Hello and thank you for joining me once again. Today we are exploring a deeply important and sensitive subject that has been a source of division, controversy, and repression within the church for ages. I am talking about homosexuality. This is a widely debated topic in the public forum that is almost always fueled by hatred and ignorance. We will take a look at what the Bible has to say, and what it does not have to say concerning same-sex relations and whether it is considered a transgression in the eyes of God. But before we begin let me first take the time to shed light on some pertinent facts that are commonly unknown, remarkably so, among those who possess such strong opinions against homosexuality. At the end of this blog I will discuss my personal beliefs and opinions on the matter of sexual orientation and how I think God would actually feel about it. But for now let’s get to the discussion!

First and foremost it is of colossal importance to understand that Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. He does not mention it in any of the four canonical gospels that detail his life and ministry, and he does not mention it anywhere else in the Bible. Take a moment to process this one profound fact. Jesus — the central figure in Christianity, the Son of God, Savior to humanity, God incarnate — had nothing to say about homosexuality whatsoever. Pretty surprising right? Some people like to cite Matthew 19:4 to support their belief that Jesus was against same-sex relations. Their efforts are not only misguided but their argument is invalid. In the passage Jesus is asked if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause. This prompts Jesus to answer, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” While this quote has been weaponized by opponents of same-sex marriage, it simply has nothing to do with homosexuality at all. There is no judgement on same-sex relations here. There is no warning against homosexuality here. There is only a guideline on heterosexual marriage and divorce. What opponents of same-sex marriage have been doing is taking the inverse of what Jesus said and speciously using it to attribute false claims of anti-homosexuality onto the lips Jesus. But once again, Jesus simply never condemned same-sex relations. It is a bit strange isn’t it? A topic that is so vehemently opposed and insatiably combated in Christian circles today, had no import to Jesus.

Jesus and Homosexuality

Why is it so important to us that Jesus had nothing to say? To answer that we need to take a moment to understand his short-lived ministry. Jesus had a very brief career as an itinerant preacher going from village to village, from city to city, teaching his message. Most scholars agree that his missionary career lasted anywhere from six months to three years. Jesus also operated under an eschatological worldview in which he believed, wholeheartedly, that he and his peers were at the precipice of the coming Kingdom of God — a new age on Earth (not in Heaven) where the wicked and sinful would be rendered defunct, poverty and injustice would be eradicated, and Jesus would sit at the throne of this new kingdom with his disciples by his side, ruling with peace and power. He believed this was imminent and would come to fruition while he and many of his followers were still breathing. Suffice it to say Jesus knew he had a very short time to deliver his message of salvation and would therefore have to communicate the most critical and important details of salvation before time was up. After all, if people did not repent before this coming age, they would be lost. We can deduce, then, that if Jesus’ goal was to illustrate all that is requisite for salvation, and he completed this goal without so much as mentioning homosexuality, then it follows that sexual orientation is not central to salvation.

So if Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, then why is it so popularly denounced in Christian discourse? To answer that we must understand who in the Bible was concerned about sexual orientation and under what context. As it turns out, there are only three sources that deal with homosexuality — Genesis and Leviticus in the Old Testament, and three of Paul’s letters in the New Testament.

Old Testament Homosexuality

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof. Genesis 19:4-8

Homosexuality in Genesis: Genesis 19 appears to be more concerned with violence and rape, understandably so, than it does homosexuality. It is important to note that the use of the phrase, “so that we may know them”, in the excerpt above from Genesis is tantamount to the men of the town desiring to fornicate with the two men in the house. More accurately though, given the context of the scene, the men in the town are aiming to rape them. This anecdote between Lot, the two angels, and the immoral men of the city serves to illustrate the kind of tumult that is taking place in Sodom. But it also precipitates a drastic and harsh act from God. It compels God to rain fire and sulfur down on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, wiping out their entire populations, women and children included, sparing only Lot and his daughters. Even his wife is killed.

What we have here in Genesis is an illustration of a city whose depraved men are committing or attempting to commit acts of rape, adultery, and violence. But what seems to be the takeaway for opponents of same-sex relations is…wait for it…the matching genders of the angels and men of Sodom. I bet you didn’t see that coming! Personally I don’t view their genders as being central to the moral of this story at all. It just seems like a stretch. Regardless of my opinion, though, there are those who read this story and see homosexual lust as the operative reason that leads God to destroy the city and all of its people. So I wonder — if we switch the genders in this story to female, does the moral of the story change? Would the attempted rape feel any less wrong if the angels in Lot’s home were female? Or if the violent citizens of Sodom were all women instead of men? It should not.

Sadly I think the story of Lot in Genesis 19 inadvertently does a better job of highlighting the misogyny and devaluation of women that permeates the Old Testament. Lot actually offers up his two virgin daughters to these vile men who are huffing and puffing at his doorstep so as to protect these two supernatural angels — as if they needed his protection. If that doesn’t speak volumes about the abhorrent status of women in both man’s eyes and God’s eyes in the time of the Old Testament, then I don’t know what can. For anyone to read these passages and leave thinking homosexuality is the wrongdoing, is just disturbing. Ultimately this passage in Genesis appears to be much more of a condemnation against rape and adultery than it does homosexuality. I do not see it as being remotely useful for those trying to build an argument against same-sex relations. This brings us to our next mention in the Old Testament — Leviticus.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. Leviticus 20:13

Homosexuality in Leviticus: According to Dr. Jeff Siker — Professor of Theological Studies at Loyola Marymount University and author of Homosexuality in the Church and Homosexuality in Religion: An Encyclopedia — the quote above from Leviticus “occurs in the larger context of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-25), which spells out how the Israelites should behave as they take possession of the land of Canaan.” He goes on to clarify that, “In both Leviticus 18 and 20 we find significant references to the idolatrous worship of the Canaanite god Molech (18:21; 20:2-6), which suggests that same-sex acts may be connected to such false worship.” Is it possible that the homosexuality being dealt such a ruthless judgement in Leviticus was treated as such due to its connection with worship of the pagan god Molech? Maybe. The exact historical context behind Leviticus 20:13 remains a mystery. On one hand if we read it in isolation it unequivocally rejects same-sex relations. On the other hand if the historical context in which it was ensconced was as posited above, then it’s plausible that homosexuality was seen as a corollary of idolatry and thus rendered condemnable — guilty by association.

The Old Testament isn’t really known for being a compendium of fair and just rulings from a benevolent God. On the contrary it is fraught with inequality and injustice and depicts an alarming number of harsh judgements delivered by God against the people of its stories, many of whom were arguably innocent by today’s standards. So it is possible that some of the more pious or ascetic people of the time would have been offended by same-sex acts, but for what reason, we do not know. While it is evident that same-sex relations existed in biblical times it is unclear what they looked like. As we’ll see later it is highly likely that homosexual activity was taking place only in the context of things like male prostitution and sex with minors, which would explain its contemptible reputation and, in turn, the perceived necessity to condemn it in the Holiness Code. But if this is the case, it’s a completely different intimation of homosexuality than we have today. It does not represent a committed and loving same-sex relationship. So we’ve seen what our two Old Testament sources have to say about homosexuality, now let’s fast forward to the time of Paul of Tarsus to find out how it’s treated in the New Testament.

New Testament Homosexuality

Before we analyze what he said about homosexuality, it is important to first understand some facts about Paul. As author and professor Bart D. Ehrman put it in his book Peter, Paul, & Mary Magdalene, “It would be easy to argue that after Jesus himself, Paul was the most important figure in the history of Christianity. It was Paul’s missionary work that helped transform the followers of Jesus from a small Jewish sectarian movement in Palestine to a worldwide religion comprising both Jews and Gentiles. It was his theological reflections on the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus that came to form the heart of the Christian message for all time. And it was his writings that were to play such an enormous role in the canon of the new Christian Scriptures, the New Testament, of whose twenty-seven books thirteen are attributed to Paul.” Professor Ehrman also goes on to explain how people throughout the ages, including the members of the churches that Paul had formed and was writing to, have used Paul’s teachings to support both ends of the spectrum of beliefs. People have used Paul’s writings to support women in ministry and oppose women in ministry. Likewise people have used his writings to approve of homosexual relationships and disapprove of homosexual relationships. So for the purpose of this blog we will simply use our best judgement and try to understand what Paul said to the best of our ability.

One last fact to note before we get into Paul’s writings on homosexuality is something that is, again, very pertinent to the conversation at hand and, strangely enough, commonly unknown among average christian circles. Paul never actually knew Jesus. He never met Jesus, he never saw Jesus, and he never heard Jesus speak. It was only after Jesus’ death that Paul experienced a vision on the road to Damascus from Jerusalem and converted to the belief that Jesus was the messiah prophesied in Jewish scripture. In fact, Paul had quite the tumultuous relationship with the apostolic council — James (brother of Jesus), Peter, and John (son of Zebedee). These were the closest of the closest disciples to Jesus that spent every day with him from the beginning of his messianic career to the end. They were upset with the profoundly different gospel that Paul was teaching and for the fact that he was teaching it to gentiles instead of jews.

While Paul was indeed stretching the gospel a bit, it was thanks to his indefatigable evangelizing that ultimately led to the spread of the gospel across the known world at the time, and especially to the intellectual capitals of the world like Greece and Rome. It was due to this that the oral traditions could become immortalized on paper, in different languages, and eventually disseminated throughout the world. If it were not for Paul’s efforts, Christianity would not have persuaded the likes of Constantine to adopt it as the official state religion of the Roman Empire and it likely would have died off and disappeared into history. So with that said, let’s take a look at what Paul was saying about sexual orientation.

Paul and Homosexuality

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:26-27

Homosexuality in Paul’s Letters: The above quote from Paul’s letter to the church in Rome is largely seen as the most significant biblical condemnation of homosexual acts. As Jeff Siker explains, “It includes both women and men. The larger context indicates that idolatry leads to a distortion of natural relationships. That Paul condemns what he knows of same-sex relations is clear. But this raises the question of what Paul understood in his context. Most scholars agree that Paul would have been aware of three same-sex practices found in pagan culture: pederasty (an older man with a prepubescent boy), prostitution (where a man sells himself to be the passive recipient in a same-sex act), and slave prostitution (where a slave-owner rents out his slaves for sexual acts). There is no evidence that Paul is aware of committed consensual same-sex relations between adults that is presumed in same-sex marriage today.” So it is clear that Paul is censuring these acts of same-sex relations. What is not clear is what context Paul was operating under. If it is as Dr. Jeff Siker says, then maybe Paul really did have no conception of an innocuous, committed same-sex relationship. Maybe all he had to work with when formulating his denouncement were these controversial and unacceptable forms of same-sex relations prevalent at the time. Another thing to note is Paul’s use of the words “natural” and “unnatural” as they pertain to intercourse. Today we of course know that homosexuality is a naturally occurring form of sex, not just among humans, but also other species. However, it’s safe to assume that in Paul’s time it was largely thought of as unnatural for members of the same sex to copulate with each other. Let’s see what else Paul has to say.

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

In the above quote Paul gives a litany of transgressors who will not make the cut, so to speak, for entrance into the kingdom of God. Of these several sins listed are two that deal with homosexuality — male prostitutes and sodomites. What is important for understanding what Paul is saying here is that we have a good idea of the translation from greek. To unpack this better let us defer back to Dr. Jeff Siker. In his analysis of the passage Dr. Siker says, “What mattered in first century same-sex acts between men was who was in the active position and who was in the passive position. While ‘male prostitutes’ is arguably a good translation for malakoi, ‘sodomites’ is arguably a poor translation for arsenokoitai, as it invokes the history and use of the word and its connection to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In my view a better, if colloquial, translation of the two related terms would be something like: ‘male prostitutes and the men who hire their services.’ Regardless, this passage illustrates that Paul does not envision committed same-sex relationships between adults. Paying a prostitute for sex is not the same as living in a mutually committed relationship that includes far more than sex!” So if this point from Dr. Jeff Siker concerning the accuracy of the translations from greek is true, then it would appear Paul was condemning a more transactional type of relationship between two members of the same sex — such as that of a male prostitute and his patron. That is a superficial same-sex act that is purely based on lust and intercourse. It has nothing to do with love and commitment — the grounds on which we view marital relationships today, regardless of genders and sexual orientations. Let’s go to our last mention of homosexuality that is attributed to Paul.

…the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God. 1 Timothy 1:9-10

The final mention of homosexuality in the New Testament comes from Paul’s first epistle to Timothy (see above) which, although it is attributed to Paul, is actually a pseudepigraphic writing — written by someone else who falsely claims to be Paul in order to get exposure for the writing. Regardless, this passage serves to further demonstrate that Paul’s understanding of same-sex relations was probably confined to things like prostitution and rape. Nothing in Paul’s language and context leads me to believe that he was condemning the kind of consensual same-sex relationships that we see today. It is unclear whether these modern types of same-sex relationships existed in Paul’s time during the 1st century, but it is clear that this type of relationship is not what Paul envisioned when deriding same-sex acts.

Having now heard what Paul had to say regarding same-sex relations in the three letters where it is mentioned (one being pseudepigraphic) what can we summarize about his views? I think it is clear there was a distinct issue at the time revolving around acts of homosexuality. That is indisputable. But I do not believe that the type of sexual acts transpiring between members of the same sex at the time that were alarming Christians were the type of same-sex relations we commonly see today. I believe they were acts of prostitution, rape, and sex with a minor — in other words deviant acts of sex, regardless of the genders involved. Not sexual acts between committed and consensual couples that were in a loving relationship. This modern type of homosexual relationship may or may not have existed at the time, but if it did it was probably either seen as harmless or it was not publicly displayed enough to bat an eye. Context is extremely important when dealing with problems like this but, doubtless, there are people who do not have the capacity to care about or understand the importance of context and they will believe that the Bible is to be taken literally (but only sometimes, when convenient, right?). These types of people are ostensibly comfortable with themselves in harboring hatred, ascribing that hatred to God, and projecting that hatred out into the world. Unfortunately for them, there’s likely no convincing. But for those of us that aspire to be good, thoughtful, and conscientious, we can better understand the Bible and the profound teaching of Jesus and help spread that kindness and love throughout the world.

In Conclusion

I am compelled to conclude that neither God, nor Jesus, nor Paul were against homosexuality in and of itself. I do not believe that God views homosexuality as immoral. Not just because it’s not included in the Ten Commandments, but because sexual orientation in the grand scheme of things is trivial and inconsequential. If the Creator of the universe could be so low as to arbitrarily condemn gay people based on the gender of the person they love, notwithstanding an otherwise completely good and devoted life, then God is at best not a god I care to worship, and at worst an evil god. I do not believe that Jesus sees homosexuality as a sin. Not just because he never mentioned it when giving us all we needed to know for the purpose of salvation, but because Jesus is the quintessential example of love and acceptance. He came not only to bring salvation but also to reconcile the harsh and cruel propensities of the God of Abraham to the past and renew the image of God. I do not believe that Paul understood homosexuality to be depraved. Not just because I believe he was speaking to same-sex activity as it related to rape, prostitution, and child molestation, but because Paul was a bright individual that made a career of meeting people, making friends, and teaching a gospel of peace. He knew how to bring out the best in the members of the church communities that he formed. My guess is that if Paul, in all of his extensive travels, had ever encountered a normal, committed and consensual homosexual couple, he surely would have had the capacity to perceive the harmless and loving nature of their relationship and could distinguish between that and the acts he was condemning.

Ultimately there is nothing inherently immoral, unnatural or problematic with homosexuality. There is nothing intrinsic to homosexuality that could be anathema to God. If God did have a problem with homosexuality in and of itself, there could be no good reason but for some arbitrary form of hatred or prejudice, of which I do not believe God could possess. I can understand God taking issue with the acts of rape, molestation, and prostitution detailed in the Bible, rightfully so, but I do not believe that the same-sex nature of these offenses had any bearing on their judgement. There is no doubt in my mind that the existence of anti-homosexuality in our world is predicated in hatred and ignorance. It is incumbent on us as a just and compassionate people to face this evil of homophobia as we have been facing the evils of racism and sexism, and to prevail over and quash such hatreds. And with that, I leave you with this quote from Jesus — “In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you” (Matt 7:12 NRSV).