This post will explore the human sexual behaviors and attitudes which underpin the Biblical perspective (both Old and New Testament) on what is considered right and wrong - acceptable and unacceptable. After all, if one is truly interested in applying Biblical proscriptions of certain behaviors in the present, he/she must understand the context and motivations which underpin them. Unfortunately, too many folks have sought to impose the context of their own times, experiences, and understandings on the writings of authors who belonged to wholly different times, experiences and understandings. In other words, one must have some understanding of Hebrew and Roman sexual attitudes to truly understand the sexual perspectives of the Old and New Testaments of the Judeo-Christian canon.
First, in terms of the Hebrew Scriptures, it is important that we understand that Torah was premised on two foundational principles: love for God and love for neighbor (Leviticus 19:18, Deuteronomy 11:13, and 13:3). More particularly, as it related to loving one's neighbor, Torah prohibits behaviors that would hurt/harm or disrespect another's person, property, or rights in any way. In other words, the commandments of Torah were NOT an arbitrary collection of dos and don'ts based on the whim of Divine prerogative. Instead, Torah law was motivated by an underlying rationale/logic that was meant to protect the person, property, and rights of folks within Israelite society.
In this connection, it is also important to understand that Torah was designed for a society/culture which was primitive, agrarian, paternalistic, polygamous, and embraced violence and slavery. Hence, one who ignores or denies these premises of Israelite society is bound to misunderstand and/or misinterpret Torah Law. In other words, Torah Law was designed to meet the Israelites where they were - to fit the circumstances and conditions of their existence. As I have related in previous posts on this topic, the commandments of Torah are a special iteration or application of God's Law of Love tailored to meet the needs of a particular people, in a particular time and place.
Finally, from the Christian perspective, EVERYTHING in Torah is seen as pointing to Jesus of Nazareth. For Christians, all of the provisions of Torah must be interpreted/understood within the context of the Christ event! Indeed, the understanding that Jesus Christ came to this earth to fulfill Torah and the writings of the Hebrew prophets is foundational to Christian theology! Hence, a Christian understands that the commandments of Torah are NOT the ultimate expression of Divine Law - that they do NOT represent an eternal and/or universal iteration of God's Law! In other words, from the New Testament perspective, the 613 commandments of Torah were/are NOT applicable to the Gentile peoples of the world. In short, the gospel accounts of Christ's teaching and the epistles of Paul and John make very clear that the Christian standard is the Law of Love (see Matthew 22:34-40, John 13:34, 15:12, 17, Romans 13:8, I Corinthians 13, I John 3:11, 23, 4:7, 11-12).
We see the two great love commandments clearly embodied in the Ten Commandments of Torah (Exodus 20:1-17). In them, love for God is defined by: not putting anything/anyone before God, not imagining God in a form which fails to truly define or encompass him, not being careless or disrespectful about how we talk about God, and remembering to rest from our works just as God rested from his. Likewise, love for neighbor is defined by the Ten Commandments as: honoring one's parents, not murdering anyone, not being unfaithful to another, not stealing from each other, not lying to or about each other, and not desiring/wanting what belongs to another. Moreover, in ALL of these commandments we can clearly discern the harm/hurt/disrespect that would accrue to anyone (God or human) impacted by such behaviors. In those last six commandments, we can also discern the philosophical basis for ALL of the other Torah commandments which specifically deal with human sexual behaviors.
More particularly, we see in these commandments a clear impulse to protect the property and feelings of humans (especially males). In most of the prohibited sexual behaviors enumerated in Torah, the principles are readily apparent. Indeed, most of us don't have any problem in seeing how things like bestiality, incest, rape, or infidelity might inflict real psychological and/or physical hurt and harm on ourselves and/or others. Even so, it has been hard for many of us to discern any hurt or harm that might be caused by a sexual relationship between two consenting adults of the same gender. Hence, the question has naturally arisen: Have we properly understood/interpreted the passages of Scripture which have traditionally been identified as prohibiting all same-gender sexual relationships?
In attempting to answer that question, we must immediately dispense with the notion that our current knowledge of (and perspective regarding) human sexuality can or should be projected on to Scripture. As has already been suggested, the Hebrew people of biblical times were part of a society/culture that was very paternalistic in its outlook and character. As a consequence, many of the commandments of Torah are premised on protecting the rights, privileges, and property of its male members. Indeed, religious scholar Christopher Rollston once observed that "The Decalogue is a case in point. 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house, you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male slave, his female slave, his ox, his donkey or anything which belongs to your neighbor' (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21). Because the Ten Commandments are so well known, it's quite easy to miss the assumptions in them about gender. But the marginalization of women is clear. The wife is classified as her husband's property, and so she's listed with the slaves and work-animals. There's also a striking omission in this commandment: never does it say 'You shall not covet your neighbor's husband.' The Ten Commandments were written to men, not women. There's even more evidence, linguistic in nature. Hebrew has four distinct forms of the word 'you' and these are gender and number specific. The form of 'you' in every single commandment is masculine singular. The text assumes its readers are men." (See Huffington Post: The Marginalization of Women, 2012)
While Rollston's observations may not have been popular in more traditional circles, it cannot be denied that they accurately reflect the reality found in Torah. In the eighteenth chapter of the book of Leviticus, we read: "You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord. None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, brought up in your father's family, since she is your sister. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's relative. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's relative. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive." (Verses 5-18, ESV) Hence, although this passage mentions women, it is clearly addressed to males! We can also see that the honor of the male is paramount - his nakedness must not be uncovered and his property must be protected. Even so, we can also see the underpinnings of the Law of Love at work in this passage - the instructions were clearly given in the interest of promoting familial harmony.
Of course, students of the Bible will immediately recognize the context of the passage offered above. It introduces one of the principal "clobber passages" used by religious folks to condemn all homosexual behaviors. Continuing in the chapter, we read: "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor's wife and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion." (Leviticus 18:19-23, ESV)
For those who may not be familiar with the ancient world, the wording of the key passage removed from its context may appear awkward and confusing (the practice of citing a prooftext often results in such awkwardness and confusion). Notice that the injunction is to "not lie with a male" (have sexual intercourse) in the same way or manner that a male would do so with a female. Why? Because men were perceived as the active agent in a sexual relationship (the penetrator), while women were perceived as occupying the passive role in intercourse (the one being penetrated). Indeed, Torah makes very clear that a man who had intercourse with a woman was perceived as having "humbled" her (Deuteronomy 21:14, 22:24, 29). Hence, the notion of a man in a passive role contradicted the whole notion of patriarchy.
We also notice in this passage several references to behaviors that make one "unclean." Indeed, in the concluding remarks for this entire passage, we read: "Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants...For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 18:24-30, ESV) In this connection, it is interesting to note that Jesus is portrayed throughout the gospels and in the book of Acts as making clean that which was formerly regarded as unclean.
Finally, this passage in Leviticus emphasized the fact that the children of Israel were NOT to practice any of the "abominable customs" of the people who inhabited the land prior to their occupancy of it. In terms of context, it is essential to a proper understanding of both "clobber passages" (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) that we remember that the former inhabitants of the Promised Land were polytheistic pagans who incorporated ritual sexual intercourse with both genders into the worship of their deities. The Reverend Brandon Robertson noted in his An Inclusive Interpretation of Biblical 'Clobber Passages' that "Both of these condemnations of same-sex sexual behavior in Leviticus are directly preceded by reminders that these rules were meant to keep the Jewish people from being like the surrounding dominant polytheistic cultures. These cultures often practiced ritual sex offered to a variety of deities and engaged in practices such as using conquered people as sexual slaves. This makes it clear that the cultural context of the Leviticus passage does not reference loving, consensual same-sex relationships, but relationships rooted in idolatry or exploitation, both of which should be rightly condemned. The word abomination used in Leviticus 18:22 further proves this contextual understanding, because the Hebrew word toevah refers to a ritual uncleanness rather than something objectively, morally wrong."
Like the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, the entire twentieth chapter of the same book makes very clear that the Israelites were expected to differentiate themselves from the religious practices of the former inhabitants of the land which they were shortly to inherit. In the beginning of the chapter, the practice of sacrificing children to Molech is condemned (Leviticus 20:1-5). This is followed by a condemnation of those who would consult mediums and necromancers (Leviticus 20:6-8). Then, in the listing of prohibited sexual practices, we find that the prohibition against men having intercourse with other men is included among the prohibitions against incestuous and menstrual intercourse (Leviticus 20:10-21). In other words, this is a reiteration of the practices forbidden in the eighteenth chapter. Likewise, as in the previous chapter, the thought concluded with: "You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them." (Leviticus 20:22-23, ESV)
Thus, we have seen that it would be a gross misinterpretation of Scripture to impose our modern notion of homosexuality on these passages from Leviticus. Clearly, the prohibitions related to same-gender sexual intercourse were directed at the pagan, polytheistic practices of the people whom the Israelites were expected to replace in the Promised Land. They were also clearly intended to protect Hebrew notions of patriarchy and property. In other words, we simply cannot read into these passages our modern understandings of sexual orientation or our notions regarding loving intercourse between two consenting adults.
Moreover, just as we must understand the context of Hebrew society/culture and their circumstances to properly interpret the meanings of these passages from Torah, we must likewise understand the context of sex in the Roman world to properly interpret what the Apostle Paul had to say on these topics. In addition to this, we must not forget that the Apostle Paul was himself a Jew - who was thoroughly versed in the Hebrew perspective on these matters (Philippians 3:5-6).
In his article Love, Sex and Marriage in Ancient Rome for Psychology Today, Dr. Neel Burton underscored the fact that Roman society was also very paternalistic in nature. In short, women were generally viewed as occupying a secondary or inferior role to men. He went on to note that phallic symbols were held in high esteem within that culture. Like the other pagans before them, Burton pointed out that the Roman world incorporated ritual intercourse into their religious practices.
As for Roman sexual attitudes more generally, Burton observed that "Most extramarital and same-sex activity took place with slaves and prostitutes. Slaves were considered as property and lacked the legal standing that protected a citizen’s body. A freeman who forced a slave into having sex could not be charged with rape, but only under laws relating to property damage, and then only at the instigation of the slave’s owner. Prostitution was both legal and common, and often operated out of brothels or the fornices (arcade dens) under the arches of a circus. Most prostitutes were slaves or freedwomen. A freeborn person who fell into prostitution suffered infamia, that is, loss of respect or reputation, and became an infamis, losing her or his social and legal standing. Other groups that incurred infamia—a concept that still retains some currency in the Roman Catholic Church—included actors, dancers, gladiators, and other entertainers, which is why Roman women were forbidden from being seen on stage. Members of these groups, which had in common the pleasuring of others, could be subjected to violence and even killed with relative impunity. A freeborn man’s libertas, or political liberty, manifested itself, among others, in the mastery of his own body, and his adoption of a passive or submissive sexual position implied servility and a loss of virility."
In this connection, Burton continued: "Homosexual behavior among soldiers not only violated the decorum against sexual intercourse among freeborn men, but also compromised the penetrated soldier’s sexual and therefore military dominance, with rape and penetration the symbols, and sometimes also the harsh realities, of military defeat. According to the historian Polybius (d. c. 125 BCE), the penalty for a soldier who had allowed himself to be penetrated was fustuarium, that is, cudgelling to death, the same punishment as for desertion. By some twisted Roman logic, a man who was anally penetrated was seen to take on the role of a woman, but a woman who was anally penetrated was seen to take on the role of a boy." Hence, we are forced to conclude that the societal/cultural climate in which Paul penned his remarks about same-sex behavior featured many of the same notions which surrounded those "clobber passages" found in Torah.
Indeed, in referencing the "clobber passages" attributed to the Apostle Paul, Reverend Brandon Robinson wrote of Romans 1:26-27 that "St. Paul describes the descent of the Roman culture into pagan idolatry. He begins by saying that the Roman people once knew the true and living God, and then turn to pagan idolatry, which lead them down a path of grave immorality. St. Paul is writing to a specific people in a specific context. After all, not all of humanity has followed the same trajectory Paul outlines – it was unique to the Greco-Roman context and culture. Same-sex sexual relations were fairly common in the Greco-Roman world that Paul lived in, and most of the expressions of homosexual sex were linked to various forms of pagan worship, prostitution, abuse of slaves, or pederasty. All of these are linked to exploitation and pagan idolatry and never to loving, consensual, same-sex relationships." (See An Inclusive Interpretation of Biblical "Clobber Passages")
Likewise, in his remarks about I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9-10, Reverend Robinson wrote: "The words Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9 which is mistranslated as 'male prostitutes' and 'sodomites' are the Greek terms malakoi and aresenakoiti. The word 'arsenekoiti' literally translates as 'man bed' and most scholars agree that this again likely refers to some form of ritual rape or temple prostitution. It is unlikely, contextually, to assume that it referred to 'homosexuality' as the committed sexual relationship between two consenting partners of the same sex. This word also did not exist in the Greek language until Paul created it in this text. If Paul was explicitly seeking to condemn homosexual relationships in any of his writings, he could have used one of the over twenty more common Greek words for same-sex relationships and behaviors that his readers would have immediately understood." He continued: "In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and in 1 Timothy 1:10, St. Paul uses the word malakoi, which is a common Greek word which translates in modern vernacular as 'effeminate men' or 'boys'. In the ancient Greco-Roman world in particular anything considered effeminate was thought to be weak and undesirable. In the Greco-Roman culture would have seen any man who allowed himself to be penetrated sexually by another man to be willfully giving up his masculinity, thus making himself 'malakos', which would have been a reason for him to be marginalized in a Patriarchal culture. There is virtually no debate among scholars that malakoi in St. Paul’s letters simply meant 'effeminate man' and likely did not refer to consensual same-sex sexual relationships."
Hence, if we are truly interested in understanding the Biblical perspective on sinful sexual behaviors, we must understand the context of the Biblical references to such behaviors. To impose our own modern notions and understandings on those ancient writings is unfair and will only ensure misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what was written. Unfortunately, too many Christians are NOT interested in nuance and complexity - they prefer simplicity and the clarity provided by black and white thinking. They would rather twist passages from Torah and make them binding on folks who were not "fortunate" enough to be born with a "normal" heterosexual orientation. They ignore Christ's statements about judging other people's sins while ignoring their own. In their cherry picking of Scripture, they also ignore a great many other relevant things that Jesus and his apostles had to say on the topic of human sexuality.
We have already pointed out that Christ fulfilled the commandments of Torah and summarized them into two great commandments that would be universally applicable - to both Jews and Gentiles. Those commandments were based on the eternal and Godly principle of LOVE. Jesus went on to say that love was the motivation and objective which underpinned the entire Law of God. Hence, if two men or two women really love each other (exhibiting the things which characterize Godly love - see I Corinthians 13:4-7), their relationship CANNOT be characterized as sinful! In the words of Paul, "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." (Romans 13:10, ESV)
Hence, in this iteration of God's Law, only sexual behaviors which inflict real hurt or harm on someone can be classified as sinful. Moreover, failing to uphold patriarchy or culturally acceptable gender roles does NOT constitute a legitimate hurt or harm. In the words of the Apostle Paul, "in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:26-28, ESV) In short, a consensual monogamous relationship between two adults with a homosexual orientation is NOT the moral equivalent of incest, pedophilia, rape, ritual prostitution, or sexual exploitation.
Now, certainly, a homosexual is just as capable of sin as any heterosexual person. A homosexual can permit anger, bitterness, and vengeance to consume them and inflict violence on themselves or others. A homosexual is obviously quite capable of being unfaithful to his/her sexual partner. A homosexual is also quite capable of being unkind, impatient, unforgiving, etc. Like their heterosexual counterparts, homosexuals are subject to arrogance, rudeness, and unwarranted irritability. In short, it is my contention that a homosexual Christian is subject to the same Divine standard as the heterosexual Christian. What do you think?