Last Updated on July 28, 2024 by Kittredge Cherry
Struggle against his own homosexual desires in an intolerant society may have inspired Paul the Apostle to write sublime Biblical teachings on unconditional love and inclusivity — and also a few “clobber passages” used by anti-LGBTQ bigots.
Both Paul’s sense of unworthiness and his appreciation for God’s grace may have the same unexpected cause: Some scholars believe that Paul was a celibate homosexual man trying to reconcile faith and sexuality in a culture that condemned same-sex attraction. This may have been the “thorn in the flesh” that God refused to remove despite his prayers.
Such Pauline paradoxes have long fascinated people of faith while alienating some progressives. He wrote magnificent meditations on inclusivity and petty rules that have divided people by fueling sexism, racism and antisemitism.
Many LGBTQ Christians have a love-hate relationship with Paul. They often keep their distance from him and are justifiably reluctant to claim him as a “queer saint.” But he is influential and some of his ideas are liberating.
Paul’s influence continues to permeate Christianity every day, but two feast days are set aside to honor him: June 29 is the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, one of the oldest and most important saint days in the Christian calendar. It commemorates their martyrdom. Jan. 25 is the Feast of Conversion of Saint Paul, a relatively minor occasion.
Paul the Apostle, also known as Saul of Tarsus, is widely considered one of the most important figures in Western history and one of the greatest religious leaders of all time. He is second only to Jesus in his impact on Christianity. More than half of the books in the New Testament are attributed to him, and seven are recognized as his own authentic work.
It may seem absurd to consider Paul as queer. As Gayheroes.com asked: “Who in their right mind would ever think that St. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, writer of Epistles used by Christians to condemn gay people for centuries, might himself be gay?”
The most outspoken church leader on this question is John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopal bishop. He presents the case for Paul’s homosexuality in his 1991 bestseller “Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture”:
“When I suggest the possibility that Paul was a homosexual person, I do not mean to be salacious or titillating or even to suggest something that many would consider scandalous. I see no evidence to suggest that Paul ever acted out his sexual desires and passions…. A rigidly controlled gay male, I believe, taught the church what the love of God means …
Nothing else, in my opinion, could account for Paul’s self-judging rhetoric, his negative feeling toward his own body, and his sense of being controlled by something he had no power to change. The war that went on between what he desired with his mind and what he desired with his body, his drivenness to a legalistic religion of control, his fear when that system was threatened, his attitude toward women, his refusal to seek marriage as an outlet for his passion — nothing else accounts for this data as well as the possibility that Paul was a gay male.” (p. 117)
Some facts suggest Paul was gay
The modern concept of homosexuality did not exist in Biblical times. But Spong and others point out that a sexual attraction to men would explain some mysteries about Paul’s life:
* Paul never married, which was unusual for a first-century Jew, but had a series of younger men as companions.
* He sometimes expressed negativity toward women and homosexual exploitation.
* Tormented by self-reproach, he pleaded with God three times in vain to remove an unspecified “thorn in my flesh” that troubled him. Some believe that “thorn” was attraction to other men. God’s answer, according to Paul, was to deny his request with the explanation, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
* Homosexuality might even help explain Paul’s cataclysmic conversion experience. He went from intensely persecuting Christians to becoming the most articulate leader of the very movement that he had tried to destroy. His vision of Christ left him stunned by the revelation that nothing could separate him from God’s love.
“The war going on inside of him is a fairly classic description of what I have come to understand in repressed gay males,” Spong said in a Los Angeles Times interview on Feb. 2, 1991.
For Spong, these contradictions finally made sense when he first encountered the possibility of Paul’s homosexuality in the 1937 book “Saint Paul” by British theologian Arthur Darby Nock.
“I was absolutely floored by how it opened up Paul to me,” he told the LA Times.
Some see a possible romantic relationship between Paul and his “beloved brother” Onesimus in the Epistle to Philemon. There may also be a homoerotic component to Paul’s love for the risen Christ, as explored in “Eros and the Christ: Longing and Envy in Paul’s Christology” by David E. Fredrickson.
Paul also made intriguingly queer male-to-female reference when he said, “I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you” (Galatians 4:19) and “Just as a nursing mother cares for her children, so we cared for you.” (1 Thessalonians 2:7-8).
Paul is the first man ever described as a “bride of Christ,” according to gay Catholic historian Paul Halsall. Bishop Methodius of Olympus made this gender-nonconforming reference for the first time in the late third century, Halsall writes in “Wedded to Christ: Nuptiality and Gender Reversal in the Lives of Byzantine Male Saints,” a paper for a 1997 Byzantine studies conference.
Spong: “A gay male taught the church what the love of God means”
Spong gives an eloquent and detailed explanation of why he believes Paul was gay in “Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism.” Some find the idea scandalous, but Spong sees beauty in Paul’s queer spiritual journey:
“To me it is a beautiful idea that a homosexual male, scorned then as well as now, living with both the self-judgment and the social judgments that a fearful society has so often unknowingly pronounced upon the very being of some it its citizens, could nonetheless, not in spite of this but because of this, be the one who would define grace for Christian people. For two thousand years of Christian history this Pauline definition has been at the very core of the Christian experience. Grace was the love of God, an unconditional love, that loved Paul just as he was. A rigidly controlled gay male, I believe, taught the Christian church what the love of God means and what, therefore, Christ means as God’s agent. Finally, it was a gay male, tortured and rejected, who came to understand what resurrection means as God’s vindicating act.” (p. 125)
Spong also asserts that Paul was homosexual in a video of his 2006 debate with James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries. Viewers can watch the seven-minute section where Spong argues for Paul’s homosexuality or the full three-hour debate.
excerpt
On the video he sums up his views on Paul’s sexual orientation, including this statement:
Paul went through a cataclysmic experience, and in that conversion experience I think he came to the realization that God loved him just as he is, as we indeed sing ‘Just as I am without one plea.’ That’s how God loved him. And he came out of that convinced, in what I think is a very revealing statement, that nothing could finally separate him from the love of God, not even he says ‘my own nakedness’ can separate me from the love of God. Now I don’t know that Paul was gay, and I have no sense that even if he were gay he ever acted it out. My sense is he lived bound by the law in such a way that it was killing him inside. But his conversion experience was a sense that whatever it is that God is, God loved him as he was, and so he breaks into this great epiphany of wonder that not height, not depth, not angels, not principalities, not things present, not things to come, nothing can separate me from the love of God. Now let me just finally say, I don’t know that Paul was gay. That’s a supposition. I’m personally convinced of it. I’ll ask him when I get to the kingdom of heaven. It will be a very revealing conversation.
Paul’s life was full of passion and paradox
Paul was an intense, intelligent man of many contradictions. He was born around the same year as Jesus in the city of Tarsus, a large trade center on the Mediterranean coast in modern Turkey. It was rare for a first-century Jew to be a citizen of Rome, but he apparently inherited Roman citizenship from his father.
Mosaic of the Apostle Paul from Archepiscopal Chapel in Ravenna, Italy, c. 500
Paul had a dual identity as a Greek-speaking Jew: He came from a devout Jewish family of Pharisees — the same strictly religious group that Jesus accused of hypocrisy for enforcing the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit. But he was also an outsider who grew up outside the Jewish homeland. His family made sure that he was well educated in Greek and Roman classical philosophy and also sent him to Jerusalem to study with Gamaliel, one of the leading first-century rabbis.
His double identity is reflected by his two names. His Jewish name was Saul, but as a Roman citizen, he also had the Latin name Paul or Paulus. Apparently he used the names interchangeably in his ministry, switching to whichever name and language would put people most at ease. His primary ministry was to Gentiles, so he is best known as Paul to Christians today.
In the first half of his life Saul persecuted Christians as heretics, then Paul became their greatest champion. He was not one of the 12 disciples and he never met the earthly Jesus. But he claimed that the risen Jesus made him an apostle or messenger. Paul became Christ’s most zealous spokesman, spreading Christianity across the ancient world. His zeal expanded the Jesus movement from a small Jewish sect to a worldwide faith open to everyone.
Acts 9:1 describes Saul “breathing out murderous threats against the disciples,” perhaps similar to today’s anti-LGBTQ haters who attack Q Spirit. Paul’s famous conversion experience happened when he was on the desert road from Jerusalem to Damascus. Spewing death threats, he intended to arrest the followers of Jesus. Instead, according Biblical accounts, the risen Christ appeared to him in a blinding light and called him by his Hebrew name: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Paul fell to the ground and was struck blind.
He spent the next three days in fasting and prayer. Then he recovered his sight, got baptized and began to preaching that Jesus was the Jewish messiah and Son of God.
“Paul of Tarsus” by Tobias Haller shows the saint against a pink background. Haller, a retired Episcopal vicar who still assists at a parish in Baltimore, creates icons of LGBTQ people as well as traditional saints.
Paul went on to travel tens of thousands of miles around the Mediterranean world to spread the Christian faith. Along the way he experienced famine, shipwreck, scourging and imprisonment. When necessary, he supported himself by working as a tentmaker. His authentic letters to church communities live on in the Bible as the epistle to the Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Corinthians, Thessalonians and Philemon. At various times his travelling companions included future saints Silas, Barnabas and Timothy.
Even though his writings have been used to subjugate women, he also befriended women church leaders such as Lydia, a businesswoman who sold purple dye; Chloe, an important member of the Corinth church; Junia who was “prominent among the apostles” (and considered a trans saint by some because her name was changed from female to male); Priscilla, who was a missionary with her husband Aquilla; and a deacon and benefactor named Phoebe.
He wrote about liberation for all creation in ways that inspire today’s environmentalists, as expressed in books such as “Greening Paul: Rereading the Apostle in a Time of Ecological Crisis.”
Paul spent the last two years of his life under house arrest in Rome. Details of his death cannot be confirmed. According to tradition, both Paul and Peter were executed in Rome around 67 AD as part of the persecution of Christians.
Paul quoted a queer Greek prophet
Paul quoted queer Greek philosopher Epimenides twice in the New Testament: in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12. He referred to Epimenides as a “prophet.” Queer Bible scholar Virginia Mollenkott wrote about it in the book “Transgender Journeys”:
“When I was young, it would have given me enormous courage had I known that not just once but twice the New Testament honors a transgender and homoerotic prophet by quoting him in a positive context. … I am referring to Epimenides, a poet and prophet who lived in Knossos, Crete, in the sixth century B.C.E. … According to Greek sources, Epimenides was the shaman who successfully helped to rid Athens of a plague and who assisted the Athenian statesman Solon in his famous reforms, including the institutionalization of homoerotic love as it was practiced in Crete. In his book Greek Divination (1913), William R. Holiday compares Epimenides to the transgender shaman Tiresias, who changed sex several times and whose clothing was simultaneously ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine.’”
Novels explore Paul’s homosexual side
At least four novels have explored the possibility of Paul’s sexual attraction to men. They include:
“The Secret Love Letters of Saint Paul” by Bern Callahan. (Booklocker, 2016)
Same-sex romance blossoms between the Apostles Paul and Timothy of the New Testament in a daring and suspenseful novel. The gay historical romance switches between their love affair soon after the death of Christ and a story set in the near future, when young priest Finn McDonagh finds the secret love letters from Paul to Timothy. The discovery of the letters leads to intrigue in the in the homophobic corridors of the Vatican. The fictional format allows for exploration of Paul’s inner contradictions as a charismatic preacher with a reputation for being sex-negative as he opened up the Roman Empire to Christianity. The author brings a rare insider/outsider viewpoint as a former Roman Catholic priest who embraced Buddhism and became a meditation teacher. He lives in Vancouver, Canada with his partner. Published by Booklocker.com.
“Damascus” by Christos Tsiolkas (Atlantic Books, 2019)
Paul is a self-hating homosexual in this gritty, gripping historical novel by an award-winning gay Australian author. He unflinchingly dissects Paul’s contradictory motives and the moral stench of the early Christian era. The provocative vision includes Jesus himself being raped by persecutors and mocked by pagans as a “raped and crucified god.”
“A Wretched Man: A Novel of Paul the Apostle” by R.W. “Obie” Holmen. (Bascom Hill Publishing, 2010)
Paul’s struggle with homosexual urges is skillfully incorporated into this fictional account of the early church. It brings to life Paul’s inner turmoil and contentious relationships with others inside and outside the Jesus movement.
According to the book description, “Paul drew adversaries like a moth to a flame: Jews of the synagogue, pagan temple priests, Roman authorities, and James, the brother of Jesus…. With each step along countless miles, Paul carried the rejection and disapproval of James in Jerusalem…”
A former trial lawyer, the author did post-graduate studies at St John’s School of Theology, a progressive Benedictine community in Minnesota. He is also the author of “Queer Clergy: A History of Gay and Lesbian Ministry in American Protestantism.”
“The Apostle: A Novel Based on the Life of Saint Paul” by Sholem Asch. (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1943)
This vivid historical fiction is said to include a reverently homoerotic description of Paul’s relationship with Timothy, especially right after his circumcision when Paul embraces and kisses him.
The book provides a vivid description of the Roman Empire as summarized in the official description: “The orgies and intrigues of the Emperor Nero’s court. The cruelty of infanticide, the brutal oppression of the slaves in the mines and bronze pits. The sadistic decadence of the gladiatorial arena. The slaughter of the New Christians. The arrogance, lust, and intellectual insolence of Rome arrayed against the poor, powerless Christians who had only their faith to sustain them.”
Asch was a prominent Polish-born Jewish novelist who wrote in Yiddish. “The Apostle” is part of his controversial trilogy on the founders of Christianity (Mary, Paul and Jesus).
Did Paul condemn homosexuality?
A few scattered passages attributed to the Apostle Paul have been used to condemn homosexuality for centuries, inciting anti-gay violence and sodomy executions. They include Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10.
These verses are among a small set of scriptures known as “clobber passages” because proof-texting conservatives wield them like weapons to justify discrimination and clobber or bash LGBTQ people.
Many Bible scholars have debunked the idea that the Bible condemns today’s loving, responsible same-sex relationships. They use powerful arguments to prove their point: The scriptures that supposedly ban homosexuality have been mistranslated and/or taken out of context. Prejudice against homosexuality led to misunderstanding of the original texts. Some of the passages attributed to Paul may have been inserted later by lesser authors. Scripture needs to be interpreted in light of history and reason.
Saint Paul, right, appears to have a conflicted relationship with Saint Peter in a painting by El Greco, c. 1600 (Wikipedia)
The following books are recommended for further study about what Paul (and the rest of the Bible) says about homosexuality:
“God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships” by Matthew Vines (2014, Convergent Books)
“What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality” by Daniel Helminiak (Alamo Square Press, 2000)
“UnClobber: Rethinking Our Misuse of the Bible on Homosexuality” by Colby Martin (Westminster John Knox Press, 2016)
LGBTQ-Liberation Prayer to Paul
Canadian gay theologian Donald Boisvert wrote a prayer to Paul and Augustine from an LGBTQ-liberation perspective. The prayer is included in his 2004 book “Sanctity and Male Desire: A Gay Reading of Saints.” His chapter on Paul and Augustine draws parallels between the two saints. They are both intellectuals who had dramatic conversion experiences and wrote influential sex-negative theology. Here is his prayer:
Blessed Paul and Augustine, doctors and defenders of the faith, men of integrity, architects of an inhuman theology of sexuality, you have done us harm. We are grateful for the beauty and passion of your words, but we also pray that our common brotherly love will shield us from their poison. You have been misused to condemn us and our desires for the affections and bodies of other men. We think you understood us. We need you now to stand with us. Inspire and motivate the leaders of our faith to see the hatred they spread against us in your name. Convert them as you were once converted. Be our strength, our bold and born-again guides. Amen.
Queer religion scholars look at Paul
“Feminism, Queerness, Affect, and Romans: Under God?” by Jimmy Hoke. A queer feminist intersectional approach reveals how queer people in Biblical times would have engaged with Paul’s letter to the Romans. The letter arguably contains the Bible’s strongest condemnation of queer people in 1:26–27, but that is not the full story. The author is religion professor at Luther College. Published by SBL Press, 2021.
Queer new options for how to interpret Paul’s letters in sexuality debates are provided in the 2019 book “Bodies on the Verge: Queering Pauline Epistles.” Key reflections cover two “clobber passages” that have been used to condemn homosexuality (Rom 1:26-27 and 1 Cor 6:9) and demonstrate the relevance of texts throughout the Paul’s writing. Fresh interpretations arise from queer understanding the context of these passages based on history, theology, empire, gender, race, and ethnicity. Editor Joseph A. Marchal is associate professor of religion (and affiliate faculty in women’s and gender studies) at Ball State University. Published by SBL Press.
Paul’s writings in the Bible are often misused to condemn homosexuality, but “Appalling Bodies: Queer Figures Before and After Paul’s Letters” by Joseph A. Marchal reframes the letters by looking at marginalized queer figures who appear before, within and after Paul’s letters. It covers trans/androgyne, intersex/eunuch, bottom/slave and terrorist/barbarian. Queer theory provides new ways to think about these complicated figures and the scriptures that discuss them. The author is associate professor of religion (and affiliate faculty in women’s and gender studies) at Ball State University. Published by Oxford University Press
Paul’s best quotes: “Love never ends”
People will deny themselves access to some of Christianity’s most powerful ideas if they try to avoid all of Paul’s writings because of a few pesky passages used to promote intolerance.
Here are some of his most famous and beloved quotations. For the full text, readers just need to reach for their favorite translation of the Bible. Q Spirit recommends the Inclusive Bible, New Revised Standard Version and New International Version.
“Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.”
— I Corinthians 13:4-8 (ESV)
“Faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.”
— I Corinthians 13:13
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
— Galatians 3:28 (NLV)
“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.”
— Romans 12:2
“All things work together for good for those who love God.”
— Romans 8:28
“Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.”
— I Corinthians 12:27
“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”
— Philippians 4:13
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.”
— Ephesians 2:8 (ESV)
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen.”
— Hebrews 11:1
“We are more than conquerors through Christ who loved us. For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.”
— Romans 8:38-39
“But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.”
— 2 Corinthians 4: 7-10
“The Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words.”
— Romans 8:26
“For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption.”
— Romans 8:22-24 (ESV)
“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith.”
–Hebrews 12:1-2
“I pray that… Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, as you are being rooted and grounded in love. I pray that you may have the power to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.”
— Ephesians 3:16-19
“And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”
— Philippians 4:6
“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”
— Philippians 4: 8 (NIV)
Related links
St. Paul the Apostle (Queering the Church)
Studies on Paul and Homosexuality by Bruce Gerig (epistle.us)
“Paul, the Goddess Religions, and Queer Sects: Romans 1: 23–28” by Jeramy Townsley (Journal of Biblical Literature, December 2011)
To read this article in Spanish, go to:
Pablo de Tarso: ¿Su homosexualidad dio forma al cristianismo? (Santos Queer)
___
Top image credit:
Embrace of the Apostles Peter and Paul icon (Jim Forest). This icon is available at the Etsy Athos Icons Store.
___
This post is part of the LGBTQ Saints series by Kittredge Cherry. Traditional and alternative saints, people in the Bible, LGBT and queer martyrs, authors, theologians, religious leaders, artists, deities and other figures of special interest to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people and our allies are covered.
This article was originally published in August 2018, expanded with new material over time, and most recently updated on Jan. 27, 2024.
Copyright © Kittredge Cherry. All rights reserved.
Qspirit.net presents the Jesus in Love Blog on LGBTQ spirituality.
The only thing this is based on is his mentions of his sense of “self-reproach” – his humility. Any good Christian capable of contemplating the idea of God experiences the same thing.
To project the sexual question onto such an elevated feeling (the idea that we not only are finite (mentions of “flesh”), but also nothing on our own, and everything we owe to our Creator) is to disregard Paul’s revelation and conversion, and therefore to disrespect Christ.
What this article, considering the context (this website it is posted on) implies, is that St. Paul shouldn’t feel “unworthy” for being gay, assuming this is true, which it isn’t – Paul is humble because he realized he is only a man.
I cannot agree with either your premise or your conclusion.
The question about Paul’s sexual identity arises from several sources, including but not limited to a historical analysis of Paul’s time and the unusualness of his life choices, his radical revision of the law (removing the requirement for Christian converts to adopt and obey the laws of Judaism), and several contradictory passages within the Pauline corpus.
Let’s add that a textual analysis shows clearly that several individuals and not a single author composed the letters of Paul.
Your conclusion that the article posits gay-unworthiness also does not stand. The article and several of the attached books argue for LGBTQ acceptance and point to the exclusion of the LGBTQ community as a later invention. The article posits, as does my novel, that both God and Paul accept all humanity without regard for their sexual identity.
To paraphrase: in God’s love there is neither male nor female, slave or free, and therefore no distinction between LGBTQ and straight. All humanity is beloved of God.
Your thin veiled criticisms are just a perpetuation of the senseless & ignorant persecution that LGBTQ have endured for as long as there is human history. Yeah, no wonder why we’ll never know for sure of Paul’s sexuality. The enormous crushing weight of self-hatred, humiliation guilt & fear of discovery to this day result in denial, avoidance, secretive lifestyles, mental health issues & oftentimes suicide. Whether or not Paul had sexual attractions to other men, he showed that love & devotion between individuals has no limitation. And I have a hunch that the guy who brought us Christianity would himself agree. So get beyond the ‘sex act’ & the perverse ideation of LGBTQ as promiscuous predatory pedophiles & ‘indoctrinators’ – just like ‘straights’, most of us are ‘normal’
An interesting paper yet a belief shouldn’t be taken as a fact. Such a claim is elementary while seemingly & outrightlly disregarding the want or search of truth. People can freely write their thoughts on any subject but this lack of personal evidence other than sexuao orientation of a possibly elder friend is weaker than light. Just because you’re friends with someone of a different sexual preference doesn’t make you’re sexual preference the same. Paul was an open & honest man. What was that thorne in his flesh? It could be anything thing physically. Now, given with what people possibly tend to deal with physically & socially, it’s probably sexual. I initially thought it was referring to a physical sickness. Though it may be difficult, It would be appreciated if more evidence could be done to prove this authors view. It can be disproven yet its a good & intellectually insightful.
I find it interesting that there are extensions of “suggestions” of Paul’s sexuality yet nothing that points to it being a fact. No scriptural citing. Just a society that must relent on selectively attributing that “thorn in Paul’s side” as a sexual affliction. The author leaves out, contextual basis from 2 Corinthians 12. Which many do when they what to selectively convince on on topic in scripture. All of Gods word is true and just. Citing that Paul was possibly a homosexual to gain some sort of justification to it being something that pans along the line of useful in the proclamation of the gospel seems misaligning and manipulative. We are all loved by Christ and created in his image, yet are called to live righteous and holy in His eyes. My fleshly desires do not transcend what the Word says. I pray we can align ourselves with the Word and not make mere “suggestions” that do not hold weight in what the Gospel was intended to spread.
Alex: your comment appears to be grounded in an assumption of the inerrancy of the scriptures. “All of God’s word is true and just.”
But I’m confident that you interpret some scriptures and ignore other sections. For example, do you interpret the injunction that we should stone adulterers to death instead of actually looking to kill anyone who cheats on their spouse?
Second example, do you eat any of the foods proscribed by the scripture? Or do you just ignore those words?
We can only support an assumption of inerrancy if 100% of the scriptures are true.
Did Jesus deliver the Beatitude sermon from a hill (Matthew’s sermon on the mount) or from flat ground (Luke’s sermon on the plane)? Were the evangelists geographically confused or do I need to believe that Jesus gave virtually the same sermon twice, once from a hill and once on flat ground?
If the scriptures are not 100% accurate, then perhaps some things were left out. There are several gospels (Thomas, Mary, etc) that did not make the cut to be included in the canonical New Testament. But these gospels were circulated and believed by early Christians.
So, just in case the scriptures are not 100% accurate + maybe things were left out, then perhaps the question of Paul’s orientation just wasn’t included. Since the scriptures are silent, a reader can read the story either way.
The final sentence of your comment includes the idea of aligning ourselves with the word that the Gospels were intended to spread. I couldn’t agree more, since that Word speaks of the inclusive and healing love of God. What could be more wonderful than that healing love including everyone, even Paul, even if he was gay.
In order for “All of Gods [sic] word” to be “true and just,” we must first remove large sections of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. The first five chapters of the very first book, Genesis, contains three distinctly different versions of the creation story as though God is saying, “Guys, don’t take this stuff literally.” The book of Isaiah does not, in fact, predict anything; it describes what’s happening at the time of the writings. The four gospels of the New Testament contain differences and discrepancies that should be troubling to any literalist. These are just a few examples of problematic aspects to Biblical scripture.
I’ve often wondered about Corinthians 13. Is Paul saying that he knows he should exemplify love in a way he cannot? If so, what might be stopping him? Without taking a position about whether he was gay, is it possible that having to block feelings of personal love that he believed were scripturally and societally proscribed caused him to limit—against his intentions—the love he believed he should feel in general?
I don’t care whether Paul was gay. But if seeing him that way helps others to identify with his intentions and statements about love, then I support it.
I am a lesbian. Not a Christian but I grew up in a Christian environment. Your blog is ridiculous. There is no proof, only speculation, that Paul was gay. So he was single? So? He was a man devoted to God. He even wrote that some people are born to celibacy and that some are not intended for marriage. Not because of their sexual orientation. And his passages against women and homosexuality…they were all pretty misogynist and homophobic around those times. Also, citing fiction as a source? You’ve got to be kidding me. Just because some gay men thought it was titillating to imagine Paul in a relationship with another man doesn’t make it true.
You’ll have to understand the time & the society that he lived in. He wrote that men should die for their wives. He wrote what men should do as well as women. There were women Judges in the book of Judges. Paul isn’t Christ but he was stating a standard that’s good to live by. Paul doesn’t judge us but Christ does.
I do not believe Paul was gray. I do believe his love for his fellow man was genuine as the love of Christ for mankind. This statement could destroy the church of God. David loved Jonathan as his own self, however this does not prove gayness. First of all God is God and he can and will speak through whom ever he pleased. gay or non gay. let’s stick to the fack that saten came to destroy steal to kill..he is the father of lies and no truth is in him. have faith in God, for it is a fight to keep the faith of Christ, 1 Tim 6:12. Paul may have been faced with the spirit of loneness so did our Lord but stood the test of time. In love I submit.
If God is all-powerful – how could Paul’s sexual orientation threaten God or God’s church?
Writing that God’s church rest on a foundation of Paul’s sexual orientation being acceptable to you severely limits God’s power.
Perhaps you need to rethink this comment.
Paul may not have been “gray,” but he may have been “gay.” I get tired of critics who say I am wrong but can’t even spell their complaints correctly. This spelling error is actually humorous.
in reviewing all comments—one thing that has not been addressed satisfactorily to me is—how did the messenger from satan affect saul/paul and his behaviours—i see this as a reflection of King saul–king saul so to speak went on a murderous rant—so now saul/paul under the influence of a messenger from satan goes on a rant against the law, against women, against the apostles, against just about everone that didnt follow him–and yes saul/paul didnt get it right—all Israel wasnt saved, no retaurn of jesus, in fact a complete rejection of jesus (i knew jesus but i now no longer hear him or any man the corin passage) was pauls position—so now paul goes on to create a theological world only dealing with the death burial and resurrection
You should concern yourselves with doing good to others in the name of Christ instead of trying to determine Paul’s sexuality. Waste of good time. You don’t and never will know Paul. Biblical heroes were touched by the hand of God for his purposes…that we know. The Bible is the Word of God for us to follow. You may not like the rules, but to impose your own weaknesses upon great names in the Bible to exonerate yourself in the eyes of other Christians is wrong. Never in the Bible does it point blank approve homosexuality.
If what Jr says is literally true, it is just one more reason to dethrone the Bible in favor of reason, conscience, good will and empathy. The Christian Bible is just another collection of writings that some people in authority (in this case Bishops, Patriarchs, and Popes) declared to be divinely inspired, even “the Word of God”. How did these authorities know — the very same Bible told them so! Circular reasoning — if you can call it reasoning. In the Bible, “God” orders his “chosen people” to commit genocide — shall we honor this as divinely inspired? So “God’s” disapproval of homosexuality I take as coming from a similar homicidal hostility. Paul urges slaves to remain obedient to their masters, and for people to not marry if they could remain celibate — why? — because he taught that the Messiah would come on clouds of glory in his own lifetime and rescue the faithful off the face of the Earth. Well, he got that wrong. And it is at least 1900 years overdue for organized Christianity to admit it was founded on failed (and therefore false) prophecy! Particularly if taken literally. In any case, this failed prophecy found its way into the Christian Bible — as another thing the Bible (and the Dead Sea Scrolls) got wrong. So much for basing one’s life upon the Bible (or the Dead Sea Scrolls!). At best one must “pick-and-choose” what to accept and what to reject in the Bible. Such picking-and-choosing is the very definition of heresy! So choose to exercise reason and think for yourself, or choose to betray your own capacity to reason and think. This last option seems to me a good definition of “the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit” — against the True Beauty and Free Spirit that dwells within each one of us as our own birthright.
I find James White’s attitude during Shelby Spong’s answers dismissive, judgemental and ignorant and utterly dripping in hubris. There is a disconnect between so many of these Evangelical Christians and the Christ they say they believe in and worship. I think too much emphasis is given to Paul’s writings, and the things that he teaches do not always line up with Christ’s example and his teachings, so I have a proclivity to believe the Gospels above anything else in the New Testament. I do think Paul had a severe sexual issue, and it is entirely believable and relevant in this conversation to explore this from all sides of the coin. I think his guilt was overwhelming, and it was tearing him apart. And for those of you who struggle with this idea, he could have been hetero and had rape fantasies or maybe bisexual…either way, it was something extraordinary for him to have referenced it so many times. It does not weaken the Gospel of Christ; if anything, it gives strength and lends conviction about just how much God can love humans. Returning to my comments on White, I think it would behoove him to remember the scriptures that condemn his condemnation of Spong, have some manners, quit with the eye-rolling (elaboration, but that is what his body language was saying) and try to be objective and actually listen.
Galatians 3:28 is cited above: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (NLV)
This is an incorrect translation.
The Amplified Bible gets it right: “There is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek, there is NEITHER slave NOR free, there is NOT male AND female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (capitalization added to indicate emphasis)
This conjunction shift means something. “NEITHER . . . NOR” indicates two descriptive examples. By contrast, “NOT … AND” is a proscriptive legal declaration. It has to be a legal statement to be true. Once the legal distinction between male and female is erased, the legal concept of ‘homosexuality’ utterly vanishes into thin air!
Once correctly translated, it is no wonder Paul “coined” a new word, ‘arsenikoitai’, when Paul could have used a Koine Greek words meaning ‘homosexual’. Legally, it doesn’t exist!
Reply to Robert Riggs: Thank you. And therefore, what? Can you elaborate a bit? How do you translate “arsenikoitai”? Legally, what Legally” what “doesn’t exist?” Homosexuality? but, so what? what do you think this says about Paul? Seems to me, the question is whether or not Paul was erotically attracted to members of his own sex, and if so, how did he handle it? Hos declaration that there is “not maale and female” suggests (to me) that he was endorsing and embracing an open-sexuality in which the biological and sociological gender of the participants (in sexual interaction) did not matter. As such, he was “abrogating” the Abrahamic-Judaic condemnation of same-sex behavior AND its initiatory rite of male circumcision (replaced by “baptism in Christ”). Also: If “celibacy” and “virginity” are specifically understood as abstaining from reproductive sexual intercourse — whether because you believed it was the End of the Age, or that you were denying victims (by birthing them) to the Ruler of This World — then same-sexuality could be an expression of “virginity” and “celibacy”. In some Hindu and Buddhist traditions, for example, the mendicant celibate lifestyle is clearly one of eschewing both the advantages and burdens of settled married family life — not necessarily never ever enjoying an orgasm, particularly with one’s fellow “homeless wanderers”. Indeed, “The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” — so it was with Paul, and perhaps with a possible historical Jesus or Yeshua. The Jesus of the Gospels, starting with Mark, was clearly based on Paul’s critical if not adversarial stance toward the Jerusalem apostolic-family-leadership of the Jewish Messianic Movement (see, for example: “Mark, Canonizer of Paul” by Tom Dykstra). But this is another story. Shalom!
This fascinating blog has the makings of a book — certainly if size matters! In addition to my own occasional posts shown, here are a few more thoughts:
(1) the lack of evidence for Paul’s possible homosexuality is more than matched by a lack of evidence for Paul’s possibility heterosexuality. The few hints of a struggle over sexuality, combined with Paul’s rejection of the Torah (the source of so much homophobia in Western civilization), does indeed tilt the scales a bit in favor of an inner struggle with homosexuality. Circumcision itself could be seen as ritual “phallophobia” if not homophobia. And Paul was most vehement in his condemnation of circumcision.
(2) Almost everyone repeats the phrase “Paul never met Jesus”. But Paul claims he did! We understand him to mean it was the resurrected Jesus in a “spiritual body” (whatever that might mean). But what if it was a body that somehow survived crucifixion? Mark’s gospel ends with a young man clothed in white (like an Essene) telling the women that Jesus is going ahead of them to Galilee, and that Peter and the other disciples should meet him there. Seems many of them chose instead to stay in Jerusalem.
Paul’s campaign was against the messianic Jews (likely Essenes who identified Jesus as their messiah), on behalf of the temple establishment that was in collusion with the Herodian puppets of Rome. HIs campaign on the Road to Damascus took him through Galilee, where Mark’s gospel says Jesus went to after the crucifixion. So what if Jesus was actually in hiding in Galilee directing the messianic movement, and actually interrupted Paul’s journey and succeeded in recruiting him? What if Jesus himself realized that he (and James and the other apostles) needed to bring in the support and membership of Gentiles in order to realize the messianic kingdom on earth?
Paul himself says that he received the familar “this is my body” and “this is my blood” directly from the Lord. So the Christian eucharist or communion rite started with a direct message from Jesus to Paul to Paul’s converts, bypassing the Jewish messianists who wanted to maintain torah-observant sepepatism from the Gentiles. The Essenes were very strict separists, and they had a baptismal rite and a communion rite of bread and wine — but kept it hidden from the outside world. Clearly, Jesus had changed his mind when his insurrection against the temple failed to usher in the kingdom. Perhaps Jesus decided to abandon Essenic separatism and its secrecy, and revealed or “handed on” the secret rite to Paul.
(3) As for homosexuality, As most every gay man knows, social settings. in which the genders are kept separate. create the conditions for male homosexual behavior. this is corroborated by what what we know of the Spartans, the navy (run on alcohol and sodomy according to Winston Chuchill), prisons, all-male (and all-female) boarding schools, and certainly in single-sex Islamic, Christian and Buddhist religious and social structures. The Essenes practiced such puritanical even monastic separation of the genders. And the fact that the Torah threatened homosexuality with the death penalty, such behavior must have been popular and frequent enough to be perceived as a threat to the social order (dominated by a married male priesthood). Perhaps a good modern analogy is the (racist) “war on drugs”.
This brings us to the real possibility that it was the practice of magic (healings, etc.) by Jesus that attracted the condemnation of the Jewish priesthood. And in the ancient world, as in shamanic cultures, magic was often linked to homosexual practices. John’s gospel records that Jesus openly exposed his love for Lazarus (while magically raising him from the tomb), and that the Jerusalem priests witnessed it. Their comment to one another, “see how he loved him”, may not have been in appreciation or amazement, but rather in condemnation. John records that the priests then plotted to kill both Jesus and Lazarus.
Jewish texts, dated to a century or so later, claim that Jesus was condemned for practicing magic. Paul himself had been taken for a pagan god who practiced magic.
Both Paul and Jesus traveled about with young male companions (along with the apparent break-ups between Jesus and Judas, and between Paul and Mark — not to mention internecine rivalries). Both Jesus and Paul also traveled about with women of means who supported them (a likely affront to the patriarchy). The stereotype, even archetype, of gay men with close women friends, is very familiar because it’s very true. This, too, deserves its place on the list of clues that — just possibly — homosexual men and independent women who defied orthodox gender roles — were among the founders of a social justice movement that was to become known as Christianity.
The “thorn in the flesh” would seem to be adequately explained in Galatians 4:13-14 as an illness or physical disorder since that passage also uses the similar phrase “my trial which was in my flesh” and links that to a “physical infirmity”. The full passage reads: “You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject”. A “physical infirmity” is defined as either an illness, disorder, handicap, etc. Some modern medical doctors have speculated that this “physical infirmity” is linked to Paul’s apparent speech impediment that he alludes to in other passages mentioning people making fun of his speech. Something along those lines is certainly far more likely than homosexuality since there is absolutely nothing in the text to link any of this to the latter, and claiming that his opposition of homosexuality was due to his own homosexuality is a rather torturous form of logic (yes, a few people would fit that description but there’s nothing whatsoever to indicate this in Paul’s specific case). John Spong’s claim that nothing else could explain Paul’s puritan ideas about sex is another dose of torturous logic since someone doesn’t need to have homosexual urges to believe in chastity, and likewise those who do have homosexual inclinations are no more likely to take a puritan view of sexuality than anyone else (there’s no correlation). Likewise, plenty of religious people have decided to avoid marriage in order to remain celibate for purely religious reasons, in fact this is what every Catholic priest, nun and monk is expected to do. Claiming that it was unusual for Jews is a stereotype and ignores Jewish ascetics who abstained from physical pleasure.
Carlton Kelley writes, ‘There is simply nothing in Holy Scripture or tradition to substantially support the thesis the Paul was ‘gay.’ In any case, same sex orientation cannot be read back into a culture light years removed from our own.” Response: And there is about the same amount of “nothing” “to substantially support the thesis” that Paul was “straight.” Also, one can indeed “read back” sexual orientation(s) based on what we know of the culture(s) involved. We must stop assuming “straight until proven gay” — particularly when there is no compelling evidence for “straight”.
My own take on Paul continues to develop. Evidence suggests he might have been a Herodian/Hellenist pro-Roman agent and infiltrator of the Jewish Messianic movement. So it might be that his personal conflict with the anti-homosexuality in the Jewish Torah was his personal stake in his campaign to undermine (de-Judaize) Jewish Messianism. After all, homosexual acts were punishable by death in the Torah. So let’s put the blame for Christian homophobia where it truly belongs — with the writers of Leviticus. Paul, after all, wanted freedom from the Torah. It is interesting, too, that the Ebionites and Nazarenes who followed Jesus and James were also critical of the Torah. They claimed the scriptures had been corrupted by “the lying pen of the scribes” whenever God is depicted as changeable, fickle, jealous, vengeful, and blood-thirsty. Did the Ebionites/Nazarenes include, among the false writings of the lying scribes, the death penalty for homosexuality as found in Leviticus?
One thing I’m curious about, is if Paul wanted “freedom” from the Torah, how come Jesus said “Make no mistake, I have not come to abolish the Law; rather, I have come to fulfill it”? But the Law worsened over time because the Israelites constantly stacked 613 other laws on top of the 10 existing laws (the Ten Commandments, if you will). One of those laws specifically stated, supposedly, “A man shall not lie with a man; it is abomination,” and another being “If any among you lies with a man, they shall be stoned, for their blood is on their heads,” and yet, how can anyone excuse that? Furthermore, why are most homosexual people not dead yet? This has to tell me that LGBTQ+ people are ALSO blessed by God. But why bless those who are committing a supposed “sin?” Ik God is the author of salvation, not the author of confusion, but multiple interpretations of the Bible over the centuries make God out to be the author of confusion; the King James Version doesn’t have “homosexual” in it, but the Revised Standard Version does; it makes no sense & it’s frustrating me!
The things that make me wonder if St Paul was gay include his statement in Romans 1:32
“Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
Combine this with what he says in Romans 7:14-25.
“14 For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin.[c] 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.
21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.”
Paul sees his body as a body of death, full of a carnality that he is powerless to resist. It sounds as if he is talking of sexual temptation, because the language is so carnal. There is the law of sin that dwells in his members, the evil that is in his flesh, the fact that his flesh makes him a slave to sin.
That, of course, does not prove that Paul was gay, but it’s not inconsistent with it, either.
Then there’s Paul’s knowledge of the consequences of “”men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” That sounds like sexually transmitted infections that follow “shameless acts” with other men.
Once again, that knowledge could be taken as suggestive, but by itself, it doesn’t prove anything.
There’s also the matter of circumcision. Acts 15 shows that the early church rejected circumcision. We also know that Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3) but he also said of other people who circumcised believers, “they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh.” This shows a change of heart about circumcision, but is it also an implied criticism of the motivation for his own actions?
On being single, Paul said, “I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.” (1 Corinthians 7:7) We may take it from this that he is not the marrying kind, but once again this does not show that he was homosexual, even though it might be consistent with being exclusively homosexual.
By themselves, none of these actions justify anyone jumping to the conclusion that Paul had homosexual desires. Each one of them can be explained away. However, when you put them together they begin to look like a pattern. Even so, it does not prove anything.
At the end of the day we can’t be sure if Paul was gay. We can be sure that he disapproved of homosexual relationships but we can’t be sure that he was subject to these temptations. There just isn’t enough evidence for us to make such a call.
My guess is that this is probably the way that Paul would like it to be.
1 Cor. 6, hello?
This article is so ridiculous that it is almost funny. Your statement is full of blasphemies and fallacies. Paul understood God’s love because according the Bible, we know Saul was a murderer. When he was saved by Jesus, he became Paul – a new identity given by Christ. A change of heart and turning away from indulging in sinning is something the folks like you and whom you support, will never accept; because what you want, is the defilement against God.
May God’s grace be with you.
Whoa to those who pervert the word of God!
Paul was a HOLY man.
How dare you! Everything in the holy Scriptures speaks against homosexuality, not endorses it. Maybe you should read the entire Bible.
Whoa to you! The scripture says, “Woe,” not “Whoa.” Your spelling mistake is funny, but makes me doubt your knowledge of the Bible. It sound like you are talking to a horse
Respectfully, you are making this up out of whole cloth. There is no Biblical evidence that Paul was or even struggled with homosexuality. The “anti-homosexuality” passages you mention the New Testament were all written by Paul. If he were homosexual, this is the last thing he would write about.
You are still left with the “problem” that every passage in the Bible about homosexuality condemns it as sinful. However, Christ has given us the answer, and that is forgiveness for all sins (including our sexual sins) if we confess our sins to him and repent.
Twisting the words of Scripture to fit our own agenda, whatever that may be, is a serious thing. Do not do this.
When we read the rather tortured life of Saint Paul it is easy to wonder whether he was influenced by the custom of Greeks to pay “tuition” to their teachers in the form of sexual favors. These favors were controlled by a strict code of behavior in respect of the (male) students. Could St. Paul (Saul at the time) have been abused by his teacher(s) to the extent that he was affected psychologically? That might explain the many personal conflicts described throughout his writings.
I say this, brothers, the allotted time has grown short. From now on let those who have a wife be like those who don’t…for the form of this world is passing away.
-Paul of Tarsus, I Corinthians 7:29, 31b
Few passages in the letters of Paul convey the urgency of his End-Times expectations more clearly than his advice on sexual relations and marriage. Convinced the “last trumpet” could blow at any moment, Paul urged his followers to keep themselves sexually pure—“from now on,” in the time they have left, “it is good for a man not to have sex with a woman” (I Corinthians 7:1). Although he makes concessions for those who lack self-control, Paul’s clear preference is a Christian household of brothers and sisters rather than husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.
Urging Christians to live celibate lives like his own does not presuppose Jesus’ return would take place decades, much less, centuries, in the future. As [James] Tabor notes, “[Paul] advised his followers not to marry, begin a new business, or worry if they were slaves, since everything in the world was about to be turned upside down and all social relations were terminal.” Paul desired to present the Church as a chaste virgin to the coming Lord, but the Lord left the anxious Church standing at the altar.
Robert Conner, The Case Against Miracles, pp. 278-279
Gary: Most Christians believe that Jesus communicated directly with Paul, in person, not only on the Damascus Road, but also during Paul’s time in the Arabian desert, and maybe on other occasions such as when Paul took an intergalactic space voyage to a “third heaven”. Yet after all that time with Jesus, Jesus never informs Paul that it is ok for married Christians to have sex—because Jesus doesn’t plan to return for a while (two thousand years and counting!!).
Just imagine, if the early Christians had all listened to Paul and had refrained from sex, Christianity would have died out very quickly! This is excellent evidence that Paul was not a prophet communicating with a resurrected god, he was a quack; a mentally disturbed QUACK!
Excellent! Paul ruined Christianity, and the churches are basically promoting Paulism, endlessly quoting him, with little to no quotations from Jesus.
Paul – still read 2,000 years later. Quacks aren’t. Nor do quacks die for their beliefs
Paul Manchester—i love what you said—-i have been studying the man saul/paul intently for some time—-for me you summed it up beautifully—-if we let paul be paul and not project world class apostolic saint hood upon him and see him for the man he was—-we can then say to peter, i now understand paul better than when he is presented to us as the un-conflicted super heroic founder of Christianity
What woke me up to the fact that Christianity today is really Paulism, was my attending four funerals at different churches, each service with five or more readings. ALL of them were from Paul, and not a single one from Jesus Christ. I realise Christ did not write anything, but we have many of His words through the writers of the gospels.
Christ’s message is that we should BECOME, Paul taught the lie that we only need to BELIEVE and we are saved, no matter how immoral we are. No need to change our ways. It may seem to be a mincing of words, but the difference is enormous. It was a fundamental perversion of Christ’s message.
The result is the prevalence of “Christian” believers who imagine they will be saved even though they are full of hate for people they see as different.
Hi, I thought Spong was very interesting thankyou. I struggled to understand your take on eunuchs though in another article. Paul may well wrestle with his thorn; it may be Adams metaphoric misplaced rib but I don’t think it supports the Pride movement at all. Grace is opposite to Pride and to be a eunuch for the kingdom (preferred in Jesus’ words?) is celibacy for lgb people and procreation (possible) for hetero (it is better to marry than burn with lust). Paul carries a sense of sex as the procreative as much as the abstained. Just my thoughts.
“If there be any other law, love your neighbor as yourself” Paul does refer to greed and immorality in the context of taking advantage of others, but also seems different in not reiterating Jesus saying, ” Judge not lest you be judged”, except later, and relatedly in the Romans verse applied to this subject. So, it seems likely that he was against judging those described in Romans 1, but not necessarily because he was struggling with this. Also, the scriptures in Corinthians and Timothy seem juxtaposed and descriptive of abusive behaviors, “drunkards, revilers”. Everyone of faith must come to their own conclusion, but it seems inappropriate to ‘lord’ it over others on these personal issues, unless perhaps you willfully, continue to abide in a conservative church, denomination. Another transcendent scripture to ‘respect all’ would fit this interpretation as well.
Interesting thoughts about Paul. I believe Paul’s thorn is of a sexual nature. And not about a spiritual conflict or physical threat by his antagonists. I also wonder about Jesus & the disciple he “loved”. BTW I am a senior heterosexual Christian female. No degrees but have been connected to the Bible most of my life.
There is not the tiniest evidence that St Paul was of homosexual orientation.
As a Jewish rabbi by training, he would of course, both before and after his conversion, have condemned homosexual behaviour.
I’m looking at the comment that Saul of Tarsus, the tent maker, was a Jewish rabbi by training and wondering if this is “reading current criteria back into the historical record.”
In the year2 33 – 50 AD (the approximate time of Saul’s conversion to become Paul and the beginning of his ministry)….there wasn’t any rabbinical training. The institution of “rabbi” didn’t exist in the same way as rabbis exist now.
So what exactly is referred to in the remark “rabbi in training?’
Maybe, Paul was a womanizer, or only had sex with prostitutes. We don’t know for sure, we only know that he wrestled with his on flesh iniquities. To assume one is gay, just because they don’t divulge what their sin is, is crazy.
Mylene I don’t think Kittredge Cherry is “assuming” Paul is gay, perhaps questioning or proposing what some of his seemingly conflicting writings mean. It may be that others wrote some books attributed to him.
Tony Buck on December 7, 2021 at 12:46 pm writes:
“There is not the tiniest evidence that St Paul was of homosexual orientation.
As a Jewish rabbi by training, he would of course, both before and after his conversion, have condemned homosexual behaviour.”
But this “Jewish rabbi by training” actually forbade his Gentile converts from submitting to the Jewish Law, the Torah, which he himself also rejected — the very same Law that “condemned homosexual behaviour”.
So this is a valid reason to speculate that Paul was, at least, not anti-homosexual, while his passionate rejection of Torah suggests he had a personal stake in the issue. Paul’s emotionally-charged revulsion against circumcision seems very similar to a gay man’s, shall we say, “aesthetic appreciation” of the phallus, including comparing one’s own to others/ In Paul’s case, perhaps like many others to this day, the circumcised suffered foreskin envy and often-suppressed anger over having been so violated.
Further: Paul’s preaching “there is neither male nor female in Christ” indicated a rejection and/or transcendence of the Jewish binary separation of the sexes and gender roles. A similar message is found in the Gospel of Thomas (make the male and female one and the same), and in the synoptic gospels (there is no marriage in the Kingdom, we will be like angels, transcending gender). Most likely these instances indicate that these ideas challenging rigid gender roles might authentically go back to, or even before, Jesus. According to Margaret Barker, the Nazorean movement was about restoring the ways of the Old Temple. Well, those old ways were purged by King Josiah, and they included YHWH’s consort, the Queen of Heaven, along with her sacred temple prostitutes (of all genders serving people of all genders).
The anti-homosexuality that Tony Buck refers to was part and parcel of King Josiah’s “reforms” — the violent “de-paganization” of the Jewish Temple cult and religion. It may have been under King Josiah that anti-homosexuality became part of the written Law. Perhaps this “creative writing” is included (along with mandating animal blood sacrifice) in what the Nazoreans and Ebionites condemned as “the lying pen of the scribes”.
What we do know from Paul’s writing is that he scolded his converts for assuming their new-found freedom in Christ allowed for sexual (including homosexual) license. Similar antinomian libertinism was practiced by Carpocratians and other pre-orthodox Christian and Gnostic sects of the early Second Century and thereafter.
Some of these sects also eschewed the Biblical imperative to “increase and multiply and fill the earth”, and not just by practicing celibacy. Indeed, heresy-hunting “church fathers” accused them of engaging in non-reproductive sexual relations and rituals. It is perhaps significant, certainly provocative, that some of these sects claimed Paul as one of their own.
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I was a Bible college student in the 80s and have always had the similar notion that Paul was wired with same sex attaraction – it explains many things.
If the thorn in the flesh was simply eye sight issues he would not have had to be so cryptic about it. And the key word is “flesh”. It explains his anger and his rants about homosexuality. Even if he had been married at one time as has been suggested, a prior marriage is no proof of anything. Closeted men have been marrying for as long as the institution of marriage has existed. And the way he speaks of his commitment to being single, his pattern of mentoring young men for periods of time and breaking off and starting with new young men… it fits with the pattern of most closeted religious men.
Obviously we cannot know for sure. The individual elements by themselves are easily explained. But taken all together it seems a plausible guess and iit provides a context that gives sense to what otherwise is cryptic. Personally, I see a sad angry man full of self hate, who escaped that hate occasionally and was able to create some beautiful writings to leave behind him. Ultimately we have to try and remember people for the beauty they bring to the world and understand that the hate they leave behind is simply a reminder of their human fragility.
While the theory is distinctly plausible, it is unlikely to be true. The fact that Paul was involved with the Sanhedrin in the death of Stephen would indicate he had at some stage to have been married, and so when he speaks of having “lost all things” for his apostolic role it could well mean losing wife and family. The thorn in the flesh has traditionally and reasonably enough been associated with the eye problem Paul has just referred to in Galatians. I do also find some of Paul’s imagery as on competition, athletics, boxing, wrestling etc more conventionally straight in feeling than gay. Readers might like to read and consider my gay theological poem, “A Saint’s Mistake: A Poem of St Paul” at https://gaythoughtsblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/three-gay-theological-poems/
After reading the letter to Philemon, I have come to wonder what the deal was between Paul and Onesimus. One could read all kinds of things into that short memo.
I smiled to read this post…..so much of it echoes the plot-line of my novel: “The Secret Love Letters of St. Paul.”
Perhaps the major divergence between my novel and some of the post’s thought – in my novel Paul actively lives out his same sex attraction + love for his student and fellow-apostle (Timothy).
Perhaps the most salient point of “The Secret Love Letters” is that “all religion is a story.” In one of his letters, the fictionalized Paul writes that we need to choose our stories with care. Our stories build either gardens for our spirits or prisons of dogma and rules. His advice is to choose carefully what you build in order to free the spark of the spirit.
“The Secret Love Letters of Saint Paul” is available in print and e-format from Amazon.
Bern, many thanks for the reminder! I added “The Secret Love Letters of Saint Paul” to my article as soon as I read your comment. I don’t know how it got left out. Your book is already on the Q Spirit list of the top LGBTQ Christian books of 2016.
There is simply nothing in Holy Scripture or tradition to substantially support the thesis the Paul was “gay.” In any case, same sex orientation cannot be read back into a culture light years removed from our own. Our society, soaked as it is in genital sexual expression, has the tendency to see everything in terms of sexual activity.
Yes, we queer Christians desperately need heroes of the faith to make our own. Inventing identities out of whole cloth, as John Spong does, is not the way to go about this. This kind of pseudo scholarship does one any favors.
Coincidentally, a lay theology group in New Smyrna Beach, Florida, was just discussing Paul yesterday. I learned that some scholars, such as John Dominic Crossan, have concluded much of Paul’s writing included in the New Testament canon was actually written later by Paul’s followers. Crossan divides up the writing as Radical Paul (authentic); Conservative Paul (from followers); and Reactionary Paul (from followers.) Some mean-spirited passages attributed to Paul, such as “Women, be silent” and “Slaves, obey your masters” probably were penned by the followers in order to tone down the Christian Way and make it less disruptive to Roman customs.
May I reprint this article on Christian Gays please? Of course I would give all credits accordingly. Thanks for your consideration.
God bless,
Mary
Mary, I’m honored that you want to reprint my article about Paul the Apostle on ChristianGays.com because your site has been providing great resources for many years.
Yes, it’s OK to use my article, but please wait until October before you post it. I want to give people a chance to find it first on my Qspirit.net site.
Thanks for offering to include all credits. Be sure to link back to my original article here at
https://qspirit.net/apostle-paul-homosexuality/
Please let me know when it is posted. Thanks again for your interest and your ministry.