. We no longer live kosher lives like our orthodox Jewish friends do. And those who are scholars, even the most conservative of scholars, will argue that the statements in Leviticus that have to do with homosexuality fall into the purity code category. As a matter of fact it comes right after the passage that says that to touch the skin of a dead pig is an abomination, which puts the whole Super Bowl into moral question.”
What about I Corinthians? It reads: “Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” The problem with this verse is that “sexual pervert” is translated in some texts as homosexual. But the reality is that we don’t know what the Greek words “malakos” and “arsenokoitai” really mean. They are translated as effeminate, soft, sexual pervert, and even homosexual. But no one really knows. Interestingly enough, up to the fourteenth century, arsenokoitai was translated as masturbation. Scholars have concluded that they just don’t know what the words are referring to for sure. Other words for homosexual did exist in Greek at that time, but were not used in these verses. Why? Even though they claim to know, don’t assume a televangelist knows what these verses mean when well-studied experts can’t be sure.
That leads us to I Timothy 1:10. It reads: “Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.” This verse only refers to homosexuality if the word sodomite is intended to mean homosexual, which we rebuffed in our discussion of Sodom and Gamorrah. Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary, argues that this reference in I Timothy actually refers to a form of male prostitution in which boys were castrated in order to maintain their feminine-like, child-like characteristics for sexual purposes of exploitation. That in no way falls into the concept of two consenting adults entering into a commitment with each other.
That brings us to Romans 1:24-27. “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 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 their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.”
This is the most contentious reference to homosexuality and the only direct reference to lesbianism in the Bible. I admit that two of the theologians I have quoted today, Tony Campolo and Walter Wink, who find no other Biblical verse as an unqualified condemnation of homosexuality, both agree that this verse does without a doubt condemn same-sex sexual behavior. However, Peggy Campolo, Tony’s wife, believes that Paul is not talking about same-sex relationships, but about sexual orgies as part of religious worship.
Ms. Campolo states, “I’d like you to note that Paul wrote Romans in the city of Corinth where the prevailing religion was the worship of Aphrodite. Aphrodite was a hermaphrodite with both male and female sexual organs and in the worship of Aphrodite people played the role of the opposite gender and engaged in sexual orgies with same sex prostitutes who were available in the temple. It was against these orgies that Paul wrote in the first chapter of Romans. There is an obvious connection between idolatry and homosexual practices in Romans one, and what Paul says here cannot be applied to the kind of relationships created by loving homosexual partners. I don’t think it’s a proper use of the Bible.”
Although Walter Wink believes that Paul was condemning same-sex relationships, he also believes that Paul makes this assertion because of his limited understanding of homosexuality. No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does.
Let me stop here for a moment. This very assumption used to cause great controversy among conservatives who would assert that being homosexual is a choice. However, over the past few years, with scientific, psychological and sociological studies, most conservatives now will accept that same-sex attraction is not chosen or easily changed. Even groups like Exodus International, whose purpose is to help homosexual people live heterosexual lives, admits that most of their ex-gay members struggle with same-sex attractions for the rest of their lives.
Paul seemed to assume that those whom he condemned in Corinth were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, by giving up their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature.
In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were “straight,” and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed everyone was straight. The concept of loving homosexual relationships was not available in his world. It was something he could not envision.
