Paul's View of Homosexuality

It is a simple truth that whatever contemporary beliefs we hold to be true we try to read into texts that we value. As Americans we take our sexuality very seriously, perhaps more so now that we face puzzling and fundamental questions about the nature of gender identity. To answer these questions we naturally turn to sources of authority, such as the Bible, to see how said authorities pertain to the present quandary. In light of the recent considerations on the confusing nature of homosexuality many have turned to the Bible for answers. The debate over the Bible’s stance on homosexuality hinges on only a handful of verses in both the Old and New Testaments; the latter’s content attributed to Paul of Tarsus. The debate is mostly one of translation due to the puzzling words that Paul uses to either condemn all homosexuality or only certain homosexual relationships. Of course, those who defend the homosexual lifestyle accuse their opponents of reading homophobia into Paul, and those who attack the homosexual lifestyle accuse their opponents of reading their own desires into Paul in order to feel justified. However, by taking a close look at Paul’s understanding of his times and of his Old Testament heritage, we might be able to see how Paul would have wanted to be understood the few times he addresses the topic.

One of the first things we should note is Paul’s understanding of himself. In his letter to the Philippians he writes: “If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless (Philippians 3:4-6, NIV).” Paul asserts that he, of all people, knows what it means to be a Jew of Jews. Not only was he circumcised in keeping with the covenant, but he also pursued righteousness and holiness in his life which is indicated in his self-identity as a Pharisee of the strictest sect.[1] It is particularly important to remember this given how pagan ideas had significantly compromised the Judaism of the day,[2] or at least in the minds of particularly “religious” people. Since Paul ministered to Jews and Greeks, mostly in Greek cities under Roman jurisdiction, we already see that multiculturalism had a significant role to play in the compromising of Jewish faith. Rubbing elbows on a continual basis with gentiles could harden a Jew’s heart towards God as happened following the conquest of Israel (1 Kings 14:24, Ezra 9:1). Given his devotion to the Torah and personal holiness, we can easily assert that Paul was someone who took the Hebrew Bible both seriously and literally. That is to say Paul would not have dismissed any part of the Hebrew Bible, particularly not what we call Leviticus. He also would have had a strong understanding of the discernment between the moral and holiness laws as recorded in the Torah. Whatever the Hebrew Bible has to say concerning homosexuality would be in the back of Paul’s mind whenever he wrote on the issue. In order to understand Paul’s theological stance on homosexuality we must understand the Old Testament’s view.

As Davis notes, the creation story in the first two chapters of Genesis “is the background of all correct sexual relationships.”[3] In Eden, where mankind was right before God and dwelled with His unmediated presence, sexuality is entirely heterosexual. Closeness to God indicates a right ordering of one’s life. In Eden, where humanity was the closest to God that it has ever been, the lives of human creatures were perfectly ordered. Calvin, commenting on the seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians remarks that marriage leads to avoiding fornication, presumably because in (heterosexual) marriage one is obeying the natural law God has set down for the created order and is therefore, in some sense, moving closer to God and a right ordering of relationships.[4] This also helps us to understand why Sodom’s alleged homosexuality is not mentioned in Ezekiel. When the prophet compared the Israelites to Sodom he said, “'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen (Ezek. 16:49-50).’” The prophet makes references to selfishness, gluttony and “detestable things.” Given that closeness to God brings a right order to one’s life, distance from God brings moral disorder. We can therefore understand that Sodom was punished for homosexuality as well as the list Ezekiel provides, assuming that homosexuality is not included under “Detestable things.”

Sodom and Gomorrah stand in sharp contrast to the right ordering of sexuality found in Eden. The evil that Sodom and Gomorrah performed to warrant God’s justice has become disputed amongst scholars. We must be careful not only to correctly understand it for ourselves, but to see if how we and Paul understand it is the same. Davis refers back to the historians Philo and Josephus to remind us that, historically speaking, homosexuality numbered among the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah.[5] The historical understanding has since come under criticism. Critics argue that the Sodomites were not engaging in homosexual behavior so much as inhospitable behavior. One such critic is Arthur Ide who asserts that the people of Sodom were, at first, angry over Lot’s visitors’ failure to follow correct protocol for entrance into the city which, evidently, includes announcing one’s self and purpose at the city gates in order that the citizens could discern whether or not the visitors were a threat.[6] When the Sodomites get wind of this, they arrive at Lot’s house to question him as to the nature of his visitors. This particular point of the controversy revolves around how we are to understand the Hebrew verb yadha, “to know.” Ide asserts that the word yadha appears in the Hebrew several times, and it usually lacks any sexual connotation.[7] Accordingly, when Lot urges the Sodomites to not do “this wicked thing (Genesis 19:7),” he is urging them not to violate the hospitality he has shown to the visitors, rather than attempting to dissuade them from homosexual desires.[8] Interestingly enough, Ide does not challenge the traditional understanding of Lot’s gesture of his two young daughters for the Sodomites’ sexual gratification but merely asserts that Lot’s gesture is to be expected given the often abusive relationship between children and adults in the ancient world.[9] The jump from a possible breach of inhospitality to offering one’s daughters as a gift of sexual gratification is simply an unjustified leap given the context.

Bahnsen agrees that the use of the word yadha is not normally used to refer to homosexual coitus; rather the Hebrew word shakhabh is used.[10] However, Lot is alarmed at his visitors’ desire to sleep at a public place, he characterizes the Sodomites’ desire to know his visitors as wickedness, and he offers his daughters whom he mentions have “not known anyone (Gen 19:8, Young’s Literal Translation).” The fact that Lot mentions his daughters are virgins sets a strong sexual context to this entire passage that we cannot readily dismiss as being irrelevant. This detail lets us know that yadha, in this passage refers to the sexual desire of the Sodomites.

A similar situation occurs with a Levite and his prostitute as documented in the nineteenth chapter of Judges. The people of Gibeah demand that a visiting Levite be taken outside his host’s home in order to know, yadha, (v. 19, NIV, “so we can have sex with) him. When the Levite’s concubine is offered instead, the men take and use her to satisfy their lusts (Judges 19:25). The sexual intercourse that takes place marks this as an attempt on the crowd’s part to engage in sodomy. As Davis notes, the crowd is called bene beliyya’al or “sons of wickedness,” which “denotes… ‘human beings who act in disregard of all laws, whether human or divine.’”[11] The narrative accounts of homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible are clearly understood as sinful deeds.

The books of the law also speak to the nature of homosexuality. Moses writes in the book of Leviticus "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable (Lev 18:22),’” and "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads (Lev 20:13).’” Critics forward the argument that Leviticus does not decry homosexual relationships as such, but rather forbids homosexuality as “participation in heathen religious practices.”[12]

This criticism is given some weight due to the use of the Hebrew word for “abomination” used in both Leviticus and in decrying Israel’s falling into homosexual cultic practices like their Canaanite neighbors (1 Kings 14:24, Young’s Literal Translation) as noted by DeYoung.[13] Furthermore, the greater context of Leviticus seems to suggest this as well, given that, according to DeYoung, the first seventeen chapters of Leviticus are concerned with holiness laws, chapter eighteen introduces a brief comment on moral law, and the book then returns to holiness regulations.[14] It seems strange to have only one chapter in a string of chapters suddenly change topics and then revert back to the previous topic. Therefore, it is argued that homosexuality in Leviticus is only to be understood as cultic homosexuality. However, as convenient as it may seem for the eighteenth chapter to suddenly switch to moral law for those who oppose the homosexual lifestyle, we cannot ignore that in the same chapter, the author summarizes the previous taboos as sin and not ritual uncleanliness: “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants (Lev 18:24-25, emphasis added).” Clearly, the defilement spoken of in chapter eighteen is one of moral ugliness and not a failure to keep the holiness laws. Nor was this moral law a light matter. As Bahnsen writes, “The fact that homosexuality carried the dealth penalty in Israel places it in the sphere of other moral offences punished by a Jewish magistrate, not the sphere of temporary ceremonial legislation.”[15]

Since the warning against homosexuality is a moral law it would therefore pertain to all modes of homosexual conduct and not just acts associated with idolatry. Peterson defends this broader Leviticus definition of homosexuality by noting that the word used in Genesis 1:27 for the creation of man, zakar, is the same as used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:33.[16] By using the word zakar, Peterson asserts that the author has in mind a very broad, generic sense of the word “man,” not just a temple prostitute, and therefore Leviticus outlaws male homosexuality regardless of its cultic or secular context. In light of the basis of heterosexuality in God’s act of creating humanity, homosexuality, writes Sawyer, not only threatens proper sexual and cultic boundaries but also the structure of the family as well[17] because the heterosexual husband and wife are the basis of the family. The homosexuality that the Hebrew Bible condemns, as a whole, is not just the act but also the desire. The desires in someone’s heart were also judged as sins in the Hebrew Bible (Proverbs 6:16-18; Zech. 7:10, 8:17), and Jesus called the people to remember this high moral standard (Matthew 5:27-29).

In light of all this, we can say that Paul holds only heterosexual marriage as ordained in the created nature of men and women. He would have viewed the sins of the Sodomites and the people of Gibeah as the same “abomination” as is decried in Leviticus, whether the desire be acted upon or not. Homosexuality was not merely a harmless relationship of people who happened to be of the same gender and who loved each other, but it was a violation of God’s covenant with Israel and, therefore, never harmless.[18] Nor would Paul have dismissed homosexuality with the holiness laws as no longer applicable[19], in light of Christ’s death, because the law against homosexuality was moral and not ritualistic in nature as we have already seen. The debate concerning Paul’s own writings is much like the debate in the Hebrew Bible: in what context, if any, are homosexual relationships permissible?

Some have said that Paul was only decrying certain abusive homosexual relationships, such as is found in the pederast relationships between some Greek teachers and students.[20] Teachers, since they provided a service for young male students, often used their students to appease their sexual appetites.[21] Very often a teacher would cast a student aside as he grew older and take a younger student for his pleasure.[22] In order to avoid this, younger students would sometimes affect more effeminate behavior in order to prevent themselves from being cast aside.[23] Other critics have claimed that homosexuality is only a sin if the one who engages in it is not naturally a homosexual and is therefore acting in a fashion “unnatural” to one’s self.[24] Both of these dilemmas can be answered by looking at the book of Romans.

Paul writes in his letter to the Romans that,

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.... Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity (Romans 1:24-29, NIV).

In response to the first criticism, that Paul was only decrying pederasty, Swartley notes that “If Paul was only decrying pederasty, then he would have used the word ‘paiderastes.’”[25] Paul knew enough koine Greek to be specific enough concerning sin that if pederasty had been his main or only complaint, he would have simply used the appropriate word.[26] The fact that he doesn’t means, obviously, that he means something much more broadly than mere pederasty. He is addressing homosexuality as a whole which we can know because, as Swartley notes, Paul is also objecting to lesbian practices.[27] As to whether or not Paul is arguing against those who engage in homosexual acts but who themselves are not homosexual, as Helminiak mentions,[28] we must study Paul’s use of the Greek. The “natural relations” (kata physin) that Paul mentions are exchanged for relations that are “contrary to nature,” (para physin)[29] or, literally, “beyond nature.”[30] However, we see that Helminiak does not take Paul’s perspectives on Leviticus into account.

First and foremost, Leviticus says nothing about people being true to their own nature. This is a contemporary conceit that Helminiak is reading into the text. In this passage from Romans Paul says that the people “exchanged the truth of God for a lie,” which reveals that, to Paul, there is only one truth – and that is God’s. Their homosexual acts reveal that they have rejected God,[31] and rejecting God, idolatry, is the primary sin in Jewish thinking and Paul’s.[32] It is a “gateway” sin that allows for anything else to follow, including homosexuality.

A third criticism of Paul is that neither he, nor the ancient world, knew of consenting, loving homosexual relationships. Therefore the only type of homosexual relationship that Paul could conceivably be condemning is the pederast or one that is “untrue to one’s inner nature;” abusive relationships that do not engage the heart or conscience. Yet, as DeYoung documents, the ancient world did have an idea of just such a relationship as it is discussed in Plato’s Symposium.[33] Therefore, Paul is not only concerned with discussing the outward demonstration of homosexual desire, whether it be abusive or loving, but also the inner desire of the heart.[34]

The final criticism of Paul is aimed at his use of the words malakoi and arsenokoites in the sixth chapter of 1 Corinthians. Paul writes, “Have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? Be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), nor sodomites (arsenokoites), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit (1 Corinthians 9:9-10, Young’s Literal Translation).” The problem, according to Martin, is that neither malakoi nor arsenokoites are words that occur with any degree of frequency in the Biblical text and editors and translators may have taken too many liberties in translating them as “effeminate,” “sodomites,” or, as the NIV respectively translates them, “male prostitutes” and “homosexual offenders.”[35] Arsenokoites, Martin notes, is not listed with adultery, prostitution or illicit sex but with the exploitation of the poor and social injustice.[36] Therefore, he asserts, the most we can say is that arsenokoites has something to do with sexual exploitation involving money due to the word’s proximity to “thieves” and “covetous.” Malakos is even more difficult, says Martin, because it is a word with a broad range of usage.[37] It literally translates as “soft”[38] or “the soft ones,”[39] Its meaning could range from the “softness of expensive clothes and gourmet food” to a softness of character such as being lazy or spoiled or to a man who is penetrated and is therefore soft like a woman.[40] However, the word commonly used for a submissive male in a homosexual relationship is kinaedos, which is not used here.[41] Its meaning is also hazy at best. While it could mean a penetrated man there is no guarantee from either the word nor its being listed alongside thievery and covetousness. “All penetrated men were malakoi,” Martin writes, “but not all malakoi were penetrated men.”[42]

DeYoung suggests that Paul, when he uses these words, is attempting to present as broad a picture possible of what homosexual behavior is unacceptable.[43] For fear of using a word that is too broad such as porneia, or too narrow such as pederiastes, Paul creates a compound word with arson and koites in order to indicate any man who sleeps with another man.[44] De Young goes on to explain that the Greeks were quite skilled at making new compound words to describe those things for which their language might prove insufficient and that Paul’s use of it is merely indicative of his understanding of the Greek language used in his day.[45] Furthermore, given the reputation of Corinth in the ancient world, Paul was probably familiar with all manner of homosexual relationships, even those that we would consider long-term, monogamous and loving.[46] The problem is that, in coining this phrase, Paul is painting homosexuality with a broad brush in order to show that he himself does not differentiate and, despite what his critics today might wish, regards them all as equally misguided.

Given that our day is one of political correctness we are exposed to countless ideas that we either try to support or disprove. A key issue in supporting one’s stance on any issue is finding an authority that also supports one’s issue. Many have turned to the Bible in order to point out that God approves of monogamous homosexual relationships so long as they are loving. However, as we have seen in the Old and New Testaments, there is no ultimate support for the homosexual lifestyle forthcoming from scripture. While it is only rarely mentioned the Bible’s stance is internally coherent and quite clear: God does not find homosexuality acceptable. Paul clearly bases his views on homosexuality within the Hebrew Bible and understands them as a moral law that is still in effect, not a holiness law concerning temple practices that can be dismissed in light of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. His views are in line with both Testaments of the Bible. What we should remember is that a homosexual faces sexual struggles just as often as a heterosexual person does, and that both need the grace of God.[47] While homosexuality is a sin, and while Paul is quite harsh in condemning sin at times, he also recognizes that all sinners, whether homosexual, sexually immoral, or something else, need not persist in their sin because of the grace God has extended to us (1 Timothy 1:15).

Bibliography

Bahnsen, Greg L. Homosexuality: A Biblical View. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1978.

The Bible, New International Version and Young’s Literal Translation.

Calvin, John. Romans. Calvin’s Commentaries xx. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003.

Davis, John Jefferson. Evangelical Ethics. Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2004.

DeYoung, James B. Homosexuality. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2000.

Helminiak, Daniel A. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. San Francisco, CA: Alamo Square Press, 1994.

Ide, Arthur Frederick. The City of Sodom. Dallas, TX: Monument Press, 1985.

Martin, Dale B. “Arsenokoites and Malakos; Meanings and Conesequences.” Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality. Edited by Brawley, Robert L. Westminster, KY: John Knox Pres, 1996.

McLaren, Brian D. and Tony Campolo. Adventures in Missing the Point. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.

Rogers, Jack. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality. Westminster, KY: John Knox Pres, 2006.

Sawyer, Deborah. God, Gender, and the Bible. London, England: Routledge 2002.

Seventh Oak Hill College Annual School of Theology; Peterson, David ed. Holiness & Sexuality. Paternoster Press, 2004.

Swartley, William M. Homosexuality: Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2003.

Toews, John E. Romans. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2004.

Wright, N.T. What Saint Paul Really Said. Grand Rapids, MI: Lion Publishing, 1997.

---

[1] N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids, MI: Lion Publishing, 1997), 25-26.

[2] Ibid.

[3] John Jefferson David, Evangelical Ethics (Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2004), 121.

[4] John Calvin, Romans. Calvin’s Commentaries xx (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 222.

[5] Ibid., 122.

[6] Arthur Frederick Ide, The City of Sodom (Dallas, TX: Monument Press, 1985), 40.

[7] Ibid., 41-42.

[8] Ibid., 42-43.

[9] Ibid., 44.

[10] Greg L. Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1978), 32.

[11] Davis, 125.

[12] Bahnsen, 41.

[13] James B DeYoung, Homosexuality (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2000), 42.

[14] Ibid., 52.

[15] Bahnsen, 39.

[16] Seventh Oak Hill College Annual School of Theology; David Peterson, ed; Holiness & Sexuality. (Paternoster Press, 2004), 7.

[17] Deborah Sawyer, God, Gender, and the Bible (London, England: Routledge 2002), 34.

[18] Bahnsen, 37.

[19] Ibid., 38.

[20] Brian D. McLaren and Tony Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 205.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Daniel A. Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (San Francisco, CA: Alamo Square Press, 1994), 64.

[25] William M. Swartley, Homosexuality: Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2003), 58.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Helminiak, 64.

[29] John E. Toews, Romans. Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2004), 384.

[30] Swartley, 51.

[31] Toews, 384.

[32] Swartley, 53.

[33] DeYoung, 191.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Dale B. Martin, “Arsenokoites and Malakos; Meanings and Conesequences.” Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality (Westminster, KY: John Knox Pres, 1996), 120-124.

[36] Ibid., 120.

[37] Ibid., 124.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Swartley, 67.

[40] Martin, 124.

[41] Ibid., 125.

[42] Ibid.

[43] DeYoung, 198.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid., 199.

[46] Swartley, 70.

[47] Jack Rogers, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality (Westminster, KY: John Knox Pres, 2006), 82.