Revisiting the Bible's Stance on Same-Sex Conduct: Understanding Translation and Timeless Truths
Did the Bible truly condemn same-sex relations for centuries, only for the concept to be "added" by modern translators? This question often arises when examining the translation history of terms related to same-sex intimacy in English Bibles. For many, the fact that words like "homosexual" didn't appear in English translations until the mid-20th century suggests a shift in understanding or an imposition of modern concepts onto ancient texts. However, a closer look at language, history, and the broader context of biblical ethics reveals a consistent message that predates modern terminology.
Think about it this way: if someone in medieval times described a knight acting condescendingly towards a seamstress, they might use terms like "patronizing" or "disrespectful." But what if we later discovered the English word "mansplaining" wasn't coined until the 21st century? Would that mean the concept of a man condescendingly lecturing a woman was unknown or even accepted in the Middle Ages? Of course not. The absence of a specific word doesn't negate the existence or understanding of the behavior it describes. This analogy is crucial when discussing the Bible and its teachings on same-sex conduct.
The Evolution of Language and the Enduring Message
It's a well-established fact that the English word "homosexual" only began appearing in common usage and, subsequently, in Bible translations around the mid-20th century, notably with the Revised Standard Version (RSV) in 1952. Some critics, including creators of documentaries and proponents of what's sometimes termed "biblical revisionism," point to this linguistic shift as evidence that the Bible's condemnation of same-sex acts is a modern imposition, an interpretive overlay rather than an inherent teaching. They argue that prior to the adoption of this modern term, there was no clear biblical prohibition against same-sex intercourse, or that ancient texts referred to entirely different practices.
However, this argument fundamentally misunderstands how language evolves and how ancient texts are understood. Many new words are not created to describe entirely novel concepts but are rather novel ways of denoting old, already understood ideas. Consider the term "meme," popularized by Richard Dawkins in 1976. Did people have no concept of ideas spreading rapidly through society before that? Absolutely. Visual and symbolic representations of quickly disseminated ideas existed for centuries. The word "meme" simply provided a concise label for a phenomenon that was already observable and, at times, commented upon.
Similarly, terms like "mansplaining," "racism," and "misogyny" all describe behaviors and attitudes that have existed throughout human history, even if the precise English words to label them are relatively recent. People didn't suddenly start obsessing over celebrities only after the term "stan" emerged; they simply didn't have that specific label for the phenomenon.
The biblical authors, writing in ancient Hebrew and Greek, lacked our modern categories and terminology for sexual orientation. This is a linguistic and historical reality. However, their writings contain clear prohibitions against specific physical acts that fall under the umbrella of what we now understand as same-sex intercourse. The Bible's language is often deliberately broad to encompass a range of sexual misconduct, and where specific acts are described, the intent is clear.
Unpacking Key Biblical Passages
Let's examine some of the passages frequently brought into this discussion:
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
These passages in the Old Testament are foundational. Leviticus 18:22 states, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 20:13 reiterates this, prescribing the death penalty for such acts.
Critics often attempt to reframe these verses by suggesting they only condemn cultic prostitution, specific power dynamics, or acts associated with pagan rituals, rather than consensual same-sex acts between equals. They might argue that the Hebrew terms used, such as mishkav zakar (literally, "lying with a male"), are ambiguous. Some even posit that these prohibitions were aimed at preventing the blurring of gender roles or were tied to specific ancient Near Eastern cultural practices that are no longer relevant.
However, the consistent historical interpretation across millennia of Jewish and Christian scholarship has been that these verses directly prohibit male-male sexual intercourse. The phrasing "as with a woman" is key. It's not just about the gender of the one being penetrated but the nature of the act itself being likened to heterosexual intercourse, which was understood as a male-female union. Furthermore, the breadth of prohibitions in Leviticus 18, which includes incest and bestiality, indicates a concern for the sanctity and proper order of sexual relations as ordained by God, not just ritualistic purity.
Romans 1:26-27
In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans is often cited. Paul writes about people who, having rejected God, have been given over to "dishonorable passions." He continues: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 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."
Here, the debate often centers on what "contrary to nature" or "unnatural" signifies. Some argue that Paul is referring to a violation of social norms or a departure from procreative potential, not an inherent moral wrongness. Others suggest he is specifically condemning acts of pederasty or exploitation prevalent in Roman society, which involved significant age and power differentials.
However, many scholars argue that Paul's use of "natural" here refers to the created order established by God, which he understood as male-female union. The phrase "exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature" strongly implies a deviation from God's intended design. The condemnation is not merely about social custom; it's about a rejection of the Creator's design for human sexuality. Furthermore, Paul's condemnation extends to both men and women, indicating a broader prohibition. He contrasts these acts with the "natural object" of sexual desire, which, in the context of creation as he understood it, was the opposite sex.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10
These passages contain lists of vices that exclude individuals from the Kingdom of God. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul mentions several categories, including the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. In 1 Timothy 1:9-10, similar lists appear.
The interpretation of malakoi and arsenokoitai is a significant point of contention.
Malakoi: This term is often translated as "effeminate" or "soft." Some argue it refers to effeminate men who adopt passive sexual roles, or perhaps men who are generally weak or undisciplined in their passions. It's also sometimes linked to engaging in passive sexual acts.
Arsenokoitai: This term is rarer and has been a subject of much scholarly debate. It literally translates to "one who lies with a male." Some scholars propose it refers specifically to exploitative sexual acts, particularly pederasty or male prostitution, due to its context within Roman society where such practices were known. Others maintain that it broadly condemns sexual intercourse between men, regardless of context, as an affront to God's design.
Those who argue for a revised understanding often point to translations that render arsenokoitai as "homosexual offenders" or similar phrases, suggesting it's a modern concept. However, many biblical scholars, even those who are affirming of LGBTQ+ individuals, acknowledge that the most direct translations of arsenokoitai indicate male-male sexual activity, and that the context of Paul's vice lists places these acts alongside other serious sins like idolatry and adultery. The claim that Paul would consider only rapists or exploiters to be going to hell, while absolving consensual partners or those in relationships of equal standing, is seen by many as an untenable reading of the text.
The Consistent Historical Understanding
What is undeniable is the consistent historical stance of both Judaism and Christianity for the vast majority of their existence. Until very recent times, the overwhelming consensus among theologians and interpreters across denominations was that Scripture clearly defined same-sex sexual behavior as immoral. This understanding wasn't dependent on the existence of the word "homosexual." It was derived from the interpretation of passages in Leviticus, Romans, and the Corinthian/Timothean letters, which were understood to prohibit acts of sexual intimacy between persons of the same sex.
Arguments that suggest this interpretation is a modern imposition often rely on a highly selective reading of the historical and linguistic evidence. They tend to isolate specific verses or terms, stripping them of their broader context and the historical interpretive tradition. This approach often requires inventing new understandings of ancient Greek and Hebrew words or historical practices, often with little supporting evidence from the ancient world itself.
The Limits of Science and the Primacy of Moral Adjudication
In contemporary discussions, the role of science is sometimes invoked. While science can certainly help us understand the complexities of human psychology, desires, and the potential biological or social factors that might influence sexual orientation, it cannot adjudicate moral questions. Science describes "what is," but morality deals with "what ought to be." The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, acknowledges that the psychological genesis of homosexual orientation remains largely unexplained. This doesn't inherently validate or condemn the orientation or the acts themselves; it simply points to the limits of current scientific understanding.
Ultimately, interpreting biblical texts involves more than just linguistic analysis; it requires an engagement with the text's theological claims, its historical context, and its ethical framework. The argument that the absence of a specific word invalidates a long-held interpretation is a fallacy of language and logic. Throughout history, individuals and communities have engaged in behaviors that were understood to be morally wrong, even if they lacked a precise term for them.
The Danger of Revising Scripture to Fit Feelings
The concern often raised by those who uphold traditional interpretations is that when the exegesis of scripture becomes primarily an exercise in accommodating personal feelings or modern sensibilities, the Bible risks being torn apart to protect those feelings. If sexual ethics are reduced solely to consenting adults, it raises questions about other biblical teachings that have historically limited sexual expression outside of specific contexts, such as Jesus' teachings on remarriage after divorce or Paul's strong stance against incest in Corinth.
The idea that a new word's appearance retroactively changes the meaning or intent of ancient texts is a precarious intellectual position. It suggests that truth is contingent on contemporary linguistic trends rather than on the enduring moral principles conveyed through scripture.
Conclusion: Clarity Through Context and History
The claim that the word "homosexual" was "added" to the Bible in the mid-20th century is factually correct regarding English translations. However, the implication that this addition represents a fundamental shift in the Bible's teaching, or that prior generations were unaware of or unable to condemn same-sex acts, is a flawed interpretation.
The biblical texts, when examined in their original languages and understood within their historical and theological contexts, consistently present a view that prohibits sexual intimacy between persons of the same sex. While the terminology has evolved, the ethical framework regarding sexual conduct as understood by both ancient authors and the vast majority of their interpreters for centuries remains consistent. The debate often highlights a tension between adapting biblical interpretation to contemporary cultural views and adhering to a historical understanding of the text's normative teachings. Understanding this distinction is key to navigating the complexities surrounding the Bible and same-sex conduct.
For further study, exploring scholarly commentaries on Leviticus 18, Romans 1, and 1 Corinthians 6, as well as historical analyses of biblical interpretation, can provide a more comprehensive understanding of this multifaceted topic.