I have been trying to follow the issues around homosexuality, ordination of gays, same-sex marriage, etc. in the Episcopal Church. Those who feel these things are wrong like to refer to Scripture.  However, I seldom have seen the relevant Bible references written down in one place.  So, I made a summary for myself below. 

Scripture References about Homosexuality

Genesis 19
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Deuteronomy 23:17
Judges 19:22-26
1 Kings 14:24
Ezekiel 22:10
Romans 1:26-28
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10-12
Jude 1:7
2 Peter 2:6-8

Note: there seem to be no references in the four Gospels.

I realize that one is advised to treat these scriptures in context, but they do seem to be at the heart of a scriptural stance.  I would appreciate this group advising whether you think this is a complete and accurate list.  Thanks.

I am far from a Biblical scholar, but from what I understand, some of these passages refer to to homsexual prostitution and not homosexuality per se. Also, no where in the Gospels (again: so far as I can tell) does Jesus condemn homosexuality. This is, however, second hand information: I don’t read or write Greek or Hebrew,and I understand that people try to make the Bible say whatever it is that they want it to say. Touchy topic, to say the least.

I read recently that the Bible talks about peace, justice, and the poor some 3,000 times.

John Hanley - 23 July 2009 10:10 PM

I have been trying to follow the issues around homosexuality, ordination of gays, same-sex marriage, etc. in the Episcopal Church. Those who feel these things are wrong like to refer to Scripture.  However, I seldom have seen the relevant Bible references written down in one place.  So, I made a summary for myself below. 

Scripture References about Homosexuality

Genesis 19
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Deuteronomy 23:17
Judges 19:22-26
1 Kings 14:24
Ezekiel 22:10
Romans 1:26-28
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10-12
Jude 1:7
2 Peter 2:6-8

Note: there seem to be no references in the four Gospels.

I realize that one is advised to treat these scriptures in context, but they do seem to be at the heart of a scriptural stance.  I would appreciate this group advising whether you think this is a complete and accurate list.  Thanks.

I think you are correct that there are no references in the gospels specifically to homosexuality, but Jesus does speak of marriage as being between a man and a woman “from the beginning”. He also refers to porneia, any sexual acts other than between a husband and wife. I think those verses are relevant to the topic, as is the ruling of the Jerusalem council, as recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, instructing the Gentile converts to avoid porneia. I can look up the specific passages for you later if you like.

Karen

Ms. Molina, thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking response. I am glad to see that we have at least one thing in common: neither of us claim to be Biblical scholars! I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me about this most painful of issues.

You wrote:

I wonder, what did Jesus mean when he mentioned Sodom within the context of repenting?  Doesn’t that, by default, point to sodomy as something that needs to be repented of?

I went to my Bible and looked up this story of Lot, and of Sodom. I had read it, of course, but I had—quite frankly—forgotten the details. I can’t help but wonder, when Jesus mentions Sodom in the context of repentance, could he have been referring to things other than homosexuality? For example, the story talks about a gang of rapists…could it be rape that Jesus is condemning? Could it be the fact that Lot offered up his two innocent daughters to the gang of rapists? (As the father of two little girls, I found that part most disturbing). In Ezekiel 16:49, it says, “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” Could this, also, be the sin(s) of Sodom? God Himself says He will destroy the city because Abraham couldn’t find anyone who was ‘righteous.’ Is the sin of homosexuality the only thing that made the city unrighteous, or was there more?

You wrote:

The sin in Sodom was not inhospitality to the angels; it was sexual sin.
When the angels appeared, the men wanted to have sexual relations with
them.

It seems to me that the sins of Sodom when far beyond sexual sins. It sounds like quite a terrible place, worthy of condemnation for many different reasons. What do you think?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is pretty clear-cut.

Re: Sodom and sexual sins

In the story of the angels’ visit to Lot, the men of Sodom certainly do want to “know” the guests.  There’s another word for what they want to do—rape.  Whether heterosexual or homosexual, rape is without a doubt a major sin.  In this case, however, the story of Sodom is totally irrelevant to to the question of the proper Christian response to loving, committed same-sex relationships.

Karen Younge - 24 July 2009 12:55 PM

John Hanley - 23 July 2009 10:10 PM

Note: there seem to be no references in the four Gospels.

I think you are correct that there are no references in the gospels specifically to homosexuality, but Jesus does speak of marriage as being between a man and a woman “from the beginning”. He also refers to porneia, any sexual acts other than between a husband and wife. I think those verses are relevant to the topic, as is the ruling of the Jerusalem council, as recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, instructing the Gentile converts to avoid porneia. I can look up the specific passages for you later if you like.

Karen

Would the relevant passage in Acts be this:

“Acts 15
13.  When they had finished it was James who spoke…..
19.  `My verdict is, then, that instead of making things more difficult for gentiles who turn to God, 
20.  we should send them a letter telling them merely to abstain from anything polluted by idols, from illicit marriages, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood’….”

Yes, I would appreciate any other passages you think are relevant. Thank you.

Kevin Montgomery - 24 July 2009 02:20 PM

Re: Sodom and sexual sins

In the story of the angels’ visit to Lot, the men of Sodom certainly do want to “know” the guests.  There’s another word for what they want to do—rape.  Whether heterosexual or homosexual, rape is without a doubt a major sin.  In this case, however, the story of Sodom is totally irrelevant to to the question of the proper Christian response to loving, committed same-sex relationships.

Not simply rape, but gang rape.

Ms. Molina,

Thank you, again, for such a detailed response. I have to tell you: it’s refreshing to have sane, calm conversation about the Bible. You ask many questions that I simply don’t have answers to. I think it would be a fool’s errand to try and ‘make’ the Bible condone homosexual acts. There is certainly contextual things to consider in each of the individual passages, but overall, the Bible is clear that sexual relations are properly expressed in a marriage between a man and a woman. There is simply no getting around that.

And yet, and yet… (there is always an ‘and yet’, right?) There is something that troubles me. Bear with me for a moment while I explain: There are certain fundamentalist sects here in the United States that believe the earth and all of creation are only a few thousand years old (the name Bishop Usher is jumping to the forefront of my mind for some reason). These folks believe that God planted fossils and things like that as a test of faith, and that the Bible tells the true age of the earth, while all of this carbon dating nonsense is merely a way for God to really, really see who is paying attention to His word.

The situation with homosexuality, at least in my mind, is analogous. From my understanding, the vast majority of people who are gay are simply born that way. It seems very unlikel that the God who, in his own words, is Love, would create people who—from the get go—are flawed. Now, the obvious answer to my question is, “Orginal sin!” We are all inclined to sinfulness (I know I am). But…it just seems that God wouldn’t create human beings who were, by their very existence, so wrong (according to the Bible). In other words, we all have the inclination to lie, to steal, to kill, to cheat, to profane, to covet, and on and on and on. Why, then, would the God of Love add this extra burden of homosexuality to 5-7% of the poplulation of the world? Why would God make it so difficult? It’s like if the Bible said being left-handed was a sin. Why, then, are so many people born left-handed? Does that make sense? Free will, by itself, gives us all plenty of occassion for sin. Why would God burden this small group of people with even more to deal with? It makes no sense to me.

I acknowledge that I have moved a bit from the original intent of this thread. In my own Catholic faith, we are told that God is a mystery, that His ways are not our ways, and the lesson given to Lot (Where were you when I made the Universe) is certainly as good an answer as God is going to give me! But I have to tell you, there is something about this whole issue of gays that simply isn’t sitting well in my mind, or in my heart. I feel as though I am missing some essential piece of the puzzle.

In any event: I digress, and I hope that you (and everyone else) will respond in charity.

The actions of the townspeople, as well as Lot, in Genesis 19 are despicable on just about any reading.  I have often wondered why Lot ever went to Sodom in the first place (or why Abraham let his nephew go there); it is identified as a sinful place in Gen. 13.  Evidently he chose that area for the irrigation. And then Abraham does his famous bargaining for Sodom in Gen. 18:16-33.  Possibly the only honorable thing for Lot to have done when accosted by the townspeople would have been to offer himself instead of his daughters?  Of course, appeasement never works anyway. 

So Lot offers to give up his daughters to protect his houseguests.  Was that only because he realized their angelic nature, or was it because he viewed the rape of his virgin daughters as less of an offense to his household than homosexual rape of his angelic guests?  I think it is the latter, but that is only speculation on my part.

The daughters may have had their own problems with sexual boundaries as seen later in Gen. 19:30-38. 

I would be interested to read other views.

John Hanley - 24 July 2009 02:24 PM

Karen Younge - 24 July 2009 12:55 PM

John Hanley - 23 July 2009 10:10 PM

Note: there seem to be no references in the four Gospels.

I think you are correct that there are no references in the gospels specifically to homosexuality, but Jesus does speak of marriage as being between a man and a woman “from the beginning”. He also refers to porneia, any sexual acts other than between a husband and wife. I think those verses are relevant to the topic, as is the ruling of the Jerusalem council, as recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, instructing the Gentile converts to avoid porneia. I can look up the specific passages for you later if you like.

Karen

Would the relevant passage in Acts be this:

“Acts 15
13.  When they had finished it was James who spoke…..
19.  `My verdict is, then, that instead of making things more difficult for gentiles who turn to God, 
20.  we should send them a letter telling them merely to abstain from anything polluted by idols, from illicit marriages, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood’….”

Yes, I would appreciate any other passages you think are relevant. Thank you.

John,
Yes, Acts 15 (specifically vv 1-29) is the passage I had in mind. The first few verses set the scene, and then the council’s ruling is given in vv 19 & 20 and again in 28 & 29. Porneia is the Greek word translated “illicit marriages” in v 20 as you quote it above. Just out of curiosity, which version of the Bible is that from? I have generally seen “sexual impurity”, “fornication” or “unchastity” used here. I don’t think I’ve seen “illicit marriages” before. I don’t speak Greek either, but I wonder how accurate a translation that is—the terms generally used in other translations seem broader. I have, however, heard or read somewhere that porneia was used in the Septuagint and/or Jewish teaching in the Greek language, referring to the people you are not allowed to marry (sister, cousin, aunt etc), so I imagine that “illicit marriages” of this sort would also have been ruled out for Gentile converts. That’s perhaps a bit speculative, but I think 1 Cor 5:1-3, in which Paul criticizes the church at Corinth for not expelling a member involved in just such a marriage, supports the idea that this was so.

The first of the other passages I mentioned, is found in a teaching about divorce recorded in Matthew 19:1-9 (the quote from Genesis is in vv 4-6) and Mark 10:1-9. Here Jesus’ quote from Genesis shows that the complementarity of a man and a woman is part and parcel of marriage as originally intended at the Creation. When looking these verses up, I also found that Paul quotes one of the same verses from Genesis in Ephesians 5:25-33, using marriage as a metaphor for the relationship of Christ and the Church, and the relationship of Christ and the Church as a template for Christian marriage.

Jesus’ mention of porniea comes in Mark 7:1-23 (and in Matthew 15:1-20), in which a Pharisee challenges Jesus because his disciples don’t follow cleansing rituals before eating. Jesus’ response is (paraphrased) “It’s not what goes in that makes a person unclean, it’s what’s in the heart that does so”, and among those things in the heart which he names as causing uncleanness are porneia. I am not sure from this passage whether Jesus would have considered its presence in one’s life an occasion for repentance or for healing (the many lepers and the woman with an issue of blood, all of whom were unclean under the Law, he healed rather than calling to repent, but the woman caught in adultery he told to “go and sin no more”). I think we can say with a good degree of certainty that he would have thought it something that needed to change, and not something to be blessed.

I think all these verses are relevant to the question because some proponents of SSB and ordination of non-celibate gay persons argue that the prohibitions in Leviticus and elsewhere in the OT don’t apply to Christians today. This is commonly called the “shellfish argument”: if it’s still forbidden for men to have sex with men or women with women, then it’s also still forbidden to eat shellfish (although the person who most frequently uses this line of reasoning here at Covenant more often cites blended fabrics and multi-grain bread than lobster or shrimp). These verses show that the dietary rules were not enforced by Jesus, nor were the Gentile believers required to observe them, while porneia was still considered by Jesus to cause uncleanness, and the Gentile converts were told to avoid it.

Karen

Michael Reilly - 24 July 2009 03:22 PM

(snip)There are certain fundamentalist sects here in the United States that believe the earth and all of creation are only a few thousand years old (the name Bishop Usher is jumping to the forefront of my mind for some reason). (snip)

Michael,
Probably you are remembering references to Archbishop James Usher (or Ussher) and his calculation of the date of Creation at 4004 BC.

Karen

The situation with homosexuality, at least in my mind, is analogous. From my understanding, the vast majority of people who are gay are simply born that way. It seems very unlikely that the God who, in his own words, is Love, would create people who—from the get go—are flawed. Now, the obvious answer to my question is, “Original sin!” We are all inclined to sinfulness (I know I am). But…it just seems that God wouldn’t create human beings who were, by their very existence, so wrong (according to the Bible). In other words, we all have the inclination to lie, to steal, to kill, to cheat, to profane, to covet, and on and on and on. Why, then, would the God of Love add this extra burden of homosexuality to 5-7% of the population of the world? Why would God make it so difficult? It’s like if the Bible said being left-handed was a sin. Why, then, are so many people born left-handed? Does that make sense? Free will, by itself, gives us all plenty of occasion for sin. Why would God burden this small group of people with even more to deal with? It makes no sense to me.

Michael,

This is not an uncommon idea.

The question I have is: are all states of how humans are born “God given?”

(BTW, people in fact used to believe that left handed people were evil - now they make a fortune in the Major Leagues!)

Porneia, based on my quick research,is most commonly defined as ‘fornication,’:voluntary sexual intercourse outside marriage, or illegal sexual relations. I live in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal…just to add complications! Similarly, in the United States, laws prohibiting sodomy were declared unconstitutional within the last decade or so. But of course, we are discussing God’s law, not US jurisprudence.

Cristina Kevia Molina - 24 July 2009 11:28 AM

In reading the new testament this morning I find this verse where Jesus’ used the word Sodom.

“Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. Woe to you, Bethsaida!  If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.  But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.  And you, Capernaum, will you And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies?  No, you will go down to the depths.  If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sosom, it would have remained to this day.  But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

The sin in Sodom was not inhospitality to the angels; it was sexual sin.

Sexual sin only in that what might have been the intent of the men of Sodom was rape. It is worth noting that this is how Sodom’s sin was described in Ezekiel 16:48 - “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.”

Cristina Kevia Molina - 25 July 2009 05:00 PM

I’d like to ask you a few questions so that I know more about by what authority and intellectual deducion you speak.  In order for me to address what you wrote, can you answer the following questions??

7).  Jesus said the world will always have poor people when the prostitute put expensive perfume on him.  Do you personally believe that aid to the poor is more important than a cleansing of sin?  Is genuine charity more than flinging a coin to a beggar?  If not, why didn’t Jesus all make us rich and instead fed us words of both radical admonision and radical mercy?

I’d love to hear your opinion on each of these so that I know where you are coming from.  I don’t understand how thousands of yeras of the use of the word sodomy can be detached from sodom in the scriptural context we are discussing.

I willlet others answer your other questions if they care to. I would suggest that you read Reasonable and Holy by Tobias Haller.

As to the question above: I think that Ezekiel said that lack of concern for the poor is sin. And he was not alone in this - Jesus said more about how we use money and care for the poor than he did about sexual sins. As to his mention of Sodom, the evidence from Scriptures, e.g., the Ezekiel verse I cites, leans heavily towards Sodom’s sin being idolatry, pride, inhospitality, and violence and I think that it is likely that this was what he was condemning. To take Jesus’ words out of context as proof-text is,IMV, pretext.

Daniel Weir - 25 July 2009 04:47 PM

Cristina Kevia Molina - 24 July 2009 11:28 AM

In reading the new testament this morning I find this verse where Jesus’ used the word Sodom.

“Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. Woe to you, Bethsaida!  If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.  But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.  And you, Capernaum, will you And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies?  No, you will go down to the depths.  If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sosom, it would have remained to this day.  But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

The sin in Sodom was not inhospitality to the angels; it was sexual sin.

Sexual sin only in that what might have been the intent of the men of Sodom was rape. It is worth noting that this is how Sodom’s sin was described in Ezekiel 16:48 - “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.”

Adding on to Christina’s question #2, in view of the fact that the townsmen rejected Lot’s offer of his daughters, but instead tried to batter down the door to get at the visitors, what, in your opinion, did they want most: rape (which they could have had for the asking) or sex with the “men” specifically. You correctly point out that the men of Sodom were gluttonous, proud and stingy in addition to their other wrongdoing, but to assert that they sinned only in that their intent “might have been” rape, flies in the face of the text. They explicitly stated that their intent was sex, specifically with the visitors, and (as shown by their attempt to break down the door) regardless of the visitors’ unwillingness.