It’s no secret that I am fully affirming of LGBTQ+ people and equal marriage. It’s also no secret that my position on this is shaped in large part by my reading of the Bible, centred on Jesus and the surprising work of the Spirit.

However, it’s not enough for me to say, “Here’s what I think is a better way of reading the Bible related to sexuality, gender, and marriage.” It’s also important to put the spotlight on some really bad takes on a few biblical passages, not to win a debate, but because these bad takes have caused—and continue to cause—tremendous harm to LGBTQ+ folks.

Here are four of those Bad Bible Takes that cause real-life harm.

Bad Bible Take #1: Sodom and Gomorrah were judged by God because of homosexuality.

I get it. On the surface it sure looks like that’s what’s going on in Genesis 19, since you’ve got “the men of Sodom” wanting to have sex with the visiting angels, described as “men.”

But it’s hard to imagine that all “the men of the city” of Sodom, “all the people to the last man,” were gay. And more importantly, the sex being described is not based on sexual attraction; it is violent rape, which is always about power and control more than it is about sex. (Prepare your innocent eyes here: the rape of not just women, but also men, by heterosexual male soldiers has not been an uncommon feature of warfare through human history.)

The true sin of Sodom in this story is that, not only did the Sodomites refuse to extend hospitality to the strangers in their midst (like that modeled by Abraham in the previous chapter), they responded to these strangers with violence, wanting to brutalize them and cast them out. One wonders if this was the way Sodom treated all those who were vulnerable and needy.

Which is exactly where Ezekiel 16:49-50 goes with the Sodom story: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.”

“Ah,” you might say, “but Jude says Sodom’s sin was homosexuality!” And you’d be wrong.

Jude 7 says, “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” The phrase “unnatural lust” is literally “lusting after different flesh,” and seems to be a reference to the men lusting after angels. (Think about it: it would be weird to describe same-sex lust as lusting after “different flesh”!).

But what about the “abominable things” that Ezekiel mentions? Could that be a reference to homosexuality? Well, it’s possible that they refer to the same thing being referenced in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which speak of a man “lying with a male as with a woman,” describing this as an “abomination” (same word in Hebrew). However, if that’s so, this actually helps us interpret Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, not the other way around—which leads to the next Bad Bible Take.

Bad Bible Take #2: The Law of Moses condemns homosexuality.

Again, I get it. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,” seems pretty straightforward. But there are a few things wrong with seeing this as a blanket condemnation of “homosexuality.”

First, these verses in Leviticus say nothing about female-female sex, only some form of male-male sex. And second, these verses say nothing about same-sex attraction, let alone sexual orientation. In other words, right off the bat these verses are not condemning everything that is meant today by “homosexuality”: a sexual orientation that involves same-sex attraction, either female-female or male-male, and which may or may not be expressed through same-sex sexual acts.

Third, the phrase “as with a woman” suggests that penetration is the specific sexual act being described. Not sexual orientation, not female-female sex acts, and not even all male-male sex acts: just male-male penetration. If this is the focus, this prohibition is probably alluding to patriarchal notions of sexual penetration being inherently a male act: men penetrate, women are penetrated. Considering Jesus upset many patriarchal notions in his day—including anticipating a time, already here, when men would no longer “marry” and women no longer “be given in marriage”—this would be an odd thing for Christians to double down on.

However, fourth, some scholars have suggested that the reference here is specifically to male-male sex as part of the idolatrous practices of Israel’s neighbours, and perhaps even to prostitution or pederasty within that idolatrous context. And here’s where the reference to Sodom in Ezekiel 16 can actually help understand what’s going on in Leviticus 18 and 20. Because Ezekiel 16 says a lot about sexual immorality and “abominations” in its comparison of Israel with Sodom—and it’s all about prostitution in the context of idolatry.

In other words, at the very least Leviticus 18 and 20 aren’t speaking to things like sexual orientation or even female-female sex. But it’s very likely these verses are not even speaking about all male-male sex either—only male-male sex that is idolatrous or exploitative in nature. Which leads to the next Bad Bible Take.

Bad Bible Take #3: Paul lists homosexuality among those sins that are contrary to sound teaching and keep one from the kingdom of God.

I’m speaking, of course, of the two “vice lists” in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11. Some English translations use the word “homosexual” in these lists of sins. But that’s a really bad—and harmful—translation of the word arsenokoitai. (It’s worth noting that no English translation before 1946 translated arsenokoitai as “homosexuals.”)

Arsenokoitai comes from two Greek words, meaning “man” and “lie with.” If that rings a bell, it should—it’s the language of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. In other words, whatever is being referenced as sexual immorality in these Leviticus verses is likely what’s being described as sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1.

And, as we’ve seen, that’s not “homosexuality” as some blanket term. It’s not about sexual orientation. It’s not about female-female sex. And it’s probably not even about all male-male sex, but particular male-male sex acts that are idolatrous or exploitative in nature. Which makes perfect sense in the context of these vice lists in 1 Corinthians  and 1 Timothy: “idolaters” and “slave traders” are listed right alongside arsenokoitai.

And this is a good segue to the fourth Bad Bible Take.

Bad Bible Take #4: Paul describes homosexuality as a sin which God gives people over to in judgment.

Yes, I’m now talking about Romans 1:26-27.

First, once again, this passage is only clearly speaking of male-male sex. Some translations have verse 26 describing women exchanging natural relations with unnatural relations “with other women”—but that last phrase is not there in Greek. The “unnatural relations” that women engage in are more likely “unnatural relations” with men, or, even more likely, with animals (Leviticus 20 once again may be in the background here, and bestiality is the one sin listed there which women are said to instigate).

Second, the male-male sex that is described has nothing to do with the sex that happens within a committed, loving relationship. It’s a sex motivated by lust and grounded in idolatry. In other words, like Leviticus 18 and 20, like 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, Paul in Romans 1 seems to be thinking of male-male sex acts that are idolatrous and exploitative.

None of these passages—not a one—is referring to “homosexuality” in general as we understand it today, let alone what we know of as same-sex marriage. These are all condemning harmful same-sex acts, in exactly the same way that the Bible condemns harmful heterosexual acts.

These are just Bad Bible Takes.

But the worst part about all these Bad Bible Takes is not their exegesis, but the harm they have caused.

Some of these Bad Bible Takes are more clearly wrong interpretations or translations than others, especially Takes #1 and #3. But the reality is that at least some biblical scholars who oppose same-sex marriage don’t look to these passages anymore to support their view. They know these passages are not as clear as they’ve been made out to be, and they may not even speak about “homosexuality” as we think of it today.

But even worse than the biblical interpretation behind these Bad Bible Takes is the fact that these have been used as “clobber passages,” heavy clubs to pound gay people into submission, shame, and silence. Even if non-affirming scholars don’t look to these passages anymore, they are still used every day on social media, in coffee shops, around kitchen tables—and in churches.

The result has been devastating—not just for gay, lesbian, and bisexual folks, who one might expect to receive the brunt of these particular “clobber passages,” but for people of all the letters and the plus of “LGBTQ+.” Queer youth generally have a higher risk of depression, suicide, homelessness, and being a victim of a violent crime than the average. But the risk of these things is even greater when their family rejects them, and even greater again when their community of faith rejects them. (For instance, see here.)

And part of that rejection is taking these Bad Bible Takes and wielding them like a club, and in doing so destroying these beloved children of God, bearers of the image of God.

May we leave these Bad Bible Takes behind and instead reach out to LGBTQ+ folks around us and among us with love, with tenderness, with compassion—and with full acceptance, even celebration, for who they are.

---

As I’ve indicated in this post, many non-affirming biblical scholars and theologians don’t primarily base their view on these passages. They appeal to a broader biblical theology of gender, sexuality, and marriage, claiming that the Bible supports a binary view of sex and gender and/or a “traditional view” of marriage as only heterosexual. I don’t find their arguments compelling, but it’s important to note that I’m not addressing those “better” arguments for a non-affirming view here. See “My Journey toward Being Affirming” for a broader biblical-theological argument for an affirming perspective.

© Michael W. Pahl