#pentacostal

Certain passages repeatedly and forcefully prohibit premarital opposite-sex activity. For example, Deuteronomy 22:20-21 orders the death penalty for a woman who loses her virginity before marriage. Meanwhile, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 says that if a man has sex with an engaged women, both should be executed. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 says that if the same actions occur in the countryside, particularly as rape, the man should be executed.

Deuteronomy 23:17 bars men and women from serving as cult prostitutes. Thus, because of this regulation and others mentioned, both incidental and regular premarital sex is condemned.

That’s not all however. Exodus 22:16,17 reads this way in the English Standard Version: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.”

In other words, if a man seduces a willing woman for sex, he must pay a bride price to marry her. If the father disagreed (for whatever reason), the man still had to pay the bride price in silver. He was also disqualified from marrying another woman. Deuteronomy 22:28,29 makes similar rules. To be specific, those verses say that if a man rapes an unengaged women, he must marry her without an option of divorce.

As a side note, a sizable number of commentators say that the last two scriptures mentioned exemplify the patriarchy of the Bible. They say that these regulations reward men for their behavior, and unfairly punish women for being victimized.

In saying so, they might be missing an important question: what if the marriage partners aren’t compatible? Indeed, the rape victim might hate her attacker with a justifiably extreme venom. In that case, such an arrangement would be abominable for the man. It would make him regret that one action for the rest of his life. As a result, these rules do not favor men at all. Instead, they act as a powerful deterrent to keep men from violating women.

While we’ve mainly talked about premarital sex, this does not mean extramarital opposite-sex activity gets a free pass. Adultery was barred in the original Ten Commandments, which bluntly said “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14, New King James Version). Deuteronomy gets even more specific. Deuteronomy 22:22 says, “If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.” Whether or not the man is also married is immaterial.

The word “porneia” (often translated as “sexual immorality”) functioned as a reference to these rules. Thus, its repeated use made clear that these rules would persist within Christianity.

The Bible’s Standards for Same-Sex Activity

At present, the current Christian understanding is that all same-sex activity is prohibited by the Bible. They are no exceptions to the rule in their mind. If any kind of same-sex activity is done, it is automatically grave sin that must be severely punished.

However, as this blog has pointed out, the context of the “clobber passages” shows something different. While it shows those passages are condemning certain actions, the prohibition isn’t as sweeping as the clergy wants it to be.

The only Old Testament passages on same-sex activity are in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. As this blog has pointed out, textual and historical context shows it wasn’t condemning all same-sex activity. Instead, it was only condemning male-male anal sex.

Romans 1:26, 27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 speak much more on same-sex activity. Yet, through important textual and historical context, we see that even these passages enforce a limited prohibition. Romans repeats the prohibition of male-male anal sex, and extends it to male-female anal sex. Meanwhile, 1 Corinthians uses two words inside it, “arsenokoites” and “malakoi”. The former comes from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13, while the latter usually referred to passive partners in male-male anal sex. As such, once again, 1 Corinthians referred only to the active and passive partners in anal sex, and nothing more.

Based on this information, the blog made this Basic Conclusion: that the “clobber passages” were only referring to anal sex, and nothing more.

Indeed, the Bible never tells men to avoid sexual contact with men, and likewise with women. In fact, it really doesn’t care if they do so. Instead, it only cares about how they do it.

Leviticus 18:22 makes that clear, as taken from the New World Translation: “You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable act.” Note the phrase “in the same way”, which means the prohibited act between men somehow imitates interaction between men and women. Thus, these passages are only saying that the differences between genders (and their respective biologies) must be respected. When a man sexually interacts with either one, he must do so in ways that respect those differences. He cannot penetrate a man as he would a woman, because he’s not a woman, and does not have the biological ability to accept penetration.

Romans drives the point home, by condemning male-female anal sex with equal force. This particular scripture shows that the genders involved in a sex act are irrelevant. It is much more concerned with behavior. As such, it’s really against any practice of anal play by anyone, whether opposite-sex or same-sex.

Other than that, there’s no other direct rule governing same-sex activity. Instead of being prohibited, same-sex activity is a much freer form of sexual expression.

This leads to another question, as posed in the next subheading.

Does Same-Sex Activity During Marriage Count As Adultery?

By extension, this also applies to same-sex contact done while dating the opposite gender.

To answer that question, we will look at the story of David and Jonathan. This story is fully capable to answer this important question.

David was the son of Jesse, an Israelite shepherd. Jonathan was the son of King Saul of Israel. 1 Samuel 18 details the first time David and Jonathan met. They clicked with each other from the beginning. 1 Samuel 18:1 says, “the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” (ESV) The word translated “love” is used elsewhere to describe love between men and women. Thus, from the very beginning, we see that the two had a special bond.

The Bible doesn’t stop there. 1 Samuel 18:4 says further, “And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.” (ESV) Remember that underwear didn’t exist back then. Thus, he stripped himself naked so David could have his clothing.

Let that sink in for a minute - that Jonathan willingly went nude for David’s benefit. At the very least, that suggests that David and Jonathan were deeply attracted to each other. 1 Samuel 18:2 shows that the two began cohabiting immediately after they met, which more fully illustrated their closeness.

From here, the Bible gets much more explicit about their relationship. Eventually, David falls in love with Michal, Saul’s daughter and Jonathan’s sister. Just as the two got married, Saul says the following to David: “Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time.” (1 Samuel 18:21, American Standard Version). Note that turn of phrase. This means that to Saul, David’s relationship with Jonathan made him a son-in-law already. This meant David and Jonathan's relationship was so close, it was comparable to David’s relationship with Michal.

1 Samuel 20:30 gets even more explicit. In context, Saul is become increasingly irritated with the closeness between David and Jonathan. To be clear, what they’re doing isn’t necessarily offensive, as much as who Jonathan is doing it with. Thus, Saul says the following: “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?” (ESV)

In the original Hebrew, the phrase “son of a perverse rebellious woman” is infused with sexual terminology. The language is also extremely coarse and almost obscene. When the language was so highly specific, there’s no reason Saul would use it lightly. He knew what he was talking about. This means Saul knew their relationship had an erotic component.

Here comes the kicker. In a short time, David and Jonathan both marry. However, they couldn’t enjoy each other’s company for much longer. Saul wanted to kill David, so David had to flee for safety. Much time passed before David and Jonathan met one last time. When they finally saw each other, their relationship lost no closeness, even though both had been married for a while.

1 Samuel 20:41 tells part of the story: “David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.” (New International Version). Note the closeness described, in which they kissed each other and wept together, apparently in each other’s arms. That’s not all though.

Pay attention to that last part, where “David wept the most”. In ancient Hebrew, the phrase translated “wept the most” (gadal) signifies a growth of something, literally of a penis. According to this meaning, David became sexually aroused during their embrace, and grew an erection. Jonathan probably had an erection too. There’s no compelling reason why, in an already aroused state, they wouldn’t drive each other to mutual orgasm.

In fact, there isn’t much reason to guess. The text makes that conclusion quite logical. The text uses the causative form of “gadal”, which is “higdil”. In other words, the evident erection is clearly the result of their embrace, which signals sexual arousal.

But there’s more. The American Standard Version gives a more faithful translation: “And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the South, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.” Here, by the accurate use of the word “until”, it becomes clear that there’s a definite climax or conclusion to their behavior.

Now the question is, was that climax sexual? The text doesn’t make that explicit. In fact, its literal translation reads very oddly. That’s why some scholars think the sentence as it exists today isn’t complete, and may have been amended sometime in the past. But other evidence implies that the passage was meant to be read sexually.

For example, its Septuagint translation uses the Greek word “huperballo” in the place of “gadal”. “Huperballo” means to “surpass in throwing”, “to throw over or beyond anything”, or to excel or exceed in something. That evokes a rather explicit picture of semen being forcefully ejaculated from a penis and going airborne. Evidently, its Jewish translators felt the Hebrew text had a sexual meaning.

Furthermore, in certain contexts, parallel words in Arabic (“kabirun” or “ahbara”) explicitly refer to erections and ejaculations. With other Biblical passages, Arabic is used to understand otherwise unclear passages of Hebrew. This further implies that the passage had a sexual meaning above anything else.

So given everything above, it’s highly unlikely that their encounter wasn’t sexual. There’s far more evidence that supports that conclusion, compared to what could refute it. As such, the verse might possibly mean that David ejaculated more forcefully than Jonathan did.

Now, this is the point of considering this account. Through the story of David and Jonathan, it becomes clear that the Bible does not consider same-sex activity during marriage as adultery. Their contact was blatantly sexual, yet the Bible says nothing that condemns it. In fact, it actually honors it, and holds it as an example of a beautiful friendship. It certainly didn’t count as adultery to Israelite societal norms. Otherwise, they would have pressured David and Jonathan to distance themselves after marriage, yet that didn’t happen.

Furthermore, think of this. To the scriptures, David became adulterous only when he had sex with a woman named Bathsheba. Yet, his last fling with Jonathan didn’t cause a blip.

As such, there are only two answers for this: either an inexplicable double standard existed, or David and Jonathan broke no laws.

If that seems confusing, remember that sex historically meant penetration. If same-sex activity didn’t involve penetration, it wasn’t “sex”. To be clear, it was indisputably sexual and erotic, but it was not “sex” per se. As such, this might be an additional reason why the relationship of David and Jonathan caused no conflict. While their contact was unabashedly sexual, they didn’t have “sex” as they would with their wives.

Plus, the Old Testament (the only body of scripture in existence back then) condemned just anal play, so anything else was fair game.

The Implications of Our Findings

All this reframes the relationship between the Bible and sex, including its relationship to monogamy. Most Christians believe the Bible enforces a strict code of morality, which many feel is oppressive.

That’s not so in reality. The Bible doesn’t blindly condemn all sex outside marriage as “immorality”. Instead, the Bible’s standard is much more nuanced. It enforces a moral code which understands that sexual urges must be satisfied sexually, whether one is married or not.

Our findings make us redefine scriptures that were previously confusing, like 1 Corinthians 7:6,7. In that scripture, the Apostle Paul (the writer) was addressing his fellow Christians on sexual mores. He said the following: “But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am [as a single man]; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (NKJV)

In context, Paul had just said that men should ideally not “touch” (have sex with) a woman. However, to avoid the risk of committing “sexual immorality”, he said to “let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.”

There’s more to consider. Remember that Paul made sweeping statements a few verses earlier. In 1 Corinthians 6, he supposedly condemned all same-sex activity, along with opposite-sex activity outside marriage. He further said plainly to his readers, “Flee sexual immorality.” (1 Corinthians 6:18, NKJV).

As such, according to the mainstream Christian interpretation, all unmarried sex counts as “immorality”. Thus, all unmarried 1st Century Christians were expected to completely avoid all sex until marriage.

In other words, they were expected to uphold standards that most modern people can’t. Apparently, they suppressed their sexual urges to a degree that most modern young people find impossible. Yet, there are no records of widespread premarital sex, as is common today. How did those 1st Century Christians do it? How could they easily do what we can’t? How could they comfortably avoid all sex, even when their urges were intense?

Our discussion opens new possibilities. Remember that, as we just stated, Leviticus only condemned anal sex between men. That’s the only meaning that jived with textual and historical context, so that must have been how early Christians understood it. After all, that’s the way contemporary Jews understood it, and early Christianity was just a liberal form of Judaism.

Also remember that at the time, only the Old Testament was upheld as Scripture. The New Testament was correspondence from contemporaries, which was intended to reinforce the messages in the Old Testament. There had to be agreement between the two.

Along with that, also remember that sex was traditionally defined by penetration. Since most same-sex activity doesn’t involve penetration, those acts wouldn’t have counted as sex anyway.

This gives us a new view of 1 Corinthians 7:6,7. When Paul said he preferred that people remain unmarried, he didn’t mean that they should completely avoid any sexual activity. Opposite-sex activity outside marriage was definitely condemned. However, given what we just discussed, there was another mode of sexual expression that was wide open.

As such, unmarried Christians were expected to enjoy pleasure with their same-sex peers. Since most humans can swing both ways, they were perfectly capable of it. Thus, they would have had an easy time waiting for marriage, because that didn’t equate to sexual deprivation. Sex within marriage would have been a fringe benefit, rather than something needed to survive.

In other words, Alexander had no problem waiting to marry Melissa, Lucia, or whichever girl attracted him. His friend Lycus, who he regularly swam naked with, would have no qualms about making him feel good.

Thus, this scripture was addressing a very specific audience. It was talking to people whose desire for the opposite sex was more ferocious than usual. Thus Paul recommended that they should marry, to enjoy that desire in a Biblically proper way.

There are other implications of our findings to consider.

Instead of being condemned, same-sex activity is a Biblically freer form of sexual expression. The only prohibition exists on anal sex. Other than that, there are no other same-sex actions that are specifically named. That stands in contrast to the many rules governing opposite-sex actions.

The Bible recognizes the bisexuality of most humans. It realizes that male-female marriage cannot satisfy every need for intimacy. It knows that men will always have desires for other men, and women for women, whether they are married or not. As such, the Bible gives a path to same-sex activity that will always be open to them.

Same-sex activity has a clearly defined role in the divine plan. As we analyzed the Bible further, a theme started to reverberate - that opposite-sex activity and same-sex activity play different functions. Biblical rules on sex show that opposite-sex activity is intended to happen only within marriage. Meanwhile, the Bible clearly prefers sex outside marriage to happen between same-sex peers.

Among unmarried people, chances of unwanted pregnancy are reduced. In the 1980s, the AIDS epidemic attached an enormous stigma on all same-sex activity. At that time, something noteworthy happened in American human sexuality. Because of this stigma, the rates of premarital opposite sex contact went up significantly during the 1980s, while at the same time frequency of same-sex contact was rapidly decreasing.

Remember that most humans are bisexual, and that sex is a basic human need like eating and drinking. If we combine all these factors, we reach two conclusions:

In past decades and centuries, frequency of same-sex contact kept down rates of opposite sex contact.

True to their bisexuality, most people went to the opposite gender when same-sex contact became unacceptable

Thus, we can understand why most people seemed to obey the previous taboo on premarital opposite-sex contact. Simply put, they didn’t engage in it because they didn’t need to. They were already getting plenty of sexual pleasure from their same-sex peers. While opposite-sex contact might still be desired, it would be a bonus pleasure, and not something needed to survive.

As a result, same-sex contact also functioned as effective birth control. Unwanted pregnancy was less of a possibility, because unmarried men and women didn’t need to pursue each other for sexual fulfillment. After all, the best way to prevent pregnancy is avoiding behavior that causes it. That’s more effective than any condom you can find.

The Bible never intended marriage to be completely monogamous. It would definitely be monogamous when it came to opposite-sex contact. Rules on same-sex activity are much looser. David and Jonathan showed that clearly. Thus, while marriage partners would have exclusive opposite-sex contact with each other, they would be free to also enjoy intimacy with their same-sex friends.

In its own way, the Bible acknowledges that abstinence will never work. There is no passage in the Bible that advocates total avoidance of sexual contact. This is a tacit acknowledgement that, for most humans, this is impossible to do. This sheds new light on the attitudes of mainstream Christianity, who punitively enforce total abstinence before marriage. There is nothing loving or Biblical about such a stance. It’s simply oppressive.

This body of Biblical sex rules minimizes STD risk. Most STDs need contact with the bloodstream to be transmitted. As such, penetration can be a efficient way to spread disease. By limiting penetration to opposite-sex marriage, and banning penetration in same-sex contact, the Bible greatly reduces the chances for STD transmission.

We’re not done though. We’ve definitely shown that same-sex activity concurrent with opposite-sex contact doesn’t count as adultery. However, there’s another question to be asked, as stated in the next subheading.

Should Same-Sex Relationships Be Monogamous?

The Bible makes no statement on this question. For guidance, we will look at two contemporary movements: the g0y movement and the Man2Man Alliance (both links NSFW).

The two movements differ on their answers, at least superficially. The Man2Man Alliance appears to be the stricter one, saying that men should have only one male partner at a time (link NSFW). Meanwhile, the g0y movement has no problem with men having more than one sex partner.

When these two movements otherwise agree on most things, this seems to be a glaring difference. Further inspection shows otherwise. Instead, their origins deeply affect their positions, which don’t necessarily conflict with each other.

The Man2Man Alliance emerged as a critic from within the “gay” community. At the outset, many of its members were “gay” identified, though more “straight” members joined in later years. As such, its membership was familiar with the rampant promiscuity of the “gay” community, where a “gay” man might have several “one night stands” within a few hours. Thus, their stance on monogamy was meant to break that practice, as an extreme reaction to an extreme habit.

Meanwhile, the g0y movement developed outside of the “gay” community. As such, the men within it had much more stable relationships with other men. Through the “g0y” movement, they simply took friendships to the next level of intimacy. Because wanton promiscuity was never a problem in their same-sex interactions, the g0y movement took a more loose stance.

Thus, the two movements aren’t at odds with each other. They’re merely reacting to conditions they are facing.

So, what is this blog’s answer to this question? Does this blog believe that same-sex relationships should be monogamous?

Given all of the above, this blog’s answer is: It’s completely up to you. If you want to bond with only one person, nobody can judge you. If you want to bond with more than one person, nobody can say anything against you. That’s up to your personal judgement, and what you think is best for you.

For the record, I personally lead more towards the stance of the “g0ys”, but I won’t hold anyone else to that.

Just do one thing: don’t treat sex like a cheap and quick business transaction. Don’t treat your sex partners as objects to be used. Treat them as people with desires and wants like you. Treat them as you would like to be treated. Don’t have sex just for the sake of sex, but in the context of knowing a person better.

That’s what unites the stances of the g0y movement and the Man2Man Alliance: they both want sex to count for something. While the methods differ, the aim is the same. They both wish to end the “gay” culture of rampant “one night stands”, and help create same-sex bonds that have stability. As long as you treat individuals as the gifts that they are, and treat their sexuality as something to cherish, you will be fulfilling that aim. Sex will also become much more enjoyable, because it will be an investment rather than a throwaway pleasure.

Now, before concluding, there’s a special note I must make about an emerging theology.

A Special Note on a New Doctrine About Sex

As “gay” marriage becomes more commonplace, a new sexual doctrine has emerged within Christianity. It supposedly reconciles Christianity, same-sex activity, and “gay” marriage in a reasonable way. However, it is really a hidden danger that, if widely adopted, will be extremely damaging.

In simple detail, the doctrine removes the idea that all same-sex activity is condemned. In this new interpretation, same-sex activity is indeed allowed - but only within “gay” marriage. Any same-sex activity outside is considered sinful, just as sinful as opposite-sex activity outside marriage. However, whether a person marries a man or woman, they will be able to have sex with whoever they wish.

At first glance, this appears to be a loving doctrine, and a worthy replacement for the blanket condemnation of same-sex activity. However, it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, for the three following reasons.

It promotes the falsehood that all sex outside marriage is wrong. We’ve just demonstrated that the Bible has never prohibited all extramarital sex. It merely desires it to happen between members of the same-sex, while excluding anal play.

It makes no mention about the morality of anal play. It thus reinforces the notion that same-sex activity is best expressed through anal play. It also gives “carte blanche” to the “gay” leadership who incessantly promote anal sex. It gives permission for rampant anal sex to take place, which would be disastrous for everyone.

It institutes a class structure into sex.  Under present conditions, at least there’s some recognition that sexual needs must be satisfied sexually. With this interpretation, that idea disappears. Sex will become a privileged pleasure, for which a license must be acquired before it can be explored. Sex would be enjoyed only by those who are readily able to marry. The unmarried will be cruelly forced to ignore or suppress all urges for sex, and would be expected to wait until circumstances line up for them.

Under this doctrine, a marriage licence would effectively become a licence to have sex, any sex. People might marry simply to relieve their sexual urges, whether or not they are compatible with their marriage partner. This would gravely endanger the institution of marriage, and might induce its self destruction.

Really, the only beneficiary is neoliberalism, which wants to put classism in every human interaction. It is also a philosophy that the “gay” leadership seems enamored with.

In other words, this understanding is just as dangerous as the present one. In fact, it might even do more harm. Don’t be fooled. Wherever you see this interpretation, know that it is one that must be resisted.

Conclusion

This blog has made many statements affirming the naturalness of same-sex activity. It has constantly said that same-sex desire is natural, normal and widespread. It has also shown other ways to conceptualize same-sex eroticism, and its role in the human experience.

However, it left unanswered how same-sex activity connects with monogamy, especially according to the Bible. It didn’t address if

if marriage should exclude same-sex activity done by its partners

if same-sex relationships should be monogamous

We have shown that the Bible allows same-sex activity inside and outside of marriage. We demonstrated how same-sex activity has a definite role in the divine plan, as the desired mode for extramarital sex. We also showed how monogamy in same-sex relationships is a personal choice, and that the treatment of sex and sex partners is much more important.

Overall, we reframed how the Bible relates to sex. We have shown that, instead of punitively enforcing a rigid standard, it creates a moral code that is reasonable and perceptive.

As a side note, this also shows why David’s relationship with Jonathan is an uncomfortable topic for Christianity. Mainstream analysis of the story is usually strained and terse, and you’ve just seen why. If David and Jonathan's story was analyzed on its own terms, much of its lessons would deeply contrast with modern norms, both within Christianity and the larger world. That’s something the clergy doesn’t want.

At least you know better. That’s what can make all the difference, as long as you learn more.

Thus, please read further on this site, to explore another way to think about same-sex activity. I urge you to read “The ‘Straight’-’Gay’ Dichotomy: How It Works”, to fully understand how that system functions. I also urge any who read this to go to “For Straight People (though not exclusively)”, which will point to philosophies and forms of same-sex behavior that don’t hinge on demonstratively false concepts. Also read the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, to see how this concept evolved into its modern day meaning. Don’t be afraid of talking about what you learn to others.

The current conceptualization of sexuality depends on your inaction and ignorance. Any move done against it makes it harder to survive. Show it no mercy.

~~~~