(27 votes, average: 4.70 out of 5)
Loading...Here is a pressing question I was asked about a month ago, involving homosexuality and the Christian church. Since the question was asked, as you know (if you follow the news!), the Methodist Church has made its decision.
I decided to ask a real expert to deal with the question, my friend Jeff Siker, PhD in New Testament who has just retired from a 30+ year career teaching biblical studies at Loyola Marymount, and who has edited two books that address Christian views of homosexuality, the one he mentions below in his answer (1994) and a more recent reference work, Encyclopedia of Homosexuality and Religion (2006). When it comes to this topic, he’s heard it all and is massively informed. These two posts, of course, represent simply a condensation of the relevant information and his views about them.
Jeff has served as a guest poster twice on the blog before, and both times graciously answered questions and responded to comments. I’m not sure if he will be able to do so (I asked him just now, but he is in a different time zone); if he can, great. If not, I’ll deal with questions, comments myself.
–
Jeff Siker is also the author of Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity and Homosexuality in the Church.
QUESTION:
From February 23-26, 2019 in St. Louis, the United Methodist Church will have a special conference session to discuss the issue of homosexuality. As a former UM and with relatives in the UM church, the result of this conference could result in the split of the UM church.
In Romans 1:26-27, conservative will argue that these verses condemn homosexuality. Liberals will argue Paul is only condemning behavior by Roman male citizens abusing slaves and young boys who had no rights because they were not Roman citizens. Paul is not condemning consensual homosexual relationships.
I support the right of gays and lesbians to marry but wonder if liberals are allowing their own bias to influence their reading of Romans 1:26-27. NRSV Romans 1:27 reads: and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. The phrase “consumed with passion for one another” does not imply abusive relationships to me, but consensual attraction. What do you think of Romans 1:26-27?
RESPONSE BY JEFF SIKER:
Twenty-five years ago I published a book on Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994). Since then many things have changed both in the church and in society regarding the status of LGBT individuals. Some churches have split after years of unresolved debate over whether homosexual expression is by definition sinful or not (the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church). In the United States the most important change has been the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. This has been accompanied by a general cultural acceptance of LGBT individuals within society at large.
But just as LGBT individuals have found far greater acceptance over the last generation, so have some churches reaffirmed their traditional ban on same-sex relationships. This past Tuesday, February 26, the United Methodist Church held its General Conference in St. Louis, with representation from around the world. The church voted to affirm “The Traditional Plan” as the way forward to address the deeply divided denomination in regard to the status of LGBT clergy and marriage. Since 1972 the United Methodist Church’s Book of Discipline has made it clear that “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” are not to be tolerated within the church. But over the last couple of decades the church has been lax in enforcing its ban on same sex relations, in large part because of more inclusive attitudes within US society. Many clergypersons have “come out” to their congregations as LGBT individuals in committed relationships, and many clergy have openly performed same-sex marriages as blessed by God.
In response to the growing acceptance and normalization of LGBT relationships both in society and in the church, the United Methodist Church decided to take a firm stand. Either they would reaffirm “The Traditional Plan” that endorsed the historic prohibition of same-sex relations and more strictly forbid the inclusion of openly LGBT individuals within the church, or they would adopt the “One Church Plan” that would allow flexibility for local churches and larger clusters of United Methodist churches (Annual Conferences) to recognize same sex marriage and openly LGBT clergy as legitimate expressions of Christian faith. The church voted for “The Traditional Plan” in a firm rejection of same-sex relations. In taking this stance the United Methodist Church has joined the Roman Catholic Church in rejecting homosexuality as a valid way to live a Christian life. The United Methodist Church’s vote encourages more progressive members and congregations to leave the denomination if they are unwilling to endorse the traditional view that goes back officially to 1972.
One of the primary rationales for the traditional view, of course, has to do with perceptions of what the Bible says about same-sex relations. This involves no small debate about how to read, interpret, and apply the Bible to modern times. A brief overview of the six biblical texts typically cited and debated as relevant to the discussion is appropriate here.
- Genesis 19:1-11
“…the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
The story of God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has often been used to argue against same-sex relations. After all, the argument goes, the wickedness of the men in the town is demonstrated by their desire to “know” (i.e., have sex with) the two visitors that Lot is hosting. Little did they know that these visitors were angels sent by God. Most interpreters recognize that the story is about sexual violence (rape). Still, this biblical passage is often cited as an indication that scripture links same-sex acts with sin, especially since the term “sodomy” came to be used as a generic term for anal intercourse.
- Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.“
This passage occurs in the larger context of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-25), which spells out how the Israelites should behave as they take possession of the land of Canaan. Overall the code warns against adopting any of the idolatrous practices of the Canaanites. This passage is a simple prohibition of same-sex relations between males. There is neither a rationale nor a punishment specified.
- Leviticus 20:13 “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.”
This passage also occurs within the Holiness Code. It repeats the prohibition of same-sex relations between men, but also specifies the severe punishment of death. In both Leviticus 18 and 20 we find significant references to the idolatrous worship of the Canaanite god Molech (18:21; 20:2-6), which suggests that same-sex acts may be connected to such false worship.
****************************************
In tomorrow’s post Jeff will continue on to talk about the few New Testament passages that are usually deemed relevant, and then reflect on the significance of the Bible for the current debates.
Members of the blog have access to five substantial posts of this length each and every week — going back to 2012! Masses of information, reflection, and debate can be found here — all for a small membership fee. Every penny of your fee goes to charity. So do yourself a favor, and join!!
I appreciate the premise of this question. As someone who was trained in fundamentalism, spent time as a liberal clergy, and then left religion completely, I think the questioner raises a good point. Sometimes it seems that liberal Christians want to prove that the Bible is a modern, progressive document. In the process, they selectively choose verses and interpretations that support their views–not unlike fundamentalists.
Since the Bible is no longer the source of my ethics, it doesn’t matter to me if Romans condemns homosexuality or not. What I am interested in is an objective exegesis by experts about what they think this passage is really saying. So, thank you, Dr. Siker, for joining us and sharing your expertise with us! I’m looking forward to the rest of your post.
Your ethics do come in part from the bible, whether you acknowledge this or not. The influence of the Old and New Testaments is too large for anyone in the western world (or much of the eastern world) to avoid. Gandhi was influenced by both. So was King. Might as well say “I don’t believe in Platonic ideals, so I’m not influenced by Plato.” Of course you are. Negatively and positively, because ideas do matter, and what seems natural and matter-of-course to us now didn’t always.
Fundamentalism isn’t really about ideas–it’s people looking for a way to escape thinking about things. But that’s not what the bible is about–you can see people actively thinking there, trying to figure things out, trying to know right from wrong. The journey doesn’t end there. But it did, in part, begin there.
I can never understand the reasoning that holds we can reject all the many things in the Old Testament that are now culturally unacceptable to most of us (like the dietary laws), but the prejudices of that era relating to male same-sex relationships (they apparently refused to even acknowledge lesbians, though Sappho makes it pretty clear those existed too) are to be maintained in some modified form.
There is nothing in the Old Testament for or against gay marriage, because nobody in that time period really thought of there being a distinct group of humans who preferred their own gender. The Spartans and Thebans valued such relationships because they were considered good for corps morale (and apparently they were). But we can be sure many if not most who engaged in such practices were not what we would now call gay. Gayness is not a subject in the bible. The bible has nothing to say about it, positive or negative.
And Jesus has basically nothing whatsoever to say about sex, which seems to have been the least interesting subject in the world to him (perhaps the one respect we least emulate him in, other than voluntary poverty).
Marriage was not about love then, even though many marriages would have been loving regardless. It was about producing legitimate heirs. Even men who only liked other men would still want to marry a woman and produce children who could carry on their names, inherit their property, assuming they had any. Women who only liked other women would still want the prestige and protection of marriage to a man (who might turn a blind eye to their same-sex dalliances, since they were not, in his eyes, a threat–no danger of any illegitimate issue there).
We have a somewhat different concept of marriage now. It serves some different functions for most of us in the developed world. Many married couples intentionally don’t have children, or marry knowing one or both are incapable of producing heirs–it’s a life partnership–we don’t have such a strong system of extended families now, and stable supportive relationships can mean a great deal in a changing world. This would also have been seen as objectionable and even unnatural back in biblical times. So why only proscribe such marriages when they involve people of the same sex?
Most of us have accepted this, including most who are religious. It’s true whether we accept it or not. So I would suggest that the biblical proscriptions on same sex relationships (not marriage, which isn’t discussed) are irrelevant, as are so many other parts of the bible that relate to the customs of a different time, and not to lasting issues of ethics and spirituality that will hold true for all time.
A note about Genesis 19:1-11:
Another common argument often made here is that Sodom was destroyed precisely _because_ of the (sexual) attack on the strangers.
But reading the story in context makes it clear that the destruction of Sodom (and, indeed, all the “Cities of the Plains”) was a done deal, before the Angels ever showed up. The account of the attack may have been meant to underscore what jerks the people of Sodom were; but it certainly wasn’t the cause of the destruction of Sodom.
Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.
The verses in Ezekiel 16:48-50 also state that Sodim’s sin was not taking care of the poor and needy. It does say detestable acts as well, but….how are we taking care of the needy here in America?
“Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
So if one wants to draw upon Genesis as a source for modern morality, a father pimping out his virginal daughters to be raped is morally superior to allowing homosexual rape of one’s male guests. Recall also Abraham pimping out Sarah as his sister. There’s truly no limit to the rationalizations fundamentalists will go in their approach to the bible, is there?
That story put a crack in my faith when I was a fundamentalist. That, and the story about the woman whose body was chopped into pieces. No one in the church batted an eye over it. That bothered me too.
“a father [Lot] pimping out his virginal daughters to be raped is morally superior to allowing homosexual rape of one’s male guests. Recall also Abraham pimping out Sarah as his sister. There’s truly no limit to the rationalizations fundamentalists will go in their approach to the bible, is there?”
(also re XanderKastan 4mr19)
But the Bible does not say Lot’s offer was not morally reprehensible or that one is “morally superior” to another. However, Abraham’s “pimping out Sarah” seems to have been more of an “if they abduct her, it’s better than being killed” kind of situation. Abe probably should have stood his ground (if he only had enough faith in the God who had spoken to him) and we can’t say he was without guilt for his action; nevertheless, he may have been in a truly life threatening situation had he done so.
I’m guessing you must be thinking that what Lot did was somehow the “prescribed” thing to do? Or that what Abraham did was the thing to do?
Just because it’s written in the OT that those things were done by those men, don’t presume that somehow what they did was “the right thing to do”. It’s just what they did. That’s all. Whether it was right or not is the whole reason Rabbis pick such stories apart, almost ad-infinitum. Just start reading the Talmud and other Jewish commentary…
ftbond: “I’m guessing you must be thinking that what Lot did was somehow the “prescribed” thing to do? Or that what Abraham did was the thing to do?”
Quite the contrary. It should be clear from what I said that I certainly to NOT think one should “draw upon Genesis as a source for modern morality.”
DennisJensen: “But the Bible does not say Lot’s offer was not morally reprehensible or that one is “morally superior” to another. … Just start reading the Talmud …”
It is hard to say if the biblical authors might have intended this implication here, but modern fundamentalists who use this verse as a condemnation of homosexuality do seem to be inferring that it is worse, ie, to be avoided at all costs. Otherwise, how can thus passage be understood as a condemnation if homosexuality?
That’s the point. … And I’ve read a fair bit of the Talmud, thank you.
@Robert 6mr19
It looks like this message got stuck following a different post (probably my fault) and I don’t know how to erase it. So I’m repeating it here in the hope that you won’t miss it.
1) Note: it was ftbond, not I, who said “Just start reading the Talmud.”
2) Certainly some fundamentalists can say some pretty stupid things. But I suppose their counterpart—should we call them village atheists?—often does the same thing. I could give you some samples from the internet. I know someone who has an “atheists say the darndest things” collection.
Another note about Genesis 19:1-11:
It’s also useful to emphasize that in most old commentaries about Sodom, that the main “Sin of Sodom” was understood to be their failure to behave properly according to the rules of “Xenia” or “hospitality”; that is the care and protection of guests, strangers and other helpless folks who come under ones protection.
In the modern West it is difficult to appreciate how important this concept was in the ancient world (or, indeed, remains in parts of the traditional Mideast). The protection and help of trangers (or others, like neighbors in need) were understood to be the responsibility of the host, and the responsibility was meant to be taken seriously. For example, note the examples in Genesis of the welcome given to strangers and travelers. (Moreover, this is a major theme in, for example, ancient works like “The Odyssey”.)
In particular, note how Lot appeals to the attackers (and the lengths to which he is willing to go -i.e. offering his own daughters) to prevent the strangers under his care from coming to harm. The fact that the men of Sodom ignored this is clearly meant to be their real crime.
Now, it would probably be hard to argue that the writers of the Hebrew Scripture were OK with homosexuality, but it would be even harder to argue that it was a major concern of theirs. The three passages above contain basically everything that the Hebrew Scriptures has to say on the topic. But there are whole books whose main point is to decry lack of compassion, and the neglect of, or the harming of, the strangers and the helpless among us.
This hospitality ethic is a feature in the plot of “Lone Survivor”, a roughly true war movie about a fugitive SEAL in Afghanistan.
(Note: it was ftbond, not I, who said “Just start reading the Talmud.”)
Certainly some fundamentalists can say some pretty stupid things. But I suppose their counterpart—should we call them village atheists?—often do the same thing.
I am interested in this subject because I think the Bible is lacking a good discussion of LGBTQ issues and many people fill in the gap based on their own feelings. Also, I wonder why the gods of so many religions are so preoccupied with sex, when there are so many other grievous issues that need their attention! And while I am interested in this discussion, in the end I don’t think what the Bible says on this subject will convince me any more than I am convinced of talking snakes or Paul’s magic healing handkerchiefs or many other things it says!
It sucks to have to keep repeating this, but ancient literature as a whole lacks any serious discussion of these issues–the issues don’t exist, though same-sex oriented people certainly did. And what we do know about same-sex sexuality is mainly relating to a handful of wealthy educated people and their–for want of a better term–slaves. I don’t really agree with anybody from that era, in any culture, or of any religious belief, on the subject of sex.
Except maybe Jesus, since he just said “We’re all sinners, I don’t condemn you, sin no more.” And it is certainly possible to sin against other people sexually. We’re talking a lot about that now as well.
The LGBTQ discussion, such as it is, began in earnest during the late 20th, and at the start of the 20th (honorable mention to the handful of people who talked about it before then, when it involved real risk). In the late 19th/early 20th, ‘Gay’ was a term used more to refer to the variously risque behavior of straights who didn’t subscribe to conventional sexual and social mores. Now it’s been repurposed.
I think we’re catching up pretty fast, but it’s a bit like Xeno’s Tortoise–the closer we get to understanding all the currents in human sexual orientation, the further away we seem. Damn turtle keeps getting away from us. 😉
“Does it have a secular purpose” is the only question we need ask, for Christian principles will have secular purpose or are otherwise mere rituals.
Regarding “same sex” we need only examine the natural purpose for sexual behavior and for man’s institution of marriage. The term “deviant sexual behavior” was traditionally used in law. “Deviant” meant any sexual behavior not for producing children. This included even use of birth control (a Connecticut law prohibiting use of birth control was struck down by the Court as late as the 1960’s on basis that birth control devices could be lawfully prohibited at sale, which is less intrusive to civil liberties than government peeking into the bedroom.)
But with less need for having children the “deviant” term was necessarily redefined (by the Church!) as expression of love for unity of the family. It is a dubious explanation, needed actually for unity of the Church, so that people wouldn’t leave it. The real truth is people live a rather miserable and dreadfully repetitive life and so (not unreasonably) cling to sexual activity, redefining it as a “for pleasure” act.
All would probably be fine as now redefined, except that babies are invariably hurt by the “for pleasure” act which reduces the unborn to mere nuisance, being in the way of people showing their “love”.
This is the predicament. The Church threw out the baby (keeping the bathwater) when they abandoned the “deviant” definition, opening a cottage industry of abortion and a new species of humans whose genitals don’t match their brains, which is actually absurd because the distinctions between male and female is mostly society induced, and because it is physically impossible to change sexes other than pretend (a man cannot carry a child).
Civil marriage has a secular purpose only in potentially procreative (non-deviant) relationships (mother and child’s protection). It otherwise has no purpose or legal foundation, and becomes excessive law.
But “spiritual” union (marriage) is not ever unreasonable or wrong. It is the basis for the church wedding, and free people should not find there being any kind of prohibition. But such is not of a secular nature, it is of a religious nature and so there is no governmental (societal) purpose in giving such legal recognition.
What did Jesus say? Surely, he reflected logic and reason but not the popular ideas of that period or of ours.
The natural purpose of sex is to reproduce. The natural purpose of homosexuality is to reduce reproduction when reproduction is at a dangerous level. Nature is smarter and wiser than we. When there are too many people various mechanisms kick in to decrease populations to sizes that are self-supporting. Usually they are very unpleasant. Disease and starvation are just two examples. But nature provides a mild and painless way to slow down population growth. Redirect some members to desiring those of their same gender.
So there is very much a natural purpose for homosexuality.
Just like everyone has a natural purpose! 🙂
I find it very interesting that people want to use the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as a Biblical passage against homosexuals but never mention a VERY similar story in Judges 19. The men in this case end of raping the Levite’s concubine to death! I guess since we don’t often hear about homosexuals gang raping a woman to death, these passages are not part of the Biblical readings from the anit-LGBTQ!
Lev 20:13… I have a gay friend (male) who likes to emphasize that that isn’t a problem as he has NEVER lain with another man LIKE a woman! Makes me laugh til this day…of course they don’t!
Ha!
Leviticus 20:13 “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.”
Most denominations today would acknowledge (one would hope) that putting someone to death for a sex act would be unjust. it’s part of an antiquated view of sexual morality. So why not simply acknowledge that the biblical view itself of sexual morality may be antiquated and unjust? Especially considering most churches today permit divorce and remarriage, i.e. church sanctioned “adultery”.
Luckily even among my most fundamentalist friends and family i’ve begun to see a change in perspective. i don’t think a church with anti LGBTQ is sustainable.
ddorner 3mr19
“putting someone to death for a sex act would be unjust. it’s part of an antiquated view of sexual morality. So why not simply acknowledge that the biblical view itself of sexual morality may be antiquated and unjust?”
The NT does not advocate putting anyone to death for such acts (I would argue). The OT civil and ceremonial law was for a specific group of people under a special covenant. Those Israelites who didn’t want to follow such laws (non-moral laws, I would claim) could easily emigrate to more gay-friendly countries. (Could you imagine Alexander proposing anti-gay laws?) And doing so wouldn’t necessarily indicate a rejection of their God.
@dennisjensen 1 Corinthians 6 “9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Perhaps the NT doesn’t call for a physical murder of homosexuals, but Paul clearly believed homosexuals would not inherit
the kingdom of God. Which, one could argue, is far worse than an earthly death. At least from his perspective.
@ddorner 12mr19
I made some comments earlier to Dr. Siker’s post on Homosexuality and the New Testament that responds to this comment. I’m not sure if this will link you or not but you can try it: https://ehrmanblog.org/homosexuality-and-the-new-testament-guest-post-by-jeff-siker/comment-page-2/#comments. Otherwise just search for my name under that topic at 5mr19.
Two points for now, another one later (I overran my word limit):
1) it is not at all clear that he is speaking of any kind of homosexual behavior at all in 1 Timothy 1 or 1 Corinthians 6. If I remember correctly, someone might argue that the words could refer to same-gender sex involving prostitution or pederasty but I’d have to review the argument to see if even that has any force. See Boswell’s very important and much longer argument. I left a reference to his book in the above linked post.
2) Romans 1 is the only important NT passage to look at. From that passage we might come to wonder whether Paul thought that marital (intentionally monogamous) homosexual behavior by the constitutionally same sex attracted is sinful and damning. Of course he might have, the problem is that he just doesn’t say. So we just don’t know. Christians cannot be concerned about what a biblical writer might have thought, even those who are pretty sure they know what he thought; they’re only concerned about what he actually wrote. The idea is that God guided the writing of scripture so that even if a writer had a false religious belief, God made sure that belief was not recorded in scripture. Pediphilia and prostitution, whether they involved the same sexes or not, he clearly did condemn.
@ddorner 12mr19
“Paul clearly believed homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom of God. Which, one could argue, is far worse than an earthly death.”
Let me give you one other comment on this point specifically in addition to my previous two:
I do think Paul did teach in Romans 1 that homosexual behavior by certain people is morally wrong (opposite sex attracted individuals who become same-sex attracted simply as a result of unbridled lust and promiscuity). Siker thinks it’s speaking of pederasty and prostitution. Whether or not he is right, Paul does elsewhere clearly condemn such acts as well. And you quoted 1 Corinthians 6 citing several other activities Paul thinks exclude people from the Kingdom of God. Most of these activities, maybe all of them, I think you would admit are pretty bad and should exclude people from God’s Kingdom (if there is one). The Christian message is that God offers a means by which people like this—and indeed anyone who has done something evil, something harmful to someone else—can be reconciled to God. I’ve argued elsewhere that the biblical view is that God’s judgment of those who knowingly reject God and God’s offer of reconciliation (as well as those who reject God on just the possibility of God’s existence) face only a temporary time of punishment depending on what evil they have done (see my book Flirting with Universalism for the arguments). What we deserve may certainly be far worse than an earthly death but it would be just.
It seems to me in Genesis 19, Lot is telling the men he would be happy to let them rape his daughters in order to save the visitors. Wanting to protect his guests is just good hospitality, but being willing to make that sort of sacrifice is quite sick! I know the writers of Genesis generally display a lower opinion of females, but still, it’s his own daughters!
Compared to your average first person shooter game?
People liked lurid violent fantastic stories back then too–all people. Everywhere.
Yes, it’s absurd to say the people in the bible are all models of good behavior, but have most Christians and Jews really taken them as such?
If we’d read more mythology besides the bible, we’d realize how normal this all is. And how ridiculous it is to either take this all as a literal guide to living OR as proof that these people have nothing to teach.
Didn’t see this string coming, but looks like March is going to be just as interesting as February.
How do you respond to people who say form criticism has been debunked
Parts of it certainly have. It’s really no longer used. I discuss all this in my book Jesus Before the Gospels.
It is interesting that many Christians condem homosexuality and reference Leviticus 20:13 but back away from the dealth penalty for it. Bart – do you find this to be true of your students?
Never asked them! But I’m sure they do.
When was the first recorded incident in Jewish or Christian writings of someone being killed or threatened to be killed for expressing their homosexuality? I don’t recall any incident in the Bible that narrates an incident of this sort. I wonder to what extent this feature of the Jewish Law was ever put into practice. Rabbinic Judaism of later centuries were often very creative in their interpretation and implementation of the Jewish Law. Did those rabbis mandate the death penalty for homosexuality? Am I correct that all patristic Christian writers who commented on homosexuality, condemned it?
The point Siker is making is that homosexuality didn’t *exist* for these people. But if you’re referring to same-sex sexual acts (not the same as “homosexuality”!) no, there’s no instance of execution for it in the Bible. But yes, in Jewish law it is forbidden, and the church fathers agreed.
“The point Siker is making is that homosexuality didn’t *exist* for these people. ”
Please explain, was it that they didn’t hold the same views on sexuality especially homosexuality that we do today or it wasn’t important to them and why was it forbidden at all in Jewish law was it to set them apart from the broader ancient world?
They did not have any sense at all that people have a sexual “orientation.” They knew aobut same-sex sex acts, but not about “sexuality”
I’m only asking because people today myself included I think are confused about how to interpret the Bible VS knowledge of the world of the Bible and of ancient times especially when archeology comes into play.
The subject of homosexuality is important because how does one interpret chapter and verse condemning sexual acts when we know through archeology, artwork and literature that these acts were widely practiced and accepted or is that a stretch?
There’s an extended literature on this among biblical scholars. You might start with the collection of essays on Homosexuality and the Church by Jeff Siker (guest blogger!) and / or a book by Dale Martin: Sex and the Single Savior.
It’s a good question, and I wish I knew the answer. There’s certainly nothing in the Bible that narrates the killing of anyone for same-sex acts. There’s no real evidence of which I am aware that describes an actual case of punishment of same-sex relations in rabbinic tradition. The rabbis did have an interesting debate about whether same-sex relations between women was banned or not. Some rabbis said yes, while others said it wasn’t a sin because no semen was involved. Most modern legal codes included laws against sodomy. For example, laws against homosexual practice can be found in 18th and 19th century English common law (the crime of “buggery”). In 1895 the famous writer Oscar Wilde was convicted of sodomy and sent to prison for two years.
I find it very strange that there is no story in the Hebrew Bible about what would happen to an individual or individuals caught in a same sex act.
“Clergypersons.” Good Grief.
Sounds weird at first! But a lot of better language does, when we’re not used to it. The only option is to call women men, and that can’t be good!
“Clerics” is a good synonym although it doesn’t speak as to gender.
Yeah, that’s not bad!
Many people here have already commented on the story of Sodom, so I’ll just add that the traditional rabbinic (Talmudic) view is that the sin of Sodom was its ill-treatment of strangers, of which the attempt to rape the angels was one more example. Philo of Alexandria was one of the few commentators of that period to associate it with homosexuality, and he may have been influenced by the Hellenistic milieu he lived in.
Later rabbinic commentators, in the Middle Ages, did adopt the Christian position, probably because they were surrounded by Christians.
Philo was mistaken!
Here we go, again, slapping homosexuals with Leviticus. You want to slap homosexuality with Leviticus well, all of Christianity is slapped into a poisonous atheism with Leviticus as well.
Jesus and Paul and the gospel of John in the New Testament say, this is my blood, drink, this is my body, eat. Psalm 27: 7 says Hear, O LORD, my voice when I call; be merciful and answer me. What? The homosexual cannot call God, cannot ask and obtain mercy? You so-called African Christians are in ERROR. Psalm 28:8 My heart said, “Seek His face. Your face, O LORD, I will seek.” But Paul, Jesus, the author of the Gospel of John knew LEVITICUS 17: 10: Any Israelite or ANY alien living among them who eats any blood–I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. THAT is the poison of Christian Holy Communion. The Jews who had input into what the gospels and the letters of Paul would be KNEW the sacrament of Holy Communion would make Christians blocked from the God of the Old Testament. I would never again have that God try an exodus or try to deliver the Jews from the Romans: it would end militant belief in messiahs and revolution against Rome. Rome was afraid of the God of the Old Testament and by separating people from that God through Holy Communion, they had insurance that God had no life.
Jeremiah 19: 4-5. “For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods … they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. [Wasn’t Jesus supposed to be so innocent?] Verse 9: I, the Lord Almighty, will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters and they will eat one another’s flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.
Now, turn to Lamentations 4: 10. With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children who became their food when my people were destroyed.
Communion is a ritual of God turning his back on people, it is a ritual of defeat, and it is a virus to shut down the energy flow of face time with God.
You still want to slap people around with Leviticus? You still want to base your votes on Leviticus?
I”m not sure whom you’re referring to, as Leviticus-people-slappers. (Not Jeff Siker I assume!)
hope not!
I liked the way Harari put it in Homo Deus:
“Hence according to our best scientific knowledge, the Leviticus injunctions against homosexuality reflect nothing grander than the biases of a few priests and scholars in ancient Jerusalem. Though science cannot decide whether people ought to obey God’s commands, it has many relevant things to say about the provenance of the Bible. If Ugandan politicians think that the power that crated the cosmos, the galaxies and the black holes becomes terribly upset whenever two Homo sapiens males have a bit of fun together, then science can help disabuse them of this rather bizarre notion.”
Did it ever occur to you that homophobia was not invented by any one culture? Prejudice against gays exists in places where Christianity was never prevalent.
If there had been no Judaism, no Christianity, no Islam, there would still be homophobia. It might look quite different, but it would still be the same old human distrust of those who are different, and we’re all guilty of that.
I remember having heard a lecture where the speaker speculated on possible reasons (i.e. on the cultural background) why lying with a male as with a woman is called an abomination in Lev 18,22.
The first thought was that it might have been perceived as a betrayal of the patriarchal role of the man when he behaved like a woman.
And secondly, he suggested that the offense might have been taken in the waste of sperm involved. People didn’t know yet how abundant a male’s production of that treasure was and therefore feared that men could run out of it before the highly valued heirs were begotten and born.
Do these points sound plausible to you, Dr. Siker und Dr. Ehrman?
It’s more likely that the prohibition had something to do with practices that were perceived as idolatrous. The proximity of references to “Molech worship” in the Leviticus passages is suggestive in this regard.
There is a period when semen was perceived to carry that actual human being. A woman’s body simply allowed the already created human being to grow to a larger size. Therefore ejaculation could be seen as killing the person who was in the ejaculation. That can explain the Onan story.
We have to put ourselves into the minds of people thousands of years in the past. That is problem with assuming that Biblical text is divine and literal. That premise refuses to see the past as the past. Not unlike Faulkner’s description of the southerners not seeing the past not as dead or even as the past.
I tend to think that there is far too much emphasis put on whether the bible (OT or NT) “condemns” something (or not).
What if the wording were something like “thou shalt not engage in sexual acts with those of the same sex, because ‘this-and-that emotional-and-physical-health-related reason(s), and thus, would not be good for you”? Then, it wouldn’t be a matter of discussing (and agreeing or disagreeing) with a “moral” issue, but would be a matter of whether one agreed or disagreed with the (stated) health-related reasons.
Let’s take “theft”, as a “for instance”. One might say that theft is wrong “because God says so, and He condemns it”. Fine. But, what if the bible said “thou shalt not steal, because in doing so, you are potentially (or, in fact) causing harm to the owner of the object”, says God.
Would anybody have a problem with that? Yeh, some would, I’m sure. But hey, it takes all kinds…
My point is that people get so caught up in concerning themselves as to whether “God condemns” something or not, when in fact, we – just as humans – have all kinds of prohibitions on things which are not “wrong” just because somebody said so, but rather, because most everybody agrees that they are things that are bad for the human being. It’s kind of the reason we have laws to put warning labels on rat poison, that kind of thing.
More to the point, if the people who wrote these books–who hardly represented all Jews–are constantly referring to these behaviors among their own, that means these behaviors may not have been that rare. The gospels are enormously influential books, but at the time they were written, very few people had even heard of Jesus. The Old Testament books were similarly not best-sellers of their day (they probably weren’t selling at all, but were composed for a tiny select audience), and may not have become well known for centuries after they were first written–and their authors were likewise forgotten. The text takes on authority by virtue of being old, and people say it’s the word of God, because nobody can remember who actually wrote it.
After a while, all I can hear in these rants is “Those awful Jews! If it wasn’t for them, we’d have no sexual guilt or prejudice!”
Sheahright.
Jeff Siker:
Most scholars agree that Paul would have been aware of three same-sex practices found in pagan culture:
pederasty (an older man with a prepubescent boy),
prostitution (where a man sells himself to be the passive recipient in a same-sex act), and
slave prostitution (where a slave-owner rents out his slaves for sexual acts).
= = =
Dr. Ehrman,
That probably is incorrect. Paul, like more than 50% of the population back then, was aware of Alexander the Great and Hephaestion.
= = =
Pederasty also turned into adult living arrangements as in the following celebrated case.
Crates was the eromenos (adolescent boy who was courted by or in an erotic relationship with an older man) of Polemo. Crates was Polemo’s successor as scholarch of the Platonic Academy in 270/69 BC. The intimate friendship of Crates and Polemo was celebrated in antiquity.
Crates and Polemo lived together and not only shared the same pursuits in life but grew more alike to their last breath. Polemo and Crates took their meals together with another pair of co-habiting philosophers, Cantor and the brilliant young Arcesilaus, whose mind was to revitalize the Academy.
Antagoras’ epigram about Polemo and Crates in their joint tomb:
Stranger, who passest by, relate that here
The God-like Crates lies, and Polemo;
Two men of kindred nobleness of mind;
Out of whose holy mouths pure wisdom flowed,
And they with upright lives did well display,
The strength of all their principles and teaching.
or
Passing stranger, say that in this tomb rest godlike Crates and Polemo,
men magnanimous in concord, from whose inspired lips flowed sacred speech, and
whose pure life of wisdom, in accordance with unswerving tenets, decked them for a bright immortality.
I’m not sure how you justify your claim that over 50% of the Jewish population knew all this. And that’s what we’re talking about here. Paul was the son of a Pharisee, and it’s far from clear he ever read much in the way of pagan literature.
Paul is offended by relationships that are based entirely around sexual satisfaction. I don’t know that he’d be offended by what we sometimes call ‘Platonic friendships’ between men, which is literally what we’re talking about with regards to Crates and Polemo (though these days, we’d be taking a somewhat dimmer view of that relationship, wouldn’t you say?)
Paul is concerned with people losing themselves in debauchery and exploiting other people sexually. That is a legitimate concern, then and now. It can, like all things, be taken to excess, and used to delegitimize relationships that are mutually beneficial. But then as now, when one partner has all the power, the relationship is inherently exploitative and unequal. And therefore, as Paul sees it, unChristian. We shouldn’t be using each other that way.
If Paul did know that story, he might have felt it was leaving out some pretty crucial details. But in the Greco-Roman world, it was normal for older men of means to take boys as their lovers, and help them along in exchange for sexual favors.
Some may be nostalgic for that (self-evidently, many are). But these days, even most people who aren’t religious are seeing the darker side of it. It’s no less unsavory when it’s between two of the same sex.
I certainly wouldn’t rule out Cardinal McCarrick, a very well-educated man, being familiar with the story. We all have a tendency to gloss over the exploitative side of relationships that make us feel good about ourselves.
Paul may not have been guiltless of this himself. There’s a story about him and a slave–but that, like so many other stories, can be read in different ways.
🙁
godspell
I’m not sure how you justify your claim that over 50% of the Jewish population knew all this.
Steefen
That is not my claim. My claim is: Paul, like more than 50% of the population back then, was aware of Alexander the Great and Hephaestion. Paul, a Jew and a Roman citizen, like more than 50% of the population in the Roman Empire knew about Alexander the Great and Hephaestion. This is part of the Hellenization the Jewish population was against, think Maccabees against Hellenization.
godspell
And that’s what we’re talking about here.
Steefen
You are in error. Paul’s statement against homosexuality is found in Romans. Besides, Paul wants to give his message to the Gentiles. We are talking about the questionable assertion that same sex relations made people think of only pederasty and prostitution when they could have thought of the two consenting adults Alexander the Great and Hephaestion.
godspell
Paul was the son of a Pharisee, and it’s far from clear he ever read much in the way of pagan literature.
Steefen
You are in error.
Bruce Bryant-Scott, Assistant Chaplain, Diocese in Europe at Church of England
Updated Apr 14, 2017/Quora
Definitely, Paul spoke Greek. Since he wrote his letters in Greek, he probably spoke it as well, eh? His written Greek is pretty good, and he demonstrates a knowledge of Greek rhetoric (of which we moderns tend to be completely oblivious). Also, when Paul quotes scripture, he does so from the Greek translation of the Septuagint (although he doesn’t always get it word perfect, because he was relying on memory, or he may have known variant versions). He comes from Tarsus in Cilicia (now southern Turkey, on the Mediterranean), which was a very Hellenized city.
It is quite clear that Paul, Roman citizen, who can appeal to the Roman emperor, did read, speak, and write Greek.
Paul was quite versed in the pagan epic, The Aeneid. Romans was Paul’s Aeneid where Jesus Christ replaces Augustus Caesar as the true son of God and Lord. That IS part of Paul’s message to the Gentiles: you don’t want to worship Augustus Caesar (despite Herod the Great building a temple to him), you want to worship Jesus on par with Augustus, Divus Filius, a Jesus who is a superior Son of God. For your edification, see The Gospel of God: Romans as Paul’s Aeneid by David R. Wallace | Mar 30, 2015.
None of this is proof Paul read a lot of pagan Greek literature. Alexander the Great, a conqueror who killed untold numbers of people in his quest for a universal empire (that ended as a collection of separate kingdoms where siblings married each other to keep it in the family) would not have been a hero to Paul, and interpretations of Alexander’s life and relationships are necessarily unreliable, since we know very little about him personally, and there are no surviving intact firsthand accounts of him (why does that sound familiar?)
Question–would Alexander believe in gay marriage?
He needed heirs to inherit his conquests. No indication that he, like some Roman Emperors, would have been content with adopting someone as his heir–in his culture, the culture he inherited from his natural father, Philip, you have to leave sons behind you to carry on. He married three women–no men. He may well have been what we now call gay, or perhaps bisexual, but sex in all its forms was clearly secondary to his true passion, which was military conquest. And sex is just sex. Marriage, to him, and to everyone at that time, was about passing on your genes and your property.
He could take a male lover whenever he wished–and discard him just as easily. Close sexual friendships between men he would have regarded sympathetically, to be sure. But isn’t that just what we call civil unions now? Not even that, really. Why didn’t gay people accept that?
Because the idea of marriage changed, and today, civil unions would have had the stench of ‘separate but equal’ around them. But try to imagine explaining any of this to Paul OR Alexander.
Paul regards all this with disdain–not just men having sex with other men. The whole of it. This is not what life is for. Life is a proving ground for the Kingdom, where there shall be no progeny, no property. If you can’t do without sex, then of course marry, have children, but this is a compromise. The ideal is celibacy.
I don’t have to agree with either POV to understand them. Paul’s rejection of the flesh, his assumption that love and desire are inherently incompatible, is not something I agree with, but I do understand the motivations behind it, the disgust with the way many if not most people conduct their affairs.
Paul has certainly helped along some prejudices in the modern world (a world he could not possibly have anticipated). But don’t we have far more problems with the wannabe Alexanders in this world? Are they really an ideal to aspire to?
godspell
None of this is proof Paul read a lot of pagan Greek literature.
Steefen
You have provided no argument to back up your claim, so my claim stands unopposed.
godspell
Paul regards all this with disdain–not just men having sex with other men. The whole of it. This is not what life is for. Life is a proving ground for the Kingdom, where there shall be no progeny, no property. If you can’t do without sex, then of course marry, have children, but this is a compromise. The ideal is celibacy.
Steefen
Paul is not an authority on what life is for. Paul rejected Judaism. The Biblical Jesus did not reject Judaism. Paul wanted people to remember Jesus in a sacrament of Holy Communion that turns God’s face away from people because Leviticus says drink blood and I will turn my face away from you; and, drinking blood is not how you get the blood of another person into your body, that is what blood transfusions are for. Paul is not an authority on what life is for and he is not an authority on how life works.
You’re the one who made a claim that Paul was well-versed in pagan epics. We know almost nothing about Paul’s reading habits, or his education. All we have of him is a few letters, and I don’t remember any reading lists in there.
I fully agree he’s not an authority on what life is for–there is no such authority. But he has opinions, and so do you, and so does everyone. His opinions are important because he helped found a major religion that is so influential to this day that you spend a great deal of your own life attacking it.
I disagree with Paul on any number of things, but the point of history is not agreement or disagreement, so much as understanding what it is you’re agreeing or disagreeing with.
I don’t think you do.
Outside of any modern Biblical interpretation we might have, speaking broadly what was the ancient worlds view of sex more importantly homosexuality, correct me if I’m wrong but I’ve always believed and from what I’ve read people in ancient times didn’t care, it wasn’t important or they didn’t hold the same views on sexuality that we do today especially in Greek and Roman times.
I wouldn’t say “they” didn’t care — some cared a lot. But never for reasons people today do, just as people today have reasons that no one in antiquity did (when they had none of our institutions of non-marital love or our understandings of sexuality/orientation)
Dear Bart,
Why does Leviticus 18:22 condemn same sex acts between males only? If it were condemning homosexual acts in general, one would think it would be explicitly forbidden for both genders as it is with beastiality in vs 23, literally next verse over. How is this explained in academia?
Usually it’s explained by saying that these texts were almost exclusively concerned about males; females came into the picture only when the males were involved. (E.g., adultery was almost exclusively about stealing someone else’s *wife*. Notice in the ten commandments ,you are not supposed to covet your neighbor’s house, donkey, or wife! That’s where the women appear to rank for this author….)
Are you saying that it’s explained that the author was not concerned at all about same sex acts between women? That he thought it was a none issue? I’m not arguing I just trying to understand it. Thanks
I suppose so. In highly patriarchal societies, men tend to be concerned about women only insofar as they affect the men.
That makes sense. Female- female sex aren’t mentioned in vs 22 because it’s irrelevant to how men operate (I assume is what your saying). That raises another question, though. Does Leviticus 18:23 ban female- beast sex because it affects men somehow (if it does, how so) or do you suppose some other reason? Or is the passage too ambiguous to tell?
The reason why I ask is because I was a baptized Jehovah’s Witness, but I walked away from it realizing that it wasn’t “the Truth”. Now I’m reevaluating everything I thought I knew.
Thank you for taking your time in answering my questions.
A similar story is also related in the Quran:
Said [Lot]: “O my people! [Take instead] these daughters of mine: they are purer for you [than men]! Be, then, conscious of God, and disgrace me not by [assaulting] my guests. Is there not among you even one right-minded man?” They answered: “Thou hast always known that we have no use whatever for thy daughters; and, verily, well dost thou know what we want!” Exclaimed [Lot]: “Would that I had the strength to defeat you, or that I could lean upon some mightier support!” (11:78-80) [But the angels spoke thus:] “As thou livest, [O Lot, they will not listen to thee:] behold, in their delirium [of lust] they are but blindly stumbling to and fro!”(15:72)
Lot’s words about his daughters should not be taken literally. He was merely stressing the norm. Lot knew that the men of Sodom are not going to have sex with the two daughters.
There are still churches that preach LGBTQ people are broken and can be cured. City on a Hill church in Australia is part of the Anglican Communion and preaches this disturbing message against all mainstream medical advice!
An unrelated question Bart: are there any Muslim New Testament scholars out there?
Now *that’s* a great question. I can’t think of any off hand.
I have been reading three different commentaries on the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV) says that uncontrolled homosexual lust is referred to. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) says that rape and the lack of hospitality are the main issues. The Jewish Study Bible commentary makes a reference to homosexual conduct and hospitality. How do you explain these different interpretations on the same story Bart?
I think the problem must be hospitality. Raping the virgin girls was not a problem, so the problem appears not to be about illicit sexual activity, but about sexually abusing the strangers that Lot had brought into his house.
I think the homosexual reference in two of the three commentaries is highly problematic and potentially biased.
This one just came out a few days ago and sadly the author arguing against it does not do a due diligence in cross checking the historical context and deep diving into the original greek used in early manuscripts. It’s sad to see how the Bible can be use to make claims to substantiate one’s bias.
Woke Pastor Zach Lambert Endorses Homosexuality for Christians, Then Bible-Citing Fact-Check Tears Him to Pieces
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/love-sex/woke-pastor-zach-lambert-endorses-homosexuality-for-christians-then-bible-citing-fact-check-tears-him-to-pieces/ar-AA1mHhc6?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=f40ac0d6db334f1ed21825bf420abcf8&ei=8
I haven’t read Lambert’s piece but I will say that the interpretive issues for many of the relevant texts are highly complicated and not as obvious as they seem from simply reading them in English translations.
Thank you Dr. Bart for your response. Another piece I found interesting is this article from Ed Oxford where he looks at how the greek word arsenokoitai was translated and abused in so many translations in order to present something that was not the original intent of Paul and I agree. These texts are highly complicated which adds to the pain we see today with certain factions within Christendom in denigrating, condemning and harming people due to their sexual orientation.
https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27