Intro and Background
A lot of great scholarship has been done over the years to show that the Bible does not actually prohibit modern same-sex relationships. Meaning: committed, consensual, and loving same-sex relationships like we have today. The Bible doesn’t prohibit them because the Bible doesn’t mention them. Probably because such relationships didn’t exist in the ancient world, at least not like they do now. So instead, the same-sex behavior the Bible addresses and prohibits are things like pederasty, rape, temple prostitution/idolatry. These behaviors are what’s being addressed in what’s commonly referred to as the six so-called “clobber passages.” They are called such because they have been used to clobber queer people over the head with for generations. However, before we address them, we first need to clarify some things about the Bible.
The Bible as a unified singular document/book doesn’t exist. In a sense, there is no such thing as “the book of the Bible.” What does exist is a library, a loose collection of documents that sometimes correlate and support each other, but just as often do not. The Bible is a library of sixty-six individual books, letters, poems, laws, prophecies, folktales, novellas, sagas, etc. It was written by dozens of different people over the course of centuries, and then edited, translated, and compiled later into one volume and handed down to us. Because this is the case, one should refrain from asking questions like – what is the Bible’s message on (fill in the blank)?
Who would go to their local public library and ask the librarian - what is the main message of the books in your library? What are they trying to say to us? What is their essence?
Who would ever ask such nonsensical questions? And yet that’s exactly what people ask about the Bible. Or they say: “the Bible clearly says.” The Bible says a lot of things. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some common themes to be found, but it’s a mistake to assume that they’re found throughout or always represented in the same way.
We also need to keep in mind that a quest for an affirming reading of the Bible, as well intentioned as it is, inadvertently ties queer people’s validity and worth to the Bible. Queer people's worth, humanity, and right to exist is not contingent upon what *any* says. But I’m afraid the exact opposite is inferred when so many well-meaning Christians, in an effort to maintain a high view of scripture, work really hard to prove the Bible is affirming, or at least not non-affirming. We need to stop giving the Bible that much power. We need to love queer folk more than we love the Bible. And I don’t think one can do that if one is only affirming because they believe the Bible allows them to be. I think that’s a conflict of interest.
That said, unclobbering the following six passages can be quite useful in helping Christians become more affirming. For that reason alone, it’s worth knowing.
The Six Clobber Passages: Genesis 19
The first one is Genesis 19, which is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is probably the first passage or story people jump to when they think of an anti-gay Bible passage. As the story goes, God sends two angels to the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to see how wicked they were and potentially destroy them.
According to Ezekiel 16:49, the sin of Sodom was that, “She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” Notice, no mention of same-sex behavior. Rather the reason why these two cities were condemned was because they were arrogant, overfed (read: wealthy and decadent) and did not help the poor and needy.
As the story goes, the two angels were welcomed into Lot’s house to stay the night. This was of course Abraham’s nephew and supposedly the only righteous man in town, and being righteous, Abe welcomes these strangers into his home. Hospitality is key to understanding this story. Hospitality was a really big deal in the ancient world.
Next, some of the male villagers came and pounded on Lot’s door, demanding that he send the two men out so they could gang-rape them. Lot, of course refuses and offers them his own daughter instead (a real classy move by the so-called, only-righteous-man-in-town).
But again, the sin of Sodom was not same-sex behavior. Keep in mind, these men were about to rape Lot’s daughter too. Thus, the sin of Sodom was the general decadence of the city, their greed, their violent nature, their lack of care for the poor, their cruelty, and their lack of hospitality for strangers. That’s how you unclobber Genesis 19.
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 both say. “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
The first thing to understand is that the Hebrew word for abomination (toevah) did not mean vile, disgusting, or subhuman. Toevah, had to do with violating cultural or religious customs and not evil actions that are universally morally wrong like say; murder. For example, the same word (toevah) was used to describe eating shellfish, pork, or charging interest on loans, or having sex with your wife while she’s menstruating. All of these things were described as abominations before the Lord. And yet, no Christian today would think that these things are somehow antithetical to the nature of God.
It’s also important to keep in mind that Leviticus was written specifically to Jews. It was not written to Israel’s gentile neighbors as a way of telling them what God demanded of them too. In fact, if anything, these customs, traditions, and laws were seen as a way of separating and distinguishing Israel from their neighbors. The Israelites certainly believed their God was God over all and would judge the nations. But they didn’t believe God would judge the nations for not keeping the Law of Moses. That was for Israel alone to follow. Israel believed that if their gentile neighbors were just and good, then God was pleased with them.
The fact that this is completely ignored by evangelicals, who claim to have a high view of scripture, is tragically ironic. You can’t have a high view of scripture and yet ignore things like authorial intent and historical context.
Romans 1:26-27
“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 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.”
Paul, like many people in the ancient world, did not believe that same-sex behavior was driven by a sexual orientation you were born with. It appears they had no conception of that biological or hereditary aspect. Rather, Paul and others believed same-sex behavior was the result of too much heterosexual lust. In other words, they thought if you were too lusty in general, if you had an excess of sexual desire, you would eventually lose interest in just heterosexual sex and would engage in same-sex behavior.
This is what made same-sex behavior sinful in Paul’s eyes. As he says here in our passage, “For this reason God gave them up to [their] degrading passions.” The problem was their “passions.” In the same way, drunkenness was labelled a sin, not because drinking itself was sinful but because drunkenness was a form of excess and that which is born out of excess was by definition sinful in Paul’s eyes.
Nevertheless, Paul does label same-sex behavior as “unnatural” here in Romans 1, but he also says that for men to have long hair was unnatural and therefore sinful. You’d be hard-pressed to find an evangelical today who believes that men with long hair are doomed and cannot be Christian. Thus, it’s impossible to divorce Paul’s view of same-sex behavior from his first-century cultural context and the patriarchal, social, and sexual biases of his world.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10
These last two clobber passages are very similar to each other in that they’re both just lists of sins that keep you out of the kingdom of God. The first passage is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “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.”
And then, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, “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 sound teaching.”
It’s in these two passages that the English word “homosexual” first appears in the Bible. However, that didn’t happen until 1946, when translators creating the Revised Standard Version (one of the most popular and influential Bible translations ever) translated the Greek words in these two passages, Malakoi and Asenokoitai, into homosexual.
The translators actually later admitted their error and these words have since been retranslated into “male prostitute” and “sodomite” in the New Revised Standard Version, which is the translation I’m quoting from, but you can still find these words translated as homosexual in places like the NIV and New American Standard.
The big question is: what do those words really mean (Malakoi and Asenokoitai)? The truth is, nobody really knows for sure.
It’s key to understand that when these texts were written 2000 years ago, same-sex behavior was limited to basically two places: temple prostitution and pederasty. Male and female prostitutes were common in pagan temples and were used as a kind of sex magic and worship. One can quickly see why Paul would have a problem with that, and how it had little to do with same-sex behavior itself, and was more about idolatry.
The other place where you would see same-sex behavior was in the wide spread and socially acceptable practice of pederasty in the Greco-Roman world.
Pederasty was where wealthy adult men would have young male consorts. Keep in mind, such men were also usually in heterosexual marriages and their wives (along with everyone else) knew and approved of their consorts. It was considered socially acceptable for men of power and prestige to engage in this practice. In fact, it was probably encouraged as a kind of status symbol.
However, such relationships were exploitative and even a form of sex-slavery as the boys were not seen as free agents or consensual partners of equal standing. They were essentially property for older, wealthy, and powerful men. It’s easy to understand why Paul might condemn such exploitative and abusive practices. It’s quite possible that this is what Malakoi and Asenokoitai, mean (pederasty and temple prostitution). Hope all this helps!
Thanks to Colby Martin, Matthew Vines, and Kathy Baldock. Much of the content above comes from their research.