Disarming The Clobber Passages

Prepared by Janet Morel

​

Introduction

 

There are six passages from the Bible (Hebrew Scriptures with New Testament) that are used by many to show that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of G-d*, and is therefore not allowable within the Kingdom or community of G-d.  People are taught these passages prove they are sinful, bad, or evil, and that they need to change their actions, their gender identity, and/or their sexual orientation.  However, Bible scholarship can disagree with these accusations and question the use of these six passages as reasons to condemn and exclude.

 

Let us consider that the Bible is an ancient text.  It was written in a very different context from what we know today – culturally different, politically different, socially different, and religiously different.  It is also a collection of many types of writings.  For example, there are books of history, wisdom, legend, letters, poetry, drama, prophesy, and more.  Some of the Bible literature is very contextually specific, even if we can learn and apply concepts from it for today.

 

The question we need to ask is this:  Do these six specific passages have the authority to condemn and exclude men, women, persons, and youth who identify as LGBTQIA+ from the Kingdom of G-d or it’s community?

 

The following is a brief but detailed study of each of these six passages with an attempt to determine what they really say about homosexuality or identity.

​

The Passages

 

Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)

Genesis Chapter 19: The tale of Sodom​
 

• The story tells of two messengers from G-d who go to warn righteous Lot and his family of the impending doom on their city because of the great sin of the inhabitants.

• It is often taught that the great sin was homosexuality (this is where we get the word “sodomy”), because the violent crowd of inhabitants at Lot’s door threatened to have sex with the two male visitors.

• This was not an invitation to intimate, consenting same-sex relationship.  The account says that every man and boy were present and threatening.  Firstly, how likely is it that every male in the town was homosexual?  Not likely.  Rather, this was a threat of humiliating violent assault on visiting strangers.

• Therefore, the great sin of the city which condemned it to destruction was the lack of hospitality to others.  Hospitality is one of the chief ethical values of the Hebrew scriptures.

 

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13: A part of the Law of Moses given to the newly freed community of Israelites
 

• The Mosaic laws were for the purpose of developing a community and culture of people who had been enslaved for 400 years and had lost that sense of community and culture. They were figuring out anew how to govern themselves.  These two verses are part of the Holiness Code.  In a commission to be different than the cultures around them, these codes defined for the Israelites a new way of being in the world.

• Both verses say essentially the same thing, with the second one adding a condemnation of death for the offence committed. 

• The main focus of Chapter 18 is prohibitions against violating the family, another of the primary ethical values of the Hebrew scriptures.  The violations listed in this section were all committed in the surrounding cultures and in Egypt.

• The language used suggests a situational prohibition.

  • Hebrew for man (husband)/woman (wife) = ish/ishshah

  • Hebrew for male (mankind)/female = zakar/neqevah

  • The text mixes these, “You shall not lie with male/mankind as you do with a woman/wife”

  • The Hebrew text does not say “as with a woman”, but rather mishkevey ishshah, a phrase found nowhere else, so, it is difficult to translate. Lit., “the layings of a wife”

  • No doubt a prohibition of some sort of male-male sex act (note: there is no mention of lesbianism), but it is unclear as to what kind of act and does not seem to be a universal prohibition of male-male relationships.

• “Abomination” in English = vile, monstrous, subhuman, or seeing someone as less than human.  It is an unfortunate translation of the Hebrew word toevah.  Toevah = culturally taboo or culturally offensive and therefore inappropriate, but not necessarily sinful. Other examples in the Scripture of toevah include such things as simply being a shepherd, or, Israelite worship sacrifices (in the eyes of the Egyptians).  Brown-Driver-and Briggs, the authoritative Hebrew Lexicon, translates toevah as “unchastity.”  Other words could have been used to indicate “sinful”.  Finally, there are many examples of what is toevah for Israel, but not universally for all humankind.  Toevah is about identity.

 

New Testament (all from Apostle Paul’s personal epistles)

Romans 1:26-27: a letter from Paul to the church in Rome

 

Context is important:  This is Paul’s letter to a specific church in Rome under specific circumstances of the Jews having just returned to Rome after exile under Claudius.  There was tension between the Gentile (“pagan”) Christians and the Jewish Christians within the church.

 

• Paul often used rhetorical devices, especially quoting other familiar sources to draw the attention of the audience and then either discrediting them or confirming them.  Romans 1:18-32 is not written in Paul’s typical voice, and so it seems to be a quote from another source, or possibly a reference to The Wisdom of Solomon (Cir. 200BCE-40CE) or a similar contemporary and well-known literature. Alternately, it could be a quote of correspondence from the church in Rome.

• Paul’s main purpose was to expose the prejudices, especially of those returning, and reconcile the community.  It was not intended to be a theological treatise on justification by faith, nor a universal letter of “timeless truths.”  However a major theme of the letter is G-d’s mercy to all.

• An important consideration is how Paul uses this rhetorical device to then turn the argument around in Chapter 2 onto the listeners, the Jewish Christians complaining about their Gentile brothers and sisters.  In fact, Chapters 2-4 undo the statements in 1:18-32.  The quoted material acts to maintain boundaries of “us” and “them”, but Paul seeks to break that apart.  It’s not so much what Paul is teaching, but it may have been the prevailing attitude of the community.

• Note:  The Gentile Christians had come from a culture with pagan practices, which often included temple idol worship sex-acts and temple prostitutes, with public displays of passion, and often same-sex sex acts.  It was often exploitive, idolatrous, and culturally offensive.

• “The verses read: “For this reason G-d gave them up to dishonorable passions (atimia).  For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature (para phusis); and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men (aschemosune) and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27 ESV – part of the larger discourse 18-32)

  • atimia = a violation of cultural custom, like the Hebrew toevah.  It is not referring to the morally reprehensible.  It would be more like the thought that a man wearing long hair was atemia (1 Cor 11:14)

  • para phusis = besides nature.  “According to nature” was a euphemism for sex for the purpose of procreation.  Any other form of sex, even heterosexual sex (lust, desire, passion, or in any other part which is not procreative) was thought to be “against nature” (This goes back to Plato).  This phrase most likely is still referring to heterosexual relations, not lesbianism (The church fathers through 400CE understood it this way).

  • aschemosune = behavior that is unseemly or indecent; an act done out of passion and excess, not love and committed relationship.

• The concept of a person’s sexual orientation or same-sex egalitarian committed relationships did not exist when this letter was written.

• This passage is not about that, but about how the Jewish Christians in Rome perceived godless and idolatrous pagans or those who had come from such a culture.

• Do these verses have the authority to exclude men, women, persons, and youth who do not identify as cis-hetero from the Kingdom of G-d or it’s community? The answer is no.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10: Letters from Paul

 

These two passages are also from the letters of Paul.  One is written as a part of back and forth correspondence with a specific church in Corinth, a very pagan city in Greece.  The other he wrote to his young apprentice, Timothy.

 

• The related passages read: “…or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of G-d?  Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, or effeminate (malakoi), nor homosexuals (arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of G-d.  Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our G-d.” (1 Cor. 6:9-11 NASB)
  
  And, “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals arsenokoitai) and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching. (1 Tim. 1:8-10 NASB)

 

Translators have traditionally had difficulty with these two Greek words:
 

• malakoi = effeminate, abusers of self, male prostitutes, homosexuals, men who practice homosexuality.  Is it describing identity or acts?  There was no concept of homosexuality as identity when this was written.  The word “homosexual” as identity did not exist until about 150 years ago.  Therefore, it is most likely Paul was referring to actions.  Lit., “soft,” but used in a judgmental way to mean a “womanly man,” possibly making oneself available for exploitation.

• arsenokoitai – Paul either invented this word, or it was made up at about the same time as these letters were, written by another source.  It does not appear before these letters.  A combination of “male” and “bed/coitus.”  It hints at exploitation of others in a same-sex sexual way or in prostitution.

• These words put together seem to refer to an exploitive and economically transactional relationship, such as was found in pagan cultures like Corinth or Ephesus, where Timothy was.  Those who engage in those actions are like fornicators, adulterers, thieves, etc.  They are not aligned with what G-d is doing in the world.

• Paul is suggesting that the Corinthian church, for the purpose of separating itself from the culture all around it, should not participate in these exploitive and transactional acts.

​

Conclusion

 

In answer to our original question above, these six “Clobber Passages are unclear enough to be deemed not useful for universally condemning all intimate same-sex relationships for all time.  That was not their purpose.

​

Jesus’ Teaching

​

What did Jesus have to say about same-sex relationships?

 

We don’t know.  All we have are four accounts from witnesses, with occasional additions from other sources.  Nothing is recorded on the topic.  Apparently, it wasn’t considered as important as other details or not discussed at all.  Rather, Jesus reportedly called out those who would condemn others while they, themselves, were falling short.

 

What Jesus didn’t say on this topic might be quite significant.  Specifically, Matthew 8:5-13 records that there was a Roman centurion who came in great faith asking Jesus to just say the word to heal his boy.  The Greek word used here for “boy” was pais (Luke’s account uses doulos, “servant”).  Other Greek words could have been used to refer to a male offspring or servant, but this word specifically was also used to mean a younger male whom an older Roman man would take on in a close, loving relationship for the purpose of teaching him how to be a man. This system of pederasty was common in the Roman empire.  The relationship could include sexual intimacy.   Jesus said nothing about this. Instead, we read that he commended the man in front of the crowd for his faith, and he healed the pais then and there without even going to see him.  Could it this be an example of Jesus lovingly respecting a same-sex relationship, thereby teaching the crowd of followers to do the same?

​

For Further Consideration

 

Here are a few other passages to study:

 

Matthew 19:11-12 – Jesus speaks of eunuchs “who were born that way.”

John 13:34 – A new commandment: That you love one another.

Acts 8 - Phillip baptizes the Ethiopian Eunuch.

Acts 10-11 – The Gospel is available to Gentiles as well.

Rev 21:5 – G-d’s promise to make all things new encourages us to think in new ways.

 

Inclusion

 

We are tempted to pull individual verses out of context, even those that are difficult to translate.  By doing so we sometimes force them to say what you want them to say.  As an alternative, it is of ultimate importance to consider the context - historical, social, political, religious and literary - of the writing.  What’s more is to understand each individual word and passage and book in the general trajectory of the entire Bible in combination with the continuing acts of G-d in the world, which are always more and more and more inclusive.

 

As Christians, we have been given the understanding that all of the Law and the Prophets come under the two Greatest Commandments: To love G-d and love our neighbor (all neighbors) as ourselves.

​
 

*G-d is the spelling for The Divine Creator I have chosen for the purpose of honoring my Jewish siblings on Earth.

 

A good, readable book I can recommend for futher study is Unclobber by Colby Martin.