Spencer L. Allen, Ph.D. The Bible and Homosexuality 06/14/2018. The Bible and Homosexuality: A Progressive Methodist Reads Scripture Literally

Transcription

1 Spencer L. Allen, Ph.D. Lecturer, Fulbright College University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR The Bible and Homosexuality: A Progressive Methodist Reads Scripture Literally As someone who studies ancient texts and dead languages, it is the rare occasion for me when those texts relate directly to the interests of a contemporary popular audience or are referenced in the media. The topic under consideration today is this rare occasion, especially as it pertains to the United Methodist Church in the United States and throughout the world: understanding homosexuality and same-sex marriage through a biblical lens. As a United Methodist congregant for the past 20+ years and staff member at a United Methodist Church in Arkansas for 4 years, the modern understanding of this topic is not only of scholarly interest to me; it is a matter of denominational unity within my church and the Church. Because the United Methodist Church understands itself as a big-tent denomination that includes both conservative members and progressive members (and every moment along this spectrum), the current denominational disunity especially troubles me. On the right hand, many conservatives believe that the biblical texts must be read literally and that our values should be derived from such a reading. On the left hand, progressives rely on their values and find a way to bend their interpretation of the biblical texts to align with those values. Both of these approaches are wholly legitimate and have been practiced in the larger Church body for nearly 2000 years; however, these two approaches cannot be reconciled with each other. If a leftist interpreter insists that a verse be interpreted allegorically or symbolically from a progressive lens rather than literally, the conservative reader will feel forced out of the conversation or get the impression that the Bible does not really matter to the progressive. When this happens there are no grounds for mutual understanding or compromise. The same is true for the rightist interpreter who insists on a literal reading, causing the progressive reader to dismiss the augment as antiquated. If the United Methodist Church intents on finding a way forward and remaining whole, then we cannot afford for one block of the Church to dismiss the other. We cannot afford for one group of the Church to treat others as second-class Christians. Mutual understanding is a must if we are to remain United as a denomination, and an noticeable love for all is a requirement if we are to enact Jesus commandment to show love to one another. This is precisely what I aim to do here: find a mutual understanding, a way forward. The way forward that I propose is based on literal readings of the biblical texts, so that conservatives do not feel as though the Bible has been abandoned. Having said that, I also propose that each literal reading must remain within its larger context be it the context of a specific epistle or book, the context of the time and culture of the author, and the context of the Christian history of interpretation (i.e., church tradition) so that progressives and conservatives alike can be fully informed of what each biblical passage means. I will discuss the biblical texts that are typically used in arguments against homosexuality and same-sex marriage, the so-called Clobber Verses. It is my contention that ultimately none of these biblical texts literally apply to homosexuality or same-sex marriage as we understand them today. As we will see, the texts 1

2 from the Old and New Testament have everything to do with an oppressor-oppressed relationship; they bear no relevance to anything describing a mutual, loving relationship between members of a same-sex couple. I would also like to preface that even though the Bible itself does not condemn modern, same-sex relationships, such relationships are by no means normative within biblical tradition. However, just because something is not normative in the Bible does not mean that it should not be acceptable to us today. Consider our one person, one vote principle of democracy or republicanism, for example. This in no way resembled a normative model of government in either the Old or New Testament. The same can be said about the abolition of slavery or even about the idea that heterosexual persons should be able to marry the persons they love, as opposed to accepting what has been pre-arranged for them by their families. Depending on how we count, there are really only five or six key clobber passages in the Old and New Testament that seem to relate to same-sex sexual relationships or homoerotic issues today. For the Christian reader who wants to consider these passages literally, (at least) one problem arises in each passage. These problems include issues of word meaning (How do we understand hard or rare words?) and issues of context (What is the larger discussion to which each verse or passage belongs). Once word meaning and context are properly established, one can consider issues of tradition (How have previous Christian interpreters made sense of these verses?), but this is a project for another day. Any interpretation that fails to address these issues is suspect, and it may well not be a literal interpretation of the Bible. Difficult Words in the Bible We will wade into the first category, word meaning, by considering a decidedly nonsexual translational issue that goes back to at least the King James tradition. In Matthew 5:15, we find the famous saying, Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick. You have a candle, you don t hide it under a bushel. In the early seventeenth century, beeswax or tallow candles were the primary way people lit up their rooms. However, in Jesus day, this was not the case. Instead, Jesus and his contemporaries used small ceramic lamps filled with olive oil and lit them with wicks placed in the oil. Though functionally the same, an oil lamp is significantly different in design and form from a candle. Because they lacked access to the archaeological discoveries, such as ceramic lamps, that we can readily see in magazines or museums, the King James translators misunderstood or mistranslated the Greek word luxnon ( lamp ) as candle. Armed with better information, the NRSV translation, which came out in 1989, offered us, No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket. If an interpreter does not know what a Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic word means, then that translation will likely be flawed as is the KJV in this verse. Another non-sexual translational issue in the KJV comes from the famous Psalm 23. Specifically, v. 4 mentions the shadow of the valley of death. While this line is very poetic, the translation is based on the idea that the Hebrew comprises two words: tsal ( shadow ) and mavet ( death ). However, if we turn to Ugaritic texts (a Canaanite language that predates the era of King David by about years but is closely related to Hebrew), we find the word tsalmut, written with the same consonants as the Hebrew in Psalm 23 (Hebrew was originally written 2

3 with only consonants), appearing as a single word. Linguists have discovered that the Ugaritic word comes from the triliteral root ts-l-m, and the -ut is an abstract suffix. The root word, tsalm, means dark, and the -ut ending gives us something less concrete, like deep darkness. (Similarly, the root ts-l-m appears in Punic, a language even more closely related to biblical Hebrew than Ugaritic, as darkness. ) For this reason, although the NRSV s offering of the darkest valley may not sound as poetic as KJV s the shadow of the valley of death, we now know what Psalm 23:4 is talking about. Imagine three bends into a deep cave where no natural light can penetrate; this is darkness that the psalmist meant when he used the Hebrew word tsalmavet. 1 Kings 14:24 and qadesh These are just two neutral examples of translational issues that modern archaeology and linguistics have afforded us. Let us now turn to the non-neutral translation issue surrounding the word sodomites, which can be found at 1 Kings 14:24 in the KJV: And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel. If we only had this verse to make sense of what the predecessors of the Israelites did in the land of Israel, and we did not know what the word sodomite meant, we would have no idea what these illicit practices are. This is to say that sodomite was a best guess translation on the part of the King James translators to impose their own or their inherited meaning upon the text. However, since we are familiar with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis, we could be inclined to interpret this English word in light of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. That s exactly how the word sodomite has been used for the past 400 years, as a term relating to same-sex sexual activity. However, the Hebrew word behind our word sodomite (qadesh) is completely unrelated to the Hebrew word for the town of Sodom (sdom). Turning to the NRSV, instead of finding sodomites we discover that There were also male temple prostitutes in the land... Unfortunately, although this new translation provides the reader an easier to imagine non-contextual meaning, this translation is still problematic. The word that has been translated as sodomites and male temple prostitutes represents the Hebrew word qadesh, which at its root means holy or sacred. Because the ancient historian Herodotus made claims that ancient Near Eastern people s religious practices included temple prostitution, English-speaking biblical interpreters decided that the word qadesh should be rendered as sodomite or male temple prostitute. However, after recent examinations of the texts and rituals produced by the Phoenicians, Babylonians, and Assyrians, among others, nothing actually suggests that temple prostitution existed in either Mesopotamia or the Levant prior to the arrival of Alexander the Great. Another reason for this mistranslation is that there are two Hebrew words that have been translated as female prostitute in the Bible. One is the word zonah found in Genesis 38:15, and the other is qadeshah in 38:21, both of which are used by Judah and his companion in reference to Tamar, Judah s daughter-in-law. Since zonah and qadeshah are treated as synonyms in Genesis 38 (and no one doubts that zonah refers to prostitution), and since qadeshah looks to be derived from the root for holiness or sacredness, many interpreters have assumed that this meant Tamar must have been, specifically, a temple prostitute. (However, the text in Genesis 38 does not justify this interpretation.) Furthermore, because qadeshah ( female prostitute ) is the female equivalent of the male qadesh, readers have insisted that the masculine word qadesh must mean male prostitute. A better translation of the 3

4 word qadesh, however, would either be sacred man or consecrated man, which is to say, any male employed as a temple staff in a non-sexual role. The same root is also found in an ancient Phoenician inscription, where it makes more sense as a member of the temple staff and not a male temple prostitute. This is yet another way that textual research in the last twenty years has shown that there are better alternatives for translating biblical words that were once difficult to understand. It also means that there is no basis in 1 Kings or elsewhere to interpret qadesh in reference to anything sexual, much less, specifically homosexual, in nature. Likewise, the NRSV s misinterpretation, male temple prostitute, no more reflects an ancient religious reality than does the KJV misinterpretation, sodomites. Instead, when we understand qadesh as a religious functionary, this more readily fits the larger context of 1 Kings 14, where the author complains about polytheistic religious activities sponsored by the Canaanite priests. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and malakoi and arsenokoitai When we move to the New Testament, the translational issue that is of the most interest to people is found in Paul s 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, after he condemns sexual practices (i.e., incest or virtual incest) within the Corinthian church community in the previous chapter, Paul writes, 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 (NRSV). Notice that this list enumerates more than just sexual vices; it includes people like robbers, the greedy, and idolaters (i.e. pagan worshipers). Among the sexual violations, the first term that Paul used was fornicators (porneia in Greek). Like other Jews of his day when using the word porneia in reference to a Greek or Gentile population, Paul meant any sexual activity performed outside of marriage. However, Paul likely would not have felt the term was limited to extramarital sexual activity in his definition of porneia. He probably would have also included many sexual activities performed between two married partners. In his time, the word porneia could refer to any form of adultery, masturbation, oral or anal sex (heterosexual or homosexual), a woman penetrating her husband with a dildo, or simply the wife taking the superior position during sex instead of a submissive position. In short, anything sexual that is not what we today call the missionary or vanilla position was porneia in Paul s day. Therefore, Paul s notion of fornicators was likely very broad and included much more than just unmarried persons involved in sexual intercourse. After idolaters and adulterers, ideas that were synonymous in ancient Israelite society, the next category of wrongdoer we find in the list in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is the term male prostitutes. The Greek word that represents this concept in the NRSV is malakoi. Literally, the word malakos means soft or weak, and Matthew 11:8 presents Jesus refering to a garment as being soft (malakois, malaka). Because soft is related to weak due to the misogynist nature of the Greek language, malakos took on a secondary meaning, effeminate. With this in mind, Paul could have meant men or male prostitutes who played the passive, or effeminate, role in sex when he wrote malakoi. However, the effeminate value of the word malakos created a specific secondary meaning in Greek: malakos could refer to a man who was effeminate, as demonstrated by his lack of self-control in his sexual relations with women, including with his own wife. In the 4

5 misogynistic world of the ancient Greeks and Romans, a man was expected to be able to control and limit his sexual urges, whereas women were thought too morally weak to do so (even though they were still expected to limit their urges). So a man who was too interested in sex or too active sexually, even if he remained completely monogamous, could be identified by malakos. Likewise, a man who overly doted on his wife and allowed his passions for her to control his behavior would have been, in the eyes of ancient Greeks, malakos, soft, weak, or effeminate. Yes, malakos could refer to male prostitutes, but this is just one of its meanings. Any translation or interpretation that does not consider these alternative meanings is exactly that: an interpretation, not a literal translation. As we have seen, the word malakoi has a wide range of meanings, and thus does not simply refer to male prostitutes. Likewise, porneia was not limited to extra- or pre-marital affairs. These expansions of meaning reminds us that if we want to understand Paul s 1 st -century discussion on sexual behavior, we must consider sexuality as it was understood by the Greeks and Romans of Paul s day. Unlike the modern world, where we tend to think in terms of a straight-versus-gay dichotomy, the ancient Greeks and Romans thought in terms of an activeversus-passive dichotomy. According to this dichotomy, the male was considered sexually normative as long as he remained the active partner in sex, regardless of whether he engaged in intercourse with his wife, a prostitute, or another man. However, any male who took on the passive role (i.e., he was penetrated) with either his wife or with a man, this male was considered sexually deviant because he had departed from the normative active role for men. In the ancient Greco-Roman world, a man could have sex with a man and remain active, and this would carry the same social non-stigma in his day as a straight man who only sleeps with women in our day. It is what was culturally expected of him. Likewise, a woman who took the sexually passive role was considered normative, whereas a woman who took the active (i.e., superior or penetrative) role in sex, even with her husband, or who chases after men would have been considered sexually deviant because she had departed from her normative passive role for women. Her behavior was also considered deviant because it was culturally unacceptable for a woman to be sexually promiscuous or to seek out men for sex. Within this dichotomy exists the notion that a man who regularly gives in to his passionate lusts or who is a lazy individual would have been considered sexually deviant by cultural standards and labeled a malakos in the Greek-speaking world. With this in mind, whereas today we consider a man who has a lot of sex with multiple female partners straight, the ancient Greeks and Romans would have considered him effeminate, soft, or malakos. The other difficult word we that we encounter in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is arsenokoitai. This term is actually a Greek compound word, comprising two nouns: arsenos ( male ) and koite ( bed ). Arsenokoitai may have been coined by Paul himself for this epistle. At the least, he is the first person to write the word down, and 1 Corinthians 6 is our earliest attestation. Paul probably coined arsenokoitai from the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22: καὶ µετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιµηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγµα γάρ ἐστιν ( and you shall not sleep with a male as in a bed of a woman, for it is an abomination ). In this verse, we find that the Greek translation of Leviticus includes both arsenos ( male ) and koite ( bed ). However, although we see know what the two individual parts of one word mean, this does not mean that we necessarily understand what the new word means as a compound word. Take, for example, our word 5

6 understand. It is made up of the two elements, under and stand. If we were to interpret this word literally, we would get the impression that someone who understands should be found beneath something and not laying down, sitting, or crouching. Such an interpretation would be a etymological fallacy, relying on the origins of the word s components at the exclusion of the new word s descriptive usage. We can all agree that no one uses the word understand today with such a meaning. So whatever arsenokoitai meant when Paul wrote it down is more complex than just the elements male and bed combined. Within a century of Paul s usage, if not coinage, of this term, we have attestations of this word with meanings that go far beyond its two elements arsenos ( male ) and koite ( bed ). For example, in the Sibylline Oracles, which date from the 2 nd to the 6 th centuries, we find a list of vices: Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accused to generations of generations to the scattering of life. Do not arsonkoitein, do not betray information, do not murder. Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man (translation by John Collins). In this passage, arsonkoitein takes on an economic meaning rather than merely a sexual one. What is even more interesting is when the Sibylline Oracles do present a list of sexual vices, the term arsonkoitein does not appear among them. Moreover, in the 2 nd -century Christian text, the Acts of John, we find this passage: And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this [world]. So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenkoites, the thief and all of this band (translation by R. McL. Wilson). Again, we have a list of vices, but they do not appear to be sexual in nature. So if arsenokoitai had a sexual meaning in 1 Corinthians 6, it appears to have lost this connotation within a century of Paul s coinage, because in the Acts of John the term has more to do with economic exploitation than with sexual vice. Having said that, the word need not be completely divorced from sexual activity. It is entirely possible that the sexual connotations for arsenokoitai are present in both the Acts of John and the Sibylline Oracles, but we cannot dismiss the economic connotations in these texts either. As such, it is entirely possible that arsenokoitai refers to sexual economic exploitation, that is, male prostitution wherein the prostitute himself is coerced by his master, his handler, and/or the john. Finally, arsenokoitai is found in 1 Timothy 1:10, where it is listed between adulterers (pornoi) and sex-tradesmen (andrapodistai), those who funnel sex workers around. Because the term has both sexual and economic exploitative overtones to it, it cannot simply mean sodomites as it is translated in the KJV and the NRSV or sexual perverts as it is in the RSV. Rather, it has an exploitative meaning that is entirely lacking in the common English usage of sodomite, which the average English speaker today would interpret as a reference to homosexuals or homosexual intercourse. To recap, the Old and New Testament words that readers have traditionally interpreted as references to homosexual males sodomite (Hebrew qadesh; Greek arsenokoitai) and soft/effeminate or male prostitutes (Greek malakos) refer 1) to nothing related to male sexuality at all, as with qadesh, 2) refer to a male s sexual obsession or addiction, be it with his wife, another woman, many women, or another man, as with malakos, or 3) refer specifically to economic sexual exploitation, as with arsenokoitai. Once we fully understand these ancient Hebrew and Greek terms in the same context as their native speakers used them that is, if we 6

7 read them literally we find that these terms have nothing to do with consensual same-sex relationships today. Contextual Sensitivity in the Bible Now that we have dealt with translational issues, we can move to contextual issues. I would like to use Philippians 2 as our non-sexual example for contextualizing. In 2:6-11, scholars suggest that Paul quotes an ancient Christian hymn, one of the earliest surviving Christian hymns. This hymn tells the story of how Jesus came down to earth, how he died, and how God glorified him. Notice, however, in vv. 8-9, it says he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death- even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name (NRSV). If we read this hymn, which would have been composed within two or three decades of Jesus ministry, we notice that the text never literally says that Jesus was resurrected. Here the word exalted has an honorific meaning, not a resuscitation or evaluation meaning. Also, if we read the whole of Philippians 2, nowhere did Paul say that Christ has been resurrected, Christ has risen, or Christ has awoken. However, we know from the larger context of the letter that Christ has been resurrected. We also know that Paul wrote this elsewhere, including in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. Here raised indicates a resurrected Christ. 1 Corinthians 15 then continues in v. 5, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. So we know from the larger context that Christ has arisen, which is what the writings of Paul are all really about. We could single out a specific verse and say, Look, Paul says in Philippians 2 that Christ has died. The Bible says it, therefore, that is the end of the story, but we know that this would be an abuse of the text, isolating a clause or verse from its larger context. We can isolate a word, phrase, clause, or paragraph, but in doing so we then lose its contextual meaning. Just like the example before us, we know that Christ has arisen and that he is not simply exalted, based upon what Paul had to say throughout his writings. Romans 1:24-28 and the Pagan Rites Context With context in mind, let us turn to one of the most popular and the longest discussions of homoerotic or same-sex relationships found in the Bible: Romans 1: These verses are part of a larger discussion that runs from Romans 1:18-3:23. If you read the entirety of this section, the main point is that every individual needs faith in Christ in order to experience the saving grace that God provides. As Paul says in 3:22-23, For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. This is the larger point that Paul wanted to make in the beginning of his letter to the Romans. If we read the verses that are supposedly condemnatory of same-sex relationships, we notice that Paul never literally referred to same-sex actions as being sinful in-and-of themselves. Rather, he referred to them as the consequences of sin. This distinction may be subtle, but there is a real difference here. But let us not get distracted from our real purpose, understanding the 7

8 larger context of these verses from Romans 1. In vv , Paul, discussing Greek and Roman Gentiles, wrote: 23 They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. Our immediate context for vv is pagan worship, which is to say, Romans and Greeks worshipping their polytheistic deities, such as Zeus or Jupiter, Hera or Juno, Athena, Apollo, Dionysus, or Minerva, along with many others. Paul reminded his Christian audience that pagans worship idols of these gods rather than the one true God, the God of Israel. Paul then followed this up in vv : 26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 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. The traditional reading has been to interpret Paul as condemning lesbian women in v. 26, because women exchanged natural intercourse (with a man) for unnatural (with a woman). Similarly, the traditional interpretation has been that Paul condemns gay men in v. 27 because he wrote, the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women. This interpretation is problematic for multiple reasons when we look at it in the larger context of both the book of Romans and the Greco-Roman world of the 1 st century. In part, it is problematic because, if Paul condemned lesbian women in v. 26 and gay men in v. 27, then Paul would the first and only person in antiquity to discuss same-sex women relations and same-sex men relations in the same context. This would make Paul very atypical regarding these topics and may itself suggest Paul did not invent this combination. For this reason, among others, we should be ready for the need to explore alternative interpretations of vv Returning briefly to our hard word discussion, we need to consider what the word unnatural (para pusin in Greek, literally, against nature ) could mean in this passage in its ancient Greek setting. The playwriter Euripides, who lived more than four centuries before Paul, discussed a natural (i.e., organic in origin) sickness that caused an unnatural pain. He did not mean that he believed the pain was inflicted by a human or a god; rather, he meant that the pain was intense. Similarly, we could use the word to say, the Grand Canyon is unnaturally wide, Mount Everest is unnaturally tall, or the Pacific Ocean is unnaturally wide. Alternatively, using modern colloquialisms, we could refer to the Grand Canyon as wildly wide or (if we lived in Boston) wicked wide without anyone thinking we meant the canyon was either feral or evil. Within the ancient Greek world that Paul was writing, we see from these examples that the word unnatural can be interpreted in reference to intensity or magnitude; it need not mean that something is contrary to nature, like a lead weight that floats in water. (I should also note that Paul claimed that God himself acts unnaturally, para pusin, in 11:24 when he grafts Gentile 8

9 Christians into the tree of Israel. This means that unnatural or against nature does not necessarily refer to something negative or bad.) Let us also consider 1:26 through the lens of the Greco-Roman standards of normative sexuality that we discussed above. If passivity was the normative or natural sexual behavior for women in Roman culture, then a woman who did not play the passive or submissive role in sex would have been deemed unnatural by the standards of the Greco-Roman world. This category comprised women who took the active or dominant role in sex with only one man (i.e., her husband), as well as women who had multiple sex partners, such as regular prostitutes or temple prostitutes (unlike in the ancient Near East prior to Alexander the Great, some Greek and Roman religious functionaries would perform sexual religious rites). Were we to impose this active-versus-passive sexual dichotomy in our time, we would consider the character Sadie Hawkins from Li l Abner someone who had traded out natural passive intercourse for unnatural active intercourse because she was a known man chaser in the comics. In this vein, any heterosexual woman who pursues men, has sex with numerous men, or is a prostitute would be thought of as engaging in unnatural intercourse. Armed with this fuller understanding of unnatural, we realize that Paul was not referring exclusively or even primarily to lesbianism in v.26, let alone condemning it. Rather, Paul referred here to a type of woman that we today would identify as straight, even if she was, nonetheless, morally loose. Next, we must discern what Paul meant when he referred to men and unnatural intercourse. To revisit to v. 27, it is undeniable that Paul referred to intercourse between two people that were born biologically male. We should remember, however, that Paul s immediate context here was idol worship. That is, Paul was discussing a pagan situation regarding religious rites. With this larger context in mind, there was a class of pagan priests, called the Galli priests, who were devotees of the Phrygian goddess Cybele. The Galli priests were known to have castrated themselves and performed sexual rites for their goddess. They would worked themselves up into a frenzy, consuming a substance made from hemlock, and dressed as women. Moreover, they played the passive role in anal intercourse with men as part of the rites. Yes, this means that these sexual religious rites included biological men having intercourse with each other. However, because the passive Galli priests had been castrated, their genitalia do not match those of the men playing the active roles in these rites. It is likely this specific situation that best explains Paul s discussion since he mentioned these shameless acts with men after discussing the idolatrous behavior of the Greco-Roman world: men having sex with castrated men for religious purposes. (I should note that the religious context of this discussion means that Paul was not making blanket statements regarding the private lives of transgender or intersex individuals.) Furthermore, if we read Paul s earliest Christian interpreters Tatian, Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, and John Chrysostom (from the 2 nd through the 4 th centuries) all of them understood that Romans 1:26-27 was about temple prostitution or sexual rites regarding temple worship. Again, like our earlier discussion about hard words, Paul s line of thought has nothing to do with our modern gay-versus-straight sexual paradigm, nor does it relate to monogamous, consensual, same-sex sexual activity in a private (as opposed to a literally religious) setting. This necessarily means that Paul did not condemn same-sex relationships in Romans. 9

10 Genesis 19 and the Hospitality Context Another famous text that has been divorced from its larger context is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. In this passage, we learn of two angels who appeared in the city of Sodom, where Lot and his family lived, in order to rescue them from the city s wickedness. Already at the end of Genesis 13 and again in Genesis 18, we learn that Sodom and Gomorrah were wicked cities, but we are not told exactly what made them wicked. Our first glimpse of wickedness occurs with the angelic arrival, when the men of Sodom showed up to Lot s place and demand that angels be given over to them because they were strangers. As far as the townsmen knew, these angels were visitors with no ties to the city and were, therefore, vulnerable. The angles were ready to be exploited by people who thought they would have no one to answer to for their actions. Yet, the angels were under Lot s hospitable protection because as their host he was obligated to protect the defenseless. When the townsmen demanded access to the visitors in order to rape them, Lot said no and offered them his two virgin daughters instead. The townsmen had wanted to demonstrate their dominance over the (presumably) weak and defenseless visitors, and displays of sexual dominance are the most salient demonstrations. This interpretation wholly fits in with the larger hospitality context. We find a similar story in Judges 19, where a man and his concubine traveled through the city of Gibeah in Benjamin, and those townsmen likewise demanded that they have access to the traveler so that they might rape him. To stop the townsmen, the traveler s host offered his virgin daughter instead. Then the traveler offered his own concubine, and she, as the traveler s proxy, was raped to death over the course of the night. As with Genesis 19, in Judges 19 it was not that men of Gibeah lusted after men but that they wanted to show their dominance over the traveler in a sexual manner. Unlike in Genesis 19, here the men did dominate the traveler sexually by dominating his sexual partner. This is our larger context for Judges 19, as well as Genesis 19: providing hospitality to strangers and treating him respectfully while they are in your care. Moreover, we can see this hospitality context clearly if we look back to Genesis 18. Abraham was recovering from being circumcised in the previous chapter. Despite the pain it might have caused, when he saw three strangers arrive at his tents, he stood up out of respect. Despite his extreme post-op discomfort, Abraham made sure that each visitor was well cared for with food and a place to sleep for the night. Thus, in contrast to the hospitable Abraham the men of Sodom (and Gibeah) were extremely inhospitable; it is no coincidence that the Sodom story was placed side-by-side for contrast with the Abraham story. If we are going to read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah through the eyes of the author and his ancient audience, we see that the context is not telling us that the men of Sodom were pursuing homosexual desires. Rather, we learn that they were simply hostile and inhospitable people. Indeed, this inhospitality may be what the Bible means when it generally refers to Sodom and Gomorrah as wicked cities in Genesis 13 and 18 while remaining silent about any specific sexual misconduct. Regarding what Sodom and Gomorrah s wickedness was, the entire Old Testament only offers one definition, and this is found in Ezekiel 16:49, This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. Again, this is the only evaluation of Sodom and Gomorrah s wickedness found in the Old Testament, and it focuses the condemnation on their lack of concern for those in need. 10

11 According to Ezekiel, Sodom s wickedness included not only treating strangers inhospitably but neglecting charity to those who were in want of food or sustenance. This plus that fact that the charge to protect the widow, orphan, and stranger is the most repeated commandment in the Pentateuch, we can easily imagine how acting defiantly hostile toward strangers in any manner would be extremely wicked. However, in contrast to the inhospitable men of Sodom, God touts Abraham as the paragon of justice and righteousness, the opposite of wicked, in Genesis 18:19. Among the references to Sodom in the New Testament, Matthew 10:14-15 presents Jesus commissioning his disciples as witnesses in the countryside, telling them, 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. Jesus says absolutely nothing about why Sodom and Gomorrah were judged; he only refers to their destruction. Because Jesus fails to provide an explanation about Sodom s wickedness, we may be safe to assume that he agreed with Ezekiel s explanation: the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was their neglect of the poor and the needy, rather than anything specifically sexual. Throughout the Bible, Sodom is referenced no less than 20 times, and whenever we encounter the word Sodom, whether in the New or Old Testament, it is almost always in reference to its destruction. Apart from the comment in Ezekiel 16, there is no specific justification for the destruction. We can consider Isaiah 1:9 or 13:19 (Paul s quote of Isaiah in Roman 9:29), Jeremiah 23:14, Amos 4:1-11, Zephaniah 2:8-11, or Matthew 11:23-24 because none of these texts offer up the nature of Sodom s wickedness. Having said this, some Christians today use Jude 1:6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-10 to interpret the nature of their wickedness, so they condemn the men of Sodom specifically for their same-sex sexual activity. Curiously, however, this precise interpretation is literally impossible when we consider Jude 1:6-7 in detail. Yes, v. 7 condemns the men of Sodom for their unnatural lusts but the Greek behind our translation is sarkos heteras, which literally means different flesh and which completely undermines any argument regarding an anti-same sex sexual interpretation. As we know from our words heterosexual or heterodox, the meaning of heteros is different in Greek. Thus, if we are going to interpret the Bible literally, this word and verse cannot be used to argue about same-sex sexual (homo-sexual) activity at Sodom and Gomorrah because the particular word that Jude chose was the literal opposite of same. I agree that Jude 1:7 condemns certain sexual behaviors, but these behaviors could not be performed by two men. Rather, Jude 1:6-7 along with 2 Peter 2:4-10, which is largely a rewriting and expansion of the Jude passage condemns sexual activity between human beings and divine beings; humans are one kind of flesh, and angels are another different kind of flesh (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:38-41). Moreover, this prohibition against human-divine sexual activity is found in Genesis 6:1-4 and repeated in 2 Peter 2:4-5, where the sons of God (traditionally interpreted as angels) have sex with human women, creating the renown Nephilim offspring. Yes, the Bible is condemning this sexual activity, but this literally has nothing to do with same-sex attraction or sexual activity in our time. Leviticus 18:22 (and 20:13) and the Israelite-in-Israel Context One final verse (or pair of verses) that must be considered within our larger context examination is Leviticus 18:22 (along with its sister passage Leviticus 20:13). Leviticus 18 11

12 provides a list of sexual violations, and Leviticus 20 provides the appropriate punishments for these violations. These levitical rulings may be the most popular scriptural citations that conservative Christians cite in their arguments against same-sex marriage (if we count the number of times these verses have appeared on protest signs). However, before we read Leviticus 18:22 by itself, we must consider the larger context of the chapter. As the text declares in vv. 3-5: You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes. My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes you shall keep, following them: I am the LORD your God. You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the LORD. After this declaration condemning Egyptian and Canaanite sexual practices, the text has a list of prohibitions, and almost all of them deal with incestuous or virtually-incestuous (i.e., in-laws and step-family) relationships. In v. 22 we find, You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Taken in isolation the meaning seems to condemn same-sex sexual activity, but within its larger context, this verse s meaning is no longer so clear. First, we must discuss the meaning of the word abomination. Admittedly, this horrible sounding English word denotes a disgusting idea or action, and it is used with much force in discussions today. The Hebrew behind this word is to ebah. If we examine this word in the context of the Old Testament, we find that it is a culturally specific word about things that a particular culture does not like. That is, just because something was abominable for Israel, it was not universally condemned. In this way, the Hebrew more closely resembles the definition of our word taboo. To ebah is how a society defines us, the insider group, versus them, the outsider group. So in the larger context of Leviticus 18, the Israelite us is set against the Egyptian and Canaanite them. To make the meaning of this Hebrew word even more clear, it is worth noting that in Genesis 46:34, we learn that the Egyptians considered the Israelites abominations ( abhorrent in the NRSV, but the Hebrew is still to ebah) because they were shepherds, an occupation that was not culturally acceptable in Egypt. Note, however, that the Egyptians did not mind if the Israelites settled in another part of Egypt and raised sheep there. As long as Egyptians did not see or participate in the shepherding to ebah, they were ready to define the Israelites barbarians ( them ) as distinct from the civilized Egyptians. Likewise, the Israelite men were not permitted to commit incest or sleep with other men in Leviticus 18, but according to the chapter s larger context the Egyptians and Canaanites were not bound by this restriction. In the book of Deuteronomy, multiple things are identified as abominations, abominable or abhorrent for the Israelites, including: idolatry, defective sacrifices, inappropriate offer-ers, magic, false weights, and non-kosher foods. For example, Deuteronomy 14:3 forbids the Israelites from eating certain foods because those foods were an abomination (to ebah). Subsequently, vv provide lists of both acceptable (kosher) and unacceptable (abhorrent) foods. The prohibition against non-kosher animals included such food items as shrimp, catfish, and pork. These are abominations that many, if not most United Methodists, consume regularly. We as Christians do not avoid all things that were abominable or abhorrent (to ebah) to the Israelites. If some abhorrent things are acceptable for Christians, while other abhorrent things are 12

13 unacceptable for Christians, then deciding which one is which cannot be performed on a literal basis of interpretation. Rather, we choose to reject or accept specific abominations according to our own cultural taboos. These decisions are not limited to food, either. We, as members of a Christian society, also do not concern ourselves with Israelite laws dealing with the ownership of slaves (e.g., Exodus 21:7). We do not refrain from working on the Sabbath, as commanded in Exodus 35:2-3 and elsewhere. When a man is married, we do not give him a year off from serving in the military before he is expected to return to battle. As a final example, some Christians may consider it an abomination to sleep with a woman when she is on her period, but virtually none would consider it an abomination just to touch her at this time. Both of these acts are declared abhorrent in Leviticus 15:19-24 and 18:19. Gentile Christians are not bound by the laws of the Old Testament, whether they be positive commandments or prohibitions. Gentile Christians have largely considered themselves free of the Old Testament law since the 1 st century when Paul declared that Gentiles not follow the Law (i.e., the Pentateuch) in his Epistle to the Galatians. One of Paul s most forceful statements of this point can be found in Galatians 5:4, You who want to be justified by the Law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. Thus, as Christians, we do not keep the Sabbath, we do not keep kosher, and we do not keep the Law that was given specifically to Israel in an ancient covenantal context. Because we do not keep the law/law, these culturally specific Israelite ideas, which are literally identified as abominations, do not apply to the Christian. Following Paul s and the Gentiles Church s precedent since the 1 st century, Christians are not liable to the prohibition in Leviticus 18:22, nor would they liable to the punishment for breaking that law in 20:13, 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. (I should point out that while I deny that same-sex sexual activity is universally condemned in Leviticus, I do not mean to argue that incest should not be condemned in the Christian world. True, the incest and virtual-incest laws in Leviticus are not applicable to Gentile Christians because Christians are not bound to the Law. However, Paul denounced virtual incest within the church at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5 and sex outside of marriage elsewhere, so we can expect that Paul would have taught that the Christian should avoid each and every form of incest. Moreover, we can expect that Paul would fully condemn incest if asked because incest is invariably exploitative a superior member of the family forcing his will on an inferior member and we saw above that Paul condemned sexual exploitation in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.) We must bear in mind that these Old Testament passages belong within the context of the Israelite covenant with God while they lived in the land of Israel, and we must remember that nearly all United Methodists are Gentile Christians living outside the land. We as Christians are bound by the new covenant in the New Testament that Jesus established for his followers, not the old covenant in the Old Testament. As part of his new covenant, Jesus declared to his disciples in John 13:34-35, 34 I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. Like Paul, Jesus does not expect his Christian followers to keep kosher (cf. Mark 7:19), to keep the sabbath (cf. Mark 2:23-3:5), or even to accept the Israelite divorce laws from Deuteronomy 24 (cf. Matthew 19:3ff.). Jesus literally tells his followers to show love to one another. 13

14 Conclusion Showing love is difficult when we single out our gay brothers and lesbian sisters in the United Methodist Church and treat them like second-class Christians by forbidding them access to ordination or marriage. Because Christians are not bound to other Old Testament laws, it is hypocritical to argue that devoted Christians in committed, monogamous, consensual, same-sex relationships cannot be ordained or married in the church when it is permitted by the state. As I have argued above, there is no scriptural basis for condemning such same-sex sexual activity, and each verse that has traditionally been offered is based on either a lexical or contextual misunderstanding or misappropriation. I confess that taboos or national laws prohibiting samesex sexual activity exist within many cultures that comprise the United Methodist Church. However, we must remember that taboos and laws are not universal, nor are they biblical in origin. For this reason, we must move forward as a united denomination and lovingly welcome all of our gay brothers and lesbian sisters in Christ, regardless of their sexuality, just as we would our straight brothers and sisters. References Bauer, Walter, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Cogan, Mordechai. I Kings. The Anchor Bible, Vol. 10. New York: Doubleday, Collins, John. The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature for the Pseudepigrapha Group, Martin, Dale. Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature, Lecture 14: Paul as Missionary. Yale Divinity School, RLST 152 (2/25/2009: Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus The Anchor Bible, Vol. 3A. New York: Doubleday, Townsley, Jeramy. Paul, the Goddess Religions, and Queer Sects: Romans 1: Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2011): Queer Sects in Patristic Commentaries on Romans 1:26-27: Goddess Cults, Free Will, and Sex Contrary to Nature? Journal of the American Academy of Religion 81 (2013): Wheeler-Reed, David, Jennifer W. Knust, and Dale B. Martin. Can a Man Commi πορνεία with His Wife? Journal of Biblical Literature 137 (2018): Williams, Craig A. Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, Wilson, R. McL. The Acts of John. In New Testament Apocrypha II. Edited by Wilhelm Schneedmelcher. Philadelphia: Westminster,