Paul Misunderstood Homosexuality and Here’s Why

We are going to cover a lot of ground in this blog. We’ve got 3 passages to consider in the New Testament (hereafter “NT”): Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10, written by St. Paul, and another passage from I Timothy 1:10.

Things to know about Paul, his work, and his world

Paul of Tarsus authored 7 epistles, or letters, in the NT. Romans can rightly be called Paul’s masterpiece, and scholars are sure he wrote I Corinthians, both of which we will explore. Paul did not write I Timothy. His “school,” or successor students, probably penned this letter. Its date of authorship ranges from 98-117 A.D. Paul was martyred sometime around 65 A.D., so this letter appeared some 3-5 decades after his death. 

What Paul didn’t write

The vocabulary of I Timothy and the shift in concern to church organization and order, patterns of behavior, etc., extend well beyond what Paul wrote about in those 7 letters that we know are his. Timothy and Titus are referred to in this letter rhetorically as examples of fine leadership. They were co-evangelists with Paul and would also have died by this time.

The authors of I Timothy perhaps sought to deal with church issues that arose after Paul’s execution. Writing as part of Paul’s school provided prestige for these authors, as well as influence in the early church. Scholars call the letters that Paul did not write the “Deutero-Pauline” letters, and they include Colossians, Ephesians, I, II, and III Timothy, 2 Thessalonians, and Titus. 

Paul’s emphasis on “right conduct”

Paul had a sense of urgency about correct conduct because he and many believed the Second Coming of Christ would happen imminently. Trained as a Pharisee, Paul knew Jewish law and tradition and therefore relied upon the Torah to define unacceptable conduct. While not directly cited by Paul, the Ten Commandments often provide a subtext for his “vice lists,” as we’ll soon see. Look for references in the vice lists that refer to murder, lying, stealing, idolatry, adultery, etc.

Paul also constantly used the Gentiles’ bad behavior to teach his audience about what not to do. Paul focused on salvation through personal conduct, and Paul teaches this ideology in his vice lists appearing in our 3 passages of interest. As we explored last week, just as the ancient Israelites strived to live up to the holiness code of Leviticus, right conduct meant everything to Paul. He repeatedly cautioned that sinning came at a high cost, loss of salvation, and consequent ineligibility to inherit the Kingdom of God or eternal life.

We can see this today where the far-right Evangelical tradition focuses on personal salvation (See also Douglas 1994). The Roman Catholic Church, Orthodoxy, and liturgical Protestant churches, like the Episcopal and Lutheran churches, focus more on mission as the Body of Christ in the World.

Talking Point Tidbit #1. Paul never knew Jesus personally. He never experienced Jesus’ gentleness and compassion, his healings, and advocacy for sinners, and his love for humanity. Paul only knew of Jesus from others. He never seemed to understand the importance of Jesus’ world-altering love, mercy and forgiveness. Jesus practiced table fellowship by eating with notorious people. In numerous passages, the Pharisess criticized Jesus for doing this because it violated their strict code of who can eat with whom. Typically, elites, like scribes, teachers, and Pharisees, ate with other elites only. This was a closed system to non-elites. Jesus not only broke these rules, but he often did so blatantly, especially after a public healing. And Jesus took these opportunities to teach. Paul would also have been upset and critical that Jesus broke these moral codes of conduct regarding eating. 

Example: Jesus also mingled with everyday people to be accessible to them. Whilst in a crowd, a hemorrhaging woman reached out to just touch his robe in order to be healed. Why did she do this? Because she had been hemorrhaging for 12 years. This made her cultically impure, and therefore she constantly lived as an outsider in her own community. Jesus felt his power “go out of him.” 

Jesus asked who touched him, and the woman admitted to touching his outer garment. Jesus had pity on the woman and her situation; he immediately understood without any explanation that she was constantly shunned and needed restoration. Jesus did not care that she was bleeding when she touched him–he did not get angry about being defiled. Instead, he immediately stated that she was healed, and restored her to the community. Jesus did not even require that she go through the ritually-ordained 7 day purification rite after menstruation, or to make a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Her reinstatement to her community occurred instantaneously with her healing. 

Talking Point Tidbit #2. Paul would have had a hard time with Jesus’ removing the cultic requirements of the cleansing bath, the mikvah, or making a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Why? I submit that’s because Paul initially persecuted Christians as Saul, and even oversaw the stoning of our first martyr, Stephen. Paul revealed his personality as accuser and prosecutor when he hunted down Christians and arrested them. His passion continued even beyond his conversion at Damascus. Paul merely shifted to criticizing Gentiles–he did not lose his zeal for critiquing others. Keep this in mind as we work through these passages.

A few important concepts 

Anachronism – involves attributing a custom, event, or object to a period to which it does not belong. Example-If we watched the movie, “Ben Hur,” we would see chariot racing scenes at the Roman coliseum in the time of Jesus. If a film editor spliced in a car as one of the competitors in the chariot races, that would be anachronistic. That’s an obvious anachronistic error, but what if an anachronism is not so readily apparent? Beware of things that may not belong where they are, as we’ll see below!

Sexual orientation – one’s identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, or asexual. The concept of sexual orientation was not coined as such until the 1869s. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III (DSM-III), the then-current edition, removed homosexuality and lesbianism as disorders in 1973. To use the word “homosexuality” to translate biblical texts is anachronistic (see above). 

Desire – Paul focused on sexual desire as a stumbling block, whether heterosexual or homosexual. He only supported marriage if people continued to burn with desire. Marriage solved the “desire problem.” When Paul wrote about “longing”, he never referred to sexual or intimate longing and felt all passion was dishonorable (Martin, 347-8). Paul never supported marriage for people as a means of encouraging a lasting, loving relationship. He was obsessed with mission and “right conduct” above all else.

Nature – The definition of nature, natural, and unnatural rely on the cultural context from which they arise (Martin, 349, fn. 43). 

Example: It is natural in some parts of Asia to eat dishes from dog meat. I use this example because often cultural assessments of what is un-natural affect us at a gut level–something that makes us ill or ill at ease. Americans are completely repulsed by the idea of eating dog meat. What we view as nature has some common denominators across the globe, however, the culture and society in which we live often dictates many facets of what is natural or unnatural to us in our context.

Heterosexist reading – the presumption that heterosexuality is normative, or sets the standard as the most “normal” behavior. By assuming a heterosexist favoritism, it becomes nearly automatic that any other sexual orientation would be deemed substandard and therefore subjugated or demonized. Paul undoubtedly supported heterosexism because of his Jewishness and familiarity with the law. Patriarchy and misogyny dominated Greek society, as well as Judaism. This may explain Paul’s description of male to male sex as “unnatural” but he could have been referring to idol worship. We simply don’t know for sure. Modern-day male theologians have consistently translated, interpreted, and taught our texts with a heterosexist bias as well. 

Talking Point Tidbit #3. So Paul undoubtedly wrote his letters with a heterosexist perspective, and theologians have continued this built-in prejudice even to current times. For a man to want to be penetrated by another man remains inexplicable to many even today. This attitude fuels the rejection of male to male sex. The idea of desiring to be penetrated causes a negative gut reaction even today. That’s because misogyny, hatred of, or aversion to women and girls, is the root cause of homophobic and heterosexist perspectives. It’s been an ever-revolving, draconian cycle that we must halt. 

Let’s take a look at the 3 passages. Note that they all include a “vice list” of Gentile behavior considered to be bad (in bold).

Romans 1:18-32 (written by Paul)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. (Reference to pagan worship)

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 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 in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

I Corinthians 6:9-11 (written by Paul)

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. 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. (my emphasis)

I Timothy 1:8-11 (not written by Paul, but likely by students via Paul’s school of thought)

8 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Talking Point Tidbit #4. Notice how Paul clusters murderers with gossips, and liars with slave-traders, or kidnappers. And, Paul has many other lists that do the same thing. To pair the act of two consenting men in private conduct with murders and kidnappers would hardly seem balanced in a contemporary reading. 

The Greek terms for “homosexuality” are not so neatly defined: arsenokoites and malakois

Let’s look at the two primary terms used in the NT that attempt to describe male to male sex. Those two words are “arsenokoites,” a compound word translating to man-bed-sex, and “malakoi,” meaning soft or effeminate, the one who is penetrated. We don’t know the circumstances of the “sodomites,” what they were doing, and why. Translating “sodomite” from the Greek word “arsenokoites” results in a clumsy and most inaccurate version. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about a gross lack of ancient hospitality and the threat of gang rape! You can read about it here at my blog! 

Using the term “homosexual,” vocabulary arising over the last 2 centuries is an anchronistic rhetorical device here. How can translators use a word in a text that is 2 thousand years old when this word has only been around since 1869 (Richie, 726)? That’s just bad translation by using an anachronistic methodology. These ancient peoples did not have our understanding of sexual orientation, and it should not be read into the text. It represents a false understanding and results in misleading people. The role of translation must be to understand the vocabulary in its original context as it is brought to the new language (Richie, 726).

For those motivated to demean gay people today, this is exactly the type of heterosexist interpretation that pays lip service to a pre-existing agenda. Heterosexism, where heterosexual relationships are prized above all others, has wrought untolled oppression and strife on LGBTQ people. “Oppressive ideologies have always in the modern world masqueraded as objective descriptions of ‘the way things are.’” (Martin, 350) 

Talking Point Tidbit #5. Paul could have been writing about the system of Greek pederasty. A married man often took the teen son of a dear friend to train him up in being a man and citizen. This was an erotic relationship that included having sex with the boy, also known as a calamite or malakoi (meaning soft, effeminate). Being a Jew, Paul would have been opposed to this Gentile practice and would have had concern for the boys involved (Richie 727). Paul likely encountered these pederastic relationships in his congregations. Paul would have strongly objected to the adultery by the married man, too.

Paul could also have been ascribing “unnatural” behavior to the Isis cult in Rome with its idolatry and polytheism (Gnuse, 84). If that is the case, we should stop assigning so much emphasis on temple prostitution itself and look to a reform of worshiping other gods. The point is that we have a lot of moving parts in Paul’s vice lists where he often clusters serious offenses with much lesser offenses. In these running lists, he fails to provide adequate explanation of what he is talking about. Jamming the word “homosexual” or “sodomite” into the mix merely confuses the meaning of the text all the more.

I suggest that the better translation for arsenokoites and malakoi would be

“pederasty.” Another possibility might be “idolatry.” Using “homosexual” and “sodomite” to translate arsenokoites and malakoi grossly misses the mark by equating them for the modern term, homosexual; it is also imprecise and misleading for sodomite. We can do much better than this.

These passages demonstrate the dangers of inserting meanings into biblical passages from a future era, culture, and place. We’ve also explored the dangers of heterosexist bias in translating and interpreting ancient writings. Patriarchy and misogyny, both of which contribute to a homophobic society, must get challenged at every opportunity. The terminology needs to be updated to a better and more accurate translation. The lives of too many LGBTQ people hang in the balance.

Blessings on your journey. +

We have one more clobber text that will be out later this summer, so stay tuned!

A Note of thanks again goes to Astrid B. Beck, Ph.D.! 

Dr. Beck sat on my doctoral committee, and she is a dear friend. I consulted with Dr. Beck on this blog because she is a widely respected biblical scholar and was the managing editor of various Anchor Bible Series. Many thanks, Dr. Beck! It is important to me to offer the best information available to aid in studying the Bible. I’ve included a few resources here that support this blog.

Freedman, David Noel, ed. Allen C. Myers, Assoc. Ed. Astrid B. Beck, Managing Ed. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2000.

The Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible gathers nearly 5,000 alphabetically ordered articles that thoroughly yet clearly explain all the books, persons, places, and significant terms found in the Bible. The Dictionary also explores the background of each biblical book and related writings and discusses cultural, natural, geographical, and literary phenomena–matters that Bible students at all levels may encounter in reading or discussion. I highly recommend this work.

Cited Works

Robert K. Gnuse. “Seven Gay Texts: Biblical passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality.” Biblical Theology Bulletin, 45 (2), 68-87 (2015).

Dale B. Martin. “Heterosexism and the interpretation of Romans 1:18-32.” Biblical Interpretation, 3(3), 332-355 (1995).

Cristina Richie. “An Argument Against the Use of the Word ‘Homosexual’ in English Translations of the Bible.” The Heythrop Journal, 51(5), 723-729 (2010).