Don't Blame It
on the Bible
Obery M.
Hendricks, Jr., Ph.D.
03/18/2013
Most Americans
who oppose gay rights and same-sex marriage justify their opposition by turning
to the Bible. But does the Bible really oppose homosexuality? You'd be
surprised.
At the end of
March, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of
California's Proposition 8, which denies gay Americans the right to legally
marry. Major polls show most Americans in support of marriage equality. Still a
vocal and well-heeled right-wing evangelical opposition presents a formidable
obstacle. Why? Because of a long-held belief that homosexuality is among the
greatest of biblical sins.
But does the
Bible really condemn homosexuality? Ironically it never answers that question
conclusively. In fact, the biblical basis for the demonization of homosexuality
is very thin and, ultimately, not at all decisive. Oddly enough, the notions of
homosexuality that are so deeply rooted in American culture and law are based
upon a surprisingly small number of biblical passages. If progressives are to
successfully address the supposed divinely sanctioned circumscription of gay
Americans' constitutional rights, it is crucial that they understand the
biblical arguments that gay rights opponents use to justify their resistance.
What follows is a brief primer on what progressives need to know about what the
Bible says -- and does not say -- about homosexuality.
I.
First, it is
important to recognize that the peoples of biblical antiquity had no idea of
homosexuality as identity, orientation or lifestyle. The term "homosexuality"
was not even coined until the latter half of the 19th century. In fact, the
first use of "homosexual" or its cognate in any biblical translation
in any language did not occur until 1946 with the Revised Standard Version.
As for the
Bible, its first supposed condemnation of homosexuality is the well-known
Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah, from which we get the term
"sodomite" and "sodomy law," the latter of which
criminalizes same gender sex, even between mature and consenting adults. In
Genesis we are told that a group of men insisted that Lot send out to them his
three male visitors (whom the crowd didn't know were angels) so they could
sexually abuse them (Genesis 19:4-9). Even the most cursory reading of this
text reveals that it neither states nor implies that the men in the offending
crowd were anything other than heterosexuals; we are simply told that they
sought to humiliate and gang rape Lot's guests. Yet from this somehow it has
been derived that the crowd was comprised of homosexual men and
that homosexuality was rampant in Sodom. This has resulted in
the wrong-headed conclusion, now widely accepted as biblical truth, that Sodom
was destroyed as punishment for the "sin" of homosexuality, an
interpretation that doesn't actually seem to have actually entered Christian
discourse until medieval times -- a full millennium after the final form of the
Bible was canonized.
However, the
Bible itself tells a different story, that long before the crowd clamored for
Lot's guests God had already condemned Sodom as "wicked," an apparent
catch-all phrase for all types of transgressions (Genesis 13:13). What did
Sodom's wickedness entail? Ezekiel explains that it was not sexual sins, but
rather "pride, excess of food [that is, for greed and unwillingness to
share], ... prosperous ease" and because it "did not aid the poor and
needy" (16:49-50). The prophet Jeremiah gives the same general reason
(23:13), as does Jesus (Matthew 10:14-15). In fact, biblical references to
Sodom and Gomorrah overwhelmingly cite the issues of unscrupulousness and
domination of others as their fatal transgressions; there is little if any
mention of any kind of sex. The inescapable conclusion is that the use of the
term "sodomite" as a signifier for a homosexual person has absolutely
no basis in the Bible -- none. This is crucial to recognize because much of the
homophobia plaguing the world today can be traced to this tragic
misunderstanding. However, if anyone is hell-bent on believing that the abusive
crowd was really homosexual and that the entire Sodom narrative is divinely
sanctioned and literally true, then they must also accept that the Sodom
narrative also gives divine approval to sending daughters out to be gang-raped.
One just cannot be a biblical literalist only when it suits one's case.
II.
There are only
two other direct references to male-on-male sex in the Old Testament, one in
Deuteronomy and one in Leviticus (interestingly, lesbianism is never mentioned
in the Old Testament). The context for these Old Testament references is the
Israelite's immigration into the land of Canaan, whose society already had
well-established religious customs. As newcomers, there was much pressure for
the outnumbered Israelites to assimilate into the Canaanite religious orbit, so
laws and instructions were sacralized to prevent it.
One of the
religious practices the biblical commands sought to keep Israelites from
adopting was the ritual of male Canaanite priests honoring goddess figures by
dressing like women, taking on social roles associated with women and, in some
cases, even having themselves castrated. Another alarming practice was male and
female Canaanite ritual temple prostitution, apparently for the purpose of
appeasing their gods of fertility. The Israelites were forcefully admonished to
avoid these practices: "None of the daughters of Israel shall be qedeshah (literally
"a female holy/consecrated one" -- that is, a temple prostitute) --
"nor shall any of the sons of Israel be qadesh" -- a
male temple prostitute (23:17).
It is with this
backdrop of Canaanite temple practices that cross-dressing by Israelites is
declared an "abomination" (Deuteronomy 22:5). It is also in this
context that the following commandments are issued: "You shall not lie
with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22); and,
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination; they shall be put to death" (Leviticus 20:13). These
pronouncements have the appearance of timeless biblical laws, yet they were
explicitly codified -- with little sense of the complexity of human sexuality
-- to protect Israelites from seduction into the more powerful alien cultures
that surrounded them. One of the most telling statements that the primary
purpose of these pronouncements was ensure that Israelites cleave only to the
God and religion of Israel is this : "You are to be holy" (qadosh,
"set apart", i.e., from the practices of other societies) "as I
myself (God) am holy" (Leviticus 19:1-2).
But again, if
anyone chooses to accept the Bible's denunciations, even prescriptions of death
for "a man lies with a male," then what about other biblical
commandments that prescribe murder for disobedient children, for those who have
sex during a woman's menstrual cycle? What about the commandments to stone to
death adulterers (although a man could only commit adultery against the wife of
another, never against his own), and the execution by stoning of women raped in
the city, with the logic that if their rape was "legitimate" (shades
of Rep. Todd Akins!), they would have been sure to scream loudly enough to be
rescued? There is no leeway for picking and choosing. Again, either you are a
biblical literalist or not.
As for the Old
Testament, that's it for references to same gender sex. Not a word in Proverbs
or the Psalms. The biblical prophets rail against every social and moral
transgression in Israel, yet not one of them says a word about same gender
sexuality. In fact, the Old Testament talks much more about adultery, incest, even
about having sex with animals than it even alludes to same gender sexual
intimacy.
So when
considered in proper social and historical context, we find no unambiguous
condemnations in the Old Testament of what we today call homosexuality, and no
mention at all of lesbianism. But what we do find is the story of the love
between David and Jonathan.
In the first of
two biblical texts attributed to the prophet Samuel, we are told that "the
soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David ... and Jonathan made a
covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul" and that
Jonathan sealed their covenant of love by giving gifts to David (1 Samuel
18:1-4). Later, David and Jonathan are described as "kissing each other
and weeping" at their separation (20:41). After Jonathan's untimely death,
David cries out to him, "Your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the
love of women" (2 Samuel 1:20).
Here we have a
biblical story of a great love between two men that is said to be even dearer
to them than the love of women. Would this love be considered any less
beautiful, would it descend from sacred to profane, become worthy of disgust or
even of death, if we were to learn that the physical contact between Jonathan
and the messianic figure David went further than mere kissing? It is a worthy
question, because the biblical narrative of the love between David and Jonathan
attests -- in sacred scripture, no less -- that love between two men can be as
deep and as holy as any other love.
III.
When it comes to
the New Testament, the most significant passages thought to specifically
condemn homosexuality are found in Romans and First Corinthians. In Romans the
apostle Paul writes, "God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their
women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up
natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,
men committing shameless acts with men and receiving due penalty for their
error" (1:26).
Contrary to
widespread misinterpretations, here Paul's focus is not homosexuality, but
"dishonorable passions," lust, orgiastic acting out, folks just
"freaking," as they say in the street. Paul explicitly speaks about
heterosexuals exchanging what is "natural" for what is "unnatural."
That's why he calls their passions "unnatural," because they are
doing what is unnatural for them as heterosexuals; for gay people, on the other
hand, sexual intimacy with members of their own gender is not unnatural, it is
purely natural. Like everyone else in antiquity, Paul had no concept of
homosexual identity or orientation; no other idea of human identity was
available in his world. So what he could only have been condemning certain
unidentified over-the-top, lustful sexual actions by heterosexual people.
Therefore Paul's condemnation of "unnatural lusts" cannot be used as
a biblical support for condemning same gender love and intimacy; indeed, he is
not describing love at all. But notice that here Paul has made an argument from
nature, declaring what is natural and what is not. If opponents of equal rights
for gay Americans accept Paul's argument from nature, why can't the recent
insights of modern science be taken similarly seriously that sexual identities
evolve in early childhood and, in a yet an undetermined percentage of gays,
seem to have genetic origins?
In First
Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul further writes, "Do you not know that wrongdoers
will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators,
idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes (malakoi), sodomites (arsenokoita),
thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit
the kingdom of God."
Malakos, the term translated as
"male prostitute," literally means "soft" or
"effeminate," and is thought by many scholars to refer to male child
prostitutes who, of course, rarely assumed that role without coercion; or
perhaps it refers to pedophiles. The meaning of arsenokoitai, the
term variously translated as "sodomite" and "sexual
pervert," is not fully clear to us today, but it does seem to refer to
some form of homosexual relationship, possibly exploitive in nature. Perhaps
here malakoirefers to youths who are sexually used and arsenokoita to
the men who use them, though we can't be certain. In the final analysis,
however, no one can say with absolute certainty or integrity what Paul actually
means in this passage.
IV.
Finally we come
to the Gospels. Nowhere in any of the four Gospels does Jesus speak even one
word about homosexuality. What he does say is that the two paramount
commandments -- those that must be obeyed -- are to "love your Lord your
God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength ... and to love your neighbor
as yourself." But how can you love your neighbor as yourself if you would
deny your neighbor -- any neighbor -- the happiness and social acceptability of
their love and the opportunity to sacralize their committed spousal
relationship in the eyes of God that you treasure for yourself? In Matthew's
Gospel, Jesus says that the primary way each of us will be judged as worthy of
eternal life, as he puts it, is not by whom you share intimate love, but
instead by whether or not we have lived justly, if we have tried to serve those
in need and labored to establish justice in the land. There is nothing in the
words of Jesus that gives even the smallest sense that one will be judged by
what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom.
V.
Speaking of
bedrooms, the term "traditional marriage" is often used to challenge
the very notion of gay marriage. Yet the Bible speaks of a number of kinds of
marital relationships without condemnation and without presenting any of them
as "traditional." There is polygamy, concubinage ("shacking
up" or a woman on the side, in today's parlance). There is Sarah's urging
of Abraham to impregnate their slave Hagar, Jacob marrying the sisters Rachel
and Leah simultaneously and impregnating the female slave of each to boot. For
his part, without criticism or a tinge of judgment Jesus speaks of serial
polygamy, called Levirite marriage, which holds that if a man dies childless
his widow was to engage in sex with his eldest brother to impregnate her in the
name of her dead husband. If the eldest brother died without giving her a
child, she went on to the next brother, then the next, then the next, until she
became pregnant or ran out of brothers. In that none of these marital
arrangements are condemned or even treated as exceptional in the Bible, they
contradict the notion that there is one particular "traditional" type
of biblical marriage. There is, of course, cultural notions of traditional
marriage that hold sway in many societies, including our own, but they are just
that: cultural traditions, not biblical traditions.
So does the
Bible really condemn homosexuality -- and gay marriage by extension -- as
sinful? As we have seen, the evidence is far too ambiguous and open to dispute
for anyone to claim with integrity that it does. That is why the Bible cannot
and must not be used to deny to gay citizens the full measure of the
constitutional rights enjoyed by other American citizens. To do so is not only
unconstitutional. It is a real biblical sin.
Obery M.
Hendricks, Jr., author of 'The Universe Bends Toward Justice: Radical
Reflections on the Bible, the Church and the Body Politic' (Orbis, 2012)
