The church’s historical stance on gay/lesbian sex is mostly right, but not 100% right. An error crept in after the church stopped reading the Bible in the original Greek. I will partly break with tradition here, yet the tradition is mostly right with a single significant error.
Therefore, please don’t read this article if you aren’t open minded.
Let’s dive in.
There are three possible sexual combinations when you have two genders:
- Male/Female
- Male/Male/
- Female/Female
Obviously no one has a problem with (married) male/female sex, so we’ll ignore that. Further, the Bible clearly says that all sex outside of marriage is wrong. We’ll examine male/male sex and then female/female sex after a quick word on clarity.
Clarity in Biblical Exegesis
One of my biggest rules for theology is this: never base doctrine on verses that aren’t clear. There are some verses in the Bible which talk about gay (male/male) sex but aren’t perfectly clear if they are condemning it or something else. These verses are:
- Genesis 19:1-38
- Judges 19:1-30
- Jude 6-7
Nevertheless, I have written a brief synopsis of those passage and outlined why they aren’t clear. However, I recommend you don’t read my synopsis because these verses aren’t clear. I have included them below only for completeness.
Click here to expand my synopsis. (Not recommended because these verses aren't clear) Genesis 19:1-38 To save space, I won’t quote the entire passage. Lot has invited two men (angels as we discover later) to stay with him. Genesis 9:4-9 4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” 6 But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. 8 “Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. I am a great fan of clarity. This verse isn’t clear. The LGBT community will argue that Sodom’s sin here is rape, not desiring to engage in gay sex. The trouble is, the passage isn’t clear on what exactly the sin is. Depending on your belief, you can read it either way (rape or gay sex being the sin). I do not base doctrine on verses that are unclear, especially when I can go to verses that are clear. Therefore, I won’t comment on this passage because it’s less clear than some other Biblical passages. Judges 19:1-30 This is nearly exactly like the event in Genesis with Lot, only with a more disturbing outcome. A man and his concubine were traveling and invited to stay the night with an “old man” of a city they were passing. Judges 19:22-25 22 While they were celebrating, behold, the men of the city, certain worthless fellows, surrounded the house, pounding the door; and they spoke to the owner of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring out the man who came into your house that we may have relations with him.” 23 Then the man, the owner of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly. 24 “Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly against this man.” 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine and brought her out to them; and they raped her and abused her all night until morning, then let her go at the approach of dawn. Again, you could argue that the sin here is rape, not gay sex. They were looking for the man, but settled for the concubine; a woman. No clear indictment of male/male relations is given here. Again, you could say the “do not act so wickedly” referred to gay sex, but you could also argue it referred to the rape (which is certainly a wicked act). Like Genesis , it’s definitely not clear that they are referring to male/male sex. Jude 6-7 Now, the unclear New Testament passage. Jude 6-7 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. I simply don’t see a clear indictment of male/male sexual activity here. There is a way to read that passage that way in the English, but in the Greek it’s hard to make the case. The word translated “strange” is the Greek word “ἑτέρας ” (heteros), which is actually the root of the “hetero” part of heterosexual. Honestly, I don’t see a clear argument against male/male sexual relations in this verse. Okay, so it’s time to talk about the “clobber passages”. (The LGBT community calls them that because Christians use them to “clobber” them over their sexual practices). Basically, they are the verses in the Bible where homosexuality is clearly discussed. There are several passages in the Bible that talk about it. To be clear: the following passages only apply to male/male sexual relations. Ironically, the Bible treats male/male sex very differently than female/female sex. The verses are: We’ll talk about each of them in turn Context: the chapter begins in verses 1-5 with God saying He doesn’t want the Israelites to sin the same way that the Egyptians or Canaanites sinned. In verses 6-19, God lists all the people for who you shouldn’t “uncover the nakedness of” (a Hebrew idiom for sex). Now, let’s pick it up at verse 20 Leviticus 18:20-24 20 ‘You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her. 21 ‘You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD. 22 ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23 ‘Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. 24 ‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. The prohibition on male/male sex is clear. It’s sandwiched between two other sexual perversions: bestiality and adultery, both of which were serious enough for God to proscribe the death penalty. (as we’ll see soon). The word translated “abomination” in verse 22 is “תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה” (toebah). Some have argued that it simply means “ceremonially unclean”. However, that’s not supported by the text or its usage. It’s used over 100 times in the Old Testament. Every single time it’s translated similarly. You can look at every place it’s used here. Below is how it’s translated. (In the NASB) This word is used to describe the worship of idols, those who practice witchcraft, and other obviously immoral things. It’s even used to describe God’s opinion of burning babies alive on an altar to the pagan god Molech in Jeremiah 32:35. (Perhaps that’s why sacrificing babies in the fire – by “offering them to Molech” – is mentioned in verse 21.) This word doesn’t mean merely “unclean”. There are two other words with are used through this passage to mean “unclean”; this doesn’t mean that. In fact, in verse 27 says the defiling (or uncleanness) came from the abominations. Leviticus 18:27 27 (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled) From this verse, I don’t see how male/male sexual relations could be okay in God’s eyes. I’ll copy/paste with a few extra verses for context, but it’s almost the same as the previous verse in Leviticus. Leviticus 20:10-16 10 ‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 ‘If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 12 ‘If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 13 ‘If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 14 ‘If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst. 15 ‘If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal. 16 ‘If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. I want to point out: the penalty for all of these sexual sins is death. Male/male sex is right in the middle of the list. Despite God being super-clear and listing multiple instances of how they could happen, most of the sins in this passage boil down to adultery, bestiality, and male/male sex. In both places the Torah mentions male/male sex, it’s placed in the same category of adultery and bestiality. Those are serious sins, and male/male sex in mentioned in the same breath (figuratively speaking). The phrase “detestable act” is the same word used is Leviticus 18:22. As I said before, this word is used to describe idol worship, practicing witchcraft, and even child sacrifices to pagan gods. Again, male/male sex is counted among adultery and bestiality as the most serious sexual sins. (We know this because they were the only ones for which the death penalty was proscribed.) Again, it can’t simply mean “ceremonially unclean”. This word simply doesn’t mean that. (Often Hebrew words have multiple meanings and can be taken different ways; that’s not the case here.) Again: this only applies to male/male sexual relations. The Bible takes a different approach to female/female sex, which we’ll examine that soon. 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Many gay men say that this verse is mistranslated. I agree, but not for the reason they say. The word translated “homosexuals” is the Greek word “ἀρσενοκοίτης” (arsenokoites). It means: “a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity“, or more properly: 733 arsenokoítēs (from 730 /árrhēn, “a male” and 2845 /koítē, “a mat, bed”) – properly, a man in bed with another man; a homosexual. This word does refer to male/male sexual activity. However, it does not refer to female/female sexual activity. This word specifically – and only – means male/male sexual activity. Therefore, “homosexual” isn’t an accurate translation because that would include female/female sex also. The ESV captures this accurately. 1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, I have heard two explanations from the gay rights camp in an attempt to explain this verse away. To answer explanation #1, we simply need to back up a few words: The word translated “fornicators” is the Greek word “πόρνος” (pornos). It means: 4205 pórnos (from pernaō, “to sell off”) – properly, a male prostitute. 4205 (pórnos) is “properly, ‘a male prostitute‘ (so Xen., etc.); in the NT, any fornicator” (Abbott-Smith); i.e. anyone engaging in sexual immorality. See 4202 (porneia). It means anyone engaging in wrong sexual practices, but especially a male prostitute. Why would Paul repeat himself here? To answer explanation #2, there’s simply no evidence for it. We know it did happen in the culture of the time, but there’s no proof or evidence that’s what Paul is referring to. Obviously rape is wrong, but there’s no evidence that Paul is referring to it here. Further, we’ll examine to see if Paul is talking about pederasty in a moment when look at Roman 1:27 That said, looking at the Biblical context in Romans, Leviticus, and the force of God’s condemnation in the Old Testament, I see no reason not to take the word at it’s plain meaning. It literally means two men having sex, and says that is wrong. 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, Again, the Greek word ” ἀρσενοκοῖται” (arsenokoites), which is the same word we just discussed in 1 Corinthians 6:9. I see no reason to twist the plain meaning of the word here either. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. I see no way to explain verse 27 other than the plain meaning. This is especially true because there’s a Greek word here that often mistranslated to keep the Bible “clean”. The word that’s translated “with” in the phrase “men with men” is the Greek word “ἐν ” (en). It literally means “in”. 1722 en (a preposition) – properly, in (inside, within); (figuratively) “in the realm (sphere) of,” as in the condition (state) in which something operates from the inside (within). The phrase is literally “men in men”, or perhaps “men inside men”; an obvious reference to the anal intercourse that gay men engage in during sex. This is called an “indecent act” by Paul. Pederasty is when an adult male has (anal) sex with a pubescent or adolescent boy. This was actually quite common in the Greco-Roman empire, and was often forced. This is one of the most common answers to the New Testament passages by those who advocate for the homosexual lifestyle. They say Paul’s commands were prohibiting pederasty (rape) and not a “voluntary, consensual, monogamous relationship between two adult men“, which is how it’s often phrased. However, Romans 1:27 answers this quite clearly: 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men Notice the words “one another”, which are a single word in Greek. The word is “ἀλλήλων” (allélón) and it’s a reciprocal pronoun. What is a reciprocal pronoun? Here’s the definition from Webster’s Dictionary: a pronoun (such as each other) used when its referents are predicated to bear the same relationship to one another And from Grammar-Monster.com: A reciprocal pronoun is used to express a mutual action or relationship. There are two reciprocal pronouns: Romans 1:27 is describing a mutual relationship. Not a force one; a mutual one. They “burned in their desire toward one another”. This is clearly both voluntary and consensual, yet Paul still calls it an indecent act. It might sound nice to say that these bible passages are about pederasty and don’t condemn a “voluntary, consensual, monogamous relationship between two adult men“, but it’s not true. The Bible does clearly condemn that. I would argue that it clearly does so in the five places that we’ve looked at. However, even if I’m wrong about the other four, this one is perfectly clear. A “voluntary, consensual, monogamous relationship between two adult men” is wrong in God’s eyes. It seems to me that the Bible paints a consistent picture of male/male sex. From God’s opinion, it’s wrong and a sin at least on the level of adultery and bestiality. You may have noticed that every scripture we’ve examined so far deals specifically – and only – with male/male sex. Nothing in the Old Testament even mentions female/female sexual relations. It’s just not there. Further, the Rabbinic Sages were also completely silent on the topic. In fact, the Jews didn’t even mention it until at least the end of the fourth century AD. Even then, it wasn’t considered a serious sin (more a “slap on the wrist” type thing). The New Testament is equally silent. There’s only one place that might talk about it, but the true meaning is frequently missed. Romans 1:26-27 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. There’s a couple things to keep in mind. Let me explain. (And you can double check everything I’m about to say by looking at Romans 1:26 in an interlinear bible.) To start with, both men and women are mentioned, you just can’t tell in English. In English, we only have the gender neutral words “they/them/theirs” for a third person pronoun. Our word “they” doesn’t convey gender. However, the Greek word equivalent to our word “they” is “αὐτός” (autos); it can and does convey gender here. So let’s look at the verse with gender included: Romans 1:26 26 For this reason God gave them (Masculine pronoun) over to degrading passions; for their (Masculine possessive pronoun) women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, Who is being given over? Answer: the men. In fact, you could translate it something like this: Romans 1:26 (my modified version) 26 For this reason God gave the men over to degrading passions; for the men’s women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, Yes that’s awkward English (“the men’s women”), but it accurately conveys the gender of the original Greek. Rendering the original gender of the word makes it clear that both men and women are involved here. Remember, it’s the men who were given over to “degrading passions”. (That’s important.) The Greek word translated “function” is the Greek word “χρῆσιν” (chrésis). According to Strong’s Concordance, it means: 5540 From chraomai; employment, i.e. (specially), sexual intercourse (as an occupation of the body) — use. Chrésis means intercourse; intercourse. Not outer-course (referring to non-penetrative sexual activity), but intercourse (referring specifically to penetrative sexual activity). Chrésis requires penile penetration to be applicable. Without penile penetration, it’s not chrésis. Period. I’m not the only one who thinks this either. The following quote is from David J. Murphy, who has a PhD. in Classics and taught Latin and Greek for many years. When it refers to one person’s sexual activities with another person, though, chresis is assigned to the man, who was expected to penetrate someone and thus, “use” that person—a woman, a boy, a male slave. Early Christian writers as well speak of the husband’s having “use” of the wife (Clement, Stromateis 3.11.71.4; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 110; Athenagoras, Legation 32.1). As far as I have found in the sources, chresis as sexual activity always is associated with penetration. … I do not know a case where the penetrated partner is said to have sexual “use” of the penetrating partner. It is not surprising, then, that David E. Frederickson has found no case where chresis refers to female homoeroticism (“Natural and Unnatural Use in Romans 1:24-27,” in Homosexuality, Science and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture, ed. David L. Balch, Grand Rapids 2000, 197-222: 201). … On the other hand, this symmetry between the chresis phrases within v. 26b makes problems for the “lesbian” interpretation. What is supposed to happen in “chresis against nature” if we have two females? If neither penetrates the other, there is no chresis. Source (emphasis added) To summarize: Two women cannot engage in “chresis” = penetrative sex because neither has the anatomy required to do so. (nor does any woman) That means that Paul cannot be referring to female/female sex – which is always non-penetrative sex – in verse 26 because women can’t have chrésis (sexual penetration/intercourse) because they lack the required equipment (a penis). As we’ve already covered, verse 27 was specifically about anal intercourse (though in the context of male/male sex). This asymmetry between v. 26b and v. 27 reflects typical gender expectations, in which Paul looks at the penetrative act from the point of view, first, of the penetrated female, and then, from the standpoint of the penetrating male. Only the male has use “of” the other partner. In other words, in “natural chresis,” the females start out being penetrated by males, and they do not have “use” of anyone. In “unnatural chresis,” the females again are penetrated by males, and again they do not have “use” of anyone. They have only switched the orifice they presented for penetration. Source (emphasis added) This well agrees with the context of verse 27 talking about anal sex. Verse 27 opens with “in the same way” or “likewise” depending on your translation, then speaks about men engaging in anal sex. The Greek word that’s translated “in the same way” or “likewise”, is “ὁμοίως” (homoiós). Romans 1:26-27 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. “Homoiós” is an adverb, and adverbs describe or modify verbs. Therefore, it describes what someone is doing. (Our English word “likewise” lacks this specificity centered on action.) Homoiós is used 31 times in the Bible, and every single time it refers to similarity of action. Since verse 27 begins with homoiós, we can be sure that the same action that was performed in verse 27 (anal sex) is also being performed in verse 26. I might translate homoiós here as “doing the same thing”. Further, the Greek at the end of verse 26 supports the anal interpretation vs the lesbian interpretation. Here’s the verse in the ESV, which is slightly more literal in this passage than the NASB I’ve been quoting. (A rare occurrence, as my article on the best Bible translations makes clear.) Romans 1:26 (ESV) 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; The word translated “contrary” is the Greek word “παρά” (para). It’s where we get our English word “parallel”, and it means: 3844 pará (a preposition) – properly, close beside. 3844 /pará (“from closely alongside”) introduces someone (something) as very “close beside.” 3844 (pará) an emphatic “from,” means “from close beside” (“alongside”). It stresses nearness (closeness) which is often not conveyed in translation. 3844 (pará) is typically theologically significant, even when used as a prefix (i.e. in composition). 3844 (pará) usually adds the overtone, “from close beside” (implying intimate participation) and can be followed by the genitive, dative, or accusative case – each one conveying a distinct nuance. I won’t go full Greek language geek on you because I’ll lose 90% of my readers. You just need to know that in this verse it’s paired with the accusative case, and thus has the following additional nuance of meaning. The primary meaning of the word is “very close beside”, with the added nuance of “contrary to” when followed by a word the accusative case (which it is here). So it primarily means “very close beside”, but the additional meaning of “contrary to” is tacked on. There is a Greek word here that no major translation includes. None. Not even one. It’s the Greek conjunction “τέ” (te, pronounced “teh”) 5037 té (a conjunction) – “and both” (“both and“). 5037 /té (“and both“) occurs 204 times in the NT and unfortunately is often not translated. [When translated, 5037 (té) is usually rendered “and,” “both and,” or “and both.”]
It means “both and“, and is used all over the New Testament. One example of a typical usage in ordinary conversation would be: “Yesterday, té (both) Mary and John went to the store.” Even when té is translated, it’s often only translated “and” while the “both” component is ignored. In fact, té is used 7 times in Romans chapter 1, but most translations only have the word “both” 3 or 4 times. While much of the time that’s (sort of) okay because it doesn’t change the meaning, that’s not the case with this verse. The “both” component is vitally important here. So here’s the verse with té inserted in its proper location. Remember, té means “both and” Romans 1:26 (my modified version) 26 For this reason, God gave the men over to degrading passions; for té their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, Remember, té means “both and”. Now, a quirk of Greek is that it likes to omit nouns and pronouns where we’d need them in English. That’s mostly because Greek is more flexible in some ways than English. Many translations will italicize words that the translators added for clarity, so many have italicized pronouns. English needs them, Greek doesn’t. Since té means “both and”, we need to decide who the two parties are. The second party is obvious: “their women”. The first party is almost as obvious, because there’s only two other parties mentioned in the verse: “the men” and “God”, and it’s obviously not God. Further, as previously explained we’ll need to add a pronoun to compensate for the limitations of English. To make the addition clear, I’ll make the added pronoun blue. So here’s what that verse looks like with that understanding. Romans 1:26 (my modified version) 26 For this reason, God gave the men over to degrading passions; for both they and their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, Making sense yet? Let’s look at the verse again with all of this understanding. Romans 1:26-27 (My modified version) 26 For this reason God gave the men over to degrading passions; for both they and their women exchanged the natural penile penetration for that which is very close beside (and contrary to) nature, 27 and doing the same thing also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men in men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. we know both men and women are involved in penetrative intercourse, and penetration of something that is “very close beside” natural penetration. This is further confirmed in the next verse which says “in the same way” (homoiós = “doing the same thing”) followed shortly by “men in men”. Sounds like anal intercourse to me. Further, the early church fathers agreed The early church fathers Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Augustine all understood the unnatural act as being non-coital intercourse, that is… anal sex. (Emphasis original.) Clement said this in Paedagogus. Likewise Tertullian in On the Military Garland, Athanasius in Against the Nations, and Augustine argued it many times over several decades; notably in On Marriage and Concupiscence, On the Good of Marriage, and Against Julian. Again, the bible is completely silent on female/female sexual acts. It simply doesn’t mention them, and neither did the Jews’ Rabbinic Sages until a few hundred years after Christ died. Brief aside: Why does Paul mention this? You might ask why Paul mentions anal sex. To answer that question, I’ll quote from another article on the anal interpretation of Romans 1:26 It was common in antiquity for women to have anal or oral sex with men, often to avoid pregnancy or to preserve the hymen and thus, technically, their virginity. Trying to explain how Genesis 24:16 is not redundant when it recounts that Rebecca, future wife of Isaac, was a virgin and “had not known man,” Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, ca. 250 C.E., could say, “The daughters of the gentiles had been careful to protect the virginity of their vaginas, but they were quite free with themselves at other orifices. But this one [Rebecca] was ‘a virgin’ as to the vagina, and ‘no man had known’ her under any other circumstances either” (Midrash Rabbah Genesis LX:V 2.B, translated by Jacob Neusner). These gentile girls are like Rebecca because, technically, they are virgins. They keep their hymen intact. They are unlike her because they find ways to “know” men anyway. Source. That jives well with my research on the topic. In that age, women often engaged in anal sex either to avoid pregnancy or to technically preserve their virginity by ensuring the hymen wasn’t broken. Disclaimer: The following is anecdotal at best, not necessarily my opinion, and only included for completeness because it came up so much in my research. The most common way to describe sex in the Bible is “he went into her”. In my research, I have found time and again that according to the ancient mind, sex required penile penetration. If there wasn’t a penis in a vagina (or other orifice), then it wasn’t sex in their view. Perhaps that’s why any mention of female/female sex is absent: because – in their mind – it wasn’t considered sex. But again, that’s anecdotal at best and not necessarily my opinion; I’m merely including it here for completeness because it came up so often in my research. Some of the people who think that Romans 1:26 refers to anal sex also apply the same verse to oral sex. Because of that, we’ll take just a quick moment to address that. Oral sex on both men and women is spoke of positively in Song of Solomon, though euphemistically. And he mentions both men and women giving/receiving. Here are the verses on women receiving: Song of Solomon 4:16 & 8:2 (the woman speaking, ESV) 4:16 Awake, O north wind, and come, O south wind! Blow upon my garden, let its spices flow. Let my beloved come to his garden, and eat its choicest fruits. 8:2 would lead you and bring you into the house of my mother— she who used to teach me. I would give you spiced wine to drink, the juice of my pomegranate. The only part of a woman’s body that could be called a “garden” is the area covered in pubic hair. The reference to pomegranate makes sense if you’ve ever seen one split open; it bears a striking resemblance to a woman’s labia when engorged/aroused. The “spiced wine” should need no explanation given the context, neither should the phrase “blow on my garden” or “eat its choicest fruits”. Yeah, there’s stuff in the Bible that would make most Christians blush. But Solomon doesn’t leave the men out either. Song of Solomon 2:3 (ESV) 3 As an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men. With great delight I sat in his shadow, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. If you look at an apple tree upside down, the resemblance to a man’s penis, testicles, and scrotum are fairly unmistakable (at least in this context). Plus, “his fruit” could hardly be anything but his sperm/semen, of which the woman loves the taste. The woman speaks of sitting “in his shadow” with great delight. If a woman kneels to perform oral sex on a man, his shadow will naturally fall over her. I’ve heard some claim that the apple tree was a common euphemism for male genitalia in ancient Middle Eastern poetry. Regardless of if that’s the case or not, the symbolism seems pretty clear in this context. So while anal sex is condemned and should never be practiced by Christians, oral sex is perfectly fine and acceptable for Christians. However, it’s still wrong for two males to engage in oral sex. Romans 1:27 makes it clear that when two males “burned in their desire toward one another” it’s still wrong, and that includes oral sex. Anal sex is wrong according to God. Therefore, Christians should never engage in it. Ever. (By contrast, oral sex is spoken of positively by the Song of Solomon and is perfectly acceptable.) Male/male sex is roundly and clearly condemned as a sin that’s as serious as adultery and bestiality, and it’s a sin which will exclude a person from the kingdom of God. Female/female sex is nowhere condemned, or even mentioned in the entire Bible. God is completely silent on the topic, despite clearly condemning male/male sex at least five times. God even goes out of his way in Leviticus to say women couldn’t have sex with animals. Yet even with all this specificity He never condemns female/female sex, nor even mentions it. Not even once. Make of that what you will. I should also reiterate that Yes, The Bible CLEARLY Says Sex Outside of Marriage is Wrong, and marriage is only between men and women… Just in case you thought I was in favor of lesbian “marriage”. (which I’m definitely not. Marriage is only between men and women by definition.) P.S. I have a suspicion why God condemned male/male sex while being silent on female/female; but that will have to wait for another day/article. EDIT: I don’t have that article written yet, but I’ll bet you can figure it out from this article that I recently published. (In December of 2021.)Male/Male Sex
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:8-10
Romans 1:26-27
“But isn’t this all about pederasty, not committed gay couples?”
Romans 1:27
with in men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Male/Male Conclusion
Female/Female Sex
The Original Gender of the Words
Penile Penetration is Required
More Greek Evidence
Yet more Greek Evidence
The Final – and Strongest – Nail in the Coffin
Putting it all together
One Final Point on female/female Sex
An Addendum Concerning Oral Sex
Conclusion
 Sex){kind=link}
In fact, when a woman first has sex with a man, she marries him in God’s eyes. That is, when a man penetrates a woman. I believe that is why anal sex is against nature, because he is having sex without the intention to marry.
I also believe that lesbian “sex” is wrong because it goes against the fact that the woman was created for the man.
I read somewhere that most women are bisexual. Imagine if most women stop wanting to have sex with men? I think God wouldn’t approve of that.
EDIT: I recently wrote an article that touches this topic (that “sex = marriage”) and proves it wrong. I’ve added it to the article, and here’s another link.
I respectfully disagree that sex = marriage.
Note that the sex happened and then the “making her his wife” happened; two separate events.
In the law, God gave the ultimate right of marriage refusal to a woman’s father, not the woman (Possibly because the father had a 24 hour window in which he could nullify his daughters marriage vows if he didn’t approve, see Numbers chapter 30.) In the law, a woman couldn’t get married without her father’s permission. Therefore, I don’t see how sex = marriage.
If you still think that sex = marriage, what verses do you use to support that position?
Marriage is a physical union
(P in V).
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Gênesis 24:67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
1 Corinthians 6:16 know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Exodus 22: 16-17 is a case of a man who seduced a virgin with no intention of marrying.
If he wanted to marry her he would have asked her father’s permission.
According to your view, he married the virgin when they had sex (in God’s eyes). Also according to your view, God would be requiring an already married couple to get married, which makes no sense.
To your other comment, I agree that marriage includes sex. The verses you quoted point this out, but none of them say that a marriage is created by sex. God Prohibiting premartial sex makes no sense if sex is how you get married.
EDIT: I recently wrote an article that touches this topic (that “sex = marriage”) and proves it wrong. I’ve added it to the article, and here’s another link.
If a man has sex with a woman who is not another man’s wife, a social union is expected by God, for the two have become one flesh. In this sense, Sex without marriage intention is a sin.
* social union: approval of the girl’s father (if she lives with the father).
The two must live together.
Genesis 2:22,23,24 is the foundation of marriage.
In the Old Testament, marriage is presented as “taking” or “owning” of a woman.
Eve was taken from Adam, when a man and woman have sex is as if Eve had returned to Adam. Adam is taking a part of him that was taken from him. This is why bible marriage is described as a man taking a woman.
* If my English is bad, it is because English is not my first language.
There’s more to “giving and taking” in marriage than that, but not space for it in a comment here. I do plan to touch on it in a future article though.
Okay, I’ll wait for your next articles.
I think that since polygyny (man with more than one wife) is allowed in the Bible, the man might tell his wives to perform some sexual acts (touching, caressing, etc) with each other for his own pleasure.
It is possible that God is silent on lesbianism as such a behaviour might be acceptable (inside a marriage).
I thought about that too..
Moses also did not condemn anal sex between man and woman, so Paul added something else to the law.
“I have a suspicion why God condemned male/male sex while being silent on female/female; but that will have to wait for another day/article”.
Can you give a short explanation of what your suspicion is? What are the practical implications of the silence on Sapphism? This is a perspective I’ve never seen before.
I’m not ready to commit my suspicion to immortality on the internet yet. Send me an email (address on the contact page) and I’ll explain via email. This answer may also help with some of the other questions you’ve left in comments on other articles, or at least provide some perspective.
Even though the breaking of the hymen does not provide sufficient proof of a woman’s sexual history because it can be broken by other means such as gymnastics or riding a bike, let’s pretend the hymen actually does. What if a woman uses a strap-on or some toy on another woman and breaks her hymen? Since the woman caused the other woman to bleed, would that woman have “taken” the other women’s virginity? What would happen to the “non-virgin” now that her hymen is broken?
If another woman used something to break her hymen, I’m not sure that would constitute a loss of virginity. Maybe, but I tend to think not. The Greek word χρῆσιν (chrésis) specifies a male’s involvement, and I tend to think that a male needs to be involved to actually take a woman’s virginity. The Biblical argument for this isn’t strong, mostly boiling down to what’s discussed in this article.
So what are you implying, that unmarried women can have as many lesbian hookups as they want? Meanwhile men aren’t allowed to do anything…
You’re wrong.
Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340): “God in the law given to Moses having forbid all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, including the union of women with women and men with men.”
Okay, but where in the Law does it say this? What’s the chapter and verse? The opinion of Eusebius on God’s commands holds no weight unless he can back it up with scripture.
So basically only sodomy is a sin right? Other acts such as mutual masturbation are ok?
I found this very interesting. I had been searching for the answer to the question of anal sex between a married man and woman. I had heard it was sinful, and that it was not from different people and never seen a Bible-based explanation from either.
I have a few questions about it and it being forbidden. First of all, why? I understand that this may call for some speculation, but it seems unclear to me. Usually when I think about a sin the reason for it being a sin is quite clear to me. In this case not so much. Is it simply because it is disordered, or is it God protecting people from physical injury as it is just scientific that it is an unhealthy activity in terms of hygiene and potential tissue damage? I find it interesting that God would put this kind of restriction on a married couple in such a specific way.
My second question is about the limitation itself. If I’m reading this correctly the activity of a penis going into an anus is sin, but this would not extend to other sexual activities involving the anus of either spouse. I will not go into detail about that as I can imagine people can fill in the blanks. Is that kind of activity between married people not sinful according to the Bible? The use of hands or toys or mouths on each other in that way?
It seems like a TERRIBLE idea, if only for hygiene/sanitation reasons. Add to that the possibility of injury, and worst case tearing of the colon leading to an incredibly dangerous sepsis infection, it seems like this is at least partially for our protection. Fecal matter is highly toxic by nature, and thus as an appeal to wisdom I would suggest staying far away.
So according to God, woman on woman “sex” (oral, toys, etc) regardless of marital status is okay, or not necessarily condemned? I agree that marriage is between one man and at least one woman, and is typically required for sex (defined as penetrative intercourse using a penis attached to a man) to occur, but since nothing is mentioned about “lesbian” sex, there’s nothing saying that women would have to get married in order to perform said acts with each other. I’m not trying to find loopholes, just trying to understand exactly what God says. Also, I was raised to believe that things like oral sex between a man and woman before marriage is wrong, but does the bible support that, or is it specific to penetrative vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman?
I’m not necessarily saying it’s okay, merely not explicitly or specifically condemned as wrong. That said, I do think the Bible’s prohibition on “lewd exposure” (see my article on porn masturbation and fantasy) would preclude this possibility in all circumstances except for one. (A polygynous marriage; I see no reason why the wives of a man couldn’t enjoy each other in bed, without or without him present.)
As for oral sex before marriage, I know I’ve mentioned this in a few articles (or maybe comments?) but 1 Cor 7:1’s “good for a man not to touch a woman” covers that. The word “touch” there can have a sexual connotation, and also can include things like “groping”, or “heavy petting” as it’s often called these days. Plus there’s also the same “lewd exposure” problem as just mentioned which would prevent that.
Here’s my footnote on “touch” in 1 Cor 7:1:
Thanks for the explanation. I’m still trying to figure out why two women who are married to the same man can be sexually exposed to each other, but two women that are not married to the same man cannot (no men involved). I thought the article on porn masturbation and fantasy was in regards to a lewd exposure of a man’s wife exposing her sexual organs specifically to another man in private or in public, giving him a legal reason for divorce, but maybe I’m wrong. There seems to be many moving parts here that I’m trying to wrap my head around lol. Someone needs to make a flow chart of this. I’m sure unmarried lesbian sexual pleasure is likely wrong, but I’m just not making the connection. When someone asks me why I think it’s wrong, I don’t want to be that guy that just says, “I think it says it in the Bible somewhere”.
I think it’s similar to how an unmarried man and woman exposing themselves to each other is wrong/lewd exposure, but a married husband and wife doing it isn’t. I’ll have to recheck my wording in that article, since that passage doesn’t really specify male IIRC… …okay, rechecked. I wrote “either privately to another man or publicly”, but shouldn’t have included the phrase “to another man”, which I have now edited out of the article. I’m not sure why I wrote it in the first place. Lewd sexual exposure seems to be all that’s required, whether to a man or woman. Again, I would say that a man’s wives being naked with each other isn’t lewd/wrong for the same reason that a husband being naked with his wife isn’t lewd or wrong.
Thank you for taking the time to look into that and respond. While it makes sense that any lewd exposure would be wrong, I just want to make sure I understand it correctly. After all, some people believe that rock music genre is of the devil, so who’s to say I’m not using the same vane of understanding here (social conditioning)? Although I’m still unsure about sexual exposure between two of a man’s wives. They aren’t married to each other (which obviously isn’t allowed). This is getting pretty nit picky, but I just want to make sure I understand it correctly.
I’ve been called a libertine for this, but I tend to say that things are allowed unless there’s a clear reason that they aren’t. There’s a very real sense where a wife exposing herself to someone is primarily a crime against her husband, and that’s why it’s a divorceable offense. (Much like adultery is a crime against the husband, covered in my marriage series.) That’s part of the reason that I don’t see an issue with two wives sleeping together, since there doesn’t seem to be a crime against their husband.
Further, the way women are wired makes them more sexually flexible than men. It’s simply a fact of their biology. There’s anecdotal evidence from Russia that the wives of a polygnyous man being at least somewhat intimate with each other (even if not to the level of sex) greatly reduces friction between the wives. I’m working on an article about threesomes and I’ll touch on these things in more detail and with appropriate proof, but I have other articles I’m working on first so it might be a while. My personal thought is that God wired women to be more sexually flexible to reduce strife in a polygynous marriage. I obviously don’t have proof, but that would make sense.
That makes sense. I can see why some would call you a libertine. In my experience, many Christians seem to be raised with certain beliefs and ideas around morality that originated from the Bible, but also are not exactly Biblically accurate. A friend of mine had a youth pastor growing up that told him that wet dreams were a sin lol. That makes zero sense to me. This is the kind of thing that drives me away from Christianity. In my experience, many of them have these extreme and deeply ingrained views (especially around sexual morality for some reason).
I’m really glad to see that there are others out there that are interested in learning what the Bible actually says and are ready to just accept whatever that is without tainting it with their own biases or upbringing. The Bible says what it says. That’s it. Take it or leave it. Thanks again for all your work on this. You’ve inspired me to jump back into scripture with a new fervor instead of just abandoning it all together.
This is a truly idiotic article.
There’s no difference between wives having sex and random women having sex – sharing a man has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of lesbianism.
Answer this: If a polygamous man dies, do his wives need to marry the same man for them to have sex together again?
You seem to miss something. If only penile penetration counts, then that leaves out the vast majority of male/male sex acts as well.
Though, honestly, I think your interpretation of arsenokoítēs is bad. It is a word of unclear meaning. In fact, there is no example of its use before Paul used it. All that is known is that it’s a combination of the word “man” for “bed.” Not “men bedding men.” There is an argument that it refers back to the verses in Numbers that you already quoted, but it’s not clear at all. There’s a reason why there have been so many different translations.
Oh, and you seem to have left out the fact that Paul was specifically talking about idolaters in Romans 1. God turns them over to “shameful lusts” because they were worshipping images of created things rather than their Creator. You didn’t make any argument against the idea that he’s specifically talking about sex cults.
Okay, let’s pretend for a moment that everything you just said is 100% correct. Romans 1:27 is still absolutely ironclad that male/male sex is wrong.
It should be noted that in ancient greek, groups of people would be gendered male according to the presence of any males and only female if the group is exclusively female. There word cotained therein speaks of “females” as opposed to the woman who would be synonymous with wife, depending on context.
I agree with all the article says but this:
“Because of this God gave them up to passions of dishonor – Even for the females among them exchanged natural intercourse for that which is contrary to nature.”
If this meant to describe that men gave up the natural intercourse with women for unnatural intercourse with the same, then it would have said so, but instead it speaks of the women first. Then it continues:
“Likewise then also the men, having abandoned natural intercourse with women, were inflamed in their desire toward one another, men in men, abomination manifesting and the fault of their error is on them.”
The term “likewise” could be denoting the interjected statement that natural intercourse was abandoned, not that the type of intercourse was similiar.
Since the author’s statement could be as much as adding to the scripture, I want to remind that one of the limits given for women according to Leviticus is bestiality.
If the statement were about women engaging in anal sex, it would have spoken of men too, since they are the active part and could deny any woman anal sex.
When a woman engages in bestiality that’s within the power of the woman and any regulation thereof would speak of the women, which Romans 1:26 does.
Afterwards, it also mentions men, who, perhaps even having been abandoned by the women in favour of bestiality, now fall from grace and engage in unnatural intercourse with other men.
Also, doesn’t the author implicitely condone homosexual activity if it does not involve penetration?
Leviticus also reads, to my understanding, “who lies with a man as with a woman surely will die”, so it does not say the same is true for one who lays with a woman as he does with a man!
Women are there for (the gratification) men and are to be cherished for it, praise God
It sounds you disagree with the anal understanding of Romans 1:26 and prefer the lesbian understanding. How then do you account for té (meaning “both/and”) and “χρῆσιν” (chrésis, which requires penile penetration?).
I find this article very helpful – however as I have researched this more, it seems like others who share this view of Romans 1:26 think it is also talking about oral sex in addition to anal sex. I see no reason from the text why this would be the case; and also it seems to me like Song of Solomon talks about oral sex in a positive way. Do you know of anyone else who views this as prohibiting anal sex only without forbidding oral sex? Or perhaps you could write an article addressing this if not?
That’s a good point. Because of your comment, I added a short addendum concerning oral sex just before the conclusion. It’s mostly just a gloss of the Song of Solomon passages, but it was a good idea to address it. Thanks for your comment. 🙂 I’m not sure I remember specific people who agree that anal is wrong but oral is fine, but I did encounter them while doing research. IIRC, the dividing line was typically people who think that sex’s only purpose is procreative; people who think that tend to condemn oral sex along with anal sex because neither can result in children. However, that’s only my general impression and not a hard rule.
Thank you! It looks like your reasoning is the same as mine when it comes to oral sex and why that cannot apply here. I wish this understanding of Romans 1:26 was more common. I had always thought something was a bit off with the lesbian interpretation but I couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was.
Are you stupid? You think anal sex is wrong because people did it to preserve hymens? Oral sex preserves the hymen as well, if the girl even had one to begin with. It doesn’t matter since that’s not how hymens even work, & you seem to forget women masturbate.
You believe the fallacy that equivalent actions have different morality depending on if a man or a eoman did it. Absolutely ridiculous, not to mention defining sex as penetration. That’s a very pagan roman view where power laid with the penetrator.
That is a misrepresentation of the article. I think anal sex is wrong because God (writing through Paul) says that it’s wrong. I think oral sex is fine because in addition to it never being forbidden, it’s spoken of well by God (writing through Solomon). I also did not define sex as penetration; I said that’s what many of the ancients thought.
There is no logical reason why anal sex is wrong while oral isnt. both are start & end points of the digestive tube. its illogical, so God didn’t say that, & jews were fine with anal. Pauls not so silly to focus on such a ridiculous thing. what’s wrong with a couple doing anal, what are they trying to hide, the nonexistent hymen? You really believe anything, don’t you, even illogical things like this.
it is utterly illogical to condemn male-male foreplay just because it’s male while allowing female-female foreplay, when both don’t contain the key ingredient according to you: penetration.
sexual relations are sexual relations, penetration is not key, & sex is not something done by men to women like a one way street. sex is mutual. the Hebrews said “he went into her” but they could have said “she went onto him” & it would make no difference. it’s just a phrase. the penis & vagina are both sexual organs, one is not greater than the other. stop looking for power play in sex. you sound exactly like Doug Wilson, or Islam’s Mohammed who said women were fields the men could till. This is not how Paul saw it. he said the spouses own each other’s bodies, there is no hierarchy in sex.
You said: “its illogical, so God didn’t say that”. However, just because you don’t understand God’s logic doesn’t mean it’s illogical, it merely means that God understands more than you do. Anal sex carries very significant health risks for the penetrated person while oral sex has none for either. God has a long history of forbidding practices that will harm us, which very much explains it and thus provides the “logical” answer you want.
I condemn male-male sex (including foreplay) because God does in Scripture. I don’t condemn female-female sex because God doesn’t in Scripture. If you disagree, please show me where I misunderstand the Scriptures. That will convince me, but simply asserting (without evidence) that it’s not logical simply won’t change my mind in the face of a direct command from God. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts, and His ways are higher than our ways. If we have a problem with what God does or says, the problem actually lies with us, not God.
And for a second time, I didn’t say that penetration was a key ingredient in sex; that is entirely misrepresenting what I said. I said that many people in Biblical times believed that, not that I believe it.