LGBTQ+ People Are Welcome at the Table Part 3

In previous blog posts, we’ve been talking about how Jesus breaks down boundaries that have been used to exclude people, and extends an all-inclusive, unconditional invitation to his table. We’re spending so much time looking at the historical and cultural context of the Scripture used to create these boundaries because the loudest non-affirming messages out there are using Scripture to defend their exclusive stance. If we are to reclaim our Scriptures and open conversations, we need to try to understand what the biblical authors were seeing and why they wrote what they did. Not so we can claim “certainty” or to prove we’re right, but to offer a different, Jesus-centered interpretation based on his message of love and inclusion.  

So far, we’ve looked at how ancient patriarchy and gender hierarchy, exclusive nationalism, and the Hebrew purity codes worked together to exclude women, different races and ethnicities, and sexual minorities.

Last time, we dove even deeper into the Old Testament passages that were used to exclude sexual minorities in the ancient world and we discovered that the same-sex behavior the biblical authors were seeing (rape, cultic prostitution, and exploitive, abusive forms of sexual behavior) looked very different from the loving, committed, covenantal same-sex relationships we are talking about today.

Now that we’ve gotten our minds around what the Old Testament writers would have been seeing as far as same-sex behavior goes, we need to fast forward a few hundred years to Jesus, and the writings of the first century New Testament authors. Again, we’ll need a bit of historical background first.

Remember, our Old Testament authors were living in the midst of their pagan neighbors, Egypt (they had been slaves there for hundreds of years), also Assyria, Babylon, and the Canaanite nations, just to name a few.

These were nations and people groups who worshipped a variety of gods and had their own law codes and worship practices (including child sacrifice and temple prostitution). The Mosaic Law and the purity codes of the nation Israel were put in place to set them apart from the behavior of these pagan neighbors.

They were also living in a patriarchal, honor/shame culture which elevated male dominance and devalued women, as well as men seen as being “womanly”, or taking on a woman’s role. The attempt to shame the visitors and the treatment of the women in the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Levite’s Concubine are a case in point. 

As the biblical story continues, the nation Israel is eventually conquered by the Babylonians and carried off into exile. This is the time many biblical scholars believe the Old Testament was edited and put together into the collections we have today. Because they did not have their Temple and could not worship God in the same way, some Jews were just assimilating into Babylonian culture (think of the story of Daniel’s friends Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego). The Torah (the Law), the Prophets, the Psalms, and their other writings were a way to worship, to tell their unique story, and to remind them of the covenant relationship they had with their God.

After about 70 years in exile, the Persians conquer the Babylonian empire, and a Jewish remnant is allowed to return to Jerusalem. The people rebuild their Temple and wait with expectant hope for God’s presence to dwell in it once again, and for him to send his Messiah to rescue them. The Old Testament ends with the prophets imploring the nation Israel to shake off the idolatrous influence of their Babylonian captivity and come back to their calling as God’s set-apart people.

When the New Testament opens, Alexander the Great and the Greeks had conquered the Persians, then, there had been a brief period of Jewish independence after the Maccabean Revolt, and finally, the big, bad, Roman Empire had come crashing in, conquering everything in sight.

So, when Jesus comes on the scene, the nation Israel is not only surrounded by their Canaanite pagan neighbors again, but they are also under Roman oppression and immersed in the Greco-Roman world, with their own pantheon of gods, their temple rituals, and their patriarchal gender roles and sexual practices.

Remember, for the nation Israel, sex was about procreation within their established family gender roles and furthering the family lineage, but in the Greco-Roman world, sex was still all about male dominance and power.

As long as the male took the dominant (active, penetrating) role, it was acceptable for him to have sexual relations with his wife, his concubines, his slaves (male or female), or with male and female prostitutes.

As author Matthew Vines puts it in his book “God and the Gay Christian”, in the Greco-Roman world,

“Their main concern wasn’t the gender of one’s partners, but the gender role that person assumed in sex.”

Sexual orientation was unheard of. It was assumed that everyone was heterosexual, and that men could and should have sexual relations with both lower-status males and females as long as they maintained the dominant role.

Vines goes on to say,

“In ancient Greece, the most common form of same-sex behavior was something modern societies would never accept: a sexual relationship between a man and an adolescent boy, called pederasty… pederastic relationships were a rite of passage for many Greek males. Boys took the role of the passive ‘beloved’ from around the ages of twelve to seventeen, and they became active ‘lovers’ as adults. Most males who engaged in pederasty went on to marry women, and some who married continued to consort with boys.”

Pederasty continued in ancient Rome, occurring most frequently between masters and their male slaves. It was also not uncommon for women, young girls, and young boys to be handed over to conquering soldiers as the spoils of war and treated as slaves.

Another form of same-sex behavior for Roman men was prostitution. In addition to ritual temple prostitution, in ancient Rome, it was acceptable for men to pay for the services of both male and female prostitutes as long as they took the dominant role in the sexual encounter and the male was of lower status, not a freeborn Roman citizen.

The Jewish authors of the New Testament were surrounded by these Greco-Roman sexual practices, and because they considered everyone to be heterosexual, and they considered the “natural” purpose of sex to be procreation within their normal, patriarchal gender roles, they attributed the same-sex behavior they saw, not to a specific sexual orientation, (they had no concept of that) but as stemming from a lack of impulse control. They attributed the behavior to excessive, over-the-top lust.

To quote Matthew Vines once again,

“The fact that societies of the biblical world associated same-sex relations with sexual excess rather than sexual orientation has been conceded even by a number of non-affirming scholars. In the words of Richard Hays, sexual orientation ‘is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the [New Testament] or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world…’ The usual supposition of writers during the Hellenistic period was that homosexual behavior was the result of insatiable lust seeking novel and more challenging forms of self-gratification.”

Vines goes on to say that,

“Prior to 1869, terms meaning ‘homosexual’ or ‘homosexuality’ didn’t exist in any language, and they weren’t translated into English until 1892.”

In fact, the term ‘homosexual’ itself didn’t appear in any Bible translation until 1946, and even then, it was a mistranslation of a Greek word, but we’ll get to that later.

A classic example of this excessive, out of control lust that would have been in clear view for the New Testament authors, was the Roman royal families, especially the Roman emperors, Gaius Caligula and Nero who reigned right after him. Gaius Caligula reigned in Paul’s day, just before he wrote his letter to the Romans, in fact.

Greek philosophers and Roman writers of the day have described Gaius’ idolatry, greed, arbitrary violence, and sexual excesses in detail. Gaius would have been closely linked to the practice of idolatry in the eyes of the Jews. He set up a temple to himself, complete with priests and sacrificial victims. He also tried to erect a statue of himself in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Caligula’s out of control passions were also well documented. Roman writers at the time say Gaius lived in perpetual incest with all his sisters, many times involving his wife as well, and he prostituted them to other men. He would rape the wives of his dinner guests in an adjoining room and then come out to comment on their performance, and he had sexual encounters with various men as well, including his own brother-in-law.

Dr. James Brownson, in his book, “Bible, Gender, Sexuality”, recounts Caligula’s final demise,

“Finally, a military officer whom he had sexually humiliated joined a conspiracy to murder him, which they did less than four years into his reign. Suetonius [a Roman writer at the time] records that Gaius was stabbed through the genitals when he was murdered.”

Emperor Nero, Caligula’s successor, was also known for his excessive sexual behavior. Including, in his later years, marrying a young boy, castrating him, and dressing him up as a bride for the wedding ceremony.

Now, with all this background in mind, we’re ready to look at the New Testament passages that speak to same-sex behavior and are cited as a rationale for excluding LGBTQ+ people. There are only three, Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:9-11. Let’s look at them one at a time, keeping this historical background in mind.

Romans 1:24-27 (NASB) says,

“24Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25For they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature, 27and likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations with women and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing shameful acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

O.K. first, as we’ve learned, it is not reading responsibly when we pull a Scripture passage out of context and make it say whatever we want. The literary, historical, and cultural context matters as does the author’s purpose for the book, chapter, or letter we’re reading.

Most scholars agree that these verses are a part of a larger section of Paul’s letter to the church in Rome. As Dr. Brownson puts it,

“These verses are part of a larger section of Romans (1:18-3:20), and the overall goal of this larger section is to demonstrate the universal sinfulness of humanity and the universal need of humanity for salvation that is found in Paul’s gospel (1:16).”

The structure goes something like this: Paul starts in chapter 1, talking about the Gentiles (all those pagan nations that we’ve been talking about including Rome and its emperors). He says, “Look at these idolatrous Gentiles. They refuse to worship the true God, even though the created order reveals him, and they worship worthless idols instead.” So, he says, “God has handed them over to ‘vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts’, to ‘dishonor’, to ‘degrading passions’.” Remember that for the Jews, non-procreative male same-sex behavior was not only impure, and dishonored and degraded the one taking the woman’s role, but the one who did the dishonoring was also impure.

Then notice, Paul says their women “exchanged” natural relations for unnatural (notice, it doesn’t say anything about same-sex relations, just that women “exchanged” the normal, procreative purpose of sex for some other sexual behavior), and the men “abandoned” natural relations with women (remember, “natural” or “normal” sexual relations for the Jews was about gender roles within a family unit, procreation, and family lineage). The concept of “exchanging” and “abandoning” what was “natural” implies that these Gentiles are seen as heterosexual people engaging in non-procreative, same-sex relations outside of family boundaries because of excessive desire and out-of-control lust.

Some scholars believe Paul had Gaius Caligula in mind when he wrote this section. If so, and knowing how Caligula was murdered, the idea of “receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” makes perfect sense. But even if Caligula was not being described here, the point of Romans chapter 1 is Gentile idolatry in the form of excessive lust. Dr. Brownson says this about Romans 1:

“…the central problem with lust in Romans 1 is that it is an expression of idolatry in a specific sense: lust involves serving one’s own self-seeking desires rather than worshipping the one true God…It was a commonplace of Jewish rhetoric to link idolatry with excessive perversion and corruption…” For the New Testament authors, same-sex behavior “represents the pinnacle of wanton self-indulgence at the expense of others.”

This should bring to mind the words of Jesus in Matthew 19. In his discussion with his disciples about divorce, Jesus uses the Greek word for sexual immorality—porneia. Remember, based on its root meaning, it can be defined as using sex in an idolatrous way, using it to objectify, devalue, disempower, exploit, abuse, or harm yourself or someone else. This is exactly the behavior Paul describes in Romans 1 and it’s what he sees all around him in the Greco-Roman world.

So, in chapter 1, Paul has set up his readers to be disgusted with those lustful, perverted, out-of-control Gentiles and to pronounce judgement on them. Then in chapter 2, he turns the tables and says,

“Therefore you have no excuse, you foolish person, every one of you who passes judgment; forin that matter in which you judge someone else, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.”

And then, he brings his point home in chapter 3. He says,

“What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin…21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus…”

Given all this, you can see why many scholars interpret Romans 1 to be addressing the idolatry and excessive, out-of-control lust seen in the Greco-Roman world, behavior which Paul sees as leading away from God and is destructive to others. It’s not talking about fixed sexual orientation or the loving, committed, covenantal, equal status, same-sex relationships we’re talking about today.

O.K., on to 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11. We’ll address these last two passages together because they both center on two highly debated Greek words, “arsenokoitai” and “malakos”. Scholars debate the meanings of these words for a number of reasons. Let me show you what I mean.

The New International Version translates 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 this way,

“9Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral [pornoi] nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [malakoi, arsenokoitai] 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (NIV)

Notice, the NIV puts both of these words together and translates them as “men who have sex with men”. The older King James Version translates the words separately as “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind”. Just a note here, both these versions do not include women in the translation. The New American Standard Bible translates the words together as “homosexuals” even though the word “homosexual” did not appear in any Bible translation until 1946 and now, suddenly, women are included. And these are just a few of the translations. See the problem?

The same words are used again in the vice list in 1 Timothy. The New International Version translates 1 Timothy 1:9-11 as,

“We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for the sexually immoral [pornois], for those practicing homosexuality [arsenokoitais], for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”

But look at how the Complete Jewish Bible translates it:

“We are aware that Torah is not for a person who is righteous, but for those who are heedless ofTorah and rebellious, ungodly and sinful, wicked and worldly, for people who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10the sexually immoral — both heterosexual and homosexual — slave dealers, liars, perjurers, and anyone who acts contrary to the sound teaching 11that accords with the Good News of the glorious and blessed God.” (CJB)

What is going on here? The translations are all over the board because scholars debate how these words were used in their ancient context. For example, “malakos” was a commonly used term in ancient Greek. It meant “soft”. Jesus used it to describe fine clothing. In ancient writings it was used as an insult to mean anything considered to be feminine. That’s why many times, it gets translated in our Bibles as “effeminate”.

Now remember what we’ve learned about men who were thought to be “effeminate” in the ancient patriarchal world. They were thought to be weak, womanly, overly extravagant, excessive in engaging in pleasures like food, clothing, or sex, or completely lacking in self-control. The word doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with same-sex behavior, although a man taking the passive role in same-sex relations (in this context, probably male prostitutes) would have been thought of as “effeminate” and so, shamed and degraded. That’s why some Bible versions translate “malakoi” as male prostitutes.

The word “arsenokoitai” is more problematic because it was rarely used in ancient writings. In fact, Paul was the first one to use it. It is actually a mash-up of two Greek words, arsen (man) and koites (bed), together, “man-bedders” (again, notice that women are not involved).

Yale New Testament scholar Dale Martin has done extensive research on the background of these words and how they were used in ancient literature. What he found was that the word “arsenokoites” was used only a few times outside of the two times Paul uses it. It usually comes within vice lists, but the interesting thing is, when it appears there, it is usually placed with vices that involve economic injustice and abuses of power like stealing, murder, and oppressing the poor. It is not usually listed with the sexual sins on those lists.

Even in Paul’s lists, the words come between adulterers and thieves, and murderers and the sexually immoral, and slave traders (some versions say kidnappers). This has led Martin, along with other scholars to the conclusion that “arsenokoites” refers to some sort of economic or abusive sexual exploitation. Remember, the most common forms of same-sex behavior in the ancient world were pederasty, prostitution, and the sexual exploitation and abuse of slaves. It would make sense then, that the most common translation of “arsenokoites” before 1946 was “abusers of themselves with mankind”, the way the King James version still translates it.

The fact that it was translated “homosexuals” in the Revised Standard Version in 1946 is scandalous. The recent movie “1946: The Mistranslation that Shifted Culture” discusses how this happened. In short, the translation committee had translated the word “arsenokoites” as “homosexuals”, but a young seminary student who disagreed with this translation, based on some of what we’ve already seen, sent a letter to the head of the committee with his concerns. The head of the committee responded to the letter and admitted that his concerns were valid and that they needed to revise it.

However, the word was not changed until the next RSV translation 25 years later. By that time, other Bible translations, working from the RSV, translated the word as “homosexuals” as well, and the damage was done.

In any case, even if we take issue with all this information, most scholars today agree that the Bible is anything but “clear” when it comes to same-sex relationships. One thing is clear however, these ancient authors did not have the information we have today. They did not know that the earth was round, that it revolved around the sun, that there is evolving natural diversity in creation, and they certainly had no idea about sexual orientation or human sexuality. The same-sex behavior that was in their view was seen to be exploitive, abusive, devaluing, and stemming from excessive lust.

Matthew Vines sums it up when he says,

“The Bible doesn’t address either same-sex orientation, or lifelong, monogamous, equal-status same-sex relationships.”

So, let’s bring this to a close. Many scholars, including non-affirming ones, agree that the Bible does not condemn being LGBTQ+ as inherently sinful. And many scholars also agree that it does not address the loving, committed, mutually-valuing same-sex relationships we’re talking about today. It addresses sexual relationships (any relationships) that are devaluing, exploitive, or abusive. It addresses sexual immorality—sex used in a self-seeking, idolatrous way to harm or devalue.

What the Bible does affirm, very vehemently, is that we are to love as Jesus loves, and that whatever other commands or rules we think we need to follow, if they harm another, they are not love. Loving as Jesus loves supersedes all law.

Jesus says,

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love oneanother. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35 (NIV)

And the Apostle Paul says,

“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law.” Romans 13:8-10 (NIV)

The fact that the Bible has been weaponized against LGBTQ+ people is wrong and has caused great harm to so many people and to the Christian faith. Using Bible verses out of context to condemn LGBTQ+ people is irresponsible, misleading, harmful, and ultimately, un-Christlike.