Actually, a whole lot less than you might imagine! That may be hard to believe given the fierce rhetoric Christians often employ when talking about homosexuality, but there are really only seven passages in the Bible that refer directly to homosexual behavior, and none of them are associated with Jesus. Compare that to the more than 250 verses on the proper use of wealth or more than 300 on our responsibility to care for the poor and work for justice, and you appreciate quickly that homosexuality was not exactly a major theme of the Bible.
Nevertheless, these seven passages have been poured over by conservative and liberal scholars alike and have occasioned considerable conversation and controversy. In order to review what the Bible actually says about homosexuality, as well as what others are saying about it, I'll group similar verses below and give a brief summary of the major differences in interpretation. Then, I'll outline the four most common stances Christians take regarding these biblical passages in general, as these positions greatly influence how one interprets individual verses.
Old Testament Narrative
There are two passages that refer to homosexual behavior that are set in larger narratives. That is, they are part of a story, not a legal or moral code. Each deals with the threat of homosexual rape. The more famous of the two comes from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah found in Genesis 19:1-11. Lot, Abraham's nephew, is staying in Sodom when he is visited by angels. Men from the city come and demand that they be allowed to have sex with Lot's guests. Lot refuses and when he is threatened by the townspeople the angels he has hosted protect him. A similar story occurs in Judges 19:16-30 (minus angels and with a grislier outcome).
There is broad consensus among scholars on both the left and the right (except for the very most conservative) that these passages have nothing to do with homosexuality per se, but rather with hospitality and justice. That is, both scenes represent hosts protecting their guests from severe humiliation and outrageous injustice. Some other parts of the Bible interpret these passages just this way. Ezekiel, for instance, refers to the sin of Sodom not in terms of sexual immorality but rather justice: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy" (16:49).
The Holiness Code of Leviticus
There are two verses in the book of Leviticus that refer to homosexual behavior. The first reads, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (18:22). While the second goes even further: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" (20:13). Again, there is considerable agreement that both of these passages are portions of what is commonly called the holiness code, a set of rules and regulations spanning chapters 17-26 that are intended to set Israel apart from the Egyptians they fled and the Canaanites they were now living among. (There is also overwhelming agreement, thankfully, that however one feels about homosexuality, the death penalty is an extreme and unwarranted response!)
There is considerable debate, however, about three matters. 1) Do these passages refer to consensual homosexual practice (and whether that was even a recognized option in the ancient world), or do they describe the cultic practice of Israel's neighbors and adversaries? 2) Are these regulations contingent because they derive from particular challenges and situations the Israelites faced at that time (the importance of procreation, for instance, given that Israel was a nomadic people dependent on increasing its population for survival), or do they intend to establish universal sexual norms? And 3) even if these regulations were normative for Israelites, do they continue to be for Christians given how many other Levitical codes are contradicted later in the New Testament or have historically been ignored by Christians.
New Testament Ethics
The three passages in question read as follows:
Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."
1 Timothy 1:9-11: "This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me."
There is considerable debate on at least two questions about these passages. 1) Do they refer to consensual homosexual practice, to cultic prostitution or to male pederasty (where an adult male has sex with a younger boy, either as a coming of age ritual or on a commercial basis)? 2) Are the New Testament authors pointing to specific behavior they have witnessed, or are they using a common "catalogue of complaints" against Gentiles (as there are similar complaints in other first-century Jewish writings about Gentiles)?
Of these verses, the Romans passage is often cited as a "lynch pin" text because the Apostle Paul seems to make his argument on the basis of the natural order ("natural" vs. "unnatural" passions). But at another place Paul uses nature to justify his position on the proper length of men's and women's hair and the need for women to wear head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). As it turns out, arguing from nature was a common rhetorical device in Paul's day, employed by many contemporaries of the Apostle, and was similar to saying today, "The conventional wisdom is..."
Four Basic Views
Most Christians I have talked to fall into one of four groups regarding these verses, depending on how they address two questions. The first we've named directly at several points already: Do the passages refer to anything like the phenomena of life-long, monogamous or mutually consensual same-gendered relationships that we know of today? (It's worth noting that the word "homosexual" was not present in the ancient world but was instead invented in the 19th century.) The second issue we've only alluded to: Whether or not the passages refer to the phenomenon we are describing today, are we bound to ethical determinations made by persons living in vastly different cultures and times and whose understanding of the world and of God's activity was shaped and limited by their own cultural viewpoints.
Depending on how you answer those two critical questions, you will likely fall into one of our groups.
As is often the case, one's larger theological or ideological commitments greatly influence how one reads these seven verses. The first and third positions, for instance, reflect a more conservative view and make it difficult to find anything but condemnation in the Bible for homosexual practice. The second and forth, in contrast, invite a more progressive interpretation of the verses in common and open the way to supporting homosexual relationships as several major mainline church bodies have done.
For those Christians who look to the Bible for moral guidance, two additional questions may be worth considering. First, do you see yourself represented fairly in one of the four groups above? Second, can you imagine that someone holding one of the other three positions is also a faithful Christian who loves God and neighbor and searches the Scripture for guidance in these matters, even if that difference puts you at odds on this matter? How professing Christians answer these questions will greatly determine future discourse on these matters and, more importantly, how they interact with persons who are gay or lesbian.
Note: For a more detailed treatment of these passages, see "BACKGROUND ESSAY on BIBLICAL TEXTS" for "Journey Together Faithfully, Part Two: The Church and Homosexuality" by Arland J. Hultgren and Walter F. Taylor Jr., two well respected biblical scholars who disagree on the issues at hand. I have at several points been guided by their work.
What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality
The Bible and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bible Verses on Homosexuality - What the Bible Says - Christian ...
In Matthew 19:3-12 Jesus and his disciples are having a discussion about divorce. Jesus indicated that Moses only permitted divorce, but from the beginning the situation was that when a man divorced his wife and married another woman, that man committed adultery.
The disciples replied, "Then it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. ... The one who can accept this should accept it." And he said this about a Commandment issue.
So some can accept and live by this statement of divorce. Others cannot accept it, and are not bound by it. Paul makes much the same point in 1 Cor. 8 where he is discussing eating food that has been sacrificed to an idol. The believer with the weak conscience considers such food defiled, while the believer who is strong in faith, regarding an idol as nothing, can eat that food without any reservations. The weak brother can be destroyed by eating such food, while there are no consequences at all for the other believer.
So we return to Christ's words: let us each work on the plank in our own eye because we all struggle with what the Spirit is correcting in us.
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." Matt. 5:17
Your oversimplification is extremely narrow and misleading.That is what is disingenuous and can be viewed as deceitful. It is precisely this type of dislodging of Jesus from the law that allows an "anything goes" mentality in so many churches.
I just wanted to say how much I admire your willingness and ability to debate. Knowing that your ideological opponent twists your words, as well as his own, demonstrates the desperation of his position - especially when you paint him into an intellectual corner- which you do quite aptly.
Simply know that I support you as well as what you say.
ez
Even limiting yourself to the New Testament after Jesus came, there is still a lot of picking and choosing going on among Christians. I really want to know how people decided what to follow, and how they know that god really meant this part, but didn't really mean or care about another part. How did they draw that line? How do they know that one part had more vilidity than the other? Either it's all valid because it was divinely inspired and the word of god or none of it is. People picking and choosing passages of the bible to follow, along with the various interpretations and versions of the bible and numerous denominations kind of strengthens the non-belief of atheists because it shows that no one can agree on what anything means. If it was the word of god, you'd think they'd all have the same exact version of the bible and that it's meaning would be apparent and obvious to everybody.
Jesus said: "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
When loving self supersedes loving God, it is sin (breaking the first of Jesus 2 commandments). The Bible (and Jesus own words) is clear about marriage, gender roles, etc. The world is free do do as it will, but you can't say that Jesus or the Bible allows or condones same sex marriage.
Love your neighbor as yourself? Great idea. Go to it. After you've accomplished that in yourself, come back and tell us if you still feel like pointing fingers at people and institutionalizing discrimination.
the only love that loves god is the love that godloves(love one another as i have loved you) one's neighbor and oneself as well. 1john4:20
I'd say its 1 and 3. If you look at the passages and the history supporting them they are indicative of homosexuality today. For example, homosexual relationships while not sharing the same level of marital status as they do in some states today, were common in Greek and Roman society. The notion that they only exisited in idolatrous or coercsive contexts and not in consensual loving committed relationships is a fallacy. See Emperor Elagabalus who married another man for example. The "ancients" did indeed have a concept of homosexuality similar to today.
2 falls short as there arent other scriptures that inform or support such acts.
That only leaves 4, which basically takes a" its all relative view" (moral relativism which is opposed to Biblical teachings) and still has no scriptural legs to stand on that relate to such acts, but takes a more general "love" approach which could be applied to any many of other acts prohibited in the BIble as well. Its insufficient.
we dont know what prohibition of men lying with meant, because there is no case mentioned as in num 15:32 about violating the sabbath. the eastern mind had different understandings of what of the writings meant. in that period males only married what was their property, there was no equality between spouses. there was a prohibtion against one isreali male making another his property.
the word used for abomination concerning this prohibition was used in issues involving ritual cleansing.
No we do know what it was meant as its not only mentioned in Leviticus but others passages as well.
No the provision against same sex acts were in the Levitical Moral Codes. The provisions pertaining to ritual cleansing were in the Levitical Priestly Codes which had to do with purification. The former have been consistently adhered to, the latter haven't, There is a clear distinction there.
2. Jesus was The Word when He came to earth in the form of a human being. Jesus means "The Lord Saves" in Greek. Jesus' mission was to be the Perfect Sacrifice for our sins. As the Communicator He was to inform, those who were/are interested in salvation, what the requirements were to get back to God and Heaven.
3. As the co-equal and Second Person in the Trinity, He once decreed, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22).
4. The Components of the Trinity are made up of the Creator( Father), Word(Communicator) and Holy Spirit(Helper).
5. Before The Word became Jesus, He gave his opinion about homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22.,29; 20:13. It, then, is clear that Jesus did not approve of homosexuality because... Second Person in Trinity= The Word= Jesus.
6. It's simply not true that Jesus never said anything negative about homosexual sctivity.
7. It is true that He said to repent Mark 1:15;6:12;Luke 13:3;17:3).
8. It is true that He said, "wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matthew 7:13-14). Pride has a lot to do with that.
of God in his/ hers heart. It is when that Spirit connects with one's conscience and the morals that are written on one's heart(Romans 2:15) that a person does the Will of God and respects his fellow man.
" this is my belief, end of discussion." beliefs come from understandings handed down generationally, life experiences, and personnal belief systems. all these are totally subjective.
lev not all prohibitions were of themselves sins nor sins in the new covenant.
romans homosexuals dont bond out shameful lust but mutual love devotion, respect.....etc the same as heterosexuals.
gen and mathew there is no word "only" in these scripture
1tim and 1cor paul said that we died to the law and were resurrected in christ and receive no life in following it. paul in no way thru legalities would attempt to make a law to put christ under.
no issue shows the differences between the old and new covenant than the issue of homosexuality. the fact it is even an issue shows how believers still have one foot in the old covenant.
This is all just unbearably tiresome. And the suspension of reason necessary to entertain these questions is herculean. If you want to read what a book says about the universe, read Sagan's 'Cosmos'.