Mar 17, 2023 15 min read article

The Bible & Homosexuality: A Christ-Centered Response to David F. Wright

Photo by Alan Dyer

Content Warnings: This article contains mentions of sexual abuse, homophobia, and implications of religious trauma.

Link to Wright’s Article: Wright - Homosexuals or Prostitutes (1 Cor 6,9 - 1 Tim 1,10) | PDF | Homosexuality | New Testament (scribd.com)

Rationale

There are several biblical passages that are used to condemn homosexuality. I’ve listed the ones referenced by Wright below. The purpose of this article is to offer a biblically sound, Christ-centered perspective on homosexuality and to challenge the traditional view that to this author has yielded nothing but schism and death. I argue that the homosexuality referred to in the Bible only relates to exploitative, abusive acts of homosexuality (i.e., pederasty and pedophilia), and that because of this we need not view the homosexuality of our time as a sin.

Scriptures Traditionally Interpreted as Condemnations of Homosexuality

Lev 18:22 (NIV)

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Lev 20:13 (NIV)

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

1 Cor 6: 8-10 (NIV) (additional passage included for clarity)

(8) Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. (9) Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Tim 1: 8-11 (NIV) (additional passage included for clarity)

(8) We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. (9) We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, (10) for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine (11) that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Basis

For the purpose of this article, I will be focusing on the scriptures cited by Wright in his work (above). Please know that the arguments made below would apply to all scriptures that are interpreted as a condemnation of homosexual relationships. In this article I will express and support the belief that the traditional understanding of these scriptures is erroneous; I will argue that the bible condemns the abusive homosexual activity common in the time of Paul (e.g., pederasty), not romantic relationships between people who are gay.

Please note that pederasty was an evil practice common in the Hellenisitc world wherein an adult male would have sexual relations with a boy, usually under the guise of being a mentor to the child^[1].

Arguments Made by Boswell

This piece is a brief response to an article written by David F. Wright, esteemed scholar and expert in early church history^[2]. Wright’s article was published in 1983 and was itself a response to John Boswell’s research regarding Paul’s use of the Greek word ἀρσενοκοίται. Wright notes that Boswell argued the following points:

That ἀρσενοκοίται and its variants unambiguously referred to “'male sexual agents, i.e., active male prostitutes, who were common throughout the Hellenistic world in the time of Paul’” (pp. 344-345, as cited on p. 125)
That there is no contemporary Greek literature which denotes ἀρσενοκοίται as referring to homosexuals or sodomites (p. 345, as cited on p. 126)
Because of this the term ἀρσενοκοίται was not (or could not have) been used by Paul to refer to people who are gay (p. 350, as cited on p. 126)
“‘Almost no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus as authority against homosexual acts'” (p. 104, as cited on p. 128)

Wright's Counter-arguments

The law expressed in Leviticus was not limited to the Jews and clearly condemned homosexual activity.
Boswell uses (ultimately unfounded) grammatical interpretations to justify his position.
According to Wright’s recounting, Eusebius argued that the bible condemned all male and female homosexuality as explained by Eusebius (p. 134).

Author’s Responses to Wright’s Counterarguments

The Levitical code expressed God’s will for Israel to remain set apart from surrounding pagan nations by remaining holy^[3]. When salvation was extended to the Gentiles through Christ’s death and resurrection, this code (aka “the Mosaic law”) was made complete under the new covenant of grace. Completion in this sense refers to the fact that Christians are to be guided by the Holy Spirit, not by the Levitical code^[4].
Though the aforementioned verses in Leviticus are traditionally interpreted as condemnations of homosexuality, many scholars posit that those verses actually refer to incestuous relationships between males and note that the ancient Isrealite conception of homosexuality was focused on pederasty^[5].
Based upon the evidence provided in Wright’s article, his critique on Boswell’s grammatical arguments is a valid counter. Remember, this article is not in defense of Boswell; but rather, this article seeks to uphold a counter interpretation of ἀρσενοκοίται. Boswell’s work is incidental as it formed the basis for Wright’s piece which is the basis for this article’s response.
Eusebius is positing the traditional interpretation which was formed several centuries after the writings of Paul. For context, the apostle Paul was born around 4 BC^[6]. Eusebius was born around 260 AD^[7]. From a sociological perspective, Eusebius was writing at a time when pederasty had started being condemned by Classical Greek society^[8]. It would make sense that his interpretation reflected that shift while maintaining the understanding of God’s condemnation of those acts. What is unfortunate is that Eusebius conflates exploitative, abusive acts of homosexuality with all of homosexuality, extending that condemnation to people who are gay.

Challenges to Wright

The word ἀρσενοκοίται refers to exploitative, abusive acts of homosexuality, not all people who are gay.

Wright notes that ἀρσενοκοίται is paralleled by a Greek word meaning “male homosexuality with teenagers” which was “of course the dominant form of male homosexuality among the Greeks” (p. 134). This is pederasty, and I believe that it and its variations are the only forms of homosexuality which the Bible condemns because those acts are exploitative and abusive; their connection to homosexuality is tangential.
I argue that the traditional view is erroneous as it conflates the condemnation of pederasty with a condemnation of all homosexual activity. God’s condemnation is focused on the exploitation and abuse inherent in pederasty. As homosexuality is not pedophilic, it stands to reason that God would not condemn people who are gay for being pedophiles because being gay isn’t pedophilic.

The traditional interpretation of the meaning of ἀρσενοκοίται was formed several centuries after Paul’s recorded uses.

The traditional interpretation was consistently professed from the fourth century onwards (p. 104). The danger in this temporal distance lies in the fact that people can use scripture to support whatever they want. People are still teaching the “doctrine” of justification by works. Hate groups like the Westboro “Baptist Church” are still allowed to operate under the guise of Christianity.
An individual’s biblical teachings are formed by their hermeneutics (e.g., their knowledge and interpretation of the bible). I feel that the traditional interpretation was formed around an individual’s feelings towards homosexuality which were then supported both by their hermeneutics and by their society at the time, not the holy scripture which is itself a manifestation of God’s character and will.

Relation to Christ (remember that all parts of God are homoousios - having the same essence)

There are seven things that God hates (Proverbs 6:16-19)

A commonality between all seven is that they are, or lend themselves towards being, exploitative and abusive. All seven work to tear apart the community. All seven work to destroy the individual. All seven work to ignore the teachings of Christ. Homoesexuality does none of these things (unless you make it the “cause” of your hate).

God punished Sodom for their lack of charity (Ez 16:48-51) and Gomorrah for their evil ways (Gen 19: 4-13).

These instances encapsulate aspects of God’s character. God values loving others and using what He’s given you for the betterment of your community, for the building of the kingdom. He also hates exploitation and abuse. These instances also show that His hatred is reserved for evil, and being gay isn’t evil.

Christ exhorts us to love and to follow the Spirit.

I do not see how condemning someone for anything, let alone for their sexuality, is justified. Sexuality exists. It is only when behaviors are harmful (i.e., causing pain or harm) that one needs to intervene. If an act is not harmful for a person who is heterosexual, I do not see how those same actions are harmful for a person who is gay.
For this reason, sexuality is not a matter of condoning or condemning. In other words, someone’s sexuality should not be your occupation (though harmful behaviors can be). Making sexuality something you have to address (as opposed to something like a specific, harmful behavior) isn’t logical, isn’t loving, and doesn’t model any of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

Policing homosexuality is a legalistic attempt to force people to live under the law^[9].

Salvation allows us to have a personal relationship with God who is compassionate and gracious (Ex 34: 5-8). Forcing people to deny who they are just to appease your sensibilities harms their relationship with their Father, is inherently legalistic, and separates the character of God from his will, which is not against homosexuality.
Christians are so focused on measuring what they feel is the mote in their brother’s eye that they do not attend to the beam in their own eye (Matt 7 3-5).

Christians often fail to “hate the sin” and “love the sinner”.

The actual practice of hating the sin and loving the sinner involves compassionate communications of critique regarding sin (i.e., living out of harmony with God’s character and commands) alongside loving support of the individual as they move through life, ideally away from sin (Gal 6:1-2). I believe that this teaching is often misused as a means of ostracization and hate in regards to homosexuality as homesexuality is traditionally taught as sinful, and too often we conflate the sinner with their sin.
The application of “hate the sin” and “love the sinner” in the midst of this, means that the Church is expecting people to treat the people they’ve been taught to hate with love. The depth of that dissonance can be extreme.

I once attended a church service where a young teen girl was forced to admit to the entire congregation that she had engaged in premarital sex and become pregnant. There was no mention of the young man. The young girl was bawling the entire time; she could barely speak through her tears. Afterwards, the pastor had members of the congregation come up to hug the girl. That is what “hating the sin” while “loving the sinner” can often look like in the Christian church.

We are, in part, taught to be vigilant about conduct, and in doing so we often create a hierarchy of sin wherein man is allowed to pass judgement. Because of this, accountability seems too rarely to be the result of what is a valid teaching.
Even without what some would call an extreme example, the core of this teaching is often misinterpreted as expressing that the sin is more important than the person, that the sin should be the focus. This misinterpretation lacks grace and truth, so the function of this teaching is often forced to be destructive, regardless of its intent. A result is that often people feel entitled to ostracize others based on their sexuality and/or treat them like willful, sinful deviants. People who feel these things feel justified and would never call themselves or their actions hateful, yet hate is the result.

The character of Christ does not support the teaching that homosexuality is a sin.

There is nothing about homosexuality that is inherently predatory or abusive, just as there is nothing about heterosexuality that is inherently predatory or abusive. A consensual relationship between adults is not inherently predatory or abusive.
When we refrain from conflating homosexuality with predation or abuse we can begin to see that such a view does not reflect the character or teachings of Christ. To do otherwise promotes hatred under the guise of love.

This is why I believe that homosexuality is not a sin.

Scriptures Cited Above

Galatians 6:1-2 (NIV)

(1) Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. (2) Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

Proverbs 6:16-19 (NIV)

(16) There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: (17) haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, (18) a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, (19) a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

Galatians 5: 22-23 (NIV)

(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, (23) gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Exodus 34: 5-8 (NIV)

(5) Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord. (6) And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, (7) maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” (8) Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped.

Matthew 7: 3-5 (NIV)

(3) “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (4) How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? (5) You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Ezekiel 16:48-51 (NIV)

(48) As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. (49) “‘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. (50) They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (51) Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done.

Genesis 19: 4-13 (NIV)

(4) Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. (5) They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” (6) Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him (7) and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. (8) Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” (9) “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. (10) But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. (11) Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. (12) The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, (13) because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”

Potential challenges to the author/article

Homosexuality is against nature.

Against whose nature? If you believe that you are born gay then you must admit that God made you gay (just as He made others straight). Why would God, knowing that relationships comprise some of the most significant, integral parts of life, form you with homosexuality just to deny you one of His greatest gifts?

Please note that aromantic/asexual people exist. There is nothing wrong with them. Their existence and experiences are also derided and denied by those who are legalistic and/or ignorant in their views (even by members of the LGBTQ+ community which aro/ace people are a part of).

If you believe that you can choose to be gay then when did straight people choose to be straight? In reality, you discover your sexuality as you live, and sexuality is itself a spectrum. Everyone’s relationship with their sexuality is personal and different. People who claim to “convert” or “choose” a “side” are individuals who cannot be used to represent the whole.
Personally, I don’t believe conversion is possible; you’re either at a different part of the spectrum or conforming to what you think others/God wants from you.

God made Adam and Eve for each other and Christ views the church as His bride. Doesn’t this mean that the narrative of the bible is heterosexual?

The bible is concerned with man’s relationship to God, his fellow man, his community, and himself. Though I’ve used the term man, we can understand that God’s exhortation to love and serve applies to all. Though it would seem to have an explicitly heterosexual focus, the principle is meant to be a guide to everyone.
I feel that viewing the bible through the lens of a sexual narrative is erroneous because there are many facets to God’s creation of Adam and Eve and Christ’s relationship to the church, and these facets focus on love and stewardship, not sexuality.

But, you’re gay. Doesn’t that make this whole article biased and self-serving? Aren’t you just manipulating the word of God for your own ends?

This basically argues that I can’t critique an institution because the issue has a personal element. This issue is bigger than me; to argue the above you would have to prove that I am not serving Christ. It would be absurd to place the burden of proof on me. This matter is important to me, but what’s most important is to show how God does not hate. Condemning homosexuality is a form of hate.
I’ve strived to provide unbiased arguments founded on easily accessible scriptures and texts.

Most/all pedophiles are gay/gay people are inherently pedophilic. Why are you supporting pedophilia^[10]?

These claims are blatantly untrue. Most pedophiles are straight (often married) family members/friends^[11][12]. This is why pedophilia and homosexuality should not be held in the same conversation. The latter does not lead to the former and conflating the two leaves people uninformed and more likely to ignore warning signs. We must instead familiarize ourselves with the behavioral warning signs of pedophilia, not vilify people for being gay^[13].

But what about sexual abuse? Sexual abuse makes people gay.

Not every Christian believes this, but for the ones who do please consider the following. If being abused made you gay, then most people on Earth would be gay ^[14]. Remember, correlation does not equal causation.
This belief is also incredibly problematic because the history of sexual abuse in the Church is grotesque^[15]. If being abused made you gay, where does that place the Church who teaches believers to hate gay people? It would be placed at the intersection where hypocrisy turns life threatening^[16][17].

Homosexual and gay aren’t synonymous. Why do you conflate them in your article?

When I use the term homosexuality or gay I am referring to those who feel romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.
There are no monoliths within any group of people on Earth. Some people within the LGBTQ+ community might take offense, but many would not (myself included). This is why I use the terms homosexual and gay interchangeably.
Additionally, homosexual is a clinical term with a history of abuse^[18][19]. Because of this history, I prefer to use the phrase “people who are gay” when writing to emphasize the humanity of the individual as opposed to a highly politicized and demonized designation.

Things to Recall

This article’s intention is to provide a brief response to a specific article by Wright that posited a specific biblical interpretation.
This article argues that the only homosexuality condemned by the bible was that of pederasty and other acts of pedophilia. This means that we need not condemn the homosexuality of our time. A logical extension can be drawn then that the traditional teaching of homosexuality as a sin is not biblically sound and functions as a form of condemnation which is itself a form of hate. Our only concerns should be with behaviors that are actually harmful.
Related concerns, namely whether sex between people who are gay and/or whether gay marriage is permitted under God are important, yet they are adjunct to the intention of this article (though the above arguments can provide some intimations).

A Sincere Question the Author Has

For those who feel that being a person who is gay isn’t sinful, but that acting upon one’s homosexuality is:

Does considering oneself as gay count as sin? Why or why not?
What distinguishes the being from the sin?
What makes the action sinful? Which acts are considered sin and what distinguishes them as sinful?

Further Reading

Sources Cited

You might also like...

An Understanding of Math Anxiety: How Emotional Realities Affect Student Learning

An Understanding of White Privilege