Chapter Four
Rev. Dr. John C. Holbert

John C. Holbert is a United Methodist minister with a doctorate in Old Testament studies; for 21 years, he has served on the faculty of Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Currently the Lois Craddock Perkins professor of homiletics, he has written several books, including his most recent, Preaching Job, published in 1999.

In fact, the Bible says nothing at all about homosexuality, at least in the way we in the 21st century think of it. The concept — in terms of sexual orientation — was unknown until the advent of modern sociological and psychological analyses in the 19th century. While various ancient texts and several biblical texts have served as resources for modern discussions about sexual orientation, what these texts meant by same-sex relations and what we mean by them are very different.

The writers of long ago regularly assumed that all same-sex relationships involved one person’s exploitation of another. They could not conceive that such relationships might be nurturing, stable, and covenantal, but could only be lustful, exploitative, and cruel.

It is against that background that the Bible’s writings about same-sex relationships should be seen. Following are the texts traditionally examined in connection with the question of homosexuality:

• Genesis 1-2: It’s a familiar catchphrase among certain readers of the Bible that Genesis speaks of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," but nowhere in these famous chapters are we told that heterosexuality is the exclusive form of sexuality. Those who wrote the chapters were announcing quite rightly that the perpetuation of the race assumes the pairing of a man and a woman. But careful analysis of the evidence shows that Genesis 1-2 was not intended as a paradigm of marriage. These chapters describe in poetry and story the beginnings of human society — the establishment by God of a world in which God’s creatures might find shalom, wholeness, and unity. As the subsequent history of humanity has abundantly demonstrated, a great diversity was built on this foundation story.

• Genesis 19: Two things should be noted about the infamous story of Sodom and Gomorrah. First, the notion that the story concerns homosexual rape is called into question by a careful reading of verse 4: "Before they [the angels and Lot] lay down, the people of the city, the people of Sodom, both young and old, all the people surrounded the house." In its original Hebrew, two different nouns are used to refer to the people of the city, and neither is gender-specific. Hence the scene is perhaps not one of homosexual rape, but rather of depraved violence by the entire town — men, women, and children — against strangers who have come for refuge. Second, nowhere in the Bible is Sodom’s sin identified as homosexuality (see Ezekiel 16:48-49 for a typical example). The evil of Sodom, then, ought not to be seen as homosexuality or homosexual rape.

• Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: These formulations against same-gender sex should be seen only in their ancient nation-building context. Emerging nations are always concerned with establishing their identities in contrast with their neighbors, and they are concerned with growing and prospering. Sacred prostitution, both male and female, was practiced by Israel’s neighbors as a way to ensure the fertility of the fields, and Israel wanted no part of it. And, of course, same-sex relationships could not bring about numerical growth in the struggling nation. Hence, the words "abomination" and "ritually impure" are employed to describe such relationships. But these same disapproving words also appear in other parts of the Holiness Code, such as the prohibition of eating certain kinds of birds (Leviticus 11). In short, the basis for the code disappeared centuries ago, and to quote a verse or two as a way of bolstering modern behavior is to engage in the most egregious sort of proof-texting.

• Romans 1:26-27: These famous lines list examples of Paul’s understanding of the consequences of the fallen state of humanity. He wrote here, as some of his contemporaries wrote, of out-of-control passions that had become ends in themselves. The men and women whom Paul described in these lines were, in fact, heterosexuals performing homosexual acts. As was the case with his contemporaries, Paul knew nothing of homosexual orientation; he assumed all people were by nature heterosexual, and if they were engaging in homosexual acts, they could be nothing but terrible examples of human sinfulness. Paul’s imperfect knowledge of this issue was fully reflective of the imperfect knowledge of his culture. We ought not ascribe to Paul the last word on the question of same-sex relationships any more than we should assume that his comments concerning the length of men’s and women’s hair (I Corinthians 11:2-16) are definitive for all time.

• I Corinthians 6:9-10: Here again in this list of vices — examples of wickedness symptomatic of sin — Paul wrote of same-sex relationships as necessarily willful, lustful, exploitative, self-deceiving, and finally idolatrous. Again, nothing in his world informed him of relationships conceived in any other fashion.

In summary, the writers of the Bible could not conceive of innate homosexual orientation; in fact, it was always their assumption that all human behavior was freely chosen. Hence, if same-sex relations seemed to fly in the face of some ascribed norm, it was believed this behavior could be changed by a force of rational will. However, if homosexual orientation is as much given as chosen, as many researchers have now concluded, it would be just as wrong to demand homosexuals change their orientation as it would be wrong to demand left-handed people use their right hands.

The writers of the Bible could know nothing of a homosexuality that is loving, faithful, and monogamous. Indeed, the Bible’s concern to promote love and justice among all of God’s people would certainly question any homosexual relationship that did not manifest those characteristics, just as surely as it would question a similarly flawed heterosexual relationship.

In the final analysis, the Bible says very little about same-sex relationships. But it has much to say about God’s love and justice for all, and God’s desire for God’s creatures to practice the same.