BIBLICAL TEXTS AND HOMOSEXUALITY

Manfred Brauch

 

I.

 

THE PROHIBITIONS OF LEVITICUS 18:22; 20:13

 

A.  Basic Assumptions and Principles in Biblical Interpretation

 

My guiding challenges as an interpreter of Scripture are the following words from the Apostle Paul:

 

This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.    (I Cor. 4:1-2)

 

It is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in jars of clay…    (II Cor. 4:6-7)

 

The first text calls me to responsibility as a student of Scripture, to determine in honesty and integrity what the text really says and means, not what I would like it to mean. The second text calls me to humility, to recognize that I bring my limited, weak, finite humanity, with all its warts and wrinkles, to this task. Whether, and the extent to which, I am successful in meeting these challenges in my writing, teaching and today in this forum I gladly leave to the judgment of God and my brothers and sisters in the Church.

 

For me, the key to a proper understanding of the nature and authority of the Bible as the Word of God is the Incarnation:

 

“The Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”     (John 1:14)

 

assuming thereby the limitations that being human entails. Consequently, the word and witness about God’s redemptive coming and presence – contained in Scripture – participates in that same incarnational (“enfleshed”) reality, assuming the cultural and historical limitations of those who bore witness to God’s redemptive action.

 

Because of that incarnational reality of God’s Word, one of the most critical tasks in biblical interpretation is this: How does one discern what in Scripture is culturally or historically conditioned, and thus belongs only to the time of the writer, from what is transcultural and transhistorical, and is authoritative for Christian life and faith at all times and in all places?

 

All readers and students of Scripture make these distinctions. But on what basis are they made? If the criteria are such things as our likes or dislikes, our own cultural conditioning, our feelings and experiences, and even our particular traditions, then arbitrariness, selectivity and subjectivism dominate, and trustworthy, faithful, interpretation becomes a casualty.

 

Among numerous criteria for this process of discernment between the timeless and the time bound dimensions of Scripture – criteria which seek to avoid the dangers of subjectivism – the following provide important guidance:

 

1.	Is the particular issue under discussion (such as homosexual behavior) inherently moral or non-moral, theological or non-theological? Does it really have to do with our relationship to God or others? (e.g., the instruction to women to wear a head covering in worship – I Cor. II).
2.	Unique cultural situations which are part of the Scriptural context – but not part of ours – must be taken into account. (e.g., whether to eat meat that has been part of idolatrous worship – I Cor. 8).
3.	The contrast or tension between the ideal and the actual implementation in the early church as reflected in the New Testament must be taken seriously. The vision of the Gospel was not in every case implemented in the early church’s practice. (e.g., the rejection of the power categories, male over female, Jew over Gentile, free over slave – Gal. 3:28).
4.	The “forest” of Biblical teaching must be kept in view when seeking to understand particular “trees.” How does the particular issue correspond to, or fit into, the central thrust of the particular Biblical book, the central concern of the New Testament, or the overall teaching of Jesus? (e.g., the limitations imposed on women in particular problem situations – I Cor. 14, I Tim. 2 – in contrast to numerous New Testament evidences that women were very much part of, and affirmed for, ministry in the early churches – Acts, Paul’s coworkers, Jesus’ radical acceptance of women).
5.	Especially in the relationship of the Old Testament with the New, the latter must be the criterion for that which is authoritative. (Is the understanding of God’s nature, way of acting, call to obedience in certain Old Testament texts consistent with God’s final and complete revelation in Jesus Christ? (e.g., the Old Testament concerns about ritual purity and cleanness as criteria for membership in God’s kingdom is forcefully rejected in the New Testament).

 

Though it is recognized that the application of these kind of principles in biblical interpretation does not totally eliminate our subjectivity – because we hold the treasure of God’s Word “in our earthen vessels” – these principles, when faithfully and consistently applied, do minimize our subjectivity.

 

These then are some of the basic assumptions and convictions that guide me in seeking to discern what the biblical texts say and mean regarding homosexuality.

 

B.  The Holiness Code and Homosexuality

 

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, which clearly forbid homosexual relations between men, are part of the Holiness Code of Lev. 17-26, calling upon Israel to separate itself from the practices of the surrounding nations (Lev. 18:3). Can these rules and regulations be normative for us? And if so, which ones?

 

It has been argued that the concern in these and other prohibitions in the Holiness Code is with ritual purity, rather than the morality of particular acts. And since the Gospel releases Christians from the laws of purity (Mark 7, Acts 10, Romans 14) these injunctions are not relevant in a discussion of Christian sexual morality.

 

Some seek to understand these passages in relationship to texts which condemn cult prostitution in Israel (female, qedesah/male, qades; Deut. 23:17; I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; II Kings 23:7; Job 36:17) and claim that what Leviticus has in mind is prostitution in connection with idolatry, which in the ancient world was present in both heterosexual and homosexual forms.

 

But there are no references in the Holiness Code to sexual abuse in contexts of worship, nor is there any indication that the activity described is among unequals. It is simply the act (“you shall not lie with a man as with a woman”) which is rejected. What is in view is the form of the sexual activity, not its motivation or context. This sense is further confirmed by the juxtaposition with bestiality in both chapters 18 and 20. One can further ask why the specific language about cult prostitution is absent from Leviticus if that were in fact what the writer intended to address.

 

More importantly, the Holiness Code is concerned much more with issues of morality and justice than with issues of ritual cleanliness or purity.

 

In addition to rules about eating blood (17:10f, 19:26), menstrual uncleanness (18:19), proper sacrifices (17:2-8; 19:5-8), mixed seeds or cattle (19:19), unclean animals (20:25) and Sabbath-keeping (19:3, 30), there are prohibitions against incest (18:6-18; 20:17f), adultery (18:20; 20:10), homosexuality (18:22; 20:13), bestiality (18:23; 20:15-16), child sacrifice (18:21; 20:1-5); idolatry (19:4); and rules about honor of parents (19:3), care for the poor (19:9f), stealing and bearing false witness (19:11); oppressing the neighbor (19:13); committing injustice (19:15); slandering others (19:16); hating the brother or taking vengeance (19:17-18).

 

In the remaining sections of the Code (chs. 19-26), specific rules about ritual purity stand prominently side by side with issues of morality and justice; unfair trading, rape of a servant girl, harming handicapped persons, acts of violence, defrauding with false weights and measures, unjust rulings in court, etc.

 

Thus, the distinction between ritual purity and morality is not one which can be easily imposed on the thought-world of either the Old Testament or the New Testament. The Old Testament clearly makes no systematic distinction between ritual law and moral law. Specifically, is it legitimate to posit a distinction between purity and morality with regard to sexuality? Would first-century Christians have isolated the Levitical prohibition of same-sex acts or incest or rape of a servant girl as part of a newly obsolete standard of holiness?

 

There is no reason to suppose that Paul or the first generation of Christians would have connected the prohibition of same-sex activity with, e.g., the prohibition of sex during menstruation, rather than with the prohibition of adultery. Indeed, much of the material in Leviticus 18-20 (particularly in the chapter between the two verses – 18:22; 20:13) is concerned with behaviors which Paul condemns in Romans 1:29-32, and other catalogs of vices which are incompatible with participation in the kingdom of God.

 

The prohibitions in Leviticus of same-sex acts seem clearly to lie behind New Testament prohibitions. Indeed, as we will see later, the very language used (18:22 and 20:13) points to the conclusion that Paul’s argument (in both Romans and I Corinthians 6) reflects the prevailing Jewish understanding of those passages as forbidding same-sex intimacy.

 

The crucial hermeneutical question is this: On what basis and by what criteria – given a commitment to the final authority of Scripture – do we decide which parts of the Levitical Holiness Code are obsolete and which continue to be normative moral standards for Christian life and relationships?

 

For me, the answer to that question is: Jesus’ life and teaching and the Apostolic witness. There is no question about it: Jesus radically and unceremoniously rejected the categories of ritual purity and cleanness-uncleanness of both the Holiness Code as well as the Rabbis’ oral law. The blind and lame, the handicapped and lepers were for him not outside the sphere of God’s reign and love.

 

Further, he drew into his fellowship the sinners; prostitutes, tax collectors, “prodigal sons.” But, he did not affirm their living and behavior, because he knew it to be destructive. He came to “seek and save the lost” – and lostness is characterized by all those practices and behaviors in the Holiness Code which are clearly distortive and destructive of life as intended by God.

 

Precisely the same can be said of Paul: there can be no question that – following Jesus – he repudiated the requirements of the Holiness Code regarding purity, ritual practice and clean-unclean categories. For Paul, the law – particularly the ritual law – was no longer the vehicle or means to salvation and belonging to God’s kingdom; but he most certainly does not reject the normative force of its moral/ethical requirements, as his numerous injunctions to holy, righteous living, buttressed with lists of specific practices, clearly demonstrate.

 

Since he clearly includes same-sex relations in categories of living which are contrary to God’s kingdom, the Holiness Code injunctions in this and other moral matters remain normative for anyone who does not go beyond the confines of the Biblical canon for discerning the mind of Christ in ethical/moral decision-making.

  

II.

 

CREATED ORDER AND DIVINE PURPOSE;

Genesis 1-3; Romans 1:26-27

 

The straight-forward, traditionally-understood meaning of the Romans I passage – that Paul condemns homosexual behavior – has become increasingly questioned: Is Paul addressing homosexuality as we know it today (adults who desire same-sex intimacy with one another), or only pederasty (adult men with young boys)? Or is Paul condemning homosexual acts committed by heterosexual people, who thus contradict their own “true nature?” Is Paul’s understanding of “nature” in tension with our contemporary understanding of “homosexual orientation” as a given, rather than as freely chosen? Does the passage function only to set up Paul’s Jewish (self-righteous) readers, without intending to point to homosexual acts as particularly objectionable?

 

These are serious questions and issues that must be answered or dealt with. The following reflections deal with three areas: a.) the theological context of Paul’s thought; b.) the structure

and flow of the passage; and c.) the meaning of critical terms employed, in light of the Greco-Roman and Jewish historical contexts.

 

A.  Theological Context

 

The Romans text is perhaps the most important for a discussion of a Biblical view of homosexual activity because Paul places the negative evaluation of homosexual behavior in an explicitly theological context: namely a theology of creation. That Paul has the Genesis narrative of creation and fall in view can hardly be disputed: allusions to humanity’s creation and fall are plentiful – “ever since the creation” (v. 20); “the things that have been made” (v. 20); “claiming to be wise, they became fools” (v. 22); “creator” (v. 25). Specifically, this theology is about God the Creator and the creation of humanity as male and female. Human beings are created as relational creatures (for relation with God and each other).

 

The general expression of that relational structure (“in God’s image”) is the polarity and complementarity of the male-female duality of humanity (Gen. 1:26-27). The most particular expression of that male-female duality of humanity is the relation between man and woman in the covenant of marriage (Gen. 2:18-25).

 

Both of the Genesis creation narratives present these “orders of creation” as the result of divine creativity and intentionality. By implication – and so all subsequent Jewish understanding confirms – the divine intention excludes all expressions of human sexuality which fall outside the categories of sexual complementarity (male-female) and covenant faithfulness (marriage), such as bestiality, promiscuity, adultery, premarital sex, same-sex practices.

 

Some have argued that the foundational biblical norm for human relatedness is covenant, and that therefore the expression of homosexual desire in sexual intimacy, if practiced in a covenant relationship characterized by faithfulness and permanence, is in keeping with the biblical standard of morality.

 

However, in the biblical structure of human reality, creation precedes covenant. The design of creation is male-female polarity and complementarity. This order-of-creation provides the concrete structure of humanness (male-female), while covenant provides the divinely-intended dynamic within those boundaries.

 

B.  The Structure and Flow of Romans 1:18-32

 

Romans 1:26-27 is part of a larger passage that is clearly a unit. Over against the “righteousness of God” (1:16-17) stands human “ungodliness” and “unrighteousness” (1:18). This ungodliness and unrighteousness is now given content. The universal rejection of God the Creator (the suppression of the truth about God’s nature and glory as revealed in the created order (1:18-23) is expressed in three closely-related areas of human brokenness, each introduced with the rhetorical repetition “God gave them up”:

 

1:24-25	Refers to idolatry and the resulting distortions in human sexual practice (probably including the whole range of sexual abuse and misuse, such as adultery, rape, promiscuity);
1:26-27	Describes a specific distortion of sexual behavior (same-sex intimacy);
1:28-32	Gives a representative list of other vices which distort humans and their relationships.

 

This three-fold analysis of the fallen human condition establishes an inherent connection between:

 

• Idolatry as the lie/error/darkness about one’s creaturely identity;
• Sexual distortion as the lie about one’s sexual identity;
• Destructive human attitudes and acts as the lie about our relational identity.

Within this scheme, same-sex relations are singled out (1:26-27) as a most vivid image and absolutely unambiguous evidence that the rejection of the Creator has as its most striking consequence the rejection of God’s created order (since God created them “male and female”).

 

There is no question that Paul is one with the perspective of Hellenistic Judaism (e.g., Philo, Josephus), which regarded same-sex acts as representing a revolt against the created order.

 

The vast majority of commentators agree that Paul focuses on the two most vivid examples of Gentile sin (idolatry and same-sex behavior) because he is setting up his Jewish readers. They will whole-heartedly agree with his diagnosis of Gentile transgression and their condemnation. Then he stings them with 2:1 ff.: they are condemned equally! “Both Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin” (3:9); “all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory” (3:23).

 

This word of Paul declares all of us under God’s judgment, and therefore all of us in radical need of God’s mercy and grace. That word of both warning and hope must surely temper all our discussions about homosexuality, especially for those of us who share the conviction that its practice is not in keeping with God’s purpose for human life.

 

C.  Critical Terms in Romans 1:24-27

 

Much exegetical-theological debate has centered on the contention by Paul that women and men have “exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural.” Is Paul talking about individuals who make choices to engage in same-sex relations, even though they are, “by nature,” heterosexual, and thus violate their “essential being?” If so, then his categorization of homosexual behavior as “unrighteous” would not apply to homosexual persons who are “naturally” of homosexual “orientation.”

 

Such an understanding of Paul and the meaning of the text must be seriously called into question on both exegetical and contextual grounds.

 

Paul is not describing individual acts and choices, but the corporate, human rebellion against God and the kinds of behavior which result. Thus in 1:23, 25 he uses the word “exchange” to describe the move from worshi8p of God to worship of idols. He is not saying that each Gentile personally chooses idolatry; rather, he is describing the sweep of history.

 

The term “exchange” is then used in our passage to describe the move from male-female to same-sex relations (1:26-27). The point is that same-sex relations are a specific falsification of God’s intention for human sexual intimacy, emerging out of the general falsification of right thinking about God (idolatry). Paul is not talking about individuals who deny their true nature (i.e., heterosexuals committing homosexual acts), but about humanity that both in general (idolatry) and in specifics (immorality) has replaced the truth about God and the truth about God’s created design with error.

 

Further, Paul’s use and meaning of the terms “natural” and “unnatural” (physin / para physin) must be understood and interpreted in light of the usage of this terminology (particularly in discussions of male-female and same-sex behavior) in both the Greco-Roman and Jewish contexts. In numerous classical and contemporary Greek texts, the expression para physin (“unnatural”  or contrary to nature”) is the standard terminology for homosexual relations as opposed to “natural” (kata physin) relations between male and female. This categorization of homosexual behavior as “contrary to nature” was particularly at home among Hellenistic Jewish writers (Josephus, Philo, cf. W.S. 13-14) in contrast to their understanding of male-female sexual union as kata physin (“according to nature”).

 

Though Paul does not expound on his use of the term “nature,” it is clear from his use of this conventional terminology in this context (Romans 1:26-27) that he identifies “nature” with the created order as designed and intended by the Creator. Paul treats homosexual activity as such (not just the common pederasty, as his inclusion of female homosexuality demonstrates) as evidence of humanity’s tragic distortion and alienation from the purposes of God.

 

A final observation on the significance of this text is called for because of the views of some that, since the modern understanding of homosexual orientation (as a given disposition, mostly not freely chosen) was not available to Paul and his contemporaries, their negative evaluation of homosexual behavior cannot be applied. While it must be freely granted that Paul (and his contemporaries) did not have access to modern insights into the various and complex (possible) causes of homosexual orientation (or other pre-dispositions toward certain attitudes or behaviors which are clearly understood to be dysfunctional and/or destructive or distortive in human life and relationships), the concept of deep-seated causes for human behavior which are beyond individual control or choice is deeply imbedded in Pauline/Jewish thought. Fallen humanity, in its tragic blindness (Romans 1:21), is characterized by a host of orientations, desires, inclinations, and tendencies which for Paul fall under “the power of sin” (3:9) and “enslavement to sin” (6:6). As such, they are beyond our control or our choice.

 

From a biblical-theological perspective, our identity – determined by complex biological/psychological/social forces – is not our behavioral destiny. The whole point of the Gospel of God’s grace and transforming power in Jesus Christ is that we can be set free from compulsions that drive us and/or be empowered to resist the behavioral incarnations of compulsions/desires/orientations that, from the perspective of a Biblical view of human nature and relationships, can harm and destroy us and others.

  

III.

 

THE EXCLUSIVENESS OF THE GOSPEL:

I Corinthians 6:9-11; I Timothy 1:10

 

A.  Context and Flow of Argument

 

The passage of I Corinthians 6:9 – which contains the words that have generally and historically been understood to refer to homosexual persons/behavior; malakoi and arsenokoitai – is part of Paul’s extended critique of Corinthian Christians’ attitudes and actions incompatible with the fact that they are a dwelling-place of God’s Spirit (3:16-17). Throughout this letter there are indications that the Corinthian Christians believed themselves to have achieved a spiritually exalted place which made bodily acts – including those held to be immoral both in Greek and Jewish teaching – irrelevant (cf. 4:8, 5:1-2, 6:12, 8:1-9).

 

The more immediate context consists of a strong condemnation of a case of incest, and their arrogant affirmation of it (5:13); a severe rebuke against taking their internal grievances to a court of law for adjudication (6:1-8); and an unqualified rejection of an apparently libertine openness to, and participation in, prostitution. (In light of some Corinthian Christians’ participation in heathen temple ceremonies – I Cor. 8-10 – the prostitution referred to in 6:12-20 may be temple prostitution; but that is by no means certain).

 

In the midst of this series of judgments, Paul confronts them with this rhetorical question: “Do you not know that wrongdoers [the unrighteous] will not inherit the kingdom of God?” (6:9). And then gives an illustrative list of the kind of persons (and their practices) which he has in mind: “fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers.”

 

The behaviors catalogued in this “vice list” were formerly practiced by some of the Corinthians (6:11). But within the context of their new life in Christ they have been “washed…sanctified…justified,” i.e., placed into a reconciled relationship with God through Christ. And that new reality is incompatible with their former ways of life.

 

Paul’s judgment of the practices and attitudes which are unacceptable to God concludes with an exhortation to glorify God in their bodies, since they now belong to God (6:19-20). This forceful conclusion, with its emphasis on the totality of their being, including the physical dimensions of life, as subject to the Lordship of Christ, demonstrates clearly that for Paul – contrary to the Corinthians’ libertine spirituality – how we use our bodies, particularly in the area of sexuality, is of critical significance.

 

B.  The Terms malakoi  and arsenokoitai

Though there is a measure of uncertainty about the precise connotation of these terms, particularly in isolation, their use by Paul in juxtaposition here, their inclusion in a context where major attention is given to sexual sins, and their use and meaning in other Hellenistic-Jewish texts, provides a strong basis for interpreting them as designations of same-sex relations.

 

The basic meaning of the term malakoi is “soft,” but it appears in Hellenistic texts as a pejorative epithet for the “passive” partners (most likely young boys) in homosexual activity. In Greek society, young men often sold themselves as “mistresses” for the sexual pleasure of older men. Hence, some interpreters translate the term as “male prostitute” (NRSV; NIV). Though pederasty was the most common form of homosexual activity in the Greek world of Paul, the view that Paul’s judgment against homosexual behavior is restricted to this particular form (i.e., the use – and misuse – of boys for the selfish sexual pleasure of older men) is untenable for several reasons:

 

1.	There is no evidence to support the claim that same-sex relations between consenting adults was unknown in the world of Paul. Even in pederasty, the presence of mutuality and consent and pleasure for both parties cannot be ruled out.
2.	Paul’s description of male-to-male homosexual behavior in Romans 1 is all-inclusive, based on mutual passion and desire.
3.	The inclusion (Romans 1:26) of female same-sex practice in the depiction of homosexual behavior as “against nature” (i.e., contrary to God’s created design) points to the existence of homosexual behavior in the ancient world beyond its most prevalent form (pederasty). It would have been both unnecessary and incomprehensible for Paul to name it if, in fact, it was not known to exist. Sex between females was almost everywhere condemned; and the patristic interpreters of Romans 1:26 uniformly understand this text as rejecting female same-sex relations.
4.	The juxtaposition of the term arsenokoitai (with malakoi) clearly expands Paul’s view beyond a limitation to pederasty, particularly in light of Paul’s Jewish context. To that term we now turn.

 

The compound word arsenokoitai is not found outside the New Testament prior to its use by Paul. It consists of two words, “male” and “intercourse.” The latter was common, vulgar slang for sexual intercourse. As a compound, it could possibly mean either “males who have sex” (and designate male prostitutes of all sorts) or “[those who have] sex with males” (and designate homosexual men). In light of the term’s ambiguity, and because of its juxtaposition with malakoi, it has been argued that it refers to the active (older) partner in a pederast relationship. Such a limitation of the meaning of this term can, however, not be maintained in view of the linguistic evidence from Paul’s Jewish context (as well as the fact that in I Timothy 1:10 the term is used by itself, and can therefore not be limited to a designation of the necessary older partner in a pederast relationship).

 

It has been shown (by Scroggs and others) that the compound word is a translation (perhaps coined by Paul himself) of the Hebrew mishkav zakur (“lying with a male”), derived directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and used in Rabbinic texts to refer to homosexual intercourse. Such a connection between Paul’s term, the Hebrew Leviticus text and the Rabbinic interpretation of that text, is confirmed by the Greek translations (LXX) of the Hebrew text of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, as follows:

 

Meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gynaikos

(“with a man do not lie [as one] lies with a woman”)

 

Hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos

(“whoever lies with a man [as one] lies with a woman”)

 

This background for Paul’s compound word seems all too obvious and needs to be acknowledged, I believe, as the most appropriate determinant of its meaning. Paul’s use of this term (whether or not originally coined by him) presupposes and reaffirms the judgment of the Levitical Holiness Code and all of Judaism and early Christianity, that same-sex relations are contrary to God’s will.

 

The inclusion of the same compound word in I Timothy 1:10 in a list of vices which includes everything from lying to murdering one’s own parents – behaviors which are characterized as “contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious Gospel” – makes it absolutely clear that for Paul and the early Christians, homosexual acts were understood to be morally wrong: and that “wrongness” had nothing to do with ritual purity codes (and thus out-dated and irrelevant). Rather, this “wrongness” was determined by the good news of God’s recreative, transforming power in Christ, which seeks to restore all our human brokenness toward that image of God in and for which we are created as male and female.

  

August 26, 1996