“Exegesis-defined as the critical explanation of a text, especially Biblical Scripture”.   When a person reads Scripture (if they are trying to make meaning of their reading beyond just simple scanning of words) they may be involved in some form of exegesis.  A critical effort of trying to explain God’s word is much preferred over “just reading” because that means the reader is digging deeper into the text.  However, one of the major problems with exegesis is that we tend look at Scripture with 2024 eyes because we live in a 2024 culture.  It is very difficult to imagine what the world was like in Biblical times.  The text was written in those times and authorial intent came from that cultural timeframe.

Since I began to blog on the topic of homosexuality in the Christian church in January 26, 2023, I have read several references to the practice of homosexuality in Bible times, several attempts at the exegesis of Scriptures that Dr. Preston Sprinkle calls clobber Scriptures.*   I have written 64 blog posts on the topic of homosexuality and the church, trying to find a balance between Christians who do not affirm homosexuals leading or marrying in the church and Christians who do affirm homosexuals in the church. 

Dr. Sprinkle states he is an expert on the subject of Old Testament  and New Testament homosexuality and his book People to Be Loved delves into the meaning of Scripture dealing with same-sex love, explaining that Old Testament same-sex practices and New Testament same-sex practices are not conceived as they are today.  Sprinkle does not write that same-sex practices are affirmed by Scripture [he won’t go that far].  His main point is that Twenty-first Century conceptions are far-removed from Bible times.

For a conservative approach to this topic, we turn to Kevin DeYoung: a sampling of his statements on these Scriptures is his writing, “The Bible says nothing good about homosexual practice” [DeYoung, What does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality, 79]. 

This sounds harsh but DeYoung states that even “revisionist” scholars admit that homosexual intercourse is condemned in the Bible.  [Sprinkle’s writing is an example,  that the Bible does not accept homosexuality as a “good” behavior].  DeYoung states that one of the most popular ways to argue for acceptance of homosexuality is to use the “cultural distance” argument.  [We don’t understand Bible times with our Twenty-first Century minds].  He states what Sprinkle has said in previous posts: 1. The ancient world had no concept of sexual orientation 2. The ancient world had no conception of “egalitarian, loving, committed, monogamous, covenantal same sex unions”.  3. The ancient world thought of same-sex behavior as men having sex with boys and the main issue was power imbalances between people, not the sex act itself.

So it seems that maybe the “cultural distance” point of view is valid.  But DeYoung says no; there are two major problems with this kind of thinking.

Silence is not always golden…

Same-sex intimacy during Biblical times was different from today’s notion of homosexuality.  That is a given.  The practice that was most common was pederasty.  Exploitation of the less powerful partner (often a child) was the main problem associated with this practice.  Exploitation of a slave for sex was also common.  DeYoung attacks the idea that since these examples of “bad homosexual behavior” were what people had in mind when Scripture was written, the writers could not have today’s type of homosexual partnerships as a reference point.  In short, admonitions to avoid same-sex relationships must have referred to these exploitative relationships.  For some “revisionists”, this calls into question the relevance of non-confirming Scripture all-together.  DeYoung’s problem with this argument is that no one really knows what the ancient writers had in mind.  Who can really know another’s mind and if they intended to limit their comments only to exploitative homosexual behavior.  If so, why did they not come out and just say that?  One has to imply their meaning due to their use of vague language.  For DeYoung, that is not enough to affirm homosexual behavior today.

Secondly What do the texts say?

DeYoung admits that the argument above would be compelling if it could be proven that exploitative same-sex relationships were the only homosexual relationships in the ancient world, but he writes “From a Christian point of view, there are plenty of examples of ‘bad’ homosexuality in the ancient world, but there is also plenty of evidence to prove that homosexual activity was not restricted to man-boy pairs” [83]. 

To make his case DeYoung cites numerous scholars who have studied ancient times.  Their conclusions counter the idea that “bad” homosexuality was the only same-sex practices that occurred.    Thomas Hubbard** is cited as saying that homosexuality became a category of personal identity in the Roman world “exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation.” Bernadette Brooten*** comments on the Apostle Paul, saying that Paul’s comments indicate a natural sexual order of the universe and how people who indulge are turning away from God.  N.T. Wright**** supports the idea that in Paul’s day, people were aware of homosexuality as a sexual option and it was not just older man-younger man exploitation.  Louis Crompton in his book Homosexuality and Civilization points to the idea that Paul is only condemning older man-younger man relationships.  That idea he states “however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical.”

DeYoung admits that piling up block quotations from other authors is “poor form” but he does it to make a solid argument that the cultural distance argument will not work.  “There is nothing in the Biblical text to suggest Paul or Moses or anyone else meant to limit the scriptural condemnation of homosexual behavior” [DeYoung 86].  DeYoung refuses to set aside the plain reading of Biblical Scripture.  Revisionist efforts to do this are “less than honest.”

As I have commented on DeYoung and Sprinkle in this blog, I am trying to come to a conclusion about the Scriptures myself.  I have read the arguments [pro and con] and I have seen the damage these Scriptures have done to my church.  Disaffiliation has occurred and we have lost many key church members over this issue. As I have said before, there were ample opportunities in church-wide discussions to struggle with the meaning of God’s word but rather than do that, many took the floor and expressed their feelings.  Don’t get me wrong, feelings are important, but is a critical explanation of the Biblical text better?

Now as I reflect back upon those open discussions, would we have been better served if we had made some effort to parse the meaning of Scripture? 

Were our discussions “less than honest?”

*He refers to them as clobber scriptures because Christians clobber the LGBTQ+ community with those Scriptures.

**Thomas K. Hubbard, ed. Homosexuality in Greece and Rome.

***Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses.

****N.T. Wright, an interview.