Homosexuality In Scripture

The easiest statement about homosexuality in scripture is it does not mention it. However, because homophobic peoples have read into scripture what they wanted for more than twenty centuries, it would be disingenuous to ignore the homophobic view without comment. There is nothing described in scripture which deals with the habit of 31 species including man to revert to same-sex sexual expression when there is overpopulation. Such an event did not happen in scriptural times and therefore was never commented on. That said, let us look at several passages first in the Hebrew scriptures and then in the Pauline writings.

THE NOACH STORY

Genesis 9:22 records these words: “Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness, and he told his two brothers outside about it.” According to the Torah, the reason that Hamite people were eternally to be slaves was because of this act. The act was more than just a casual glance, it was a lust for one’s father. Hebrew theology considered incest a serious sexual sin. Such an opinion was not supported among the Egyptians and the Ethiopians who practiced marriage of a father with his daughter and sexual activity between brothers as in the case of Amenhotep IV and his two brothers, Semekharah and Tutankhamen. This statement therefore is seen as a political one on the third level of scripture called Dresh because this statement was part of an ongoing story justifying the separation of the Hebrew people from the Egyptians.

SODOM

Genesis 19:4-9 tells the story of the accosting of the angels sent to observe the wickedness of the town. Lot makes a point of arguing that hospitality forbids the misuse of strangers; he says, “But don’t do anything to these men, for you know that they have come under the shelter of my roof.” He claims that these men are guests and that to harm them is to violate the law of hospitality. Lot is willing to let the men of Sodom rape his daughters, but not to violate his hospitality. This is not a story of homosexuality. It is a story of the breach of the law of hospitality. When Jesus sent out disciples to the surrounding towns in Judea, he said that the disciples were to seek hospitality and if they were not given hospitality, it would go worse for those towns than on Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment. Thus, we see that Jesus thought the story was about hospitality.

LEVITICUS 18

Leviticus 18: 21-22 are part of the holiness code. It can be argued that the holiness code is an ideal, not an actual law in practice. It goes from Chapter 16 through 20 and sets forth a number of laws that are recognized in the failure to do them more than in doing them. Leviticus 18:21 talks about a particularly odious act; it says, “You shall not offer your seed to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your G-d. I am the Lord.” While scholars are not absolutely certain as to what this act refers to, it most likely refers to the offering of a new-born child as a sacrifice to the g-d Molech. It was a detestable attack on name of YHVH because up until circumcision and the repurchase of the first born, the child belongs to YHVH and to offer it to another g-d profanes the Name. Interestingly enough, it says nothing about offering a human sacrifice to YHVH. But we assume that issue was dealt with in the Akeda story during the sacrifice of Yitzak.
Immediately following this law is another which says: “You shall not lie with a zakar as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.” The word “zakar” means male, but it normally means a very young male. Genesis says that G-d created man, young male and young female. Leviticus 12:2 speaks of the child before circumcision as zakar. Scripture calls the sacrificial animal a zakar. The word for man is “ish” and for mankind is “adam” and for the male sex is “enosh”. So why did the divine writer use the word “zakar” here. When read in context, the passage forbids pederasty. It goes along with detestable acts to small children mentioned in the previous passage. Even Strong’s makes a point of saying that zakar means a male child. Only prejudice would allow the translation to be as it is. For the correct translation should be, “You shall not lie with a small male child as you would with a woman.”
The Didache, the earliest document of the followers of Jesus, echoes this interpretation. It outlaws a number of things mentioned in the Holiness Code and specifically outlaws pederasty. There is no mention of homosexuality in Didache.

I Corinthians 6

Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 sets forth in verse 9 a group of people who are damned by nature. He says: “Be not led astray. Not fornicators (pornoi), nor idolators (eidololatrai) nor adulterers (moichoi) nor abusers (malakoi) nor homosexuals (arsenokoitai) nor thieves (kleptai) nor covetous ones (pleonektai) nor drunkards (methusoi) nor revilers (loidoroi) nor plunderers (arpages) shall inherit the kingdom of g-d.” Besides the obvious fact that most people in the world are not going to inherit the kingdom of g-d because they are people who are pornoi (worshippers through sex of foreign g-ds, namely, the god lust), idolators who worship statues, thieves, alcoholics, and covetous ones and no one believes that is true, let us look at what is said. Normally malakoi has been translated as catamites. Here it is translated as abusers. The word means soft in the sense of clothing is soft or the persons character is weak. It has nothing to do with sex. Arsenokoites literally means bed man, male prostitute. In translating it as homosexual, it completely misses the boat. However, 2000 years of prejudice and politics have led to this translation. It is false. In fact in his book, Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, Professor Boswell demolishes the claim that the church has always been opposed to homosexuality. The passage does condemn alcoholics, sorry AA, and those who keep up with the Jones. But it does not condemn homosexuality.

Romans 1

Paul argues in Romans that because G-d’s power is manifest in nature, people who do not believe “became vain in their reasoning and their senseless minds were darkened.” He says that this led to idolatry. He then says that they exchanged the truth of G-d for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. It seems as if Paul is arguing that idol worship and narcissism lead inevitable to a certain lifestyle. Then Paul shows his prejudice and makes medical and psychological statements which we know now are false. He says, “Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.” Romans 26-27. While I do not accord this passage as being even canonical as I reject all of Paul as relevant to godliness, he seems to say that homosexual acts are unnatural. Such a statement is contrary to fact. Thirty one species have their males turn toward each other when the species becomes overpopulated. It is a serious problem in America with sheep and ducks as their overpopulation is now causing widespread same-sex activity and farmers do not want same-sex loving ducks and sheep. It is not unnatural for men to have sex with men or to have lustful thoughts for each other. Sex between males can be as beautiful as sex between a man and a woman. Only the misguided and sexually stunted character of the author of these words is represented in these statements and do not accurately represent G-d’s opinion. Homosexuals are as spiritually faithful and as committed to true religion as heterosexuals and to claim that it is false belief that causes homosexuality is silly if not openly slanderous. These slanderous and false words not withstanding, Paul then accuses all of the Church of Rome of these same acts. Romans 2:1.

In this discussion of homosexuality in Scripture, we need to turn to positive passages which seem to accept homosexuality.

RUTH AND NAOMI

Ruth is a story about two women: a mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law who fell in love with each other and yet wanted to have children for the dead son and husband of the two. Ruth loves Naomi so much that she makes a statement which I have heard in many marriage vows:

“Do not ask me to abandon or forsake you!” says Ruth. Ruth 1:16, “for wherever you go I will go, wherever you lodge I will lodge, your people shall be my people, and your G-d my G-d. Wherever you die I will die, and there be buried.” 1:16-17.

If a woman said these words to me, I would know that I am married. But in this case, two women were taking these vows. G-d blessed this union so much that he sent Boaz to take both of the women in and from Ruth came a grandson who was David Bar Jesse, King of Israel.

DAVID AND JONATHAN

I doubt that there is any more beautiful love story than the two bisexuals, David and Jonathan. David was Jonathan’s brother-in-law. 1 Samuel 18:1 says, “And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” We often speak of marriage in the terms of the two becoming one. Here it says that David and Jonathan souls were enrapped so that they were knit together and Jonathan loved David as much as himself. Again when David flees from the Court of Saul, Jonathan comes to him and David says this to Jonathan: “Therefore thou shalt deal kindly with thy servant; for thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of the LORD with thee….” 1 Samuel 20:8. This covenant or compact is called in Hebrew, a ketubah, or marriage contract. Lastly, we know the depth of that love when David says of Jonathan, “More precious have I held love for you than love for women.” 2 Samuel 1:26. It is significant that the word for love here is feminine and implies a love that is sexual with one party, Jonathan, playing the feminine part. Yet, it is this love, not the illicit love with Bathsheba, that is remembered as so beautiful throughout history.

The Centurion and His Servant

We are told in Matthew 8:5 about a centurion who approaches Jesus and says that his servant has a palsy and is very ill at home. Jesus says he will come to aid the servant and the centurion says he has faith that Jesus can heal him from afar as the Centurion is not worthy to have Jesus under his roof. In Matthew, the servant is called a “pais”, that is a common servant that one beats and uses for ones purposes. It is truly strange that the Centurion would ask Jesus to heal a common servant and debase himself by begging it of Jews. However, when Luke speaks of the event we learn more. Luke says, “A certain Centurion’s servant, who was dear to him, was sick and ready to die.” Luke 7:2. The word that is used for dear is “entimos” and is the word from which we get intimate. It means that there was a sexual relationship between the Centurion and the slave and that he loved his slave. Jesus certainly understood the fact that we had a forced master-servant relationship which had become one of love and affection. It was between two men and yet he did not care about that. He healed the slave from afar. Would he have done that if the slave was to continue in a drudgery? Probably not. But the slave was loved, he felt the Centurion’s love and approved of it, healing his lover.

It would not be right to finish this discussion of relationships without talking about Jesus and Lazarus.

JESUS AND LAZARUS

The gospels tell us that Jesus loved three people in a special way. They were Mary of Bethany, probably his wife, Martha, her sister, and Lazarus, their brother. When Lazarus died, the scripture says, “Jesus wept.” There was much to weep about in that time, but Jesus only weeps about Lazarus’ death. In order to understand this relationship better though, we have to look at a document now widely accepted as truthful and authentic, called the Secret Gospel of Mark. The words of Mark in the Secret Gospel were ordered excised from the Gospel of Mark by Clement of Alexandria at the end of the second century. The story is included in John 11. However, we know how it would have looked. At the end of the story, the Secret Gospel says:

“And they come into Bethany, and a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me.’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of G-d.”

This passage was excised because the Carpocratians were saying that it showed that Jesus had a homosexual relationship with the boy. Clement of Alexandria, unwilling to consider such an event, orders the passage excised and it was forever. The fact remains that Jesus probably had a sexual relationship with a boy that he loved. The question might arise why John Mark would include such an overt statement in his gospel. The answer may lie elsewhere.

PAUL AND MARK

John Mark is an interesting person in the Christian writings. He was a Nasorean. His mother was a prominent Nasorean and it was in her home that the Jerusalem Qahal met for a while. Acts 12:12. Her brother, who was also wealthy, was Joseph Barnabas and was John Mark’s uncle. Mark’s gospel includes a curious statement that many scholars think is his autograph; he says that a certain young man was in the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus wearing nothing but a linen cloth. It sounds amazingly like Lazarus in the story above, but most scholars think the young man was John Mark himself because no one else mentions the event. The Jerusalem Qahal sent Barnabas and John Mark to be with Paul, while he was preaching, concerned that he was getting out of hand and preaching ideas contrary to the true teaching of Jesus.

Paul had some infirmity that was upsetting to many people. He constantly speaks of this infirmity but never identifies it. John Mark must have been quite a handsome young man, because Paul chooses him as his secretary. They get along for some time and things proceed on Paul’s mission. However, for some reason John Mark leaves Paul and Barnabas at Pamphylia. Acts 13:13. The separation of Mark and Paul must not have been a harmonious act because in Acts 15:37-38, Barnabas wants to go and get John Mark to go with them on a return trip to the churches that they had originally visited, but Paul still upset with John Mark refused and Barnabas and Paul also split up. What ever the reason of the separation, it does not affect Mark’s standing in the church because tradition tells us that Mark went with Peter to Alexandria in Egypt and acted as Peter’s secretary there. When Peter left Alexandria for Rome, Mark was left in Alexandria as the Bishop. After the separation of Paul and John Mark, Paul takes up with another young man named Timothy. Acts 16:3. While there is no direct evidence of Paul’s proclivities, in the gay world, there are many like him who while practicing homosexuality speak viciously against any one like themselves. The Jim Bakkers and Ted Haggards of the world are numerous. The evidence seems to support the idea that both Jesus and Paul might have had a sexual relationship with John Mark and Paul’s homosexuality was the infirmity that people had to put up with as he was seducing their sons. Certainly, if we remove the names and tell the story today, most people would have no difficulty in saying something was going on.

In conclusion, just as today there are many homosexuals, bisexuals, and pederasts in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, so there were throughout scriptural history. Far from condemning the activities of homosexuals, up until some 1,000 years ago, those activities were celebrated as normal and natural forms of love. There is nothing in scripture that can be quoted that definitively proves that homosexual love is forbidden and there is much in scripture to support the idea that G-d loves homosexuals.