Clobber Texts

Genesis 1:28

Genesis 1:26–28 NRSV

26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28 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.”

Genesis 1 (along with other passages that reference this chapter) is often used to argue against nonbinary and transgender identities. It’s often stated that since God created man and woman, there can be no other gender categories than male and female. However, as Kathy Baldock wisely stated, “God created man, woman and intersex.” We see through science and creation that there is biological gender variation in creation. People’s biology isn’t as binary as we are led to believe, and Scripture speaks of eunuchs, people who lived as neither male nor female.

What we can also see in the creation story is that, while God created day and night, that doesn’t mean there is nothing in between. Dawn and dusk are expressions of creation that don’t fall neatly into the categories of day and night. So when Genesis tells us that God created man and woman, it doesn’t mean that we are limited to the two. In this world, there are nonbinary, genderfluid, transgender, and other multi-faceted expressions of the non-gendered image of God within creation.

Genesis 2:23-25

Genesis 2:23–25 NRSV

23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 2 tells the marriage story of Adam and Eve. However, the word “marriage” isn’t used. Instead, “one flesh” is used to describe their covenant relationship. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). The “one flesh” reference to marriage is repeated twice in the New Testament, first by Jesus when he condemned the practice of men divorcing their wives (Matthew 19:4-6), and also in Ephesians, when Paul talks about marriage: “For we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:30-31).

In Ephesians, Paul expands the definition of marriage. He uses the language of marriage, the coming together of “one flesh,” to describe Christ’s marriage to the church. Here, Paul no longer limits marriage as something that happens between one man and one woman, but between Christ and the church. We find that marriage is not based on gender, but rather on covenant. Gender difference is therefore not a requirement of marriage.

Genesis 18:20

Genesis 18:20 NRSV

20 Then the Lord said, “How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin!

Throughout Scripture there is a condemnation of sexual immorality, which is often specified to mean sexual abuse (1 Thessalonians 4:6). It is wrong to forcibly take advantage of someone sexually. The story of Genesis 19 is that the men of Sodom wanted to rape Lot’s guests. This is the sin of Genesis 19—the attempted gang rape. Unfortunately, this story is often used as a proof text against same-sex relationships even though there is no condemnation of consensual sexuality in Genesis 19.

Also, Ezekiel tells us that the sin of Sodom was about inhospitality. “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen” (Ezekiel 16:49-50, NIV). Jude 7 does say that there was sexual immorality and perversion in Sodom. But the immorality and perversion was about sexual abuse and not about same sex consensual relationships.

Leviticus 18:22 (20:13) & Deuteronomy 23:17-18

Leviticus 18:22 NRSV

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Deuteronomy 23:17–18 NRSV

17 None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute. 18 You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a male prostitute into the house of the Lord your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the Lord your God.

Leviticus is an interesting look at a legal system foreign to us. In Leviticus we are told that you can’t worship God if you’re physically imperfect. If you’re disabled, if you have eczema, if you have crushed testicles, you are forbidden to enter places of worship. There are many things labeled abominations: clothing made out of mixed cloth, eating pork, and intercourse with menstruating women. There were many things defined as unclean that we no longer consider forbidden.

As Mary Douglas (Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo) points out, when you see dirt in the garden, you don’t label it “dirty.” But if dirt is on your clothes, then you deem it dirty. She explains that the issue of purity in Leviticus has to do with maintaining distinctions. Blood in itself wasn’t a problem; it became problematic when skin broke because blood was supposed to be contained within the skin. The prohibition against shrimp and lobsters occurred because these sea creatures had legs, which blurred the understanding of what made land and sea animals distinct. Anything that broke away from the distinct categories that were spoken of in the creation account were problematic, which is the basis for the passage that says, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman” (Leviticus 18:22, NIV). So even the idea of holiness was about making distinctions and separating one thing from another. The idea was that one thing was a contagion and the other was something that could be contaminated. Categories were established to maintain order, purity and holiness.

But Jesus brought in a re-creation ethic that disrupted the ideal of Levitical purity. Jesus touched people with skin diseases. Jesus wreaked havoc by healing on the Sabbath and allowing his disciples to work by picking grain. And if this wasn’t enough, God told Peter, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (Acts 11:9, NIV). The categories rooted in a binary understanding of creation were uprooted. Purity was no longer about reflecting the binaries of creation; it was about breaking down the walls of hostility. All days, not just Sabbath, are now holy. There is neither Jew nor Gentile; all people are chosen. The curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the less-holy is torn; all is sacred. And we are no longer bound by an ethic of separation; now the commandments are rooted in love. In Christ, there is a nonbinary multifaceted beautifying of every person that more closely reflects the image of God.

Romans 1:21-27

Romans 1:21–27 NRSV

21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 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.

There are deeper cultural issues that we must be aware of before Romans 1 can be understood. Romans 1 requires a much lengthier discussion than we have space for. But to make things as simple as possible, Romans 1 is Paul’s attempt to speak to Gentile believers about the righteousness of God. And since Paul can’t use the Jewish Law in a way that would be meaningful to Gentiles, he instead references Greek thought.

The philosophy of Stoicism, especially the ideal of being in tune with nature and the ideal of self- control, is embedded throughout this chapter. Paul calls attention to the need for people to not go overboard, to maintain discipline, to avoid sexual excess. Paul uses Greek thought to address the type of excess called lust. The Gentile Christians would have understood Paul condemning overindulgence, which was contrary to their value of harmony. What we don’t see is Paul condemning disciplined, loving relationships between two people of the same gender.

Also, Paul’s use of the word “natural” in the context of sex was meant to indicate only sexual intimacy intended for procreation. Therefore, when the passage says, “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones” (Romans 1:26, NIV), the early church fathers saw this as referencing any sexual acts that didn’t lead to procreation, i.e. non-vaginal penetration. It wasn’t until the fourth century that church fathers began interpreting Romans 1 as a prohibition on specifically woman with woman sexual intimacy. So what we find described in Romans 1 is sexual behavior contrary to what was culturally viewed as natural: disciplined and procreative. The word “natural” in itself is specifically referencing cultural norms, not rooted in absolute principles, in the Epistles. A man with long hair was also noted as being against nature (1 Cor. 11:14).

If Romans 1 doesn’t address woman with woman relationships, then there are no passages in all of Scripture that condemn intimacy between women. This would make sense because much of the understanding behind what was “natural” is that sex ought to lead to procreation. Culturally, marriage between Roman citizens was valued primarily for cementing one’s status as the head of a household and contributing to society by opening the avenue for procreation. A marriage ensured offspring you could impart your inheritance to. So men pursued marriage and women accepted it not primarily because they fell in love, or because of attraction, but for social status and for procreation. Unlike today, Roman marriages were not based on romantic attraction. A marriage was the result of two families coming together to agree on an arrangement. People whose marriage was arranged for them didn’t have a valid objection if their sole reason for not wanting to marry was because they weren’t in love. Having children was considered a social responsibility to one’s family and to the Empire. So one significant reason why gay marriage wasn’t addressed in Scripture was because it wasn’t a cultural issue; marriage between two people of the same gender was out of the question, since romantic feelings was not the reason for marriage—procreation was.

The idea of a personal sexual orientation was foreign to them. There was a deep cultural understanding of the societal purpose of marriage that no longer exists in our Western context. Marrying or being in a relationship for reasons other than love is now looked down upon. People in Western societies value romantic attraction and compatibility as the basis of intimacy. Romans 1 addresses sexual excess and lust that went contrary to a cultural purpose for sex and marriage which is largely foreign to us. In other words, Romans 1 does not discuss same-sex love but rather same-sex excess and the violation of cultural familial norms.

I Corinthians 6:9 & I Timothy 1:10

1 Corinthians 6:9 NRSV

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,

1 Timothy 1:10 NRSV

10 fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching

Before 1946, there were no Bibles that contained the word “homosexual.” The Greek words mistranslated as “homosexual” have historically been translated as “sodomites,” “abusers of themselves with mankind,” “liers with mankind,” “perverts,” and “buggerers.” Prior to 1946, “malakoi” was translated as “soft” or “effeminate.” Theologians admit that arsenokoitai and malakoi are very difficult words to translate. Unfortunately, the 1946 Revised Standard Version introduced the word “homosexual” into our English Bibles, and many other English translations chose to follow their example. Simply put, the translations that chose to use the word “homosexual” are in error. The essence of the original Greek word “arsenokoitai” is exploitative in nature. It wasn’t simply an issue of homosexuality but the abuse and exploitation of another person as a demonstration of power. For further reading on the history of this mistranslation, see Kathy Baldock’s article1.