The Zenit News Agency Interview:
The Bible and Homosexual
Practice: An Overview of Some Issues
[revised slightly from an
interview with Zenit News Agency, Mar. 21 and
Robert
A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Assoc.
Prof. of New Testament
Author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001)
It is not possible in so short a compass to
do justice to 500 pages of research. However, I will attempt to hit some key
points. I will begin by talking about the two most important sets of texts: the
Levitical prohibitions and the texts in Paul.
Included here will be a brief discussion of whether “new knowledge” about
homosexuality as an innate condition changes matters for us. I will then
proceed to a broader array of texts in the Bible, both implicit and explicit,
that make clear a pervasive and strong condemnation of homosexual practice. In
this context I will also address the alleged silence of Jesus on the issue of
same-sex intercourse. Finally, I will say a few words about why the Bible’s
teaching should remain normative and how Christians should respond to the
current crisis.
Q:
Could you outline the principal passages in the Bible that you believe are the
basis for prohibiting homosexuality?
There are two particularly important sets
of explicit texts. First are the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13,
which declare that for a man to “lie with a male as though lying with a woman”
is “an abomination” or “detestable act”—in Hebrew, to’evah—something utterly
repugnant to God.
The second set is the Apostle Paul’s
references to same-sex intercourse, for which the key text is Romans 1:24-27.
Here he treats same-sex intercourse as “exhibit B”—with idolatry as “exhibit
A”—proving gross and deliberate human sin on the part of Gentiles against the
truth about God accessible in creation or nature.
Also important in Paul is his reference to
“males who lie with males” (arsenokoitai) and “effeminate males who play the sexual role
of females” (malakoi)
in the vice list in 1 Corinthians 6:9. The context here is the comparable issue
of a case of incest at
1:24-27. Those who tend to dismiss the term
arsenokoitai
in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 as utterly beyond knowing often act as if
Romans 1:24-27 did not exist.
There are also a reasonably large number of
other texts that explicitly or implicitly indicate opposition to same-sex
intercourse, leaving little doubt that such opposition was the consensus
position of both Testaments, as well as of the historical communities out of
which these texts arose.
Q:
Sometimes modern-day skeptics reject Leviticus.
The texts in Leviticus are often dismissed
on one or more grounds. For example, it is claimed that these prohibitions have
no more significance for the church today than other defunct purity laws; or
that they have in view only same-sex intercourse conducted in the context of
idolatrous cults, prostitution or adult-adolescent unions. Yet such arguments
overlook at least seven points.
First, the prohibitions against same-sex intercourse occur in the context
of other types of sexual activity that the church today still largely regards
as illegitimate: incest, adultery and bestiality.
The strong prohibitions against these forms
of sexual activity represent the closest analogues to the prohibition of
same-sex intercourse. This is particularly true of the incest prohibition
which, like the prohibition of same-sex intercourse, rejects intercourse
between two beings that are too much alike. Leviticus refers pejoratively to
sex with a family member as sex with the “flesh of one’s own flesh” (Lev 18:6).
Bestiality is wrong for the opposite reason: it is sex between two beings that
are too much unlike.
Second, the attachment of purity language in ancient Israelite culture to
such acts as incest, adultery, male-male intercourse, idolatry, economic
exploitation, and the like—far from suggesting an amoral or non-moral basis for
the rejection of such acts—actually buttresses the moral focus on the
inherently degrading character of the acts themselves. It underscores that any
talk about the positive moral intent of the participants is irrelevant.
For the same reason, the Apostle Paul many
centuries later connected the language of impurity with acts—usually sexual
acts—that are rejected on moral grounds: not only same-sex intercourse but also
adultery, incest, sex with prostitutes, and promiscuous sexual activity (Romans
1:24 and 6:19; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; 1 Thessalonians 4:7; cf.
Ephesians 4:19; 5:3, 5; and Colossians 3:5).
Third, unlike a number of the now-defunct elements of the Holiness Code
to which reference is often made, the indictment of same-sex intercourse is
particularly severe, as suggested by the specific attachment of the label to’evah and by
making it a capital offense.
Same-sex intercourse was regarded by
ancient
the contemporary church does not apply the
penalty attached to this act in the Levitical code.
But, then again, it does not retain the Old Testament valuation of adultery,
incest and bestiality as capital offenses either,
even as it still rejects such forms of intercourse as immoral.
Fourth, the prohibitions of same-sex intercourse are not limited to
particularly exploitative forms but are rather unqualified and absolute.
The general term “male” is used, not “cult
prostitute,” “boy, youth,” or even “neighbor.” The
prohibition applies not only to the Israelite but also to the non-Israelite who
lives among them (Leviticus
Idolatry is hardly the main concern since
the prohibition in
Fifth, the reason for the prohibition is evident from the phrase “lying
with a male as though lying with a woman.” What is wrong with same-sex
intercourse is that it puts another male, at least insofar as the act of sexual
intercourse is concerned, in the category of female rather than male.
It was regarded as incompatible with the
creation of males and females as distinct and complementary sexual beings, that
is, as a violation of God’s design for the created order. Here it is clear that
the creation stories in Genesis 1-2, or something like them, are in the
background, which in turn indicates that something broader than two isolated
prohibitions is at stake: nothing less than the divinely mandated norm for
sexual pairing given in creation.
Sixth, the non-procreative character of same-sex intercourse was no more
the primary consideration in the rejection than it was for the proscription of
bestiality. Incest and adultery, two other sexual acts rejected in Leviticus 18
and 20 are certainly not wrong because they are non-procreative; but neither is
the primary reason for their rejection that fact that children might arise. All
three are wrong because they constitute sex with another who is either too much
of an “other” (sex with an animal) or too much of a “like” (sex with a near kin
and sex with a member of the same sex). These are transcultural
creation categories, not superstitious dregs from a bygone era.
Q:
How are these prohibitions reflected in the New Testament?
The Levitical
prohibitions of same-sex intercourse are clearly picked up in the New
Testament—our seventh point. The Apostle Paul, who emphasized that the Mosaic
law
had been abrogated, nevertheless saw significant
continuity with the moral code of the Spirit.
The basic categories of sexual
immorality—such as same-sex intercourse, incest, solicitation of prostitutes,
adultery, etc.—remained in place for believers in Christ (so 1 Corinthians
5-7). Indeed, Paul formulated his reference to “men who lie with males” (arsenokoitai),
one of the groups of people whom he insists will not inherit the kingdom of God
in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, directly from the Levitical
proscriptions of male-male intercourse. Clearly, then, Paul himself did not
believe that the abrogation of the Mosaic law rendered obsolete the rejection
of all same-sex intercourse for believers.
Q:
What does Romans 1:24-27 say?
The text in Romans 1:24-27 is worth quoting
at length: “because of the desires of their hearts God gave them over”—that is,
those who chose not to worship God as God—“to an uncleanness”—that is, filthy
conduct—“consisting of their bodies being dishonored
among themselves. . . . God gave them over to dishonorable
passions, for even their females exchanged the natural use”—that is, of the
male as regards sexual intercourse—“for that which is contrary to nature”—that
is, sexual intercourse with other females—“and likewise also the males, having
left behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed with their yearning
for one another, males with males committing indecency and in return receiving
in themselves the payback which was necessitated by their straying”—that is,
from the truth about God evident in nature.
Here the intertextual echoes to Genesis 1-2
are even more pronounced than in the Levitical
proscriptions.
Q:
You have examples of this, of course.
In the context of Romans
Also unmistakable is the link between
Romans 1:23—referring to idols “in the likeness of the image of a mortal human
and of birds and of four-footed animals and of reptiles” —and Genesis
Paul’s denotation of the sexes in Romans
1:26-27 as “females” and “males” rather than “women” and “men” follows the
style of Genesis 1:27: “male and female he made them.”
Q:
What are the implications of such an echo to Genesis 1:26-27?
For Paul, both idolatry and same-sex
intercourse reject God’s verdict that what was made and arranged was “very
good,” as Genesis 1:31 says. Instead of recognizing their indebtedness to one
God in whose likeness they were made and exercising dominion over the animal
kingdom, humans worshipped statues made in their own likeness and even in the
likeness of animals.
Similarly, instead of acknowledging that
God had made them “male and female” and had confined legitimate sexual
intercourse to opposite-sex pairing, humans denied the transparent
complementarity of their sexuality by engaging in sex with the same sex,
females with females, and males with males.
Q:
Would this harking back to Genesis be natural for Paul?
That Paul should have the creation stories
in the background of his critique of same-sex intercourse is not surprising.
In an earlier letter to
Like any other Jew in his day, it was not
possible for him to think about sexual immorality apart from such an appeal. In
the same way, when Jesus criticized divorce and remarriage he too cited from
Genesis 1:27—“God made them male and female”—and Genesis 2:24—“for this reason
a man shall leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife and the
two shall become one flesh.”
Consequently, any assessment of sexual
immorality by Jews and Christians of the first century ultimately had in view
the creation stories. It is for this reason that attempts to limit Paul’s—or
any other early Jewish or Christian—critique of same-sex intercourse to
particularly exploitative forms is doomed to failure. Moreover, for all the
occasional critique of homosexual behavior that could
be found among some Greco-Roman moralists, it did not approach the degree of
revulsion experienced by
Paul’s own wording in Romans 1:24-27 makes
clear that the contrast in his mind is not between exploitative and
non-exploitative forms of homosexual behavior but
between same-sex intercourse per se and opposite-sex intercourse: females
exchanging sex with males for sex with females; males leaving behind sex with
women and yearning for sex with other males. In Paul’s view—and indeed in the
view of every Jew or Christian from whom we have firsthand written records
within a millennium or more of Paul’s day—what was wrong, first and foremost,
with two females or two males having sex is the same-sexness
of the erotic act, an act that was intended by God to be a reunion of
complementary sexual others according to Genesis 1-2.
Q:
You have argued that Paul had the creation stories in Genesis 1-2 in view when
he rejected all homosexual practice. How does his argument that homosexual
practice is “against nature” fit into this?
Jews and Christians recognized that the
scriptural understanding of human sexuality was not accessible only to those
who had exposure to the Scriptures of the Jews.
Since the Creator had designed human sexual
pairing for complementary “sexual others,” it is not surprising that such a
design was imbedded in compatible opposite-sex differences and still observable
in the natural world set in motion by the Creator’s decree.
Hence, Paul could argue in Romans 1:24-27
that even Gentiles without access to Scripture had enough knowledge in
creation/nature to know that same-sex unions represented a non-complementary
sexual pairing, an “unnatural” union, a violation of Creator’s will for
creation.
The naturalness of opposite-sex unions is
readily visible in the areas of anatomy, physiology—that is, the procreative
capacity—and in a host of interpersonal aspects that contribute in our own day
to the popular slogan, “men are from Mars and women are from Venus.” To tamper
with that naturalness and to act as if male-female sexual differences are not
vital components of sexual pairings is, in short, to reap the whirlwind. There
is no disharmony between Scripture and nature on this score.
Q:
What about those who argue that “we now know” today that people are born with
homoerotic attraction and thus it is a "natural" phenomenon?
Four points can be made here.
First, Paul was not saying that every human impulse is “natural” and
therefore God-approved. He went on to list in Romans 1:29-31 a series of
impulses and behaviors that have some innate
proclivity—including covetousness or envy—but which were not, for that reason,
“natural” or morally acceptable. Paul distinguished between innate passions
perverted by the fall of Adam and exacerbated by idol worship on the one hand,
and material creation that was left relatively intact despite human sin on the
other hand.
Second, some current theories of homosexual development are essentially
compatible with Paul’s own view of sin. In Romans 5 and 7 Paul speaks of sin as
an innate impulse operating in the human body, transmitted by an ancestor
human, and never entirely within the control of human will. This is precisely
how most homosexual-affirming advocates describe homosexual orientation today.
Third, theories about a congenital basis for homoerotic attraction were
widespread in Paul’s day, as was the existence of men whose sexual desire was
oriented exclusively toward other males. We may have refined the view of exclusive
innate attraction to
members of the same sex, but the basic
elements of this theory were already in place in antiquity and still made
little difference to critical assessments of homosexual behavior.
Why? Because it is obvious—especially in a
worldview that incorporates the notion of a human fall from an original sinless
state—that innate impulses are not necessarily moral simply because they are
innate.
Fourth and finally, it is not quite true that science has now discovered
that homosexual impulses are given at birth, whether through genes or hormones
or special homosexual brains. In fact, studies to date indicate that homoerotic
impulses are not congenital. Rather, whatever contribution is made through
genes, hormones or brain-wiring is largely indirect and subordinate to macro-
and micro-cultural factors [see pp. 384-432 of my book].
For example, cross-cultural studies have
been done showing a wide variance in the incidence of homosexual behavior and homosexual self-identification in different
population groups, ancient and modern. And the most important identical twin
study to date, recently conducted by J. Michael Bailey, “did not provide
statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors” in the
development of homosexuality.
Q:
Anything else that you want to say that might indicate that Paul was opposed to
all forms of same-sex intercourse?
Yes, in addition to, first, the allusion to the creation stories in Genesis 1-2 and to, second, the broad argument from nature,
three other points can be made that show that Paul’s critique of homosexual
practice was not limited in scope only to certain exploitative types.
Third, Paul critiques not only male homosexual practice but also female
homosexual practice. The latter did not conform to the male pederastic model,
nor did it usually entail cultic associations. Apparently, then, Paul’s main
problem with homosexual behavior did not have to do
with pederastic or idolatrous dimensions.
Fourth, the fact that Paul indicts both partners in same-sex unions and
speaks of mutual gratification indicates that he does not have in view forms
where coercion is involved.
Fifth, glowing tributes to homosexual love in Paul’s time, and the wide
variety of manifestations of same-sex love in Greco-Roman society, give the lie
to contemporary claims that Paul could not have conceived of caring homoerotic
unions when he opposed same-sex intercourse.
Q:
Many people are willing to concede your point that both Paul and the authors of
the Levitical prohibitions were unequivocally against
all homosexual practice. But they would counter-argue that same-sex intercourse
is not much of a concern to Scripture because it receives so little attention.
What is your response?
There are two problems with this claim. The
first is that there are a fair amount of texts that speak strongly against
same-sex intercourse.
Despite allegations by some scholars that
the stories of Sodom (Genesis 19:4-11) and of the Levite at Gibeah
(Judges 19:22-25) only express opposition to homosexual intercourse in the
context of rape, these stories do include male-male intercourse per se as an
important factor in the evil behavior of the
inhabitants. To them can be added the story of Ham’s sexual act on his father
Noah (Genesis
That these stories are relevant to an
indictment of same-sex intercourse generally is apparent from: (a) the wider
narratives of both the Yahwist and the Deuteronomistic historian which elsewhere indicate a
restriction of appropriate sexual activity to heterosexual relations; (b)
ancient Near Eastern texts that censure male-male intercourse for reasons other
than coercion; (c) the assessment of Sodom’s sin by a number of later texts,
including Ezekiel 16:50, Jude 7, and 2 Peter 2:7; and (d) the motifs common to
the Ham and Sodom stories on the one hand and the denunciation of Canaanite
sexual sins in Leviticus 18 and 20, including Canaanite participation in
non-coercive male-male intercourse as a basis for expulsion from the land.
Also to be included among anti-homosex texts are a series of texts in the Deuteronomistic history (Joshua through 2 Kings) that speak
disparagingly of cultic participants in homosexual activity: 1 Kings
Q:
And what is the second problem with claiming that Scripture shows little
concern for homosexual practice?
Texts that implicitly reject homosexual
unions run the gamut of the entire Bible, including not only the creation
stories in Genesis 1-3 and the apostolic decree in Acts 15:20, 29, and 21:25,
along with other occurrences of the word porneia
(“sexual immorality”) in the New Testament, but also the whole range of
narratives, laws, proverbs, exhortations, metaphors and poetry that in
addressing sexual relationships presume the sole legitimacy of heterosexual
unions.
For example, when the relationship between
God and
Another example: why is it that there
exists not a single law in any of the legal codes in the Pentateuch that
distinguishes appropriate and inappropriate types of same-sex erotic
relationships? After all, such laws abound
for heterosexual relationships. The reason is self-evident: all same-sex erotic
relationships were regarded as inappropriate.
Nowhere is there the slightest indication
of openness anywhere in the Bible to homoerotic attachments, including the
narrative about David and Jonathan.
The reason why not every author of
Scripture explicitly comments on same-sex intercourse is that some views are
treated as so obvious that very little needs to be said. The only form of
consensual sexual behavior that was regarded by
ancient
The “big picture” of the Bible on the issue
of homosexual practice is not some vague concept of love and tolerance of every
form of consensual sex but rather the complementarity of male-female sexual
bonds and the universal restriction of acceptable sexual activity to
heterosexual marriage.
Q:
Speaking of Jesus, some argue that because Jesus said nothing about the matter
that it was not an important issue for him. What do you think?
There is no historical basis for arguing
that Jesus might have been neutral or even favorable
toward same-sex intercourse.
All the evidence we have points
overwhelmingly to the conclusion that Jesus would have strongly opposed
same-sex intercourse had such behavior been a serious
problem among first-century Jews. It simply was not a problem in
First, Jesus’ alleged silence has to be set against the backdrop of
unequivocal and strong opposition to same-sex intercourse in the Hebrew Bible
and throughout early Judaism. It is not historically likely that Jesus
overturned any prohibition of the Mosaic law, let alone on a strongly held
moral matter such as this. And Jesus was not shy about disagreeing with
prevailing viewpoints. Had he wanted his disciples to take a different
viewpoint he would have had to say so.
Second, the notion of Jesus’ “silence” has to be qualified. According to
Mark, Jesus spoke out against porneia, “sexual immorality” (Mark
Third, that Jesus lifted up the male-female model for sexual
relationships in Genesis 1-2 as the basis for defining God’s will for sexuality
is apparent from his back-to-back
citation in Mark 10:6-7 of Genesis 1:27
(“God made them male and female”) and Genesis 2:24 (“For this reason a man
shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall
become one flesh”).
These are the same two texts that Paul
cites or alludes to in his denunciation of same-sex intercourse in Romans
1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. For Jesus, marriage was ordained by the Creator
to be an indissoluble (re-)union of a man and woman—two complementary sexual
others—into one flesh. Authorization of homoerotic unions requires a different
creation account.
Fourth, it is time to deconstruct the myth of a sexually tolerant Jesus.
Three sets of Jesus sayings make clear that, far from loosening the law’s
stance on sex, Jesus intensified the ethical demand in this area: (a) Jesus´
stance on divorce and remarriage (Mark 10:1-12; also Matthew 5:32 and the
parallel in Luke 16:18; and Paul’s citation of Jesus´ position in 1 Corinthians
7:10-11); (b) Jesus´ remark about adultery of the heart (Matthew 5:27-28); and (c)
Jesus´ statement about removing body parts as preferable to being thrown into
hell (Matthew 5:29-30 and Mark 9:43-48) which, based on the context in Matthew
as well as rabbinic parallels, primarily has to do with sexual immorality.
Simply put, sex mattered to Jesus. Jesus
did not broaden the range of acceptable sexual expression; he narrowed it. And
he thought that unrepentant, repetitive deviation from this norm could get a
person thrown into hell.
Where then do we get the impression that
Jesus was soft on sex? People think of his encounters with the adulterous woman
in John
What the first story suggests is that Jesus
did modify the law at one point: Sexual immorality should not incur a death
penalty from the state. Why? Not because sex for him did not matter but rather
because stoning was a terminal act that did not give opportunity for repentance
and reform. Moreover, all three stories confirm what we know about Jesus
elsewhere: that he aggressively sought the lost, ate with them, fraternized
with them. But the same Jesus who could protect an adulterous woman from
stoning also took a very strong stance against divorce-and-remarriage.
We see a parallel in Jesus’ stance toward
tax collectors, who had a justly deserved reputation for exploiting their own
people for personal gain. We do not conclude from Jesus’ well-known outreach to
tax collectors that Jesus was soft on economic exploitation. To the contrary:
All scholars agree that Jesus intensified God’s ethical demand with respect to
treatment of the poor and generosity with material possessions. Why then do we
conclude from Jesus’ outreach to sexual sinners that sexual sin was not so
important to Jesus?
Q:
Some would still argue that the teaching against homosexuality is related to
cultural and social conditioning. Now that society is more accepting of
homosexuality,
why shouldn’t Christianity change its position? In other words, why is this
teaching inalterable?
Ancient
They all lived in environments where
male-male intercourse was often more of an accepted practice than it is in our
own contemporary culture. Yet, far from capitulating on their position
regarding acceptable sexual expression, they maintained clear distinctions
between their own practices and the practices of those outside the community of
God.
This is what holiness refers to: being set
apart for the exclusive use of God rather than conforming to the ways of the
world. Jesus himself called on his followers to be “the light of the world” and
“a city built on a hill,” and not to act “like the Gentiles.”
The view of Scripture against same-sex
intercourse is pervasive, absolute and strong, and was all those things in
relation to the broader cultural contexts from which Scripture emerged. It was
then, and remains today, a core countercultural vision for human sexuality.
God has deemed that sexual intercourse be
an experience between complementary sexual “others” that creates a “one-flesh”
union, a celebration of sexual diversity and pluralism in the best sense of the
terms. There is clearly something developmentally deficient or “unnatural”
about a person being erotically attracted to the body parts shared in common
with another of the same sex, about someone seeking a complementary sexual
relationship from a person who in terms of sex is non-complementary, a sexual
“same.” It is no more wise, or loving, to promote such unions than it is to
promote adult, committed incestuous unions. [. . .]
Q:
We live in an age of “tolerance.” What does the Bible say about how we should
treat homosexuals? And how can Christians oppose homosexuality in the public
square without falling into extremism?
We should love all people, regardless of
whether they engage in immoral activity or not. Love is a much better, and far
more scriptural, concept than tolerance.
Jesus lifted up the command to “love one’s neighbor” in Leviticus
If we really love somebody, we will not
provide approval, let alone cultural incentives, for forms of behavior that are self-destructive and other-destructive.
Jesus combined an intensification of God’s ethical demand in the areas of sex
and money with an active and loving outreach to sexual sinners and economic
exploiters. We should do the same: love the sinner, hate the sin.
Concretely, this means abhorring demeaning
descriptions of homosexuals as “fags,” “queers,” and the like. It means
supporting fair and equal prosecution of violence done to homosexuals. It might
even mean—consistent with Jesus’ actions toward the adulterous
woman—decriminalization of homosexual behavior. It
certainly means making friends with homosexuals and helping AIDS sufferers. It
means making a distinction between people who experience homoerotic impulses
and people who act on them.
It does not mean, however, embracing
“sexual orientation” along with race and gender as a specially protected legal
classification. The unfortunate effect of such legislation is: (a) to provide
cultural and legal incentives for the behavior in
question; (b) to send the wrong message that homosexual behavior
is as morally neutral as race and gender; (c) to marginalize and intimidate
legally those who adopt a critical view of homosexual
practice; and (d) to establish the legal basis for indoctrinating our children and for mandating state-sponsored homosexual marriage.
© 2002 Robert A. J. Gagnon