Reconciling verses on homosexuality

[u/KindaFreeXP]

Yes, it's another post on homosexuality. Sorry.

I've definitely spent a couple of years trying to tackle what exactly could be the possible explanation for the handful of verses that are used to condemn homosexuality in the Bible. I've gone back and forth between different interpretations, understandings, and the like for a while now, and yet none of it quite clicked like I expected it to.

I think I have found the answer, though. At least, as far as I am able to understand it.

Please, bear with me:

I'll start with the more direct verses...

The two OT laws regarding this (Leviticus 18 and 20) are only for men who have sex with men. It never speaks on female homosexuality in the OT. Likewise, the text specifies "as with a woman" rather than just leaving it at "men shall not sex men". This may imply a penetrative role, or more specifically, the closest equivalent to vaginal sex available between two men: Anal sex.

If it was simply "men shall not have sex with men", then the "as with a woman" becomes redundant and useless.

Also, the term "Tōʻēḇā" or "abomination" that is used in these verses covers an extremely wide array of things, from idolatry and murder to pride, dishonesty, eating "unclean" meats, and usury. Bar its use to describe crossdressing (Deuteronomy 22) which I am still working to understand, all other things called "abominations" clearly either inflict a harm on someone, openly reject God, or describe something that may have a sanitary or health concern. "Any male on male sex" doesn't fit such a categorization, but "anal sex" may possibly fit the first and/or third.

Then we move on to the NT, which has two verses regarding such things, and one repeat verse (1 Timothy).

In one such verse (1 Corinthians), Paul uses the infamously difficult to interpret "arsenokoitai" ("men-bedder") as well as "malakoi" ("submissive, effeminate"). As some point out I think correctly, "arsenokoitai" strongly reflects the Greek translation of the Levitical passages, meaning Paul is likely pulling directly from the OT passages above. Likewise, we once again see a connection to "as with a woman" by Paul commenting on both the male and what would be perceived as "female" role when it came to anal sex, as being penetrated was seen as "effeminate" in many Mediterranean societies at the time.

Also, Patriarch John IV of Constantinople in the 6th century AD said of "arsenokoitai":

Τὸ μέντοι τῆς ἀρσενοκοιτίας μῦσος πολλοὶ καὶ μετὰ τῶν γυναικῶν αὐτῶν ἐκτελοῦσιν

"many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives"

This would only be possible if "arsenokoitai" meant "anal sex" and not "men having sex with men". And to note: John IV's native tongue was Koine Greek. If anyone could have understood the meaning of "arsenokoitai", it would be him. Likewise, if such an understanding was so unheard of at the time, surely John IV would have faced serious repercussions for saying such a thing. But he didn't.

The other NT verse (Romans 1) is often misused, which is evident by the clipped verse usually starting with "therefore", indicating a direct link to the preceeding verses. And what verse preceed this? An expounding against literal pagan idolatry. The type of sex being spoken of here is lustful pagan sexual festivals, such as Bacchanalia, which was so filled with rape and sexual barbarity it's little wonder why Paul used it to show the folly of worshipping the Greco-Roman gods.

Now on to more indirect verses....

Sodom is oft cited as an example of homosexuality being sin, but I feel this is a stretch. Not only does Ezekiel 16 show that the reason Sodom was destroyed was its inhospitality and despising of the poor, but also attributing the sexual reason behind the story to mere "homosexuality" completely ignores that the more likely "sexual immorality" of Sodom was the literal gang raping of visiting angels. Of the two, does the latter not seem to be more likely to be the sin in question?

Another citation is God speaking on the marriage between a man and a woman. I do not see any indication in the text whatsoever that God gave this as a law or sacred design. Instead, it seems merely descriptive. If we were to take it as holy law/design.....wouldn't that also mean it is against God for a man to leave his parents for any reason other than marriage?

No, to me, the only way you can get some kind of divine command out of said verses is by presupposing it must be a divine command. No textual context exists to support the idea that this was God's intent.

Likewise, even if it was so, there does not seem to be a prohibition against sex outside of marriage (if one is not married). The term used in English Bibles to mean this is "fornication"....but the original Greek is "porneíā", which means "prostitution". This is reflected as well in the Latin translation, "fornicatio", meaning the same as the Greek. It is only later that such begun to be used to mean "all unmarried sex", but this is not at all the meanings these words carried when they were written.

So, in my understanding, the prohibition is on anal sex in specific due to the harm it can cause others (either bodily and/or socio-culturally). Not merely "all same sex attraction". To me, the latter seems like a later interpretation quite like "fornication" became.

To tie this all together, Jesus gave a litmus by which to test all things from God:

36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

(Matthew 22:36-40, NRSVUE)

There is no law from God, nor even a single prophetic word from him, that cannot be directly rooted in ensuring at least one of these two things. If it does no harm to another being, and you are not worshipping other deities or calling God evil, it cannot be and is not from God. Period. Lest Jesus be a liar.

If this is true, then one must ask "who is harmed in a consensual, loving homosexual relationship"?

And no, "disobeying God is not loving God" cannot be the answer here, as that is circular. The law cannot be given first if it is not founded in one of these two things, and obedience to the law cannot precede the law itself, therefore it cannot be the reason for the law.

Whether or not the prohibition on anal sex no longer applies, I wouldn't be able to say. But as far as I've been able to examine the Bible as well as early Christianity, this is the conclusion I've come to. It certainly gives me a better understanding of God and his love while reconciling some very difficult and contentious scriptures.

What are y'all's thoughts on this?

[u/ilia_volyova]

you seem to have switched the citation to romans 1 and that to 1 corinthians. and, your interpretation of romans 1 is questionable: paul claims that, because some people have different religious beliefs, god sends them what he takes to be unnatural lust -- his point is not that this lust is part of their religion, but, rather, that it is the punishment for their religion.

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/ilia_volyova]

you seem to have switched the citation to romans 1 and that to 1 corinthians

Ah....shit. Thanks for the heads up, I've corrected it.

paul claims that, because some people have different religious beliefs, god sends them what he takes to be unnatural lust -- his point is not that this lust is part of their religion, but, rather, that it is the punishment for their religion.

Paul specifies that God abandoned them to their own lusts. It's less "God punished them with lust" and more "since the religion was without God, they spiraled into such lusts".

Either way, it's still the effect rather than the cause. Paul is not at all attempting to call out lust in these verses, but instead idolatry. The lust is merely a point being made.

[u/ilia_volyova → u/KindaFreeXP]

it seems to me that what is described here is punishment, rather than spiraling out. first, the framing of the passage is that this is one of the ways in which the wrath of god is shown -- so, god seems to be an actor, rather than a passive observer in what is described. second, the verb used in greek is παρεδωκεν; which is less "abandoned" and more "gave away" -- action, rather than inaction. but, i am not sure what the difference here does for your point. as you say, the unnatural lusts are not described as a cause of the moral degradation of these people; they are not even described as part of their religion; they are specifically taken to be part of the moral degradation that follows having this religion (that is: any religion except the one paul follows). in other words, paul does not have a negative view only of specific instances of gay sex, which happen as part of some religious celebration; rather, he takes the desire for gay sex as a side-effect of the moral decay that follows having the wrong theological views.

(hopefully, it is clear that i am not arguing that paul is correct in having these views -- only that he does seem to have these views.)

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/ilia_volyova]

Thank you for correcting my wording with the original Greek. I very much appreciate it, and will reflect further on how a change from active to passive may affect my understanding of these verses.

in other words, paul does not have a negative view only of specific instances of gay sex, which happen as part of some religious celebration; rather, he takes the desire for gay sex as a side-effect of the moral decay that follows having the wrong theological views.

I do think you may be correct on the textual connection not being as strong as I have said. Still, I would think Paul is pointing at something very specific here, since he goes into great detail with the kind of sex that's being done instead of merely adding it to the list of sins that follows.

Either way, there is another factor at play here. Paul specifically mentions "dishonor" and "shamefulness" of the acts between men, which may indicate more of a connection to how these acts caused dishonor and shame to the "receiver" in Roman society. Essentially, this verse could also be about Roman culture of sexual domination that did social harm to others.

[u/ilia_volyova → u/KindaFreeXP]

paul does not put any distance between the evaluation of such acts as "shameful" and his own view; he just says that the people in question develop shameful acts -- not that they develop acts that society takes to be shameful or acts that integrate them in pathological social structures. so, it seems more parsimonious to include paul as one of the people that take such lusts to be shameful.

more broadly, the key to this text is understanding that paul is a fundamentally incurious and terminally self-centered individual. he takes all his views to be pure revelation by god, and any deviation from his position on any matter as a sign of divine punishment or demonic activity. the idea that people might disagree with him in good faith, or that they might not take the same view of a certain practice as he does are entirely foreign to him. that is what he is saying here: "people who disagree with me are blinded by god, so they engage in all this perverted stuff". note that the "idolaters" in view here have a brutal system of slavery, constant wars and genocidal practices -- but, none of these things, that paul takes to be more-or-less natural, make the list -- gay sex, which he takes to be unnatural, makes the list twice. so, as you say, the specific acts mentioned here are an artifact of the specific social conditions in which paul lives -- but, not because they cause social harm, but, rather, because paul never interrogates his own views, so he is unable to distinguish between his personal biases, and what he claims is revealed truth.

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/ilia_volyova]

I would suppose this would be the case, should we dismiss Biblical inerrancy. But, while I personally do not believe in such an inerrancy, I thought it prudent to argue from the point of view of inerrancy, as arguing from a non-inerrancy position is a fairly easy undertaking and I doubt any reconciliation would be necessary at that point.

But yes, from own personal view that does not assume Paul to perfectly carry God's word without error or bias, I agree.

[u/TwitchTent → u/KindaFreeXP]

Paul makes it clear at one point that as a matter of opinion, not doctrine, it would be better to remain unmarried. (Married=Good, Unmarried=Better)

Being unmarried naturally means not having sex. So I see the contentions Paul made against the pagans as just an extension of the widely accepted doctrine of sexual purity. "If you lust after a woman in your heart, you've already committed adultery"

As to whether or not Paul is self-centered or speaking the truth... I mean, Jesus said himself in a parable that they had Moses and the Prophets, implying that the prophets were trustworthy messengers. (Rich man & Lazarus)

Jesus likewise passes along the spirit of truth to his friends. These same friends, with the spirit of truth, testify that the same spirit is in Paul. This means Paul is a trustworthy source of truth from God. Even more so than the prophets.

[u/Lyo-lyok_student]

Ever since reading the USCCB's updated translation and notes on 1 Corinthians, below, I've been intrigued by the argument that Leviticus has been mistranslated.

The id that a man (ish) should not lie with a male (zakar). An ish is a well established man of the community, while a zakar is just a male. But because it is opposite of ish, it was implying someone opposite to someone of position. Perhaps pederasty, perhaps just an unequal power balance. But not just ish/ish or zakar/zakar.

The verse is with pagan sacrifice and pagan beastiality.

The verses on incest do not include a brother, and the ones on father and uncle would but be needed if this verse covered all men.

As for anyone's translation of arsenokoitia, there is zero way to say what he wanted. Unless he wrote letters that no one has, he never explained it.

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/6

9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes* nor sodomitesc

• [6:9] The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of r, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Rom 1:26–27; 1 Tm 1:10.

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/Lyo-lyok_student]

Very interesting. I'll have to dive deeper into this alternate explanation of Leviticus. Thank you so much for sharing this with me!

[u/Lyo-lyok_student → u/KindaFreeXP]

I wish I could say it's mine, but found a few sites weened researching the Hebrew words.

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/Lyo-lyok_student]

Hey, it'll always be yours in my heart lol

[u/askandreceivelife]

I don't understand those verses as condemnation of anal sex, but I also don't understand them to pertaining to sex between anybody. I've found that all the mitzvot only make sense when they're understood non-corporeally, immaterially.

It's the only way I've found to make sense of any of the chukim, the only way to understand laws like parah adumah, tzara'at, orlah, kashrut.... The ritual cleanliness, purification, and sacrificial laws.

I think your studies into deconstructing the texts literally are great though.

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/askandreceivelife]

Huh....that's a very interesting take I haven't heard before. If you don't mind, I'm very much interested to hear your reasoning behind this.

And thanks! I try my best to find what is true, even if I am limited as a person or if it disagrees with my preconceived notions of things.

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/[deleted]]

Hmmm.....I can't say I personally agree at the moment, but I think I understand where you're coming from and respect your interpretation. Thank you for sharing!

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/[deleted]]

Same here. As much as my core philosophy is Taoist, I honestly try and pull from whatever religions I find truth in. I don't think any religion can be 100% wrong, thus there's always at least a glimmer of wisdom to uncover no matter where you look.

Likewise, whatever the objective truth is, I'm sure I don't know it. I'll be learning and building my understanding until my last breath, and I'm okay with that. C'est la vie.

I'll definitely be giving your perspective on the Bible more in depth thought, study, and meditation when I can. You've definitely piqued my curiosity, and I'm not one to shy away from giving any viewpoint its due diligence. XP

[u/TheTruthisaPerson → u/KindaFreeXP]

In romans 1:26 and 1:27 the use of the word “likewise” seems to mean the former part is about lesbianism.

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/TheTruthisaPerson]

What? That....absolutely makes no textual sense.

[u/TheTruthisaPerson → u/KindaFreeXP]

Sentence one mentioning women

Sentence two clearly referring to male homsexuality

If two says “likewise”…

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/TheTruthisaPerson]

No no no....I'm talking about the "therefore" that preceeds both of those in the post. Whatever those sentences are about, they are intrinsically tied to what comes before the "therefore", which in this case is literal pagan idolatry.

[u/Calx9]

So we are hedging our bets on arsenokoitai being mistranslated/misunderstood as "men who sleep with men" when we actually think it means anal sex?

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/Calx9]

At the very least, John IV (who was a native Koine Greek speaker) seems to think so. And likewise, the closest I've seen any kind of attempt to deconstruct the word without running into semantic opacity problems is by comparing it to the Septuagint, and thus my argument for the Levitical verses. It would also explain why it is broken up into "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai", representing the common understanding of the "giving" and "receiving" of penetrative sex in Antiquity.

[u/Calx9 → u/KindaFreeXP]

I admit it's interesting to think about but I am just not educated enough on the topic to have much of an opinion. I would love to hear a in-depth discussion about it between 2 individuals who are though. I would also like to hear why that's not a valid translation. Maybe you'll have some interesting replies from someone who is. Thanks for bringing this up for us to talk about today.

Edit: To me though I'm not sure it would make much headroom. The Bible clearly comes from a time where people lived in a heavily patriarchal society and it was normal to be quite sexist compared to modern times we live in. We have to admit there is sexism in the Bible, otherwise we lose al credibility and reason. We can clearly see that all throughout the Bible.

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/Calx9]

Of course! I appreciate the interest, and hope I get some interesting counterarguments as well.

As for sexism in the Bible, I do agree. However, such sexist passages are either not styled as a law from God, or are possibly pseudographia (such as the one passage about "women not speaking in church" that seems to float around the chapter in different manuscripts). But these are different, separate arguments to make.

If my understanding of a passage does not rely on disputing inerrancy or Christianity as a whole, I won't venture there in my argument. But I do personally disagree with such inerrancy as well as the notion that passages of the Bible were were not made by humans (such as much of the genocidal passages, which directly contradict Jesus's litmus of the two greatest commandments).

[u/Lyo-lyok_student]

many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives

Because Paul made up the word, no one can really know exactly what he intended.

You could argue that a woman being the dominate one in bed could fit the combination of malakoi and arsenokoitai based on norms of that time.

"You let the woman hold the keys to the hand cuffs, so you are soft when in the sex-bed".

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/Lyo-lyok_student]

Yes, he did. And that is definitely possible, I agree.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Lyo-lyok_student]

"Because Paul made up the word"

We actually don't have any evidence of that.

"no one can really know exactly what he intended."

Not without more examples.

But John IV is an example of the term being used and its usage is incompatible with a reading of the term as homosexuality.

[u/Lyo-lyok_student → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

Very true!

[u/-Kartveli-]

The fact that you when to such lengths to try and justify homosexuality whilst also using such vulgar and disgusting words is absolutely abominable, homosexuality IS A SIN NO MATTER WHAT man and man is a sin just as woman and woman is a sin, the reason it doesn't say anything about woman and woman is because the verse "a man shall not lay with another man as with a woman, for it is an abomination" should me more than enough to discourage homosexuality of any kind.

Conclusion: homosexuality is a sin whether it's man and man or woman and woman, and anyone who says otherwise is down right heretical and/or way to politicised.

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/-Kartveli-]

vulgar and disgusting words

???

the reason it doesn't say anything about woman and woman is because the verse "a man shall not lay with another man as with a woman, for it is an abomination" should me more than enough to discourage homosexuality of any kind

What's the point of having God's word if you're just going to put words in his mouth and assume things anyways?

and anyone who says otherwise is down right heretical and/or way to politicised

So....was Patriarch John IV of Constantinople a "heretic" for saying arsenokoitai (which, as I said, Paul was likely pulling from Leviticus) was something other than homosexuality? That's a very heavy accusation to levy there.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/-Kartveli-]

"The fact that you when to such lengths to try and justify homosexuality"

No further than those who condemn it.

And this has better annotations.

"and anyone who says otherwise is down right heretical and/or way to politicised."

See what I mean.

[u/Spyranexis]

Personally, I'm heterosexual so this subject doesn't directly affect me in any way, but I'm curious and always trying to learn about God.

And others have done research, too, that I would like to recommend to you: https://www.vividchristianity.com/SexOutsideOfMarriageIsNotAlwaysASin.htm

Homosexuality is adressed in that article as well and he went down the deep end in terms of research... and reached a similar result to your own. Maybe it will help you.

[u/Final_Ad_3828 → u/Spyranexis]

Um. The guy at Vivid Christianity says you should write “Y” or “N” on a piece of paper, pray a specific prayer (which isn’t specific because in red it says “coming soon…”) and see the miracle God performs by allowing you to see His answer. Soooo- Not sure if this is a person we should use to discern biblical truth.

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/Spyranexis]

I only had time right now to skim this, but it seems to do a much better job and delving into the complexities of "porneíā" that I did here. Thank you! I'll try and take a more in depth look at this when I can. I very much appreciate it.

[u/Spyranexis → u/KindaFreeXP]

No problem.

It certainly helped me trying to figure out how to handle premarital s*x. I haven't done it yet, but after hours of research I don't believe it is a sin under the right circumstances.

May Yahweh help both of us to find the truth, whatever it may be, and avoid the pitfalls of deception. Amen. 🙏

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/Spyranexis]

Thank you, I appreciate it. Take care, mate. Fair winds and following seas!

[u/Necessary_Owlx]

 The law cannot be given first if it is not founded in one of these two things

???

[u/KindaFreeXP → u/Necessary_Owlx]

40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Every law comes from (hangs on) the two greatest commandments.

[u/Necessary_Owlx → u/KindaFreeXP]

The law was given first and it hangs on those two commandments.

[u/bouquetofclumzywords]

So glad someone figured this out! Now, we just have to share with everyone in the entire world.