1
Bible Passages and Homosexual Activity
For some time now, a list of Bible passages have been collectively called the “Clobber Passages”
because these are the ones which traditionally thinking Christian moralists have used to
“clobber” those who support the LGBTQ movement. Ron Belgau is a Christian who has chosen
to be celibate rather than to pursue the same-sex attractions that he has experienced from his
youth. The following is extracted from a larger article which Belgau wrote to defend traditional
Christian moral thinking regarding homosexual practices. The longer essay was originally
published online at http://www.gaychristian.net/rons_view.php and copyrighted in 2003. So that
students may see this extract in its broader literary context, the entire essay by Belgau is also
posted at the website of your THEO 350 course. However, the reading assignment for this
semester only includes the extract below:
The “Clobber Passages”
Now I am going to turn to the so-called “clobber passages”: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans
1:18-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11, and I Timothy 1:10.
Naturally, over the years, I’ve spent a lot of effort trying to discover a “spin” on these passages
which would enable me to embrace a gay relationship. But each time I’ve tried to do so, I’ve
found that my conscience clobbers my pro-gay arguments. In the following paragraphs, I’ll try to
sketch out why I was not able to find a convincing way to interpret these passages to allow a gay
relationship.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).
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 (Leviticus 20:13).
First of all, I would like to make a couple of observations about context. Leviticus is not
organized in a systematic way like Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion or the Catechism
of the Catholic Church. For example, 18:22 and 22:13 say almost the same thing, but are
separated by a whole bunch of unrelated commandments.
It also happens that one of the most quoted verses of the Old Testament—“you shall love your
neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18)—falls between these two injunctions. But the verse
immediately following the command to love your neighbor is one of the most reviled examples
of Old Testament arbitrariness: “You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You
shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come
upon you” (Leviticus 19:19).
2
Therefore, we cannot judge the significance of a commandment in Leviticus by its neighbors,
because Leviticus consists of a hodge-podge of short commandments put together. Sometimes
there is some sense of connection between them, but even when there are some connections, one
cannot make the assumption that adjacent commandments are closely related, in the sense that
they would be in a more systematically structured work. It therefore makes more sense to take
each command in Leviticus 18-20 separately.
Taken alone, Leviticus 18:22 would prohibit all same-sex activity without distinction.
For this reason, those who wish to justify same-sex relationships must argue either that the
prohibition on homosexual acts is part of the ceremonial law, or else that the prohibition in
Leviticus only applied to sexual acts involving minors, or coercion, or pagan ritual.
In the first place, I believe that those making these arguments don’t know Jewish culture very
well. Jews do not overgeneralize; if anything, their weakness is in finding distinctions where no
distinction exists. For example, Christ says to the Pharisees, “Woe to you, blind guides, who say,
‘If any one swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gold of the temple,
he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has
made the gold sacred?” (Matthew 23:16-17). A text with no exceptions in Jewish literature
probably really is a text with no exceptions.
And in the second place, those who try to find exceptions generally do so by appeals to the
surrounding context. Such appeals make relatively little sense in a document as unsystematic as
Leviticus; nevertheless, for those who are interested, I have considered the arguments at greater
length here.
This passage is, of course, part of the Law of Moses, and Christians are not under the Law of
Moses. Yet, as the Apostle Paul argues, the law is not useless, for “through the law comes
knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). The law teaches us what sin is, but it is only by faith that we
can be set free from slavery to sin, and enter the “glorious liberty of the children of God.
I Corinthians 6:9-11
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 active homosexuals [arsenokoitai], nor
thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
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 (I Corinthians 6:9-11).
The key debate over this passage concerns the meaning of the term arsenokoitai. There is a lot of
debate over this word, but having studied Greek, it seems to me fairly self-evident that
arsenokoitai is a compound word referring to those offenders condemned in Leviticus 18:22. In
the Septuagint, we find “You shall not lie [koiten] with a male [arsenos] as with a woman; it is
an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).
3
The linguistic problem seems to me to be exactly analogous to this: suppose I have an Old
Testament text which says, “it is unlawful to lay bricks,” and I have a New Testament text that
says “bricklayers are lawbreakers.” It would seem inconceivable to me to say that “Greek
scholars don’t know exactly what bricklayer means.” Yet Mel White claims (with an apparently
straight face) that “Greek scholars don’t know exactly what arsenokoitai means.”
While I can appreciate Mel’s desire that this should be true (since I shared that desire for years),
it simply is not true. My New Testament Greek Lexicon (put together by Greek scholars!)
defines arsenokoites (the singular of arsenokoitai) as “one who lies with a male as with a female,
sodomite, homosexual.” It is true enough that there are some Greek scholars who reject this
interpretation, just as there are some Biblical Scholars who argue that God is not the Creator, or
that Christ was not born of a virgin, or that He wasn’t the Son of God, or that He did not rise
from the dead. But if Christians had to give up their beliefs every time a scholar professed
disbelief, Christianity would not have survived a week.
Linguistically, the transformation from “it is unlawful to lay bricks” to “bricklayers are
lawbreakers” is identical to the transformation from “you shall not koit?n with an arsenos” to
“arsenokoitai shall not enter the kingdom of God.” In both cases, the verb has been conjugated to
function as a noun, and the object has been joined to the verb to form a new compound word.
Words have to mean something, and the obvious grammatical meaning of arsenokoitai is “men
who lie with men,” a reference back to Leviticus 18:22. This does not automatically prove that
this is what Paul meant. As some have pointed out, “ladykiller” does not mean either a lady who
kills or a person who kills ladies. But most compound words have obvious meanings. A
homosexual, for example, is a person sexually attracted to their own sex.
There is a tiny amount of room for skepticism about the meaning of arsenokoitai, but in order to
make a compelling case against the obvious meaning, one would need to propose an alternative
meaning, find documentation of that alternative meaning, and show that the alternative meaning
would make at least as much sense out of Paul’s argument as does the grammatically obvious
meaning.
I welcome serious, faithful scholars who challenge and question our beliefs about the Scriptures.
Many of the great heroes of the faith have done this, challenging Christians to take more
seriously the Word of God. Such men and women have started great reform movements. But
after two years of studying Greek in college so that I could understand the translation arguments
in the passages treating homosexuality, my reaction was something like, “this is the best
challenge we can make on the translation of arsenokoitai?” I, at least, did not find the argument
convincing.
And moving beyond the specific question of whether or not arsenokoitai refers to active
homosexuals, the statement that fornicators, adulterers, active homosexuals, and other sinners
will not enter the kingdom of heaven is logically connected with the statement a few verses later
that sexual sin defiles the temple of the Holy Spirit.
4
Paul’s argument in the latter half of I Corinthians 6 is that sexual sin separates us from the spirit
(and thus from the kingdom of God). But he also argues that sinners can be washed, sanctified,
and justified “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (See Jesus and
Sexual Morality: Life in the Holy Spirit, above).
None of this is to single out homosexual sin for special condemnation; adultery and fornication
are just as serious in God’s eyes and much more commonly practiced. But for those of us
tempted to homosexual activity, it is important to recognize that the Scriptures say that such
activity can cut us off from God by defiling the temple where He dwells through the Holy Spirit
within us.
It is also important not to be discouraged. Romans 7 is very clear that the struggle between the
flesh and the Spirit is not over in a moment. It is a part of every Christian’s daily walk with
Christ. As long as we keep returning to the cross in repentance, we will receive forgiveness and
Christ will help strengthen us and progressively free us from sin. That is why Paul is clear in I
Corinthians 6:11 that we can be set free from our sins. The way is not free from struggle, but the
battles do lead to victories, and freedom from the power of sin.
I Timothy 1:8-11
Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, 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, immoral
persons, active homosexuals [arsenokoitai], kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is
contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which
I have been entrusted (I Timothy 1:8-11).
Again, I find the argument that arsenokoitai means “men who lie with men” compelling. But this
passage is also important for what it says about the law.
Christ said that “all the law and the prophets” was summed up in two commandments: love the
Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.
The Apostle Paul teaches that those who live by the Spirit are not under the law—as he argues in
this passage, “the law is not laid down for the just.” Those who live by the Spirit will show in
their lives the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness, self-control (cf. Galatians 5:22-23). But, Paul is equally clear that “through the law
comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). The New Testament vice lists remind us of what sin is.
If we are using our “freedom” to engage in sin, then we are not free; we have become slaves of
sin (cf. John 8:34; Romans 6:16-18). There are numerous New Testament vice lists; I
Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:10 mention homosexual acts among several other vices
which separate us from God.
Again, this is not to single homosexual acts out from all the other acts which bring
condemnation. But in these passages, Paul argues that homosexual acts can 1) keep us from the
5
kingdom of Heaven; 2) defile the temple of the Holy Spirit within us; and 3) place us back under
the judgment of the law.
Given the stakes involved, it is not a risk I am willing to take. Even more so, I would never risk
inflicting consequences that serious on another man whom I loved.
Romans 1:18-32
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their
bodies among themselves, 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. For this reason
God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for
unnatural, 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 (Romans 1:24-27).
Romans 1 is probably the most important passage about homosexuality in the whole Scripture.
While I Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Timothy 1:10 make clear that homosexual acts are forbidden
under the New Covenant, Romans 1 helps to explain how this prohibition fits into the distinction
between natural and ceremonial law outlined above. It also enables us to connect the Bible’s
teaching on homosexuality with some of the broader themes of sexuality and the New Covenant,
also outlined above.
Paul begins this section by saying that God’s wrath is revealed against those “who by their
wickedness suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18). For, he continues, “Ever since the creation of the
world [God’s] invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived
in the things that have been made” (1:20). Turning back to Genesis, we read, “God created man
in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them”
(Genesis 1:27). In a very special way, then, the complementarity of male and female reveals
God’s “invisible nature” through “the things that have been made” (see Jesus and Sexual
Morality: Male and Female above).
Therefore, when Paul links “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie” with “women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with
women and were consumed with passion for one another,” one element of the “truth about God”
which is being set aside is the truth of male/female compilmentarity, because the writer of
Genesis links this complementarity with the “image of God” in us.
Both in Romans 1 and I Corinthians 11, Paul ties gender roles to nature and to the Creation
order. Because the one flesh union of husband and wife is a “profound mystery” which “refers to
Christ and the Church” (Ephesians 5:32), tampering with our understanding of marriage
necessarily tampers with our understanding of Christ.
Although Romans 1 deals extensively with idolatry, Paul’s argument is not that homosexual acts
within the context of Pagan idol worship is wrong. Rather, Paul argues that there is a link
6
between “exchanging the truth of God for a lie” and believing that homosexual acts can be as
good as God’s design for sexuality in marriage between a man and a woman.
As the logic of Romans 1:18-32 develops, Paul condemns a wide range of sins. All of these sins
result in one way or another from “exchanging the truth about God” and His will for human
relationships for a lie. The temptations to these sins, too, result from the Fall, in which Adam and
Eve believed the very first lie, the lie that they would “become like God” if they ate the fruit.
However, merely to be tempted is not to exchange the truth for the lie. In Eden, Satan offered the
lie, but Adam and Eve did not sin until they exchanged the truth that they were not to eat the fruit
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for the lie that the tree would make them like God.
In the same way, to be tempted to homosexual acts is simply one of the many forms of
temptation faced by human beings in this fallen world. I believe that I would sin if I exchanged
the truth that God has forbidden homosexual acts for the lie that sexual intimacy with my own
gender is in accordance with God’s will and would be good for me. But I do not think that the
temptation itself means that we have turned away from God: Christ Himself was “tempted in
every way, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
