Homoeroticism in Early Christianity

Sexual ethics within Christianity have been debated for thousands of years. Christians have condemned homoeroticism both in scripture and before the writings of Paul. Many of the sources of this condemnation can be traced back to the Old Testament, medical writings, and widely-held perspectives on desire surrounding Paul's life. Our goal is to gain insight on an ancient understanding of homoeroticism within Christianity, evaluate its roots and its implications for early Christianity and beyond. 

In order to gain a thorough understanding of ancient sentiments on homosexuality, it is vital to comprehend how early communities handled homosexual relationships and whether it was considered normal, or intolerable. In many early societies, homosexual relations were normal, and sometimes even encouraged. For example, a small North African tribe known as the Siwans expected all men and boys to participate in homosexual acts (West 17). It was odd if he did not engage in both male and female undertakings (17).

In addition, the Kerski of New Guinea was a tribe in which young men were familiarized with anal intercourse at puberty by the older men, and subsequently spent the rest of their time as a single man doing the same to other young men (17). It was necessary for these men to go through these two phases of first passive and then active homosexual sodomy for them to then attain complete social rank and have sexual relations with women (17). For them, homosexual relations were required as a rite of passage to becoming a man in their society.

Furthermore, the Kiwai had related customs; they considered sodomy beneficial in creating strong young men (17). For the Aranda of Australia, their youths actually passed through a phase of homosexual ‘marriage’ where they resided as a ‘wife’ with an older unmarried man for a couple years until the older bachelor decided to discontinue the relationship and take in a female wife (17-18).

In other tribes however, homosexual practices were not accepted in any form (20). The Trobrian Islanders for example, permitted affectionate exchanges between men, but homosexual acts met disapproval, mockery, and sneering (20). Exposed perpetrators would kill themselves (20-21). The Trobriander semantics included phrases illustrative of sodomy, but referred to such as of the past (21).  Homosexual practices were normal with natives in jails, mission posts, and plantation garrisons, but it is usually attributed to the forced segregation of men used to engaging in sexual activities (21). Other tribes that were stricter than the Trobrianders would be put to death when caught committing sodomy (21).

It seems that different communities developed all kinds of attitudes in regards to homosexual sodomy. Every type of sentiment has abounded, from austere criticism, through numerous outlooks of indifference, to established acknowledgment (21). In classical Greece, homosexuality gained social acknowledgment as an acceptable and projected custom of love amongst average males (22). Male homosexual emotion infiltrated the entire configuration of Greek society (22). Homosexuality for the Greek was more than a security regulator for excess lust; for them it was the utmost and greatest of desires (22).  Greeks venerated the love of man as much as romantic love amid man and woman is idealized in modern-day Western society (22). However, there were no terms in ancient Greece for “homosexual” or “heterosexual”, which may or may not have contributed to the acceptance of both sexualities. 

Idealized homosexual love, with its connection of distinction and manliness, juxtaposes with the homosexuality performed as an opulent iniquity by Oriental rulers who demeaned feminine court preferences and boy prostitutes (24). With the Roman incursion, idealism appeared to diminish (24-25). In Roman writings, homosexuality developed into a topic of amusement or derision, and in practice was associated with orgiastic corruption and prostitution (25). Analysis on the sexual behaviors of Rome and Greece assists in validating what has already been concluded from anthropological reports, specifically that homosexual dispositions soon make themselves evident when given an open rein (25). The effects may be positive or negative depending on how the community deals with the situation (25). In Greece same-sex love was created to serve the chief principles of the time (25). For the late Romans, homosexual yearning simply added diversity to their immoralities (25).

Through the passage of time form the ancient world to the modern day, the history of our society of a rigorously repressive sentiment has continually failed to eliminate the societal issue of homosexuality (26). Through each century, the question of homosexuality continues to persist (26). Even when exposure led to execution, homosexuality was still prevalent (26). Therefore, homosexuality can easily be disproved as a social issue of the present day from a current slackening of moral standards (26). Whether identified as homosexuality or not, it has always existed throughout history, and people continue to hold different attitudes from society to society leaving an overall sentiment of indifference in the modern day.

Our goal is not to say that the writings of Paul were a product of Stoicism or other philosophies in ancient Christianity, but rather to speculate whether or not we can see structured similarities between them. Looking at ideas surrounding Paul during his life, ranging from the influence of the one-sex model to Stoicism, we can draw some strikingly similar conclusions, specifically on the subject of desire. “Paul was not absolutely peculiar in the ancient world in his belief that sexual desire could and should be completely extirpated, even by means of sexual intercourse if necessary.” (Martin, 65)

Stoics held the opinion that sexual desire was inherently wrong. Scholars such as Michel Spanneut argue, “Nearly all the Fathers of the Church in the first two centuries of the Christian era were dominated by the popular Stoicism.” (McNeill, 100) Paul shares this belief, most notable in 1 Corinthians 7:9 with his assertion that “it is better to marry then to burn.” For Paul, sexual intercourse was permissible “within the context of marriage and only in the absence of sexual passion and desire.” (Martin 66) Sexual intercourse in Stoicism was only allowed for the intent to procreate, but must be absent of all attachments or desires. In Stoicism, ethics were ultimately a fight against passions or affections of all kinds, all which were considered to be unnatural and irrational, as emphasized by the Stoic virtue of indifference which states “man must render himself indifferent to all exterior results of his actions, judging them only off of their interior effect.“(McNeill, 101)

These beliefs and ideologies were widely accepted, as seen in St. Augustine’s description of what sex would look like if it were not for the fall of man: sex would take place “without the seductive stimulus of passion”…with “no wild heat of passion.” (McNeill, 104) For Paul and other early church fathers that lived in the centuries surrounding Jesus’ birth, sexual desire and passion was “part of the polluting complex of the cosmos that threatens the church.” (Martin, 67) Medical writers of Paul’s time held the opinion that sexual desire was a danger and a disease of burning. Likely influenced by the prominence of the one-sex model, “the disease of desire sprang from the natural heat of the body.”(Martin, 68) This heat is the same heat described by Laqueur in his analysis of the one-sex model. In short, the writing of Paul and other writers of his time greatly resemble the opinions of Stoicism and medical understandings of that time. Sexual desire, in and of itself, was therefore a bad thing, and because homoerotic relations could not produce a child, it is not surprising to see frequent condemnation from these influences.

Translations play a vital role in forming our understandings of the Bible and then applying it to daily life. When writing the Greek Bible, the word arsenokoites was translated to mean “men who lie with men”. However, it is not certain that this was the original meaning of the word, and has bore puzzling treatment. In 1380, Wyclif translated the word as: “they that do lechery with men” (Thelos). Till the twentieth century, related translations were made, such as “abusers of themselves with mankind,” and “the liars with mankind” (Thelos). However, in the mid twentieth century an alteration occurred in that translations started using expressions like “sodomite,” “sexual perverts,” “homosexual offenders,” “homosexual perverts,” “male homosexuals,” and “practicing homosexuals” (Thelos).  

Consequently, amid the end of the nineteenth and mid twentieth centuries, the interpretation of arkenokoites altered from an indication to an act any man may do notwithstanding of orientation, to indicate a “perversion;” either an act or an inclination understood to be obviously atypical and sickly (Thelos). Accordingly the change in translation suggested the nineteenth century creation of the word “homosexual,” devised to define what was taken as an “abnormal” sexual orientation (Thelos).  All the initial translations took the word to refer to men, but the later ones opened the reference to comprise anyone who may be identified as suffering from this current “perversion” of homosexuality (Thelos). There is no logical reason for this shift. It is believed that translators are giving their own perspective or the dominant view in society rather than the precise meaning of the word (Thelos).

Many have attempted to defend the current translation of arsenokoites as indicating homosexual sex by splitting the word into two segments, arsen and koites, to derive the correct meaning and conclude that it must mean men that have sex with men (Martin 39). Arsen means men and koites means bed. It is linguistically invalid to take this approach (39). It is perilous to try to find meaning of a word by dissecting it, configuring the significance of its constituents, and then assuming that combining the meaning of the two separate parts of the word gives the underlying meaning of the complete word (39). The assertion that arsenokoites came about from an amalgamation of these two words and must mean “men who have sex with men” makes the added mistake of describing a word by its presumed etymology (39).

In observation, arsenokoites often appears where one would not expect to find mention of homosexual intercourse, like being near adultery and prostitution or illegitimate sex, but instead it is among sins associated with economic injustice or mistreatment (40).  Though there is not much evidence supporting a true context of aresenokoites, it can be argued that it had a more explicit meaning in Greco-Roman culture than general homosexual penetration (40). It appears to have reference a type of economic exploitation through sexual acts, feasibly but not positively homosexual sex (40). If looking explicitly at the context as an indication of the meaning, it is more probable to assume arsenokoites indicates a type of economic exploitation perhaps by sexual means such as, rape, prostitution, pimping, or an act of that type (41).

No one can claim to know the exact meaning of arsenokoites because there is no way of concretely knowing what it truly meant and therefore, no one should be allowed to give it a definition (Thelos). Since there is not an ample amount of evidence for the true meaning of the word, and considering the context that surrounds it that seems to relate to a means of intense, unjust exploitation, it should be unacceptable to conjure such a meaning that it must refer to “men who have sex with men” (Thelos). The fact that there is an unclear definition of a word that has caused so much tension and division within the church makes this precarious translation an exploit of violence against genuine Biblical translation.

From early English translations, malakos was defined by terms that imply an overall weakness of character or corruption, typically “weaklings” (Martin 44). From the late sixteenth to the twentieth century, the chosen translation was “effeminate” (44). However, in the mid-twentieth century, “effeminate” as the translation for malakos is entirely rejected, and a term that implies a specific sexual act or orientation is put in its place (44). The JB (1966) picks “catamite”; the NAB (1970) decrees “sodomite” from arsenokoites and malakos together; others interpret malakos as “male prostitute”; and some group the terms to propose the modern medicalized classifications of sexual, or mainly homosexual, “perversion” (44). The alters in translation were not from scholarly historical findings, but shifts in sexual thought (44).

From the shifts in translations, it came to be that malakos referred to a man that permitted penetration on himself by either a man or a woman (44). It did not simply mean a man who was penetrated, for a better word would be kinaedos (44). Malakos encompasses the entire complex of femininity (44). Men would often denounce other men by calling them malakoi (44). Since malakos refers to the whole complex of femininity, the word can mean many things such as, the softness of lavish clothes, the richness and luxury of gourmet cuisine, the placidity of light breezes (44).  When used as a term of ethical denunciation, it is still professed as “soft”: slothfulness, corruption, dissipation, lack of bravery, or to amount all these sins in the ancient classification: the feminine (44). 

A man can be considered malakos if he had sexual relations with men or women (46). Effeminacy was not in relation to the sex of one’s companion but to an intricate system of signs with a sizeable reference code (46). Ancient people did not regard malakos as referring to homosexual sex, since it was just a word like many others that indicated the feminine (46). If a man prettied himself up to advance their heterosexual exploits, they would be considered malakos, especially in Greco-Roman culture where it was assumed that men and women would be enticed by pretty boys. (45). Heterosexual sex and homosexual sex both implicated effeminacy in the ancient realm (45). If a man were to love women too much, someone may insult him by calling him malakos  (47). 

In philosophical texts, malakoi were those who could not endure hard work (45). Cowards are considered malakoi for Dio Cassius, Josephus, and Plutarch (45). In ancient literature, any man that was inclined to a luxurious life of drinking much wine, engaging in a lot of sex, hiring professionals to cook for them, and so forth were considered malakoi (45). For Josephus, if a man is frail in battle or hesitant to commit suicide then he is also labeled as such (45). Malakos is a very broad word encompassing a multitude of feminine characteristics, and therefore, it is historically unreasonable that the term came to refer to the receiving man in homosexual sex (47). It is also irrational to further narrow down the reference to mean “male prostitute” (47). Malakos means “effeminate”, and hence should not be taken to indicating a specific action or role (47).

No term in the Hebrew Old Testament, or the Greek New Testament is equal to “homosexual” (Thelos). It is lacking of credible scholarship to put our current perceptions of homosexuality on the ancient words malakos and arsenokoites when there was not even an ancient word to describe “homosexuality” (Thelos). These words may convey sinful homosexual actions, but there is no justification that the issue is standard homosexuality or heterosexuality (Thelos).  

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, malakoi and arkenoites are present and usually translated as something relating to homosexuality (62). Different translations from different bible versions have affected the meaning of these supposedly homosexual terms. The King James Version interprets malakoi and arsenokoites as “neither effeminate nor the abusers of themselves with mankind” plus the Rheims-Douai version comparatively describes the “effeminate” and “liars with mankind” (62). The Revised Standard version-first edition interprets both malakoi and arsenokoites with “homosexuals” (62). The foremost deviation of this tradition is found in the Jerusalem Bible that uses the expressions “catamites and sodomites,” and those “given to unnatural vices” (62). John Boswell expresses that cultural differences render substantial impact on the translation of Biblical texts discussing sexual morality (62). 

Bailey criticizes the Revised Standard Version for their singular use in the term “homosexuals” (62). He says that their translation is both “inaccurate” and “objectionable” and it is very unfortunate that the reviewers were oblivious of the evident distinction between the homosexual state and homosexual actions (62).  This version therefore indicates that it is wrong to be homosexually oriented without acting upon it. The various translations indicates the little knowledge known of the meaning behind Paul’s terms (63). It is shocking to see that even though the source for moral condemnation of homosexuality is largely from these biblical texts, little scholarly research has been done concerning the true meaning of these terms (63). Sometimes translations seem to be based on presumptions than on thoughtful scholarship (63).

In ancient times, neither the Greeks nor the Romans viewed homosexuality as any different from normal sexual behavior (64). However, there were names for people who practiced homosexuality acts, which included paiderastes, pallakos, kinaidos, arrenomanes and paodophthoros (64). If Paul were trying to allude to homosexual activity in his writings, it would have been more sensible to select one of these terms over arsenokoites and malakos (64).  Consequently, arsenokoitai most likely does not infer general homosexual actions, however it is problematic to determine what Paul really meant (64). The word was not used in Greek literature in the plural prior to the Pauline texts (64).

Moreover, it must not be forgotten that the psychological, psychiatric, medical classification of homosexuality was instituted when it was branded in Westphal’s famed article in 1870 on “contrary sexual sensations” (Foucault 43).  The “sodomite” was a brief anomaly; now the homosexual was a species (43).

A Breif Analysis of Romans 1

Romans 1, as it relates to homoeroticism, does not have significant problems with translation as other passages do. For hundreds of years, there have been a variety of disagreements on how Romans 1 should be interpreted. As a whole, many attribute God's wrath to a punishment on the unspoken group for idolatry. Those who subscribe to this theory argue that the sexual behavior Paul mentions is associated with pagan rituals and temple prostitution, which he may have been familiar with. Other assertions to strengthen this argument cite examples such as the overall tone and structure of the chapter as superstitious and other echoes that are present in the Old Testament. (Boswell,108) This specific argument can be weakened by the assertion that the behavior Paul speaks of ("burned in their lust towards one another") was clearly performed by a motivation of sexual desire. (Boswell, 108) It is important to note that Paul's language clearly states that the sexual actions committed were carried out by those who were on the 'right path' of heterosexual acts, so to speak, and abandoned them in order to pursue sexual acts with people of the same gender. This assertion does not allow for the condemnation of homosexuality, as it is understood as an orientation, for there is no active abandonment of heterosexual desires to exchange them, but rather an innate same-sex attraction. (Boswell, 109) Opinions from Saint John Chrysostom support this theory, as he stated, referring to Romans 1 that "No one can claim that she came to this because she was precluded from lawful intercourse or that because she was unable to satisfy her desire she fell into this monstrous depravity. Only those possessing something can change it." (Boswell, 109) In modern day language, this argument could be stated as "Paul did not discuss gay persons but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons." (Boswell, 109) 

Paul's condemnation of their behaviors could be strictly because of their rejection of God, or monotheism, and their acceptance of paganism. It is important to emphasize the language in verses 19-23:  

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles (NIV)

Lastly, it is imperative to examine Paul's use of the term "nature". Common arguments that seek to condemn homosexuality will often argue that Paul's usage of nature refers to a moral force or even natural law (natural law was not yet established as a thought during Paul's life) . However, Paul uses this term frequently, for instance in 1 Corinthians 11:14: 

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him (NIV)

To assert that some sort of moral force is what Paul means here by his use of a word translated to 'nature' is not the best guess. More likely, Paul meant nature as more of a custom, tradition, or social norm. If this is true, Romans 1:26 can be read as describing the "personal nature of the pagans in question." (Boswell, 111) In other words, they were straying away from their typical behavior, customs, or social norms in order to engage in sex acts with same-sex partners who were not their original partners. 

 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature (Romans 1:26 KJV)

Sexuality seems to have been generally a subject of apathy to Jesus (Boswell 114). Jesus made few comments on sexual standards, particularly when comparing to the amount of opinions on subjects like prosperity and demonic possession that were widely disregarded by later Christians (114). When sexuality is specifically said, it is used mostly to make a broader argument for example, committing adultery “in one’s heart” to make the case that it is the intent that inaugurates the sin (Matt. 5:28) (114).  

He made no criticism of sexuality among single individuals and did not say anything that related to homosexuality (115). What appears to be the significant sexual issue to Jesus was fidelity in prohibiting divorce except in matters of infidelity. Jesus was not sexually active, and only held close, special relationships with his male disciples (115). For Paul, he was concerned mostly with “purity” for the sake of devoting undivided attention to the service of God, and not getting distracted by the obsessions that may come with sexuality (115-116).

There does not seem to be a logical explanation why relations cannot be made between two people of the same sex, since homosexuals seem to meet the moral criteria (116). The silence of Christian writers on sexuality and the sole heterosexual focus of New Testament remarks on sexuality suggest overall discontentment of homosexuality on Jesus’s part or the initial church (116). This supposition fails to take in account the historical implications surrounding the formation of ancient Christian sexual morals (116).

A possible reason why homosexual relationships were not a topic of discussion may be because of the little complications that go with it. Homosexual affairs did not bring about legal issues, left no one without provision, did not formulate any undesired pregnancies, or illegitimate children, and unlikely to generate property-settlement issues (116). For someone to infer that Paul’s references to excessive sexual indulgences concerning homosexual behavior are suggestive of an overall stance of opposition to same-sex relations is as unfound as that of contending his denunciation of drunkenness conveys disapproval of drinking wine (117).  For the most part, the influence of Christian Scripture on sentiments regarding homosexuality is unresolved (117). It is best to suppose that antigay feelings present among Christians must be obtained elsewhere (117). 

To use the book of Genesis to prove that God ordains heterosexual relationships alone is homophobia in disguise. Genesis outlines the world as the ancient people might think the world was. Even so, it may not even be reasonable to assume that they read Genesis as literal history. 

Genesis harbors many myths and accounts of individuals caught in dilemmas and crises. Eve was tempted with the apple; Baraham was told to sacrifice his son; Jacob took his brother's birthright; Joseph was abandoned and sold into slavery by his brothers. The myths did hold a particular value to those who studied Genesis in the ancient world. However, insignificant details were hardly used to justify moral dilemmas in the time of the reader. 

For example, Adam and Eve were not permitted to eat the flesh of animals. There are no proponents of a Genesis based vegetarianism or veganism. Though a proponent of these dietary choices exists, they tend not to appeal to Genesis for these values. Their concern is for the wellbeing of the animals that have to be sacrificed for the sake of our food. Why then is something like homosexuality pulled from such a story? Not only does it not make sense, but also it would undermine any legitimate position by inadvertently admitting that there are not real prohibitions of gay marriage in the Bible other than a pseudo historical account of the first two people. It is okay to base our idea of moral sexual identity on these two individuals, but the morality of every other lifestyle choice possible is in contrast with them. 

Consider Abraham, the account of him almost sacrificing his son, Isaac. A divine being appears at the last moment to tell Abraham to not touch his son. The point of the story would be that this is not an actual historic account of Abraham almost killing his son, but a narrative explaining why the ancient Hebrews did not sacrifice children like the neighboring people in the region. It is not that God literally commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, only changing his mind at the last second. If that were the case, the story would be frightening, and rather disappointing, and would discourage one from following God. The point of the story is to lie out the reaction against child sacrifice: it is not just the Hebrews that are against it, but also God. However, a biblical literalist may take this story, and interpret it in the most troubling way. By doing so, they will not only muss the point of the narrative, but they will slap their own morality on it by claiming that this is an example of why people should follow God no matter what.  No matter the circumstance, we must be like Abraham and have unswerving faith in God's direction, even if it means we must sacrifice our own child.  Such interpretation of this passage has nothing to do with the actual point and purpose of the narrative, and undermines the point in which it was written completely. Just as in the previous example the reader will be pulling out what they want from the scripture to satisfy their predetermined morality or way of life. 

Genesis chapter 16 describes the relationship between Hagar and her master, Sarai.  Verse three states "So Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maidservant- after ten years of Abram's dwelling in the land of Canaan - and gave her to Abram her husband, to him as a wife.  He consorted with Hagar and she conceived;" This passage describes the account of the birth of Ishmael, son of Hagar. Sarai could not have a child, so she gave Hagar to Abram to be raped and have a son through her. Verse five continues: "So Sarai said to Abram, "The outrage against me is due to you!  It was I who gave my maidservant into your bosom, and when she saw that she had conceived, I became lowered in her esteem.  Let Hashem judge between me and you!"  Abram said to Sarai, "Behold - your maidservant is in your hand; do to her as you see fit.""  This is an account of slavery in Genesis.  These verses could be used to describe a divinely ordained system of chattel slavery in which the slaves can be given to one another for any conceivable reason, including sex.  Verse 6 says: "And Sarai dealt harshly with her, so she fled from her.  An angel of Hashem found her by the spring of water in the desert, at the spring on the road to Shur.  And he said, "Hagar, maidservant of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?" And she said, "I am running away from Sarai my mistress." And the angel of Hashem said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her domination."" How does the Biblical literalist read these passages?

This is the case for the creation account and the issue of homosexuality. For the same reason one would say that using the Genesis account of Sarai and Hagar as a Biblical justification for chattel slavery is a poor way of hiding racism and bigotry, one should say that the account of Adam and Eve as a Biblical justification against homosexuality is a poor way of hiding homophobia. Adam and Eve serve a theological purpose to the ancient people.  Their existence and what they do leading to the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil does not have anything to do with a conservative interpretation of moral married life.  It is ridiculous to use such passages for this purpose. Doing so is to attempt to hide one's own homophobic agenda.