Skip to content

The Bible and Homosexuality

Posted in Life, and Theology

Featured image is a composite of photos by photos taken by
Aaron Burden and Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash

It’s Pride Month once again, and my denomination (Mennonite Church USA) has just repealed its “guidelines” against full inclusion of homosexual Christians in church life.

In contrast, I’m seeing people on Twitter using Romans 1 as an excuse to hate. These people evidently don’t know how to read scripture.

The Book of Romans

The problem Paul is dealing with in the Book of Romans is not sexuality, but religiously-motivated ethnocentrism.

Some Jewish members of the congregation in Rome apparently had been looking down on Gentile members of the church because God originally gave the Law to the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Romans 2:17–29). In contrast, there were apparently some Gentile members of the church at Rome who were looking down on Jewish members of the congregation because God seemed to have turned away from the Jews to focus on bringing the Gospel to Gentiles (Romans 9–11).

Paul’s letter, then, is a passionately-, extensively-, and often confusingly-argued plea for Christians to renounce ethnocentric pride and live in love and unity with each other.

Romans 1:18–32, Specifically

One of the most important principles of textual interpretation is that we have understand the genre of a piece of literature in order to properly interpret it.

Here are my thoughts.

The Genre

Romans 1:18–2:16 belongs to a sub-genre of prophetic rhetoric, used by Jewish prophets.1

Nathan vs. David: 2 Samuel 12:1–14.
Nathan tells David story about a man who steals his neighbor’s beloved sheep, in order to get David to condemn the action. Then Nathan points out to David that he has done something even worse, so he (David) should condemn himself.

Amos vs. Israel: Amos 1–3.
Amos — speaking to the northern kingdom of Israel — spends two chapters condemning the evils committed by the nations surrounding them (including Judah, to the south), only to turn on Israel itself in chapter 3.

The Structure

Romans 1:18-32 is a(n apparent) condemnation of Gentiles, meant to “draw in” any Jewish members of the congregation who were looking down on their Gentile siblings in Christ.

Romans 2:1–16, then, is meant to turn the condemnation of those who were “drawn in” back on themselves, preparing them to take a humbler approach to their Gentile siblings.

The Point

In Romans 1:18–32, Paul isn’t making a theological point; he’s making a rhetorical move. He isn’t telling his listeners something, he’s doing something to them. He’s preparing them for a change of heart.

Specifically, he’s trying to move particular Jewish Christians in 1st Century Rome to realize that they have no right to think more highly of themselves than of their fellow church members who are Gentile. (He’ll tackle the Gentile members of the church who were out of line later in the letter.)

Some Cautions

Parallel with the Parables

It seems to me that you cannot base a theory of the afterlife on the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19–31), because Jesus wasn’t trying to explain the afterlife; he was using talk about the afterlife to make a point about the excuses people come up with for not believing.

Similarly, it seems to me that you cannot base a theory of sexuality on Romans 1:18–32, because Paul wasn’t trying to explain sexuality; he was using talk about sexuality to do something else.

“Evil Idolaters”

Specifically, Paul is talking about idolatrous Gentiles in Romans 1:18–32, who he says have rejected God and who — as a consequence — have become involved in a whole range of things he expects his readers to find horrible  (see Romans 1:28–32).

This description simply does not fit homosexual Christians. They haven’t rejected God. Thus, whatever Paul is talking about, he isn’t talking about them.

“Unnatural”?

Paul describes an unspecified sort of sexual activity between idolatrous women as “unnatural” (para physin) in Romans 1:26.

The same term is used to describe God’s “grafting” Gentiles into the Jewish “tree” in Romans 11:24.

The same term can be used in multiple senses, of course. But it’s something to think about.

Roman Culture

Roman culture was “Hellenic”—that is, it was Greek-influenced, in much the same way that some “Non-Western” cultures have become “Westernized,” or even “Americanized.”

From what I have gathered while studying philosophy, ancient Greek culture held males to be the pinnacle of creation, and thus treated them as the ideal sexual partners — while largely excluding women from “polite company.”

There were surely as many genuinely gay and bisexual men back then as now, of course. But I suspect that “homosexuality” for at least some men in ancient Greece was situational — and that the situation they were in was created by misogyny.

Consider furthermore what sort of situation the hatred for and segregation of women would have created for the women. Would you want to be sexually involved with men in that sort of society?

In any event, it is important to remember that Paul was talking to particular people in a particular situation in a particular culture. And those people aren’t us. So, if you want to apply what Paul said to them to us, you’re going to need to work harder.

Old Testament Background

Romans 1, of course, is not the only passage in the bible that seems to deal with homosexuality. The other major principle of proper textual interpretation is that you’re supposed to read passages in context. And the context for the entire New Testament is the Old Testament.

The most famous passage in the Old Testament that is frequently taken to deal with homosexuality is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Sodom and Gomorrah

So, what was going on in Sodom? That, evidently, was what God wanted to find out.

Introduction

Genesis 18:20–21 (NRSV)

“Then the Lord said, ‘How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know.’”

I doubt there would have been a “great outcry against” them (from their neighbors, no doubt) unless they were oppressing the people who were crying out to God. And if you read Genesis 19:4–10, it seems to me that the most obvious problems in those two cities were mob violence and gang rape.

However, Ezekiel tells us more:

The Sin of Sodom

Ezekiel 16:49 (NRSV)

“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.”

The example of Sodom and Gomorrah — mob violence, gang rape, and ignoring the poor — is completely irrelevant to the question of how Christians should see homosexuality.

The Law

But what about the laws that seem to deal with homosexuality in the Old Testament? Here are two, for example.

Leviticus 18:22 (NRSV)

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13 (NRSV)

“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.”

Enforcement:

As every child knows, there’s a difference between the rules as they are officially stated (by their parents) and the rules as they are actually enforced (by those same parents). So, if Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 give us the letter of the law, that does not necessarily tell us what the laws were “in practice.”

Here’s a quotation from Paul Copan:

“Walter Kaiser points out the general observation of Old Testament scholars: There were some sixteen crimes that called for the death penalty in the Old Testament. Only in the case of premeditated murder did the text say that the officials in Israel were forbidden to take a ‘ransom’ or a ‘substitute.’ This has widely been interpreted to imply that in all the other fifteen cases the judges could commute the crimes deserving of capital punishment by designating a ‘ransom’ or ‘substitute.’ In that case the death penalty served to mark the seriousness of the crime.”

(Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God, p. 95, citing Numbers 35:31–32 and Walter Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Ethics, pp. 91–92)

Furthermore, even if the laws above were enforced in ancient Israel, we don’t live in ancient Israel.

And finally, when Jesus told us what the “law” was all about, he said, “loving God and loving your neighbor.”

Jesus’ Hermeneutic

Speaking of Jesus, the closest we can come to knowing how God thinks we should interpret scripture is to look at how Jesus did it. Here are two examples.

The Sabbath

Exodus 31:14–15 (NRSV)

“You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you; everyone who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it shall be cut off from among the people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.” (also: Exodus 35:2)

Matthew 12:1–12 (NRSV)

“1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, ‘Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.’ 

3 He said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests. 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and yet are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 But if you had known what this means, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.’ 

9 He left that place and entered their synagogue; 10 a man was there with a withered hand, and they asked him, ‘Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?’ so that they might accuse him. 11 He said to them, ‘Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.’”

In this instance, Jesus seems to me to be saying that you can’t let the letter of the law — which was made for the purpose of the good of human beings — get in the way of doing something that is obviously good for a human being.

Love Your Neighbor

Leviticus 19:18 (NRSV)

“You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

Luke 10:25–37 (NRSV)

25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?”

27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

28 And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”

29 But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, “Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’

36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?”

37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

In this case, the issue seems to be the same as with observing the Sabbath. There were laws about cleanliness (if the man had been dead, the Levite and Priest wouldn’t have been able to touch him and then fulfill their duties in the Temple until they had gone through the cleansing rites). There’s also a law about loving your neighbor, and a stranger lying in a ditch doesn’t live next door to you. But Jesus says, in essence, loving your neighbor means doing good to people when you encounter them, whoever they may be.

My Interpretation of Jesus’ Hermeneutic

I think God’s rules are there to help us recognize God’s motivations and achieve God’s goals, so God’s motivations and goals are what we are to care most about.

I think Jesus shows us that the existence of a rule against something somewhere in Scripture is no excuse for failing to recognize something good (something that conforms to God’s motivations and goals) when it is staring us in the face.

That is, I think Jesus gives us precedent for making — and expects us to make — exceptions to the “letter” of the law in order to live out its “spirit” (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:6, 1 Timothy 1:5, 8)

Conclusion

So, that’s the best I can do with the passages that seem to be most in debate. I don’t think people have historically interpreted the “problem” passages above correctly, even if I haven’t gotten them right myself. And I take the empiricist’s line that personal experience trumps abstract reasoning based on texts you might not have properly understood in the first place — especially when that personal experience seems to be backed up by things that everyone agrees the text says (e.g., “love your neighbor” and “God is love“).

My personal experience is that there are good people who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual (at least as many — proportionally — as there are straight people who are good), and romantic relationships between those good people are good for them. And my theory is that if something is good for a good person, then it’s good, period.

In summary, I am not convinced that my personal experience and Scripture are at odds on this point. So, even if I haven’t gotten everything right in this post, I hope it will help you think things through and discuss the issues more profitably with others.

___________________
1. I learned about this prophetic genre/technique from my wife, Ruth. It pays to marry someone who is (a) really smart and (b) took a lot of bible classes in college. Return to Text.

One Comment

  1. I am curious and sad that over the years I have found that there are big gaps in my generation’s (me generation) practice of our hermeneutical skills. Many of us evangelicals were well trained in good hermeneutics but threw them out the window if there was a pet peeve or sin that we wanted to condemn. Romans 1 is a good example. The point of Romans is that God has been revealed; and Romans 1 starts the journey with the story of people who knew better but pridefully turned away from God.
    It lists a number of the results of this pridefulness- maliciousness, envy, covetousness, backbiters, fornicators (and it describes one of the kinds of fornication), etc. The book then goes into how the creation waited for God to be revealed in mankind: through Christ, then in mankind themselves.
    Anyway, in putting our evangelical focus on the pet sin of outside-of-commitment sex between same-gendered individuals, we got to skip over the outside-of-commitment fornication between other-gendered folks. PLUS the added benefit of being able to forget the twenty-four other “sins” that are the result of pridefully forgetting God. Reading in context, reading the whole thing, reading in historical context…all those hermeneutical skills forgotten. Anyway, at least a few of us old Karens are learning to apply those skills and think more wisely. Romans 1 was not a condemnation of homosexuality.

    December 14, 2022
    |Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *