What are the clobber passages? Stop shaming LGBTQ people with the Bible

LGBT people have suffered from being metaphorically clobbered over the head with the Bible for a very long time, and sometimes the harassment has erupted in deathly violence. There are 7 passages in the Bible that have provided so-called ammunition for homophobic people to shame us. They use these biblical texts to tell us that we are broken, less-than, perverted, degenerate, and abominations, etc. Over time, these passages have become known as the “clobber passages.” It is past time for these practices and habits to stop.

Seven biblical passages are used to beat LGBT people over the head

I wanted to address these clobber passages for two reasons. The first is to encourage those who like to or feel called to clobber us to stop it. Those messages are extremely hurtful and can irreparably damage our self-esteem, sometimes even to the point of suicide. The spiritual harm we suffer is impossible to describe or quantify. Many of us have suffered damage and even PTSD from “conversion” therapy to “turn us straight.” To those who harass and try to “change” us, do you really want that on your conscience? Is the risk worth it?

The second reason is to provide our communities with information from scholars and practical theologians that will help us defend ourselves. We don’t have to just take it. You may even be able to stop the barrage by saying something as simple as, “You are entitled to your interpretation, and I’m entitled to mine, so please show me some respect. Stop talking, and we’ll agree to disagree.”

I’m offering this info in the form of:

“Talking Point Tidbits.” Wherever you see the PTM logo and “Talking Point Tidbits,” you’ll find useful tools for conversation with someone who believes same-sex love is sinful and is trying to convince you that being heterosexual is the only acceptable type of sexual orientation.

Sodom and Gomorrah, and Gibeah

The two most well-known anti-LGTB passages come from Genesis 19 and Leviticus 18. I’m beginning with the Genesis passage, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. And to do this, I’ll contrast this passage with the chapter just before in Genesis 18. Why would I do this?

We look to other parts of the Bible while studying it for many reasons. We must consider what comes before and after a particular text. This practice involves understanding the “canonical context.” We need to ask:

• How do these stories relate to one another?
• How do these stories amplify our learning?
• How can we distinguish one passage from another?
• What are the historical considerations of a text?

Also, sometimes we do canonical work by making comparisons between a text in one part of the biblical canon (meaning the whole Bible) and another part. I’m referring to a comparison of Genesis 19 with Judges 19 to shed some light on the ancient custom of hospitality. Both passages are also from the Old Testament, and the stories have many common aspects. Contrasting the two texts often sheds light on each of them, as we’ll see. Remember that the Bible didn’t just fall out of the sky as a whole work one day.

The Bible, as we know it now, came to be over hundreds of years. Contributors worked at different times and places. Bible scholars believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark wrote it around 60 A.D. That’s 60 years after Christ’s death and resurrection. Experts estimate the Gospel of John’s writer finished it around 100-120 A.D.–that’s 60-80 years just for the gospels to develop and get added to the Bible. What questions does this knowledge raise for you about the gospels of the New Testament? So, hang in there with me as we compare 3 texts, consider ancient practices in context, and explore the meaning of important terms.

[Talking Point Tidbit #1. Biblical texts do not wield a megaphone to shout at us until we accept the plain words on paper. It is our job to interpret the text, to dig into it, and to consider many aspects of its context.

• Who wrote it and when?
• When was one text written in comparison to another?
• What were the cultural norms at the time?
• How does the text speak to us today?]

Abraham’s proper example of ancient hospitality (Genesis 18) We’ll start with Genesis 18 to highlight Abraham’s proper demonstration of hospitality to strangers. Pay attention to how respectful Abraham acted though unaware that these strangers were angels of God.

18 And the Lord appeared to [Abraham] him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. 2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth, 3 and said, “My lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. 4 Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, 5 while I fetch a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on — since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.” 6 And Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said, “Make ready quickly three measures[b] of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes.” 7 And Abraham ran to the herd, and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to the servant, who hastened to prepare it. 8 Then he took curds, and milk, and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree while they ate. (All passages are taken from the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible, my emphasis in bold type.)

Hospitality in Abraham’s time meant that you had an obligation to protect your guests while under your roof, even to the point of dying in defense of them. The host must also provide food and shelter. Typically these ancient peoples ate a great deal of bread, curds, and milk from their herds. They did not eat meat often because it thinned their herds. But when a guest arrived, meat would very likely have been served. Abraham asked Sarah to prepare a fine meal, and he arranged for the meat portion. In other words, they “rolled out the red carpet” according to important and well-understood customs and requirements of hospitality.

[Talking Point Tidbit #2. Everyone in that ancient time experienced extreme heat. Note it was even too hot for Abraham to sit in his tent. Instead, he sat at the entrance trying to stay cooler. Traveling in that heat required rest, rehydration, and sustenance. The harsh environment contributed to these customs because out in the heat, it could be life or death for anyone. So, to travel and then to receive hospitality carried great social import. Your host gave you scarce water to have a drink and wash your hot and tired feet. You received food and a place of rest after a long, scorching day. The community protected itself through its reciprocal care of the traveling stranger. Hospitality was the cultural name of the game.]

Another noteworthy story occurs in Genesis 18 during the angels’ stay. At the end of chapter 18, Abraham and God discuss the notorious wickedness of Sodom, and God agreed to spare Sodom even if there were only as few as 10 good men left there. We’ll pick that thread back up in just a bit. Two of the angels headed to Sodom, as we transition to the 19th chapter of Genesis. Why is this important? Because Abraham has shown us how to treat strangers according to the custom and practice of correct hospitality. After leaving Abraham and Sarah, the angels arrive at Sodom. We have now received a template for excellent ancient hospitality.

The Depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19)

Note that Lot offered hospitality somewhat similar to his Uncle Abraham. City gates and entryways to tents and homes were very important places. That’s where men conducted business, trials were heard, and where the men of the city congregated. Portals have tremendous real and symbolic importance in the Bible.

19 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, 2 and said, “My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the street.” 3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door. 11 And they [the angels] struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves groping for the door. (My emphasis is in bold type.)

Lot’s hospitality, while genuine, does not meet the superior example offered by Abraham in the previous chapter.

• Lot rose to meet the strangers. Abraham ran to them. Lot shows less enthusiasm.
• Lot only served unleavened bread. Abraham and Sarah served “cakes of choice flour” and freshly prepared beef.
• Lot ate with the angels. Abraham stood by them rather than sharing the meal presumptively so the guests could have more to eat.

The vulnerability of strangers in biblical times

It’s possible the men of Sodom merely wanted to interrogate the foreigners. However, most scholars agree it is likely that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the angels.  But, this kind of rape is not due to having a homosexual orientation. This is about asserting power.

[Talking Point Tidbit #3. In ancient societies, travelers were incredibly vulnerable; the arrival of strangers put village inhabitants on guard. They’d be concerned that the foreigners were spies on reconnaissance for an enemy army. In these warring societies, it was common for conquering soldiers to rape their male captives as a further show of force and male dominance. Most scholars believe that the men of Sodom sought to establish dominance over these foreigners via gang rape to protect their village.]

The mob also seems to be angry with Lot who has extended hospitality to the strangers/angels first. Lot was a resident alien in Sodom and not a full citizen. Culturally, this could reflect poorly on the men of Sodom because Lot acted first to extend hospitality. The men could have felt Lot “showed them up” by acting more hospitably, even though Lot was not a full member of their society. Perhaps they thought Lot was in league with these presumed enemies. Plenty of reasons existed for heightened tensions.

Instead of allowing the same-sex rape of the angels, Lot begs them, “Do not act so wickedly.” Then Lot tries to convince the men to take advantage of his 2 virgin daughters. The men take this suggestion as a criticism or judgment of their intentions rather than as an offer of an alternative resolution, scandalous though it is — the permitted gang-rape of his virgin daughters.

Lot further takes a great risk by stepping outside of his door to reason with this unruly crowd. The men reject Lot’s offer of “heterosexual rape,” and they become violent with Lot. The angels grab Lot to bring him back to safety and strike the men blind. Lot’s family escapes. Despite the threat of rape, no such sexual assault occurs even though Lot scandalously offers up his own virgin daughters to be gang-raped. God destroyed Sodom because there were no “good” men left. These facts tie Genesis 18 directly to this chapter, 19. This story offers a far less stellar example of ancient hospitality than Abraham’s and Sarah’s.

So, we have an excellent example of the importance of looking at what comes before and after a given story. Studying and understanding biblical context makes all the difference. Reading the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as a standalone causes us to miss vital information for fuller comprehension. Now we turn to a horrible story that teaches ua what hospitality absolutely is not.

Gibeah’s crime and the logical conclusions that follow (Judges 19)

Notice the similarities between the stories between Sodom and Gibeah, with a major disturbing difference.

22 As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, base fellows, beset the house round about, beating on the door; and they said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.” 23 And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brethren, do not act so wickedly; seeing that this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing. 24 Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing.” 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them; and they knew her, and abused her all night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. 26 And as morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master was, till it was light. (My emphasis is in bold type.)

[Talking Point Tidbit #4. Ancient societies did not have an understanding of same-sex sexual orientation and relationships as we do in the 21st century. The concept of sexual orientation arose in the last 2 centuries. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a disorder from the then-current edition Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III), the primary handbook of psychiatric conditions. Same-sex marriage now has constitutional protection in the US as a result of our greater understanding of human sexuality. Experts view human sexual orientation as unchangeable; it is established in us at a young age usually, whether we are straight or gay. Comparing the attempt at homosexual rape in the Sodom story to our modern-day understanding of homosexuality and lesbianism is like comparing apples and celery.]

Conservative scholars argue that Sodom and Gomorrah’s cautionary tale conveys the “fact” that homosexuality is a sin. That is not logical since in Gibeah the rape of the female concubine occurred. Following their conclusion that Sodom condemns homosexuality, rightfully, then, they create an argument that Gibeah demonstrates that we must also condemn heterosexuality. If that seems like a leap in logic, it is. It’s just as much a leap in logic to “read into” the Sodom and Gomorrah story that its purpose is to condemn homosexuality.

• Plus, if all of the men really were homosexual in Gibeah, implausible though that is, why then would they rape a woman?
• Are anti-LGBT scholars also arguing that any of us can change our sexual orientation at the snap of a finger?

These stories teach us about the undeniable moral obligation of hospitality, one that puts the host in the unenviable position of defending guests with his life. This resulted in situations where the use of drastic measures to meet the moral code or hospitality while also protecting one’s own life. Where in Sodom, no gang-rape actually occurred, in Gibeah, the concubine was raped serially heterosexual-style. Which story recounts the greater sin?

How is the inhospitality of Sodom and Gibeah like inhospitality to LGBT people?

Moving from this most popular text used to clobber LGBT people, next we will examine the close runner-up to Sodom and Gomorrah, the passage from the Holiness Code found in Leviticus 18 and 20. People who want to criticize, humiliate, demean, or scare the LGBT communities about being gay often use these two passages from Leviticus.

Talking Point Tidbit #5. God’s blessings of land and procreation went hand in hand. God first rewarded the Israelites with their own land. However, God then mandated that Israel had to follow various laws and rituals to remain in good relationship with God. The Israelites had to refrain from conduct that either resulted in illegitimate children, or no children at all. By having illegitimate children from illicit sexual relations, like Lot with his daughters, Israel thereby polluted its prized land. By committing “sexual violations,” God’s penalty culminated in being ejected from the land, or “being vomited up from the land” (Milgrom 1567). We’ll come back to this in a bit.

The Torah, also known as the Pentateuch

Leviticus appears third in the Five Books of Moses, also known as the Torah, or the Pentateuch. Leviticus serves as a priests’ manual for the Israelite cultic practices. I’m not referring to Israel as a “cult” with all of the negative stereotypes that we would likely assume today. By “cult,” I refer to the various rituals and practices that distinguished the Israelites from those of neighboring nations.

Here are some examples of types of conduct regulated in Leviticus:

• The manner in which animals were sacrificed for thanksgiving and atonement
• The means of atonement for individual and for communal sin
• Care of curable skin diseases
• The annual cycle of daily, sabbath, and festival rituals
• Regulating the purification of women after menses and childbirth
• Regulating the purification of men after seminal emission
• Regulating the purification of anyone coming in contact with a corpse
• Prohibiting sexual relations with close kin
• Prohibiting child sacrifice
• Prohibiting a man having sex with another man
• Prohibiting anyone having sex with an animal

This is not a comprehensive list, but you get the idea. The bolded prohibitions involve fertility, killing children or progeny, or wasting semen with other men and animals. A long list of prohibited sexual relations appear at the beginning chapter 18 (you can view the list via this link).

The Land of Canaan

First, God promised land to Israel. So Moses led Israel from Egyptian slavery and wandering in the desert to that Promised Land, Canaan. Then God intervened and displaced the Canaanites from their land. Obviously, this created tension between Israel and the remaining Canaanites. However, the two nations interacted with each other.

Talking Point Tidbit #6. Because the Israelites had been nomads, they survived on the by-products of their herds–milk and cheese. They knew animal husbandry, but they did not know how to grow their food. They probably turned to the Canaanites for guidance in horticulture. Naturally, they learned of other Canaanite customs regarding daily life including their cultic practices. Israel likely borrowed Canaanite fertility temple rituals so the crops would grow better. Scholars believe the Canaanites practiced temple prostitution with both men and women. This led to conflict with God’s Levitical purity. God wanted Israel, as the chosen people, to distinguish itself from pagan nations and their behavior. The Old Testament establishes a negative view of the Canaanites, especially regarding their religious practices.

Keep in mind too, that Israel was a small nation surrounded by pagan cultures. It needed to produce a lot of male children to populate an army, and that fact would have been on everyone’s minds.

Talking Point Tidbit #7. We will first look at the two verses in a standalone fashion, and later we will add in the verses surrounding them to add more context. We add these verses to look at what is happening in the sections before and after a text to be sure we understand what factors influence the primary text, and what later occurs. This process enables us to understand the context of a given passage. If we only zero in on one verse, we run the risk of reading the text with a pretext, a foregone conclusion. Pretext can also involve concealing an intent to mislead understanding or interpretation. A form of pretext concerns offering an interpretation while concealing a preconceived motive or agenda, like condemning all homosexual relationships across time. That condemnation is much easier if the reader only examines v. 22. If you were to read that A killed B without any other information, you would not know if the killing was in self-defense or defense of a third party. You would need more information to draw a proper conclusion. The same is true when assessing biblical context.

__________

Leviticus 18:22 (2 different translations are provided for each verse)

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (RSV translation)

You shall not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination.

(NASB translation)

Leviticus 20:13 (This verse adds the punishment of death)

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. (RSV translation)

If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves. (NASB translation) (Italics not mine)

________________

Talking Point Tidbit #8. Most biblical scholars date the writing of Leviticus to the 5th century BCE after King Nebuchadnezzar II defeated Israel. He exiled most Israelites to Babylon. Scholars view Leviticus as an explanation about why Israel was exiled and lost its beloved land. Israel’s inability to live by its holiness code caused Israel’s exile, that is being “vomited from the land.”

Let’s look at the verses that come right after v. 22 and 23 — Lev. 18:24-30:

24 “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves; 25 and the land became defiled, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you 27 (for all of these abominations the men of the land did, who were before you, so that the land became defiled); 28 lest the land vomit you out, when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 29 For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs which were practiced before you, and never to defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God.” (RSV) (emphasis mine)

This passage contains several important lessons for Israel. First, note the mandatory language of “you shall.” These instructions were non-negotiable. The big list of no-no’s that occur at the beginning of Leviticus 18 reflects the bad conduct by Israel’s neighbors. As a matter of fact, v. 28 refers to the Canaanites, the nation that had been vomited out to make way for Israel. Defilement can be caused by sexual violations. “I am the Lord your God,” refers to this divine relationship with contractual requirements to be done by both parties, God and Israel. This is a sacred understanding.

Now let’s add in verses that go with our two primary passages.

Leviticus 18:21-24

21 You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion.

This passage prohibits:

• Child sacrifice
• Male to male conduct
• Having sex with animals

Scholars understand that Molech was a Canaanite netherworld god of human sacrifice (Eerdmans 912-13). Child sacrifice and bestiality defeated fertility, either by killing progeny or by engaging in conduct that would not result in child-bearing. These practices appear in a list along with male to male sex because those acts also fail to produce children and waste semen, whether part of ritual prostitution or not. This specific list carves out cultic practices and behaviors that reject Canaanite conduct. It is very likely not an accident that they are clustered together like this. Semen was considered a life force and finite, and the Israelite society viewed its waste as unacceptable.

The grammar and phraseology in both sections also make it unclear whose conduct is condemned, the penetrator or the receiver, or both (Hollenback, 537).  Hollenback gives a thorough discussion about the split in authority here, and consequently, one cannot draw a concrete conclusion.

Also notice that the word “homosexuality” does not appear here because that term was unknown. It  certainly would not have meant what we understand it to mean today — a sexual orientation where men are attracted to other men and the majority engage in lifetime partnerships, and now same-sex marriages.

While these verses have served as primary weapons against LGBT people, clearly our modern-day understanding of long-lasting bonds between two men or two women could not have been contemplated and thus included in these prohibitions.

Leviticus provides instructions on how Israel could distinguish itself from surrounding nations by strictly proscribing sexual conduct and temple prostitution, amongst other things. We must respect the context of Israel living in the land of Canaan and what that required of them.

Likewise, we must recognize our 21st century context that understands what sexual orientation is and how same-sex couples bond as strongly as heterosexual couples do, and they form loving, lifelong partnerships and even raise children together.

Paul Misunderstood Homosexuality and Here’s Why

We are going to cover a lot of ground on this subject. 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 #9. 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 #10. 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 #11. 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 #12. 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 #13. 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.

Noah’s “Clobber” Passage: The Curse of Ham

Of all of the 7 clobber passages, this is the best example of twisting a text into something it absolutely is not. At least with the others, a plausible reason supports exploring them as prohibitions against same-gender sex. I say plausible, but still not accurate.

Above, I demonstrated how Paul did not understand our contemporary phrase, “homosexuality” from our 21st-century context. Inserting our word into writing that is 2000 years old makes for bad biblical scholarship and reveals the pretextual agenda of morphing a writing into something it simply is not to empower one’s agenda.

Such morphing occurs in our focal text appearing below. The flood is over and now God blesses Noah with land, and Noah grows fine grapes and makes wine.

20 Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; 21 and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:20-25, RSV, emphasis mine).

Let’s start by saying that biblical experts still don’t know for sure what this text tries to communicate. Noah makes two blunders at the start of this narrative. He gets so drunk he passes out. He’s also naked in his tent with his bits and pieces on display!

Talking Point Tidbit #14. Many prohibitions against seeing one’s parents naked appear in Leviticus. The phrase “seeing the nakedness of” is sometimes translated as “having sex with” another. Another term that has a euphemistic meaning is “to know,” also translated as “to have sex.” Scholars refer to Leviticus as the “P” source, or Priestly source, a codification of ritual, dietary, and sacramental practices. However, regarding our focal passage, we need to understand that P authors did not write this text simultaneously as it happened. The P source dates to the sixth century BCE, or hundreds of years later. Keep this in mind. Like the other Leviticus passages I’ve discussed in the previous blog linked above, our text here shows us a motivation of the P authors — to distinguish Israel from the “ungodly” Canaanites. The curse of Canaan, the land and the people, arises from this text.

So, Noah is lying there drunk and naked like he’d been to a frat party, as we’d say. Ham “uncovers the nakedness” of his father, a big no-no for Israelites. Then he tells his brothers, Shem and Japheth, that he “saw the nakedness” of his father. We do not know for sure if this merely means that Ham saw his father naked. From a plain reading of the text, we can deduce that Ham indeed saw his father in the nude without adding in the implied meaning of sex or rape.

But some scholars have interpreted this to mean that Ham raped his unconscious father. Why would he do this? Perhaps to assert authority, power, and dominion over Noah by shaming him through an act of penetration. If Ham announced he raped his father, we learn nothing of the reaction of Noah’s other 2 sons. I could envision Shem and Japheth drawing swords on their brother for doing that, either for raping their father or their mother. I view this proposed scenario of rape as highly unlikely.

And of course, this would be a story about the rape of an unconscious man who cannot give consent. We cannot equate this account with a story about the committed, consensual, loving, male-to-male sex by a couple like we understand today.

Talking Point Tidbit #15. There is confusion as to whether Ham is the middle son or the third son. In Gen. 6:9, Ham is listed as the middle son. But in our text, Noah refers to Ham as his youngest son. This discrepancy confuses what the P authors are trying to do with the text in failing to give a consistent presentation of the facts from one chapter to the next.

Consider the parallel use of the word “see.” Ham “sees/views” his father just as his brothers don’t “see/view” their father. We must read the grammar equilaterally and without inserting the euphemism of sex/rape. I say this because in the event it was sex/rape, it makes sense that the P authors would want to distinguish clearly the scandalous behavior of Ham and the righteous behavior of his brothers. The P authors would want to underscore that Ham did rape his father and that the brothers did not rape their father. To do that, we can rightly expect that they would choose distinctive verbs of precision to help the reader understand very different kinds of conduct, like sexual assault versus care, respect, and compassion.

Instead, the brothers acted righteously and with respect. Shem and Japheth took a cloth, walked backward into their dad’s tent, and while looking away, covered him up. They didn’t “see” their father naked; they did the right thing under the circumstances. The brothers could not make Noah “un-drunk,” but they did rectify the other problem of his nakedness.

Talking Point Tidbit #16. This story starts at verse Gen. 9:20. However, in Gen. 9:1 , we learn that God blesses Noah and his sons. Israelites considered it one of God’s greatest blessings to live long enough to see their 3rd generation, their grandchildren. So how then can Noah “reverse” or negate this blessing by God of his sons and presumptively the sons’ offspring?

Why does Noah curse Canaan for Ham’s action? Canaan is Ham’s son, and therefore Canaan is Noah’s grandson. Noah has rejected the 3^rd generation blessing that he has in Canaan. The P authors seem to have taken the opportunity from the future to further insult the Canaanites of the distant past.

We don’t learn about the brothers’ reaction to the curse either. They likely thought it was unfair and wrong to negate a blessing from God. Rather than the true actor, Ham, Canaan gets the curse instead. As far as we know, Canaan was not even present during this event. What a rip-off for Canaan!

We should not even consider this text one of the clobber passages because scholars will likely never have certainty about its meaning. Even if biblical experts are correct that Ham raped his father, this text first and foremost condemns rape and the humiliation of one’s father. The passage does not and cannot get twisted into a condemnation of loving, consensual gay male relationships in today’s context. Such an interpretation stretches the text to the point of absurdity.

Blessings on your journey as a faith-based advocate for social justice.

 

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). George M. Hollenback, “Who is Doing What to Whom Revisited: Another Look at Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13,” The Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 136, no. 3 (2017): 529-537.

Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series, Yale University Press, v. 2 of 3, 2000.