The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality

"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ~Margaret Mead
Alright, Id just like to start by saying thank you to everybody for coming tonight I really appreciate it and for being interested in learning more about this subject. I also want to thank Name of Place/Venue for graciously agreeing to host the event. My name is Jason Mitchell, Im 26 years old. I was born and raised here in NYC, in a loving Christian home and in a church community that holds to the traditional interpretation of Scripture on this subject. I want it to be known that I am not doing this because I want to rock the boat or cause any problems. I have tried to keep quiet on this, but I can not. Every time I stay quiet on this topic, every time I keep my mouth quiet I hear and see horrible things happen. As a man of God, a Christian, and a man living in the world today I cannot do that anymore. There was one person that needed to hear what I had to say, but I felt like I couldnt say anything and told them the basic Christian answer of fast and pray. The thing with that is that he killed himself cause he felt there was no way out. I never want that blood on my hands again. I have to live with that for the rest of my life so now I will do Gods work and speak the truth. I have asked tried to just see things the way that everyone tells me I should. I have been raised in a black, Christian, West Indian household my whole life. I have heard from all three that being gay is wrong, and I have arguments coming from tradition, biblical teachings, and upbringing. I do not do this lightlyI do it because I truly believe God is trying to do something with his people. While reading and trying to accept what has always been told to me, something always felt wrong. I have tried to just accept, but the Holy Ghost wouldnt let it rest. I cannot just accept something that doesnt make sense all because it is rooted in tradition. Just to offer a brief outline for this presentation: Ill start by considering some of the broader issues and divisions that are behind this debate; and then Ill move to a closer examination of the main biblical texts that are involved in it; and then Ill offer some concluding remarks. The issue of homosexuality, of the ordination of gay clergy and of the blessing of same-sex unions, has caused tremendous divisions in the church in recent decades, and the church remains substantially divided over the issue today. On the one hand, the most common themes voiced by those who support changing traditional church teaching on homosexuality are those of acceptance, inclusion, and love, while on the other hand, those who oppose these changes express concerns about sexual purity, holiness, and most fundamentally, the place of Scripture in our communities. Are we continuing to uphold the Bible as authoritative, and are we taking biblical teachings seriously, even if they make us uncomfortable?

I want to begin tonight by considering the traditional interpretation of Scripture on this subject, in part because its conclusions have a much longer history within the church, and also because I think that many who adhere to that position feel that those who are arguing for a new position havent yet put forth theological arguments that are as well-grounded in Scripture as their own, in which case the most biblically sound position should prevail. The traditional interpretation, in summary form, is this: There are six passages in the Bible that refer in some way to same-sex behavior, and they are all negative. Three of them are direct and clear. In the Old Testament, in Leviticus, male same-sex relations are prohibited, and labeled an abomination. And in the New Testament, in Romans, Paul speaks of women exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones, and of men abandoning natural relations with women and committing shameful acts with other men. And so according to the traditional interpretation, both the Old and the New Testament are consistent in their rejection of same-sex relationships. But its not just those three verses, as well as three others that Ill come to later. Its true that 6 verses isnt all that many out of Scriptures 31,000. But not only are they all negative, from the traditional viewpoint, they gain broader meaning and coherence from the opening chapters of Genesis, in which God creates Adam and Eve, male and female. That was the original creation before the fall, before sin entered the world. That was the way that things were supposed to be. And so according to this view, if someone is gay, then their sexual orientation is a sign of the fall, a sign of human fallenness and brokenness. That was not the way that things were supposed to be. And while having a same-sex orientation is not in and of itself a sin, according to the traditional interpretation, acting upon it is, because the Bible is clear, both in what it negatively prohibits and in what it positively approves. Christians who are gay those who are only attracted to members of the same sex are thus called to refrain from acting on those attractions, to deny themselves, to take up their crosses and to follow Christ. And though it may not seem fair to us, Gods ways are higher than our own, and its not our role to question, but to obey. Within this framework, gay people have a problem, and that is that they want to have sex with the wrong people. They tend to be viewed as essentially lustful, sexual beings. So while straight people fall in love, get married, and start families, gay people just have sex. But everyone has a sexual orientation and it isnt just about sex. Straight people are never really forced to think about their sexual orientation as a distinctive characteristic, but its still a part of them, and it affects an enormous amount of their lives. What sexual orientation is for straight people is their capacity for romantic love and self-giving. Its not just about sexual attraction and behavior. Its because we have a sexual orientation that were able to fall in love with someone, to build a long-term, committed relationship with them, and to form a family. Family is not about sex, but for so many of us, it still depends upon having a companion, a spouse. And thats true for gay people as well as for straight people. That is what sexual orientation means for them, too. Gay people have the very same capacity for romantic love and self-giving that straight people do. The emotional bond that gay couples share, the quality of love, is identical to that of straight couples. Gay people, like almost all of us, come from families, and they, too, long to build one of their own.

But the consequence of the traditional interpretation of the Bible is that, while straight people are told to avoid lust, casual relationships, and promiscuity, gay people are told to avoid romantic relationships entirely. Straight peoples sexuality is seen as a fundamentally good thing, as a gift. It can be used in sinful or irresponsible ways, but it can also be harnessed and oriented toward a loving marriage relationship that will be blessed and celebrated by their community. But gay people, though they are capable of and desire loving relationships that are just as important to them, are told that, for them, even lifelong, committed relationships would be sinful, because their sexual orientation is completely broken. Its not an issue of lust versus love, or of casual versus committed relationships, because same-sex relationships are intrinsically sinful, no matter the quality and no matter the context. Gay peoples sexual orientation is so broken, so messed up that nothing good can come from it no morally good, godly relationship could ever come from it. And so they are told that they will never have a romantic bond that will be celebrated by their community; they are told that they will never have a family. Philippians 2:4 tells us to look not only to our own interests, but also to the interests of others. And in Matthew 5, Jesus instructs that if someone makes you go one mile, go with them two miles. And so Im going to ask you: Would you step into my shoes for a moment, and walk with me just one mile, even if it makes you a bit uncomfortable? I am gay. I didnt choose to be gay. Its not something that I would have chosen, not because its necessarily a bad thing to be, but because its extremely inconvenient, its stressful, its difficult, and it can often be isolating and lonely to be different, to feel not understood, to feel not accepted. I grew up in as loving and stable of a family and home as I can imagine. I love my parents, and I have strong relationships with them both. No one ever molested or abused me growing up, and I couldnt have asked for a more supportive and nurturing childhood than the one that I had. Ive been in a loving and committed monogamous relationship with a man that I love and whom loves me for over 2 years, and though we are not together right now we still support and build each other up. I long for that again one day. I also have a deeply-rooted desire to one day be married, to share my life with someone, and to build a family of my own. But according to the traditional interpretation of Scripture, as a Christian, I am uniquely excluded from that possibility for love, for companionship, and for family. But unlike someone who senses a calling from God to celibacy, or unlike a straight person who just cant find the right partner, I dont sense a special calling to celibacy, and I may well find someone I grow to love and would like to spend the rest of my life with. But if that were to happen, following the traditional interpretation, if I were to fall in love with someone, and if those feelings were reciprocated, my only choice would be to walk away, to break my heart, and retreat into isolation, alone. And this wouldnt be just a one-time heartbreak. It would continue throughout my entire life. Whenever I came to know someone whose company I really enjoyed, I would always fear that I might come to like them too much, that I might come to love them. And within the traditional interpretation of Scripture, falling in love is one of the worst things that could happen to a gay person. Because you will necessarily be heartbroken, you will have to run away, and that will happen every single time that you come to care about someone else too much. So while you watch your friends fall in love, get married, and start families, you will always be left

out. You will never share in those joys yourself of a spouse and of children of your own. You will always be alone. Well, thats certainly sad, some might say, and Im sorry for that. But you cannot elevate your experience over the authority of Scripture in order to be happy. Christianity isnt about you being happy. Its not about your personal fulfillment. Sacrifice and suffering were integral to the life of Christ, and as Christians, were called to deny ourselves, to take up our crosses, and to follow Him. This is true. But it assumes that theres no doubt about the correctness of the traditional interpretation of Scripture on this subject, which Im about to explore. And already, two major problems have presented themselves with that interpretation. The first problem is this: In Matthew 7, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns against false teachers, and he offers a principle that can be used to test good teaching from bad teaching. By their fruit, you will recognize them, he says. Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Good teachings, according to Jesus, have good consequences. That doesnt mean that following Christian teaching will or should be easy, and in fact, many of Jesuss commands are not easy at all turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, laying down your life for your friends. But those are all profound acts of love that both reflect Gods love for us and that powerfully affirm the dignity and worth of human life and of human beings. Good teachings, even when they are very difficult, are not destructive to human dignity. They dont lead to emotional and spiritual devastation, and to the loss of self-esteem and self-worth. But those have been the consequences for gay people of the traditional teaching on homosexuality. It has not borne good fruit in their lives, and its caused them incalculable pain and suffering. If were taking Jesus seriously that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, then that should cause us to question whether the traditional teaching is correct. The second problem that has already presented itself with the traditional interpretation comes from the opening chapters of Genesis, from the account of the creation of Adam and Eve. This story is often cited to argue against the blessing of same-sex unions: in the beginning, God created a man and a woman, and two men or two women would be a deviation from that design. But this biblical story deserves closer attention. In the first two chapters of Genesis, God creates the heavens and the earth, plants, animals, man, and everything in the earth. And He declares everything in creation to be either good or very good except for one thing. In Genesis 2:18, God says, It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him. And yes, the suitable helper or partner that God makes for Adam is Eve, a woman. And a woman is a suitable partner for the vast majority of men for straight men. But for gay men, that isnt the case. For them, a woman is not a suitable partner. And in all of the ways that a woman is a suitable partner for straight menfor gay men, its another gay man who is a suitable partner. And the same is true for lesbian women. For them, it is another lesbian woman who is a suitable partner. But the necessary consequence of the traditional teaching on homosexuality is that, even though gay people have suitable partners, they must reject them, and they must live alone for their whole lives, without a spouse or a family of their own. We are now declaring good the very first thing in Scripture that God declared not good: for the man to

be forced to be alone. And the fruit that this teaching has borne has been deeply wounding and destructive. This is a major problem. By holding to the traditional interpretation, we are now contradicting the Bibles own teachings: the Bible teaches that it is not good for the man to be forced to be alone, and yet now, we are teaching that it is. Scripture says that good teachings will bear good fruit, but now, the reverse is occurring, and we say its not a problem. Something here is off; something is out of place. And its because of these problems and these contradictions that more and more Christians have been going back to Scripture and re-examining the 6 verses that have formed the basis for an absolute condemnation of same-sex relationships. Can we go back, can we take a closer look at these verses, and see what we can learn from further study of them? What are these 6 verses? There are three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament, so Ill go in order of their appearance in Scripture. In the Old Testament, we have the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 as well as two prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20. And in the New Testament, we have a passage by Paul in Romans 1, as well as two Greek terms in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. To begin, lets look at Genesis 19, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18, God and two angels come in the form of men to visit Abraham and Sarah at their tent alongside the Dead Sea. Abraham and Sarah do not yet realize who they are, but they show them lavish hospitality nonetheless. Halfway through the chapter, God now beginning to be recognized by Abraham tells him [t]he outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. Abrahams nephew, Lot, and Lots family, live in Sodom, and so Abraham bargains with God, and gets Him to agree not to destroy the city if He finds even 10 righteous people there. At the start of the next chapter, in Genesis 19, the two angels arrive in Sodom, still in the form of men. Lot invites them to spend the night in his home, and he prepares a meal for them. But beginning in verse 4, we read the following: Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodomboth young and oldsurrounded the house. They called to Lot, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, No, my friends. Dont do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But dont do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof. But the men keep threatening, so the angels strike them with blindness. Lot and his family then flee from the city, and God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not originally thought to have anything to do with sexuality at all, even if there is a sexual component to the passage we just read. But starting in the Middle Ages, it began to be widely believed that the sin of Sodom, the reason that Sodom was destroyed, was homosexuality in particular. This later

interpretation held sway for centuries, giving rise to the English term sodomy, which technically refers to any form of non-procreative sexual behavior, but at various points in history, has referred primarily to male same-sex relations. But this is no longer the prevailing interpretation of this passage, and simply because later societies associated it with homosexuality doesnt mean thats that what the Bible itself teaches. In the passage, the men of Sodom threaten to gang rape Lots angel visitors, who have come in the form of men, and so this behavior would at least ostensibly be same-sex. But that is the only connection that can be drawn between this passage and homosexuality in general, and there is a world of difference between violent and coercive practices like gang rape and consensual, monogamous, and loving relationships. No one in the church or anywhere else is arguing for the acceptance of gang rape; that is vastly different from what were talking about. But the men of Sodom wanted to rape other men, so that must mean that they were gay, some will argue. And it was their same-sex desires, and not just their threatened rape, that God was punishing. But gang rape of men by men was used as a common tactic of humiliation and aggression in warfare and other hostile contexts in ancient times. It had nothing to do with sexual orientation or attraction; the point was to shame and to conquer. That is the appropriate background for reading this passage in Genesis 19, which, notably, is contrasted with two accounts of generous welcome and hospitality that of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 18 and Lots own display of hospitality in Genesis 19. The actions of the men of Sodom are intended to underscore their cruel treatment of outsiders, not to somehow tell us that they were gay. And indeed, Sodom and Gomorrah are referred to 20 times throughout the subsequent books of the Bible, sometimes with detailed commentary on what their sins were, but homosexuality is never mentioned or connected to them. In Ezekiel 16:49, the prophet quotes God as saying, Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. So God Himself in Ezekiel declares the sin of Sodom to be arrogance and apathy toward the poor. In Matthew 10 and Luke 10, Jesus associates the sin of Sodom with inhospitable treatment of his disciples. Of all the 20 references to Sodom and Gomorrah throughout the rest of Scripture, only one connects their sins to sexual transgressions in general. The New Testament book of Jude, verse 7, states that Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. But there are many forms of sexual immorality and perversion, and even if Jude 7 is taken as specifically referring to the threatened gang rape from Genesis 19:5, that still has nothing to do with the kinds of relationships that were talking about. Its now widely conceded by scholars on both sides of this debate that Sodom and Gomorrah do not offer biblical evidence to support the belief that homosexuality is a sin. But our next two verses, from Leviticus Do not lie with a man as one does with a woman; it is an abomination continue to be commonly cited to uphold that belief. And they certainly can be claimed to be of greater relevance to this issue than the matter of gang rape, so they deserve our careful study and attention. To back out for a moment and provide some context: Leviticus is the third book of the Bible. We have Genesis, Exodus,

Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Beginning in Exodus and continuing through Deuteronomy, God delivers the Law to the Israelites, which contains 613 rules in total. The Book of Leviticus deals primarily with ceremonial issues related to appropriate worship practices at the tabernacle: the various offerings and how to make them, clean versus unclean foods, diseases and bodily discharges, sexual taboos, and rules for the priests. Chapter 18 of Leviticus contains a list of sexual prohibitions, and chapter 20 follows this up with a list of punishments. In these chapters, male same-sex intercourse is prohibited, and the punishment for violators is death. The specific verses are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. They read: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And 20:13 goes on to say: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Well, there we have itfor many, the biblical debate is now over. Its surprising that so many people continue to believe that these verses in Leviticus somehow form the heart of the theological debate about homosexuality. They are, in fact, of secondary significance to the later passage by Paul in Romans 1. And the reason for that isnt that their meaning is unclear, but that their context within the Old Testament Law makes them inapplicable to Christians. Much of the New Testament deals with the issue of the place of the Old Law in the emerging Christian church. As Gentiles were being included for the very first time into what was formerly an exclusively Jewish faith, there arose ferocious debates and divisions among the early Jewish Christians about whether Gentile converts should have to follow the Law, with its more than 600 rules. And in Acts 15, we read how this debate was resolved. In the year 49 AD, early church leaders gathered at what came to be called the Council of Jerusalem, and they decided that the Old Law would not be binding on Gentile believers. The most culturally distinctive aspects of the Old Law were the Israelites complex dietary code for keeping kosher and the practice of male circumcision. But after the Council of Jerusalems ruling, even those central parts of Israelite identity and culture no longer applied to Christians. Although its a common argument today, there is no reason to think that these two verses from the Old Law in Leviticus would somehow have remained applicable to Christians even when other, much more central parts of the Law did not. In Galatians 6, Paul goes so far as to say that, in Christ, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything. He speaks of the Old Law as a yoke of slavery that he warns Christians not to be burdened by. In Colossians 2, Paul writes that, through Christ, God forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. In the Gospels, Jesus describes himself as the fulfillment of the Law, and in Romans 10:4, Paul writes Christ is the end of the law. Hebrews 8:13 states that the old covenant is now obsolete, because Christ is the basis of the new covenant, freeing Christians from the system of the Old Law, most of which was specific to the ancient Israelites, to their community and their unique worship practices. Christians have always regarded the Book of Leviticus, in particular, as being inapplicable to them in light of Christs fulfillment of the law. So while it is true that Leviticus prohibits male same-sex relations, it also

prohibits a vast array of other behaviors, activities, and foods that Christians have never regarded as being prohibited for them. For example, chapter 11 of Leviticus forbids the eating of pork, shrimp, and lobster, which the church does not consider to be a sin. Chapter 19 forbids planting two kinds of seed in the same field; wearing clothing woven of two types of material; and cutting the hair at the sides of ones head. Christians have never regarded any of these things to be sinful behaviors, because Christs death on the cross liberated Christians from what Paul called the yoke of slavery. We are not subject to the Old Law. But the Old Law does contain some rules that Christians have continued to observe the Ten Commandments, for example. And so some argue that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the prohibitions of male same-sex relations should be an exception to the rule, and that they should continue to have force for Christians today. There are three main arguments that are made for this position. The first is the verses immediate context: Leviticus 18 and 20 also prohibit adultery, incest, and bestiality, all of which continue to be regarded as sinful, and so homosexuality should be as well. But just 3 verses away from the prohibition of male same-sex relations, in 18:19, sexual relations during a womans menstrual period are also prohibited, and this, too, is called an abomination at the chapters close. But this is not regarded as sinful behavior by Christians; rather, its seen as a limited matter of ceremonial cleanliness for the ancient Israelites. And all of the other categories of prohibitions in these chapters on adultery, incest, and bestiality are repeated multiple times throughout the rest of the Old Testament, both within the Law and outside of it: in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Ezekiel. But the prohibitions on male same-sex relations only appear in Leviticus, among many dozens of other prohibitions that Christians have never viewed as being applicable to them. Well, Leviticus calls it an abomination, and if it was an abomination then, then it certainly cant be a good thing now. The term abomination is applied to a very broad range of things in the Old Law eating shellfish in Leviticus 11, eating rabbit or pork in Deuteronomy 14; these are all called abominations. As I just said, sex during a womans menstrual period is also called an abomination. The term abomination is primarily used in the Old Testament to distinguish practices that are common to foreign nations from those that are distinctly Israelite. This is why Genesis 43:32 says that for the Egyptians to eat with the Hebrews would be an abomination to the Egyptians, and why Exodus 8:26 says that for the Israelites to make sacrifices near the Pharaohs palace would be an abomination to the Egyptians. There is nothing wrong with the Israelites sacrifices, of course. The problem with both of these things is that they would blur the lines between practices that are specifically Israelite and those that are foreign. The nature of the term abomination in the Old Testament is intentionally culturally specific; it defines religious and cultural boundaries between Israel and other nations. But its not a statement about what is intrinsically good or bad, right or wrong, and thats why numerous things that its applied to in the Old Testament have long been accepted parts of Christian life and practice. Okay, but the penalty is death certainly, that indicates that the behavior in question is particularly bad, and that we should still regard it as sinful. But this overlooks the

severity of all of the other punishments in the Old Law. Given the threats posed to the Israelites by starvation, disease, internal discord, and attacks from other tribes, maintaining order and cohesiveness was of paramount importance for them, and so almost all of the punishments in the Old Testament will strike us as being quite harsh. A couple that has sex during the womans menstrual period is to be permanently exiled from the community. If a priests daughter falls into prostitution, she is to be burned at the stake. Anyone who uses the Lords name in vain is not only to be reprimanded, but to be stoned. And anyone who disobeys their parents is to be stoned as well. Even some things that we dont see as moral issues at all received the death penalty in the Old Testament according to Exodus 35:2, working on the Sabbath was a capital offense. And in Ezekiel 18, the death penalty is applied to anyone who charges interest on a loan, and this, too, is called an abomination at the chapters close. Simply because something received the death penalty in the Old Testament doesnt mean that Christians should view it as sinful; theres too much variance for that to be a consistent and effective approach. The default Christian approach for nearly two millennia now has been to view the particular hundreds of rules and prohibitions in the Old Law as having been fulfilled by Christs death, and there is no good reason why Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 should be exceptions to that rule. So if our three Old Testament passages do not, upon closer examination, furnish persuasive arguments against loving relationships for gay Christians, then what about our three New Testament passages? And indeed, for those whove spent some time studying this theological debate, they will know that the most significant of the six passages is not in the Old Testament; instead, it appears in the opening chapter of Pauls letter to the church in Rome: specifically, Romans 1:26-27. This passage is the most significant for three reasons: First, its in the New Testament, and so it doesnt encounter the same problems of context and applicability that Leviticus does. Secondly, unlike Leviticus, it speaks of both men and women. And thirdly, even though its not very long, at two consecutive verses, its still the longest discussion of any form of same-sex behavior anywhere in Scripture. And because these two verses are embedded within a broader theological argument about idolatry thats somewhat complex, I want to spend more time on this passage than any other. Paul begins his letter in Romans 1-3 by describing the unrighteousness of all humanity, Jew and Gentile alike, and the universal need for a savior. Romans 3 nears its close with the famous verse, All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. In Romans 3:10, Paul says, There is no one righteous, not even one. To build his case to that effect, Paul argues in chapter 2 that, even though the Jews have the Law, they still dont follow it well enough to earn their salvation on their own. But he starts in chapter 1 by describing the unrighteousness of humanity more broadly. And in Romans 1:18-32, Paul writes of the descent of Gentiles into idolatry and the consequences for them of their rejection of God. He says that they knew the truth of God, but they rejected it; they exchanged the truth for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator birds, animals, reptiles. And so because they had given up God, God, in turn, let them go He let them live without Him, and He gave them over, it says, to a wide array of vices and

passions. Included among these passions were some forms of lustful same-sex behavior. In verses 26 and 27, we read the following: Because of this [referring to their idol worship], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Well, now, it seems, the case is finally closed. Even though the verses in Leviticus dont apply to Christians, here we have Paul in the New Testament explicitly teaching the unacceptability, the sinfulness of same-sex relationships. And even though he only speaks of lustful behavior, and not of loving relationships, he labels same-sex unions unnatural. They are outside of Gods natural design, which was set forth in Genesis 1 and 2 and is exclusively heterosexual. So even if a same-sex relationship is loving and committed, it is still sinful. That is the traditional interpretation of Romans 1:26-27. How solid of an interpretation is that? Does this passage require us to reject the possibility of loving relationships for gay people, and if so, how does that make sense, given the problems that I outlined earlier with that position? Was that Pauls intent here, to teach that God desires gay people to be alone for their entire lives, because their sexual orientation is broken, and is outside of His created, natural design? How we understand this passage hinges in large part on how we understand the meaning of the terms natural and unnatural. Its commonly assumed by those who hold to the traditional interpretation that these terms refer back to Genesis 1 and 2, and are intended to define heterosexuality as Gods natural design and homosexuality as an unnatural distortion of that design. But once again, closer examination does not support that interpretation. In order to understand what Paul meant by the use of these terms, we have to consider two things. First, we have to look at the broader context of the passage in order to see how the concept of nature functions within it. And secondly, we need to see how Paul himself uses these terms in his other letters and how they were commonly and widely applied to sexual behavior in particular in the ancient world. First, the passages context. In 1:18-32, Paul is making a larger argument about idolatry, and that argument has a very precise logic to it. The reason, he says in verses 18-20, that the idolaters actions are blameworthy is because they knew God. They started with the knowledge of God, but they chose to reject Him. Paul writes, What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, Gods invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. The idolaters are without excuse because they knew the truth, they started with the truth, but they rejected it. Pauls subsequent statements about sexual behavior follow this same pattern. The women, he says, exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. And the men abandoned relations with women and committed shameful acts with other men. Both the men and the women started with heterosexualitythey were naturally disposed

to it just as they were naturally disposed to the knowledge of Godbut they rejected their original, natural inclinations for those that were unnatural: for them, same-sex behavior. Pauls argument about idolatry requires that there be an exchange; the reason, he says, that the idolaters are at fault is because they first knew God but then turned away from him, exchanged Him for idols. Pauls reference to same-sex behavior is intended to illustrate this larger sin of idolatry. But in order for this analogy to have any force, in order for it to make sense within this argument, the people he is describing must naturally begin with heterosexual relations and then abandon them. And that is exactly how he describes it. But that is not what we are talking about. Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; its not something that they choose, and its not something that they can change. They arent abandoning or rejecting heterosexuality thats never an option for them to begin with. And if applied to gay people, Pauls argument here should actually work in the other direction: If the point of this passage is to rebuke those who have spurned their true nature, be it religious when it comes to idolatry or sexual, then just as those who are naturally heterosexual should not be with those of the same sex, so, too, those who have a natural orientation toward the same sex should not be with those of the opposite sex. For them, that would be exchanging the natural for the unnatural in just the same way. We have different natures when it comes to sexual orientation. But is this just a clever argument that has no grounding in the historical context of Pauls world and therefore yields an interpretation that could not be what he originally intended? After all, the concept of sexual orientation is very recent; it was only developed within the past century, and has only come to be widely understood within the past few decades. So how we can we take our modern categories and understandings and use them to interpret a text that is so far removed from them? But that level of removal is precisely the point. In the ancient world, homosexuality was widely considered, not to be a different sexual orientation or something inherent in a small minority of people, but to be an excess of lust or passion that anyone could be prone to if they let themselves go too much. Just a couple of quotes to illustrate this. A well-known first-century Greek philosopher named Dio Chrysostom wrote the following: The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things [referring to heterosexual relations] will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a womans love, as a thing too readily givenand will turn his assault against the male quartersbelieving that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure. A fourth-century Christian writer said of same-sex behavior: You will see that all such desire stems from a greed which will not remain within its usual bounds. The abandonment of heterosexual relations for same-sex lust was frequently compared to gluttony in eating or drinking. Sexuality was seen as a spectrum, with opposite-sex relations being the product of a moderate level of desire and same-sex relations the product of an excessive amount of desire. Personal orientation had nothing to do with it. But within this framework, as I said, same-sex relations were associated with the height

of excess and lust, and that is why Paul invokes them in Romans 1. His purpose is to show that the idolaters were given over to unbridled passion, and to depict a scene of sexual chaos and excess that illustrates that. And that is completely consistent with how same-sex relations were most commonly described at the time. But the only reason that a reference to same-sex behavior helps Paul illustrate general sexual chaos is because the people he is describing first began with opposite-sex relations and then, in a burst of lust, abandoned them, exchanged them for something else. And surely it is significant that Paul here speaks only of lustful, casual behavior. He says nothing about the people in question falling in love, making a lifelong commitment to one another, starting a family together. We would never dream of reading a passage in Scripture about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and then, from that, condemning all of the marriage relationships of straight Christians. There is an enormous difference between lust and love when it comes to our sexuality, between casual and committed relationships, between promiscuity and monogamy. That difference has always been held to be central to Christian teaching on sexual ethics for straight Christians. Why should that difference not be held to be as central for gay Christians? How can we take a passage about same-sex lust and promiscuity and then condemn any loving relationships that gay people might come to form? That is a very different standard than the one that we apply to straight people. And again, the primary argument that is advanced in support of this kind of a different standard is that Paul doesnt merely condemn same-sex lust, he also calls same-sex desires shameful and labels same-sex unions unnatural. Ive already explained why Pauls use of the term unnatural requires the idolaters willful spurning of their natural heterosexual desires. And thats how this term functions within the passage as a whole, mirroring the idolaters exchange of God for idols. But before we leave this passage, we also need to consider how Paul himself uses these terms in his other letters and how the terms natural and unnatural were commonly applied to sexual behavior in his day. One of Pauls most significant references to nature outside of Romans 1 comes in 1 Corinthians 11. There, in verses 13-15, he writes: Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? This is actually the most similar passage in the New Testament to Romans 1:26-27, because not only does Paul refer to nature here, he also speaks of the concept of disgrace, which is the same term that is translated as shameful in Romans 1. But the way that we interpret these terms in 1 Corinthians 11 is very different than how the traditional interpretation wants to read them in Romans 1. One of the most common meanings of the Greek word for nature is custom, and that is how Christians widely interpret this passage in 1 Corinthians today. And the reference to what is a disgrace or shame is taken as specifically being shameful given particular customs. So how we read Paul here in 1 Corinthians is basically this: Do not the customs of our society

dictate that it is considered shameful for a man to have long hair, but honorable for a woman? This reading aligns with ancient Mediterranean attitudes about gender and hair length, and it makes much more sense than the idea that natural biological processes would lead men to have short hair. By nature, it would grow long. But again, this passage about hair length in 1 Corinthians is the most similar one in Pauls writings to the passage about sexual behavior in Romans 1. So if we understand Pauls references to nature and disgrace in 1 Corinthians as being about custom, why do we not do the same in Romans 1? And in fact, unlike the traditional interpretation, that approach would be consistent with how the terms natural and unnatural were actually used in regard to sexual behavior by the ancient Greeks and Romans. In those patriarchal societies, in which women were viewed as inferior to men, the main distinction that they made when discussing sexual behavior was not orientation, but rather, active versus passive roles. The Greeks and Romans, along with other societies of biblical times, believed that a mans natural, customary role was to be active in sexual relations, whereas a womans was to be passive. When either of those roles were inverted when a man was passive or a woman was active they labeled that behavior shameful and unnatural in the sense of violating customary gender roles. That is why they commonly called samesex unions unnatural. But just like Greek and Roman attitudes about appropriate hair length, their views about gender roles are specific to those patriarchal cultures. In both of these cases, Paul is merely using terms that have already gained a wide currency to describe things in the societies that he is addressing. And he uses the term nature in Romans 1 just as he does in 1 Corinthians 11. So if were going to be consistent as well as historically accurate in our biblical interpretation, then we need to acknowledge for Romans 1 what we already do for 1 Corinthians 11: the term nature here refers to social custom, not to the biological order, and it is a culturally specific term. Our two remaining passages are less involved than the others, so Ill spend somewhat less time on them. They are 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, and the debate here centers around the translation of two Greek terms. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul warns against those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. And then he lists 10 different types of people who will not inherit the kingdom. Because the dispute here is about translation, Ill start with the King James Version of this passage, which was published more than 400 years ago and so predates this modern controversy. It reads: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Our key words for the discussion here are the words translated as effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind. These somewhat ambiguous translations in the King James are consistent with how these words were actually translated into English for hundreds of years: some kind of immorality or abuse, but specifically what kind was never stated. This changed halfway through the last century, when some Bible translators began connecting these terms directly to homosexuality. The first occurrence of this shift

came in 1946, when a translation of the Bible was published that simply stated that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Several decades later, after the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior came to be more widely understood, this was changed to say that only practicing homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom. But these terms and concepts regarding sexual orientation are completely alien to the biblical world. Neither Greek, the language of the New Testament, nor Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament, nor Latin, the language of early Christian translations of the Bible, had a word that means or corresponds to the English word for gay. The concept of sexual orientation, and of same-sex orientation in particular, didnt exist in the ancient world. The English term homosexual was not even coined until the end of the 19th century. And so translations of these words that suggest that Paul was using these distinctly modern concepts and categories are highly suspect. But today, there are many translations of the Biblethough certainly not all of themthat link these terms in some way to homosexuality, rendering them variously as males who practice homosexuality, men who have sex with men, or male prostitutes. What is the basis for this shift in translation? The word translated as abusers of themselves with mankind in the King James is a compound word. In the Greek, it is arsenokoites, arsen meaning male, and koites meaning bed, generally with a sexual connotation. And so the argument is that we can determine the meaning of this term from its etymology: male plus bed in the plural form must, then, refer to men who sleep with other men. But there are several problems with this approach. First, simply looking at a words component parts doesnt necessarily tell us what it means. There are many English words where this approach would fail: for example, the words understand, butterfly, honeymoon. The component parts here honey and moon really dont tell us anything about what that word actually means. In order to understand what a word means, you have to consider how its used in context. The problem with the word abusers of themselves with mankind arsenokoites is that it was used extremely rarely in ancient Greek. In fact, Pauls use of it in 1 Corinthians is considered to be its first recorded use anywhere. And after Paul, the few places that it appears tend to be in lists of general vices, which are not the most helpful of contexts. Fortunately, however, many of these lists are grouped by category, and this Greek word consistently appears among sins that are of a primarily economic nature rather than those that are primarily sexual. This and some other contextual data indicate that this term referred to some kind of economic exploitation, likely through sexual means. This may have involved forms of same-sex behavior, but coercive and exploitative forms. There is no contextual support for linking this term to loving, faithful relationships. The other debated word in this passage, translated as effeminate in the King James, is malakos in the Greek. This was a very common word in ancient Greek, and it literally means soft. It was used as an insult in a wide array of contexts to refer to those who were considered weak-willed, cowardly, or lazy. And all of those failings were particularly associated with women in ancient times; hence, the rendering effeminate. In a specifically sexual context, the word was used to describe general licentiousness and debauchery, but this wasnt limited to any particular kind of relationship. Men who took

the passive role in sexual relations were sometimes labeled this term, which is the basis on which some modern translators connect it to homosexuality. But so many people were labeled this term for so many different things most of them not even sexual in nature, and most of the sexual ones about men in relationships with women that theres no valid basis for picking out one possible reason out of dozens and saying that that must have been what Paul had in mind. It would be more faithful to the text to return to the ambiguity that prevailed for more than 1,900 years of translation. The notion that Paul is singling out gay people here and saying that they will not inherit the kingdom of God simply doesnt hold up under scrutiny. In the final passage, 1 Timothy 1:10, the first word abusers of themselves with mankind reappears in a list of people Paul says the law was written against. Here, the translation is them that defile themselves with mankind. The translation issues and debates here are the same as those from 1 Corinthians. Again, the strongest inference that can be drawn from other uses of this term is that it referred to economic exploitation through sexual coercionpossibly involving same-sex activity, but a very different kind than what we are discussing. So those are our six passages, the six verses in the Bible that refer in some way to samesex behavior. And indeed, theyre all negative. But that isnt a conclusive argument. The majority of references to sexual behavior in general, and to heterosexual behavior, in the Bible are negative. Thats not because sexuality is a bad thing, but because most of the references to it in Scripture are to lust, to excess, to infidelity, promiscuity, rape, or violence. And yes, the Bible also contains positive affirmations of opposite-sex relationships in addition to hundreds of negative verses about forms of them. And it does not contain explicit positive statements about same-sex relationships. But it also hardly ever discusses same-sex behavior of any kind, and the very few references to it are in completely different contexts than loving relationships. In Genesis 19, there is a reference to threatened gang rape. In 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, there is a reference to what appears to be sexual exploitation. In Romans 1, Paul refers to lustful same-sex behavior as part of an illustration of general sexual chaos and excess. And though he labels this behavior unnatural, hes using this term in the sense of uncustomary gender roles, just as hes referring to social custom when he labels long hair in men unnatural. The only place in Scripture where male same-sex relations are actually prohibitedin Leviticuscomes in the context of an Old Testament law code that has never applied to Christians. The Bible never directly addresses, and it certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships. There is no biblical teaching about sexual orientation, nor is there any call to lifelong celibacy for gay people. But the Bible does explicitly reject forced loneliness as Gods will for human beings, not just in the Old Testament, when God says that [i]t is not good for the man to be alone, but in the New Testament as well. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul writes about marriage and celibacy. He was celibate himself, and he says that he wishes that everyone else could be celibate as well. But, he says, each person has their own gift. For Paul, celibacy is a spiritual gift, and one that he realizes that many Christians dont have. However, because many of them lack the gift of celibacy, Paul

observes that sexual immorality is rampant. And so he prescribes marriage as a kind of remedy or protection against sexual sin for Christians who lack the gift of celibacy. It is better to marry than to burn with passion, he says. And today, the vast majority of Christians do not sense either the gift of celibacy or the call to it. This is true for both straight and gay Christians. And so if the remedy against sexual sin for straight Christians is marriage, why should the remedy for gay Christians not be the same? The arguments and debates that we have, both in the church and in civil society, about gay marriage tend to get lost in abstractions. Is it right for a man to marry another man? Or for a woman to marry another woman? Well, it doesnt seem right. That isnt how God designed us. He made men for women, and women for men. That is His designHis definition of marriageand its not for us to tamper with or change. But these arguments are always made by people who are themselves heterosexual, who have always fit in, who havent endured years of internal torment and agony because they have a different sexual orientation than their friends, than their parents, than seemingly everyone else in the world. But those people, gay people, are just as much children of God and just as much a part of His creation as everyone else. And theres something terribly unseemly about straight Christians insisting that gay Christians are somehow inferior to them, or broken, or that gay people only exist because of the fall, and that God really intended to make everyone straight like them. But you know, I am a part of creation, too, including my sexual orientation. Im a part of Gods design. Thats the first thing that I learned growing up in Sunday school that God created me, that God loves me, that I am a beloved child of God, no more and no less valuable than anyone else. I love God. And I love Jesus. I really do. But that doesnt mean that I need to hate myself, or somehow wallow in self-pity, misery, and loathing for the rest of my life. Thats not what God created me to do. Our discussion of this issue, of the gay issue, cant take place in the realm of abstractions, of musings about ideal design and ideal gender roles, as though gay people dont even exist. Jesus placed a particular focus on those others overlooked, on those who were outcast, on mistreated and marginalized minorities. And if we are working to emulate the life of Christ, then thats where our focus needs to be, too. Romans 12 tells us to honor one another above yourselvesrejoice with those who rejoice, and mourn with those who mourn. Hebrews 13:3 says, Remember those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering. How fully have you absorbed, not just the existence of gay and lesbian Christians, but the depth of the pain and the hurt that their own brothers and sisters have inflicted on them? Does that pain grieve you as though it were your own? And how aware are you of the ways in which you may be contributing to suffering and hurt in gay peoples lives? Its still commonplace for straight Christians to say, Yes, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but dont blame me Im just reading the Bible. Thats just what it says. Well, first of all, no, you are not just reading the Bible. You are taking a few verses out of context and extracting from them an absolute condemnation that was never intended. But you are also striking to the very core of another human being and gutting them of their sense of dignity and of self-worth. You are reinforcing the message that gay people have heard for centuries: You will always be alone. You come

from a family, but youll never form one of your own. You are uniquely unworthy of loving and being loved by another person, and all because youre different, because youre gay. Being different is no crime. Being gay is not a sin. And for a gay person to desire and pursue love and marriage and family is no more selfish or sinful than when a straight person desires and pursues the very same things. The Song of Songs tells us that King Solomons wedding day was the day his heart rejoiced. To deny to a small minority of people, not just a wedding day, but a lifetime of love and commitment and family is to inflict on them a devastating level of hurt and anguish. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that Christians are called to perpetuate that kind of pain in other peoples lives rather than work to alleviate it, especially when the problem is so easy to fix. All it takes is acceptance. The Bible is not opposed to the acceptance of gay Christians, or to the possibility of loving relationships for them. All other areas of the world have proved that homosexuality is natural and normal. It occurs in nature and is a way of life for some. Whether you talk to medical professionals, psychiatric professionals, anthropologist, historians, and the scientific community you will find that the major consensus is that homosexuality is not wrong, but a normal part of life. The only thing holding us back is our personal biases on the issue. And if you are uncomfortable with the idea of two men or two women in love, if you are dead-set against that idea, then I am asking you to try to see things differently for my sake, even if it makes you uncomfortable. Im asking you to ask yourself this: How deeply do you care about your family? How deeply do you love your spouse? And how tenaciously would you fight for them if they were ever in danger or in harms way? That is how deeply you should care, and that is how tenaciously you should fight, for the very same things for my life, because they matter just as much to me. Gay people should be a treasured part of our families and our communities, and the truly Christian response to them is acceptance, support, and love. Thank you, and thank you to everyone for coming tonight.

Extra Info: For example, many Christians dont know that: Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior. The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality. Only six or seven of the Bibles one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as its understood today. Most people who are certain they know what the Bible says about homosexuality dont know where the verses that reference same-sex behavior can be found. They havent read them, let alone studied them carefully. They dont know the original meaning of the words in Hebrew or Greek. And they havent tried to understand the historical context in which those words were written. Yet the assumption that the Bible condemns homosexuality is passed down from generation to generation with very little personal study or research. The consequences of this misinformation are disastrous, not only for Gods gay and lesbian children, but for the entire church.

Ruth and Naomi

Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during either opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies: "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." (NIV) Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as " clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV) This book was probably included in the Hebrew Scriptures because King David was one of the descendents of Ruth. Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been emotionally very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship.

David and Jonathan

Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul. Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. They find it inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to engage in same-gender

sexual activity. Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are: 1 Samuel 18:1 "...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV) "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV) Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally. 1 Samuel 18:2 "From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV) David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." 1 Samuel 18:3-4 "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV) Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature. 1 Samuel 18:20-21 "Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV) In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV) Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law

was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain." In modern English, this might be written: " Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive. 1 Samuel 20:41 "After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV) Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV) "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible) "and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible) "They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language) "They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible) "Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version) "Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible) "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version) The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became large. The word which means "became large" in this passage is " gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret " gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan

may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own. 2 Samuel 1:26 "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomena. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.

David loved Jonathan more than women

At Jonathans funeral, David declares that he loved Jonathan more than any woman. This is just one of several Bible passages that describe and celebrate an intense love between these two men that went well beyond friendship.

Discussion
The author of 1 and 2 Samuel is thought to have been a member of King Davids court. He seems to know the intimate details of Davids life and pulls no punches when telling the story of Davids reign, and of his predecessor King Saul. As part of this story, the author tells about Sauls son Jonathan and his unique relationship with David. You may have heard Jonathan and Davids story, but if youre like most people, you have probably never looked at it closely. If your pastor preached about it, the sermon probably talked abou t the friendship of Jonathan and David. Some Christians point to Jonathan and David as an example of idealized male bonding a type of brotherly love not stained by the romantic entanglements of male -female relationships. The biblical text, however, is completely inconsistent with this strained interpretation. We will present the biblical evidence and let you be the jury. You decide: Were Jonathan and David merely good friends (experiencing brotherly love), or was there a deeper (romantic) level to their relationship? The author of 1 Samuel tells of a man named Saul, who became king over Israel and fathered a son named Jonathan. David, who was a shepherd from the smallest of the tribes of Israel, came to the attention of Saul and Jonathan when he volunteered to fight a giant who was troubling their nation. The text tells us David was not afraid because he believed God was on the side of the Israelites. In a show of courage, David fought the giant with only a sling shot and a handful of pebbles. Miraculously, he was victorious. Saul was intrigued by this courageous young man, and so he called David to come talk to him, which brings us to Exhibit A. The text says: When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of Dav id, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his fathers house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt. (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

Now, imagine if this story had been about Jonathan and a woman. Suppose the author had written that Jonathans soul was bound to Mirriam, and Jonathan loved her as his own soul. And suppose that upon meeting Mirriam for the first time, Jonathan immediately gave her all his most precious possessions. (The armor and weapons of a prince were important symbols of his power and status.) If 1 Samuel 18:1-4 were about Jonathans first encounter with a woman, theologians everywhere would be writing about this as one of the greatest love stories of all time. The story of Jonathan and his love would be the source of dozens of Hollywood films. But because the object of Jonathans affection is a man, our cultural prejudice kicks in and we insist (notwithstanding the biblical evidence) that this could not have been more than deep friendship. This culturally correct reading will not withstand scrutiny. It asks us to p ut an interpretation on the story that is completely at odds with our own experience of human behavior. When was the last time you saw a heterosexual man, swept away by brotherly love, offer another man his most precious possessions in their first encounter? Suppose the pastor of your church (assuming he is a man), upon meeting another man for the first time, stripped himself of his suit and gave it to the other. Suppose in that same encounter he also offered his most precious possessions perhaps a family Bible, a wristwatch with an inscription from his parents, and his beloved four-wheel drive pickup truck. Wouldnt this strike you as more than just a little queer? Lets face it, the author of 1 Samuel is describing a classic love -at-first-sight encounter that happens to involve two men. But there is more to the story than this one meeting. The text goes on to tell us David became a mighty warrior, and his popularity with the people of Israel threatened Sauls throne, so Saul planned to kill David. But Jonathan warned David, and he fled the palace before Saul could act. Eventually, Jonathan convinced his father to allow David back, but Saul soon planned again to kill David. This time he did not tell Jonathan (hed learned his lesson the first time), but David was able to escape anyway. Then Jonathan and David met in secret. Jonathan begged David to come back to the palace, but David was afraid for his life. So they made a plan: Jonathan would go home and try to find out what his father was thinking. If his father had cooled down, he would let David know it was safe. One night, at the royal table, the subject of David came up, and Jonathan spoke on his behalf. Sauls reaction is Exhibit B. Saul said to Jonathan: You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [David] the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mothers nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. (1 Samuel 20:30) Many gay men have experienced dinner conversations that sounded very similar to this one. They made the mistake of talking about their lover at the table, and their father became furious. More often than not, the blame goes first to the mother, who was too soft, or too harsh, or who perverted her son somehow. Then the father turns his anger toward the son: Cant you see how youre shaming the whole family? Do you even care what this will do to your career? Youll never amount to anything until you give up this foolishness! Note 1. Leviticus 18:6-18 begins, You shall not approach anyone near of kin to uncover nakedness and goes on to list every possible incestuous relationship (except that of father and daughter), stating before each one, You shall not uncover the nakedness of . . . In the biblical text, the arguments are the same. And, even more significantly, Sauls reference to shaming Jonathans mothers nakedness carries a sexual connotation. Uncovering the nakedness of a family member was a euphemism for incest in the holiness codes of the Old Testament, and Saul would not have used this phrase lightly. (See note 1.) The implication is that Jonathan is bringing sexual shame on his family.

Jonathan immediately ran from the table. And, that night, he went to tell David the sad news. The narrative of their final meeting is full of tragedy and pathos, and constitutes Exhibit C. David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever. He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city. (1 Samuel 20:41 -42) Note 2. The story of David adopting Jonathans son Mephibosheth is found in 2 Samuel 9. For examples of how some other monarchs dealt with the potential heirs to the throne, see 2 Kings 10:1-11 and 11:1-3, 1316. This was the last time they would ever see each other. David went into hiding, and Jonathan was eventually killed in battle, alongside his father. Perhaps they had some idea this was the end. They certainly knew their love was doomed. And Jonathan reminded David of their covenant with each other. He reminded him that even if they could not be together, they had made a pledge and the bond between them would last through all generations. All their children and grandchildren would be like one family, bound by their love for each other. Later, after taking the throne, David would remember this covenant and adopt Jonathans only son as his own something completely unheard of in a time when kings were expected to kill anyone with any connection to a previous, rival king. (See note 2.) So, we ask, was this merely deep friendship or a romantic relationship? In Exhibit A, upon their first meeting, Jonathan is said to have loved David as his own soul and to have given him his most precious possessions. In Exhibit B, Jonathans father uses language of sex and shame when he decries Jonathan and Davids relationship in a fit of rage. In Exhibit C, we see Jonathan and Davids passionate, tearful goodbye, and Jonathan reminding David of the eternal covenant they have made to each other a covenant David still honors years later, even though honoring it is politically incorrect. But if you are still not convinced this was a romantic relationship, there is one more piece of biblical evidence the smoking gun, so to speak. The story has one more passionate chapter. In the first chapter of 2 Samuel, the author tells us that after Saul and Jonathan were killed in battle, David tore his clothes and fasted, a sign of deep mourning. He wept and wrote a song, which he ordered all the people of Judah to sing. In that song, he included these words, which are Exhibit D: Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely! In life and in death they were not divided; they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions. How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle! Jonathan lies slain upon your high places. I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan; Greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27, emphasis added) Here it is in black and white. David states the love he shared with Jonathan was greater than what he had experienced with women. Have you ever heard a heterosexual man say he loved his male friend more than his wife? This goes well beyond deep friendship between two heterosexual men. In this story, we have a direct biblical answer to our question: Can two people of the same sex live in a loving, committed relationship with Gods favor? The answer is yes, because Jonathan and David did, and the Bible celebrates their relationship.

Note 3. On pages 20-24 of Homoeroticism in the Biblical World, Martti Nissinen does a good job discussing the Epic of Gilgamesh, which he says is sometimes considered the most important ancient Near Eastern depiction of homoeroticism. (Page 20.) In this story, Gilgamesh is described as a half -man halfgod, whose energy for sex and adventure are endless. He ravages the young men and women of Uruk so uncontrollably that the people of Uruk call to the creator goddess to create him a suitable partner, so he will leave them alone. The creator goddess makes a red-haired man named Enkidu, and the adventures of Gilgamesh and Enkidu make up the rest of the tale. David F. Greenberg also discusses the Epic of Gilgamesh, along with other examples of Near Eastern homosexual warrior love relationships on pages 110-116 of The Construction of Homosexuality. He states, Parallels to the Gilgamesh-Enkidu relationship have often been seen in the biblical stories of David and Jonathan, and in the devotion of Achilles and Patrocles for one another in the Illiad. (Page 113) For further discussion of the Epic of Gilgamesh and how it might have been used by the writers of the Bible, see also Reading the Old Testament (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA, 1999) by Barry L. Bandstra, pages 76-77. The author feels no need to explain away the love between these two men, putting in a note saying this may look like a love story, but no hanky-panky happened. When King Saul assumes the relationship is much more than friendship, the author leaves Sauls comments in, and lets the reader assume the same. The author also would have been aware of this storys similarity to other ancient Near -eastern stories that contained homoerotic aspects. (See note 3.) He would have known his story would be interpreted by readers of his time with these other accounts in mind, yet he did not bother to differentiate Jonathan and Davids relationship. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the author of 1 and 2 Samuel wrote this beautiful love story and saw no conflict between it and the earlier Scriptures in Leviticus. How is this possible? Apparently the author of 1 and 2 Samuel understood the Leviticus passage the same way we do, seeing it as a condemnation of Canaanite temple sex which, therefore, had no application to a deep romantic relationship between two men who loved and served the God of Israel. (See Israel's Holiness Code for a complete discussion.) If someone had challenged the author of 1 and 2 Samuel, he might well have responded, This is not what Leviticus was meant to condemn. Youve got to understand the context in which Leviticus was written. This is a very different situation. Why cant we use the same common sense today? Why are some Christians so determined to condemn what God has so clearly approved in Scripture? Note 4. The Bible tells us both David and Jonathan married. (1 Samuel 25:39-42; 2 Samuel 3:14; 4:4; 9:37; 11:27) This is not inconsistent with a romantic relationship between them. Even today, many homosexual people marry and bear children to conform to social pressures. As a prince, Jonathan would have had no choice but to marry, so as to bear a son to become his heir. David would have faced similar pressures. Other Bible stories indicate David was capable of feeling lust for women. (2 Samuel 11:2-26) He appears to have been what we today would call a bisexual someone capable of forming a deep romantic relationship with persons of either sex. By contrast, based on what we find in Scripture, David seems to have been Jonathans only sincere romantic interest. He appears to have been what we today would call a gay man.

Remember, David is not some minor hero in the Bible. He is called a man after Gods own heart. (1 Samuel 13:14) He is one of Israels best-loved kings. He is one of the most prolific writers of Scripture (writing many of the Psalms). He is in the lineage of Jesus Christ. And he loved Jonathan. ---------------------------------------Eunuchs in the Bible

Who were the homosexuals in the Bible? Jesus said this: For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mothers womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough. (Matthew 19:12 Lamsa). The Aramaic word m'haym-ne (plural) is translated as eunuchs here, but the root meanings of this word in this form are: trusted ones, faithful ones and believers. These "trusted ones" were also servants such as chamberlains, eunuchs and officers. In addition, mhaym-ne meant homosexual men because they were trusted around women that were married or were not of their family. They werent a threat in committing adultery with other mens' wives or in having pre marital sex with the women of the nation. The born eunuchs in the above verse from Matthew are referring to homosexual men. The second part of the verse says: "and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men;" These would be the man-made or castrated eunuchs. Also, the eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men were those appointed by the king to be servants in the kings palace. Some of these were prisoners of war, captives, and exiles (Isaiah 39:7 Lamsa). The third part of this verse should be read as: "and there are believers who made themselves celibates for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Throughout the ancient nations that included Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and Persia; homosexuals were exalted to such positions as eunuchs that watched the women of the harem. Because of the mistrust of men, heterosexual or bi-sexual men were castrated; but homosexual men didnt need to be. Eunuchs also had a recognized place in homosexual prostitution, and youths chosen as catamitic favorites were sometimes castrated. Homosexuality was long confused with eunuchry. Like effeminacy and hermaphroditism, eunuchry was sometimes thought of as creating a woman-man. The following verses will show that the Bible defines the trusted ones (or eunuchs) as homosexual men. Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender [love] with the prince (sar- ruler captain) of the eunuchs. (Daniel 1:9 KJV). The first underlined word is from the Hebrew word khe-sed,which means loving-kindness, mercy and favor, and is translated as favour in this verse. The second underlined word is from the Hebrew word ra-kha-mim, which is translated as tender love here, but means love. Daniel was given favor and love (plural) in the presence of the prince of the eunuchs. Most likely the intimate word ra-kha-mim, meaning love, was given to Daniel because he was handsome (See Dan. 1:4). A second evidence where the Bible shows that eunuchs are gay men is in (Daniel 14:2 NAB), which says: "Daniel was the king's favorite and was held in higher esteem than any of the friends of the king." In the Aramaic Old Testament, the word friends is replaced with the Aramaic word rakh-maw-hi, which means lovers. Rakhmaw-hi is from the singular Aramaic word rakh-ma, which means love. Chapters 13-14 are in the Catholic canon of scripture. The Aramaic Old Testament contains fourteen chapters of Daniel. The Aramaic text of Daniel also has the song of the three children (Or, Prayer of Hananiah and his companions Aramaic name for that portion) after verse twenty-three of Chapter Three. Dr. Lamsa, being a Protestant, just left out the additional parts of Daniel and Esther, plus the Deuterocanonical books. Dr. Lamsa

did insert an extra sentence in verse 23 that is not in the Masoretic text, but in the Aramaic and Greek text of Daniel. The translators of the New American Bible translated the Greek word sym-bi-o-tes as favorite, but that is incorrect. Sym-bi-o-tes, according to Liddell & Scott means: one who lives with, companion. That matches with the Aramaic text, which says that Daniel...was living with the king. Separately, the Greek Old Testament deleted many words that are included in those extra two chapters. The Septuagint also deleted many chapters (and / or sentences) in other books, such as Chronicles and Samuel. The additional words or text found in the Old Testament book of Daniel in both the Aramaic and Greek texts are probably not inspired. I included this verse from the Aramaic text to show that an Aramaic speaker would have understood eunuchs to be active homosexual men; as they were often the kings lovers. Boga (or Bagoas Greek pronunciation) was the eunuch lover of Darius the Persian and eventually became the lover of Alexander the Great. There is good reason to believe the so-called Deuterocanonical books are inspired (at least most of them) but no good reason to believe the additions to Esther and Daniel are inspired. These additions are not in the original Hebrew text of either Esther or Daniel. THE FOLLOWING SHOWS WHERE SARIS APPEARS IN THE BIBLE. SINCE IT ISNT ALWAYS TRANSLATED AS EUNUCH IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE LIKE IT IS IN THE GREEK BIBLE. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word sa-ris is translated a couple ways in the NKJV Old Testament. It is translated as eunuch and officer. The KJV also translated saris as a chamberlain. It is also left untranslated with an additional word as Rabsa-ris (Rab saris KJV), which means chief eunuch. The Hebrew word sa-ris is translated as m'haymna in the Aramaic Old Testament, with the exception of two places, which are in bold print below. Dr. George Lamsa translated the word m'haym-na as officer and eunuch in his English Translation of the Aramaic Bible (Old and New Testament). The following shows where the words sa-ris and mhaym-na appear in the Bible. OLD TESTAMENT: Gen. 37:36; 39:1; 40:2; 40:7; 1Sam. 8:15; 1Kings 22:9; 2 Kings 8:6; 9:32; 18:17; 20:18; 23:11; 24:12; 24:15; 25:19; 1Chr. 28:1; 2 Chr. 18:8; Judith 12:11; Esther 1:10; 1:12; 1:15; 2:3; 2:14; 2:15; 2:21; 4:4; 4:5; 6:2; 6:14; 7:9; Esther Additions A:12,14,17; Wisdom 3:14; Sirach 20:3; 30:20; Isa. 39:7; 56:3; 56:4; Jer. 29:2; 34:19; 38:7; 39:3; 39:13; 41:16; 52:25; Dan. 1:3; 1:7; 1:8; 1:9; 1:10; 1:11; 1:18. (Note: The NAB dishonestly translates the word eunuch as afflicted man from the Greek text of Sirach 30:20; plus deletes words.) ARAMAIC WORD M'HAYM-NA TRANSLATED AS: Eunuch NEW TESTAMENT: Matthew 19:12 & Acts 8:27,34,36,38-39 Now, is this verse taken out of context?: For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mothers womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the

kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough. (Matthew 19:12 Lamsa). This verse is found when Jesus is speaking about marriage between a man and a woman. Then Jesus goes on and quotes this verse talking about people that it wouldnt be good for them to marry because of the way they were born, or because of a situation, or because of their choice. - In order to get a correct interpretation of a verse, you have to know the definition of words and the way the verse is used in the context. But also, in regards to the New Testament Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John), Jesus a lot of times changed the subject in his teaching or when he was asked questions. Some of his words may appear to be out of context to a reader when they are not. So we have to go by the definitions for the word m'haym-na- Eunuch. Now this verse is actually not out-ofcontext in regards to males that it wouldnt be good for them to marry a woman (wife). It would not be good for a homosexual male to marry a woman because he lacks the sexual perophone receptors that enable him to be attracted to women. He has more of the Xchromosome. It should be noted that a homosexual is impotent toward a woman. The other two reasons why a male wouldnt be able to marry a woman are obvious by the meaning of the word mhaym-na and its associations. Another thing that needs to be pointed out is Jesus last statement in verse twelve. He said this about the eunuchs that it wouldnt be good for them to marry a woman: To him who can comprehend, that is enough. (Lamsa). That last phrase is better translated as: Whoever it shall suffice, it shall be sufficient (enough). The root word spaq here means to be sufficient, enough, adequate (See Deut. 3:26; Matt. 6:34; Jn. 6:7) The literal meaning makes sense here so I am going to say this is what Matthew meant. The NKJV rendered this verse from the Greek text as: He who is able to accept it, let him accept it. The Greek word cho-reo can mean to receive (KJV) or metaphorically to receive with the mind, accept." Though the Greek text isnt totally exact to the Aramaic text, I wouldnt say the translation is deceptive. If it is sufficient for eunuchs to avoid sex with women then they would have to accept their condition. It is unlikely that Jesus reference to a born eunuch is referring to a straight impotent man. I cant picture a straight man accepting his impotence or seeing his situation as being sufficient if he is lusting after a woman. Also, a lot of gay men marry women because they dont know the truth about what the Hebrew and Aramaic Bible teaches. A lot of the men that are impotent toward their wives are homosexuals.

A Gay Centurion Comes Out To Jesus

For many centuries before Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, the Greek word pais was commonly used to refer to the younger partner in a same sex relationship. The younger partner was often an adult male but was sometimes a teenager.
The use of pais in this social and historical context leads some to believe that the story of the Roman centurion and his pais in Matthew 8 and Luke 7 tells the real story of the day Jesus met and blessed a gay man. Although this understanding of the text is controversial, it is important for us to discuss and understand it in our conversation about the Bible and homosexuality. As we begin our study of this true story about a gay Centurion, from Matthew 8:5-13 & Luke 7:1-10, it is important to remember that we are two thousand years removed from these events. For that reason, traditionalists cannot prove their contention, that the centurion and his pais-servant, were not same sex

lovers. It is equally impossible to prove to everyones satisfaction, that this was a gay centurion and his pais-beloved-gay lover.

Jesus meets a gay centurion If we cannot prove, to everyones satisfaction, that this story is about a gay centurion, why bother discussing this controversy?
The short answer is that scripture is important and what we believe, based on scripture, is important. For centuries, the organized church has insisted gay people are never presented in the Bible in a positive light. Many Christians refuse to believe that God would include a positive story about a gay Centurion in the Bible. In recent centuries, many openly gay Christians have been excluded from the spiritual life of the church.

Our goal is to examine the available evidence. If the evidence and a faithful, believing approach to scripture supports the understanding that this story is about a gay centurion and his pais-same sex lover, that dramatic fact should be public knowledge.

Does cultural, historical and textual evidence support our belief that the centurion and his pais were lovers in committed, same sex partnership?
Those who believe that the Centurions pais was only a servant and not the same sex partner of the homosexual Centurion, cite Greek lexicons to prove their case. Since most Biblical Greek lexicons do not mention beloved or same sex lover as possible meanings of pais most nongay Christians insist same sex lover could not possibly be the meaning of pais.

Is there cultural, historical and linguistic evidence which indicates that beloved or same sex lover is the probable meaning of pais in Matthew and Lukes story of the centurion?

Those are idiomatic expressions with a meaning different from the literal meaning of the words used.
Just so, the Greek word pais carried an idiomatic meaning for native Greek speakers for many centuries prior to Matthew writing his Gospel. The well-known, widely recognized idiomatic meaning of pais was "beloved or same sex lover." That Matthew and Luke possibly used pais with the meaning of same sex lover raises the interesting possibility that Jesus met and blessed a gay centurion who was honest enough to tell Jesus he was gay. Remember, in our story, the Centurion uses the word pais to describe his sick "servant." He is an utterly honest man and refuses to insult Jesus by asking for healing under false pretences. The gay Centurion openly admits to Jesus that he is a gay Centurion by using the Greek word pais to describe his servant.

What would you do in Jesus' place?

What if you were in Jesus' place and the gay Centurion came to you, asking healing for his pais-belovedpartner? Would you get in his face and tell him "You're going to roast in hell like a marshmallow if you don't stop being gay?" Would you tell him "Sure I'll heal your partner if both of you promise to join Exodus International and become Ex-Gay"?

Or would you do like Jesus did and simply heal the beloved partner of the gay Centurion and affirm his remarkable faith in God?