Scriptural Perspective and Church’s Teaching on Homosexual Acts

Homosexuality is a topic that draws considerable attention from society. Because this is a complicated issue with deep emotional implications for many people, it is necessary to distinguish homosexual orientations and acts. One is determined to be a homosexual “if he or she (1) is attracted physically or erotically by persons of his or her own sex; (2) usually has no similar attraction to the opposite sex; and (3) in many instances has a positive revulsion for sexual acts with a member of the opposite sex.”[1] While the Church welcomes homosexual people into her pastoral care, she insists that the sexual acts between those of the same sexes are morally wrong. As “all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture,”[2] the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is deeply rooted in the Scripture. However, dissent theologians have argued against the Church’s teaching. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to present some scriptural debates regarding homosexual behaviors and to briefly indicate key principals regarding the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.

Several scriptural passages can be referred as evidence useful to support the Church’s stand on this moral issue. However, the proponents of homosexual acts criticize that evidence in different ways. In Genesis 19, when the two angels visited Lot’s house, the townsmen of Sodom came and asked Lot to bring the two angels to them so that they may have sexual relations. In this context, the Sodomites were trying to perform homosexual rape. Consequently, they were destroyed in the rain of sulfur and fire because of their sexual immorality. Nevertheless, the proponents of homosexual acts deny this interpretation for various reasons. For example, the Hebrew term referring to a sexual act means “to know.” Thus, the proponents do not refer the Sodomites’ demand to sexual relations but to merely their curiosity to know who the angels are. Here, the main cause for their destruction is inhospitality.[3] Therefore, according to this interpretation, this passage is irrelevant as evidence of the condemnation of homosexual acts.

The Old Testament texts that directly condemns homosexual acts are from the Book of Leviticus. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22). “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them” (Lev. 20:13). The phrase “as with a woman” is traditionally considered to refer to the homosexual behavior between two males. The punishment of this action is death and traditionalists use this interpretation as evidence of the condemnation of homosexual acts. This interpretation was almost universally accepted in the past. However, under the influence of social revolutions which tend to accept same sex relations, an influx of contention about that phrase emerged quickly. For instance, many scholars, such as Browson, Boswell, and Malchow, link the prohibitions in the two verses to the “injunction against the practices of idolatry and the urgency of avoiding the practices of surrounding nations.”[4] That is, the moral logic of the Levitical prohibitions is not isolated from the cultic context. Browson argues that the biological gender distinction in sexual acts is not required by the Law of Leviticus because if it is, why did Leviticus not mention the prohibition of female-female homosexual acts?[5] Boswell argues that the term “abomination” “does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft, but something which is ritually unclean.”[6] These arguments imply that Leviticus was dealing with the religious problems of its time which are no longer problematic in our contemporary era. That is, the prohibition of Leviticus alone is insufficient to establish moral codes regarding homosexuality.

In the New Testament, the evidence against homosexuality can be found in several Pauline texts, such as 1 Cor 6:9-10 and Rom 1:18-32. In Corinthians, “boy prostitutes and sodomites,” which refer to homosexual acts, are among vices that prevent men from inheriting the kingdom of God. The term “sodomites” refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with boys. In Romans, Paul attacks the same-gender sexual relations because they are contrary to the truth revealed in creation. Because of the blindness of the truth, they degrade their bodies through lustful desires. Homosexual acts, shown as consequences of the blindness, are unnatural and shameful. These acts are condemned not only because of excessiveness or exploitation of the acts, such as using sexual slaves, but also because they imply an uncontrolled passion. Paul affirms that they “received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity” (Rom 1:27). The traditional interpretation is that in creation sexual relations are intended to fulfill the gender complementary of human nature. Therefore, homosexual acts violate the intention revealed in creation.

The proponents of homosexual acts challenge the interpretations in various ways. They try to remove the reference between the terms, translated “boy prostitutes and sodomites” in 1 Corinthians, to same-sex relations. For instance, Browson proposes that the vice lists play rhetorical function to “single out stereotypically abhorrent behavior that is widely regarded in the community with condemnation, ridicule, or rejection.”[7] The lists have limited uses in the ancient time, and they do not create moral codes. As rejecting the traditionalists’ interpretation on Roman 1:18-32, Browson argues that “gender complementary is never directly taught in Scripture in such generic terms.”[8] While he does not reject the authority of the texts, his contrary perspective is based on the underlying moral logic that shapes the texts and its application to contemporary life. In contrast, the Church teaches that the theology of creation found in Genesis tells us that “in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator.”[9]

In general, the proponents of homosexual acts do not reject the authority of the Scriptures, but their exegesis rejects the idea that Scripture condemns homosexual acts. Most arguments deny the relevance of Scriptures’ application to the present. For instance, Malchow concluded in his article that “it is possible that any biblical texts that speak against homosexuals are based on prejudices that came out of the society of that day, prejudices that have endured until the present.”[10] However, although biblical authors often involved prejudices in their writings, those arguments are poor. It is because they ignore the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, the living tradition of the whole Church, and the harmony between elements of faith.[11] Cardinal Ratzinger, in his letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons, affirms “a clear consistency within Scripture themselves on the moral issues of homosexual behavior.”[12] He also affirms the organic continuity of the Church’s teaching with the Scriptures and the Tradition. Therefore, an interpretation that contradicts to the living Tradition is unacceptable.

It is important to bear in mind that the teaching on homosexuality takes love as its principle and motivation. Thus, as the Church takes charge of directing mankind toward what is truly good, she condemns homosexual acts but not homosexual persons. According to the Church, in the bond of marriage, sexual behaviors are directed toward “two inseparable ends, namely the expression of marital love and the procreation and education of children.”[13] In other words, the unitive character of sexuality must always accompany the procreative character. However, homosexual acts in no way can fully achieve the natural ends of human sexuality. The Catechism of the Church declares that “[Homosexual acts] are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”[14]

Nevertheless, same-sex attraction is not a sin itself because one did not choose their attraction. However, this disordered attraction puts homosexuals in a danger of committing sin. Thus, they need remedies for their conditions in both pastoral and spiritual ways because they also share with us the universal call to holiness. The Church urges them to train themselves in the virtues of chastity and of self-mastery. The USCCB advises that “[the homosexuals] should also seek out the guidance of a confessor and spiritual director who will support their quest to live a chaste life.”[15] In addition, the Catechism of the Church indicates that “at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”[16] Pastorally, friendship and community have crucial roles because the disordered sexual tendencies easily receive negative reactions such as discriminations or boycotts. They really need empathy and compassion from others. Spiritually, those dealing with the disorders of sexual inclinations cannot overcome challenges of their conditions without being in intimate relationship with God.

In conclusion, the Church’s perspectives on homosexuality are not founded on subjective sentiments, but they are rooted deeply in the Scriptures. The place of sexuality in God’s plan is clearly revealed in the Scriptures. Regarding homosexuality, both Old and New Testaments provides various texts against the homosexual behaviors. The proponents of homosexual acts have provided various interpretations to reject the links between those texts and the condemnation of homosexual acts. However, their interpretations are so poor and contrary to natural law and the authentic Tradition. The Church also clearly distinguishes between the tendencies and behaviors of homosexuality. She takes great cares to welcome homosexuals and urges everyone to uphold them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

Notes

  1. William May, Ronald Lawler, and Joseph Boyle, Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation, & Defense (Huntington: IN, Our Sunday Visitor),287.
  2. Dei Verbum, no. 21.
  3. See John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980), 92-5.
  4. James Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans), 270. See John Boswell, 100-103; Bruce Malchow, “Scripture as a Norm of Moral Deliberation and Its Application to Homosexuality,” Currents in Theology and Mission 31, no. 6 (December 2004): 471.
  5. See Brownson, 271-3.
  6. Boswell, 100.
  7. Browson, 275.
  8. Browson, 262.
  9. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, no. 6.
  10. Malchow, 472.
  11. “Since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God” (Dei Verbum, No. 12).
  12. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, no. 5.
  13. USCCB, Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care, no. 3.
  14. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357.
  15. USCCB, no. 7.
  16. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2359.

Bibliography

Arinze, Franci. “Seeking a Pastoral Response.” Statement on a recent decision of the Flemish bishops regarding a special blessing for same-sex couples, 2022. Accessed October 27, 2022. https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-113-2022-monday-september-26-arinze.

Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Brownson, James. Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2013.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics. Rome, December 1975.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Rome, October 1986.

Davis, Ellen F. “Reasoning with Scripture.” Anglican Theological Review 90, no. 3 (Summer 2008): 513–19.

Dunn, James. “God’s Wrath on Humankind – from a Jewish Perspectives (1:18-32).” In World Biblical Commentary. Vol. 38, Romans 1-8, 51-76. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988.

Hartley, John. “Laws Governing the Extended Family (18:1-30).” In World Biblical Commentary. Vol. 4, Leviticus, 280-301. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992.

______. “Laws with Penalties for Sacrifice to Molek, Sorcery, and Sexual Offenses (20:1-27).” In World Biblical Commentary. Vol. 4, Leviticus, 326-41. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992.

Heater, Gilbert. “Homosexuality, Chastity, and Beauty Reclaimed: An Examination of Disordered Passion and Perfect Virtue in Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae.” A paper for the course Thomistic Philosophy, Saint Vincent College, 2020.

Krom, Michael. “Chapter 7: Aquinas’s Moral, Economic, and Political Theory Today.” In Justice and Charity: An Introduction to Aquinas’s Moral, Economic, and Political Thought, 177-219. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020.

Malchow, Bruce V. “Scripture as a Norm of Moral Deliberation and Its Application to Homosexuality.” Currents in Theology and Mission 31, no. 6 (December 2004): 465–72.

May, William, Ronald Lawler, and Joseph Boyle. Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation & Defense. 3rd ed Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2011.

Norris, Richard, Ellen Davis, William Johnson, Richard Fabian, Victoria Matthews, Barry Morgan, Stephen Bouman, et al. “Some Notes on the Current Debate Regarding Homosexuality and the Place of Homosexuals in the Church.” Anglican Theological Review 90, no. 3 (January 1, 2008).

“Part 3: Life in Christ.” In Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. 2016.

Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum. Rome, November 1965.

Steven Greenberg. Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition. Vol. Updated ed. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care. November 2006.


[1] William May, Ronald Lawler, and Joseph Boyle, Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation, & Defense

(Huntington: IN, Our Sunday Visitor),287.

[2] Dei Verbum, no. 21.

[3] See John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,

1980), 92-5.

[4] James Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships (Grand

Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans), 270. See John Boswell, 100-103; Bruce Malchow, “Scripture as a Norm of

Moral Deliberation and Its Application to Homosexuality,” Currents in Theology and Mission 31, no. 6

(December 2004): 471.

[5] See Brownson, 271-3.

[6] Boswell, 100.

[7] Browson, 275.

[8] Browson, 262.

[9] The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care

of Homosexual Persons, no. 6.

[10] Malchow, 472.

[11] “Since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God” (Dei Verbum, No. 12).

[12] Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, no. 5.

[13] USCCB, Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care, no. 3.

[14] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357.

[15] USCCB, no. 7.

[16] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2359.

Hiện tại đơn với ngôi he, she và it (Present simple with he, she and it)

(+) (-) (?)
He works.
She works.
It works.
He doesn’t work.
She doesn’t work.
It doesn’t work.
Does he work?
Does she work?
Does it work?
Yes, he/ she/ it does.
No, he/ she/ it doesn’t.

⦁ Trong những bài học trước chúng ta đã lần lượt tìm hiểu về thì hiện tại đơn lần lượt với các ngôi I, you, we, they; trong bài học ngày hôm nay chúng ta cùng tìm hiểu về ba ngôi cuối cùng là he, she it. Các ngôi I, you, we, they động từ chính trong câu luôn ở dạng nguyên thể không chia, để hình thành thể phủ định ta chỉ việc thêm trợ động từ “don’t” và hình thành thể nghi vấn thêm trợ động từ “do”.
⦁ Với ba chủ ngữ là he, she, it để hình thành thể khẳng định ta thêm “s” hoặc “es” vào sau động từ chính trong câu, như he works, she works….
⦁ Để hình thành thể phủ định ta thêm trợ động từ “doesn’t = does not” vào trước động từ chính, lúc này động từ không chia nữa mà trở về động từ nguyên thể như he doesn’t work….
⦁ Để hình thành thể nghi vấn ta đảo trợ động từ “does” lên đầu câu, động từ ở dạng nguyên thể, như Does she work….

Quy tắc chia động từ ở thì hiện tại thường với chủ ngữ là ngôi 3 số ít.

I work in an office.
I live in Spain.
I watch CNN.
I finish work at 8:00.
I study history.
He works in an office. (+ s)
He lives in Spain.
She watches CNN. (+ es, từ kết thúc bằng ch, sh, s, ss, x)
The film finishes at 8:00.
He studies history. (y ies, từ kết thúc bằng phụ âm + y)

⦁ Hầu hết các động từ được thành lập bằng cách thêm “s” vào sau động từ.
Ví dụ: eats, drinks, lives, likes….
⦁ Với những động từ kết thúc bằng ch, sh, s, ss, x ta thêm đuôi “es” vào sau động từ.
Ví dụ: watches, finishes, kisses…..
⦁ Với những động từ kết thúc bằng “y” trước đó là một phụ âm ta chuyển “y” thành “i” rồi thêm đuôi “es”. Nếu trước đó là một nguyên âm thì ta giữ nguyên và thêm đuôi “s”.
Ví dụ: studies, cries,…
⦁ Ba động từ bất quy tắc là have, do go với chủ ngữ là he, she, it sẽ được chia thành has, doesgoes.

A Reflection on The Final Judgment – Matthew 25: 31-46

The Final Judgment - Thirty Fourth Sunday of Ordinary Time - Matthew 25: 31-46

           If today is the final judgment, what would you do? Would you be like a baptized lawyer who did not practice faith his whole life. When he knew that he had only three days to live, he hastened to his house to find the bible. His wife was surprised and saying, “did someone reconvert you?” He kept looking at the bible and answered “no! I am trying to find some weak points in the bible so that I can defend myself in the final judgment.”

What would you do in the final judgment? The answer is you can do nothing but wait for God’s judgment. The righteous will enjoy the reward of eternal life while the others will be punished in the eternal death. Nevertheless, if you have opportunities to make your choice between Heaven and Hell, Life and Death, what would you choose? It is urgent for us to make our choices right now.

            “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats” (25:31-32). Here, the gospel emphasizes the separation at the final judgment. There are only two categories, namely sheep and goats. Why were the sheep preferred over the goats while their values are mostly equal? I suggest that we look at their characteristics. Sheep are often considered as meek and gentle animals. They know the shepherd and obey his directions. Thus, they stand for the righteous. In contrast, goats have many negative characteristics, so they represent for the unrighteous. For example, they stink, they butt, they are over-sexed, they are quarrelsome, they have horns like the devil, they use their horn to attach the sheep, they destroy pastures and pollute the water, and so on. What group do you think you belong to? If you are meek, gentle, and obedient, then you are among the sheep. If you do evil deeds, then you are among the goats. Remember there are only two groups, either sheep or goats. Your actions in the present express your choices to belong to either of these groups. Be wise to make your choices.

            It is true that evildoers deserve punishments. However, the gospel today tells us another attitude that causes punishments. Do you realize that those on the left were not condemned for their evil deeds? The king says to them that:

I was hungry, and you gave me no food, I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.” (25:42-43)

The main reason for their condemnation is that they did not do good deeds. Especially, they did not care for one of the least ones to whom God identifies himself. I believe most people here are keeping very well the first aspect of righteousness, shunning evil works. However, I would like to remind you of the second aspect, doing good works. There are many people being neglected around us. They need our care. You do not need to do something beyond your capacities, but you can start from little things of caring for others, such as be generous to the needy, be compassionate to the sufferings, and be merciful to those who offend you. Whenever you accomplish a good work like this, you deposit to your spiritual budget which is to buy your insurance to enter the paradise. You do not have to find any weak points in the bible like the lawyer I mentioned at the beginning. Your good works will defend you in the final judgment.

            Brothers and Sisters! We belong to the sheepfold of God who does not want anyone lost. God wants all of us to inherit the kingdom prepared for us from the foundation of the world, but the choice is ours. Our lives now are the great opportunity for making our choice. Make your choice before too late. May we make wise choice so that, on the last day, we will be placed at the right side of the king.

Hiện tại đơn với ngôi you, we và they (Present simple with you, we and they)

Chúng ta sẽ cùng tiếp tục tìm hiểu về thì hiện tại đơn đi với ngôi you, we, they trong bài ngày hôm nay.
Cùng xét các ví dụ sau:
I have a croissant for breakfast.
We have a traditional Japanese breakfast.
They have eggs and cheese for breakfast.
Ta nhận thấy rằng dù chủ ngữ là ngôi I, we hay they thì động từ đi kèm với nó vẫn giống nhau không thay đổi (vẫn là have). Như vậy khi chủ ngữ trong câu là ngôi I, you, we, they ở thể khẳng định thì động từ đi kèm ở dạng nguyên thể không chia.

(+)(-)(?)
We have coffee for breakfast.
You have rice for lunch.
They have fish for dinner.
We don’t have tea for breakfast.
You don’t have pasta for lunch.
They don’t have meal for dinner.
Do you have coffee?
Do they have tea?
Yes, we/they do.
No, we/they don’t.

⦁ Để hình thành thể phủ định ta thêm trợ động từ “don’t = do not” vào trước động từ chính trong câu. (I don’t live, you don’t live). Don’t là dạng rút gọn của do not và trong giao tiếp thường xuyên sử dụng hình thức rút gọn là don’t.
⦁ Để hình thành thể nghi vấn ta chỉ việc đặt trợ động từ “Do” lên đầu câu.

Hiện tại đơn với ngôi I và you (Present simple with I and you)

Trong bài học ngày hôm nay bạn sẽ làm quen với một chủ điểm ngữ pháp mới: thì hiện tại đơn (Present simple) với hai đại từ nhân xưng “I” và “You”.

(+)(-)(?)
I live near here.
You live near here.
I don’t live near here.
You don’t live near here.
Do you live near here?
Yes, I do. OR No, I don’t.

⦁ Dù chủ ngữ là ngôi I hay you thì động từ theo sau nó đều giữ nguyên không chia. (I live, you live).
⦁ Để hình thành thể phủ định ta thêm trợ động từ “don’t = do not” vào trước động từ chính trong câu. (I don’t live, you don’t live). Don’t là dạng rút gọn của do not và trong giao tiếp thường xuyên sử dụng hình thức rút gọn là don’t.
⦁ Để hình thành thể nghi vấn ta chỉ việc đặt trợ động từ “Do” lên đầu câu.

Tính từ (Adjectives)

Định nghĩa: Tính từ là từ dùng để chỉ tính chất, màu sắc, trạng thái,… tính từ là các từ miêu tả hoặc cung cấp thông tin cho danh từ hoặc đại từ.
Ví dụ: The sun is yellow. (Mặt trời màu vàng.)
The house is big. (Ngôi nhà to.)
Chú ý:
⦁ Hình thức của tính từ không thay đổi theo số, ngôi của chủ ngữ:
She is beautiful. (Cô ấy đẹp.)
They are beautiful. (Họ đẹp.)
⦁ Hình thức của tính từ không thay đổi khi đi cùng danh từ số ít, số nhiều:
Ví dụ: She is a beautiful girl.
They are beautiful women. (Not They are beautifuls women)
I have a big house. (Tôi có một căn nhà lớn.)
Nam has two big houses. (Nam có hai căn nhà lớn)
Cách sử dụng
Vị trí của tính từ trong câu như sau:
Trước danh từ:
a small house
  an old woman
Lưu ý: khi có nhiều tính từ đứng trước danh từ, chúng tuân theo quy tắc sau:
Opinion – size – age – color – origin – material – purpose (viết tắt: OpSACOMP)
Opinion – tính từ chỉ quan điểm, sự đánh giá. Ví dụ: beautiful, wonderful, terrible…
Size – tính từ chỉ kích cỡ. Ví dụ: big, small, long, short, tall…
Age – tính từ chỉ độ tuổi. Ví dụ : old (già), young, old (cũ), new…
Color – tính từ chỉ màu sắc. Ví dụ: orange, yellow, light blue, dark brown ….
Origin – tính từ chỉ nguồn gốc, xuất xứ. Ví dụ: Japanese, American, British, Vietnamese…
Material – tính từ chỉ chất liệu . Ví dụ: stone, plastic, leather, steel, silk…
Purpose – tính từ chỉ mục đích, tác dụng.
Ví dụ khi sắp xếp cụm danh từ sau
⦁ a /leather/ jacket / brown
– leather chỉ chất liệu làm bằng da (Material)
– brown chỉ màu sắc (Color)
Vậy theo trật tự OpSACOMP cụm danh từ trên sẽ theo vị trí đúng là: 
a brown leather jacket.
b. Sau động từ: ( be )
She is tired. (Cô ấy mệt.)
They are nice. (Họ tốt bụng.)

Tính từ sở hữu (Possessive adjectives)

Tính từ sở hữu được sử dụng để mô tả sự sở hữu của người hay vật. Các tính từ sở hữu cùng với các đại từ nhân xưng tương quan như sau:

Subject pronounsPossessive adjectives
IMy
YouYour
HeHis
SheHer
ItIts
WeOur
TheyTheir

Ví dụ:

I’m from Spain.My name is Ana.
You’re English.Your name is Ben.
He’s from Rome.His name is Marco.
She’s Japanese.Her name is Maki.
It’s a parrot.Its name is Polly.
We’re from Brazil.Our names are Selma and Luis.
They’re from Mexico.Their names are Pedro and Maria.


Chú ý:
⦁ Tính từ sở hữu luôn đi trước danh từ mà nó sở hữu và bổ nghĩa cho danh từ đó, danh từ này không có mạo từ đi kèm.
Ví dụ: This is my book.
Ở đây tính từ sở hữu “my” được sử dụng để bổ nghĩa cho danh từ “book” để chỉ rằng đó là quyển sách của tôi chứ không phải của ai khác.
⦁ Tính từ sở hữu không thay đổi khi danh từ là số ít hay nhiều.
Ví dụ:
This is my book.
These are my books.

⦁ Sở hữu “s” (Possessive s)
Bạn hãy xem các ví dụ sau:
Minh is Nhung’s friend.
This is Hung’s car.
Ha Anh is Tuan’s wife.
My sister’s name is Hien.
Sử dụng ‘s sau tên một người để nói về gia đình và đồ vật.
Ví dụ: Anh’s brother, Ella’s car
Lưu ý:
Ha Anh is Tuan’s wife. (’s = Possessive s)
She’s Vietnamese. (’s = is)

Danh từ số ít và số nhiều

Danh từ là một phần quan trọng không thể thiếu trong ngôn ngữ. Danh từ là từ để gọi tên một người, một vật, một sự việc, một tình trạng hay một cảm xúc.

Ví dụ: table (cái bàn), man (người đàn ông), wall (bức tường), Peter, Jack, England, happiness (hạnh phúc), beauty (vẻ đẹp), health (sức khỏe)…
Danh từ có nhiều loại, trong bài này bạn sẽ làm quen với danh từ số ít và danh từ số nhiều, cách thành lập danh từ số nhiều.
Ví dụ:
Singular Plural
mobile phone
glass
leaf mobile phones
glasses
leaves

SingularPlural
mobie phonemobie phones
glassglasses
leafleaves

 Nguyên tắc đổi sang số nhiều

1. Thông thường danh từ thêm “s” ở số nhiều.
Ví dụ: chair – chairs; girl – girls; dog – dogs
2. Danh từ kết thúc bằng /iz/(những danh từ tận cùng bằng o, x, s, z, ch, sh) lấy thêm es ở số nhiều.
Ví dụ: potato – potatoes ; box – boxes ; bus – buses ; buzz – buzzes ; watch – watches ; dish – dishes
Ngoại lệ 1:
a) Những danh từ tận cùng bằng nguyên âm + o chỉ lấy thêm s ở số nhiều.
Ví dụ: cuckoos, cameos, bamboos, curios, studios, radios
b) Những danh từ tận cùng bằng o nhưng có nguồn gốc không phải là tiếng Anh chỉ lấy thêm s ở số nhiều.
Ví dụ: pianos, photos, dynamo, magnetos, kilos, mementos, solos
3. Những danh từ tận cùng bằng phụ âm + y thì chuyển y thành i trước khi lấy thêm es.
Ví dụ: lady – ladies; story – stories
4. Những danh từ tận cùng bằng f hay fe thì chuyển thành ves ở số nhiều.
Ví dụ: leaf – leaves, knife – knives
Ngoại lệ 2:
a) Những danh từ sau chỉ thêm s ở số nhiều:
roofs: mái nhà
gulfs : vịnh
cliffs: bờ đá dốc
reefs : đá ngầm
proofs: bằng chứng
chiefs : thủ lãnh
turfs: lớp đất mặt
safes : tủ sắt
dwarfs: người lùn
griefs : nỗi đau khổ
beliefs: niềm tin
b) Những danh từ sau đây có hai hình thức số nhiều:
scarfs, scarves: khăn quàng
wharfs, wharves: cầu tàu gỗ
staffs, staves: cán bộ
hoofs, hooves: móng guốc

Chú ý:
Một số danh từ không theo các quy tắc trên (irregular plurals):
a man -> two men
a woman -> two women
a child -> two children
a person -> two people
a foot -> two feet
a tooth -> two teeth

Mạo từ “a, an, the”

Ví dụ:
What is it? It’s a bag. It’s an umbrella.
Look at the board.
Open the door.
Close the windows.
Quy tắc:
⦁ Sử dụng a/ an với danh từ số ít.
⦁ Sử dụng an với những từ bắt đầu với một nguyên âm (u, e, o, a, i).
Vd: an identity card
⦁ Không sử dụng a/ an với danh từ số nhiều.
Vd: They’re books. NOT They’re a books.
⦁ Sử dụng the với danh từ số ít và danh từ số nhiều.
Vd: the door, the windows
⦁ CÁCH SỬ DỤNG MẠO TỪ BẤT ĐỊNH A VÀ AN
⦁ Trước nghề nghiệp: He’s a doctor.
⦁ Giới thiệu một người hoặc một vật lần đầu tiên, người nghe hay người đọc chưa biết người hoặc vật đó. Sau lần giới thiệu đầu tiên này, ta dùng THE.
I saw a bird. The bird had a red tail. The red tail was beautiful.
⦁ Giá cả, khoảng cách, tính thường xuyên.
5,000 VND a kilo, 40km an hour, twice a week
⦁ Chứng bệnh: a cold, a headache, a sore throat

⦁ CÁCH SỬ DỤNG MẠO TỪ XÁC ĐỊNH THE
⦁ Trước một danh từ đã được đề cập trước đó, hoặc danh từ đã rõ ràng.
We stopped at a small village. The village was very beautiful.
⦁ So sánh nhất: the most luxury hotels
⦁ Trước một danh từ đã được làm rõ nghĩa bởi một nhóm từ hoặc mệnh đề theo sau.
It’s the hotel that Miss Universe stayed in last summer.
⦁ Trước danh từ hoặc vật thể duy nhất: the earth, the sea, the moon, the sun…
⦁ Áp dụng cho thập kỷ, hoặc nhóm nhiều năm.
She grew up in the seventies.
⦁ Đi với tên sông, dãy núi, quốc gia cộng hòa hoặc liên hiệp.
the River Danube, the River Thames, the Alps, the Himalyas, the United Kingdom, the United States…

⦁ CÁC TRƯỜNG HỢP KHÔNG DÙNG MẠO TỪ
⦁ Trước tên người và danh hiệu của họ.
⦁ Dr. David Young
⦁ Trước danh từ số nhiều đếm được có nghĩa chung chung.
Cats have claws.
⦁ Trước dawn và night.
At dawn, at night
⦁ Trước tên riêng của địa danh
Africa, Madrid, Hanoi…

Bài tập thực hành

Động từ to be đi với đại từ we, you và they

Động từ to be đi với đại từ I và you

(+) We’re = We are
You’re = You are
They’re = They are
(-) We’re not = We aren’t = We are not
You’re not = You aren’t = You are not
They’re not = They aren’t = They are not
(?) Are we …?
Are you …?
Are they….?

Đại từNgôi
We (chúng tôi, chúng ta)Ngôi thứ nhất số nhiều
You (bạn, các bạn)Ngôi thứ hai số ít/ nhiều
They (họ, bọn họ)Ngôi thứ ba số nhiều

Ta có các mẫu câu sau:

(+)We’re American. (We’re = We are)
You’re Japanese. (You’re = You are)
They’re Hungarian. (They’re = They are)
(?), (-)Are we late?
Yes, you are. / No, you aren’t.(aren’t = are not)
Are you from Russia?
Yes, we are. No, we aren’t.
Are they Mexican?
Yes they are. / No, they aren’t.

Chú ý:
⦁ we, you, they là đại từ số nhiều.
⦁ we và you có thể được sử dụng cho nam giới hoặc nữ giới hoặc cả hai.
⦁ đại từ you ở dạng số ít (the singular) hay số nhiều (the plural) thì động từ theo sau nó vẫn là are
⦁ they có thể được dùng chỉ người và vật
⦁ Dạng viết tắt không được dùng trong câu trả lời ngắn thể khẳng định