Posts

Looking at Scripture in Fresh Ways

/0 Comments/in /by

I begin with two assumptions that are not directly found in Scripture, but which frame the way the church approaches Scripture on this issue.  The first assumption is that there are gay and lesbian Christians in committed relationships who show evidence of the fruit of the Spirit in their lives (Gal 5:22f.).  I do not intend, by making this claim, to declare that the conversation is over, and there is nothing remaining to speak of in Scripture.  Rather, I make this claim to suggest that the church has a problem and a challenge in dealing with the Bible’s witness regarding same-sex relationships. 

The second assumption I want to make is that, over the last 30 years or so, the church has made intense efforts toward “reparative therapy,” trying to change the sexual orientation of gay and lesbian Christians into a heterosexual orientation.  What the church has learned over this time is that, despite the prayerful and sincere attempts of thousands of gay and lesbian Christians to pursue this goal, in the vast majority of instances, the Spirit has not brought about that sort of change to heterosexual desire in those who sought it.  Now again, this does not settle the question.  Resistance to change does not inherently justify the behavior that resists that change.  But neither is the failure of reparative therapy irrelevant to this discussion.  And I want simply to underscore, at this point, the pastoral complexity that this failure of reparative therapy creates for the church, and the accompanying need to look more carefully at texts.

This poses an important question for the church:  How should this tangible evidence of the Spirit’s work shape the way in which we interpret the Bible on sexuality in general, and on the church’s posture toward LGBT persons in particular?  I introduce this frame of reference for a particular reason:  unless we acknowledge the pastoral complexity of this issue, we may be tempted to read the Bible in a superficial way, and not delve to core principles and issues.  This need to delve to deeper issues was certainly present in the early church.  It was the evident fruit of the Spirit, and the reality of the Spirit’s work in Gentiles that led the early church to set aside the seemingly obvious application of Old Testament laws concerning kosher eating, circumcision, and Sabbath observance for Gentile Christian converts (cf. Acts 11:15-17, Gal. 3).  In other words, it is the apparent work of the Spirit that sends us back to the Bible, to read more carefully, to delve more deeply into its witness, and to center our reading of the Bible more fully on the heart of the gospel.  We do this not because experience trumps Scripture, but rather because experience often raises new questions that bring us back to the Bible with fresh eyes and fresh concerns.  This was true in the early church, and it remains true today.

So how do we do that?  How do we read the Bible more deeply?  As I have argued in my book, we need to probe the “moral logic” of the commands and prohibitions of Scripture, asking not only what they say, but also why they say what they do.  This understanding of why the texts make the claims that they do gives us the wisdom to know how to apply them in complex or varied cultural contexts.  This is not a controversial claim; in fact the church has deployed just such an approach to many issues, including the sixth commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” particularly in its application to just-war theory, as well as more mundane commandments like the exhortation “Greet one another with a holy kiss,” (Rom 16:16, 1 Cor 16:20, 2 Cor 13:12, 1 Thess. 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14).  When we know why the Bible gives these instructions, we know how to apply them more cogently in complex or cross-cultural circumstances.

And so we turn more directly to the biblical text.  I want to focus specifically on Romans 1:24-27, since almost everyone agrees that this is the clearest and most important text on this question.  Everyone agrees that Paul views very negatively the same-sex behavior he describes in these verses.  This behavior is presented as evidence of humanity’s idolatry and alienation from God.  The dispute arises over why Paul views this behavior as wrong, what sort of behavior he has in view, and whether his discussion also applies to long-term, committed same-sex relationships today. 

I propose that we address this problem by looking as carefully as we can at the actual language that Paul uses in Romans 1.  This, I would argue, is the most reliable way for us to understand the moral logic that Paul is using in this text. 

Paul first categorizes this behavior as lustful.  Rom 1:24 speaks of the “lusts of their hearts.”  Rom 1:26 speaks of “degrading passions,” and Rom 1:27 speaks of how these perpetrators were “consumed with passion.”  Paul is not speaking here only of misdirected desire, but of excessive desire.  As I argue in the chapter on lust in my book, Jewish and Christian writers (including Paul) held to a particular theory about same-sex desire—that it was driven by excessive lust, by an insatiable appetite for increasingly exotic forms of stimulation. [e.g. Philo, de Abraham, scroll to section XXVI, paragraphs 133-136]

This raises a question, then, of the applicability of this sort of logic to committed gay and lesbian unions today.  Most gay and lesbian Christians do not “leave behind” ordinary desire for those of the opposite sex as Rom 1:27 assumes; they never experienced such desire to begin with.  So while Paul appears to be speaking of those with an insatiable desire for the exotic, not content with heterosexual gratification; that analysis doesn’t seem to fit the experience of gay and lesbians in committed relationships.  We can all agree that any sort of sexual desire driven only by a thirst for the exotic is morally wrong.  What remains questionable is whether all gay and lesbian relationships should be described this way, whether all such relationships are necessarily “consumed with passion.”

Paul also refers to the same-sex behavior he describes in these verses as “impurity” (Rom 1:24).   Paul frequently refers to sexual misbehavior as “impurity” (e.g. 2 Cor 12:21, Gal 5:19).  But this language also needs to be viewed in the larger context of the New Testament’s treatment of the categories of pure/impure and clean/unclean generally.  In particular, Jesus takes a remarkably loose attitude to the Levitical standards of purity and impurity.  He touches lepers, allows a menstruating woman to touch him, eats with tax collectors and sinners, and dies in a way that is, Paul reminds us, explicitly cursed by God (Gal 3:13-14, cf. Deut. 21:23).  But perhaps the most striking text reflecting this larger approach to purity comes from Paul himself in Rom 14:14, where Paul defines purity and impurity solely by one’s internal disposition, not by external criteria.  This raises the pressing question:  How is one to relate this quote to the passage from Rom 1?

What we see overall in the New Testament is a movement away from defining impurity externally by the law, to an approach that defines it internally, by whether or not behaviors are marked by selfishness and the absence of restraint.  Paul clearly views the sexual behavior he describes in Romans 1 as “impurity” (as do other Jewish and Christian writers of the period) in this fuller and more nuanced way, as marked by selfishness and absence of restraint.  But again, we confront the difficulty in applying Paul’s language in Romans 1 to contemporary committed gay and lesbian unions, where folks commit themselves to each other “for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish until we are parted by death.”  Such commitments hardly seem to be characterized by selfishness and lack of restraint—indeed such vows entail the acceptance of substantial commitments and limitations for life!

Paul also characterizes the same-sex behavior he envisions in Romans 1 as “shameful,” “degrading,” or “shameless” (Rom 1:24, 26, 27).  This is the language of honor and shame, which was very common in the ancient world.  The ancient world in which the New Testament was written was a culture which anthropologists characterize as an “honor-shame culture.” In these cultures, sensitivity to the dynamics of honor and shame is one of the centrally defining values that shapes all social interactions.  “Honor” represents a claim to worth or value, along with the social acknowledgement of that worth or value.  A critical piece of any honor-shame culture is what anthropologists call the “public court of reputation.”  Honor depends radically on what other people think of you.  Honor and shame are thus not absolute values, but are deeply contextual.  You have honor if people honor you; you have shame if they shame you. It’s as simple as that.

All human cultures reflect these dynamics to some extent, but honor-shame cultures are those cultures in which these concerns tend to dominate everyday interaction.  It’s also important to understand the role of gender in particular in honor-shame cultures.  Public competition for honor happens mainly (but not exclusively) among males, who, in terms of gender, embody honor.  Conversely, females are thought to embody shame.  Shame here is considered a positive quality—the sensitivity to what other people think and the willingness to adapt one’s behavior and demeanor to publicly accepted values.  We also might describe this sort of shame using the word modesty.  The honor of females is bound up with the honor of the male who is responsible for them—usually the patriarchal head of the household in which wives and daughters reside

But the most important thing to understand about honor and shame in Romans 1 is the way in which shame is specifically associated with failure to act in accordance with one’s own gender.  Here a passage from 1 Cor 11:14f. is particularly germane:  Paul states, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?”  Here we see the same juxtaposition of the language of honor-shame and references to “nature” that we find in Rom 1:26-27.  We’ll explore that further below.  But it is also important to note here the close linkage between the blurring of gender distinctions and the loss of honor in the world in which the Scriptures were written.  For a man to wear long hair is considered inherently degrading, but for a woman to wear long hair is “her glory.”  To present yourself in a way that conforms to gender expectations was considered honorable; to violate those gender expectations was shameful. 

This confirms the understanding of the moral logic implicit in the honor-shame language of Rom 1:24-27.  The sexual misbehavior described here, in addition to being characterized as “lustful” and “impure,” is considered “degrading” or “shameless” for a particular reason:  such behavior violates established social expectations of the time regarding gender, and regarding behaviors that are seen as appropriate to males and females.  For females, such dishonor arose from any sort of sexual behavior outside of marriage, as well as the failure to maintain the appropriate passive or submissive role within marriage; for males, dishonor or shame was more particularly a result of failure to “act like a man,” which included (among other things) playing the passive role in sexual intercourse and being penetrated by another male.

One further point, then, before we move on to “nature.”  It is important to recognize that all this discussion about honor and shame takes place without any reference to the revealed will of God at all.  Cases of honor and shame are regarded in this text, as in most biblical texts, as entirely self-evident, in need of no argument from Scripture.  In any culture, one doesn’t need revelation to tell you what is honorable or shameful; you learn that every day of your life in lessons great and small.  Honor and shame are defined by how people react to you, not what you read in a book.

Finally, it’s important to note that the categories of honor and shame are often critiqued in the New Testament (e.g. 1 Cor 1:27f.; Heb 12:2).  Honor and shame are not revelational categories; they are cultural categories that are re-interpreted in light of the gospel.  I think it’s fair to say that Christians in any cultural context should avoid treating people in ways that those people will experience as shameful or degrading. That’s what Paul is addressing here.  However, what counts for shameful and degrading varies substantially from one culture to the next, and behavioral norms need to change accordingly.  And it is not at all clear that folks in our culture all experience same-sex sexual behavior as inherently degrading.

Lastly, we turn to the category of “nature.”  Paul says that “their women” exchanged the “natural use” for that which is “contrary to” or “beyond” nature (1:26), and similarly, men left behind “the natural use of woman” and had sex with men instead.  But the first thing we must note is that the word “nature” (Greek physis) does not occur in the Septuagint, the early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.  This is not a Jewish category, but figures prominently in Stoic philosophy, the dominant philosophical perspective among Gentiles in Paul’s day.  And when we look at Paul’s other uses of this word, they coincide with what we also see in Stoic philosophy.  “Nature” refers to a convergence of individual disposition (cf. the same word rendered “instinctively” in Rom 2:14), social consensus (cf. the same word used in 1 Cor 11:14-16), and the biological world (cf. Rom 11:21, 24).

Here is where the debate gets stuck:  Revisionists (who argue for greater acceptance of LGBT folks) talk about the personal and social dimensions of what is “natural” and traditionalists (who argue that Scripture supports a view of same-sex behavior as inherently sinful) talk about the biological dimensions.  Yet the ancient Stoic vision of “nature,” like Paul’s usage, encompassed a harmony between all these. 

But cultural and scientific changes have altered this landscape with respect to sexuality in significant ways:  We have to ask ourselves:  Is sexual orientation a new discovery that changes the way we think about individual disposition? How have changing notions of gender (and recent Supreme Court decisions) altered our conception of the “natural” social order and the resulting social cohesion we expect and hope for?  How has the development of contraception changed the centrality of biological procreation for the meaning of sexuality?

When confronted with this sort of dilemma, we face two choices:  One choice is simply to insist that the ancient Stoic vision was inspired by God, and true for all time.  But we have to be honest here:  do we really think that “nature” itself still teaches that it is shameful for a man to wear long hair regardless of cultural context?  Do we really believe today that the central and defining goal toward which sex is directed is only biological procreation?  Do we really believe that sexual orientation is simply a human choice, and not a “natural” disposition?  These are all problematic in this vision that was so widespread in the ancient world.

But there is another alternative, beyond simply chucking the whole Stoic vision of “nature.” I think what the stoics longed for in their vision for nature was essentially a form of harmony and coherence between one’s individual disposition, the social order, and the natural world.  I think that this is what God intends as well.  Our understanding of ourselves, of the social order, and of the natural world are all subject to change, but the Stoic vision of the integration of these realms is still a compelling one:  how do we live, so that these various arenas of our lives exist in peaceful harmony with each other?

This requires the exercise of a sanctified imagination:  Can we imagine a world in which the divine pronouncement at the beginning of creation, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen 2:18) finds a range of deeply satisfying resolutions, from heterosexual marriage, to celibate communities, to gay and lesbian committed unions?  Can we imagine both those with heterosexual and same-sex sexual orientation finding the deep sort of intimate communion which satisfies the longings of the heart and the body, builds stable households in society, and draws all persons more deeply into the experience of interpersonal grace which echoes and leads into the divine communion itself?  Can we imagine these diverse households all contributing toward a fruitful and just society where children are conceived, sometimes adopted, and nurtured, where the hungry are fed, the poor and the sick are cared for, and where creativity and productivity is unleashed in the “natural” energy and vitality of communal life?  Such exercises in imagination reach toward the same synthesis we saw in the ancient Stoic vision—the harmony of one’s individual “nature, the “natural” ordering of society, and the wider, natural world.  Yet such a vision is only imaginable in light of the power of the Holy Spirit, who continues to draw human life, both individually and collectively, into communion with the divine life.

In conclusion, I have tried to argue that we should agree with Paul, that whenever sex is driven by selfishness and a lack of restraint; whenever it is marked by excessive and self-centered desire; whenever sex acts make people feel degraded; and whenever sexuality is not integrated into a broad vision of the individual, the social order, and the biological world, such sexuality is deeply flawed, and evidence of our alienation from God.  But in our context today, it is at least an open question whether committed gay and lesbian unions should be painted with the same brush.

 James Brownson

God’s design for human sexuality

/3 Comments/in /by

Issues related to same-sex attraction are without a doubt the most difficult and volatile issue facing the church today. In the context of these Respectful Conversations, I have been asked to address the question of the Bible’s teaching on this issue from the traditional perspective that same-sex sexual relations are outside God’s design for human sexuality.

I have to admit from the beginning that I am torn on this issue.  Like many other Christians, I find that my positive personal experiences with those who identify with the LGBT community are often at odds with the Bible’s apparent teaching on this issue. While I respect those like James Brownson and David Gushee whose personal experiences have provoked them to return to Scripture with new eyes and to change their mind, I personally have found it impossible to reconcile a high view of Scripture and a consistent hermeneutic with this revisionist perspective. I bear no animosity toward any person who is gay or toward anyone who holds an inclusive perspective. I will continue to seek to love all people and live in gracious tolerance toward everyone, even (and especially) those who treat me with animosity or who view my beliefs as insensitive, bigoted or offensive.

On certain issues I am still firmly settled. There is no doubt in my mind that monogamous heterosexual relationships represent God’s design for human sexuality. I firmly believe that homosexual desire (like my own heterosexual inclination toward lust) arises from fallen human nature and is not part of God’s will for human sexuality.  This seems to me the clear teaching of Scripture and also makes the most sense emotionally, socially, and psychologically. We live in a fallen world and should not be surprised to see evidence of this brokenness in ourselves and those around us.

At the same time there are many issues on which I am unsettled. At what point does homosexual desire become a sin?  My inclination is to say at the same time as heterosexual inclination: when such desire becomes lust. But when does a same-sex relationship become sinful? Can people with same-sex attraction share intimacy? Is homosexual “romance” in and of itself wrong? To what degree should churches welcome same-sex couples? As attenders? Into membership? Into leadership? These are difficult questions, regarding which full agreement among Christians is proving elusive.

 

Some Points of Agreement

I would like to start with several areas I think we can agree on. First, those involved in this forum agree on the authority and inspiration of Scripture. We believe that the Bible is God’s Word. There are two basic ways to approach the Bible. Some view the Bible as merely human reflections about God. From this perspective, the text is subjective, multivocal and fallible. It represents many voices communicating different and often contradictory messages about the nature of God, his purpose for the world and how human beings ought to live in relationship to God and to one another.  It may be inspiring, but it is not divinely inspired. Those on this forum, however, consider the Bible to be God’s Word, a divine message from God to humanity. It is authoritative and infallible, communicating God’s will, plan and purpose for his creation.

Second, however, we agree that the Bible is contextually given. God has revealed himself and his will through limited human agents in diverse cultural contexts and situations. Though God’s nature does not change, his purpose and intention for specific groups or individuals may differ depending on time and place. The most obvious example of this is the old covenant laws that were given to Israel. These commands were meant to regulate and order Israel’s civil and religious life in the Old Testament period and do not necessarily apply to the church. The Old Testament sacrificial system—though explicitly commanded in Scripture—was always intended to be temporary, pointing forward to its ultimate fulfillment in Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross.

Even new covenant commands are contextual and potentially limited in application. Most Christians today recognize that commands related to head coverings for women, greeting one another with a kiss, and washing feet as an act of service were given in specific cultural contexts and do not necessarily apply directly to the church today. The point is that biblical commands forbidding same-sex sexual relations are potentially within this category, applying only to certain historical contexts and situations and never intended to forbid faithful and monogamous same-sex sexual relationships.

This brings up what I believe is a third point of agreement. All participants in this discussion affirm that God’s design for human sexuality is for loving, faithful, self-sacrificial, monogamous sexual relationships. Though many within the gay rights movement (as well as the heterosexual community!) claim they have the right to complete sexual freedom and multiple sexual partners, this forum is about whether God ever blesses faithful, monogamous and lifelong same-sex unions.

 

The Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis

If God’s commands are sometimes limited to specific persons, groups, times and places, how do we determine God’s will for us at any point in time? The answer is by establishing and consistently applying sound principles of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science and art of determining the original meaning of Scripture (through “exegesis”) and how it applies in diverse cultural and historical contexts (through “re-contextualization”). I have elsewhere suggested a variety of criteria for determining whether and how culturally-embedded commands apply to believers today (see my How to Read the Bible in Changing Times [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011], ch. 8). I would consider three of these to be most important and will briefly summarize them here.

(1) Criterion of Purpose: The purpose, or rationale, behind a command determines its application. We might say that the purpose of a command is more important than the command itself. For example, when Paul commands believers to greet one another with a kiss, his purpose is not to make sure that there is a lot of kissing in the church. It is to encourage believers to practice family affection. Whatever way a particular culture expresses family affection would be an appropriate fulfillment of this command.

With reference to our present topic, it will be essential to determine the purpose behind biblical commands related to same-sex relationships. Are the purposes for these commands related to sexual purity per se, or to something else, such as exploitation, abuse, inhospitality, ritual impurity, etc.?

(2) Criterion of Cultural Correspondence: The closer the cultural or historical context to our own, the more likely we should apply the command directly.  Many commands in Scripture are related to cultural practices that have direct parallels today. For example, Paul’s command to avoid drunkenness (Eph. 5:18) has direct relevance today. Alcohol abuse causes the same kinds of personal, social and societal problems today that it did in the first century.  Other commands, like head covering on women, may not have the same cultural significance today that they did in the first century world.

One of the major questions of debate around our topic is whether the homosexual acts condemned in the Old Testament and in Paul’s writings are analogous to same-sex relationships being advocated by some Christians today.

(3) Criterion of Canonical Consistency: Ethical imperatives that remain consistent throughout the Bible are more likely to reflect God’s universal purpose and will.  This criterion relates especially to fundamentally moral commands, which relate to more or less absolute standards of right and wrong.  Commands such as those against murder, stealing, lying, cheating, coveting, adultery, exploitation of the poor, and idolatry remain consistent throughout the Old and New Testaments and so are almost certainly God’s will for all time.

Conversely, biblical commands that vary significantly across time and space are not necessarily binding. This criterion can be helpfully applied to various controversial areas that many see as parallel to the same-sex debate, such as the role of women and men and the issue of slavery.  It is certainly true that Scripture allows practices like slavery, polygamy, and the subordination of women when they were part of the social fabric of the biblical world.  I often tell my students that we do not necessarily have an absolute ethic in Scripture on many issues. God is working in and through fallen human cultures and sometimes allows less-than-ideal institutions to govern life in certain cultural situations.

While many passages in the Bible affirm a patriarchal system and call for male leadership and female submission (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1; 1 Tim. 2:11–15), there are many others that affirm the equality of women as divine image bearers (Gen. 1:27; Gal. 3:28) and depict women in various leadership roles (Miriam [Exod. 15:20]; Huldah [2 Kings 22:14]; Deborah [Judg. 4–5]; Priscilla [Acts 18:26]; Phoebe [Rom. 16:1]; Junia [Rom. 16:7]; Euodia and Syntyche [Phil. 4:2–3]). While all these passages are debated as to their significance, it is hard to argue for complete canonical consistency on this issue.

Similarly, although the Bible allows slavery (or indentured servitude) in various cultural contexts (Lev. 25:44–45; Eph. 6:5–6; Col. 3:22; Titus 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18), there are many indications that slavery is not God’s ideal for human relationships (Gen. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 7:22; Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:24; Philem. 15–17). Consider, for example, the Exodus deliverance as the OT paradigm of God’s salvation and the eschatological promise of freedom for those in bondage (Isa. 61:1–2).

By contrast, whenever same-sex sexual acts are mentioned in Scripture, they are consistently and univocally forbidden. There is never a hint that these acts are part of God’s design for human sexuality. God surely knew that this issue would become controversial in the church of the twenty-first century. Yet I have found it impossible to read Scripture in any normal or straightforward manner and reach the conclusion that, contrary to all appearances, God blesses such unions. To be sure, Scripture is not always simple or easy. But what puzzles and confounds me is that, if God in fact intended us to understand Scripture in this way, he could hardly have chosen a more confusing and contradictory way of communicating this.

This argument can be extended throughout church history. For three millennia the people of God have understood Scripture to teach that same-sex sexual activity is outside God’s will for human sexuality. Are we really to believe that even the most Godly and sensitive of believers have for millennia radically misunderstood and misapplied the Spirit’s voice on this issue and are only now coming to the light?  Isn’t it more likely that today—as throughout history—sinful human culture is placing pressure on the people of God to compromise God’s standards of righteousness? There are many Godly believers throughout history who have affirmed the value and dignity of women as divine image bearers and who have viewed slavery as an evil and fallen human institution. Yet there is no such historical precedent for those affirming same-sex unions.

 

Some Key Biblical Texts

Genesis 1-2.  Genesis 2 establishes monogamous heterosexual relationships as the pre-Fall standard for human sexuality. While up to this point in the Genesis narrative all of creation is identified as “good,” here we learn that, “It is not good for the man to be alone.”  So from the man’s own body God creates a “helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18). Eve is brought to Adam and the narrator announces the establishment of the marriage relationship: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). The union is between one man (ʾı̂š) and one woman (ʾiššā).

Advocates of same-sex relationships often claim that this text is not speaking about gender complementarity but about companionship, which can be equally fulfilled in a same-sex relationship. While no doubt companionship is a key component here, in the near context both procreation and gender complementarity are also emphasized. In the first (summary) creation account in Genesis 1, God creates humanity in his own image as male (zāḵār) and female (nᵉqēḇāh) and commands them to procreate: “Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it” (1:27–28). God could not have told marriage partners to procreate if he had in mind same-sex partners.

Similarly, gender complementary is emphasized in chapter two.  Eve is created as “a helper suitable for him” (2:18 NIV). The rare Hebrew word kᵉneg̱dô, translated variously as “suitable for him” (NIV), “who is right for him” (God’s Word), “who corresponds to him” (NET), “as his complement” (HCSB), could be more formally rendered as “like opposite him.” In context it clearly carries the sense of both similarity and difference. Eve is like Adam and distinct from the animals because she was created from him. She is “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (2:23). Yet she is also different from him and is his perfect complement. He is man (ʾı̂š); she is woman (ʾiššā). He is male (zāḵār); she is female (nᵉqēḇāh). She was created from his side to be at his side as his equal and partner. In the marriage relationship, the two complement each other and together become “one flesh” (2:24). This binary complementarity and suitability is most clearly evident in the sexual union (male and female body parts fit together) but also likely refers to complementary emotional, psychological and social traits.  Though it is true that male and female gender qualities and stereotypes vary somewhat across cultures and between individuals within a particular culture, it is hard to deny that men and women are indeed different—and wonderfully complementary.

As the foundational creation account, these passages establish God’s purpose and parameters for human sexuality. God meets Adam’s need of companionship by creating a woman. The result is a monogamous heterosexual marriage relationship. The foundational and paradigmatic nature of this text suggests that it represents God’s design for human sexuality.  By implication, any form of sexual behavior outside of this relationship—whether premarital, extramarital or homosexual—is beyond the bounds of God’s design. Jesus, of course, cites these passages when discussing the fundamental nature of the marriage relationship (Matt. 19:3-12//Mark 10:2-12).

While indicative of God’s ideal, the Genesis account alone would be insufficient to rule out same-sex sexual acts as sinful. Yet such behavior is explicitly forbidden elsewhere in both the OT and the NT.

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. The most explicit commands against homosexual behavior in the OT come in the holiness code of Leviticus. Leviticus 18:22 reads, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable” (NIV). Leviticus 20:13 identifies the penalty for such actions as death.

Some claim that these commands relate merely to purity issues rather than to overtly sinful behavior. But the imposition of the death penalty shows that this is far more significant than a purity issue. Purity issues are resolved through the passage of time, ritual washing or offering sacrifices, not through capital punishment. The death penalty is reserved for serious violations of God’s character, his created order, and the covenant between Yahweh and his people. Similar punishments apply to sins like adultery, incest, and cursing one’s parents. Our point, of course, is not that Christians should advocate for capital punishment for any of these sins (these are old covenant punishments related to Israel), but only that they are clearly in a different category than purity concerns.

Others argue that these passages concern not sexual relationships per se, but cultic prostitution, thus violating God’s commands to be separate from the nations. But there is nothing in the context to indicate this. The surrounding laws govern sexual matters generally, not cultic prostitution. The language associated with cultic prostitution used elsewhere does not occur here (cf. Deut. 23:17-18).

Further evidence that these Levitical commands are inherently moral comes from two references to homosexual behavior in the letters of Paul, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10.  Both are in lists or catalogs of sins common in the pagan world. Some argue that Paul is not here referring to homosexual behavior per se, but rather to pederasty, slave prostitution or other form of exploitation. Yet the primary term Paul uses in both passages (arsenokoitai) is a compound word combining “male” (arsēn) and “bed” (koitē), a euphemism for male with male sexual activity. Since 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the first appearance of arsenokoitēs in Greek literature, it seems likely that Paul coined the term in intentional imitation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, where the Greek translation (the Septuagint) uses these same two terms. “With a male [arsēn] do not lie on a bed [koitē] as with a woman; for that is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22; authors’ translation; cf. 20:13). If this is the case, Paul takes the general Levitical prohibition and applies it in a new covenant context.

Romans 1:26-27. Romans 1:18-32 is the beginning of Paul’s argument that all human beings are sinful and fallen, deserving God’s condemnation. Although God has revealed himself in creation, human beings have suppressed this knowledge. “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator…” (1:25).  As a result “God gave them over to shameful lusts” (1:26a), illustrated with reference to homosexual behavior:

Even their women exchanged natural sexual 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 shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (1:26b-27 NIV).

Paul here identifies homosexual behavior (females with females; males with males) as “unnatural” (para physin), an example of the distortion that results from humanity’s rejection of God. Paul probably singles out same-sex behavior not because it is unique or a greater sin than others, but because it is perceived by most people (i.e. heterosexuals) as unnatural, contrary to their own sexual desires. Having made this point, Paul subsequently lists many other sins that result from our fallen state, including envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, God-hating, insolence, arrogance, etc. (1:29-31). 

Some advocates of same-sex relationships claim that Romans 1:26-27 only condemns “perversion” (acting contrary to one’s natural sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual). But this cannot be right.  Paul does not say that “certain men abandoned their natural sexual inclination” but rather that “males” (arsenes) abandoned “the natural use” (tēn physikēn chrēsin) “of the female” (tēs thēleias)” (v. 27). Unnatural is explicitly defined as males with males and females with females—i.e., homosexual activity.

Others argue that Paul is here referring only to oppressive and exploitative behavior, like temple prostitution or pederasty, not faithful, loving homosexual relationships. While these practices were well known in the Greco-Roman world of the first century, the immediate context makes it unlikely that Paul is limiting his discussion to these. First, Paul’s reference to lesbianism would make little sense in these kinds of exploitative and abusive relationships. Second, Paul’s reference to mutual desire (“inflamed with lust for one another”; v. 27) rules out an oppressive or exploitative relationship.  Most importantly, allusions to the creation account throughout this chapter suggest that Paul has Genesis 1–2 in mind. Paul’s distinctive use of thēlys/arsēn (female/male) instead gynē/anēr (woman/man), echoes the language of Gen. 1:27 (LXX) —“male and female he created them”—supporting the view that “natural” here refers to God’s created order of human sexuality as expressed in Genesis 1–2. Same-sex sexual acts are “unnatural”—that is, contrary to God’s created order.

 

Conclusion

I’m afraid that this brief essay has just begun to delve into the complex exegetical and hermeneutical issues surrounding these texts. Yet I also fear that since this round is about “biblical understandings,” my post sounds more like a theology paper than a real conversation.  So in closing let me just affirm my own desire to learn and grow through dialogue on this issue and most of all to exemplify through it the two greatest commandments—to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love my neighbor as myself.

Mark Strauss