Jump to content

The Bible and homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Veryblueboy (talk | contribs) at 18:37, 22 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A mediaeval copy of the Bible.

The Bible and homosexuality is a contentious subject which has a significant impact on how homosexuality and homosexual sex is regarded by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. For many followers of these faiths, the Bible is considered to be inspired by God or to record God's relationship with humanity or a particular nation. Included within the Bible are ethical teachings, showing which actions God considers to be good and which God considers to be sinful.

The understanding of many Biblical interpreters is summarised by Hilborn (2002, p.1) who argues: "It must be granted that direct references to homosexual activity in the Bible are relatively few. However, these more explicit texts belong to a much broader biblical discourse on creation, love, holiness and human relationships - a discourse which goes to the heart of God’s purpose for humankind". Additionally, within denominations such as Catholicism these passages have traditionally been interpreted in light of other accepted revealed sources, such as the revelations to the mystic-saints, which often do contain more explicit and detailed descriptions clarifying the matter (e.g., Hildegard von Bingen's visions in Scivias). Protestant denominations generally do not make use of such sources.

The interpretation of these passages and their place within the religion's wider understanding of God's purpose for humankind therefore has important implications for homosexuality and Judaism, homosexuality and Christianity and homosexuality and Islam. However, there are believers who argue that reason, tradition and/or experience are also important elements in the interpretation of the biblical text (see, for example, Richard Hooker). It is also widely disputed whether or not these passages refer to one specific type of homosexuality (mutually chosen stable relationships), to other kinds of homosexuality (pagan rites, casual sex, pederasty, and same-sex rape for example), or to all types of homosexuality as a general category like heterosexuality..

Passages from the Hebrew Bible

The Hebrew Bible (commonly called the Old Testament by Christians) is widely regarded by both Jews and Christians as inspired by God. "Mainstream Christianity has always recognised the authority of many of the ethical commands of the Old Testament" [1]. For example Article 7 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England says that Christians are still bound by the moral commandments, although not the ceremonial, ritual or civil laws.

Genesis 1 and 2: Creation

The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo

The first two chapters of the first book of the Bible, Genesis describe God's creation of the world and his creation of man and woman. Genesis 1:27-28 (TNIV) states:

"So God created human beings in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'"

Genesis 2 (after describing God's creation of man and then woman) says:

"The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman',
for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (TNIV; Genesis 2:23-24).

Hilborn (2002, p.1) therefore argues that these verses are: "foundational for the classical Judaeo-Christian teaching that sexual intercourse is designed for expression solely within the life-long, marital relationship of a man and a woman."

However, it has also been argued that this line of reasoning is an example of the is-ought problem and that these verses do not exclude other types of relationship (cf. Vasey 1995:49ff). For example, many people in the Hebrew Bible are in polygamous marriages, which are not condemned. Furthermore, Williams (2002, p.23) has argued that while Genesis 2 describes a relational norm, it cannot therefore be used to argue that it prohibits other forms of relationship. Nonetheless, these arguments have been criticised as "an extraordinary evasion of the plain sense of the biblical text" (Hilborn 2002, p.1f).

Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah

The destruction of Sodom as illustrated by Sebastian Münster (1564)
Main article: Sodom and Gomorrah

Genesis chapter 19 is concerned with the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by God. Genesis 19:4-8 (NASB) says:

"Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." "

The most straightforward interpretation of this text is that the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the men who had come to Lot. This is disputed because they ask to "have relations with them", however in the context of Lot asking them not to do a wicked thing and offering his daughters "who have not had relations with man" it is clear that it refers to sexual relations.

Whether or not homosexual rape was the sin recorded in this incident, that does not mean that God chose to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for this reason alone. Some other interpretations have been proposed as to why exactly God chose to destroy them, including inhospitality, rape, homosexuality and greed. Ezekiel 16:49-50 (TNIV) gives one of the first interpretations of the events:

"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. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

In the New Testament, Jude 1:7 (TNIV) says:

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion."

While this reference specifically mentions "sexual immorality" it is not clear whether or not it is condemning homosexuality as such. It is agreed by some interpreters on all sides of the debate that while the sins of Sodom may include sexual sins, the ambiguity means that it cannot be used to condemn homosexual relationships (Hilborn 2002, p.3; Compton 2003). Hilborn (ibid.) also argues that the men's actions are "a manifestation of much deeper-seated sins of idolatry, pride and rebellion". It has also been argued that, especially given the near parallel in Judges 19 (especially verse 22), that the wickedness of Sodom was homosexual rape (Issues in human sexuality, para 2.12). This same report (ibid.) also argues that the other references in both the Old and New Testament are general and that while Sodom became "a stock image for extreme sinfulness" it was not "a symbol for one particular sin". Other interpreters see the context of Genesis 19:4-8 as a clear indication that homosexuality is at least one specific sin responsible for the destruction of Sodom (Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective, Q. 3; White-Neill 2002; Bahnsen 1978).

Leviticus 18 and 20

These chapters of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code. Leviticus 18:22 says:

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

and Leviticus 20:13 states:

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

It is widely argued that the things condemned in these chapters are "deemed wrong not simply because pagan Caananites indulged in them, but because God has pronounced them wrong as such." (Hilborn 2002, p.4; cf. Issues in human sexuality, para. 2.11; Amsel). This was also the interpretation taken in the rabbinic interpretations in the Mishnah and Talmud, which also extended this to include female homosexual relations, although there are no explicit references in the Hebrew Bible to this.

Others (e.g., West 2005, p.2), both Jews and Christians, argue that the prohibition was to prevent men using sexual intercourse to gain domination over other men (as, West argues, was common in other cultures at the time). These arguments are summarised by West (ibid.): "These verses in no way prohibit, nor do they even speak, to loving, caring sexual relationships between people of the same gender."

Christian counter-arguments also include that these chapters were concerned with purity codes to keep Israel separate from the Canaanites and that as Jesus rejected the whole purity code they are no longer relevant (Johns 2004). Others (e.g., White-Neill 2002) claim that unless the passage is taken as an absolute condemnation of homosexuality, the issues in the proceeding verses, bestiality in vss. 15-16, and incest in v. 17, would have to been seen as contextual condemnations also. In other words, bestiality or incest may not be sinful given certain qualifications (e.g., not attempting to dominate others, done out of love and caring).

Analysis of the Hebrew text

A difficulty in interpreting Leviticus, is that Hebrew, Greek and other relevant languages may have been ambiguously or incorrectly rendered into English. Thus the word translated as "detestable" (often also translated as "abomination"), has a different meaning in Biblical Hebrew than in English. (See: Abomination (Bible) ). Likewise the phrase translated as "do not have sexual relations" ("lo tishkav") in these passages literally means "do not lie down with". In other passages (eg Genesis 19:34; Exodus 22:16; 22:19 and many others) to "know" or "lie [down] with" is a clear euphemism for sexual intercourse (whether heterosexual or homosexual).

The Book of Ruth

Main article: Book of Ruth

This book concerns the love between Naomi and her widowed daughter-in-law, Ruth. Naomi's husband and her two sons die and Naomi tells her daughters-in-law to return to their homes:

"At this they wept aloud again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-bye, but Ruth clung to her." (Ruth 1:14; TNIV).

Instead of leaving Naomi, Ruth pledges to stay with her (Ruth 1:16-18). This relationship has therefore long been commended as an example of self-sacrificing love and close friendship (eg. Issues in Human Sexuality para. 2.7). However, more recently a number of scholars have interpreted this relationship as probably sexual in nature. For example, Horner (1978, p.20) argues: "Whether there existed a relationship of physical love between Ruth and Naomi cannot be demonstrated. However, the right words are there."

The word Horner is primarily concerned with is the word translated as clung in Ruth 1:14, which is the Hebrew word "dabaq". This word is also translated in Genesis 2:24 as united "to his wife" and in Genesis 34:3 as drawn "to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman". The context of these passages is obviously one of sexual attraction.

However, the same word is also used in different contexts (Brown et al.). For example it is translated as stay in Ruth 2:8 (TNIV):

"So Boaz said to Ruth, "My daughter, listen to me. Don't go and glean in another field and don't go away from here. Stay here with the women who work for me."

In this context the word obviously has no sexual connotation, while at the end of the book Ruth marries Boaz, with Naomi's encouragement (Ruth 3:1-4). Robinson (2005) therefore concludes that "Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship."

Books of Samuel: David and Jonathan

David and Jonathan,
"La Somme le Roy", 1290; French illuminated ms (detail); British Museum
Main article: David and Jonathan

The account of the intimate relationship between David and Jonathan was recorded favourably in the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 18; 20; 2 Samuel 1) and there is an ongoing debate whether this relationship was platonic, romantic but chaste, or sexual.

The two most significant passages are 1 Samuel 18:3-4 (TNIV):

"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."

And 2 Samuel 1:26 (TNIV):

"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.

It has been widely and traditionally interpreted by Biblical scholars as a very close but not sexual relationship (cf. Issues in human sexuality, para. 2.17). However, a growing minority of scholars have argued that this was a sexual relationship (cf. Vasey 1995, Greenberg 1988), whilst acknowledging that "in neither case does the text mention a sexual aspect to the relationship" (Greenberg 1988, p.113). The possible euphemisms within the text and events such as Jonathan disrobing (1 Samuel 18:4: "stripped himself of the robe that was upon him" KJV) in front of David (highly unusual for it to occur between men at the time outside of bathing) and also holding each other extremely closely and kissing have led some scholars to argue "If modern readers do not see "sexual relationship" in this story, it is because they cannot accept the plain implications of the story itself" (Johns 2004; cf. Crompton 2002). However, as a sexual relationship is not made explicit, many continue to interpret the relationship as a "classical Biblical example" (Hilborn 2002, p.2) of brotherly and sisterly love.

Books of Kings

In two parallel events in the Books of Kings, Elijah (1 Kings 17:1-24) and Elisha (2 Kings 4:8-37), respectively, bring a young boy back to life by lying on top of the boy. In 1 Kings, Elijah lies the dead boy on his bed and then:

"he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried out to the LORD, "LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!" The LORD heard Elijah's cry, and the boy's life returned to him, and he lived." (1 Kings 17:21-22; TNIV).

In the near-parallel in 2 Kings, Elisha is told by the boy's mother that he has died and sends his servant to put his staff on top of the boy, but this fails. Elisha then visits the boy:

"When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the LORD. Then he got on the bed and lay on the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out on him, the boy's body grew warm. Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out on him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes." (2 Kings 4:32-35; TNIV).

Koch (2001) argues that the staff is a phallic symbol and the description of the boy sneezing is a sexual reference to ejaculation, therefore this is some form of homosexual ritual (or, since it involves a boy, pedophilia or pederasty). The traditional view holds that, based on the passage's description of bringing the boy back to life, the passage describes a resuscitation ritual rather than a sexual ritual.

Another passage in 2 Kings which Koch sees as significant is the meeting of King Jehu and Jehonadab, in 2 Kings 10:15-16 (TNIV):

"[Jehu] came upon Jehonadab son of Rekab, who was on his way to meet him. Jehu greeted him and said, "Are you in accord with me, as I am with you?"
"I am," Jehonadab answered.
"If so," said Jehu, "give me your hand." So he did, and Jehu helped him up into the chariot. Jehu said, "Come with me and see my zeal for the LORD." Then he had him ride along in his chariot."

This passage is interpreted by most scholars as the formation of a political alliance (cf. Burns 2002, p.14), but Koch argues, rather, that this is a romantic homosexual "pick-up". However, Koch's interpretation of these passages has been criticised by a number of scholars (cf. Burns 2002, p.13f) as including "sheer fantasy" and of being "a construction [which] is imposed on the text that is highly individualistic, not to say self-centered." Writing of the collection of essays of which Koch's is one, Burns (2002, p.14) writes: "this collection does not effectively present a credible application of queer theory, but one that is narrow and exclusive. In most cases there is no serious struggle with the text and few reasonable justifications for the claims that are made."

Passages from the New Testament

Christ in Majesty surrounded by the Four Evangelists from a mediaeval illuminated manuscript

The New Testament tells of Jesus Christ and the first Christians and so is only recognised as inspired by God by Christians, not Jews. The attitude of most Christians to the Bible is based on 1 Timothy 3:16 (TNIV): "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

Matthew 5:22: "raca"

Main article: Antithesis of the Law

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is reported as saying:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Matthew 5:22; TNIV).

This verse has Jesus criticising people for using certain words of contempt, which have been interpreted as referring to homosexuals. The untranslated word "Raca" is an Aramaic term of contempt, but its precise meaning is debatable. The word "raca" and similar words are common in many Semitic languages and some writers allege that they mean weakness or effeminacy, and are frequently used as terms of abuse for homosexuals (Robinson 2004; Halsall). Furthermore, it is alleged that the word translated as "fool" (Template:Polytonic, from which we derive the English moron) has a number of other meanings, including "sexual aggressor" and "homosexual aggressor". Robinson (2004) therefore concludes that "One could argue that Jesus was condemning homophobia in this passage; but it would be a weak case at best, because of the multiplicity of meanings of the key words." Furthermore, even if Jesus did criticise homophobia, no conclusions can be drawn from this passage on his views of homosexual sex.

Matthew 15; Mark 7: What defiles

In Matthew 15:19–20 (TNIV) Jesus is reported as saying:

"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile you; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile you."

In Mark 7:20-23 (TNIV) it says:

"He went on: "What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you."

Whether these lists include homosexuality depends on the translation of porneia (sexual immorality). As Jesus does not specifically include homosexuality, it has been argued that he did not condemn it. However, it has been pointed out that this is an argument from silence which has also been criticised on the grounds that the rabbis of the 1st century generally included homosexuality within their condemnations of sexual immorality (Saltlow 1995).

Matthew 8; Luke 7: "pais"

This event is referred to in both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 and tells of Jesus healing a centurion's servant.

Luke 7:2 (TNIV) says:

"There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die."

The term translated from the Greek as "servant" is pais. This can be translated in a number of different ways including "child" (eg., Matthew 2:16; Lk 2:43, 8:51-54 where it refers to a girl), "son" (John 4:51), "servant" (Lk 15:26, Acts 4:25), or be unclear whether "son" or "servant" is meant (Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, 4:30) (Marston 2003). However, it has also been argued (eg, Horner 1978) that the most common meaning was a young slave who was also used sexually. Horner (1978) goes on to argue that this interpretation is made more likely as the "servant" was "valued highly". As the NET Bible (2005) note (Luke 7, note 7) makes clear the word (ἔντιμος; entimos): "could mean 'highly valued,' but this sounds too much like the slave was seen as an asset, while the text suggests a genuine care for the person." Better translations might be "was dear to him" or "was highly regarded", showing that the centurion was genuinely concerned about the boy and making it more likely that they were lovers (Helminiak 2000). As Jesus commended the centurion for his faith (Matthew 8:10; Luke 7:9), it is therefore argued (eg, Horner 1978) that Jesus approved of his relationship, as otherwise he would have condemned him.

However, Marston (2003) rejects this interpretation, arguing that as the relationship was probably involuntary it is difficult to believe that Jesus would have condoned it, while Chapman (2005) argues that this is an argument from silence, and notes that while Jesus did not condemn other practices (such as slavery) this does not necessarily mean he approved of them.

The disciple whom Jesus loved

Main article: Disciple whom Jesus loved

In the Gospel of John, there are four verses (John 13:23; 19:26; 21:7; 21:20) which refer to the "disciple whom Jesus loved", generally interpreted to be John himself.

A very small minority of scholars have used these verses to argue that Jesus and John had a homosexual relationship, recently most notably by Jennings (2003). Jennings argues that these verses and the intimacy displayed between Jesus and John, especially at the Last Supper where John is described (John 13:23) as "reclining next to him" (TNIV) or "leaning on Jesus' bosom" (KJV), strongly implies that they were in a homosexual relationship. This stance has been taken up by several people throughout history, always a minority but often significant individuals, such as James I of England, who argued that Jesus having his John was enough justification for his own homosexual relationship with George Villiers.

However, this interpretation is rejected by virtually all Biblical scholars. For example, Vasey (1995, pp.121-124) uses the "deepest intimacy" of the friendship of Jesus and John to affirm homosexual relationships, but rejects the idea that Jesus and John themselves were in a homosexual relationship. It is also dismissed by Gangon (2001) in his large-scale study The Bible and Homosexual Practice, not least as the word translated "loved" is the Greek word agape (used, for example, in John 3:16; "for God so loved the world"), rather than the Greek word referring to lust, eros. Nevertheless, of the five Greek words for love, agape is the one that in modern Greek is used in I love you, and was used in several ancient, pre-Christian, Greek works in a context where it had almost the same meaning as eros.

Responding directly to Jennings' claims, Gangon argued that Jennings misunderstood ancient culture, as people would recline while eating, so the man "leaning on Jesus' bosom" was simply "reclining next to" Jesus, with no homoerotic implication. In short, Gangon argued: "the idea that Jesus was a homosexual or engaged in homosexual acts is complete nonsense" that no "serious biblical scholar" had ever proposed (Ostling 2003). It should, however, be noted that in hellenic culture, the most common time that men would recline together was at Symposiums, which were frequently noted for their homosexual activity.

A minority of recent scholars have used the Secret Gospel of Mark (unexpectedly discovered by Morton Smith in the 20th century) to argue that there was a homosexual relationship between Jesus and the beloved disciple, whom the Secret Gospel of Mark states was raised from the dead, like Lazarus (and possibly meant to be the same individual), as well as implies was also the naked youth with Jesus during his arrest, and the youth inside the empty tomb. Although highly controversial, most scholars now think that the Mar Saba letter, which contains the discovered fragments of the Secret Gospel, is a genuine 2nd century letter from Clement of Alexandria, though the investigation into the authenticity of the Secret Gospel itself is still very much ongoing, and far less conclusive.

Romans 1

File:Saintpauloftarsus.jpg
An early portrait of the Apostle Paul

In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (TNIV), Paul writes

"Because of this [idolatry], 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."

This has been described as "the most important biblical reference for the homosexuality debate" (Hilborn 2002, p.5). It is also the only explicit reference in the Bible to female homosexuality. Hilborn (2002, p.6) argues that in the wider passage (Romans 1:18-32) Paul writes that the "global scope of salvation history has been made manifest not only in ‘the gospel of God's Son’ (cf. v.9), but also in the very ‘creation of the world’ (v.20)." In common with many traditional commentators, Hilborn (2002, p.7) goes on to argue that the condemnation of homosexual sex (whether consensual or not) is derived from the "broad contours" of Paul's argument, rather than from the selective reading of individual words or phrases.

However, a minority of more recent interpreters (eg., Boswell 1980, p.109f; Vasey 1995, p.131f) argue that Paul does not have in mind a system of natural laws (as this is an Enlightenment concept) and that "Paul did not discuss gay persons, but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons" (Boswell 1980, p.109). McNeil (1993) argues that a proper understanding of this passage should focus on heterosexuals who "abandoned" or "exchanged" heterosexual sex for homosexual sex, which is against nature and therefore idolatrous.

This usually appears to be based on the argument that the ancient world did not have a concept of homosexual orientation. However, having reviewed the evidence the report Issues in Human Sexuality (para 2.16) concluded: "It can be said, therefore, the phenomena which today would be interpreted in terms of orientation were present and recognised." These considerations therefore lead many Biblical interpreters to conclude that "the most authentic reading of Rom 1:26-7 is that which sees it prohibiting homosexual activity in the most general of terms, rather than in respect of more culturally and historically specific forms of such activity" (Hilborn 2002, p.9).

Nonetheless, this broader interpretation of what was known about orientation is rejected by a minority of interpreters (eg West 2005, p.3), who argue that sexual behaviour was always undertaken amongst unequals and that Paul is talking to a Gentile audience in terms that they would understand to show that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). It is therefore argued that what Paul condemns in Romans 1 is particular types of homosexual sex, such as temple prostitution or pederasty (cf. Hilborn 2002, p.8).

1 Corinthians 6; 1 Timothy 1: Wrongdoers

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

The word translated as "practicing homosexuals" is very unusual, Template:Polytonic (arsenokoitēs), meaning "one who has sexual intercourse with a male" (Greek Template:Polytonic [arrhēn / arsēn] "male"; Template:Polytonic [koitēn] "sexual intercourse"), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. Within the Bible, it only occurs in this passage and in a similar list in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Paul's source is the Greek (Septuagint) translation of Leviticus 18:22: Template:Polytonic (kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gunaikos. bdelugma gar estin "And you shall not have sexual intercourse with a male as with a female. For it is an abomination.") Boswell (1980) argues that this is a term specifically created by Paul. Given its unusual nature, the fact that Paul did not use one of the more common Greek terms, and given its direct reference to the Levitical laws, it is a matter of debate whether Paul was referring generally to any person having homosexual sex, or whether he was referring to a narrower range of practices (such as heterosexuals having homosexual sex), or whether (as discussed below) it referred to anal sex committed under any circumstances (cf. Elliott 2004). Other translations of the word include Martin's (1996), who argued it meant "homosexual slave trader" and Boswell (1980) who argued it referred to "homosexual rape".

Furthermore, while it is generally agreed that the Church Fathers condemned homosexuality (eg., Catholic Answers 2005), they only very rarely used the term arsenokoitai (Elliott 1994), with Townsley (2003) counting a total of 73 references. Most are ambiguous in nature, while St. John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, seems to use the term "arsenokoitai" to refer specifically to the pederasty (men committing anal sex with boys) common in the Greco-Roman culture of the time, while Patriarch John IV of Constantinople in the 6th century used it to refer to anal sex: "some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives" (Townsley 2003).

See also


References

  1. ^ Issues in human sexuality, para. 2.24; see also Old Testament#Christian view of the Law
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bible_and_homosexuality&oldid=65246490"