Uri Derelicti

The Christian congregation had slaves. Slaves in the Roman empire were property and could be used for sexual gratification by their masters and their masters’ friends. Were male slaves used by their masters for sexual gratification not allowed to be part of the congregation? Were they not baptized by Holy Spirit in the first century? Would that not be partial against someone due to his circumstances rather than his heart?

If a male slave never had sex with another man before entering the congregation, and then was used — as a slave — for sex by another man, would he be removed? “Neither height nor depth nor any other creation can separate us from God’s love.” The master is part of God’s creation. How could he separate the slave from God’s love, from the congregation, from the Kingdom?

Male slaves were encouraged to not run away (1 Cor. 7:21–24) — and therefore to submit to homosexuality if required of them by their master. Therefore some men in the Christian congregation had sex with other men, with impunity. Assume then that the restriction was narrower than an absolute prohibition. Where was the line? Was the sex allowed by virtue of slavery alone? Does slavery bestow on two wanting lovers a righteousness not found in the relationship of two free men who love each other?

Jesus provided the illustration of men who would choose to be eunuchs for the Kingdom. He compared them to men born eunuchs and to men who were made eunuchs by men — a second group imported for sexual purposes. These were not celibate men. They were created as a category for sex with men.

Jesus said some men chose to be eunuchs for the Kingdom after referencing this sexually active group. What was the illustrative purpose of including them, if men were to avoid all homosexuality? This was precisely the moment to add a limiting commandment. None was added. Instead: “Let the one who can make room for it make room for it.”

Jesus also blessed two men in a loving relationship when he healed the Centurion’s pais — a word denoting a beloved companion, not merely a servant. The Centurion’s faith was commended. Their relationship was not censured.

The ministry holds that David and Jonathan had the greatest romance described in the Scriptures — and that both were approved by Jehovah, who described Jesus as the second David. Jonathan chose David and waited for him years, planning to stand at his side when he ruled. They risked their lives to embrace and kiss each other. Jonathan could not complete an archery ruse before abandoning it to hold the man he loved as himself.

The Biblical pattern was for sex to not be commented upon if it was not a matter of law. It was noted that David did not have sex with Abishag — because that affected her legal rights. There is no equivalent note about Jonathan, because there was no legal matter to record. No law existed between them: not the Canaanite prostitution custom, not porneia, not the rape laws mirrored in Leviticus 18, and not the broad prohibition on sex with animals — which was written broadly and clearly. The Bible has no broad prohibition on homosexuality written to parallel that one.

“Your love for me was more wonderful than the love of women.” Not that David loved Jonathan more than his wives — but that Jonathan’s love was greater than what women could provide. It was sexual, and more. The record has no law against it.

Arsenokoitai references Leviticus 18 and 20 — specifically anal sex in the context of idolatry and temple prostitution. Paired with malakoi, the temple prostitutes, it is a precise reference to a specific practice, not a blanket prohibition on all sexual contact between men. For female homosexuals, there is no parallel word at all. If female homosexuality is not condemned by any word, the basis for condemning male homosexuality collapses.

Paul’s Corinthian audience was well familiar with mutual masturbation and intercrural sex between men. He did not name it. He did not name masturbation at all — not in prostitution, not in idolatry, not in adultery — even though his audience explicitly included homosexuals. That gap was not oversight. It was the logical necessity of an audience that included homosexual men who lacked the gift of singleness.

Paul then said: “In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it.” He added that he was not casting a noose. The freedom he left is the one he did not prohibit.

Love is following Jehovah’s commandments. Jehovah’s commandments are to love. The commandment, from the beginning, is to love. Two men making love is, therefore, following the law — where no contrary law exists.

“Pleasing God is not complicated. All that he requires of us can be summed up in a single word: love. That has always been — and will always be — the essence of true worship.” (Draw Close to God, “Which Commandment Is First of All?”)

Jehovah is not partial (Acts 10:34–35). He does not create men homosexual, deny them the gift of singleness, and then condemn them for their existence. The men who die rather than continue without a mate demonstrate that Jehovah did not grant them that gift. That is not a failure of self-control — self-control is a fruitage of the Spirit and we are given what we need. It is evidence of a need Jehovah created and did not extinguish. To leave such men burning — with no mate, no gift of singleness, and no mercy — is the counsel of men, not of Jehovah.