Strictly speaking, the Bible says nothing about homosexuality.  The term, 'homosexuality', belongs to our modern vocabulary and within modern concepts of the origins and formation of human sexuality.  The original Biblical languages contain no words for "sexuality", "heterosexuality" or "homosexuality".   Until the modern period, no distinctions between "homosexual' and 'heterosexual' sexuality were made.  That is not to say that same-sex practices were unknown to the biblical writers.  Comments on same-sex practices occur in three places within the bible, Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; (proscriptions in the Holiness Code) and Romans 1:24-27 (Paul's stinging rebuke of Gentile society).  Such comments are within the context of the ancient, patriarchal understandings and customs through which they were interpreted and are never the topic of sustained discussion.  In some places, reference to homoeroticsm or to same-sex practices has been inferred or added during the process of translation into Latin or into English, as is shown to be the case in Genesis 19:4-11 (the Lot and Sodom story), Judges 19 (the story of the Levite and his wife), 1 Corinthians 6:9 (Paul's reprobate list) and 1 Timothy 1:10(a modified, Pauline reprobate list).  Sometimes reference is made to texts in Genesis, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel , 1 Kings and Jude, with respect to homosexuality, all of which are spurious interpretations. 

So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.  God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."  God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.  God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:27-31. NRSV)

It is clear that the ancient understanding in Genesis 1:27 is that human kind is created in the image of God as relational beings, male and female.  Men and women are created as beings who are open to the future within the full context of the world (cosmos) and within the full context of their humanity or human potential.  Their destiny is as relational beings and is not tied to an anatomical destiny that is bound and determined by procreation. Any primacy given to heterosexual relationships is a secondary association that is read into the text and is not implicit to it.  This relational understanding is well developed by Phyllis Trible,(2)  who uses Gen.1:1-2:4a as her beginning text in exploring a theology of sexuality.  She shows that it is "male and female" (zakar uneqeba) or ‘humankind’(3)  that is presented as being "created in the image of God," where male and female form a unit comprising two creatures that are distinct, harmonious equals. 

They have two responsibilities; procreation and dominion as "male and female".  It is in the totality of "male and female" that the responsibility for procreation exists.  That totality does not necessarily imply that all, individual males and female must procreate.  It is human relationality and not procreation that highlights the uniqueness of humankind in creation, as created in "the image of God".  The divine command to procreate parallels the same command given to the fish of the sea and birds of the heavens, who are not designated male and female. The designation is biological, not sociological, thus the text gives freedom to interpret male and female as unique beings and masculine and feminine stereotypes are not imposed. This interpretation fully accommodates a post-modern understanding of sexuality as a psycho-social orientation that is diversely experienced across the spectrum of human existence.  It allows for a full expression of male and female, without stereotypes, in which both heterosexual and homosexual relational experience make possible the imaging of God. 

In Genesis 1-2:4a, the notion of sexual identity as "male and female," is so tied rhetorically to the metaphor of "image of God", that it does not serve to differentiate sexual stereotypes but identifies the relational character of the human beings.  As the "image of God" it is humankind that bears a unique relationship to God.  This relationship stands on its own and is not dependent upon procreational activity.  As single beings, their relationship to each other is implicit also.  They are equals, regardless of role definition in terms of procreation or any other mark of distinction.  While Trible's intent is to highlight improper differentiation between women and men, as a feminist critique of Scripture and its application, her criticism also highlights the inappropriateness of all stereotypical applications of the text.  Thus the persistent claim, that God created people as heterosexual beings only, reflects an anachronistic, androcentric, patriarchal view that, while being an inherent part of the biblical canon and church history, does not stand up to post-modern criticism.  Heterosexual union and procreation are not definitive factors of being human. 

Genesis 2-3: the Creation of Sexuality

In unfolding her interpretation of Gen. 2-3, Trible dispels arkhonic (4)  notions regarding the explicit and implicit meanings of the text.  She describes the narrative as the development of Eros (love of life), in four episodes of a love story, that began with the forming of the earth creature, ha-‘adam, and continued in the planting of a garden, the making of animals, and the creation of sexuality.   The love story had gone awry however, when the fulfilment proclaimed when ’íš, 'man' and ’íššâ, 'woman', became one flesh, disintegrated through human disobedience. (5)    However, the Bible does not leave the account there. 

The Song of Songs is seen to redeem this love story, restoring Eros and enhancing the creation of sexuality in Genesis 2, and emphasizing equality and mutuality between man and woman as lovers.  The main voice of the Song is female.  Thus Trible says, "Women, then, are the principal creators of the poetry of eroticism." (6)    That is not to say that the poetry of eroticism stays with women.  We are all able to express the joy of our sexual being, in the poetry of our own lives as well as in words.    In this way we celebrate the joy of erotic relationships, as a response to the God-given gift of sexuality and erotic intimacy.  While God's voice is absent from the Song, the divine voice is borne by the breath of the poet, the very respiration of lovers, that cries in the cosmos, to affirm their own being, confirming their own togetherness, their own becoming.  Through our personal delight in love-making our body's song or poetry becomes a responsive voice that rises to God in joy and in gratitude.  In this sense, love-making transcends sexual gratification, to become a hymn of thanks and praise to God, for the gift of  our embodied selves.  More than that, it celebrates the relationship between the lovers, in the simple joy of sexual encounter.  That is why God's voice is absent in the Song, as it is in Genesis 2, where poetry of eroticism first appears and ha-‘adam says, 
            "This, finally, bone of my bones 
              and flesh of my flesh. 
              This shall be called ’íssâ (Woman) 
              because from ’ís (Man)
              was differentiated this." (Gen.2:23)

Trible's interpretation is post-modern and inclusive.  It is not only erotic, but traces God's initial blessing of harmony, pleasure and fulfilment in the creation of sexuality, as being prior to the actualization of procreational applications to sexuality.  In the Song, the seeking of one's lover finds harmony of encounter and fulfilment in sexual embrace.  Sexuality is thus celebrated in the longing, the pursuit and the embrace.  The focus is delight and joy in relational connectedness.  We can appropriate that spirit, for it is the spirit of mutuality and relational activity that not only celebrates life but also makes God present in the world, through love-making.  It is relational connectedness that lifts human sexual relationships above those of the animals.   The choice for gay and lesbian persons is not between heterosexuality and homosexuality but to be able to celebrate their sexuality, to form relationships and to seek relational intimacy in ways that are not cut off from their God-given nature. 

Love-making possibilities re-envision our own sexuality as well as re-vision God, as an erotic God, full of life and passion.  Sexual activity is a relational process of making erotic connections.  It is God-given and blessed.  The connection of sex and sexuality with The Fall has denigrated sexual activity, robbing it of its blessedness.   Through mutual sex we experience personal communication, intimacy, the harnessing of desire and sexual truth.  We touch our own erotic strength and liberate that of our partner.  We share erotic power, transcending the self in the full inclusiveness of love-making.  In this way it is also justice-doing, for it empowers the other.  Carter Heyward expresses this dynamic empowerment as "godding",  in which the verb, 'godding', points to the truth of God's erotic activity.  She says: 

"Godding, we experience our personal lives as profoundly connected at the root of who we are, rather than as separate and disconnected from our professional lives and from one an other's places of deepest meaning.  Godding, we share how we really feel about our body selves-in-relation, in our living and working, our living and dying.  We share, we act, we are together." (7) 

  of Genesis 1-2 section only.   Back.

The story is this: two angels (Heb. mal’akim), human-like companions of God, visit Sodom on a reconnoitre to see if the city is as evil as reported, for God has decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah unless ten righteous persons are found there (Gen. 18:21-33).  They arrive at the city in the evening (without God) and meet Lot who invites them to his house for the night.  At first the angels refused the invitation, preferring to spend the night in the square.  Lot persists and so they eventually join him for a meal.  During this time, a mob of locals gathers at Lot’s house, surrounding it, demanding that the guests be brought out to them so that they "may know them" (Gen. 19:5).  Lot is reluctant to hand over the guests.  He implores the mob not to act wickedly and offers his two daughters to them to placate them.  Lot’s obvious concern is preferential shelter of the guests rather than his daughters.  Now the mob gets angry and indignant that Lot, a foreigner (Heb. ger), should make such judgement on them and the house is attacked.  The guests inside grab Lot and bring him safely into the house with them and shut the door.  "And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they were unable to find the door." (Gen. 19:11)   The next day the angels remove Lot and his entire family from Sodom before divine punishment is brought upon it with a rain of sulphur and fire. 

Interpretations of the sin of Sodom have varied through the ages. The connotation of homosexual practices with the Sodom story (Genesis 19:1-20) is a late development, in which reference to homosexuality has been read into the original account. (8)   Homosexual nuances have assumed popular association with the text of Genesis 19:1-20.  However, such nuances are features outside of the text and upon closer examination are not necessarily inferred in the text.  This fact is demonstrated where the Bible itself comments upon the sin of Sodom.  It is primarily viewed as one of inhospitality and greed, as in Amos 4:11; Isa. 1:9-19, 13:19; Jer. 49:18; Lam. 4:6; Ezek. 16:46, 48-50, 53, 55-56; Zeph. 2:9; Deut. 29:22; 32:32; plus  Sir. 16:8; Wis. 19:13-14; Matt. 10:12-13; Luke 10:10-12. The only exception is Ezek. 16:49-50, which reads: 

            "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food,
            and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.  They were haughty, and did
            abominable things before me: therefore I removed them when I saw it." 
            (Ezek. 16:49-50 NRSV)                                                                                                     Back.

Homosexual connotations to the story derive from interpreting yadha', ‘to know’, to mean carnal knowledge. This is a surprising understanding, and a harsh contraction of meaning, for the Hebrew word, yadha', implies carnal knowledge in only ten of the 947 occurrences of the word in Scripture.(12)    What is even more surprising, is that the word is commonly taken to imply carnal knowledge of a homosexual kind!  If that interpretation is correct, it is the only occurrence of such meaning in the Old Testament. It is not good exegesis to say simply that because yadha' means "to know by sexual intercourse" in ten occurrences of the word in the Bible (each one as a heterosexual act resulting in the conception of a child) that yadha' means same-sex intercourse in the Sodom story. 

Source criticism identifies the story of Sodom with the Yahwist redaction and, in other Yahwist texts, yadha' means ‘sexual intercourse’. (13)    This meaning is implied where Lot says of his daughters, "they have not known a man" (Gen. 19:8), which is the second occurrence of the word yadha' in the story.  This heightens the story by conferring a sexual connotation, albeit of a heterosexual kind. It is this second usage of yadha' that is used to interpret the first as carnal knowledge of a same-sex kind, as it is the only explicitly sexually connotated usage of the word in the text.  Further more, the usage comes from the mouth of Lot, who appears to misunderstand the intent of the men of Sodom. 

Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."  But they replied, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down. (Gen. 19:6-9)

The interchange between Lot and the men of Sodom makes it clear that the concern was for local dominance and power over the strangers and Lot.  The Sodomites sought to establish the identity of the strangers whom Lot has taken into his house.  Sodom had recently been engaged in a war (Gen. 14:1-2) and wariness of strangers is understandable.  Also, as a resident alien in Sodom, Lot probably had exceeded his rights as a foreigner by offering hospitality to strangers- a customary obligation of the Sodomites.  Lot's invitation had usurped the obligation of the Sodomites and the strangers presented a further affront in accepting it.  The Sodomites seek after identity of the strangers and challenge them.  Are they relatives of Lot's and therefore his primary responsibility to host?  They are clearly foreigners who have not allowed the local people to offer hospitality, originally having prepared to spend the night in the city square.  Their actions may be the source of affront in that they accepted hospitality from Lot, another foreigner.  As a result, the men of Sodom are angry, indignant and challenge the strangers.  Lot misunderstands the intent of the mob.  That is why Lot’s daughters did not pacify the mob but rather inflamed it, as the mob's xenophobic intent was not met. This underscores the understanding that the men of Sodom intended to gang rape the angels as an act of priapic, male dominance. Phallic aggression towards strangers, with threats of domination and subjugation by the men of Sodom, is the point in the story and the source of their disgrace and not the homoerotic act implied in doing it. (14) 

Comments within Scripture reinforce this understanding. In Wisdom 19:13-14, the punishments did not come upon Sodom without prior warning.  The people were destroyed because their bitter hatred of strangers and for inhospitality and for enslaving guests who were their benefactors. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 16:8 comments on the Sodom story, teaching that God did not spare the Sodomites as God abhorred their pride or arrogance.   While both these texts are apocryphal to Jewish and Protestant canon, they serve to illustrate that the notion of a "homosexual sin" in relation to the destruction of Sodom was not an interpretation or tradition held at the time of the writing of those texts.  Homosexual connotations of the Sodom story were not a part of the more ancient traditions and are clearly a later development that subverts the meaning of the original texts.

It is ironic that in the story of Sodom, God condemns the people for their inhospitality, their insensitive treatment and harassment of others.  In applying this text to attack gays and lesbian people today, the very same sin is being perpetuated.

The real story of Sodom involves a mob driven by xenophobia, fear and hatred, confronting a group of persons that they do not know and threatening to humiliate them by rape or intimidation.  They highlight the otherness of the strangers, a situation that has sad parallels to gay-bashing today.  That the church is engaged in this activity denies its own hospitality for those seeking shelter from the mob.

of Genesis 19 section only.   Back.

In the story concerning a Levite and the rape of his wife of secondary rank, (15)  Judges 19 gives the reasons for the sundering of the tribes of Israel and the massacre of the Benjaminites.  It shows strong parallels with the story of Sodom. (16)   Both stories are prefaced with an account of one person offering good hospitality (Abraham in Gen. 18:1-5, the father of the Levite’s wife in Judges 19:3-10).  Like the Sodomites, the Gibeathites are extremely unfriendly to strangers and are destroyed.  Two strangers enter the city and prepare to spend the night in the square.  One friendly man, who is not a native Gibeathite, shows the proper hospitality and takes them in.  The host's house is surrounded by an angry mob that demands that the male guest comes out, "so that we may know him" (the NRSV has "so that we may have intercourse with them.").  The host is horrified and offers his virgin daughters instead. 

But the mob would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine (Heb. ‘ishah pilegesh), and put her out to them. They wantonly raped her, and abused her all through the night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go.  As morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man's house where her master was, until it was light.  In the morning her master got up, opened the doors of the house, and when he went out to go on his way, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. (Judges 19:25-27 NRSV).

Comparing the story with that of Sodom, shows that a homoerotic association of the word, yadha' occurs in the same place in both stories, with the story in Judges presenting the eventual gang-rape as being upon the woman.  It is her rape that causes dishonour to the man and his host, as the rape of the woman is a de jure rape of the Levite.  He is shown as a coward, failing his obligations to protect his wife and his own honour.  Thus defamed by the Gibeathites, he precipitates vengeance that decimates the tribe of Benjamin in a civil war approved by God (Judges 20) to avenge male honour.  The link between the story of the Levite’s wife and the story of Sodom highlight's the issues of xenophobia, inhospitality and the rights of men implicit within the stories.  No interpreter has used the story of the gang-rape of the Levite’s wife to condemn heterosexuality. Gang-rape, as an act of humiliation against strangers or foreigners (male or female) condemns homosexuality no more than it condemns heterosexuality, regardless of the homoerotic associations in the story.  Power over strangers or those who are different through ethnicity and gender, as a breach of hospitality, is the issue.  Over time, through an encoded language of ‘sodomy’ and ‘sodomites’ that has entered the English translations of the stories, the sin of social infraction has been transferred to issues of sexuality.  This has contributed to homophobia, antisocial violence, vilification and harassment of homosexual persons.  Those against whom these stories have been turned, know this very well.  Sexually based aggression against those who are different, defines the sin of Gibeah (and Sodom) in our time. 

of Judges 19 section only.   Back.

The Torah contains two sentences concerning same-sex acts between males.  Leviticus 18:22 provides a direct prohibition against same-sex acts, which reads, 

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination [Heb. to'evah]. 
(Lev. 18:22 NRSV)

Lev. 18:22 is part of the Holiness Code concerning ritual and cultic purity. The list of sexual infractions is framed by a sermon teaching people to separate themselves from neighbouring peoples and their practices. (17)   It is not concerned with distinctions of moral or spiritual purity but things to'evah, 'unclean', which are seen as distinctive features of the ways of the Canaanites.   Within the narrative it relates to the time prior to the conquest of Canaan during the Exodus from Egypt.  However the text dates from the post-exilic time (fifth century BCE), during which the community sought to separate itself from neighbouring peoples to establish a Jewish distinctiveness.  It is to that purpose that the Code is directed.  It defines accepted behaviours, in comparison to the otherness of Canaanite culture which is designated to'evah, delimiting one culture against another.  If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, the Hebrew words chata', chatta'ah or chet' would have been used.

Familiar examples of things to'evah include eating pork or shrimp and men cutting the hair at their temples. The Code regarded things "pure" as long as they were perfect examples of their kind, unblemished or unpolluted by mixing kinds.   Blemished animals were unacceptable as sacrifices and cripples, dwarfs and eunuchs were excluded from ritual practices of the cult.   Things regarded as to'evah included mixed marriages (between ethnic groups), mixing things of another category such as fibres in a cloth, different seeds in one field, cross-breeding animals and dressing like persons of the opposite sex.  The objective purity of Lev. 18:22 considered similar mixing of roles to be undertaken in same-sex activity.  In Lev.18:21-22 & 20:13, the context concerns conduct in relation to neighbouring peoples and Jewish distinctiveness, as the community sought to re-establish itself among post-exilic struggles for identity.  These textual references to same-sex acts have no bearing upon modern understandings of sexuality.   Such understandings were not known at the time the texts were written and to project modern understandings back into the text does a mischievous injustice to the integrity of the Scripture.

Christians do not follow other aspects of the Holiness Code and are free to eat rare meats or pork, throw a shrimp on the barbie, play football with a pig-skin ball, wear polyester-cotton blends, seed their lawns with a grass mixture, and get their hair cut.  Yet, through selective application of the Code with respect to same-sex activity, conservative Christians stress these two laws as being against homosexuality. It is difficult to argue the logical retention of these laws, except through application of prejudice and ignorance.

of Leviticus section only.   Back.

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 contains prohibitions against kadeshah and kadesh from among the daughters and sons of Israel. However, precisely who or what kadeshah and kadesh are, is unknown. (18)   Their role is nowhere specified and all sexual connotations are inferred from usage in parallel with zona, ‘prostitutes’ in Gen. 38:21-22, Deut. 23:19 and Hos.14:14. In 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 2Kings 23:7, kadeshim are linked to the worship of Astarte in pre-exile Israel.  The later tradition, as recorded in 2Kings 23:7, has…

He (king Josiah of Judah) broke down the houses of the kadeshim that were in the house of the LORD, where the women did weaving for Asherah (groves sacred to the worship of Astarte). 

of Deuteronomy section only.

Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"  He answered them, "What did Moses command you?"  They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her."  But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you.  But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'  'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,  and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh.  Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."  Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.  He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;  and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."  (Mark 10:2-12 NRSV)

of Markan section only.

            Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
            deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes (Gk. malakoi), sodomites
            (Gk. arsenokoitai), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will
            inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NRSV)

In interpreting 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10, it is crucial to understand the meaning of the Koine Greek words, malakoi (sg. malakos) and arsenokoitai (sg. arsenokoites), used by Paul in this list.  Apart from the Greek, literal connotations of 'softies' and 'men lying the bed', there is no agreement in opinion as to what the words mean.  Difference in opinion exists, also, as to whether the words stand separately (as with the other words in the list) or are to be taken as a linked pair.  In the first case, malakoi may be a general, derisive term for a class of "softies" and arsenokoitai may refer to ‘male prostitutes’, servicing either sex.  There is no reason to assume that the two words are a linked pair because of their proximity in Paul’s list.  To argue that they refer to ‘passive’ and ‘active’ partners in a pederastic or homosexual relationship, is problematic.  With reference to the words as a pair, Eva Cantarella claims that they refer to the active and passive sexual partners in a homosexual relationship. (23)    Thus she maintains that Paul, "condemned homosexuality on a global basis". (24)     However, Cantarella uses the word, 'homosexual' in a particular way, in relation to pederasty, as the same-sex aspect of a bisexual phenomenon in ancient Graeco-Roman sexual practice .(25)   Her consideration of a "global" (Catholic?) condemnation is thus specific in regard to location and time, within the ancient Graeco-Roman world, and it is not appropriate to make the semantic shift to any modern understanding of the term.  Other modern interpreters project modern social prejudices back into the texts, taking the words to refer variously, to temple prostitutes, to 'heterosexual' persons only, to specific sexual practices such as pederasty or to 'homosexuality' generally.  Choice of meaning is probably decided by the personal, communal or corporate bias of the translators, both in the ancient world and in modern times. 

The adjective, malakos,  is used as a plural noun, malakoi, by Paul.  Malakos literally means 'soft' as when referring to inanimate objects such as clothes (see Lk. 7:25).(26)   Matthew uses the word to designate soft or effeminate persons (see Matt. 11:8) and a related word, malakia, to mean 'sickness', or 'weakeness' (Matt.4:23; 9:35; 10:1).(27)   In passing, it is notable that the English rendering "soft clothes / robes / raiment" (KJV, NRSV ASV), is not a direct translation of the Greek in Matt. 11:8, but an addition made by English translators to provide a gloss to the text.   Thus a reference to ta malaka is removed from Jesus' mouth.  

Early English translations rendered malakoi to denote a generalised, degenerate class of persons.  Thus Wyclif (1380) renders malakoi as ‘lechouris ayens kynde’; Tyndale (1534), Coverdale (1535) and Cranmer (1539) give the rendering ‘weaklinges’; the Geneva Bible (1557) has ‘wantons’ and both the Douai-Rheims (1582) and the King James Version (1611) render malakoi as 'effeminate'.  Later translations changed the rendering to ‘catamites’ (JB, 1966) and 'male prostitutes' (NIV, 1973; and NRSV, 1989) to give a specific sexual connotation.  There is no philological or historical evidence to warrant this semantic shift.  Malakos has various usage in ancient literature, contemporary to Paul, showing that it did not mean homosexuality in any way.  Epictetus uses malakos to refer to 'soft-headed' persons, whom he regards as too dull to absorb true philosophy. (28)    Dio Chrysostom uses malakos to refer to those made soft or demoralised by too much learning! (29)   Other ancient writers use the word to refer to  a 'soft' person who is in need of exercise or is lazy.  Vettius Valens followed Aristotle's use of malakos to denote unrestrained indulgence in bodily pleasures, or licentiousness. (30)   A similar viewpoint was held by of Stoic philosophy that one was "softened" by too much sexual activity or by licentious living or over indulgence.  Josephus used malakos to denote moral condemnation in men who appeared ‘soft’ or ‘weak’ through lack of courage in battle, reluctance to commit suicide in defeat or the enjoyment of luxury. (31)

Paul could not have meant malakos in the literal sense of 'soft', other than to apply a critical stereotype such as "softies", perhaps with Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish influences in the background.  What makes the persons "soft" is unclear and unspecified.  Some interpreters have argued that it could refer to a man who undertakes a passive sexual role, thus resembling a woman in  practice. (32).  That interpretation relies heavily on reading Leviticus 18:22 into the text.  The Greek nuance could be given as 'effeminate’, which may be close to the meaning, as the KJV and ASV render the word.  However, we have another interpretative problem here, for the KJV, 17th C. Elizabethan meaning of 'effeminate' may not carry the same meaning that we apply today.  What is clear is that the term is derogatory and appeals to prejudice.  Paul most likely used the word in the same way within a broadly based social connotation of ridicule of the effeminate person. (33)  Such ridicule appealed to sexist prejudices of the time, in which being soft, lazy, cowardly or enjoying a life of luxury and ease were characterisations of things feminine.  This is the proper way to render Matthew 11:8, also, where malakoi and malaka designate effeminate, "soft" persons, as found in king's houses ("queens"?) .  However, if effeminacy was the intended Pauline  usage, Attic Greek had available two other words that Paul could have used.  These are androgunos, from which we derive the modern word 'androgyny', and thelubrios.  Neither word was used by Paul so his meaning may have had broader connotations, suggesting a class of persons such as that carried by the term "'queers" or "queens" today. 

In Plutarch's Erotikos the similar word, malthakos, is used in relation to passive sexuality in men. (34)   Similar usage by the imperial physician, Caelius Aurelianus, shows that the word related to heterosexual men. (35)   Thus malakos does not mean 'homosexual' or 'male prostitute.'  It could be taken as a reference to effeminacy or perhaps to the passive partner in a pederastic relationship.   However, this latter interpretation may be reading more into the word than Paul intended, for 'malakos' is not one of the usual words used to describe pederastic partners.  These are the words 'erastes',  (the lover), 'eromenos', (the beloved), and 'paidika' (the beloved 'boy' or youth). (36)   Thus 'malakos' appears to be used by Paul as a technical term and its meaning is unclear. (37)   The most likely rendering is ‘effeminate’ or ‘softies’, with distinctly derogatory, misogynous connotations. 

Malakoi is followed by the rare word, arsenokoitai, which is  more difficult to translate than malakoi.  Morphologically it is a compound word: arseno - 'man' + koitai - 'lying the bed', thus the transliteral meaning is, 'man lying the bed'.  The etymology of the word is problematic, however, being ambiguous as to whether the word means 'a man who lies the bed (with anyone)', in which the first part of the word, arsen- is the subject, or whether it means 'one who lies with men', with arsen- taken as the object.   John Boswell takes the former, subjective usage of  arsen, and translates arsenokoitai to mean 'male sexual agents', that is, active male prostitutes. (38)   In this case it is not a specific reference to homosexuality, as such persons may service either sex.   Boswell bases this on comparisons with other compound words beginning with arsen,  in which the meaning 'man' is applied as subject, pointing out that the form arreno- is used where an objective sense exists.  This pattern is not always followed in Greek, however, so homoerotic association with the word is not removed, necessarily. 

Arsenokoites could have been derived from the Septuagint as a new word (neologism) coined by Paul based on Leviticus 20:13, which reads: kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos ... (and whoever lies with a man as with a woman... ) in which the words arsen and koite that come next to each other are joined to create a new word.  In which case the objective sense of the arseno- compound may be used an the word rendered as 'one who lies with men'.  In translating the word from the Greek LXX to the Latin Vulgate, Jerome followed this meaning and rendered it masculorum concubitores.  Such usage does not of itself clear the ambiguity of the original Greek, however. 

Looking behind the LXX, it has been argued that arsenokoites appears to be a compound of the translation of mishkav zakur ('lying of a male'), two Hebrew words that are used in Rabbinic literature to refer to same-sex, pederastic practice. (39)   This is conjecture, since the Rabbinic term, mishkav zakur appears in written sources dating from well after Paul.  Pederastic associations of the words certainly appear in Rabbinic and Early Christian writings that post-date Paul, also. (40)   That does not mean that the words held that meaning for Paul.  At best, the intentional meaning of the Greek words is unclear and three recent commentaries differ markedly in their interpretation of the words. (41)    Lexicographically, it does not necessarily imply or deny that same-sex acts are involved.  The word is therefore imprecise.  However, it neither means 'sodomite,' as rendered in the NRSV, nor is the word properly to be translated as, 'a man who has intercourse with males', as rendered in some modern discussions of the usage in the Pauline texts. (42)   To its shame, the revised version of Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon renders arsenokoites as, 'a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite'.  Such renderings read more into the word than the Greek allows and perpetuate homophobic, heterosexist prejudices.

Arsenokoites is variously translated in English Bibles, following the objective sense discussed above.  Thus, we read ‘thei that don leccherie with men’ (Wyclif);  'abusers of themselves with mankind' (Tyndale, Coverdale, Cranmer, Geneva Bible, KJV and ASV); and ‘the liers vvith mankinde’, (Douai-Rheims).  Modern translations extend this view, rendering arsenokoites as 'male homosexual offenders, perverts' (NIV) and 'sodomites' (NRSV and JB).   The "Good News Bible" (TEV) 1966, the Living Bible, 1971, and New English Bible, 1970, conflate malakoi and arsenokoites with the renderings as ‘homosexual perversion’ (TEV), 'homosexuals' (LB) and 'guilty... of homosexual perversion' (NEB). There is no evidence for such usage elsewhere in ancient Greek literature. To argue that the two words, malakos and arsenokoitai refer to passive and active partners in homosexual intercourse, belies the historical and lexicographical evidence and perpetuates a homophobic prejudice. (43)   Either a grave error in mistranslation has occurred or a deliberate act of mistranslation has injected a bias into the texts. What once was a specific concern with justification through faith (Paul's concern in writing to Corinth), with certain rhetorical references that play on community prejudices of the time (Paul's series of reprobate lists- 1 Cor. 5:10; 5:11 and 6:9-10), has been accommodated to become a blanket condemnation of homosexuality.  Graeco-Roman pederastic practices and/or prostitution may lay behind the text, but there is no reference to homosexuality generally or in a universal way that can be applied today.

of 1 Corinthian section only. 

            Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to he degrading of
            their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and
            worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen
            For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural
            intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse
            with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts
            with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 
            (Rom. 1:24-27 NRSV)

Rom.1:26-27, Paul gives an account of homoeroticism in same-sex behaviour, of both men and women. The context is in regard to idolatry, in which worship of the true god is exchanged untrue worship.  As a result, their sexual conduct changes from 'natural' to ‘unnatural'.  In fact, Paul uses Jewish prejudices concerning the Gentiles rhetorically, to ensnare his readers into engaging judgmental views in order to turn those views against them.  In short, he pulls a literary sting!  Paul does not engage a discussion of same-sex practices with the intent of sustaining that judgement.  His rhetoric was the means by which he highlights God's role as judge.  Paul teaches that, by putting yourself in the role of judge, you usurp God's role and function and engage the root of all sin which is idolatry. (44) 

In Romans 1, Paul is arguing that "the righteousness of God" is needed because of the unrighteousness of all human beings.  All people have sinned, Jews and Gentiles alike.  Paul gives reference to the Gentiles first. They have had a prior knowledge of God, he claims, through God's revelation through nature and his will in the created world.  Paul says that Pagan worship and philosophy have not seen this revelation clearly and Paul criticises pagan idolatry and culture for abandoning the truth.  More than this, he is reflecting theological attitudes and beliefs that derive not only from his Jewish background regarding the kadeshim, but also from differing attitudes in the pagan world, towards pederasty.  Paul's concern is with wider issues of unrighteousness.  Significantly, Paul does not discuss gay or lesbian persons, in Romans 1.  The persons whom Paul condemns are not homosexual, for it is clear that they are 'heterosexual' persons who have turned from their "natural" ways.  As Boswell writes: 

"The whole point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off the true path they were once on.  It would completely undermine the thrust of the argument if the persons in question were not "naturally" inclined to the opposite sex in the same way they were "naturally" inclined to monotheism." (45) 

To apply Paul’s rhetoric passionately, directing implications at others, however misconceived those concerns may be, setting yourself up as judge and moral arbiter, falls into Paul’s rhetorical trap.  To do so engages dishonourable passion, risking arrogant religiosity and reproach. God judges all persons, regardless of outward appearance, by the things of the heart (Prov. 16:1; Romans 2:16).   Paul teaches us that those things are known through hope and faith and not by directing passionate censure at others.

of Romans section only.

1 Timothy 1:8-11  Concerning Legitimate Use of Law. 

This passage figures in discussions because of the reference to arsenokoitai in verse 10 among the list of
those for whom the law is laid down.  Just who comprise the arsenokoitai has been discussed above and the word is inappropriately translated as "sodomites" in the following translation. 

            Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately.   This means understanding
            that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the
            godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother,
            for murderers, fornicators, sodomites (Gk. text has arsenokoitai), slave traders, liars,
            perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the
            glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Tim. 1:8-11. NRSV)

As can be seen from the text, the passage concerns legitimate use of the Old Testament laws and follows the Decalogue.  This was a problem being addressed  in the letter to Timothy to counter exploitation of some early Christians by those promoting their own speculative interests contrary to the teaching of Paul.  Just what does constitute "legitimate" use of the Law or even of Scripture?   Is it legitimate to apply mistranslation to words such as arsenokoites in order to push a particular social bias (as is done in the text quoted above)?   As all biblical references to same-sex activity are negative, is it legitimate to interpret them as anti-gay texts?  Such usage corrupts the integrity of the Bible's own witness by applying texts to situations and moral questions that the biblical writers did not face.  All texts are properly interpreted in light of their own context and are interpreted through our own contexts and experiences before being applied to modern situations.  Some quite biblical positions are now questionable and irrelevant, as in relation to the place and role of women, attitudes to the environment, the killing of recalcitrant children or keeping of slaves.   We no longer follow the Levitical Law in regard to food and cooking or the wearing of mixed fibre cloth.   Nor do we prohibit women, eunuchs, dwarfs and cripples from leading worship.  We follow a principle of diminishing relevancy in deciding which laws are to be followed and which are seen as anachronisms.  Proof-texting to support an anti-gay stance is equally irrelevant, and an illegitimate use of Scripture. 

Jude 7 is a passage in point, as the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah "going after strange flesh [lit. other, hetero, flesh]" (KJV) is a not a reference to homosexuality but to seeking sexual intercourse with angels.  The letter makes a coded reference to those who seek sexual license as a rejection of the social order that the angels represent.  The NRSV perpetuates an anti-gay bias by rendering the text to read, "they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust," which is a blatant corruption of the Greek text.   Where the writer of Jude is making proper use of Scripture to make a point, the NRSV and those who follow their bias and apply a corruption of the text to project their own meanings into the text.  Some evangelical Christians read "other flesh" (Gk, sarkos heteras) as "unnatural lust" as a pointed reference to homosexuality.  The intent of the original text was to refer to angels!   Within the context of the epistle, v. 7 is part of a standard technique (polemic) directed against heresies, especially Gnostics, who are characterises in reprehensible ways, directing attack at unnamed opponents by naming them licentious (v.4), engaging unnatural lust (v.7), corrupting the flesh (v.8), carouse together (v.12) and follow ungodly passions (v.18). (46)  

Before passages of Scripture are used to further hatred or demonise some groups of people whose sexuality is characterised as "unnatural", ""unclean" or "inherently evil", it is well to remember that throughout history the Bible has been cited to enflame hatred.  Crusades, pogroms and witch hunts have been launched and countless Jews, Gypsies, people of colour, women and gay men have been persecuted and even killed in the name of Scripture and religion.  The early church itself suffered misrepresentation and the passages from the New Testament mentioned above witness to that persecution.   It is ironic that such texts of terror are used to harass, vilify and discriminate against gay and lesbian people today.

of Timothy section only.

Hear the Good News!

God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.
(Genesis 1:31a)

Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; 
for love is strong as death, passion fierce as the grave. 
Its flashes are flashes of fire, a raging flame. 
Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it. 
If one offered for love all the wealth of his house, 
it would be utterly scorned. 
(Song of Songs 8:6-7)

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. 
(John 3:16)

For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. 
(Romans 3:28)

For in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.  As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise. 
(Gal. 3:26-29)

NOTES

  (1) Macquarrie, J. and Childres, J., A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics (SCM Press, London, 1986) p. 58. 
  (2) Trible, P. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1978.) 
  (3) In Genesis 1, zakar uneqeba, ‘male and female’, is used; in Genesis 2-3, ’íš, 'man' and ’íššâ, 'woman', are the terms used.  The woman is named ‘Eve’, Chavah,  meaning ‘living’, in Gen. 3:20.
  (4)  'arkhonic' - to lord it over another; a word coined by Rev. Dr Lee Levett-Olson, pertaining  to androcentric, patriarchal culture and history; from Gk. arkhon, a ruler.
  (5) Trible, P. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality.  p. 144.
  (6)  Ibid. p.145.
  (7) Carter Heyward, Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of God.  (Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1989.). p.189-190. 
  (8) Boswell, J., Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1980)  p.93; Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate. (Fortress Press,  Philadelphia, 1983) p. 14. in the text and n. 38 & n. 39, where Scroggs bases his assessment on work by  Bailey, D. S., Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London, 1955.); McNeill, J., Church and the Homosexual. (Kansas City, 1976.), pp. 42-50; and  Nissinen, M., Homoeroticism in the Roman World: an Historical Perspective. (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1998) pp. 111- 118 et al. 
  (9) Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality. p.74. n.16.
  (10)  Boswell, ibid. p.100.  See 1Kgs 14:24. 2Kgs 16:3. 
  (11) Boswell, Ibid. pp.100-102.  Boswell, Scroggs, Bailey and McNeill agree on this point. 
 (12)  Boswell, J., Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. p.94. 
  (13) See Gen. 4:1, 17, 25; 24:16; 38:26.
  (14) Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Roman World, pp. 47-49.  See also Tosefta Sota 3:11-12, where Rabbinic commentary views the sin of Sodom as maltreating strangers in order to inhibit encroachment upon their city.
  (15) Ibid, p. 49, where it is noted that the Heb. ‘ishah pilegesh denotes a wife of secondary status.
  (16) The story in Judges 19 is part of the Deuteronomic redactions and the Sodom story is from the Yahwist redaction. 
  (17) See Lev. 18:1-4, 24-30; 20:7-8, 22-26.
  (18) Heb. n. fem. kadesha, masc. pl. kadeshim, sg., kadesh; lit. 'sacred', 'holy ones,' perhaps referring to sacred, pagan, temple prostitutes.  See Gen. 38:21-22; Deut.23:17-18; 1 Kings 14:24, 22:47. 
  (19) Boswell, ibid. pp.98-99.
  (20) See Deut. 23:17 & 1 Kgs 14:24 KJV, where ‘kadesh’ is mistranslated as 'sodomites'!
  (21) Nissinen, Martti, op. cit., p. 40, who cites Bird. P. A., "The End of the Male Cult Prostitute: A Literary-Historical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew qades-qadesim" in Emerson. J.A., ed., Congress Volume Cambridge 1995.  Supplements to Vens Testamentum 66. Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1997,  pp. 37-80.
  (22) Also note the rendering of  heneken toutou, as ‘for this cause’ (KJV, ASV) or ‘this is why’ (JB), or ‘for this reason’ (NIV, NRSV, NEB); where ‘created male and female’ is the antecedent.
  (23) Cantarella, Eva., Bisexuality in the Ancient World. Trans. Cormac O’ Cuilleanain. (Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1992.) p.353.
  (24)  Ibid. pp.192-193.
  (25)  Ibid. p.193.  Cantarella signals this distinction in the title of her book, Bisexuality in the Ancient World, in which she uses "bisexuality" to describe pederasty as the same-sex aspect of a bisexual phenomenon. 
  (26)  Trans. lit . adj. malakos means 'soft'.; n. sg. malakos means 'soft one', n. pl. malakoi ‘softies’; the condition, malakia referred to a general weakness or ‘softening’ of person and/or character, as in the malaka phorountes of Matthew 11:8.  
  (27)  Boswell, op. cit.. p.106 also states that patristic writings also use the word malakos to mean 'liquid', 'cowardly', 'refined', 'weak willed', 'delicate', 'gentle', and 'debauched'. 
  (28)  Epictetus, Discourse 3:9, as quoted by Boswell, ibid. p.106. 
  (29)  Dio Chrysostom (49[66]:25).
  (30)  Vettius Valens (113:22) c.f. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 7.4.4.; See Boswell, ibid. p.106-7. n.51. 
  (31)  War 7.338; Josephus Antiquities 5.246; 10.194.
  (32)  This is a development derived from the way the translators of the King James Version (1611) render the word and may not be the same meaning that  'effeminate' carried in the early seventeenth century. 
 (33)  Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality. p.62. 
  (34) Boswell, ibid. p.107.
  (35)  Ibid. 
  (36)  The derivative noun, pais, means 'boy', 'son' or 'slave', hence 'sex boy/slave' is a possible inferential meaning. 
  (37)  Scroggs, ibid. p.64. 
  (38)  Boswell, ibid. p.344.
  (39)  Ibid. p.83 & n.43. 
  (40)  Scroggs, ibid. p83.
  (41)  Namely, John Boswell, of Yale University, Eva Cantarella, of  the University of Milan, Martti Nissinen, University of Helsinki. Cantarella takes the words as categorically referring to homosexuality and Boswell does not.  Martti Nissinen discusses Boswell's interpretation and lexicographic difficulties with the word.   See Nissinen, M.,  ibid, pp. 114 - 118, for an in-depth discussion of the words malakos and arsenokoites. 
  (42)  Scroggs, ibid. p.63. 
  (43)  Ibid. p.341.  For a full discussion of lexicography and Paul, see Boswell, ibid., Appendix  One, pp.335-353.   See also Nissinen, M.,  ibid, pp. 114 - 118.
 (44) Barrett, C. K., Reading Through Romans. (SCM Press, London and Fortress Press, Philadelphia. 1977.) p.8. 
  (45)  Boswell, ibid. p.109.
(46)  Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford University Press, New York, 2003) pp. 197-198; For a detailed discussion of Jude and heresiology, see Frederik Wisse, "The Epistle of Jude in the History of hesiology." In Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Alexander Bohlig, ed. Martin Krause, Nag Hammadi Studies, 3. Leiden: Brill, 1973, pp. 133-43.

References 

Boswell, J., Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1980) 
Brawley, R. L., (ed.), Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture. (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1996)
Cantarella, Eva., Bisexuality in the Ancient World. Trans. Cormac O’ Cuilleanain. (Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1992.)
Ehrman, Bart D., Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford University Press, New York, 2003).
Heyward, Carter., Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of God.  (Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1989.)
Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate. (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983) 
Macquarrie, J. and Childres, J., A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics (SCM Press, London, 1986) 
Nissinen, M., Homoeroticism in the Roman World: an Historical Perspective.  (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1998) 
Trible, P. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1978.)

  A full version, 15 A4 page, may be downloaded here.

Glossary
malakos is the singular noun here; malakoi is the plural. 
arsenokoites is the singular noun, arsenokoitai is the plural.  In transliterating the Greek I have not used diacritical marks.  The precise meaning of this word is unknown.
exegesis: the process of interpreting a text; systematic interpretation of a text.  The opposite is eisogesis- the projection of one's own notions into the text. 
plain reading: a way of approaching the Scriptures without further reflection beyond the printed word; a naive exegetical approach that allows no consideration of historical, social, literary or other aids or processes of interpretation other than those brought to the text by the reader; reading for plain meaning, with a literal, ordinary, natural sense.  This approach derives from both ancient Jewish exegesis through plain reading (peshat) and that of the Reformation and early Protestantism.  Jewish peshat involved elucidation and grammatical analysis of the text and the early Reformed tradition sought for a single, simple meaning, free of multiple meanings such as the allegorical or symbolic meanings of the Middle Ages.   The problem with this approach is that what is "ordinary", "natural" or "plain" differs from reader to reader, depending upon their theological stance, culture and history.   Thus context became a crucial consideration. Modern exegesis stands against naive applications of plain reading and involves reason and consideration of historical and social context of both the reader and the text being read, as well as other forms of textual criticism. 
Creation: all that God has made, including humanity; the created order, cosmos.
arkhonic: adj. meaning to lord it over another; to rule over another; derived from the Greek word, arkhon, a ruler or judge, and pertaining to androcentric, patriarchal culture and history.
Septuagint, the Greek version of Jewish Scriptures rendered into Greek in the Third Century BGE; also known as the LXX; the Jewish Scriptures that were in use in Paul's time. 
Sodomites: the people of Sodom. 
ethics: here refers to Christian ethics.  For a discussion of the Bible and Christian ethics, see Macquarrie, J. and Childres, J., A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics (SCM Press, London, 1986) pp57-61. 
   Holiness Code: a part of the Torah, strictly Leviticus chapters 17 to 26, which is a collection of laws to regulate worship, ritual cleanliness and other behaviours; the Holiness Code is distinct from the moral codes of the Torah.
homosexual: an adjective pertaining to the same sex. Using the word as a noun referring to persons of homosexual orientation is improper.   'Homosexuals' carries negative, clinical connotations with a restricted focus on genital associations in the description of same-sex oriented persons.  Many homosexual persons refer to themselves as being 'lesbian' or 'gay-men'.
 to'evah or to'ebah:: A Hebrew word meaning 'unclean', 'uncleanness', 'impure'; the Greek Septuagint translation is bdelygma, meaning ritual impurity.  Naming things to'evah delimits cultic and cultural practices and erects barriers of distinction.  It does not mean 'sin' or 'sinful', for if the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, the Hebrew words chata', chatta'ah or chet' would have been used.  See cross reference to external link to'ebah.

FOR FURTHER READING, see the following ...

Boswell, J., Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1980)

Perhaps still the single most important scholarly work on homosexuality and early Christianity.  Boswell rejects the idea that homosexual subcultures are a recent development and proposes that prior to the 13th Century, homosexual persons experienced a degree of acceptance. Criticized by gay radicals for letting the Church off the hook.  Boswell's work is controversial  and virtually all of Boswell's specific conclusions have been called into question. The book is significant for the debate that it has precipitated. 

Brooten, Bernardette J, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, (Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1996)

Arguably the most important book on the classical and early Christian history of Lesbianism.  Brooten attacks the constructionist idea that there was no general idea of "homosexuality" in these periods. She criticizes Boswell for avoiding discussion of women, and taking classical acceptance of some forms of male homosexuality as applying to homosexual relations between women as well.

Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate. (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983)

One of the most often quoted sources, providing a well grounded discussion of the origins of the sexuality debate, with reference to ancient sources and contemporary life.  Recommended.

Pronk, Pim, trans. Vriend, John, Against nature?  Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality. (Eerdmanns, Grand rapids, 1993)

Questioning a singular, moral value-system in a pluralistic society, Pronk enters a critical dialogue with Christian ethicists, in terms of political and social morality, ethical rights and concepts of value in regard to male, homosexual persons. Highly recommended reading.

Macquarrie, J. and Childres, J., A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics (SCM Press, London, 1986) 

Provides an overview of Christian ethics and has valuable material on sexuality and faith.  A tool for the serious consideration of ethics.

Nissinen, M., Homoeroticism in the Roman World: an Historical Perspective.  (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1998)

At the time of publication, Nissinen was Reader of NT Studies, University of Helsinki and Senior researcher of the Finnish Academy.  The book provides a background for contextualising Biblical references in reference to same-sex relationships and custom.  It examines homoeroticism as part of gender identity and is thorough in its breadth and depth, scholarly and easy to read.  There is a very useful Appendix: Creation, Nature, and Gender Identity, that discusses problems with the terms 'nature', 'creation'.  This awarded book is very highly recommended for reading.

Grenz, Stanley J. Welcoming But Not Affirming: An Evangelical Approach to Homosexuality. (Westminster John Know Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1998.)

A well presented evangelical opinion, for which the title says it all.  This view is not followed in the above presentation, and , while I disagree with Grenz on just about every point, I recommend this book for reading- at least know the opposing view.

Vasey, Michael, Strangers and Friends: a new exploration of homosexuality and the Bible.  (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1995.) 

Written from an evangelical position, Vasey explores biblical traditions in historical context and also evaluates recent studies into the history and sociology of homosexuality.  Vasey does not adopt the "not affirming" stance of Grenz and ends with an invitation to join "Jesus the outsider", pointing to gay people and their experience of exclusion as being among those who share Jesus' position "outside the gate" (Heb. 13:13-14).  Recommended.