The Bible and homosexuality is a contentious subject which has a significant impact on how homosexuality and homosexual sex is regarded by Judaism and Christianity. For many followers of these faiths, the Bible is considered to be inspired by God or to record God's relationship with humanity or a particular nation. Included within the Bible are ethical teachings, showing which actions God considers to be good and which God considers to be sinful.

The understanding of many Biblical interpreters is summarised by Hilborn (2002, p.1) who argues: "It must be granted that direct references to homosexual activity in the Bible are relatively few. However, these more explicit texts belong to a much broader biblical discourse on creation, love, holiness and human relationships - a discourse which goes to the heart of God’s purpose for humankind".

The interpretation of these passages and their place within the religion's wider understanding of God's purpose for humankind therefore has important implications for homosexuality and Judaism and homosexuality and Christianity. However, many (although by no means all) believers argue that reason, tradition and/or experience are also important elements in the interpretation of the biblical text (see, for example, Richard Hooker). It is also widely disputed whether or not these passages actually refer to the modern concept of "homosexuality".

Passages from the Hebrew Bible

The Hebrew Bible (commonly called the Old Testament by Christians) is widely regarded by both Jews and Christians as inspired by God. "Mainstream Christianity has always recognised the authority of many of the ethical commands of the Old Testament" (Issues in human sexuality, para. 2.24). For example Article 7 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England says that Christians are still bound by the moral commandments, although not the ceremonial, ritual or civil laws.

Genesis 1 and 2: Creation

The first two chapters of the first book of the Bible, Genesis describe God's creation of the world and his creation of man and woman. Genesis 1:27-28 (TNIV) states:

"So God created human beings in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'"

Genesis 2 (after describing God's creation of man and then woman) says:

"The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman',
for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (TNIV; Genesis 2:23-24).

Hilborn (2002, p.1) therefore argues that these verses are: "foundational for the classical Judaeo-Christian teaching that sexual intercourse is designed for expression solely within the life-long, marital relationship of a man and a woman."

However, it has also been argued that this line of reasoning is an example of the naturalistic fallacy (arguing from "what is" to "what ought to be") and that these verses do not exclude other types of relationship (cf. Vasey 1995:49ff). For example, many people in the Hebrew Bible are in polygamous marriages, which are not condemned. Furthermore, Williams (2002, p.23) has argued that while Genesis 2 describes a relational norm, it cannot therefore be used to argue that it prohibits other forms of relationship. Nonetheless, these arguments have been criticised as "an extraordinary evasion of the plain sense of the biblical text" (Hilborn 2002, p.1f).

Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah

Main article: Sodom and Gomorrah

Genesis chapter 19 is concerned with the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by God. A number of interpretations have been proposed as to why exactly God chose to destroy them, including inhospitality, rape, homosexuality and greed. Ezekiel 16:49-50 (TNIV) gives one of the first interpretations of the events:

"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."

In the New Testament, Jude 1:7 (TNIV) says:

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion."

While this reference specifically mentions "sexual immorality" it is not clear whether or not it is condemning homosexuality as such. It is therefore agreed by interpreters on all sides of the debate that while the sins of Sodom may include sexual sins, the ambiguity means that it cannot be used to condemn homosexual relationships (Hilborn 2002, p.3; Compton 2003). Hilborn (ibid.) also argues that the men's actions are "a manifestation of much deeper-seated sins of idolatry, pride and rebellion". It has also been argued that, especially given the near parallel in Judges 19 (especially verse 22), that the wickedness of Sodom was homosexual rape (Issues in human sexuality, para 2.12). This same report (ibid.) also argues that the other references in both the Old and New Testament are general and that while Sodom became "a stock image for extreme sinfulness" it was not "a symbol for one particular sin".

Leviticus 18 and 20

These chapters of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code. Leviticus 18:22 says:

"Do not



have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

and Leviticus 20:13 states:

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

It is widely argued that the things condemned in these chapters are "deemed wrong not simply because pagan Caananites indulged in them, but because God has pronounced them wrong as such." (Hilborn 2002, p.4; cf. Issues in human sexuality, para. 2.11; Amsel). This was also the interpretation taken in the rabbinic interpretations in the Mishnah and Talmud, which also extended this to include female homosexual relations, although there are no explicit references in the Hebrew Bible to this.

Others (eg West 2005, p.2), both Jews and Christians, argue that the prohibition was to prevent men using sexual intercourse to gain domination over other men (as, West argues, was common in other cultures at the time). These arguments are summarised by West (ibid.): "These verses in no way prohibit, nor do they even speak, to loving, caring sexual relationships between people of the same gender."

Another argument is that the phrase translated as "sexual relations" ("lo tishkav") in this passage is more ambiguous, as it literally means "do not lie down with". However, when used in other passages (eg Genesis 19:34; Exodus 22:16; 22:19 and many others) it is a clear euphemism for "sexual relations", or at the least homosexual anal sex between two men. Christian counter-arguments also include that these chapters were concerned with purity codes to keep Israel separate from the Canaanites and that as Jesus rejected the whole purity code they are no longer relevant (Johns 2004).

The Book of Ruth

Main article: Book of Ruth

This book concerns the love between Naomi and her widowed daughter-in-law, Ruth. Naomi's husband and her two sons die and Naomi tells her daughters-in-law to return to their homes:

"At this they wept aloud again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-bye, but Ruth clung to her." (Ruth 1:14; TNIV).

Instead of leaving Naomi, Ruth pledges to stay with her (Ruth 1:16-18). This relationship has therefore long been commended as an example of self-sacrificing love and close friendship (eg. Issues in Human Sexuality para. 2.7). However, more recently a number of scholars have interpreted this relationship as probably sexual in nature. For example, Horner (1978, p.20) argues: "Whether there existed a relationship of physical love between Ruth and Naomi cannot be demonstrated. However, the right words are there."

The word Horner is primarily concerned with is the word translated as clung in Ruth 1:14, which is the Hebrew word "dabaq". This word is also translated in Genesis 2:24 as united "to his wife" and in Genesis 34:3 as drawn "to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman". The context of these passages is obviously one of sexual attraction.

However, the same word is also used in different contexts (Brown et al.). For example it is translated as stay in Ruth 2:8 (TNIV):

"So Boaz said to Ruth, "My daughter, listen to me. Don't go and glean in another field and don't go away from here. Stay here with the women who work for me."

In this context the word obviously has no sexual connotation, while at the end of the book Ruth marries Boaz, with Naomi's encouragement (Ruth 3:1-4). Robinson (2005) therefore concludes that "Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship."

Books of Samuel: David and Jonathan

Main article: David and Jonathan

The account of the intimate relationship between David and Jonathan was recorded favourably in the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 18; 20; 2 Samuel 1) and there is an ongoing debate whether this relationship was platonic, romantic but chaste, or sexual.

The two most significant passages are 1 Samuel 18:3-4 (TNIV):

"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt."

And 2 Samuel 1:26 (TNIV):

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;

you were very dear to me.

Your love for me was wonderful,

more wonderful than that of women.

It has been widely and traditionally interpreted by Biblical scholars as a very close but not sexual relationship (cf. Issues in human sexuality, para. 2.17). However, a growing minority of scholars have argued that this was a sexual relationship (cf. Vasey 1995, Greenberg 1988), whilst acknowledging that "in neither case does the text mention a sexual aspect to the relationship" (Greenberg 1988, p.113). The possible euphemisms within the text and events such as Jonathan disrobing (1 Samuel 18:4: "stripped himself of the robe that was upon him" KJV) in front of David (highly unusual for it to occur between men at the time outside of bathing) and also holding each other extremely closely and kissing have led some scholars to argue "If modern readers do not see "sexual relationship" in this story, it is because they cannot accept the plain implications of the story itself" (Johns 2004; cf. Crompton 2002). However, as a sexual relationship is not made explicit, many continue to interpret the relationship as a "classical Biblical example" (Hilborn 2002, p.2) of brotherly and sisterly love.

Passages from the New Testament

The New Testament tells of Jesus Christ and the first Christians and so is only recognised as inspired by God by Christians, not Jews. The attitude of most Christians to the Bible is based on 1 Timothy 3:16 (TNIV): "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

Matthew 5:22: "raca"

Main article: Matthew 5:22

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is reported as saying:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says



to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Matthew 5:22; TNIV).

This verse has Jesus criticising people for using certain words of contempt, which have been interpreted as referring to homosexuals. The untranslated word "Raca" is an Aramaic term of contempt, but its precise meaning is debatable. The word "raca" and similar words are common in many Semitic languages and mean weakness or effeminacy, which are frequently used as terms of abuse for homosexuals (Robinson 2004; Halsall). Furthermore, the word translated as "fool" (moros) has a number of other meanings, including "sexual aggressor" and "homosexual aggressor". Robinson (2004) therefore concludes that "One could argue that Jesus was condemning homophobia in this passage; but it would be a weak case at best, because of the multiplicity of meanings of the key words." Furthermore, even if Jesus did criticise homophobia, no conclusions can be drawn from this passage on his views of homosexual sex.

Matthew 15; Mark 7: What defiles

In Matthew 15:19–20 (TNIV) Jesus is reported as saying:

"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile you; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile you."

In Mark 7:20-23 (TNIV) it says:

"He went on: "What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you."

Whether these lists include homosexuality depends on the translation of porneia (sexual immorality). As Jesus does not specifically include homosexuality, it has been argued that he did not condemn it. However, this is an argument from silence which has also been criticised on the grounds that the rabbis of the 1st century generally included homosexuality within their condemnations of sexual immorality (Saltlow 1995).

Matthew 8; Luke 7: "pais"

This event is referred to in both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 and tells of Jesus healing a centurion's servant.

Luke 7:2 (TNIV) says:

"There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die."

The term translated from the Greek as "servant" is pais. This can be translated in a number of different ways including "child" (eg., Matthew 2:16; Lk 2:43, 8:51-54 where it refers to a girl), "son" (John 4:51), "servant" (Lk 15:26, Acts 4:25), or be unclear whether "son" or "servant" is meant (Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, 4:30) (Marston 2003). However, it has also been argued (eg, Horner 1978) that the most common meaning was a young slave who was also used sexually. Horner (1978) goes on to argue that this interpretation is made more likely as the "servant" was "valued highly". As the NET Bible (2005) note (Luke 7, ) makes clear the word (ἔντιμος; entimos): "could mean 'highly valued,' but this sounds too much like the slave was seen as an asset, while the text suggests a genuine care for the person." Better translations might be "was dear to him" or "was highly regarded", showing that the centurion was genuinely concerned about the boy and making it more likely that they were lovers (Helminiak 2000). As Jesus commended the centurion for his faith (Matthew 8:10; Luke 7:9), it is therefore argued (eg, Horner 1978) that Jesus approved of his relationship, as otherwise he would have condemned him.

However, Marston (2003) rejects this interpretation, arguing that as the relationship was probably involuntary it is difficult to believe that Jesus would have condoned it, while Chapman (2005) argues that this is an argument from silence, and notes that while Jesus did not condemn other practices (such as slavery) this does not necessarily mean he approved of them.

The disciple whom Jesus loved

In the Gospel of John, there are four verses (John 13:23; 19:26; 21:7; 21:20) which refer to the "disciple whom Jesus loved", generally interpreted to be John himself.

A very small minority of scholars have used these verses to argue that Jesus and John had a homosexual relationship, recently most notably by Jennings (2003). Jennings argues that these verses and the intimacy displayed between Jesus and John, especially at the Last Supper where John is described (John 13:23) as "reclining next to him" (TNIV) or "leaning on Jesus' bosom" (KJV), strongly implies that they were in a homosexual relationship.

However, this interpretation is rejected by virtually all Biblical scholars. For example, Vasey (1995, pp.121-124) uses the "deepest intimacy" of the friendship of Jesus and John to affirm homosexual relationships, but rejects the idea that Jesus and John themselves were in a homosexual realtionship. It is also dismissed by Gangon (2001) in his large-scale study The Bible and Homosexual Practice, not least as the word translated "loved" is the Greek word agape (used, for example, in John 3:16; "for God so loved the world"), rather than the Greek word referring to sexual love, eros.

Responding directly to Jennings' claims, Gangon argued that Jennings misunderstood ancient culture, as people would recline while eating, so the man "leaning on Jesus' bosom" was simply "reclining next to" Jesus, with no homoerotic implication. In short, Gangon argued: "the idea that Jesus was a homosexual or engaged in homosexual acts is complete nonsense" that no "serious biblical scholar" had ever proposed (Ostling 2003).

Romans 1

In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (TNIV), Paul writes

"Because of this , God gave them over to shameful lusts. 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."

This has been described as "the most important biblical reference for the homosexuality debate" (Hilborn 2002, p.5). It is also the only explicit reference in the Bible to female homosexuality. Hilborn (2002, p.6) argues that in the wider passage (Romans 1:18-32) Paul writes that the "global scope of salvation history has been made manifest not only in ‘the 'gospel of God'’s Son’' (cf. v.9), but also in the very ‘'creation of the world’' (v.20)." In common with many traditional commentators, Hilborn (2002, p.7) goes on to argues that the condemnation of homosexual sex (whether consensual or not) is derived from the "broad contours" of Paul's argument, rather than from the selective reading of individual words or phrases.

However, a minority of more recent interpreters (eg., Boswell 1980, p.109f; Vasey 1995, p.131f) argue that Paul does not have in mind a system of natural laws (as this is an Enlightenment concept) and that "Paul did not discuss gay persons, but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons" (Boswell 1980, p.109). McNeil (1993) argues that a proper understanding of this passage should focus on heterosexuals who "abandoned" or "exchanged" heterosexual sex for homosexual sex, which is against nature and therefore idolatrous.

This usually appears to be based on the argument that the ancient world did not have a concept of homosexual orientation. However, having reviewed the evidence the report Issues in Human Sexuality (para 2.16) concluded: "It can be said, therefore, the phenomena which today would be interpreted in terms of orientation were present and recognised." These considerations therefore lead many Biblical interpreters to conclude that "the most authentic reading of Rom 1:26-7 is that which sees it prohibiting homosexual activity in the most general of terms, rather than in respect of more culturally and historically specific forms of such activity" (Hilborn 2002, p.9).

Nonetheless, this broader interpretation of what was known about orientation is rejected by a minority of interpreters (eg West 2005, p.3), who argue that sexual behaviour was always undertaken amongst unequals and that Paul is talking to a Gentile audience in terms that they would understand to show that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). It is therefore argued that what Paul condemns in Romans 1 is particular types of homosexual sex, such as temple prostitution or pederasty (cf. Hilborn 2002, p.8).

1 Corinthians 6; 1 Timothy 1: Wrongdoers

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:

"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 male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

The word translated as "practicing homosexuals" is very unusual, ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoitēs, meaning ‘male who lies with a male’ (Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην arrhēn / arsēn = male), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. It only occurs in this passage and in a similar list in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Paul's source is the Greek (Septuagint) translation of Leviticus 18:22: καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν (kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gunaikos; bdelugma gar estin) = You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Boswell (1980) argues that this is a term specifically created by Paul. Given its unusual nature, the fact that Paul did not use one of the more common Greek terms, and its direct reference to Leviticus, it is a matter of debate whether Paul was referring generally to any person having homosexual sex, or whether he was referring to a narrower range of practices (such as heterosexuals having homosexual sex), or whether (as discussed below) it referred to anal sex committed under any circumstances (cf. Elliott 2004).

Furthermore, while it is generally agreed that the Church Fathers condemned homosexuality (eg., ), they only very rarely used the term arsenokoitai (Elliott 1994). For example, St. John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, uses the term "arsenokoitai" referring specifically to the pederasty common in the Greco-Roman culture of the time, while Patriarch John IV of Constantinople in the 6th century used it to refer to anal sex: "some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives".

References

• Amsel, Nachum .
• Biblical Studies Press 1996-2005 .
• Boswell, John. 1980 Christainity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226067114
• Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. . The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon.
• Chapman, Patrick 2005 . Rainbow Journal Olympia, vol 2(1) (November 2005).
• Crompton, Louis, et al. 2003 Homosexuality and Civilization. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press ISBN 067401197X
• Elliott, John 2004 No kingdom of God for softies? or, what was Paul really saying? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in context .
• Gagnon, Robert 2001 The Bible and Homosexual Practice. Abingdon Press. ISBN 068708413X
• Greenberg, David 1988 The construction of homosexuality. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226306283
• Halsall, Paul,
• Helminiak, Daniel 2000 What the Bible really says about homosexuality. Alamo Square Press. ISBN 188636009X
• Hilborn, David 2002 . Evangelical Alliance.
• Horner, Tom 1978 Jonathan Loved David. Westminster Press. ISBN 0664241859
• House of Bishops 1991 Issues in Human Sexuality. Church of England. ISBN 071513745X
• Jennings, Theodore 2003 The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives From the New Testament. Pilgrim Press. ISBN 082981535X
• Johansson, Warren Whosoever Shall Say To His Brother, Racha. Studies in Homosexuality, Vol XII: Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy. Ed. Wayne Dynes & Stephen Donaldson. New York & London: Garland, 1992. pp. 212-214
• Johns, Loren 2004 (The Academic Dean of the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary).
• Marston, Paul 2003 . Free Methodists.
• McNeill, J. J. 1993 The Church and the Homosexual. Beacon Press. (4th edn.). ISBN 0807079316
• Ostling, R. N. 2003 Chicago Sun-Times 29th May 2003.
• Robinson, B. A. 1996-2005 . Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.
• Saltlow, Michael 1995 Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality. Scholars Press. ISBN 0788501593
• Vasey, Michael 1995 Strangers and Friends. Hodder and Stoughton. ISBN 0340608145
• West, Mona 2005 . Metropolitan Community Church.
• Williams, Rowan 2002 ’The Body’s Grace’, in Eugene F. Rogers (ed.), Theology and Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary Readings, Blackwell. ISBN 0631212779