Dear Reader,

Welcome back to our blog series on clobber passages. To reiterate, "clobber passages" are texts in the Bible notoriously used against the LGBT+ community. We have covered Genesis 19:1-9, Leviticus 18:22, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6. In this post we will be discussing 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

We have discussed in this series about the word "arsenokoitai" which the King James Version (KJV), stated above, has translated to "for them that defile themselves with mankind" and other Bibles take it a step further and outright translate the statement to "homosexual". As we discussed in the blog post about 1 Corinthians, Paul made "arsenokoitai" up! It never existed in written or spoken literature until around 55 CE. Modern translations are not accurately depicting Paul's intentions for this word as many theologians surmise. It is proposed that "arsenokoitai" could mean many different things such as those who masturbate, those who use sex as power, prostitution, and/or pedophilia. 

Post Barthian gives the best summary of 1 Timothy 1:10 which says, " Timothy 1:10 contains a vice list that is very similar to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 that begins with the phrase 'pornois arsenokoitais andrapodistais' that is translated as 'fornicators, sodomites, slave traders' (NRSV) and in other significantly different ways in other Bible translations...the rare term arsenokoitais most likely referred to a pederast, and this is confirmed by 1 Timothy 1:10 by its place between pornois, and andrapodistais, because lexicons define pornois as male prostitutes and most Bible translations define andrapodistais as slave traders. If 1 Corinthians 6:9 prohibits both catamite and pederast activity, then 1 Timothy 1:10 expands this prohibition to condemn the entire sex slave trade industry, by condemning those who enslave catamites to sell them to pederasts too.  Potentially this verse may be generalized to condemn sex trafficking today, but any general condemnation of all homosexual activity (especially consensual, monogamous same-sex relationships) are not discussed in this vice list. The author of 1 Timothy is repeating to the Gentile Christians in Ephesus in more specific terms, which was already written to Corinth (perhaps because the sale of catamites to pederasts was more prevalent in Ephesus than Corinth.)."

In conclusion, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 is not valid to use against those in the LGBTQ+ community. With proper context, we can see that this text is more likely attacking the sex slave industry rather than sexual orientation or identity. 

In our next post in this series we will discuss our final clobber verse, Jude 1:7. If you have any other verses you'd like us to contextualize please leave a comment and/or send us an email at queerchristianfamilyvalues@gmail.com.

Until next time,
Alexander M. Burchnell

Edited by Christopher J. Burchnell

Dear Reader,

This is a continuation of our Clobber Passages blog series. If you haven't read the other posts you should do so now. Today we will be discussing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. 

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Without context and understanding of language, one could assume this passage is a condemnation of those who have sexual relations with the same gender. However, using basic research we can find out the true meaning for ourselves. First, let's get some context.

We must remember that this letter was written by Paul to a Christian community in Corinth, which was located off the Grecian coast, a Roman resort in prior generations. This area was a melting pot of ethnic groups, ideologies, and practices which led to quite a bit of fighting and tension. The inhabitants were also known for their parties of food and drink as well as sexual proclivities. You can imagine the culture shock that Paul went through by being exposed to this new society that was a stark contrast to his strict Jewish background. He wrote this letter as a way to address his community and his concerns, specifically the toleration of sexual immorality as he sees it or porneia. In 5:1, Paul discusses an incident where a man is in a sexual relationship with his father's wife. It makes sense that Paul would have issues due to his relationship/understanding of the Law of Moses.

WhoSoEver.Org explained Paul's grievance quite well, "Going back to the time of David succeeding Saul, it was especially insulting for a man to use the wife of his father, but in the patriarchal society of the time, vestiges of which linger to this day, the insult was not to the woman but to the husband. Honor being a male concept, it was in fact impossible to dishonor a woman, who had no status outside her relationship to a man. There are indications that some of this traditional understanding was changing by the time of Paul: under Roman law, women could own property in their own names and were able to divorce their husbands. This may, in part, account for some of the prominence of women in the early church...Paul’s task in much of his correspondence is to negotiate his way among the sometimes conflicting moralities of the various cultures he desired to reach. Issues of diverse practice were 'hot button' items in the newly forming Christian groups, and questions of daily living such as who to eat with and how to order the communal life were hotly debated from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome. Indeed, such controversies have left their marks throughout the Gospels and the book of Acts."

For a long time now the Epistles of Paul have been seen as attacks on the LGBTQ+ community  and supporting oppression to women; however, with better understanding we can find a better take. If we go back to the Greek translation, the term malakoi is used in verse 6:9 as those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. StopBibleAbuse.org explains the meaning quite well.

"In 1 Corinthians, before the word arsenokoites, is the word malakoi. Unlike arsenokoites, malakos is a very common word, with lots of uses. Generally speaking it means ‘soft,’ ‘flexible,’ or ‘delicate,’ as in fine (expensive) fabric, gourmet delicacies, gentle breezes. Matthew (11:18) and Luke (7:25) use it. It also refers to morals, where ‘flexible’ is not so good a thing, including dissolute, cowardly, lazy, weak, unstable, easily influenced – all qualities that were seen as feminine. In the culture of the time, women were culturally seen to be pretty, delicate … and worthless, far below the level of men, barely above the level of children and slaves. Paul was speaking to a culture and world phenomenally different from ours. That culture, with apologies to modern sensibilities, made an absolute virtue of misogyny; male domination of women was a part of the natural order. Except as child bearers, women were chattel, not even remotely on the same level as men. And to share any womanly characteristics was utterly unmanly. In this context, womanizers, who were interested in things that were worthless by definition, were considered effeminate. By contrast, male-male sex – associated with athletics and learning – was far more manly than what resulted from the love of a woman. And male-male sex between a master and his slave was not a matter of being homosexual at all; it was a matter of domination, of power. Greeks (and the Romans who absorbed their culture) took it for granted that everyone both could and might want to take part in either kind of sexual activity. The Greek idea of effeminate had very little in common with the modern notion – it reflected pervasive cultural misogyny. When paired with arsenokoitai, malakos seems to refer to a person that is a victim of sex with men – a slave, a prostitute, a catamite, a victim of rape – someone perhaps drawn into temple sexual rituals, and not necessarily male. With this word Paul is referring to the victim of sexual (and financial?) coercion, whether pederasty, pedophilia, rape, or forced prostitution. And if malakos indicated an underage male prostitute, the following arsenokoites would mean the one who forced himself on the youth. This would apply to heterosexual gay-for-pay prostitutes as well, as it would in any case where a male was subjected to forced sexual activity."

In conclusion, this passage is not referring to same gender relationships. It is referring to those who are too flexible in their moral stances. Early translations use "weakness of character or degeneracy", yet the King James Version (KJV), which was the dominant translation, shifted the meaning to effeminate where it stayed until the mid-20th century. Afterwards, it shifted again to mean sexual practices, specifically same-sex. What ever happened to not changing the meaning of the Bible?

We would love to read your feedback on this post. Let us know what you think in the comments!

Written by Alexander M. Burchnell
Edited by Christopher J. Burchnell

Dear Reader,

Next in our Clobber Passage series we have Romans 1:26-27. If you haven't already, check out our previous blog posts on Genesis, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy by clicking here!

"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.” (NRSV)

Who is "them" in the verse shown above? Is he talking to Jews or Gentiles? Patheos gives some insight via an article written by a Don M Burrows. In this article they reference an understanding that this "clobber passage" is referring to Gentiles of which the Jews thought to be untouchables. 

"...They’re rotten, horrible individuals. Did you hear the sorts of things they do? In fact, as pointed out by scholar Calvin Porter, 'they' recurs in this section with striking concentration, with repetition of the third-person pronoun αὐτός thirteen times, the reflexive (“themselves”) once, and third-person plural verbs over and over: 'No other section of Romans contains such a concentration,' he observes."

The article continues, "...What’s even more striking, notes Porter, is what comes next: an abrupt change to the second person in Romans 2:1: 'Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.'
Here, then, is the vocative in the Greek, 'Oh man,' a grammatical case used for direct address: ὦ ἄνθρωπε. And this takes us to the question I have posed to those who repeat 1:26-27 in condemnation. Who’s the ἄνθρωπος that Paul’s addressing here?"

Many scholars have spent their lives studying WHO Paul is speaking to and the mass majority hold that he is referring to Gentiles. But what were they doing and why? What on earth was the reasoning for the sexual descriptions in the passage? Let's find out! Evangelical Concerned Inc. gives a much better understanding of Romans 1:26-27 in regards to contest:

"Paul is ridiculing pagan religious rebellion, saying that the pagans knew God but worshiped idols instead of God. To build his case — which he’ll turn against judgmental Jews in chapter 2 — he refers to typical practices of the fertility cults involving sex among priestesses and between men and eunuch prostitutes such as served Aphrodite at Corinth, from where he was writing this letter to the Romans. Their self-castration rites resulted in a bodily 'penalty'...these religious prostitutes would engage in same-sex orgies in the pagan temples all along the coasts of Paul’s missionary journeys."

Based on the above, I'd say another way the verse could be written might be one given by the QJV Bible:
"Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature; and likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another; Men with men working that which is pagan and unseemly. For this cause God gave the idolaters up to vile affections, receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

In conclusion, Romans 1: 26-27 is in reference to pagan Gentiles who are practicing idolatry by participating in temple orgies. Why use this to attack loving, Christian, same-gendered relationships?

What are your thoughts on all this? Let us know in the comments below!

​Written by Alexander M. Burchnell

Consider becoming a Patreon supporter to help us continue our ministry's mission, to promote the affirmation and inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in the Christian faith!

All proceeds go back into Queer Christian Family Values (QCFV) to help more individuals!

Previous post in series: Click here!

Dear Reader,


This blog post is part three in our on going series where we explore verses that have been used against the LGBTQ+ community. Also known as, The Clobber Passages!


In this piece we will be discussing Deuteronomy 23:17-18 which says in KJV, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.  Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God."


When I first saw these verses listed as clobber Passages I thought I wrote them down as a mistake. I don't see how anyone could take this as being anti-LGBTQ+. But many are stuck on the word "sodomite" but I think a better explanation is to be had. Evangelicals Concerned Inc. I believe says it best, "These terms, KEDESHA and KADESH, literally mean 'holy' or 'sacred'. There is no Hebrew derivative of the word 'Sodom' in this passage; the King James Bible supplied it erroneously. The Hebrew words here are references to the 'holy' female and eunuch priest-prostitutes of the Canaanite fertility cults, of which Israel was to have no part. Moreover, Louisville Presbyterian Seminary Bible scholar George R. Edwards notes that ‘No prophet uses the noun for male cult prostitute or discusses the activity such a person pursued. The prophets, in fact, are as silent on the subject of homosexual acts as is the whole tradition of the New Testament teaching of Jesus. This is,' he says, 'a significant silence.'"


Evangelicals Concerned Inc also give an alternative translation for verse 17, “There shall be no female cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel nor a male cult prostitute of the sons of Israel.”


This Clobber Passage may have been the easiest one to research and discredit out of all the ones we've looked at this far. What do you think? Let us know in the comments!

Written by Alexander M. Burchnell,
President of QCFV
​

Sources

Evangelicals Concerned Inc. https://ecinc.org/clobber-passages/deuteronomy-2317-18/

Dear Reader,


This blog is a continuation of our series on the Clobber Passages. If you haven't read the post on Genesis yet I'd recommend you do so to catch up on some of the terminology/context used. Click here to read now!

Leviticus 18:22

The King James Version of Leviticus 18:22 reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." This verse is one of the primary texts used to condemn the LGBTQ+ community but specifically same-gender relationships. As we stated in our last blog post, the term "homosexual or homosexuality" wasn't used in the bible until the 1900's. The main issue that the ancient Hebrews had to contend with were those who practiced pederasty which was intercourse between an older man and a boy (prepubescent). As we move forward in our research we must remember that no matter how we read the scriptures it is NOT in the original Hebrew language, it is simply translated from them which causes the texts/meanings to fluctuate and vary.


K Renato Ling is a scholar whose research is documented in The Expositor's Bible Commentary and indicated that Leviticus 18:22 is more complicated than the English versions make it seem. Ling surmises that the text should be translated based on Hebrew linguistics, of which he believes to be "male on male incest." Blog.smu.edu states, "First, Lings notes that the word used for 'man' is not the typical noun used for 'man.' Instead, a word which translates to male occurs here. This noun for 'male' includes both young and adult males. Therefore, Lings translates the text of Lev. 18:22 as 'And with a male you shall not lie.'" The article goes on to say, "Furthermore, Lings considers the context in which Lev. 18:22 is written. He explains that the passage 'deals with various illicit relationships in the sexual realm: one marrying two sisters (18:18), intercourse with a menstruating woman (18:19), infidelity (18:20), and bestiality (18:23).' Most of Leviticus 18 deals directly with incest. Notably, the list of laws from Leviticus 18 is reordered in Leviticus 20.  In Leviticus 18 the order of the topics is ambiguous, but in chapter 20 the so-called homosexual law appears within a list referring to incest. Lings’ linguistic study leads him to conclude that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 continue the theme of incestuous relationships. Thus, the passage should be paraphrased: 'Sexual intercourse with a close male relative should be just as abominable to you as incestuous relationships with female relatives.' Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 forbids male incestuous relations."


I'll be honest, this was the first time I read this verse to mean incest. I had to dive deeper into this. Evangelicals Concerned Inc. states that "abomination" or "to'ebah" in Hebrew is, "a technical cultist term for what is ritually unclean, such as mixed cloth, pork, and intercourse with menstruating women. It’s not about a moral or ethical issues. This Holiness Code (chapters 17-26) proscribes men 'lying the lyings of women.' Such mixing of sex roles was thought to be polluting. But both Jesus and Paul rejected all such ritual distinctions (cf. Mark 7:17-23; Romans 14:14,20). The Fundamentalist Journal admits that this Code condemns 'idolatrous practices' and 'ceremonial uncleanness' and concludes: 'We are not bound by these commands today.'"


Bible Thumping Liberal follows the above by pointing to Galatians 3:10 and 3:13 which state that we are no longer under the law but if we choose to follow it (the Torah or first five books of the Bible) then we are under a curse, Deuteronomy 27:26. I've heard non-affirming pastors say that there is a difference between ceremonial law and moral law but Bible Thumping Liberal has a counter to that argument as well, "Paul never makes a distinction between a so-called ceremonial law and a so-called moral law. The Bible makes no such distinction. The Law is the Law, according to James the brother of Jesus. 'For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.' (James 2:10)"


What are your thoughts on this verse? Have you ever had it used against you? How did you respond? Have you encountered a different interpretation of this passage? Let us know all about it in the blog comments below!

Written by Alexander M. Burchnell, QCFV President

​
Sources

Blog.smu.edu https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/


Evangelical Concerned Inc. https://ecinc.org/clobber-passages/leviticus-1822-2013/


Bible Thumping Liberal https://biblethumpingliberal.com/2011/05/19/you-can%E2%80%99t-quote-leviticus-to-prove-god-hates-homosexuality/




If you would like to support us and gain some pretty awesome perks then become a Patreon sponsor for as low as $1 a month!


You will gain access to videos, podcasts, stickers, and much more! Click the link below!


https://www.patreon.com/qcfv


Every dime helps us to keep our ministry going whose mission is to promote the affirmation and inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in the Christian faith.

Dear Reader,


For those who are still searching for answers on the debate of whether or not homosexuality is sinful, I would like to direct you to some findings that can help guide you. I had many of the same questions when I set out on my personal faith journey. If it isn't a sin then why is the term "homosexual" used over and over in the Bible? Why was it a sin in the first place? The holy book speaks about love being a priority, yet it would call the love for my husband an abomination? How can this be?


Let's first address the terms that are used against the lgbtq+ community. The most commonly used is Homosexual, yet the word is from the Greek "homo" meaning "the same", and the Latin "sexualis", meaning "sex". This invented term wasn't added to the Bible until around 100 years ago, first used in the 1946 RSV Bible. There is not a Greek or Hebrew Biblical word that is equivalent. Another term is Sodomite or sodomy of which  has been misused tremendously. Sodomite actually refers to the inhabitants of Sodom.


Next, I would like to take a closer look at the "Clobber Passages", which are texts in the Bible notoriously used against our community. They are Genesis 19:1-9, Leviticus 18:22, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Jude 1:7. We will discuss each of these in turn, which will develop into a multipart blog series as we move forward. Stick with us as we dive deep into a battle going back centuries.


Genesis 1-2

If we go by order of the Bible in regards to Clobber Passages, we first come across Genesis 19:1-9 which tells the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. 


"Genesis chapter 19 is about the wicked city of Sodom. There was a lot going on in there and not just what people talk about on TV. It began with the two men with God from the previous chapter. However, now the men properly are called angels. They go to Sodom and are asked to come into the home of Abraham’s nephew, Lot. The wicked men of the city saw the angels that they thought were men earlier. At night they came to Lot’s residence demanding they 'know' the men. Lot offers his daughters, 'Get to know them.' But the wicked men of the city turn his offer down vehemently. The angels, seeing enough, blind the wicked men of Sodom, and prepare Lot to leave the coast. They confirm they will destroy the city with fire. Lot, his wife and two daughters are commanded to leave at once." (Source 1)


In order to fully grasp this story we must first understand its context. God had every intention of the destruction of Sodom long before he sent his angels to the city. Why did the Lord wish wipe this town off the map? Many who are anti-lgbtq+ want to shout that homosexuality is the root cause of the city's downfall, but when you read this passage, the only thing that screams out to me is rape; THAT is what the gang of men are trying to do to the angels of God. But what about Lot offering up his daughters you might ask? Well, Lot gave an answer for this, "Don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." This is crazy from our societal understanding. How could a loving father sacrifice his daughters to a mob? No matter how we try to understand this there isn't a good answer. This was a horrible incident that cannot be explained away. It does, however, show the societal views. In Lot's time period, hospitality was more sacred that just about anything else, even his own child. And with that belief, he was willing to sacrifice for his guest's well-being.


In conclusion, the "synn of Sodom" as the Wycliffe Bible coined, Genesis 19:1-9 is in no way about same-sex relations but everything to do with the horrors of rape and in-hospitality. Ezekiel actually explained what this sins of Sodom, "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." Ezekiel 16:49-50. Nowhere did he say it was because of the GAYS! No, he spelled it out! And so, we can let this clobber passage rest and move onto the next.


To Be Continued…