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.
You think Gods gonna say “thou shall not do anal sex” or say that it’s okay? seriously? you say “because God says so” but you appeal to your own interpretation as if its inerrant just like fools who think women can’t preach. they don’t use logic or common sense when they approach the text. logic must be applied because, guess what, weren’t not supposed to blindly believe anything simply because it seems God says so. Muslims say the same thing when christians point out their ridiculous beliefs: “but you don’t understand the higher ways”. that’s a cop out.
The torah doesn’t even mention anal sex, and song of songs is not a sex textbook where we determine which acts are moral or not. they just didn’t mention anal like they didn’t mention other sex acts. also, the couple in the book were doing all this *before* they were married. The jews mention anal sex in their writings. I know many who do anal, there’s no harm. are you saying a man cannot do anal fingering during sex? Oral can be harmful to the jaw and throat also. alcohol consumption is harmful, are you going to say that’s bad. but oh no, God says its okay as long as you’re not drunk. And no, the torah contains very harmful practises & human rights abuses, so you’re wrong about that as well.
I can see from your response that you aren’t interested in obeying God. You are free to choose that path (though not free of the consequences) but I prefer to think that the wiser choice is obeying the all-powerful, all-wise, and all-knowing God who created everything and constantly maintains its existence. You can’t even rail against Him without Him constantly maintaining the molecular cohesion of your body, so forgive me if I take His word over yours.
I must ask, what is the source of morality for your opinion? Is it merely your opinion? popular opinion? Can you point to anything outside of man’s opinion?
I have a concern. As I have discussed with my Brother – Solomon, Abraham, David, Jacob/Israel, and more have had multiple wives and concubines. We discussed the possibility that the man may have sex with more than one at a time, and thereby homosexual relations could occur between women within the confines of an approved marriage. When we were discussing it, we were debating the morality of multiple wives and concubines, for, in the beginning and reiterated throughout scripture, is the remark that it ought to be one man and one women, and a man should return to his 1st wife. So, surely, it is a sin to have multiple wives, and we already know that female homosexuality is a sin?
However, as my Brother cited, no man pre or post the commandments provided through Moses was ever condemned for having multiple women in his bed. Unlike incest, which while it was practiced pre Commandments at Mt. Sinai, it was condemned thereafter. It is not a sin, apparently, for a man to have multiple women! Yet, as it is the man who takes the wife and whose name is accounted for, it can be assumed a sin for a woman to have multiple husbands. Nonetheless, female homosexual acts can easily occur if a man has multiple women bound unto him, free and/or slave. Are we to assume that these righteous men of the Bible (except Solomon who died in opposition to and rejection of YHVH), simply were careful to take only one woman to bed at a time? While there is mediation mention and inferred in the case of Jacob/Israel’ wives taking turns and bartering for sex with him, and we know that Abraham’s wife despised the concubine, it is still possible that this could have occurred and would have been a temptation.
My points:
1. Men can take multiple wives and concubines.
2. There is the possibility and temptation of having more than one woman in bed at a time.
3. This can easily lead to homosexual relations between the women.
4. If there is no verse condemning female homosexuality, and the act can be facilitated by the allowable taking of multiple women by one man, then female homosexuality is it allowed within these parameters? Or it is, like you suggest anal to be, something to carefully abstain from, although the wives are to submit in all things?
By appearance, intrinsic thought, and the moral and natural deviation of female homosexuality from male-female marriage, it can be easily condemned under any other conditions, except these. Certain things are obviously a sin, despite not being mentioned clearly in scripture, and these would definitely include female homosexuality and sex with… children, which the Bible/YHVH defines as anyone under 20…, except that one verse by Paul citing a woman who has reached menarche (1 Corinthians 7:34-39), which occurs from 9 or less until maybe 15 years old or more. Yet, our souls cry out against sexual acts committed against children, including rape, prostitution, incest (all condemned separately in the Bible), and grooming…. Which is also not condemned in the Bible.
5. Is legally married sex between a man and his 9-19 year old wife right in the sight of our Lord, if the father of the bride has allowed the marriage, and she has had her first period?
6. Heavy scientific research clearly shows that there are serious, severe, permanent, and even deadly health issues associated with both sex and childbirth prior to the age of 20 for both the girl and child, and possibly the boy! True science only proves God and His will!
7. I would think that most fathers, even throughout most of history, would not want their daughter of 9-15 to be plowed by a man, yet.
8. But in the case that all matters are “consensual,” would it be lawful for a man, whatever age, to have sex with a girl so young, vulnerable, ignorant, and physically and mentally limited compared to an adult woman?
9. The story of Judah’s 3rd son being too young to marry (Genesis 38:11-14), and Joseph being counted as a child at 17 years of age (Genesis 37:2), and the age of adulthood notated as 20 (Leviticus 27:5), would indicate men could not marry until 20.
10. Does it make your spirit cry in outrage and disgust at the idea of a 9 year old girl and a 20 year old man having sex?
So, my problem:
This verse always made clear sense to me as a condemnation of homosexual relations between women, as well as men. Now you say it actually condemns anal sex with one’s own wife as unnatural, that anal sex with one’s own wife turns men gay, and that the Bible is silent on female homosexuality, but that oral sex is allowed?
These things look like sins:
female homosexuality
having a harem of women
having sex with children (under 20), even if girls have reached menarche
These things promote deviance, violence, perversion, in-fighting, loss of fellowship, contention and strife, health issues, and immorality. These things have increased in pornographic popularity as social morality has declined, right alongside things that are outright condemned in scripture, including male homosexuality, beastiality, and fornication.
How is anal condemned when oral is not? Neither typically produces children, mostly only pleasure. Oral is only pleasurable for the one receiving it, which is usually the male. Anal can be pleasurable for both the husband and wife. Anal can still result in pregnancy from proximity, and this was known in the ancient world. Oral makes sense. Oral is not a sin. I can provide no argument against anal that I can’t apply to oral, as well. Both are gross and have food or waste matter, increase chance of infection in both parties, can be physically harmful to the female, and are used however unsuccessfully as birth control and to have sex without tearing the hymen.
This is breaking me! The Bible seems to support marriage and sex with girls as soon as they have had their first period, yet science says this is clearly dangerous until 20! The Bible says 20 is the age of adulthood, when males and females are no longer counted as children! How is anal and male homosexuality condemned, and yet within marriage of a man to multiple women, female homosexuality is seemingly not, and pedophilia is not!?!?
I have been researching this for years, and just when things make sense, women become inferior objects to be used and collected in a harem, kept silent in church, trust everything their husband teaches them at home, married off as barely pubescent children to 20+ year old men.
What value do I have outside of my ability to give birth, work as a free slave in the house of my father, brother, or husband, raise children in the Lord (beat part!), and satisfy a man alongside whomever else he wants? Why do I have to be loyal to one spouse, and he does not!?
I am sorry, I am angry. I feel defeated endlessly.
God: 1 man, 1 woman, and stay loyal till death, love each other, care for each other, support each other. If you take another wife, return again to the wife of your youth.
Man: Divorce? Remarriage after divorce? Multiple women? Young girls newly bled?
God: For the hardness of your hearts….
Man: Harem-teaming?
God: No anal.
I love ABBA. He makes sense when nothing and no one else does, and He is always right. I can consider that anal is wrong, though outside this verse, I can scarcely devise an argument to condemn it.
I can acknowledge that nearly all sex with children requires other already condemned sins, including rape, taking hostage, whoredom/prostitution, and incest. Maybe, just maybe, it could be right for a 20 year old man to marry and have sex with a girl who has freshly bled if her father allows it.
Nope, no. The psychology of pedophiles show abnormal deviant obsession towards *only* children, and which has never been cured…. But, maybe that is only for the ones who fall into those other sin categories!
Maybe, maybe it’s okay…. If the father allows it, and the man is loving and gentle….
But I still despise the idea of sharing my husband with another woman, simply because he saw another virgin he liked, and married her, too. And I believe it HAS to be a sin for OUR husband to have us sexually please him in the same bed with one another.
So, answering your points broadly.
First, the age of marriage for women. Leviticus 27:5 definitely does NOT define “adulthood” because it’s not about that at all. A good translation will help make this clear. (NASB 95 or NKJV) The verse is about the price for slaves, which is directly related to their ability to do work. (Frankly, the idea of an “adult” is an entirely foreign concept to the Bible and is a recent invention based on the writings of John Locke.) Joseph is called a “youth” or “young man” in Genesis 37:2, and that same word is used of the “young men” in Abraham’s military force (i.e. warriors) in Gen 14:24.
I devote a section of this article to the topic of marriage age and my conclusion is that the youngest age at which a woman should get married is 16. Not surprisingly, a woman can get married at 16 most countries around the world with her parents’ permission. And yes, 9 is FAR too young! That’s pedophilia. Additionally, there are no additional dangers to the mother or baby because of pregnancy at 16+, see the article for clear and concrete evidence of this.
Second, your worth as a woman and place in the home. I devoted a whole article to this, entitled: How Crucial are Women to a Biblical Household? Very! If you don’t feel valued, that article might help. 🙂
Third, I did not say that “anal sex with one’s own wife turns men gay”. I did not say that and it has never even occurred to me.
Fourth, anal sex and oral sex. I have no answers for you here. God clearly forbid anal while clearly praising oral, so I will trust that He had a good reason for doing so.
Fifth, A man having multiple wives. I have a whole article on polygyny and it’s perfectly crystal clear that God has no problem with it. In fact, He commanded it under certain circumstances in the OT law. There are a lot of women to whom this appeals, though it sounds like you aren’t one of them. (And practically, that would mean a lot of help with housework and such.)
Sixth, a man’s wives being sexual intimate with one another. It is never condemned and you are correct that it is likely, especially since a man and all his wives are supposed to live in the same place/tent/house. (I’m writing a follow-up article to my polygyny article which shows this). Since God didn’t forbid it, I can’t either. I’m sorry if that bothers you, but unless you (or someone else) can show that my understanding of scripture is wrong, then that will remain my position.
And here you are appealing back to your interpretation as God’s actual words. Marriage is only between men and women by definition and sex is only right in marriage, therefore by simple logical extension women, who cannot marry each other, cannot engage in sexual activity! It’s literally that simple. It makes no difference if they share a man. How is that hard to understand? And I am just bring honest when I say the law contains abuses yet you don’t get it, you keep using circular logic. You have no problem in God allowing and condemning contradictory things so you just believe it. If you had the slightest rationality and heart you’d lean towards female ordination just like righteous John Wesley, but you have evil motives to stay in your deception – and don’t say God says it that’s circular! Wake up!
To “female ordination”, I suggest that you read the 1st and 4th articles in my series on marriage if you think that it’s rational. It leads to terrible outcomes as shown in the 1st article, and is against the explicit command of God, as I show in the 4th article.
Changing topics, when you say that “the law contains abuses”, you are accusing God Himself of being unjust, which is a dangerous thing to do. What source of morality do you have on which to base that claim? What is a higher moral standard than God to which you can appeal to call God Himself unjust?
Your statement: “Marriage is only between men and women by definition and sex is only right in marriage, therefore by simple logical extension women, who cannot marry each other, cannot engage in sexual activity!” is a sound logical argument and we agree that two women can’t marry each other. That’s also the only reasonable argument I’m aware of that argues against a man taking multiple wives to bed at once. (and you seem not to have a problem with multiple wives based on your following comment) However, I’m not sure that two females engaging in what is modernly called “lesbian sex” counts as biblical sex, or at least I can’t make that case in good faith. I have to appeal to the verses that talk about lewd exposure to forbid it to avoid feeling like I’m twisting scripture. In a polygynous marriage, I can’t in good conscience say that those verses apply.
Additionally, there’s no prohibition against it. With all the specificity that God used to describe sexual sins (even specifically forbidding such disgusting things as bestiality), He never addresses female/female sex. I’m leery of forbidding something that God hasn’t explicitly forbidden because I don’t want to add to what God has said.
Jennica, do yourself a favor, and don’t believe his arguments, they’re very illogical. You are absolutely right about there being no moral or logical difference between anal and oral, but I feel obligated as one who believes in rationality and science to tell another who believes science proves God’s will, that the “freshly bled” concept, the idea that the hymen proves virginity, is completely false, a baseless myth. Also, most probably girls got married at age 16, and men at 20 when they mastered their craft from their fathers. I will say that polygamy doesn’t have to be wrong since it’s possible to love several people at once, & its not cheating since you’re married to all of them. You are not just a maid, a servant. these are gender roles that don’t exist in the Bible and many parts of the world. read up on Christian egalitarian gender beliefs to see more.
Anon, I’m glad you agree that polygyny isn’t wrong. 🙂 On the other hand, egalitarianism is against the explicit command of God (for example, that wives should submit to their husbands in the same way that they do to God, see Eph 5:22) and very likely endangers your salvation because it’s clear and explicit rebellion. (see my article on head coverings for details, as well as my marriage series.)
in your marriage articles you frequently look at cultural practices & stereotypes and read it into your view of biblical marriage. your theology revolves over cultural perceptions of gender roles stereotypes and what you think God says.
in your view women should be groomed for marriage & get hitched off to an older guy at an early age since that’s what they’d made for, to be a [domestic] servants. you believe fathers have rights over daughters marriage (in effect her entire life) because, of course, society would be harmed since daughters can’t think properly and always go after the “bad guys”. yeah, like you haven’t seen men chase after “bad” women. it’s called good parenting, teaching children what to look for in a spouse and displaying it in your marriage, & they won’t make stupid choices. do you live under a rock, or have you not heard that women who believe your crappy theology have a higher chance of marrying abusers – this is very true in evangelical communities.
men prefer youthful beauty, and women want a rich guy is another example of your cultural appropriations, it’s very simplistic to take this and say it proves men are to be protectors & providers. if anything, it would only show the complementary nature of the sexes, not some gender role or hierarchy. in fact, in other cultures I’ve been in men like to marry rich girls and both of them need their parents permissions, and older women seek out young men for their youthfulness. both sexes desire the same kinds of things, because we’re both human.
your review of beth allison barr’s book reeks of Kevin DeYoung’s misogyny, and you no doubt took a lot from his review. what is your motive, why do you prefer patriarchy over mutualism? because you think God says so? that’s circular. How’d you like to move to syria and see what Muslims think God says they should do to you? Ah, but thats against your circular beliefs too.
You seem to have an issue with trying to make me say something that I didn’t say because you just grossly mischaracterized some of my positions. (not for the first time)
If you think I’m wrong on any particular point, please leave a comment on the relevant article stating where specifically I misunderstand scripture. If you can show that I’m misunderstanding the scriptures, I will change my mind. I’ve changed my mind and even unpublished articles before because of comments with a solid scriptural reason to do so. If you can’t provide scripture, you won’t change my mind.
Deuteronomy 17:17 Though shalt not have multiple wives, not even the king of Israel!!!!
Harem are wrong, and the homosexual acts provoked therein are wrong!!!!
David had multiple wives and 1 Kings 15:5 says that he didn’t break the law “except in the case of Uriah the Hittite”. How does that work with Deut 17:17? Because that verse doesn’t say “Though shalt not have multiple wives”. It says: “He shall not [greatly increase] wives for himself” (like Solomon did). The word “greatly increase” is also used of horses in the previous verse and gold/silver in the same verse, so if you think it means that a king can’t have more than one wife, then it also means he can’t have more than one horse or more than one coin of gold and silver. (which is silly). I deal with this verse in detail in my article on polygyny.
In the Mosaic law, God commanded men to engage in polygyny under certain circumstances. Thus, not having a second wife could be a sin under certain very specific circumstances. Again, see my article on polygyny for more details.
If you think that female homosexual acts are wrong, please provide chapter and verse, and/or explain why my understanding of Romans 1:26 is wrong. (with supporting evidence of course)
(Perhaps I should also add that the New Testament’s requirements for how husbands should treat their wives mean that 2-3 is the realistic maximum that a man could have. That’s hardly a harem.)
Your whole perspective is a word study not a study of The Word (in its entire context) Gen-Rev. Description is not prescription-God did not sanction multiple wives-“everyone did what was right in their own eyes” and continued to rebel against God-with subsequent, often devasting familial and spiritual consequences. That’s where we are now. What makes it worse is when professing Christians twist or misinterpret Scripture out of it’s complete context in effort to be more acceptable or palatable to the culture. God’s design was, is, and shall be 1 man with 1 woman as the loving, monogamous earthly example of the relationship between Jesus Christ-the Bridegroom-and the Church-His Bride!
Can you point to any particular thing that is mistaken/incorrect in this article?
Secondly, if you think that polygyny is wrong, please leave a comment on my article on polygyny stating specifically where I “twisted” the scriptures. Remember, God commanded polygyny in the OT in three places, two as standing commands under specific circumstances in the OT law, and once He also directly commanded one of his prophets to take a second wife. If God doesn’t command sin — and He doesn’t — then polygyny can’t be wrong.
Also, in 2 Samuel 12:8, the idea being conveyed here is not that David took Saul’s wives as his own, but that the royal house came under David’s authority (which would support I Kings 15:5, that “David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of God’commands all the days of his life- except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.” Furthermore, although the author of 1–2 Samuel does not shy away from listing David’s wives, he never lists any of Saul’s wives among David’s.
Again, do please comment on my article on polygyny since that’s where address these things. That said, let’s say you are 100% right in this comment; that doesn’t make the case for polygyny any weaker since the primary case is that God commanded it an He doesn’t command us to sin; ever. Again, if you disagree then please leave a comment on my article on polygyny to keep things on topic.
Would you justify David’s genocides against innocent philistines who let him stay in their country for safety, and his lies to the king about his murderous activity, just because it says David didn’t break the law except for Uriah’s murder? Do you think just because the law allows males to be killed and their women forced into marriage (rape) that God commanded it so it’s okay, What about when Hamas does the same to israel? oh, but any oppression against Israel is sin, but if they do it it’s fine cause you believe God let them.
What about the slavery of gentiles and the commodification of female slaves as incubators, who are basically forced to get rpregnant (raped) cause their mistress wants a child, i.e steal someone’s child?
You’re wicked. You believe in rape theology, that those who have authority over women can give them to whomever they want, fathers deciding marriage included. Repent.
Note: I missed your some of your previous comments and will respond to them shortly.
You perhaps misunderstand. There are rather a lot of things the Mosaic Law doesn’t address that are still sin. For example, David clearly sinned when he took that census but taking a census wasn’t forbidden in the law, so while David sinned there, he didn’t break the law there. I was stating that David didn’t run afoul of the command to “multiply wives” in the law to address the position that Deut 17:17 forbids polygyny. Any application beyond that is putting words in my mouth.
I do not believe that anyone with authority over a woman can give her in marriage, only her father. This is explicitly stated in many places throughout the Bible (both Old and New Testament). I cover all of them in this article, though it would be better if you read that series from the beginning.
Thank you very much for your sound article, and how patiently you have replied to critics who presented no biblically sound refutation of your reasoning. I understand your arguments using the technicalities of the Greek language and appreciate your insights. May God continue to bless you.
I have to disagree with your conclusion on anal sex because Hebrews 13:4 seems very clear than married people are free to do what the like without condemnation.
So, something you should know about Hebrews 13:4: In Greek, the first two clauses lack a verb. I assume your translation reads something like: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” That’s NKJV and notice that the verb of being “is” is italicized because it’s a translator addition. Most translations make it a command because of the context. Verse 4 sits in the middle of a long list of admonishments, and when Greek lacks a verb, the best way to understand the sentence is to look at the context surrounding it. The examples of this are numerous, but the KJV and NKJV chose to make it a statement instead of a command for some reason. I think that’s a mistake, again because of the context. (and again, most translations have it as a command for this reason)
Additionally, notice that the NKJV has “the bed undefiled”, not “the marriage bed undefiled”. So if your argument is that Heb 13:4 says that the marriage bed is undefiled, then realize that you would need to be referring to all beds, not just marriage beds.
The verse more properly should be understood as: (my translation; the NASB 95 is essentially identical)
Thus, to keep the bed undefiled, anal sex should not be practiced because it’s clearly wrong according to Romans 1:26.
How can Paul declare anal sex to be vile when he God has allowed it for over a thousand years, but suddenly it becomes evil. Oral sex is contrary to nature as well, a mouth isn’t made or a vagina, nor for a penis; it’s made for food. Your article says that this is because women would use anal to avoid losing their virginity, but the same can be said for oral, so that doesn’t make sense. On top of that, why is Paul condemning people for behavior when they have no reason to believe that it’s wrong? That’s like being condemned for eating chicken when God allowed it for ages. I think the real reason for the condemnation is use of anal sex in pagan rituals.
Was it Paul declaring it to be vile, or was it God declaring it through Paul? You can ignore a man’s opinion, but it would be the height of folly to ignore God’s opinion.
As for things that God allowed for over a thousand years which “suddenly became evil”, how about theft? Adultery? Rape? Fornication? There was over a thousand years between creation and the flood and yet there’s no explicit mention of those being wrong in that time. That doesn’t mean they weren’t wrong, it just means that we don’t have it recorded that God said they was wrong. Perhaps He did, perhaps He didn’t. It doesn’t change that they were (and are) indeed wrong. (Further, this argument applies even if you take the female homosexuality interpretation of Romans 1:26, so it’s a problem no matter which position you take)
Regardless, if God declared it to be immoral, then it’s immoral. Period. Full stop. Now, if you think my exegesis of the passage is wrong, then please show me where I’ve made an error.
The Law prohibited dozens and dozens of things, including making additions to it, indicating that everything necessary has been written. The Genesis thing is a fair point, but so is the Law. God said women speaking in church is wrong, but of course, that’s out of context. God said it’s nearly impossible for a rich man to enter heaven, but that’s out of context. God told Abraham to kill his son, but that’s out of context and immoral. It’s a chapter about idiolatry and not marriage. Why is not possible this must be examined in context as well?
Okay, let’s look at the context. Starting in verse 18, it’s talking about “ungodliness and unrighteousness”. Verse 20-23 makes them without excuse for their behavior, and verses 24 and 26 say that God handed them over to “the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them” and “degrading passions”. Verse 26 especially is clear that anal sex is the “degrading passion” they are being handed over to. That makes anal sex a “degrading passion” that God handed them over to because they rejected Him. Verse 27 talks about the same thing, and verse 28 begins a whole list that adds onto what was started in verse 26, talking about immoral behavior.
Again, I must point out that verse 26 calls anal sex a “degrading passion”. Is there any part of the passage anywhere that allows for anal sex to not be wrong? I certainly don’t see it.
Again, Paul is writing to a group of idolaters, not married believers. Is it vile and degrading for a teenaged girl to have oral sex for money? I’d say yes. Does that mean it’s wrong for everyone to have oral sex? No. In some context it’s disgusting and in others (marriage) it’s acceptable. It’s possible the verse condemns the vile usage of anal sex for idiolatry, not anal sex overall.
What makes you think it was written to idolaters and not married men? He was writing to the church in Rome, not idolaters, and we know this because the letter is addressed thusly: “To all the men living in Rome who are beloved by God and called to be saints” (verse 7). Given that being married was a requirement for elders, we know that at least some of them were indeed married. I personally think it’s likely that most of them were married, but I can’t prove that.
Furthermore, anal sex is explicitly called “contrary to nature”. That’s not the result of judgement or idolatry, but rather is a statement of objective fact regarding the act itself.
Verses 22-25 are clearly referring to idolatry. And again, oral sex is opposed to nature as well. Thus, it should also be condemned for everyone, or condemned just within the context of pagan rituals.
I agree that verses 22-25 clearly points to idolatrous behavior. Remember that verses 26 records one of God’s punishments for that, which is handing them over to perverse passions like anal sex. Allowing them to indulge in a perverse desire like anal sex is a punishment from God. That kind of makes it hard to argue that it’s morally acceptable.
Further, you also said: “oral sex is opposed to nature as well”; you said “as well”. So does that mean you agree that anal sex is wrong? Regardless, oral sex is spoken of positively and commended elsewhere in the Bible, so making the argument that oral sex is also wrong seems impossible given that it’s commended by God.
(And BTW, the anus is an “exit only” organ, whereas the mouth was designed to have things enter into it. Thus, it’s not “contrary to nature” for something to enter into the mouth, unlike the anus. So if you want a natural understanding that allows for oral sex but not anal sex, that would be one.)
We already know that sex has been used as a form of idolatry before (temple prostitution) and we also know that immediately before the verse in question, the context was made very clear (a rebuke of idolaters); therefore, it’s not unbiblical to consider that verse 26 refers to a method or epidemic of *idolatry* involving anal sex. Which of course, in that context, is dishonorable. Is it shameful to get on your knees and pray? Of course not. But that in front of a statue of Mary would earn you a letter from Paul.
I disagree with the notion that “going against nature” [sexually?] is a sin. There is nothing natural about oral sex. Every feature of the mouth indicates it’s made for food. By your logic, it would be natural, to allow anything to be placed in your mouth. I would argue the mouth is a “food only” organ. That doesn’t stop God from clearly condoning oral though. So, if unnatural sex is a sin, then there seems to be some very flawed logic to me. Also, what’s natural about two or more women having sex to please their husband? It’s quite possible to me that saying “close to but contrary to nature” is a very non-explicit way of saying “allowed men’s penises into their anuses.” This is not the first time God uses an euphemism to describe sex. Remember when Adam and Eve became one flesh? They were not one body, they had sex.
So, you are ignoring the plain text of verse 26 which clearly states that God handed them over to “degrading passions” (anal sex). The idolatry preceding verse 26 wasn’t anal sex, which is clear from the text. The punishment from God is handing them over to “degrading passions” like anal sex. The text of verse 26 is absolutely clear that anal sex is a punishment for idolatry, not part of the idolatry they were committing that earned them the punishment.
I agree that “against nature” doesn’t necessarily mean sin, if for no other reason than sin is part of our nature and not following that nature is obviously required. My argument isn’t: “anal sex is wrong because it’s unnatural“, my argument is: “anal sex is wrong because God calls it a degrading passion“; see above paragraph.
You have no evidence supporting the claim that the idolaters being spoken of did not practice sexual idolatry and it is entirely possible. I have given multiple reasons why this passage is more likely to be a condemnation of anal sex for the purpose of idolatry.
1. anal was permitted in the torah
2. this is the only passage on the subject
3. anal sex is unnatural just like oral is
4. God clearly allows unnatural sex. (female with female)
5. the passage is *very* clearly speaking of idolaters, rather than married Christians
6. there is biblical precedence for the concept of sexual idolatry (temple prostitution)
7. there is no reason to permit anal for over a 1000 years later then declare it to be evil (brings into question the moral consistency of God)
8. the hymen protection argument falls flat due to oral
You did argue in the past that anal is a sin because of nature, but now have moved to “cause God said so.” But that seems to be an effort to take the passage out of it’s context. This is like if a church displayed 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and told any woman who said a word to leave. That’s obviously not the meaning of the passage, but it is a possible outcome of taking passages out of their clear context because “God said so.”
I’m sure the idolaters did fornicate, but that doesn’t change that God handed them over to commit anal sex as a punishment and also called it a “degrading passion”.
(1) Anal sex was not explicitly permitted in the Torah, it was simply not explicitly mentioned. One could argue that it’s implied in the OT verses against male homosexuality though.
(2) There is also only one passage on the subject of transgenderism; should we then conclude that it’s acceptable to God? (obviously this is a rhetorical question)
(3) You would have to demonstrate that the Bible says oral sex is unnatural, which you haven’t and can’t because it’s never stated to be so.
(4) You would have to demonstrate that two females have sex is unnatural. A quick biology tangent, a woman’s neurotransmitters levels differ from men in several important ways. One of those ways in in the neurotransmitter that controls sexual attraction. Women are “wired” to be more sexually flexible than by, apparently intentionally by God. Thus, the “female/female sex is unnatural” argument seems to contradict the biology since women are wired to be FAR more bisexual.
(5) And yet the letter is address to Christians, the majority of whom are likely married historically. Additionally, as I just pointed out and you ignored, anal sex is a punishment from God for idolatry. (See my previous comment)
(6) True.
(7) Transgenderism. It’s not spoken of in the OT and only condemned in one verse in the NT. Additionally, the NT contains a host of instructions — like “Husbands love your wives” — that the OT doesn’t.
(8) That wasn’t intended to be an argument, merely a statement of historical reality. Right or wrong, they used the hymen to determine virginly. Thus, anal sex would allow for sexual activity without breaking the hymen. Again, this isn’t a moral argument, merely a historical fact.
About me using “against nature” as an argument: perhaps I should’ve worded things more carefully. It seems to me that God writing through Paul is using “against nature” as an argument here, so I don’t see a problem using it that way. However, you obviously reject that so I moved to the far more explicit statement that it’s a “degrading passion”.
.
All that said, you seem to have completely ignored my previous comment and the central point of both the passage and my argument. It’s called a degrading passion and used as a punishment because it’s a degrading passion. Even if they were practicing anal sex before God handed them over, that still doesn’t change its status as degrading passion.
Additionally, your argument fails on so many additional levels if we apply it to the things which follow. Literally every single other thing mentioned in verses 27 to the end of the chapter is wrong in-and-of-itself even when not connected to idolatry. Read those verses and you’ll see that’s the case. Why is only anal sex excepted?
Obviously being mentioned once doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. It’s a list of thing I considered to see how strong your argument is, which is based upon just two words. For example, if there are 4 bible verses that seem to condemn something, there is a very strong case it’s wrong. If there’s 1, then the case is not as strong.
As for number one, it’s clearly worded to condemn gay men. You can not add nor subtract from the law.
Your response to number three indicates that only the bible is a valid source, but then you argue in four that women are set up using an outside source.
As for number seven, crossdressing was condemned in the old testament.
Anyway, I realize that my argument wasn’t as strong as I believed it to be and continued to research this topic. I’ve been considering the possibility that parts of romans 1 and 2 are interpolated like “Jesus and the adulterious woman.” I would give a real source but all the scholarly work seems to be paywalled or something of that nature. However, the oldest new testament canon lacks the verses we have mentioned.
I came across this comment while doing research: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/y3ykp9/comment/isb471v/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I’d appreciate if you consider or research this theory given your knowledge of textual criticism.
I’ll give you that point on #1. To #3 and #4, I did say that the biology part was “A quick biology tangent”, and thus not part of the argument. To #7, since you pointed out something similar about #1, crossdressing doesn’t necessarily indicate that transgenderism is wrong. (We need a single word in the NT for that) True they often overlap, but the one is not the other.
I did look into the possibility of a textual variant in Romans 1 but was unable to find a single shred of evidence that seemed reasonable. Then I simply read Romans chapter 1 up to the supposed addition and then skipped to chapter 2 to see if it made sense. It makes no sense. It’s utterly nonsensical if you skip the latter half of Romans 1. That’s especially true because Romans 2 uses demonstrative pronouns referring to wicked things, and of course demonstrative pronouns require an antecedent to make sense. With the latter half of Romans 1, the demonstrative pronouns make perfect sense. Without it, the beginning of Romans 2 — especially the demonstrative pronouns — simply don’t make any sense. the argument from tonal shift (3rd person “they” to 2nd person “you”) is silly because Paul does that regularly. I even do it regularly on this website for various reasons, and it’s almost always intentional.
To eliminate such a large chunk would require powerful evidence, such it not appearing in the textual tradition until many centuries after it was written (like the story of the woman caught in adultery). The manuscript evidence doesn’t leave room for a serious consideration of the latter half of Romans 1 not being original. Simply reading it without that section should make that clear as well, since the beginning of Romans 2 makes little sense without it.
Adding onto what Zloprof said here
1. The specific wording that is used here
You mention that historically, oral and anal sex were used by these women.
Oral sex is also penetrative, anus opening is made of same tissue as the mouth and both can gape big.
Both are critical to the consumption and dropping of food.
The anus isn’t limited like the mouth is however, and can widen large enough to fit a racoon!
The length of the anal canal and rectum are long and girth enough enough to fit a normal penis. As is the mouth.
Scat(or poop) is nontoxic and harmless if the two people are clean of any STDs
or illnesses, or worms. As is pee, or vomit.
Both the mouth and anus are close as they are formed initially connected. Where food begins and ends.
Result they would be close in many ways, even for the formation in the beginning. That verse you mention doesn’t necessary mean or refer to anal only.
Close to and contrary to nature doesn’t imply it being physically close nor does it list
it as anal intercourse only. If we speak of penetration of the other holes as you show in other text, then oral and anal have to line up regardless.
To nitpick and say that it can only be anal noted here, even though it isn’t specific here, is adding onto the bible in a attempt to make a version that meets and agrees with your worldviews.
Because again, you note that if God is saying something is wrong later in time, then regardless of how its been used or when it was used, that still means that its wrong now as a result. So Songs of Solomon would be pointless to defend oral sex because God (Through Paul) by your interpretation is saying that oral sex is wrong along with anal. Period. So that cancel out Songs of Solomon or any other prior text that would support oral in your argument.
Noting historical context:
Your’s regarding the verse is..
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(oral/anal)”
Which leads us to the next point regarding “Degrading passions”
2. Anal sex is a SIN(you imply punishment’s content= sin) because God calls it a degrading passion.
Does degrading passion, or to be more clear, punishment equivalate that item belonging to a sinful category? Just because God’s punishments was in the regards to
“Allowing them to indulge in a perverse desire like anal sex is a punishment
from God. That kind of makes it hard to argue that it’s morally acceptable.”
This is what you believe the real verse is referring to
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
1. You already noted that contrary to nature isn’t always a bad thing.
God speaking through his apostles is unnatural.
Only implicit when there something bad. So its a dependent word for this
meaning rather then independent. In other words, it doesn’t determine anything.
You also agreed to this later in the discussion with Zolprof
Which carries over to the “nail on the coffin”
2. God gave the men over to degrading passions(historical context and wording says anal/oral)
You list that therefore, it must be sin. Even though as the user above pointed out, this is done much later in bible canon. Past the death of Jesus.
This is your wording
Allowing them to indulge in a perverse desire like anal(oral) sex is a punishment from God
The floods were a punishment from god. Does that mean floods of water
(commonly aiding with larger crop harvests)
or water in general is a sinful thing? Is rain a sin?
God also punished EGYPT with a few plagues of various things.
Like one with Frogs, does that now mean frogs are considered sinful
and damned to hell? Are they now wrong to eat, to have in exhibits, etc?
Another one would be the plague of DARKNESS
Is night now sinful? Is God creating the night cycle now a damning and wrongful thing?
Is sleep laziness and condemning? Considering that God rested himself and made the day and night, I don’t believe so.
All of these were led with a specific meaning in punishment. The things themselves may not have
been bad alone, but complete darkness? Frogs everywhere? Floods of water?
These punishment’s held further consequences, the punishment itself not just being that thing. This is one of the things you miss when you read the bible here.
The consequence of these idolaters being given over to their uncontrolled lust/passions(free love) would lead to things like: population decline, the fall of civilization(or of that area) through increasing perverseness, spreading of STDs and other illnesses, the end of their bloodlines potentially as well as addiction.
In addition to other sins like adulatory, fortification(including things like pre sex marriage, which was being done a lot here already among the gentiles)
You also mention that this letter was written to the ones who God loved in Rome and called to sainthood.
That doesn’t somehow mean that men and women were referred to married because of who it’s being written towards. Nor does it change the meaning of the text.
“Elders”.
The context of this situation remains.
The content of the punishment though doesn’t ring it to be sin therefore. So anal(and oral) sex here as “punishment” with the
man and woman (I see nothing here calling them husband and wife, that’s adding onto the bible). Unless you believe that heat and cold, water and frogs and darkness is also a sin. Things that God created, Frogs particularly were among the animals deemed as good. Or even back to songs of Solomon and how oral was spoken well of.
Speaking of marriage, just to hop into this real quickly. The bible notes the marriage bed is “honorable and undefiled among all” The only permissible sexual passions or relations is in the marriage bed between a man and woman(or man and his wives). Any sex outside the marriage bed(the marriage), regardless of gender or act, even if its only vanilla, is WRONG and sinful. Degrading passions here would fit under this context much better(pre marital sex, or other wrongful sexual passions. Degrading passions because they degrade and defile the marriage bed and the people involved with indecent acts). Free love with everyone doing what they want, while trying to “fit within the rules” regardless of the gender or marriage. With consequences sure to come their way with the uncleanness as a result.
Even your version of the bible that you use doesn’t say “God will judge those who have anal/oral sex”. The people whom God judges here are the adulterers and the fornicators.
Marriage should be considered honorable by all, and the bed should be undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and men who have sex with other men’s wives.
Back to the subject.
Even in regards to hell. Fire in hell, or magma as well. The earth needs magma to be able to function proper and Fires help keep people warm during cold nights or colder times. Now those aren’t bad by themselves, but they have the potential to be used by GOD to punish.
You’ve possibly heard of a similar used terminology “It isn’t the gun that is to be used for right or wrong, but the one behind the trigger who uses the gun and makes the determination”. Same would be applicable here.
Not to mention that the Torah never noted it as wrong, you conceded that point.
Thus meaning that as a result of being unmentioned, it was therefore allowed. You can’t change that without adding onto the Bible.
Paul’s statement here regarding anal sex(and oral) is not condemnation of anal or oral sex as a sin or as something god only uses to punish sinners, but rather here as a punishment of the sins of man for being idolaters. The abandonment of fatherhood and being a husband and to instead sleeping around with other men and women for which God gives them over to.
Again, nothing here states that the men and women here are married. Adding onto that or to say that it also applies to the married completely takes out the context of why God did what he did with those group of people.
If frogs were allowed to continue existing on earth and not deemed as sinful or bad as well as water, darkness, and others after being used as punishment, the same would then apply to anal and oral sex between the man and woman.
Anal sex is not a sin, that’s you adding to the text. The bible here never says that directly here or anywhere. You also twist your point on oral sex to contradict yourself in order to fit your own world view of what YOU want from the bible translation. Since you agree with point 1 of original person regards to the torah, that would mean that prior to this, it was allowed and now by your argument logic it is no longer. That would also include oral sex, but you try to defend it with something that you yourself noted as being worthless because this is God in the later. God can change rules and do what he wills.
That puts the plug on your argument here, the big kicker.
The idolatry preceding verse 26 wasn’t anal sex, which is clear from the text. The punishment from God is handing them over to “degrading passions” like anal sex
Your oral sex argument by default
That basically ends your argument here.
Note: you misquoted me using quotation marks by adding the phrase “(and oral)” to something I said. I will be charitable and assume you meant nothing by it and were merely injecting your understanding to what I said. Thus, I edited that (and only that) out of your comment to make your quotation of me accurate. Do please be more careful when commenting/quoting so no one is misrepresented.
I said that just because God didn’t inform us that something was wrong, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. That’s very different than saying that something that God lauded (oral sex) is now a “degrading passion”. There’s a VAST gulf between God not speaking on a topic versus God lauding something and later condemning it. They aren’t the same. Not even remotely.
You’ve also divorced verse 26 from its context. Verse 27 begins with “doing the same thing”, and then talks about “men in men”, a clear referent to anal sex. Since we have “doing the same thing” at the beginning of verse 27, we know the action in verse 26 is the same as the action in verse 27: anal sex. Further, as pointed out in the article, “para” does actually mean “beside” as in “physically close” (when used in a physical context). An example: like Jesus walking “para”(beside) the sea in Matthew 4:18. The anus is beside the vaginal and the total context makes it clear. Plus, we have the testimony of the early church fathers and the other evidence presented in the article.
Degrading passion is a statement about anal sex itself. I see no possible way to *not* call it a sin when God gives it such a description. God using it as a punishment can be set aside since — while its relevant — it’s not as clear as God calling it a degrading passion. Please, answer that if you would answer something.
Just going to reply here
Plus, we have the testimony of the early church fathers
They were fighting and disagreements on regards if that verse was in regards to anal sex or lesbian. They didn’t all simultaneously agree on everything. Not to mention a number of them were also against ALL pleasures. In addition to another growing number being against polygyny. However, that’s another rabbit hole I’d rather not divulge into.
There’s a VAST gulf between God not speaking on a topic versus God lauding something and later condemning it.
I said that just because God didn’t inform us that something was wrong, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong.
Nothing to say here, though I disagree. This just comes down to interpretation. At this point, we can agree to disagree.
You’ve also divorced verse 26 from its context. Verse 27 begins with “doing the same thing”, and then talks about “men in men”, a clear referent to anal sex
How? You can have anal and oral sex with men and be in “the man”. Men in men still refers to a dude going in holes to penetrate. Penetration is occurring, I agree. Oral and anal happen to be those. Dudes can blow loads into other dude’s throats, and into the bum, and they’d still be in the same connected digestive system that would eventually absorb it. Same thing with women, and it fits the historical context of what they were doing.
Further, as pointed out in the article, “para” does actually mean “beside” as in “physically close”
The article source notes: It stresses nearness (closeness) which is often not conveyed in translation.
The mouth is “close” to the anus. All our organs are “close” to each other. Matter of fact, the mouth and anus are both connected through the digestive system and are formed connected during fetal development. Close is subjective. Again, interpretation.
Degrading passion is a statement about anal sex itself. I see no possible way to *not* call it a sin when God gives it such a description. God using it as a punishment can be set aside since — while its relevant — it’s not as clear as God calling it a degrading passion. Please, answer that if you would answer something.
That isn’t God, that’s how Paul sees the situation and his description. God isn’t Paul. As for it “being called” the degrading passions, its clear you did not read through the whole of why I attribute that part less towards the act itself and more so in the act’s situation that would alternate how the act(and others similar) are seen and their consequences. However, that is your opinion and interpretation.
Good day!
Ultimately, my acceptance of oral sex is based on the fact that God lauded it in Song of Solomon. My rejection of anal sex is the fact the God (writing through Paul) calls it a degrading passion. There are other arguments, but those are the two primary ones. I’m not willing to condemn what God approved, or approve what God condemned. So if you can show that my understanding of Song of Solomon’s lauding of oral is mistaken, I’m happy to listen. If you can show that my understanding of Romans 1:26 doesn’t/can’t apply to anal sex, I’m happy to listen. If not, then I’m going to side with God on this one.
Again, the fact that God uses it as punishment is completely irrelevant to the argument of God calling anal sex a degrading passion. I realize you focused on that, but God using it as a punishment is a completely separate issue. Please, don’t combine them into a single argument.
This is what I was looking for and you’ve put a stumbling block before me. I’m being punished.
However, I will say that this is your weakest article out of all of your articles, and I must laud you as an excellent researcher.
My understanding was that Martin Luther on both polygyny and what is usually termed sodomy is that he couldn’t prohibit it and he couldn’t condone it either.
You also say that it is quite clear, but given that this is only clear to someone who has in depth knowledge of Greek is able to distinguish the clarity is a unique skill limited to a few.
I had previously understood the logical argument that though it was a logical argument it held water, you can’t prohibit a man from sleeping with a man like you do with a woman unless a woman could also be slept with in such a way. The law is otherwise silent on the matter. You could make inferences with prophets like Hosea where in his day women were playing the harlot and “not increasing” although the act itself to my recollection is not strictly mentioned.
If a hypothetical wife demands of me to enter her in such a way, and my body is not my own, what am I to do? Shall we remain in temptation? Are we hypothetically under condemnation from God while living?
You only have one witness here. In all of your other articles you provide multiple witnesses to prove your points. Yet here it seems you have exactly one witness and its clear to you with your expertise. If you can provide me with a second witness I shall consider myself convicted. Actually I am already convicted, but very much dismayed that I have this desire in the first place.
Nevertheless I shall pray as I have been that my desires be made right before God and I would ask that you do the same on my behalf.
You are never required to obey a command to do something immoral. Acts 4 and 5 both has the basic idea of “should we obey man rather than God?”, and The midwives in Exodus demonstrate this as well. Further, your wife can’t command you to perform certain sexual acts. That’s taking the verse out of context. Paul’s point is clearly that spouses shouldn’t deny each other sex, not that a wife can boss her husband around in the bedroom.
I do see your point about multiple verses. However, Transgenderism really only has one verse as well, and most modern translations leave the relevant part out. While I agree that more verses is better, I’m not sure it’s necessary when the one verse is so clear.
Having prayed on this subject, I have two more comments to make.
First: Later on in Romans, Paul supplies us with “where there is no law, there is no transgression.” As other commentators have said, there is no law that calls anal penetration an abomination as it does with men laying with men or laying with animals and the like. If you cannot cite the law, you are adding to the law. If by this verse Paul intended to reinforce an already present prohibition under the law, he could cite it and he does; idols.
Second: “For this reason…” for what reason? Idols/idolatry. You also say that women lack the apparatus for penetration. This is true. However, there is a type of stone, wood, or other item which you can find in antiquity and in museums that would change this and you may even call them something like graven images. They are rampant today as well. Dildos. In this way as today you can have a woman penetrate another woman, literally with the aid of a man-made, unnatural object that is imaged after the phallus of a man. Such an object allows for a woman to take on the male role and penetrate as a male does.
This fits the context better to my mind, and men can use dildos too. Once they do, they may also be given to lay with other men.
The word translated “transgression” in that verse (Romans 4:15) is “παράβασις” (parabasis), which refers specifically to a deliberate and intentional sin:
So if there’s no law, you can’t intentionally and willfully violate that law. However, you can still sin (do something that’s morally wrong) even without law. Something can be wrong without having a law for it.
To your second point, I’m not sure what you’re saying exactly. if you’re saying that this could be about women engaging in sexual activity with other women using dildos to have anal sex, that’s not possible from the verse itself. Remember, the men are involved since “them” in the verse is a masculine pronoun. Additionally, it’s “them” (the men) who are being given over, so they are involved. I’m afraid the “lesbians with dildos” idea doesn’t work with the Greek.
Poop in and of itself is not the defining factor here, since God commanded Ezekiel to eat poopsmoked bread. Ezekiel protested and God made a substitution, but the command itself was there.
It being not a prohibited thing in the law seems so odd to me to then have it counterpointed in the NT only. The prohibition against even sex during mensus is clearly delineated while this is not. I’m sure there’s reason for this.
Whenever I read that passage previously I always considered it as women with themselves and then men provided as a counterpoint.
All these things being what they are, I am not afforded the opportunity to err in this way as I am not married and my present standing against fornication removes that as a possibility. That said I still have the “unseemly desire.” I’ve been in prayer about it often in these past few days as your writing on it is the only one I’ve come across since I’ve been investigating this topic that has enough of the other stuff (ie polygyny) correct that would lead me to trust it.
Any advice on reversing this condition? Otherwise please pray for me.
I’d like to thank you. Thanks to your scholarship it appears as though I’ve been delivered from… something. Or the Lord has transformed me.
God bless you sir. Thanks be to God.
You know, Leviticus 20:14 is a verse that condemns certain polygyny, but not all. Interesting verse , not sure if it warrants adding to your list in that article. Just found it interesting.
I considered it, but it doesn’t weigh in as strongly as it “should” because most people seem to think that God thought polygyny was immoral, but allowed it anyway. They would say that this is God just making sure that when they sinned, that they didn’t sin too badly. I think it’s a laughable argument, but it’s so common that I prefer stronger arguments.
So men want virgin brides so they can turn them into bisexuals and God applauds.