But the Bible... ..main page

Difference Is Not A Sin

Chapter 4: CRITICAL AND LINGUISTIC EXAMINATION OF BIBLICAL TEXTS RELATING TO HOMOSEXUALITY

THE OLD TESTAMENT

Two passages describing incidents of attempted homosexual rape.

GENESIS 19:4-5

Before the guests went to bed, the men of Sodom surrounded the house. All the men of the city both young and old were there. They called out to Lot and asked, "Where are the men you have to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them." (GNB) that we may know them (AV)

This passage, together with verse 22 in Leviticus 18, is probably the most well known text on homosexual behaviour in the Old Testament. Right up to the ground breaking book `Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition' by Sherwin Bailey in 1955, which said that the principle sin of Sodom was inhospitality, it was accepted that the sin of Sodom was sodomy. An example of this can be found in Marcus Dodds weighty commentary on Genesis published in the Expositors Bible series in 1888. He simply accepted that the biblical account was historical fact and that the attempted rape was only an example of the habitual behaviour of the towns people. "They do nothing worse than their habitual conduct leads them to do. It is not for this one crime they are punished; its enormity is only the legible instance which of itself convicts them." (ibid. p.191.)

It is clear from Genesis 13:13 and 18:20, that the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were exceedingly sinful, but the nature of their sinfulness is never actually specified. It may be that here we have an early example of the tension between a nomadic and a settled urban way of life. The nomad thinks of the city as a place of degeneracy and sin, the city dweller thinks of the nomad as uncouth and untrustworthy. This is an account written from the point of view of the nomad.

We actually know practically nothing about these towns. Sodom and Gomorrah were two of the `cities of the plain' located in the region of the Dead Sea. The other three of the pentapolis were Admah, Zeboiim and Bela/Zoar. The greater prominence given to the first two in the Bible suggests that they were the leaders of the group. The search for these towns has so far been inconclusive. Theories put them northeast, south-east, south-west and even, according to the American archaeologist W.P.Albright, beneath, the Dead Sea. The biblical evidence is confusing. Recent archaeological excavations have uncovered five early bronze age settlements southeast of the sea (Bab adh-Dhra, Numeira, es-Safi, Feifeh, and Khanasi.) However the researchers have hesitated to say that they are the cities of the plain. Some commentators favour the south part of the Dead Sea as this is the only place where fresh water flows down from the mountains of Moab. An abundance of fresh water would have been necessary to support the lush vegetation that gave the region its prosperity and attracted Lot to the area, (Genesis 13:10).

Likewise the actual nature of the destruction itself is not entirely clear. Sir George Adam Smith in his classic work `The Historical Geography of the Holy Land' conjectures that what happened was this. "In this bituminous soil took place one of those terrible explosions and conflagrations which have broken out in the similar geology of North America. In such soil reservoirs of oil and gas are formed and are suddenly discharged by their pressure or by earthquake. The gas explodes, carrying high into the air masses of oil which fall back in fiery rain."

According to G. Ernest Wright (Biblical Archaeology p.50) the probable explanation is an earthquake. "It is well known that the Jordan Valley is well below sea level, the deepest rift of its sort in the world . . . . and disturbances of the earth along it are not uncommon." Strabo writing in the first century records a legend then current, that near Massada, a massive fortress on the south western shore of the Dead Sea, thirteen flourishing cities were once destroyed by an earthquake, eruptions of bitumen and sulphur, and a sudden advance of the sea which swept away the fleeing inhabitants." There are other references in classical literature to the area as still bearing the scars of dramatic geological blight. According to Josephus the Jewish historian, (Bell. Jud. iv 483-5) the cities were situated at the southern end of the Dead Sea, and testifies to the desolate aspect of the place with bituminous emissions, hot springs and sulphur deposits. Wisdom 10:7 speaking of the five cities, reports "Evidence of their wickedness still remains - a continually smoking wasteland, plants bearing fruits that do not ripen and a pillar of salt standing as a monument to an unbelieving soul; while Philo wrote (Vit. Moses 11 56) "Thunderbolts then . . . . hurled from heaven and burned up both the impious population and their towns and even down to the present day the visible tokens of the indescribable disaster are pointed out in Syria - ruins, cinders, brimstone, smoke and murky flames which continue to rise from still smouldering fire." Diodorus Siculus writing in 45BC, records that after an earthquake activity masses of bitumen were seen floating on the Dead Sea. This phenomenon occurred again in 1834. All we can say about this matter is that we must wait for further evidence.

To understand this story we have to go back to an earlier point in the narrative in chapter 18. God, rather confusingly, appears as three angels, visits Abraham and is entertained generously by him. He gives them cakes and freshly slaughtered veal and milk, serving them himself. In other words he treats them with great courtesy which is in sharp contrast to what happens to them after they journey onto Sodom. They intend to find out for themselves if the stories about the wickedness of the townspeople are really true. They stay with Abraham's nephew Lot who had earlier settled among the `people of the plain', and who they are also pledged to rescue from the destruction to come. It is while they are under his roof and therefore protected by the very strict rules on hospitality, that the men of the town attempt to violate them. This is a variation of an ancient and widespread story of a divine person who visits, incognito, an unsuspecting person who entertains them well and is rewarded appropriately. The classic parallel is the tale told by Ovid of how Jupiter, Neptune and Mercury visit Hyrieus a childless peasant of Tanagra. In return for his hospitality they grant that he will have a son, Orion. By contrast his niggardly rich neighbours are punished. Buddhist legend tells the story of a saint (arhat) visiting the city of Halaolakia. Everyone rebuffed him except one man. The city therefore was destroyed but the man was spared. (`Memoires sur les Centres Occidentales ii 243. S. Julian). Likewise loss of sight was "very commonly regarded in antiquity as the punishment for sacrilege impiety or gross misconduct." (Deuteronomy 28:28; 2 Kings 6:18) Sodom was considered a rich city which was why Lot went there and in Ezekiel 16:49 it is suggested that the city was destroyed because its affluent inhabitants refused to succour (lit. to grasp the hand of) the poor and needy. That inhospitality was the primary sin of Sodom seems to have been the opinion of Origin, the ascetic second century christian commentator. "Hear this you who close your homes to guests! Hear this you who shun the traveller as an enemy! Lot lived among the Sodomites. We do not read of any other good deeds of his; ... he escaped the flames, escaped the fire, on account of one thing only, he opened his house to guests. The angels entered the hospitable household; the flames entered the homes closed to guests." (Homilia V in Genisim. PG, 12:188-89.) St Ambrose too took this line, "Lot placed the hospitality of his house - sacred even among a barbarous people - above the modesty (of his daughters). John Cassian, presumably influenced by Ezekiel 16:49, said the destruction was a punishment for gluttony. (De coenobiorum institutis 5.6) Even as late as the fourteenth century Piers Plowman said that "the awful catastrophe which came upon the Sodomites was due to over plenty and pure sloth." (Piers the Plowman passus 14, lines 75-78).

The Hebrew word `yadha' which the Authorised Version of the Bible translates as `know' has a variety of meanings, eg. acquainted with, "a pharaoh who `knew' not Joseph." (Exodus 1:8); understand, "they `knew' that they were naked." (Genesis 3:7); or to have sexual relations, "Adam `knew' Eve his wife." (Genesis 4:1) In each case the meaning is clear from the context. Although `Yadha' occurs 947 times in the Old Testament it only refers to sex in ten of those. Though some scholars have raised doubts, eg. Shirwin Bailey, the story makes it pretty clear that sex is meant here. Lot is in fear for his own life and is so concerned to protect the travellers that he even offers his own virgin daughters if that will satisfy the lust of the townsmen: this is no morality tale! We are then dealing here with a case of attempted homosexual rape and a blatant breach of the customs of hospitality. These two sins are not however the cause of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra, they are the final proof that these people are beyond redemption. If we refer to Ezekiel 16:49 or Jeremiah 23:14 where the destruction of the towns is referred to, it is the sins of pride and stubbornness in the former and adultery and lying in the latter that are specified. The reference to the story in Jude 1:7 does make sexual immorality and perversion (though not it seems homosexual perversion) the sins of the people there, reflecting perhaps the influence of Hellenistic Judaism on biblical interpretation.` Shirwin Bailey rather exaggerated his argument by saying that the story has nothing to do with homosexual behaviour, but it is true that contrary to what commentators like Marcus Dodds accepted, there is nothing in the story in Genesis to suggest that the besetting sin of Sodom or Gomorrah was homosexuality as such. Despite this obvious fact, some contemporary commentators still cannot get away from the idea that the condemnation of homosexual behaviour is an important part of the story. For example the `Anglican Board for Social Responsibility' in its paper on homosexual relations agrees that "The purpose of the homosexual attack is to demonstrate the ultimate breach of the obligation of hospitality." However the paper goes on to say, "the narrative does express abhorrence of homosexual behaviour." But the passage clearly does nothing of the sort. Sexual assault and rape are not the same as ordinary sexual relations, whether homosexual or heterosexual. If the victim had been a woman nobody would have dreamed of suggesting the story expresses abhorrence of heterosexuality!

This passage is about the condemnation of immoral behaviour where God's laws are rejected and his justice is held in contempt capped finally by an attempted homosexual rape which everyone would deplore. It can be compared with the similar story in Judges 19-20, which we shall look at next. There are very few references to Sodom in early rabbinical writing. Those there are tend to follow the biblical interpretation and suggest other sins than homosexual behaviour. Ben Sirah for example says the besetting sin was pride. (Sirah 16:8, For the Hebrew cf. S. Schechter and C. Taylor `The Wisdom of Ben Sira 1899). In one of the few references that do mention sexual sins they are all heterosexual.

There may be a religious element in the actions of the men of Sodom. Part of the condemnation of the towns may spring from Jewish opposition to fertility cults involving homosexual behaviour which were prevalent in Palestine at that time (and later) and which were condemned by biblical writers. I shall be looking at this in greater detail in the studies of the references to male cultic prostitution in the Books of Deuteronomy and 1 and 11 Kings.

Whether or not the existence of these ancient cities is ever verified by archaeological evidence, their theological importance in the Bible is beyond doubt. As Sir George Smith also points out no single incident in the whole of the Old Testament made such an impression on the Israelites. It is used as an example of immorality and social decadence (eg. Genesis 13:13; Deuteronomy 32:32; Isaiah 1:10; Jeremiah 23:14; Revelation 11:8) Their terrible fate is represented as the symbol of divine judgement on those who deliberately reject his call for justice (eg. Hosea 11:8; Amos 4:11; Lamentations 4:6; Luke 17:29-30; Romans 9:29; and 2 Peter 2:6 with Jude 7 which we shall be looking at in detail later.) Even so the fate of those cities which reject Christ's ministry will be worse even than that of Sodom; "And if no one will welcome you or even listen to what you have to say, leave that house or town, and once outside it shake off the dust of that place from your feet. Believe me it will be easier for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town"; (Matthew 10:15 or Luke 10:12.) The penalty for rejecting God's invitation is great indeed. Well might St Paul advise his new converts not to turn strangers away from their doors for thereby people have entertained angels unaware.

JUDGES 19:22

They were enjoying themselves when some of the men from the town surrounded the house and beat upon the door. "Bring out that man who is staying with you we want to have sex with him." (GNB)

This is part of a much longer passage which occupies chapters 19-20. It is an appalling story of cowardice, rape and murder. It bares a close resemblance to the story of Lot in Sodom except that here the stranger was not an angel with angelic powers but a cowardly Levite who allowed the men of the town of Gibeah to take his concubine who was repeatedly raped and eventually left to die on the doorstep.

So similar are the stories that it has been said that they may refer to the same event. "This gruesome story is of course, simply a variant of the folk tale related in Genesis concerning Lot and the Angels." (`Myth Legend and Custom in the Old Testament' Theodor Gaster. p.443)

In this story too the traveller is given shelter by someone who is also not from that town. As a Levite the traveller should have been all the more respected. Once again it appears to be the violation of the laws of hospitality which causes offence at the beginning of the assault. (It is still the case, even today that "a stranger could avail himself of hospitality for three days and even after leaving he has a right to protection for a given time." `Ancient Israel' Roland de Vaux p.10) The owner of the house goes out to them to beg them not to do this wicked thing to someone "who is in my house." (And is therefore under his protection). Once again the mob is offered a virgin daughter if this will satisfy them; and eventually they settle on the unfortunate concubine. It seems from this that no traveller male or female, was safe after dark. As in the story of Sodom this is an account of sexual assault and here the retribution is brought about by an outraged nation rather than direct divine intervention. According to the biblical account the result was civil war between the tribe of Benjamin and Gibeah, and the rest of the tribes. Gibeah was attacked and destroyed and its entire population put to the sword.

This story fits in with the general message of this pro royalist, part of Judges, stories relating to life just before the establishment of the monarchy, that life had degenerated into such chaos that only the strong leadership of a King chosen by Yahweh could save the people from themselves. Here even the fact that the man was a Levite was no protection against the anarchy of the time.

Two laws forbidding homosexual acts.

LEVITICUS 18:22

No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that. GNB.(it is an abomination AV).

LEVITICUS 20:13

If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, They have done a disgusting thing GNB (they have committed an abomination AV): they shall surely be put to death.

These two verses are the only unequivocal condemnations of (male) homosexuality as such in the Old Testament. Before considering these verses therefore, it is important to understand what sort of book Leviticus is. Though the book appears to be set in the period of the Exodus from Egypt, it was in fact composed over a long period of time and it is usually believed to have reached its final form during the period of the Exile in Babylon under the influence of priestly editors. It is divided roughly into six sections and apart from four brief narrative sections it is a manual instructing Levitical priests and legislating the means by which the relationship between man and God is to be facilitated. While the regulations focus on the priests few of the laws are restricted to them alone.

These two verses occur in the fifth section often called the Holiness Code, because of its key word `qados' (holy), and because it stresses holiness in life and worship. The Israelites used this word in a particular way. They were a chosen people who were called to be separate from the people around them. To be `holy' therefore was to be set apart, different, chosen, God-like. The main concern of the `Holiness Code' therefore was to keep Israel different from the nations around. Thus chapter 18 begins "You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes "My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes you shall keep." As I said the book was completed at the time of the exile in Babylon. The editors were just as concerned to keep the people separate from what they saw as the corrupting influence of pagan Babylonian society as the original writers had been of the culture of Canaan. A contemporary parallel can be seen in the attempts made by many conservative Asian families in Britain who try to maintain their own cultural and moral identity in what they see as an overwhelming flood of (corrupting) western ideas.

This section of Leviticus alternates between moral and ritual laws all emphasising that the people are `set apart' to God. These include laws such as the prohibition against sexual intercourse during menstruation which we have looked at earlier in this study. Most of these laws reflect the culture of the people who created them. So we have to decide how much weight to give to these two verses in the light of the fact that we reject or question many of the laws in the verses around them. It cannot be said that these other laws are unimportant and therefore easily rejected. We reject for example that those who cannot pay their debts should sell themselves into slavery.

It has been said (eg. in the paper "What to say to a gay christian." Bob Davis, Exodus International.) that the two classes of law in this group of laws a)Dietary/ceremonial and b) Moral, should be treated differently. The first may be of passing importance but the second has continuing relevance and is binding on us. These two sets of laws are differentiated by, amongst other things, the punishment imposed. For breaking the moral laws the punishment is death. The law relating to homosexuality is in the second category and therefore is still to be observed; (though why he feels that the punishments of three millennia ago are of relevance to the question of whether something should be considered a crime now, is not clear.) In any case the division between moral and ritual law is far from obvious. For example, priests are forbidden from marrying divorcees or women who had been prostitutes. If he does his children will be unclean. (Leviticus 21:13). Is this ritual or moral law? Are the laws about the restitution of property (Leviticus 25) moral laws to be followed now? Are the laws relating to the ownership of slaves moral law? They are all certainly cultural.

Even if the two sets of laws were easily separated the distinction would still be erroneous. All these laws are religious laws because all of them are intended to regulate the relationship between the community and God. Whether it is having sex with a menstruating woman, or offering your child as a sacrifice to Molech, or having sex with your relations, or sexual relations between people of the same sex, or bringing unclean animals or things into your house. They are all described as abominations for which the penalty is to be cut off from the community. (Leviticus 18:29). In Deuteronomy there are other laws which exclude some people from the community of the faithful. Laws which betray attitudes which all right thinking Christians (and I imagine most Jews) would deplore. "No man who has been castrated or whose penis has been cut off may be included among the Lord's people." "No one born out of wedlock or any descendent of such a person even in the tenth generation, may be included among the Lord's people." (Deuteronomy 23:1-2). This law explains in part why Jewish authorities were so dismissive of the claims of Jesus. How could a teacher, let alone a prophet or the Messiah, be a bastard and the descendent of a prostitute? It is important to note that the rule about castration was also rejected by the early church, as witnessed by the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip the Deacon. (Acts 8:26-40).

Dr Daniel Helminiac an American Jesuit says in his book `What the Bible really says about homosexuality' "The point is that the Holiness code of Leviticus prohibits male same sex acts because of religious considerations, not because of sexual ones. The concern is to keep Israel from taking part in pagan gentile practices. Homogenital sex is forbidden because it is associated with pagan religious practices." (Ibid p.46) He goes on to say that no thought is being given to whether the sex itself is wrong, the Holiness Code is only concerned to maintain an independent Israelite identity.

Dr Helminiac compares the Levitical prohibition with the contemporary church's objection to modern pagan practices. "We sometimes hear of satanic rituals which include sexual acts. Jews and Christians today would certainly object to such sex . . . even if the sexual acts were between a married man and woman . . . not because a husband and wife have no right to share a sexual experience, but because that sex involves worship of the devil. Religious concerns not sexual ethical ones . . . are the reason for the objection . . . This example is a parallel to the prohibition of male-male sex in Leviticus." (ibid p.47)

This is an ingenious but not entirely convincing argument. The antipathy shown by the Levitical compilers to homosexual practices stemmed from a variety of factors. Certainly their association with pagan practice, and their desire to keep Israel free from contamination by foreign belief was a major concern; perhaps the major concern. However I believe that the Levitical compilers condemned the practices not just because they were pagan, but because they thought they were contrary to the will of God. They disapproved of all practices which did not conform to the pattern apparently laid down by God at the creation and which could not lead to child birth, the principle purpose of sex. Homosexual activity was seen to be a rejection of the normal family structures which was the only basis for community life. Structures which were begun and sanctioned by God at the Creation.

It might be appropriate at this point to look at the fact that there is very little said about homosexual behaviour in the Bible. By contrast sexual contact between two men or two youths or between a man and a youth is a fairly frequent subject in pagan writing. It has been said that this may be because homosexual behaviour was relatively rare in the early Jewish communities. One explanation for this may be that before a homosexual community can exist there has to be a strong urban society. Culture of any kind needs an urban setting to develop. Isolated homosexuals in rigid nomadic family groups would have had no impact on the society as a whole, or excite more than local disapproval and action. A rare exception to this silence is one Rabbinical tradition commenting on these laws which says that single men should not teach children, (who would almost certainly have been boys); nor should two single men sleep under the same blanket. It was presumably thought that men with no alternative sexual outlet might find such a situation a temptation. (Kid.4 134 The Michnah Trans. Herbert Danby p.329. 1933).

Philo, the first century hellenized Jew, by contrast, lived in Alexandria, the largest city of his time. He was familiar with the bi-sexuality of the Roman world and the homosexual subculture which flourished in the city. He introduced his comments upon these verses by saying, "Much graver than the above, (marriages with barren women) is another evil which has ramped its way into the cities, namely pederasty." (Special laws 111 37. trans. F.H.Colson `Philo V11 LCL 1958). Clearly his attitude to these laws was shaped to a large extent by what he saw around him. He distinguished, as was common, between the active and the passive partner reserving particular criticism for the latter. He railed against the effeminate male, the camp call boy, attacking their coiffure, their makeup, their demeanour, and their general effort to be or appear to be a woman. He described these exotic sounding creatures as androgynous. To the disgust of Philo it seemed they had begun to play a more prominent part in Greek cults where they were highly honoured. Some had gone so far as to be castrated. "These persons are rightly judged worthy of death by those who obey the law." (the Jews) (ibid). Similarly he condemns those who employ these boys. "And the lover (pederastes) of such may be assured that he is subject to the same penalties." (ibid). Clearly when Philo reads these laws he immediately applies them to prostitution.

Philo gives two reasons for his opposition to homosexual behaviour. First he believes that people who do this are acting `beyond nature' ( para phusin). This closely mirrors St Paul's attitudes in Romans, which we shall be looking at later. Secondly "it is the channelling of semen away from its divinely intended purpose of procreation." (ibid). His opinion on this echoes his condemnation of having a sexual relationship with a barren women (presumably including those women beyond the age of child bearing). "These persons who make an act of quenching the life of the seed as it drops, stand confessed as the enemies of nature." (ibid. Special Laws 111 36).

Today almost everybody would reject the idea that the only purpose of sex is procreation. However Philo's views reflected and contributed to the attitudes and climate of opinion in Jewish circles out of which the first Christian communities grew. Indeed some of his views are still put forward now. The Alexandrian Doctrine as it is sometimes called is at the back of the Roman Catholic objection to birth control. In this way of thinking to impede the progress of the sperm in its divinely intended purpose is to deny the purpose of God. The only legitimate form of birth control is therefore use of the rhythm method or abstinence.

I have quoted the R.P.R. spokeswoman in the introduction to this book, on the importance of the family for the future of society. She is quite correct in this assessment and the Israelites were right to give a high priority to the support of family life. We have to ask ourselves however whether we are correct to condemn people who cannot choose this life style but who otherwise pose no threat to families around them and who in other ways may contribute a great deal to the wider community. Difference is not a sin. The idea that homosexuals are somehow a threat to the future of society is as absurd now as it was in the second millennium B.C. And I confidently say that the Levitical priests who formulated these laws were as wrong about God's intentions as Moses was when he said that it was God's will that Midianite women and boys should be massacred and the girls raped. (Numbers 31:1ff - see the section in this book about the Conduct of War, under biblical attitudes rejected today.)

A note on the word abomination

The text of the Authorised Bible says that it is an `abomination' for a man to lie with a man as with a woman. In English the word is almost as strong a condemnation as it is possible to be. "Something that would make God vomit." As one preacher put it. However the Hebrew word thus translated had a more technical meaning. There is a definition in Leviticus 20:25-26. "You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean and the unclean bird; you shall not bring abomination upon yourselves by animal or by bird." Here an abomination is clearly a violation of the Israelite purity laws. As we have seen in the section in this book about cleanliness this has a ritual as well as a hygienic content. Thus we can say that sex between two men would make them ritually unclean.

The actual Hebrew word is `toevah' which is used to describe what is ritually unclean, forbidden, a taboo; having sex with a relative was an abomination (Leviticus 18:6-19); touching an unclean thing was an abomination (Leviticus 7:21); people who were socially unacceptable were an abomination (Genesis 46:34); gold and silver adorning pagan idols is not to be kept even when the idol is destroyed, it is an abomination (Deuteronomy 7:25), bringing this gold into your house would bring abomination upon the house, in the same way that bringing an unclean animal or bird into the house would do so. There is a strong association in the use of the word with foreigners and it frequently occurs as part of the stock phrase, `toevah ha-goyim' `the uncleanness of the gentiles' (2 Kings 16:3). Often the word means specifically idol (Isaiah 44:19; Ezekiel 7:20; Jeremiah 16:18.) and its association with idolatry is clear even in the context of the verses on homosexual practices. Leviticus makes it clear that the people are to be separate and different from the people around them.

It is perhaps significant that this and not another Hebrew word is used. If the writers had intended to say that homosexual acts themselves were wrong or sinful they would more plausibly have used the word `zimah' which means an injustice or sin. It may be that the compilers of Leviticus are saying that homosexual acts are a ritual violation rather than a sin in the way that we might understand the word. We can't take this too far because in Proverbs 6:16-19 pride, lying, murder, wicked plans, feet that hurry off to do evil, and a trouble maker are all called abominations. These are much closer to our understanding of what is right and wrong.

In the context of Leviticus however `toevah' has a religious ritual implication and it is extremely difficult for us to put ourselves back into the culture which created these ideas. Such thinking seems to have little to do with our understanding of right and wrong which is the primary Christian concern.

Five verses referring to ritual male prostitution

DEUTERONOMY 23:17

No Israelite male or female, is to become a temple prostitute. Also no money earned in that way may be brought into the house of the Lord your God in fulfilment of a vow.

1 KINGS 14:24

Worst of all there were men and women who served as temple prostitutes at those places of pagan worship.

1 KINGS 15:12

He (Asa) removed from the land all the male and female prostitutes serving in the pagan places of worship.

1 KINGS 22:46

He (Jehoshephat) got rid of all the male and female prostitutes serving at the pagan altars who were still left from the time of his father Asa.

2 KINGS 23:7

He (Josiah) destroyed the living quarters in the Temple occupied by the temple prostitutes.

These five verses refer to the widespread practice of ritual prostitution at pagan places of worship. Ke'dheshoth or temple prostitutes, literally `holy ones' or ones set apart. The word is derived from the Hebrew word qe'dos or qados, holy, (that we have already looked at in the previous chapter on the Leviticus verses)."It is a masculine noun used collectively, and probably intended to include the feminine so the word here could well mean prostitutes of both sexes." (The First Book of Kings. J Robinson Cambridge Commentaries p.172) Sacred prostitution was a wide spread feature of Canaanite religious practice before and after the Israelite invasion. So strong was the tradition that it became a part of the religion of Israel itself, as is clearly shown by the reference in 2 Kings 23 where King Josiah as part of his reforms of the religious life of Judah expels the prostitutes from the Temple in Jerusalem itself and destroys their living quarters. The story of Judah and Tamah in Genesis 38 shows that it was prevalent even as far back as the patriarchal period and here it seems to have been associated with the sheep shearing festival.

I believe that the Israelite rejection of cultic prostitution as a legitimate form of religious expression is one of the most significant features of their religious practice and helps explain their attitude to human sexual expression in general and to homosexual behaviour itself.

Human sexuality as a symbol of creation was a central feature of the religious thought of all the countries around Israel throughout the Old Testament period. Recently published reports about the cultic life at Karnac in Egypt, the most important religious centre throughout the whole pharonic period, shows that Amun the creator god made the universe by an act of masturbation. The great statue of the god in the inner sanctuary portrayed the god with a large prominent erect penis as shown in many wall paintings and reliefs. One of the titles of the high priestess was `Hand of Amun' suggesting that her role was to assist in the maintenance of creation. Whether or not this involved ritual copulation is impossible to say as yet. The role of the `concubines of the gods' in Egypt appears to have been primarily to escort whichever queen or princess who bore the title of divine consort on ceremonial occasions. Herodotus said "It was the Egyptians who first made it a matter of religious observance not to have intercourse with women in temples." (Quoted by H.W.F. Saggs 'Everyday life in Babylonia and Syria' p152).

In the civilization of Sumeria from which Abraham, the `father' of the Hebrew nation came, the profession of harlot carried no apparent stigma. In the days of Hammurabi (c1750BC) one of the great law givers of the ancient world, temples were staffed by priests, servants and artisans, and by a number of highly honoured priestesses and nuns, often from the best families, as well as sacred prostitutes who acted as intermediaries between worshipper and goddess. By historical times the earnings of the prostitutes constituted a significant part of the temple income.

A thousand years after Hammurabi the Greek historian Herodotus was confused by the sheer number of temple prostitutes. "Every woman who is a native of the country," he reported, "must once in her life go and sit in the temple and there give herself to a strange man . . . and she is not allowed to go home until a man has thrown a silver coin into her lap and taken her outside to lie with him . . . The woman has no privilege of choice . . . When she has lain with him her duty to the goddess is discharged and she may go home." (Herodotus 1 199 p92).

In Babylon sacred prostitutes were classified into groups though the purpose of these classifications remains obscure. The `harimtu' seems to have been a semi secular prostitute, the `qadishtu' a sacred one, and the `ishtaritu' specifically the servant of Ishta. It is the servants and worshippers of Ishta, or Astarte, that are the subject of so much biblical condemnation, as in Hosea.

One Babylonian father advised his son, "Never take a harimtu to wife, her husbands are beyond counting; nor an ishtaritu she is reserved for the gods." The higher ranking prostitutes were housed in the temple complex, others lived out and picked up their clients on the streets.

We cannot be sure of the exact role of ritual prostitution. In Canaan the sacred marriage was a central feature of those religions of the area which were concerned with fertility, and the institution of sacred prostitution may have been the symbolic accompaniment of the sacred marriage. The religion of Canaan was associated entirely with the forces of nature and the cycle of the seasons. In particular the victory of Baal the god of fertility over Mot, the god of death and drought, was celebrated in the coming of the new season's rain at new year. It was then we believe that large gatherings formed at the hill shrines and the victory of Baal and his marriage with Anat, who had saved him from the clutches of Mot, was celebrated with mass re-enactments of their reunion. Modern pilgrimages appear quite tame by comparison, and it is no surprise that such popular activities should have been adopted by the Jews.

Ritual promiscuity, designed to promote increase of people, cattle or crops, was a standard feature of seasonal fertility festivals. There are echoes of this even in England where children still dance around the may-pole which is a phallic fertility symbol. Herodotus described these activities in Babylon and Cyprus, and it is described also as part of the cult of the Great Goddess, Ma, at Comana in Pontus. In Java, as also among the Fan of West Africa, the Hereros and the Gavos, men and women are expected to copulate openly in the fields at major agricultural festivals.

In Canaan, most of this activity went on at the local sanctuary or high place, which before the Exile was where most people would have worshipped. (1 Samuel 9:9-25 describes Samuel at such a local shrine and the sort of worship that would have taken place there.) Often these were places where the pagan communities had worshipped before, in the same way Christian churches in England are often built on old pagan sites. Recent excavations of these sanctuaries have revealed large numbers of burial monuments which suggest that they were also connected with funerary rites and perhaps burial and the cult of the dead. This doesn't come out in the biblical texts but it would certainly help to explain why local people were so attached to them. Also there would have been the sacred pillar, the massebhah, a phallic symbol representing the male deity, and the Asherim, a wooden symbol, or a grove of trees, representing the goddess Asherah. It was at more important hill shrines such as those at Dan or Shiloh, that there would have been buildings to house permanent staff including the Ke'dheshoth.

Most of these people were women though clearly men were involved as well. We do not know for certain if male prostitutes serviced male devotees but it is generally assumed that they did. Neither can we be sure if these people were volunteers, or people who had fallen on hard times and found it their only source of income, or as is more likely, slaves sold into this service. The passage in Hosea (3:1-4) where Hosea is instructed to take a prostitute for his wife as a sign of the relationship between the faithful God and his unfaithful people, suggests that she was a slave. "So I paid fifteen pieces of silver and one hundred and fifty kilograms of barley to buy her." (v.2) We don't know either whether people were involved in this for a short time or over long periods. Hosea's denunciations of this practice (eg Hosea 2:2-5; 4:14) shows that it was a widespread practice in the northern kingdom of Israel well into the 8th century BC, In these passages the whoring of his wife appears to be voluntary at least after their marriage and therefore all the more reprehensible.

It is possible to see the whole of the Book of Hosea as a sustained satire on the seasonal festivals. Here is not the place to go into a detailed study of this, enough to say that he made constant reference to the cycle of seasonal festivals and tried to associate them with the promise of Yahweh rather than allowing them to be part of the pagan Baal cult. This is shown for example in his picture of Yahweh's marriage to Israel in chapters 1-3, which is clearly inspired by the pagan concept of the sacred marriage between God and Goddess, impersonated by the King and his Queen or a priestess. The Prophet tried to lift this primitive rite to a more spiritual plane.

Ritual prostitution was extraordinarily persistent. From the references in the Books of Kings we know that several times these activities were suppressed as in the reigns of Asa and his son Jehoshephat in the middle of the 9th century BC, about a hundred and thirty years before Hosea, but it was still necessary to make the same reforms during the reign of Josiah some two hundred and fifty years later.

I have gone into the background of sacred prostitution at this length because it shows just how stark, in theory at least, was the contrast between the religion of Israel and the religion of the people around it. Human sexuality played no official part in the religious worship of Israel, by contrast it was a central feature of the religious life of the nations around. Whereas the religion of Canaan belonged to the world of nature, myth and cult, Mosaic Yahwinism (that is the worship of the Hebrew God Yahweh as revealed to Moses) was rooted in an historical revelation, a covenant community, and a personal response to God's moral call.

Clearly in the Israelite mind the sort of behaviour that went on at the hill shrines and elsewhere was associated with lust, contempt for others and idolatry. In the days when the Israelites were trying to establish their own identity over and against the people around them, believing themselves to be uniquely called by God to do so, they would see this ritual prostitution as devoid of the context of any proper relationship and as that idolatry which believed that a special union could be achieved through sexual intercourse with the god or goddess being worshipped. For the devout, educated Israelites with their image of a transcendent God, the Creator of the universe, this would have appeared not only shocking but absurd. Human sexuality was intended to be part of a lasting relationship so that children which might result from it could be brought up, in the words of the old marriage service, "in the fear and nurture of the Lord." Here people could be a part of God's creative purposes.

It is the emphasis on the idea that sexuality should be part of a lasting stable relationship that is a genuine Israelite insight. The Israelites would certainly not have conceived that there could be any stable relationship other than that of heterosexual marriage. (There is some evidence however to suggest that at least one contemporary civilization, the Hittites, did have some legal structures for homosexual relationships. For the law and its interpolation, see E. Neufeld `The Hittite Laws', London 1951 p10-11).

It is impossible now to know how a participant in the sexual life of his local temple would see this in relationship to his or her own marriage. Clearly Hosea as the husband at home was very upset by it, both on religious and personal grounds. "Plead my cause with your mother; is she not my wife and I her husband? Plead with her to forswear those wanton looks, to banish the lovers from her bosom." (Hosea 2:2)

Sacred prostitution was not restricted to Palestine. It had spread widely in the Greek and Roman worlds. The Temple of Aphrodite, goddess of love and beauty, in Corinth, was actually the centre for the worship of Astarte or Ishtar. Strabo, writing in the 1st century AD says that at one time there were a thousand prostitutes working at this shrine. It may be that this was in Paul's mind when he wrote Roman's 1:26 and Corinthians 6:9-10. Prostitution was roundly condemned by biblical writers who deplored the debasing of the pure religion of Israel with pagan rites. Rites which God hated and were, according to biblical writers, the reason why he had taken the land of Palestine away from its original inhabitants and given it to Israel. (Leviticus 18:25-26)

Homosexual behaviour was strongly associated in Jewish moral thinking with the idolatry of pagan shrines and therefore was condemned all the more strongly. There was very strong pressure on all people to get married so any homosexual behaviour would also be seen as adulterous and a danger to the married state and the future stability of the community.

Texts relating to the relationship between David and Jonathan

1 SAMUEL 20:17

And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.

1 SAMUEL 20:30

Saul was furious with Jonathan and said to him, "How rebellious and faithless your mother was! Do I not know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thy confusion and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness." (AV)

1 SAMUEL 20:41

They kissed one another and wept with one another until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's (NEB) until David recovered himself (RSV)

11 SAMUEL 1:26

I grieve for you my brother Jonathan;
how dear you were to me!
How wonderful was your love for me,
better even than the love of women.

David is surely one of the most romantic and attractive personalities in the Old Testament. All the more so because we know his weaknesses as well as his strengths. He comes over as an intensely human and sympathetic man. From the way people reacted to him it is clear that people in his own time found him equally personable. He was first of all very good looking as Samuel was to find out, "He was a handsome, healthy young man and his eyes sparkled." He was open, friendly, willing to take advice and to admit when he was wrong. He inspired loyalty in both men and women who accorded him the sort of adulation we associate with pop stars. He showed immense qualities of leadership.

Traditionally his relationship with Jonathan has not been thought of as homosexual because it was not believed to be overtly sexual. We know now of course that this is a false distinction; genital sexual acts are not the defining characteristic of a homosexual relationship. What is abundantly clear from the story as we have it is that there was an intense personal relationship between these two boys characterized by extravagant and public displays of mutual affection. Jonathan, in maintaining his relationship with David defied his father, breaking the strongest taboo in Israelite society.

They make a formal covenant together. Such a covenant echoes the relationship of Israel and God. The two friends as a mark of their compact, exchange clothing " Saul's son Jonathan was deeply attracted to David and came to love him as much as he loved himself . . . . Jonathan swore eternal friendship with David because of his deep affection for him. He took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, together with his armour, and also his sword bow and belt." (1 Samuel 18:1-5). This may have been the only outward sign of their covenant together but the word in v.3 used for making the covenant bears the marks of the original practice of shedding blood to bind the two together in its life force. Saul quite rightly realizes that David is a real threat to Jonathan's accession, "What more can he have but the kingdom?" (18:8) Perhaps Saul also knew that Samuel had anointed David. When Saul announced to Jonathan that he planned to kill David, Jonathan warned David and pleaded with his father on his friend's behalf. The peace made as result did not last long. Once again Saul plans to murder David and once again Jonathan stands up for him. It is at this point that Saul accuses his son of rebellion "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your shame and the shame of your mother's nakedness?" (v.30) Given that the words `shame' and `nakedness' are often associated in Hebrew writing with sex the implication of the outburst seems all too clear. In front of the whole court Saul is deriding Jonathan's relationship with David about which everyone must have been aware. In contemporary terms he's accusing his son of being a queer. At the family feast for the new moon, Saul tried to kill his son and heir to the throne (v.33). Jonathan in an equal rage leaves the table and heedless of anything but the safety of his friend contacts David and lets him know the danger he is in. Their grief at the parting they know must now come is almost too painful for them to bear. "They kissed one another and wept with one another until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (20:41-42) Once again they affirm that the covenant they have made will be the strongest thing in their lives. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible has a marginal note to v.41 `exceeded' as an alternative to `recovered'. The Hebrew word is `higdil' which can mean `to swell up'. Could it be that the erotic side of their relationship is here being more than hinted at!

In fact they do meet again; it seems that they had remained secretly in touch with each other despite the fact that David was now a fugitive in the wilderness with Saul and his spies looking for him everywhere. Now Jonathan reveals just what he is willing to do for his friend. "`Don't worry,'" said Jonathan, " my father won't be able to harm you. He knows very well that you will be King of Israel and that I will be next in rank to you.' The two of them made a sacred promise to each other. David stayed in Horesh and Jonathan went home." (23:16-18) Jonathan was willing even to give up his throne for David. Sadly before they could meet again both Jonathan and his father were killed in battle.

Whether genitally expressed or not this was clearly a homosexual relationship. Certainly King Saul was very bothered by it and while most biblical commentators may not consider it to have had an overt sexual content I suspect that he did. (1 Samuel 20:30). Such sexual contacts between adolescent boys are common in many societies today and presumably were so then. Saul's anguish about the relationship stemmed not only from concern about any sexual relationship that there may have been between the boys, but that the emotional ties that were certainly there put the future succession in doubt.

If Jonathan showed the depth of his commitment for David in his willingness to give up the throne for him, the depth of David's love became clear in the poignant lament for his dead friend. "I grieve for you my brother Jonathan; How dear you were to me ! How wonderful was your love for me, better even that the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26). It was a relationship which lasted even after the death of Jonathan. David looked after Jonathan's crippled son Mephibosheth, accommodating him in the royal palace in Jerusalem. David's love for the boy's father was great enough to overcome his fear of someone who had a far better claim to the throne than he had. May be some of David's grief stemmed from guilt, he may have felt that he had not done enough to save Jonathan's life.

THE NEW TESTAMENT

Jesus hardly refers to human sexuality at all and then only in the context of marriage. There is no mention of homosexual behaviour in any of the Gospels. The texts therefore all come from Paul's letters and letters associated with the Apostles.

ROMANS 1:26

Because they do this (worshipping false gods) God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment for their wrong doing.

Paul's letter to the Romans is a theological treatise. "The primary content of `Romans' - the justification of the godless - also constitutes the centre of Pauline theology" (`Paul's purpose in Romans', article in `The Roman Debate' by Gunter Klien, Ed. Karl P. Donfried. p49). The letter begins with a general and fierce attack on pagan society as a whole. It is typical of the attitude of most Jews at the time. Sandy and Headlam call this passage `The failure of the Gentiles'. (International Critical Commentary on the Letter to the Roman's) Karl Barth heads his comments on Romans 1:18-32, `The Night' and divides it into two parts `Its cause' 1:18-21 and `Its operation' 1:22-32. (`The Epistle to the Romans' p47)

It seems that in part it least Paul was thinking of ritual prostitution; the association of the worship of false gods with `unnatural' sexual acts seems clear. Paul would have been as aware as anyone of the practices at Corinth where there was a large Jewish community, and at a hundred other shrines around the empire.

People have turned from worship of the one true God, and have turned to the worship of idols. Inevitably this has meant that they have sunk into unnatural vices and all sorts of immorality and anti social behaviour. "Vanity of mind and blindness of heart inevitably bring into being corrupt conduct." (`The Epistle to the Romans', Karl Bart p.49) Paul's opinion that the vices of paganism are the result of idolatry was a common feature of Jewish comment at the time. There is a long passage in the Book of Wisdom written by an Egyptian Jew not long before Paul wrote his letter, which is precisely on this theme and Paul follows his argument closely. In fact as Gerald Downing said "He . . . takes over standard Jewish polemical apologetic addresses to Gentiles, accepting Stoic pointers to the `unnatural' mess that humans get themselves into." (`Apology and Apologetic' article in `A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation' Ed. Coggins and Houlden p41)

(I must enter a note here about the authorship of this passage. Some scholars eg. J.C. O'Neil, have suggested that this passage was not written by Paul, but is a later addition. We can usually tell if a book or a passage of writing is written by a particular person by the style and vocabulary. In this case both the style and the vocabulary of these verses are unlike Paul's other writing. At least twenty-nine words in Chapter 1:18-32 occur nowhere else in his writings. Also there is no very strong link between what Paul is saying in chapter 1:1-17, and this passage that follows it. For a more detailed investigation of this matter see `Paul's Letter to the Romans.' J.C. O'Neil p.41)

Paul uses the present continuous tense. In effect he is saying that we can see a process going on before our eyes - the revelation of the wrath of God. It is human wickedness that is hindering the purposes of God and this will bring down his retribution. The idea of God handing men over to immoral ways of life seems strange; however what Paul seems to be saying is that we have abandoned the true God and so, cut off from his guidance, we have fallen into moral confusion and degeneracy. Human beings are free to make choices, when these are evil choices then there may be evil consequences.

When Paul is writing as a moralist he follows the usual classification of his day. Vices are divided into two parts; a) sensual and b) anti social. He lists the sensual vices of pagan society in v.24-27 and the anti social in v.29-31. The emphasis in this passage falls on the former. "For Paul the most obvious proof of the moral decay and corruption of society is the prevalence of homosexuality." (`The Epistle of Paul to the Romans' C.H.Dodd p.54.) though clearly this is not the only aspect he criticises.

Even today the overt portrayal of human sexuality in Roman painting and sculpture is quite shocking. As any visit to Pompeii will show, the Roman obsession with sensuality is amazing. What on earth a Jew or newly converted Jewish Christian with his aversion to nakedness would have thought as he went into the house of a Roman friend or client, perhaps a fellow Christian, to see on the wall a painting of his host naked with a hugely distended erection (a symbol of power and wealth) or a series of scantily clad girls dancing across the wall of the dining room, or a sculpture depicting bestiality in the sitting room, can only barely be guessed at! Jews were very reluctant to associate or visit the homes of gentiles for fear of corruption, but this taboo must have started breaking down in the fledgling Christian communities that Paul was founding. The display of human sexuality in art was entirely accepted in Roman society. It is a measure of the effect of Jewish attitudes to the naked human form that its portrayal in art died out from the forth century right up to the time of the Renaissance in the fifteenth century. Even the first Christian Emperor Constantine was criticized by contemporary Christian commentators. Jerome sniffily remarks that the Emperor "had virtually the entire city filled with nudes." But then Jerome found all human sexuality repellant.

The extraordinary sexual profligacy of Roman society went right up to the highest levels. Juvenal cites the incredible case of the Empress Agrippina, wife of the Emperor Claudius, who at night used to leave the royal palace and serve in a brothel for the sheer lust of it. Nero who followed Claudius on the throne had a favourite boy slave Sporus, whom he had castrated, dressed in women's clothes renamed as a woman and married to himself as wife. (Told by Suetonius, Nero XXV111). The use of slaves for sexual purposes was common and was widely criticised. These boys were frequently castrated to prolong their usefulness, the horror of the life of a sexual slave in a Roman brothel must have been appalling. A sad example is described by Seneca. The boy now a man was a wine server at banquets, there forced to wear women's clothes kept beardless by hair removal, "dividing his time between his master's drunkenness and his lust. In the chamber he must be a man (vir) at the feast a boy (puer). (Seneca Epistle XLV11 7. Trans. R.M. Gummere 1925)

Paul was deeply shocked by the rejection of restraint, the flouting of convention and the lack of moral consensus which for him homosexuality symbolized. It was a rebellion against God "He and the Stoics agree on the whole in their account of unseemly things but for Paul they are unseemly not because they are anti social but because they are indicative of rebellion against God." (`The Epistle to the Romans' C.K. Barret p.40). This is different from the emphasis placed on similar vices by pagan commentators. In so far as they denounced `vice' at all, they did so because of its anti social character rather than because it might violate some God given sanctions. So in the case of fornication for example, it was treated like over indulgence in food or drink; it only became a subject worthy of condemnation if it became a social problem. For Paul however it was the proof that God had abandoned pagan society. "No feature of Pagan society filled the Jew with greater loathing than the toleration, or rather admiration, of homosexual practices. Paul is entirely at one here with his compatriots; but his disgust is more that instinctive. In the obscene pleasures to which he refers, is to be seen precisely that perversion of the created order which may be expected when men put the creation in place of the creator. That idolatry has such consequences is to Paul a plain mark of God's wrath." (Ibid. p.39). Dr Barret is clearly influenced in the vehemence of his comments by his own feelings on the subject of homosexual behaviour, but his assessment of Paul's feelings are probably not far from the mark.

Most people observed the outward conventions of pagan religion but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that agnosticism and atheism were widespread. People no longer believed in the things which had previously given purpose and shape to their lives. Paul believed that this moral vacuum would inevitably lead to terrible consequences for a society that had abandoned God; murder, anger, disputes, the naked lust for power (v29-31) and eventually the collapse of society itself.

Paul was not alone in taking this extremely gloomy view. Pagan writers of the time made an equally bleak assessment. When Tacitus came to write his history of the period (which included the war of the four emperors, and widespread social unrest, all within a decade of Paul's letter) he wrote, "I am entering upon the history of a period, rich in disasters, gloomy with wars, rent with seditions, savage in its very hour of peace . . . all was one delirium of hate and terror; slaves were bribed to betray their masters, freedmen their patrons. He who had no foe was destroyed by his friend." (The Histories). No one was to be trusted, "The most readily purchased commodity on the market was an advocate's treachery." (Tacitus Annals X1.2 Penguin p.227) Suetonius writing in the reign of Tiberius said, "No day passed but someone was executed." From the death of Augustus to the reign of Trajan was a time of terror. "Rome," said Livy, could neither bare its ills nor the remedies that might have cured them." The poet Propertius wrote, "I see Rome, proud Rome, perishing the victim of her own prosperity." Juvenal viewed the gloomy scene with his accustomed cynicism, "The nation no longer brings forth any but bad men and cowards. Hence God, whoever he is, looks down, laughs at them and hates them." For him the gods might laugh but for Suetonius it was the despair just beneath the surface that he saw. It was an age ". . . stricken with the agitation of a soul no longer master of itself."

Paul was not exaggerating then in his pessimistic and highly critical assessment of the society around the young churches he was founding. The Christian message came to this beleaguered society like a breath of fresh air and this more than anything else explains why the faith spread so quickly across the empire and amongst all sections of society.

However it is fair to ask at this point whether Paul was right to associate the general decay in society with the prevalence of homosexual behaviour. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexual behaviour either causes or is a sign of social collapse. Certainly many people even today believe it, without any facts to back up their beliefs. As Moritz Goldstien said on the subject of anti semitism, "We can easily reduce our detractors to absurdity and show them that their accusations are groundless. But what does this prove? That their hatred is real. When every slander has been rebutted, every misconception cleared up, every false opinion about us overcome, intolerance itself will remain finally irrefutable." (`Deutch-judischer Parnass')

In fact the contrary of popular prejudice is often the case, homosexuals are frequently associated with the most creative and artistic sections of society. Nor can it be said that homosexuality is linked to non belief or the secularising forces in society, again the contrary is actually the case. Sometimes one is tempted to feel that the criticism levelled at homosexual life styles is really a jealous reaction against the freer life styles of single people in general, whether heterosexual or homosexual. They do not follow the conventional family pattern that many people who do lead it find restricting and demanding. Single people and in particular gay people, are often accused of being selfish. Indeed the Bishop of Rochester accused married couples without children of selfishness!

What is true is that in a society like that of Rome in the first century AD, wholly given over to the pursuit of sensuality, the awareness of God will diminish and human sexuality of either orientation will reflect the general moral decline.

This passage is the only unquestioned condemnation of homosexual behaviour, as such, in the New Testament. Here sexual acts, para phusin `against' or `more than' nature, are seen by Paul as a rejection of God's authority. The Greek word here `para' strictly does not mean `against' which is how it is usually translated, but `in excess of' (It's translated as `more than' in the preceding verse and in other places in the New Testament.) The most usual Greek word for `opposition to' is `kata'. This has lead some commentators (Professor John Boswell) to suggest that what Paul is condemning here is not homosexuality as such but indulging in homosexual behaviour when you are really heterosexual, that is, doing something which is contrary to your own nature. There is some evidence that this in part, was how it was seen by some early Christian scholars like St John Chrysostom, who felt that it was important that the men and women involved had previously enjoyed satisfactory heterosexual relations. The problem here is that Paul and his contemporaries would not have understood our idea of `homosexuality' for which they had no equivalent word. They certainly understood homosexual behaviour but the idea that a person could be homosexual by nature, to the exclusion of any other sexual activity, and for whom heterosexual activity could be described as `unnatural' in that it would be against their nature, would have been unknown.

If this is true, then the Bible does not address the issues that need to be addressed by Christians today and any biblical judgements against homosexual acts may not be relevant to a debate on `homosexuality'. How we should apply this passage to our own time and experience will depend on how much weight we want to give to the social context of this passage and the probability that Paul is alluding to cultic or abusive and exploitative forms of sexual behaviour, such as the holding of slaves as sexual objects and sex with young boys. It also depends on what weight we want to give to new understandings of the nature of human sexuality and sexual orientation which have been developed over the last century of psychological study. If it is correct that some people are born homosexual with no realistic possibility of change, a concept with which Paul would have been unfamiliar, would it therefore mean that Paul's words are invalid? Or might it even mean that Paul's words teach us that for someone who is homosexual by nature, it would be unnatural (kata phusin) or exceeding their usual nature (para phusin) to indulge in heterosexual sexual relations?

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10

Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God's kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers, neither the effeminate, the perverted or the thief; neither the swindler, the drunkard, the foul mouthed or the rapacious shall have any share in the kingdom of God.

This passage is the first in Christian literature to refer to homosexual behaviour.

This is what scholars call a catalogue of vices, it is a list of evil habits strung together with no very obvious connection between them or a clear sequence. Paul uses this form several times in his writings. In this case St Paul is clearly concerned about sexual immorality in the Corinthian church. It seems that a man has begun to live with his father's wife, another has been consorting with prostitutes, and there has been recourse to secular courts. None of these of course has anything to do with homosexuality. Underlying Paul's displeasure is his concern for the purity of the community. In fact there are three lists in this section each one longer than the last. It is only in the last that there may be a reference to homosexuality. The curious thing is that these lists do not have any close relationship with the problems in the church that Paul was concerned about. They seem to be a traditional form which he has used.

In this passage we are confronted with a linguistic problem. I have used the Phillips translation. In this, the Greek words `malakoi' and arsenokoitai, have been translated as `effeminate' and `perverted'. The R.S.V. and the Good News Bible lump the two together as `homosexuals' and `homosexual perverts'. The Jerusalem Bible says `catamites' and `sodomites'. The N.E.B. again lumps the two together and says `those guilty of homosexual perversion.' In fact the exact denotation is not clear. (I have chosen Phillips because I think that is the most accurate.) `Malakos' may mean soft when it is applied to clothing. As in Luke 7:25, when Jesus asked the people why they had gone out in the desert to see John the Baptist. "Well what was it you went out to see? A man dressed in soft raiment?" (alla ti edzelthate idein; anthropon malakois himatius emphiesmenon;" . It is a very common word in Greek and can mean `sick' (Matthew 11:8;) It can mean also mild or gentle or soft or effeminate when applied to people; it is because of this last meaning that it has often been assumed that it refers to the person who takes the passive role in anal intercourse, but there is no linguistic or other authority for this interpretation. Professor John Boswell (`Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality' p106ff) Says of the word "At a broad level it might be translated as either `unrestrained' or `wanton'" neither of which translations has anything to do as such with homosexual practices. It is largely because it is put next to `arsenokoitos' which has a stronger association with homosexual sex that it is assumed to refer to homosexual behaviour. In the writings of Dionysius of Harlicanasus there is a description of a ruler whose nickname was malakos, he wonders why he got this name; it was given "either because he became effeminate (theludria) as a child . . or because he was gentle by nature." (Roman Antiquities V11 2.4.) There are other texts where malakos more strongly suggested homosexual behaviour. The speaker in the `Erotikos' speaks of the willing youth consenting to pederastic intercourse as one who acts with malakia. "Thus the use of malakos would almost certainly call up images of the effeminate call boy; if the context otherwise suggested pederastic activities." (R.Scroggs `The New Testament and Homosexuality' p.65). If this is Paul's meaning it is odd that he didn't use a more technical term. The lover `erastes' the boy `eromenos', or `paidika', to give the body for purposes of intercourse `charidzesthai', even the literal `lover of boys' `paiderasteia' was common enough.

`Arsenokoitos' may mean more generally `sodomite' though it suggests also promiscuity, `koitos' in Romans 13:13 means sexual excess. A correct translation of `arsenokoitoi' may be `promiscuous homosexuals'. The French version of the Jerusalem Bible refers to promiscuity. It can also mean weak, corrupt and promiscuous people. Arsenokoitos is a compound noun made up of two words `arsen' and `koite'. They are used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament prohibitions against homosexual behaviour. "With a male (arsen) you shall not lie the intercourse (koite lit. bed) of a woman, both have done an abomination." And, "Whoever lies with a male (arsen) the intercourse (koite) of a woman, both have done an abomination." Arsenokoitos is an almost exact translation of the rabbinical Hebrew words `mishkau zekor' `lying with a male' which was a term for homosexual acts. Arsenokoitos may therefore be a Hellenistic Jewish word for homosexual behaviour. The word does not appear in contemporary Greek writing which also suggests the Jewish connection. One wonders how familiar the readers of the Corinthian letter would have been with this term. The precise nature of the sexual activity is not known for certain but if as is likely the word malakos suggests an effeminate call boy the word arsenokoitois may refer to the man who hires him. Since in Rabbinical discussion the mishkau zekor is the active not the passive partner, it is likely that it would function in the same way in the Greek version. It may be therefore that Paul is condemning homosexual prostitution where one of the partners assumes the style and role of a woman.

Professor Boswell (ibid p.349) points out that as late as the twelfth century, Peter Cantor's listing of passages condemning homosexuality did not include either 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 or 1 Timothy 1:10, a strange omission if homosexual activity was the generally accepted meaning of the passage.

I hesitate to criticize so distinguished an interpreter of the scriptures as Professor William Barclay whose `Daily Study Bible' has been a god-send to me and most other preachers of sermons for nearly forty years. However his comments about this passage cannot go unchallenged. He is quite clear that Paul has homosexual behaviour in mind in this passage and goes on to say; "In this particular vice, in the time of the early church, the world was lost to shame; and there can be little doubt that this was one of the main reasons of its degeneracy and the final collapse of its civilization." (The Daily Study Bible. Revised Edition. `The Letter to the Corinthians' p.54) In writing this nonsense I'm afraid Dr Barclay has allowed his own feelings to cloud his judgement. Whatever reasons may be put forward for the final collapse of the Western Roman Empire - some four hundred years after Paul wrote his letters and when the empire was Christian - or indeed any other empire before or since, it was certainly not the prevalence of homosexual behaviour.

It seems difficult now to believe that effeminacy, (or for that matter swearing or drunkenness,) of itself will be enough to deny a person a place in heaven. Clearly Paul must have had something else in mind. We have already looked at Philo's criticism of effeminate call boys in Alexandria in the bible-study on the laws referring to homosexual behaviour in Leviticus. Clearly there was a strong Jewish aversion to the fashionable Greek practices of shaving and careful grooming of hair. Clement of Alexandria was still railing against such things in the Alexandria of his day some 300 years after Paul. "Is it not womanish for a man to have his hair combed slick, putting each lock in place before a mirror, and to have himself shaved with a razor, for appearance sake, to have his chin shaved and the hair plucked out and made completely smooth?" Clement had no doubt what this implied. "Their utter shamelessness in public is a sure proof of their wilful depravity in private. He who disowns his manhood by light of day will, beyond the least shadow of doubt, prove himself a woman at night." (Clement, Paidagogos 111. 3 15f trans. Clement of Alexandria S.P. Wood 1954). Perhaps Paul too saw effeminate boys plying their trade around Corinth and the other places he visited and with his Jewish aversion, and religious sensitivity, to shaving and hair cutting, was led to condemn people who seemed to be denying the bodies God had given them. It is always tempting to believe that our concerns and prejudices are the same as God's.

Paul was writing at a time when even pagan writers (eg. Seneca and Plutarch) were increasingly critical of the exploitation and self indulgence of homosexual acts against slaves and young boys. It seems clear too that he was thinking of anal intercourse which was a strong taboo among the Jewish people, perhaps because in part it was associated with an act of conquest. This was so, particularly among the Egyptians, according to the research of J. Edgar Bron (Old Testament History and the growth of a sexual Ethic.) He quotes a story which appears in the Egyptian Myth `The contending of Horus and Seth' where Seth dominated Horus by raping him. Such an act was seen to undermine the very foundations of patriarchal society in which the dignity of the male was seen to be of crucial importance. To be the receptive partner in an act of homosexual anal intercourse would certainly be seen by Paul and his Jewish contemporaries as unmanly and a gross misuse of the body given to him by God. (There is some evidence of this prejudice in Roman society too, Julius Caesar was teased because of his homosexual affairs during his youth when it was assumed he had taken the passive role during intercourse.) Clearly also in a society so concerned with cleanliness there would have been a strong and negative association of the anus with elimination and dirt. Both these taboos are still in force today, even though anal intercourse in heterosexual relationships is not uncommon.

1 TIMOTHY 1:9-10

Yes the law is directed against the sort of people who attack their parents, who kill their fellows who are sexually uncontrolled or perverted or who traffic in the bodies of others. (Phillips).

Paul is writing here to Timothy the leader of the church at Ephesus. Always a rather tentative man, Timothy was having problems with false teachers who were threatening the life of the church. It seems likely that Jewish Gnostic teachers (an early heresy which believed that in order to pass through the spheres around the earth inhabited by evil spirits to get to the heavenly realms special knowledge, gnosis, was required) were making false interpretations about certain Old Testament laws though it is also possible that the law in question is the ordinary civil law of the Empire.. Paul having denounced their teaching goes on to describe the real purpose of the law. It supports and compliments the Gospel by forbidding everything which opposes its teaching. The law is there to restrain and convict evil doers. We now have one of the lists of offences so beloved by Paul. It follows the second part of the ten commandments but paraphrased into the grossest examples. These evil doers lack moral standards, reverence for God, a sense of the holy, and are without regard for family relations, human life, sexual purity and social good faith.

Again I have used the J.B Phillips translation which seems to me most closely follows the meaning of the Greek here. It is the three groups of people of which arsenokoitai is the second which is of interest to this study `pornois', `arsenokoitai' and `andrapodistes'. The significance comes from the fact that these three are put together. The word pornos in ordinary Greek use means a male prostitute. It appears in the New Testament in other places where it seems to have a wider meaning of sexual offences in general, but the usual meaning is the most likely, arsenokoitais we have already looked at. The third word andropodistais means kidnapper or slave dealer. Putting these three words together suggests that Paul is saying that prostitutes, those who employ them and those who have forced people into prostitution are condemned by the law and have no place in the Kingdom. Such behaviour was fundamentally opposed to God's purpose for sexuality. As we have already said there were certainly brothels staffed with boys in Rome and there is some evidence to suggest that there was sexual tourism, with wealthy people from the north of the Mediterranean travelling to the south to enjoy the sexual favours of the flesh-pots of north Africa.

Sexual tourism is still in the news at the present time with rich westerners going to the far east to indulge in sex with children. We know too that there are many women from the countries of eastern Europe who have been lured to the west with promises of work only to find that they are working as prostitutes. Young black men in such holiday destinations as the Gambia and other parts of west Africa have learned the ways of prostitution from wealthy Scandinavian women. It is exactly this kind of situation that St Paul is addressing.

1 PETER 2:6

God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying them with fire and made them an example of what will happen to the godless.

Peter uses three examples from the Old Testament to show that God will not hesitate to punish evil-doers; the fall of the angels, the flood and the destruction of Sodom. "God did not spare the angels who sinned but threw them into hell . . . . God did not spare the ancient world but brought the flood on the world of godless people . . . . God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying them by fire, and made them an example of what will happen to the godless." (11 Peter 2:4-6). It is not quite clear what the fall of the angels refers to, perhaps Genesis 6:1-5, such an image would be more common in the Book of Enoch. The angels are called the `sons of god'. It is a peculiar and obscure story but one which was well known in Peter's time. The angels took mortal wives who gave birth to a race of giants. " the sons of God saw the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose." (Gen 6.2) These creatures, the result of these unions, were guilty of cannibalism and every other imaginable vice. They were said to inhabit the land of Canaan and the mention of them could make the people afraid. (Numbers 13:33) The people pleaded to God who sent his Archangels to kill the giants and bind the angels in the dark pit.

The people of Noah's time, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and the angels all sinned and were punished, that is the point of the story. Intriguing as the idea of bedding an angel might appear to us (as it clearly also was for the people of the first century) it is very difficult for us to apply these stories to our own situation. As the angel said to Barbarella "An angel can't make love, he is love!" We just cannot separate the message from their fantastical contents and so appreciate their relevance.

The fact remains that in all this, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah which brought down such punishment, is not specified.

JUDE 1:7-8

Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the near by towns whose people acted as those angels did and indulged in sexual immorality and perversion: GNB. (and going after strange flesh -AV) they suffer the punishment of the eternal fire as a plain warning to all. (stand out as an example undergoing as they do a punishment of eternal fire. - Kelly) In the same way these people have visions (dreams -Kelly) which makes them sin against their own bodies. -GNB.

This is a parallel text to the previous verses from 11 Peter. Once again the writer is concerned about false teachers and their effect on the church. Once again they are compared with evil characters in the Old Testament. What is significant here though is that the sin of Sodom is clearly described as promiscuity and perversion. Here the words are `ekporneosasai' Keri apelthousai opisoe sarkos heteras' these are not words which are used to describe homosexual activity. the words actually mean `promiscuous behaviour' and `indulging in strange flesh'. The (translators of the Authorized Version of the Bible were more accurate.) This is similar to the reference in 11 Peter which we have already looked at and in the `Book of Jubilees' and is clearly another reference to the potential relationship between humans and angels. Verse 6 refers to the angels failing in their appointed office. In his commentary on Jude, J.N.D.Kelly examines the possibility that `went after strange flesh' (heteras sarkos) refers to homosexual activity. Kelly asserts that the Greek cannot support this, "it simply states that the flesh that they desired was different (these good angels appeared in human form, but their flesh presumably was different in kind) whereas as J.Chain aptly remarks `in a homosexual relationship the fleshly natures are only too similar!" (`A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude' J.N.D. Kelly p258-9) The reference here then is not to the men of the cities lust for people of their own sex but to the similarity of their behaviour to that of the wicked angels. Verse 8 however is a clearer reference to homosexual behaviour. Jude has already accused the false teachers, the object of his letter, of licentiousness, here he may be making a rather snide suggestion that this includes homosexual behaviour too.

The Greek also suggests that the effects of the destruction are still visible. "Thus the present tense of `stand out' (prokeintai) and the adjective `everlasting' (aiowniou) are intended to impress on readers that the appalling effects of the catastrophe are still visible for all to see and note with dread." (ibid. p259).

Whether or not Jude had homosexual behaviour in mind, other Jewish writers from the second century BC on, were interpreting the sin of Sodom as being that of homosexuality. It seems to have begun with Jewish patriots who were appalled and shocked by the Greek styles of life they saw around them following their conquest by Alexander the Great. This interpretation was taken up by more mainstream writers like Philo of Alexandria, "The Land of the Sodomites was brimful of innumerable iniquities," he wrote "Particularly such as arise from gluttony and lewdness . . . . (the inhabitants) threw off from their necks the law of nature, and applied themselves to the deep drinking of strong liquor and dainty feeding and forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbours, but also men mounted men without respect for the nature the active partner shares with the passive. And so when they tried to beget children they were discovered to be incapable of any but sterile seed." (this reminds one of the, now rather hilarious, passages in `Scouting for Boys' which warn of the dangers of masturbation.) This interpretation of the Sodom legend, all be it stripped of its more fanciful elements, became the accepted norm amongst early church leaders and teachers. (Though as I said in the study of Genesis 19, the story itself, earlier in this book, this was not the universally accepted interpretation.) Philo was undoubtedly influenced in his interpretation by his disapproval of the society he saw around him where sexual license and homosexual behaviour was open and generally tolerated. Now for the first time influential writers are saying that the destruction of these cities is a result of homosexual perversion and that they are a symbol of God's judgement against these evil doers which cannot be escaped. This interpretation has been accepted by large parts of the church up till the present time.

These writers were not so influential that they were able to change Roman law which was still tolerant towards homosexuality. Their ideas however did influence Christian writing as is shown in these letters of Peter and Jude. Following the adoption of Christianity as the imperial religion, Judaeo Christian moral ideas began to influence state law. The Emperor Justinian believed that blasphemy and homosexuality were equally impious. Because of such crimes he believed, there were famines and earthquakes and pestilence; "Wherefore we admonish men to abstain from the aforementioned acts that they lose not their souls." He went on to order the city prefect to inflict severe punishment on persons convicted (castration and public display) "That the city and state may not come to harm by reason of such wickedness." (Justinian Novella 77 1-2 issued in AD538)

It was during his reign that an outbreak of the plague killed a third of the population of Constantinople. (AD541) To the Emperor and the church alike it was clear proof that their assessment had been correct. When the plague died out another Novella was issued. "Though we stand always in need of the kindness and goodness of God, yet is this specifically the case at this time, when in various ways we have provoked him to anger on account of the multitude of our sins . . . . we ought to abstain from those acts - and especially . . . . the defilement of males which some men sacrilegiously and impiously attempt, perpetrating vile acts with other men." The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as described in the scriptures is God's way of saying that . . . . by means of legislation we may avert such an untoward fate." (Novella 141 preamble and paragraph 1)

Thus by easy stages a biblical story about the destruction of two otherwise unknown towns, for unspecified sins, was transformed by Jewish disapproval of Greek and Roman habits, and then by Christian revulsion at `sins against nature' and a desire to find a scapegoat for a natural disaster, into an erroneous portrayal of homosexuals as a danger to the state.

The first person to actually talk about `Sodomy' as a description of homosexual behaviour seems to have been Peter Damian in his `Book of Gomorrah'. This is an interesting piece of polemic, not least because it is so similar to the sort of thing one hears from some sections of the church today. It was addressed to Pope Leo IX who reigned from 1048-1054, who was exhorted to stamp out this vice amongst the clergy. Peter Damian says that people guilty of `sodomitic vice' should be removed from church office, and those practising the vice customarily (consuetudinaliter) should not be ordained. Indeed he says that customary masturbation or a single act of intrafemoral fornication is enough to bar someone from church office. That just about rules out every priest that has ever been ordained! He described the various acts with such relish and detail, self pollution, mutual grasping of the `manly parts' (virilia), pollution `between the thighs' (inter femora) and fornication `in the rear' (in terga), that later writers quoting his work felt obliged to censor it! This was not the last time that those who profess the most horror for a particular `vice' reveal their own fascination (attraction?) for it by the amount of effort they expend condemning it.

At other times and in other places unpopular and vulnerable minorities, like the gay people of sixth century Constantinople, whether it's Jews in 15th century Spain, Huguenots in 16th century France, or Catholics in the London of 1666 and most tragically Jews in this century, were blamed for the ills and disasters of society. Always such blame is the result of ignorance, prejudice and fear and it is always unjust.

CONCLUSION

It seems clear to me that biblical writers and compilers considered homosexuality as an aberration at odds with God's plan for creation. "He created them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," as one outraged American evangelist put it with unconscious humour. It rendered the participants ritually unclean, put them outside the community of faith, and by association tainted them with foreign idolatrous pagan practices.

St Paul went still further; he too associated homosexual behaviour with a rejection of the norms of society as laid down by God, but he saw it as a further sign of the imminent collapse of society. A gloomy view shared, all be it for different reasons by many of his contemporaries both Jewish and Graeco Roman.

Early Christians, who were nearly always Jews or pagans strongly attracted to and influenced by, their local Jewish community, the so called `god fearers', were shocked like St Paul by the lack of moral standards in human relationships. Homosexual behaviour was one more sign of rebellion and lack of commitment. As Christians rose higher in the imperial structures and in particular when the emperors themselves were christian, homosexuality was legally proscribed and has remained so until very recently.

When Christians today condemn homosexual behaviour as a sin and contrary to God's purpose they invariably quote the Bible to back up their arguments. Put crudely, but I don't think unfairly, the argument goes `Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible: the Bible is the word of God: ergo, homosexual behaviour is sinful.' Actually, as I said at the beginning of this book these people are not being honest. The reason they condemn homosexual behaviour is because they are homophobic, the Bible is simply an excuse.

I hope I shall show in the next chapter that we now accept that the Bible reflects the culture and beliefs of the times it was written and of the many different people who wrote and revised it. It is an uncertain moral guide and much of its teaching and many of its attitudes, have been rejected as no longer acceptable. To suggest therefore that we can uncritically base our own standards of behaviour on the cultural attitudes of Jews in the first century of the Christian era, let alone on the attitudes of a semi nomadic people a thousand years before that, is not plausible.