Written by Alan Austin   

“Where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.”

This has been a popular Bible reading at Jewish and Christian weddings for thousands of years. Marriage liturgies today still use variations on “until death do us part” [Ruth 1:14-18].

It is a classic declaration of commitment for life – between two women, Ruth and Naomi.

Is this an example of a same-sex union in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures? And if yes, so what?

Many nations and states are now debating changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. Much of the vociferous resistance to change is based on religious belief. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops affirmed this month “that genuine marriage can occur only between one man and one woman”.

Scholars are now challenging the view that this is the only biblical model. Many no longer believe Scripture condemns all homosexual unions, as the Church has traditionally taught. Some claim there are indeed approved same-sex relationships in the ancient texts.

Biblical times were not much different from today, they say. There were flamboyant queens, male prostitutes, closet gays and unobtrusive monogamous unions.

Professor of New Testament at Australia’s Whitley College Keith Dyer writes “mutually enriching same-sex relationships” were known. But not much is known about them. “Such relationships were kept quiet then, as for many today and especially in the Church.”

The story of Ruth and Naomi, above, comes into frame because of the Hebrew word dabaq used of their union [Ruth 1:14]. That is the key word meaning “to cleave” in the foundational marriage text in Genesis: “a man shall leave his parents, cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh” [Gen 2:24-25].

“Whether there existed a relationship of physical love between Ruth and Naomi cannot be demonstrated,” writes Middle East scholar Tom M Horner. “However, the right words are there.” The story contains the Bible’s second strongest declaration of love and commitment.

The strongest Biblical love story by far is that of David and Jonathan. This takes up more chapters than any other Scriptural relationship and includes more intimations of intimacy.

We read “Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and loved him as himself.” Jonathan “made a covenant with David because he loved him”. Jonathan “took off his robe and gave it to David, along with his tunic, his sword, his bow and his belt”. David took an oath saying, “Your father knows very well that I have found favour in your eyes” [1 Samuel 18].

Jonathan told David, “Whatever you want me to do, I'll do for you.” Jonathan later “made David reaffirm his oath, because he loved him”. And we read that “they kissed each other and wept together”.

Again, no explicit mention of sex. But clues to the author’s intention are in references to the oath, disrobing and, pointedly, the father’s rage at the shame of it all.

“Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?” [1 Samuel 20:30-34]

Finally, after Jonathan’s death, David wrote of Jonathan, “You were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”

Tom Horner claims there is little doubt, “except on the part of those who absolutely refuse to believe it”, that this was a homosexual relationship.

A third possibility is Daniel and Ashpenaz. We read in the King James Version that God “brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs” [Daniel 8:1-9]. Just how tender this love was we don’t know. The account is frustratingly brief. Its meaning has been obscured by later translations which tone down the “tender love” to “compassion” or “sympathy”.

A fourth is the relationship between a centurion and his child “servant” in the New Testament, recorded by Matthew and Luke [Luke 7:1-10]. Both authors use the Greek word ‘pais’ to describe the relationship with the boy who was “dear to him”. Some who have studied these things, such as Theodore W Jennings, Jr. and Tat-siong Benny Liew believe ‘pais’ in that context has definite same-sex intimacy meaning.

Then there are several enigmatic Biblical passages about eunuchs – men whose sexuality was different from “normal”.

Was this a generic term for LGBTQ people? Some scholars believe so. If true, this refutes the oft-repeated claim that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Jesus did affirm that “there are eunuchs who were born that way” when teaching about marriage [Matthew 19:10-12]. We also read an intriguing account in Acts about a eunuch journeying from Ethiopia who was converted to Christianity and instantly baptised into the new community [Acts 8:26-40].

J David Hester claims eunuchs were not celibate and chaste by unfortunate anatomical necessity, “but highly sexual and sexed beings”.

The former academic believes Scriptural references to eunuchs are directly relevant to the current debate. “No matter how you view it, the figure of the eunuch … radically undermines the foundational assumptions used to reinforce the conservative heterosexist reading of the Bible.”

Finally, there are the passages referring to the relationship between Jesus and “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. An intriguing article here at RSN last April, from The Guardian UK, asks the question: “Was Jesus gay?” And concludes “Probably”.

Importantly, author Paul Oestreicher says “there can be no certainty” about this. But he shows why “the homosexual option simply seems the most likely”. This is based on several Biblical passages which he explores.

Admittedly, these accounts in Scripture are few. But that should be expected with same-sex and bi-sexual orientation being minority experiences. And there are no details about actual sex. Again, that should not surprise. There is no reference anywhere in the Bible after the birth of Christ to any married heterosexuals ever having sex either. There was none? Or can we use our imagination?

Progressives within the faith communities do not rely too much on these accounts for validation of their inclusive praxis. They look, rather, at deeper Biblical themes.

These include: all are created in the image of God; we are fearfully and wonderfully made; it is not good for anyone to be alone; life in all its fullness; and some are born with different sexuality.

So what of the Biblical references to homosexuality as an abomination? Those passages, progressives claim, condemn only coercive, abusive or idolatrous acts – not committed, loving unions.

Amazing variations abound in this extraordinary creation, they say, including in human relationships.


Note: This is a slightly edited version of an article which first appeared in The Drum in July 2012, titled 'One in spirit': same-sex unions in the Bible.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4143802.html
That article contains multiple links to academic source documents.