Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships

by Karen R. Keen

The perception of spiritual depravity persisted despite scientific hypotheses—dating to antiquity—that offered explanations for people’s same-sex desire.7 Some early Christian theologians likely rejected these hypotheses outright.

Church fathers who knew of scientific hypotheses, as Clement of Alexandria did, continued to emphasize spiritual depravity regardless.

Homoeroticism during the Greco-Roman period consisted primarily of pederasty. When first-century Jewish writers Philo and Josephus spoke against male-male sexual relations, they typically addressed men having sex with boys.6

The point is that Genesis is not the backdrop for Paul; Wisdom of Solomon is the text he is engaging. That has crucial implications for understanding

the meaning of Romans 1.

The first confusion to clear up is that the culture of the ancient Near East (or the Greco-Roman world) is distinct from biblical inspiration itself. Ancient Near Eastern culture was not divine, even though the biblical message that was articulated from within that culture is divinely inspired. The biblical authors wrote with an accent, so to speak. The language and social structures of that time period influenced how the message was delivered. If God had chosen to inspire the writing of Scripture in our society today, it would have sounded different, using the vocabulary and social structures of twenty-first-century America. We have to get used to the biblical authors’ accent to understand what they are saying.

God spoke to the Israelites in their cultural context.

There are additional sacrificial and purity laws, especially in Leviticus. The law collections were written in two legal genres: casuistic and apodictic. Casuistic law is case law that is not intended to address every possible legal situation. Instead, a conditional formula is presented and used for drawing conclusions based on association or inference (“If a man rents an ox . . .”). Apodictic law is a direct command or prohibition (“You shall not . . .”).

One common cause of misinterpretation of Old Testament laws is that we focus more on what the laws are than on why they are included in Scripture. Inspiration resides not necessarily in the particularities but in the overarching reason for the laws—namely, a good and just society.

As a result, many Christians have approached the Bible as a rulebook. It’s true that many biblical commands are still relevant today. However, reading Scripture solely this way is insufficient. As we saw in the last chapter, the particularities of the biblical laws were influenced by culture and even adapted from other nations. We have to look at the overarching intention of the laws, which was a just and righteous society.

What I discovered was that the Bible is a collection of many different texts pieced together like a quilt. Various scribes copied, edited, and compiled these texts over hundreds of years. For anyone who takes the time to study this phenomenon, hundreds of editorial marks can be spotted. For example, in the Masoretic (Hebrew) Text of Isaiah 2:9–11, a scribe added sentences (intensifying God’s wrath) that are not found in the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (our oldest manuscript of Isaiah).7 These additions are preserved in our modern Bibles. In fact, we even have two different books of Jeremiah, providing us a major example of scribal work in progress.8 Jeremiah’s oracles were compiled and edited distinctly by different scribes.

have been taught in our churches. They did not view it as inflexible and impervious.16 Rather, they understood that laws need to be interpreted with discernment, not blindly applied without regard for context.

We learn from the biblical authors that to apply Scripture properly to our lives, we need to bring its teaching into conversation with context and employ careful discernment. But how can we be sure we are applying Scripture correctly and not just interpreting the Bible according to our own whims? The above examples give guidance. In the case of slavery conditions and divorce, the interpretive key is attention to human need. Preexisting divine revelation was applied with a pastoral eye for the suffering of those involved.

Even though Jesus honored the Sabbath, he was accused of violating it. In response to his accusers, he took their objections at face value and taught the fundamental reason for God’s law, namely, God’s law is made for humankind, not humankind for God’s law (Mark 2:27).

Human need matters when applying biblical law.

Paul’s point about symbolism is important to the debate on same-sex relationships. Traditionalists frequently argue that male and female must be upheld for marriage because this distinction symbolizes spiritual realities. It points to the eschatological wedding between Christ and the church or the Trinitarian relationship. Yet Paul counsels us not to confuse the symbol with the real thing. To slavishly uphold the symbol without regard for circumstances is wrong. Paul, following Jesus, teaches that attention to need is more important than practicing a symbol that witnesses to heaven. Why? Because mercy toward human suffering is the point. The eschatological wedding is the ultimate celebration of no more “mourning and crying and pain” (Rev. 21:3–4).

One common argument that traditionalists make is that gay people are no different than straight people who can’t find a mate and must remain chaste. This assertion has significant problems. First, saying no to temptation is not as difficult when no one is available to tempt one’s desires; it’s a different story to resist the love of one’s life. When straight people fall in love, they marry. When gay people fall in love, they must find the herculean strength to say no, not only in the moment of desire, but to every dream of marriage and family. Second, a profound difference exists between someone who happens to be single but can actively pursue dating and marriage and someone who is forbidden to do either. How many heterosexual singles are willing to cease dating, give up the hope of marriage, and make a lifetime vow of celibacy? Not many. Yet that is essentially what traditionalists are requiring gay people to do.

!!!!!!

The study results showed gay women had less gray matter in the perirhinal cortex than straight women, and thus more closely resembled straight men, who also have less gray matter in this area.

Scripture itself teaches us that biblical mandates, including creation ordinances, cannot be applied without a deliberative process. To flatly apply law across the board without discernment for individual cases is a misuse of Scripture. Traditionalists have generally viewed the deliberative process as a general one: Are same-sex relationships collectively right or wrong? But the biblical authors demonstrate that even laws that prohibit something cannot be blindly applied. Discernment is still required on a case-by-case basis. Among key criteria for the deliberative process is attention to human need. Jesus and the biblical authors applied humanitarian exceptions to the rule.

However, it’s important to realize that early on Romans 1 was not always understood and interpreted as referring to female same-sex relations. This underscores the importance of entering the world of the biblical authors rather than superimposing our modern assumptions on them.