I think that’s a very
good question. I will do my best to provide an answer.
First of all, I’ve
been studying this topic for over a year now. It’s something I’ve held off
writing about until I was quite certain I could speak about it with integrity.
If you’ve followed
this blog for any length of time you already know that I’m no stranger to
controversy. But this topic, unlike any other, is more volatile than anything
I’ve ever written about before.
I’ve lost friends and
relationships with other Christians over issues like hierarchy in the Church,
the Priesthood of All Believers, Christian Non-Violence and the different views
of Hell, to name a few.
But taking a position
on the issue of Homosexuality has the potential to damage many relationships
that I hold most dear, including members of our family.
At one point I nearly
backed off completely. But then I felt I heard the Holy Spirit remind me that
my calling is not to minimize my own suffering but to help alleviate the
suffering of others.
So, here we go.
At one time I took the
words of Paul at face value, especially when it came to verses where he forbids
a woman to teach, or when he condemns homosexual activity.
But then something
happened. First, my friend Jon Zens wrote a book called “What’s With Paul and
Women?” which went directly to those passages where it appeared that Paul was
clearly against women teaching men, or even speaking out loud in the assembly,
and exposed our bad English translations, our lack of understanding the culture
of that day, and years of bias against the subject matter.
What emerged was a
better understanding of what Paul was actually saying, and better yet, WHY he
was saying it.
For me, the topic of
homosexuality has taken a similar path. As I’ve gone back to re-examine those
passages where Paul certainly appears to condemn homosexuality I’ve begun to notice
almost exactly the same pattern as what emerged in the issue of women in church
leadership: The Greek words usually translated by our modern Bibles as
“Homosexuals” don’t actually correlate to what we would call homosexuality
today; There is a cultural phenomenon at work that most never incorporate; and
there is a bias against homosexuality that is quite apparent once you consider
all the perspectives that have been intentionally silenced over the years.
I’ll do my best to
unpack all of that for you in the next few blog articles.
For the record: I am
not gay. No one in my immediate family is gay. I am not taking a stand against
the traditional view of homosexuality based on any emotional imperative or
personal agenda.
On the contrary, I am
laying my head on this chopping block because I believe that the Christian
church has used these few verses as a weapon to marginalize and condemn an
entire group of people who should be welcomed into the Body of Christ as
brothers and sisters.
I know I will take the
hit for saying this. I’m saying it anyway. And I hope to back it up with some
very solid Biblical exegesis and relevant insight.
Back to our friend’s
question: “So, is it ok to be gay and Christian?”
I would say that, if
you define being “gay” as having a same-sex attraction [and only an attraction,
not moving further into lust or fornication], then yes, it is ok to be a
Christian who is attracted to someone of the same sex.
How can I say this?
Because being
attracted to someone, in itself, isn’t a sin. The Bible never suggests anything
otherwise.
I know that some take
the words of Jesus about “looking at a woman to lust after her” as being equal
to adultery, but what Jesus was referring to was exactly what he said: lustful
thoughts, not default attractions, are equal to adultery. We’ve not committed
the sin when we simply experience an attraction to another person. We sin when
we allow our lusts to take over and our thoughts become carnal and/or we act on
those lustful desires and physically engage in fornication.
But what about those
verses you mentioned where Paul seems to very clearly condemn homosexuals?
Let’s take a look at
those now.
Starting with Roman
chapter 1, let’s look at what Paul has to say:
“Therefore God gave them over in the
lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would
be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God
for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the
Creator…For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for
their women exchanged the natural function for that which
is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural
function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men
with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons
the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to
acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do
those things which are not proper…” [Romans 1:24-28]
Honestly, I don’t
believe there is any reason to believe that what Paul is describing here is
analogous to what we would refer to as homosexuality today.
There
are plenty of others who agree with me on this. For example, first century
Christian, Aristides and second century
Christian apologist, Justin Martyr.
Aristides, who lived
just 70 years after the Apostle Paul, taught that the issue Paul was addressing
in Romans 1 was idolatry and sexual worship of false gods. In the second
century, Justin Martyr also affirmed this interpretation of the passage.
Those aren’t exactly
“liberal” Christian sources. These brothers aren’t alone, either. People like
Bible Commentary expert Matthew Henry, Scottish evangelist Robert Haldane, and
orthodox Calvinist, Charles Hodge also agree that what Paul is referring to in
Romans 1 is a condemnation of pagan sexual temple practices of prostitution.
See for yourself:
"In Isaiah's time
it (idolatry) abounded, witness the abominable idolatries of Ahaz (which some
think are particularly referred to here - Isaiah 57) and of Manasseh. They were
dotingly fond of their idols, were inflamed with them, as those that burn in
unlawful unnatural lusts [Romans 1:27]. They were mad upon their idols
[Jeremiah 50:38]. They inflamed themselves with them by their violent
passions in the worship of them, as those of Baal's prophets that leaped upon
the altar, and cut themselves [1 Kings 18:26,28]. Justly therefore were
they given up to their own hearts' lusts.” – Matthew Henry [From
Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible, Isaiah 57]
“The reasons why Paul
refers in the first instance to the sins of uncleanness, in
illustration and proof of the degradation of the heathen, probably were, that
those sins are always intimately connected with idolatry, forming at times even
a part of the service rendered to the false gods." – Charles Hodge [From
“A Commentary on Romans”, by Charles Hodge, 1983 reprint (first
published in 1835), Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, PA, p. 41.]
"The Apostle
having awfully depicted the magnitude of Pagan wickedness, and having shown
that their ungodliness in abandoning the worship of the true God was the reason
why they had been abandoned to their lusts, here descends into particulars, for
the purpose of showing to what horrible excesses God had permitted them to
proceed.
"This was
necessary, to prove how odious in the sight of God is the crime of idolatry.
Its recompense was this fearful abandonment. It was also necessary, in order to
give a just idea of human corruption, as evinced in its monstrous enormities
when allowed to take its course, and also in order to exhibit to believers a
living proof of the depth of the evil from which God had delivered them; and,
finally, to prove the falsity of the Pagan religion since, so far from
preventing such excesses, it even incited and conducted men to their
commission." – Robert Haldane [From “Commentary on
Romans” by Robert Haldane, 1835.]
If
you doubt this assessment, I invite you to go back and to re-read Romans
chapter one, from the beginning. What you’ll observe is a progression in Paul’s
argument that begins with a condemnation of pagan idol worship and ends with a
description of what that worship involves and how God punishes those who engage
in the practice.
So,
as I began to look at this passage again, I started to wonder if what Paul was
focused on here was anything at all like what we would refer to as
homosexuality today.
Now
let’s look at 1 Corinthians 6. This is where things get a lot more interesting.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.” [1 Cor. 6:9, ESV]
This seems pretty much
a slam-dunk, doesn’t it? How can we argue with this? Well, once you start to
examine the Greek you’ll begin to see a few problems.
First, the word
translated here as “homosexuals” is from the Greek word
"arseno-koitai". This is a word that most NT scholars would say Paul
invented. In other words, we don’t exactly know what it means because it’s a
compound word made out of two different Greek words which are forced together.
Paul never explains or defines this word for us. It literally means “Man” and
“To Bed” which our modern English NT
translators have wrongly rendered as “homosexuals”.
That term first
appeared in our modern English translations in the Amplified Bible back in
1958.
Bibles translated
earlier than 1958 render the verse like this:
"Know ye not that
the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), nor
abusers of themselves with mankind, (arsenokoites)" [1
Cor 6:9, KJV]
As you can see above,
the King James Version did not contain the word “homosexuals”. Only later
translations and editions changed the word to “homosexuals”
Keep in mind that this
shift in the translation came not from better, more convincing scholarship, but
from cultural shifts within the Christian church.
Let’s look at these
two words in a little more detail.
The Greek word “malakoi”, which
is the plural of malakos, and the Greek word “arseno-koitai” are both
used in 1 Cor 6:9.
First we’ll examine
the word “Arseno-koitai”. As we said, many New Testament scholars have argued
that Paul invented the compound word himself, since it cannot be found in any
other writings of the time to refer to same-sex attraction or relationships.
There were over a
dozen other words which Paul could have used if what he wanted to refer to was
your everyday, ordinary homosexuality. I won’t go into the list of words, but
there are plenty of other terms for same-sex intercourse in the Greek language
that Paul left out of his epistle.
Why did he do that? We
don’t know. But for whatever reason, Paul instead, chose to use an unfamiliar
compound word – "arseno-koitai"
– which is never used in any extant Greek literature with our modern meaning of
homosexual.
“Arseno-koitai” is
used only once more in the Bible, [1 Timothy 1:10], and Paul never defines its
meaning for us.
Are you ready for a
big surprise? This next detail might just resolve the mystery of Paul’s
invented word for us.
There was a very
well-respected Jewish teacher who lived during the lifetime of both Jesus and
Paul the Apostle. His name was Philo. He
was one of the most widely read Jewish intellectuals in the first century.
It’s no secret that
Paul was highly educated as a Pharisee under Gamaliel. We know because of the
works he quoted that Paul also read other philosophers and thinkers of his day.
He most certainly would have been well-versed with someone like Philo who, no
doubt, held great influence over the Pharisees and Rabbis living in first
century Jerusalem.
Here’s what’s most
fascinating about Philo. In his commentary on Leviticus 18:22, he argues that
what Moses was condemning was shrine prostitution, and he specifically used the
term “arseno-koitai”.
Wait. What?
That’s right. It seems
that Paul did not invent this compound word. Philo did. And when Philo used the
term, he used it to refer to the practice of pagan temple prostitution.
Now, let’s look at the
other word that Paul uses in 1 Cor. 6, “Malakoi”.
The word “malakoi” occurs four times, in three verses in
the New Testament. In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, Jesus uses the word to refer
to soft clothing.Jesus never used the word in reference to homosexuality.
The best translation
of the word into English is “effeminate”, not “homosexual”.
In the first
century, this term is normally used as an epithet against heterosexual men. As
in, “You punch like a girl” or “Don’t cry like a girl”. The word is never
used to refer to someone who is homosexual. It is always used to describe a
heterosexual male whose behavior is more feminine, or soft, than male.
Plato, for
example, in his “Republic”, wrote famously that too much music made a
man soft [malakoi], and
feeble; unfit for battle. He did not argue that it made him
a homosexual.
Aristotle also warned about the dangers of men becoming
too soft [malakoi] by over-indulging in pleasures rather than balancing out
their lives with acts of physical and mental discipline. Again, he was also not
saying that lack of exercise or hard work might make someone turn gay.
Even Josephus, the first century Jewish historian [and
contemporary of Jesus and Paul] used the term “malakos” to describe men who
were weak and soft through lack of courage in battle. [See “Wars of The
Jews” ,7:338; and “Antiquities of The Jews”, 5:246;
10:194.]
Want to know what’ even more interesting about
how first century people understood this term? It turns out that “malakoi” was
most often used in reference to men who shaved daily and had no beards. These
were often ridiculed and accused of wanting to look like women with
clean-shaven faces.
If this is what Paul
had in mind in 1 Cor. 6:9, then the reference is more about cultural norms of
the day – which is similar to what Paul writes about when he condemns short
hair on women and long hair on men and calls this “unnatural” or “against
nature”.
“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long
hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to
her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be
contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” [1 Cor. 11:14-16]
Is a man with a clean-shaven
face an abomination before God? Is he going against his own nature? Or is this
an example of First Century cultural norms being equated with God’s eternal
purpose?
I think these are
worthwhile questions to explore. I also think that the conclusions that many
Christians have accepted today are seriously lacking in the necessary study and
critical thinking required to justify many of our attitudes towards those with
same-sex attractions.
If this were a court
of law, I believe that the evidence above is certainly enough to warrant a
reasonable doubt about the true meaning of these passages we often use to
condemn people who are not like us.
As I said before, I
think this topic is very similar to doctrines like Hell and Women in Ministry. At
one time you and I might have read the scriptures and said, “It says right
here…” without knowing that what we were reading was:
A) Not exactly what
was said in the actual Greek
B) Lacking historical
background information regarding the culture of those people and
C) Unduly influenced
by NT translators who had a bias towards the subject matter
In conclusion, here’s
what I’m saying – People who experience a same-sex attraction are not condemned
by God. Many of them are our brothers and sisters in Christ. They should be
embraced and welcome into the Body of Christ, regardless of who they feel any
attraction to. In fact, their attraction to Christ as Lord and Savior is the
only one we should take into consideration at all.
Hopefully, we could all
agree that as ambassadors of Christ we need to love homosexuals and share the
love of Jesus with them rather than attack and condemn them.
Maybe you don’t agree?
I don’t know. But for me the Christian’s job is to share and show the love of
Jesus to everyone – regardless of their struggle with sin – and allow the Holy
Spirit to A) Convict people of their sins and B) Transform them into the image
of Christ. Neither of those is the job of the Christian, and therefore, not my
job either.
This means that we shouldn’t
expect a homosexual [or an alcoholic, or a drug addict, etc.] to “stop sinning”
before we agree to fellowship with them, or befriend them, or welcome them into
the Body of Christ.
For me, the alcoholic
metaphor is an apt one. Most Christians would agree that someone who is an
alcoholic will always be an alcoholic. We wouldn’t expect them to stop being an
alcoholic, or even to stop thinking about taking a drink, before we welcomed
them into the Body of Christ. In fact, we might agree that being in fellowship
with other Christians might actually help this person to overcome their
addictions and to receive the grace and mercy of God as they seek to follow
Jesus.
I would trade the term
“alcoholic” for “homosexual” in that paragraph above without any reservation.
HOWEVER: That doesn't mean that I view homosexuality as a sin. It simply means that I would encourage Christians to extend the same grace to those who are gay as they do to those who might struggle with addictions.
Thanks for taking the
time to wrestle through this with me.
Peace,
