John Williamson (00:10.895)
Welcome to the deconstructionist podcast. I'm your host, John Williamson, and we're back with a new episode. And this will be the first of a series of episodes that I intend on doing on a number of different
questions and topics that people have been asking for for a long time. And to be honest, I've held off on doing it, not because I didn't think it was important, but because I didn't want to rush it. I wanted to give it time, the nuance and the research it deserves. And now we're ready. But truthfully, what finally pushed me to move this one to the top of the list was a few angry emails I got after I released an episode on spoiled fruit that touched briefly on this topic. Some folks wrote in to say,
lost credibility with them because they felt like I was forcing my personal theology on them, which is funny because I never actually shared my personal theology, I just told the story. But here's the part that really stuck with me. Several of them also implied, or just straight up said, that anyone who holds an affirming position
must not take scripture seriously and that kind of pissed me off. So, because I do take scripture seriously, very seriously, and so do a lot of scholars, pastors, and faithful Christians who have done the hard, honest work of actually studying these passages in their full historical, linguistic, and cultural context and still arrive at a different conclusion than the one some of us grew up with. So today we're going to talk about it.
This episode is the first, like I said, in a series where we're going to unpack the clobber verses, the handful of passages often used to condemn LGBTQ plus people, and we're going to do it thoroughly, thoughtfully, respectfully, but also unapologetically. This isn't about forcing a view. It's about engaging with the Bible like adults who believe context matters. So let's get into it. Let's play a little game.
John Williamson (02:06.211)
I'm going to say a phrase and you tell me what pops into your head. Ready? Biblical marriage. Some of you just flinched. can feel it from here. Some of you pictured a husband and wife exchanging vows and a candle at church. Some of you might've thought of purity culture. Others, you pictured a man with three wives, a concubine and a goat. Here's the thing. When people say the Bible is clear about marriage, what they usually mean
is the version of marriage I was taught in youth group. But the Bible isn't actually clear. And when it comes to same sex marriage, it's not just unclear, it's completely silent. Not a word, not a verse, not even a whisper about gay marriage. And yet somehow, entire churches have built entire theologies out of silence. So today on The Deconstructionist, we're asking a bold question. What if the Bible doesn't actually condemn
same-sex marriage, and what does it say about us that so many people insist that it does? Before we can talk about what the Bible says or doesn't say about same-sex marriage, we have to ask a bigger question. What did marriage even mean in the ancient world? Because like we've said many times on the Deconstructionist Podcast, context, especially historical context, matters. And spoiler alert, it wasn't about romance.
and wasn't about love, and it definitely wasn't about cake tastings and Pinterest boards. To talk about this topic, we have to look at things in the context of the times. In the ancient Near East and in the Roman Empire, marriage was a legal and social contract, a transactional arrangement that protected land, inheritance, and lineage. Wives were often considered property of the husband, listed alongside cattle, servants,
and dowries. In fact, many quote biblical marriages look like this. Polygamy was common. Think Jacob, David, Solomon. Women were married off as young as 12. There were laws in Deuteronomy that allowed a man to marry a woman he had raped as long as he paid her father. Think about that. So when someone says, I believe in traditional biblical marriage, the next question should be, which tradition are you talking about?
John Williamson (04:32.58)
because the Bible doesn't present one clear definition of marriage. It reflects a wide array of ancient customs and evolving cultural norms. Even Jesus, when asked about marriage, wasn't laying down a universal theology. In Matthew 19, he talks about marriage only in the context of divorce, responding to a question from the Pharisees. He quotes Genesis, yes.
But he's not defining marriage once and for all. He's challenging a system that lets men divorce women for any reason and leave them destitute. And here's the kicker. Jesus never once mentioned same-sex relationships. Not once in any gospel ever. That silence, it matters. Especially if we're going to claim the Bible is clear.
All right, so let's talk about the big ones, the so-called clobber verses or the clobber passages. These are the same six to seven passages you've probably heard quoted, usually out of context, anytime someone brings up LGBTQ plus inclusion in the church. But here's the thing, these verses do not describe same sex marriage. They don't describe mutual loving consensual relationships between equals. They describe abuse,
exploitation, cultic rituals, and possibly things that translators didn't even fully understand. So let's go one by one. Genesis 19, the classic go-to Sodom and Gomorrah.
The story in Genesis 19 is often used as a supposed condemnation of same-sex relationships, but the actual story? It's brutal, disturbing, and completely misrepresented. Here's what happens. Two angelic messengers arrive in the city of Sodom. Lot, Abraham's nephew, invites them into his home for the night, a sacred act of hospitality in the ancient Near East. But then, things take a dark turn.
John Williamson (06:40.144)
The men of the city surrounded the house and demanded to quote, know the visitors. In Hebrew, the word used is yada, which can mean to know in a general sense, but in this context, it clearly means violent sexual assault. Why would an entire mob demand to gang rape male strangers? Because in the ancient world, rape was used as a tool of humiliation and domination, especially between men. It wasn't about desire.
It was about establishing superiority, shaming outsiders, and stripping them of power. This wasn't uncommon in ancient warfare or even civic life in corrupt cities. To rape another man was to feminize and disgrace him. A grotesque act of power, not love. Even more horrifying, Lot tries to protect his guests by offering up his virgin daughters instead. This tells you everything about the toxic
patriarchal world this story inhabits. And if you're reading this scene as some sort of model for sexual ethics, you've missed the forest, the trees, and the point completely. What's clear is this. This story is not, repeat, not about consensual same-sex relationships. It's about brutality and hospitality and the violent abuse of power. Even the Bible tells us this.
Ezekiel 16 49. Looking back on this exact story says, 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. No mention of sexuality, no mention of orientation, just injustice, pride and a failure to care for the vulnerable. So let's stop weaponizing this passage, please. And thank you.
It doesn't say what some people desperately want it to say. And to use it against LGBTQ plus people today is not just poor theology, it's a dangerous distortion of the text. All right, let's move on to the next one. Leviticus 1822 and 2013. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it's an abomination. Okay, this one seems pretty cut and dry, right? Except it's not.
John Williamson (09:03.418)
This line appears in Leviticus, part of the ancient holiness code, a long list of purity laws designed to set ancient Israel apart from its neighbors. These laws cover everything from sexual conduct to farming practices to fashion. According to Leviticus, it's also an abomination to eat shellfish, wear clothing of mixed fabrics, plant two crops in the same field, touch a woman during her period, and yes, trim your sideburns.
but nobody is organizing national campaigns to ban crab cakes or barbershops. Why? Because most Christians recognize that the holiness code was part of an ancient covenant, not a universal moral code. These were ritual laws meant to maintain symbolic purity in Israel's worship life, not establish eternal ethical norms. And the word abomination here? The Hebrew word is toeh-va.
The same word is used to describe eating shellfish. It's a term that implies ritual impurity, not intrinsic evil. It doesn't mean the worst possible sin. It means this violates our community's purity standards. So if you're using this verse to condemn LGBTQ plus people while ignoring the rest of Leviticus, you're not following scripture. You're selectively enforcing it. More importantly, this verse still doesn't describe same sex marriage.
There's no mention of love, no mention of commitment, no mutuality, just a prohibition rooted in an ancient purity system never meant to govern Christians, according to Acts 15 and Romans 10. So let's move on to Romans 1, 26 through 27 in the New Testament. Paul writes, their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.
Okay, first, let's remember Paul's context. He's writing to believers in Rome, the heart of the Roman Empire. In that world, elite Roman men frequently used their status to dominate slaves and young boys. Temple prostitution was widespread. Sex was often more about power and status than love or relationship. So what's Paul condemning? He's condemning idolatry, excess,
John Williamson (11:30.958)
and exploiting behavior. This entire section is framed as a critique of how people abandoned God and worship created things. This isn't a comment on orientation. It's a critique of what happens when power, sex, and ego replace humility and reverence. Also, about the phrase against nature. In Greek, that's para phycin. And I'd also like to add, I'm probably royally messing up the Hebrew and Greek here, but.
I will have plenty of resources in the show notes. anyway, in ancient philosophy, nature meant the expected social order. So for a Roman man to receive penetration like a woman, that was unnatural, not because it was gay, but because it reversed the proper hierarchy. Even more fascinating, Paul uses the exact same Greek phrase, paraphysin, in Romans 11, 24, when he describes
God's grafting Gentiles into the people of Israel. That too was against nature, but in a redemptive divine way. So against nature doesn't automatically mean sinful. Also, let's not forget, Romans 1 leads directly into Romans 2, where Paul turns to the reader and says, you therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else. This isn't a condemnation of LGBTQ plus people.
It's a rhetorical trap for self-righteous readers. Now let's talk Greek. Let's look at 1 Corinthians 6, 9 and 1 Timothy 1, 10. In these two New Testament passages, 1 Corinthians 6, 9 and 1 Timothy 1, 10, we find two rarely used Greek words, malikoi and arsenokotoi. And I'm so sorry, Dr. Dan McClellan, I'm sure I butchered that, but anyway.
These are the verses that in some English Bibles get translated as condemning, quote, homosexuals. But here's the problem. The word homosexual didn't even exist until the 19th century. It was coined in 1869 by a German activist named Karl Maria Kerbeny, not as a religious term, but as part of a legal and psychological framework in debates about Prussian law.
John Williamson (13:52.27)
and it didn't appear in any English Bible until 1946, when the Revised Standard Version inserted the term into 1 Corinthians 6.9. That was the first time in Christian history that the Bible was translated to say homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom of God. And guess what? Some of the translators who worked on the RSV later admitted it was a mistake. Decades later, researcher Ed Oxford dug into the translation archives
and found that the term was added without linguistic consensus and that even members of the RSV committee regretted the fallout, because that single word change has caused generations of harm. So what did Paul actually write? Malakoi, literally means soft, used broadly in Greek to refer to moral weakness, laziness, or effeminacy, not sexuality. In some contexts, it described men who lacked self-control
or too feminine by cultural standards. But there is no direct evidence linking it to same-sex love or identity. And then there's the other word that I really butchered just a second ago, arsen a katoi, katai. Close enough. This is a strange one because it's actually a made-up word, likely coined by Paul himself. It combines arsen, which means man, and koite, which means bed. There's no agreed upon meaning
But scholarly theories include temple prostitution, abusive or coercive sex acts, economic exploitation. Importantly, it never appears in ancient Greek literature before Paul, and it's not clearly explained anywhere else. That means when modern Bibles render this as homosexuals, they're not translating. They're interpreting, based on assumptions, not evidence. And those interpretations are shaped
by modern categories of sexual identity that simply didn't exist in the ancient world. There was no concept of someone being gay or straight. There were acts, some acceptable, some not, but no psychological or relational categories like we use today. So when people say, the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, the honest response is, in what language, from what century, and based on what historical understanding?
John Williamson (16:18.032)
Because what's actually clear is this, the original Greek doesn't say homosexual. The modern word wasn't coined until the 1800s. It wasn't inserted into the Bible until 1946. And it's been used ever since as a theological blunt object, one that Jesus never used. So after all this talk about clobber passages, here's what's even more striking. The Bible never talks about same-sex marriage.
Not once, not directly, not even metaphorically. That's not a loophole. It's a sign of historical context. The biblical authors simply did not have a category for what we're talking about today. Two adults of same gender entering into a mutual lifelong loving covenant. That framework didn't exist socially, legally, or theologically. An ancient Israel and the Greco-Roman world
Same-sex activity did happen, but almost always in contexts that were exploitative or hierarchical. Older men with boys, or pederasty, master with slaves, temple prostitution, public shaming rituals after warfare. So naturally, when those acts appear in scripture, they're condemned, not because of gender, but because of power, abuse, and exploitation.
but a same-sex covenant relationship, that concept simply wasn't on the radar. Some scholars argue that it doesn't appear in scripture for the same reason smartphones don't appear in scripture, because they didn't exist yet. To say, well, the Bible doesn't mention gay marriage, so it must be against it, is to apply a modern debate to an ancient document and to expect it to have anticipated every nuance of contemporary life.
That's not how scripture works. That's not how any sacred text works.
John Williamson (18:21.53)
So let's talk about a common accusation, one that's thrown around a lot in these conversations. You're just twisting scripture to say what you want it to say, or you're cherry picking, or the classic, you don't take the Bible seriously. But let's be honest, if you're someone who's wrestled with these texts, read commentaries dug into Hebrew and Greek, tried to understand historical context and cultural norms, how is that not taking the Bible seriously?
Taking the Bible seriously doesn't mean taking every word literally. It means taking the context seriously, the language seriously, the genre seriously, the audience seriously. And the truth is, every Christian interprets and applies the Bible selectively. You don't own slaves, even though Leviticus and Paul both regulate it. You don't insist women cover their heads or remain silent in church, even though Paul literally says that too.
You don't avoid shellfish or stone disobedient children or refuse to lend money with interest. Why? Because you instinctively understand that not everything in the Bible is universally binding for all people at all times. And let me be clear, if you're applying that lens to economics, gender roles, and dietary laws, you can't suddenly demand absolute literalism when it comes to six vague verses about same-sex behavior.
Let's also be clear about something else. Affirming Christians aren't rewriting scripture to suit themselves. They're trying to read it more honestly, with better tools, better scholarship, and greater awareness of cultural blind spots. In fact, it's often the people screaming biblical clarity who are leaning on mistranslations, modern assumptions, and 20th century ideological baggage to prop up their theology.
The people most committed to upholding tradition often end up defending a version of the Bible more shaped by recent culture wars than by ancient text. So let's retire this idea that only non-affirming Christians take the Bible seriously. Because in many cases, it's the affirming ones doing the actual work. So let's shift gears. Because even if you disagree on how to interpret scripture,
John Williamson (20:47.332)
Here's a question Jesus himself taught us to ask. What kind of fruit does this teaching produce? In Matthew 7, Jesus says, you will know them by their fruits. Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. So let's ask honestly, what kind of fruit has anti-LGBTQ plus theology produced? And the answer is sobering. Kids thrown out of their homes.
Teenagers subjected to conversion therapy. Young adults driven to depression, anxiety, and suicide. LGBTQ plus people deny communion, leadership, baptism, even basic human dignity. Families torn apart. Friendships destroyed. Churches hollowed out. And here's the worst part. All of it justified in the name of faithfulness.
But what if the faithfulness was misplaced? What if clinging to bad interpretations is actually bearing bad fruit? By contrast, affirming theology, when it's done well, produces reconciliation, healing, belonging, and hope. It allows people to love God with their whole selves. It allows LGBTQ plus Christians to be part of the body without pretending to be someone else.
It allows churches to become places of actual good news for everyone. So even if you're unsure where you land theologically, here's a good place to start. Pay attention to the fruit. Jesus told us that's how you'll know. So let's zoom out. After all the Greek and Hebrew that I badly mispronounced, after all the history and context, after centuries of shifting interpretations, here's what we know.
The Bible does not clearly or consistently condemn same-sex relationships, but it condemns again and again, is exploitation, abuse, violence, domination, and injustice. It doesn't speak to sexual orientation. It doesn't speak to marriage equality. It doesn't anticipate our categories, our language, or our legal structures. And that's not a flaw in scripture.
John Williamson (23:13.71)
That's just reality. Because the Bible was written by real people in real times with real limitations. It was written to address their questions, not necessarily ours. That's why we have theology. That's why we wrestle. That's why there are multiple atonement theories, diverse biblical canons, and entire commentaries devoted to the question. What does it actually mean? And yet somehow,
We've let six ambiguous and highly contested verses out of over 31,000 become the basis for denying LGBTQ plus people full participation in the life of the church. Let's put that in perspective. The Bible mentions poverty and economic justice more than 2000 times. Idolatry, hospitality, greed and violence are central concerns in both testaments.
Even divorce, which Jesus explicitly addresses, is discussed with more clarity and consistency than anything related to same-sex relationships. So why is this the hill so many Christians choose to die on? When six verses become the justification for exiling an entire group of people, especially when those verses don't mean what many think they mean, that's not biblical clarity, that's selective outrage.
And if you believe the Bible condemns LGBTQ plus people, and you're using that belief to justify exclusion, discrimination, or spiritual abuse, that's not faithfulness. That's just bad biblical scholarship with real human casualties. So let's be better. Let's approach scripture with humility. Let's prioritize compassion over certainty. Let's follow Jesus who said the whole law is summed up in love of God.
and love of neighbor. And maybe, just maybe, that love includes people you've been told to keep out.