Background Essay on Biblical Texts for Journey Together Faithfully, Part Two: The Church and Homosexuality

“Journey Together Faithfully, Part Two: The Church and Homosexuality”

BACKGROUND

ESSAY on

BIBLICAL

TEXTS for

Arland J. Hultgren and Walter F. Taylor Jr.

INTRODUCTION

Background Essay on Biblical Texts

by James Childs

The Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality is pleased to present this background paper on

selected biblical texts as a companion to the study booklet, “Journey Together Faithfully, Part

Two:The Church and Homosexuality.”The authors are the Rev. Dr. Arland J. Hultgren, Asher

O. and Carrie Nasby Professor of New Testament at Luther Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota, and

the Rev. Dr. Walter F. Taylor, Ernest W. and Edith S. Ogram Professor of New Testament

Studies at Trinity Lutheran Seminary, Columbus, Ohio.

Dr. Hultgren and Dr.Taylor are both among the most highly respected biblical scholars in the

ELCA. Both have written previously on the subject of the Bible and our contemporary discus-

sion of homosexuality from very different perspectives. In this essay they are not engaged in

debate. Instead they provide an excellent account of how scholars have interpreted the texts

that deal most directly with same-sex activity. In so doing they give us an important analysis

of how different scholars studying the same texts, using comparable methods, can come to

different conclusions.

We on the Task Force are grateful to Drs. Hultgren and Taylor for their willingness to undertake

this project, for their example of collegial collaboration, and for the excellence of their work.

September 2003

That the study of Scripture is essential for the church’s

current discussion of human sexuality is an under-

statement, but it bears repeating. Lutheran Christians,

like others, look to the Scriptures for guidance in mat-

ters facing the church and the larger world. Moreover,

the fact that there are passages within the Scriptures

that deal with same-gender sexual relationships makes

it necessary.

Unfortunately attention gets focused on those passages

as though they alone can bear the weight of the dis-

cussion concerning “what the Bible says about homo-

sexuality” and issues related to it. Actually the entire

biblical witness has to be borne in mind, for no one

passage or cluster of passages should be studied in iso-

lation. Nevertheless, there are certain biblical passages

that inevitably, and necessarily, come up in a discussion

of homosexuality in the church.

The purpose of this essay is to survey the passages in

considerable depth but also to communicate to a broad

audience in the church.The writers seek to explore the

texts at a sufficient level of exposition, but also go on

to discuss how they are interpreted by contemporary

scholars insofar as that is possible, given the limita-

tions of space allowed. A basic question posed to the

writers, when they were asked to take on this task,

was: How is it that biblical scholars, studying the same

texts and using comparable methods of interpretation,

come to different conclusions?

The discussion begins with Old Testament narrative

passages (Genesis 19:1–11 and Joshua 19:16–30),

goes on to Old Testament legal passages (Leviticus

18:22 and 20:13), and then to the three New

Testament passages (Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians

6:9–11; and 1 Timothy 1:9–10) that come under dis-

cussion. Since various versions of the English Bible

will be referred to below, we have provided a key to

their abbreviations in an endnote.

Genesis 19:1–11 and Judges 19:16–30

The stories of Sodom (Genesis 19:1–11) and Gibeah

(Judges 19:16–30) are quite similar. Nevertheless, it

is important to review them separately. In the first of

them, two angels (Genesis 19:1; but called men at

19:5, 10) come to the house of Lot at Sodom. Lot

invites them to stay for the night. But “men of the

city” surround the house and demand that Lot bring

the visitors out that they may “know” (

yada‘ in

Hebrew) them (19:5)—an expression used elsewhere

in the Bible, as here, for sexual intercourse (Genesis

4:1, 17, 25; 1 Samuel 1:19). Lot begs that they not be

so wicked and offers his two virgin daughters instead,

saying that they may do to them as they please (19:8).

He protects the visitors, saying that “they have come

under the shelter of my roof” (19:8).The “men of the

city” refuse the offer and try to break down the door.

But the men (or angels) inside the house grab Lot,

bring him in, and strike the men blind who are trying

to break the door down. In the sequel to the story,

Sodom, plus Gomorrah, is destroyed by “sulfur and

fire from the Lord out of heaven” (19:24).

In the second story (Judges 19:16–30) an elderly man

invites a traveler into his home at Gibeah to spend the

night. But “men of the city” surround the house and

demand that the traveler be brought out that they may

“know” (

yada‘) him (19:22).The elderly man begs that

they not do this and offers his virgin daughter and the

traveler’s concubine to do with them as they wish. At

first the “men of the city” refuse, but the traveler gives

them his concubine, and “they wantonly raped her, and

abused her all through the night” (19:25). In the early

morning the woman fell at the door of the elderly

BACKGROUND ESSAY on BIBLICAL TEXTS

for

“Journey Together Faithfully, Part Two: The Church and Homosexuality”

Arland J. Hultgren and Walter F. Taylor Jr.

man’s house. Her master (the traveler) rose and com-

manded her to get up, “but there was no answer”

(19:28), indicating that she had died (which the Greek

Septuagint and Latin Vulgate versions say explicitly).The

story ends with the traveler taking the body home, cut-

ting it into twelve pieces, and sending the body parts

“throughout all the territory of Israel” (19:29).

The fact that the two stories are so similar at the core,

in spite of some differences in their ending, has led

some interpreters to suggest that they could be two

versions of the same story.

Others have concluded

that one of the stories might be dependent on the

other. Those who hold this latter view differ on which

was the earlier. Some suggest that the story of Gibeah

has an earlier origin,

while others think that the story

of Sodom was earlier and has influenced the telling of

the story of Gibeah.

How do these stories relate to the topic of homosexu-

ality? Although the “sin of Sodom” is commonly

thought to be homosexual activity, that is not the way

the biblical writers interpreted it. Walter Brueggemann

has written the following:

Of late, special attention has been given to the

nature of the sin of the men of Sodom. Aside

from the popular name of “sodomy” from

Sodom, the text does not give much help in

determining the offense….

It is likely that interpretation can go in a more

general or a more specific direction. It is possi-

ble that the offense of Sodom is understood

with specific reference to sexuality. But if such

a reading is accepted, the turbulent mood of

the narrative suggests gang-rape rather than

a private act of either “sodomy” or any specific

homosexual act.

However, the Bible gives considerable evidence

that the sin of Sodom was not specifically sex-

ual, but a general disorder of a society organ-

ized against God.Thus in Isa. 1:10; 3:9, the

reference is to injustice; in Jer. 23:14, to a vari-

ety of irresponsible acts which are named; and

in Ezek. 16:49 the sin is pride, excessive food,

and indifference to the needy.

It is likely that interpreters will disagree about

the “sin of Sodom,” but the evidence in any

case shows that the Bible did not agree that the

sin was homosexuality.The use of the term

“outcry” in [Gen.] 18:20–21; 19:13 argues in

the direction of a general abuse of justice. (Cf.

Isa. 5:7 without any explicit indictment. Cf. also

Luke 10:8–12.) It may be that sexual disorder

is one aspect of a general disorder. But that

issue is presented in a way scarcely pertinent to

contemporary discussions of homosexuality.

There are several references to Sodom (and Gomorrah)

in the New Testament (Matthew 10:15; 11:23–24;

Luke 10:12; 17:28–29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6;

Jude 7; and Revelation 11:8). What is typical of these

passages—with two exceptions—is that they do not

usually provide any explanation for the destruction of

Sodom and Gomorrah. The result is that they do not

thereby identify Sodom’s particular sin. One exception

is at Luke 17:28–29 where Jesus says that the destruc-

tion of Sodom “in the days of Lot” was due to divine

judgment upon the people’s indifference to God’s

claim upon their lives; they were simply consumed

with eating, drinking, commerce, planting, and build-

ing. The other exception is Jude 7. The author writes

that “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding

cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in

sexual immorality (

ekporneusasai) and pursued unnatural

lust (

apelthousai opiso sarkos heteras), serve as an example by

undergoing a punishment by fire” (NRSV).The latter

Greek phrase can be translated more literally as “went

after flesh other than their own.”

That does not refer

to same-gender sexual activities, for “the Greek…does

not tolerate this” meaning.

Rather, the term “strange

flesh” refers to the angels at Genesis 19:1 (and men-

tioned in the previous verse, Jude 6),

and so the

phrase in its entirety refers to the lust of the men of

Sodom after the angelic visitors to the house of Lot,

which is branded as a case of sexual immorality. The

point that the author of Jude is making here is that

Sodom and Gomorrah serve as illustrations of God’s

destruction of people who do not believe and are dis-

obedient (along with other examples, such as Israel in

the wilderness and the rebellious angels mentioned in

verses 5 through 7).

The story of Gibeah has even less bearing on contem-

porary discussions of homosexuality. While intended

sexual violence of males against males is prominent in

the story of Sodom (even if not carried out), “it

appears only briefly in Judg. 19, but is irrelevant and

does not produce any effect, given that the toughs are

content to rape the woman (v. 25).”

The ending of

the story (cutting up the woman’s body and sending

the parts throughout Israel), in fact, calls attention to

the sexual violence of the men of the city against the

woman who is raped and killed: “the action is clearly

intended to arouse the horror and indignation of all

against those who had perpetrated such an outrage.”

Whether gay or straight, anyone who reads the stories

of Sodom and Gibeah in a thoughtful way finds them

repugnant and terrifying.They are stories of violence,

not of homosexual attraction or activity. Since that is

so, these stories are often set aside as irrelevant in dis-

cussions about homosexuality—at least in the case of

consensual homosexual activities.

An exception is in

the work of an interpreter who says that there is no

essential difference between consenting homosexual

intercourse and coerced homosexual intercourse,

except that in the first case both participants degrade

themselves, while in the second case one of the parties

is forced into self-degradation.

But that point of

view overlooks the purpose of gang rape of males by

males. Its purpose—particularly in a patriarchal socie-

ty, but even when it occurs today—is to disgrace and

humiliate the victim. It is not a matter of expressing a

homosexual attraction (much less an “orientation”).

“Rape—homosexual or heterosexual—is the ultimate

means of subjugation and domination, the reverse side

of which is the fear of being raped.”

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Male same-gender sexual relations are prohibited in

two Old Testament laws.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;

it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman,

both of them have committed an abomina-

tion; they shall be put to death; their blood

is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Because for many Christians over the centuries these

two verses have been understood as a straightforward

and universally valid prohibition of homosexual activi-

ties, they have been studied closely during current dis-

cussions about the Bible and homosexuality.They have

also been evaluated in widely differing ways.

Both verses are part of a larger document, the book of

Leviticus. In turn they are also both part of a smaller

portion of Leviticus comprised of chapters 17–26 and

designated as the Holiness Code or the Law of

Holiness. Although there is no reference in the Bible

to a document by that name, the special language and

topics contained in these chapters identify them as

material that belonged together even prior to the writ-

ing of the book of Leviticus itself.

The literary setting of both Leviticus and the Holiness

Code is clear: within the context of God’s giving of the

Law to Moses on Mount Sinai, God details various pro-

hibitions dealing with the dangers of entering the land

of Canaan (1:1; 18:1; 20:1). Much more debated is

the historical setting of when the material was written.

The first position regarding the time of writing argues

that our material comes from the fifth to fourth cen-

turies B.C. God’s people had been in exile in Babylon,

but they have now returned home and need to sepa-

rate themselves from non-Israelites and draw clear

boundaries between themselves and their neighbors.

Such work was particularly the work of the priests.

A shorthand label for this position is that the Holiness

Code is post-exilic.

The second position (the exilic) maintains that the

Holiness Code was produced during the sixth-century

B.C. exile itself, probably during its last years.

The third position is that the Holiness Code is pre-exilic;

that is, it was written before the exile to Babylon.

A final position bridges the first three.The Holiness

Code, in this view, contains many older elements, per-

haps very old, but the document itself is best under-

stood as having been produced during the end of the

pre-exilic period and then edited after the exile.The

Code thus evolved over time and is to be viewed as

a collection of materials rather than as one document

written at one time.

Whatever the exact date of writing, the purpose of

chapters 17–26 is clear and is summarized in 19:2:

“Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel

and say to them:You shall be holy, for I the LORD your

God am holy.” Israel’s God is a holy God, and therefore

Israel, too, is to be holy.The Holiness Code outlines

the parameters of life that make such holiness possible.

Therefore, the people are to live in ways different from

the people of Canaan and are to follow God’s “statutes

and ordinances” (18:1–5); the result is life and well-

being. One important dimension of such living is

proper sexual behavior (18:6–30; 20:10–24), which

becomes one of the ways that the people show that

they have been “separated … from the other peoples”

to be God’s (20:26).

The laws of the Old Testament, therefore, were not

understood by those who lived under them as arbi-

trary. Rather, “God’s laws manifest a basic concern for

the life, health, and good order of the community; put

negatively, they are concerned to shelter the communi-

ty from disease, instability, and death.” More specifical-

ly the laws of Leviticus 18 and 20 have as their goal

“a stable sexual community.”

Thus the context of the two laws includes sexual behav-

ior other than male same-gender relations. Specifically,

the context in each case is that of forbidden sexual rela-

tionships: incest (18:6–18; 20:11–12, 14, 17, 19–21),

intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period

(18:19; 20:18), adultery (18:20; 20:10), and bestiality

(18:23; 20:15–16). Each chapter also includes a prohi-

bition against sacrifice of children to Molech (18:21;

20:2–5). Chapter 20 is often seen as a further develop-

ment of chapter 18, in part because the laws in 18 are

formulated in apodictic form; i.e., they are absolute

prohibitions and do not specify punishment.The laws

in chapter 20, on the other hand, are casuistic, i.e.,

they are case laws, “if a man does this, he shall be cut

off from the people.”The social situation described

in chapter 18 also seems to describe the three-genera-

tional extended family typical of Israel’s earlier history,

whereas the concern in chapter 20 is the immediate

family and the broader community.

One further difference and one point of commonality

need to be noted before we move to interpretation. In

18:22 punishment is not detailed for both people

involved in same-gender sexual activity; it is addressed

to the one person, “you,” who commits the act. In

20:13 both people “have committed an abomination;

they shall be put to death.” Both partners seem to con-

sent to the act in 20:13, at least part of the time.

So who is punished varies between the two laws.

A constant, on the other hand, is that the action is an

“abomination” (Hebrew:

tô´ebah).The root meaning

of the term is “to hate” or “to abhor.” It has a strongly

negative meaning, and in its theological use refers to

things that are incompatible with God’s nature and are

thereby rejected by God.

The gravity of the term can

range widely, but in this case its gravity is such that its

punishment is death (20:13).The activity that is con-

demned in this case must be anal intercourse, since the

language in the two laws implies penetration or being

penetrated.That activity results in a confusion of gen-

der roles, since one male is acting as though he were

female and the other is acting as though the partner

were female.That kind of “transgression of boundaries”

“constituted a threat to the purity of the land.”

How have people seen these laws as applicable or non-

applicable to today’s questions regarding same-gender

behavior? Several approaches have been proposed.

(1)

The laws deal with cultic prostitution and are therefore not relevant.

The presupposition of this view is that various fertility

cults in Israel’s world practiced sacred male prostitu-

tion as part of the worship of their gods. Because that

ancient religious situation no longer exists (male

same-gender relations have nothing to do with the

worship of such gods nor do many argue that prosti-

tution is positive), the prohibitions related to it are

no longer applicable.

Others object. Martti Nissinen doubts the existence of

sacred prostitution and points to a growing consensus

on that view; in addition to the “scanty evidence” for

cultic male same-gender activity, he thinks the evi-

dence does not permit limiting the two laws from

Leviticus to the sacred sphere.

For those who

believe there is some evidence that Canaanite fertility

rites did involve female and male prostitutes, it is

unclear how same-gender relations could have been

understood to promote fertility. Derrick Bailey writes,

“It is hardly open to doubt that both the laws in

Leviticus relate to ordinary homosexual acts between

men, and not to ritual or other acts performed in the

name of religion.”

In addition, the larger context

for the two laws is sexual conduct within family

and community.

(2)

The laws deal with the crucial issue of procreation in the life of

ancient Israel, but that issue is no longer a factor

. According to

this view, the purpose (or at least the primary pur-

pose) of sexual intercourse in ancient Israel was pro-

creation, thereby carrying out the command to “be

fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). Sexual activity

between males resulted in the waste of semen (

zera‘,

translated in various contexts as “seed,” “semen,” and

“offspring”) which was considered the “seed” that

transmitted life; for a woman to conceive was, literally,

“to receive seed” (Numbers 5:28). Several arguments

have been put forth to support this view,

of which

only two will be reported here.The first is that the

prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 concern males

only; nothing is said about sexual relationships

between women. Second, at the time that the Levitical

laws were given their present form, numerous

Canaanite clans lived upon the land that Israel inhabit-

ed, and Israel was surrounded by other populations.

Therefore it is “understandable that Israel was obsessed

with increasing its birth rate without endangering har-

monious relations within the extended family.”

If this is in fact their basis, the laws in Leviticus can be

considered to have been valid (and understandable) for

a particular time and place.They should not, however,

be universalized for all times and places, particularly in

light of the population explosion in modern times.

Nevertheless, this view (like others listed here) is con-

tested. Its critics have pointed out that “nowhere does

the Bible explicitly put forth this type of argument in

speaking against any sexual behavior.”

(3) The laws deal with Israel’s purity concerns and are therefore not

relevant.

In its setting of boundaries over against sur-

rounding nations, Israel established many laws designed

to keep its own people pure or clean. Some scholars

conclude that the laws on same-gender relations are not

ethical but rather are ceremonial or ritualistic only. So

for John Boswell, the two laws do not deal with actions

that are “intrinsically evil, like rape or theft,” but with

ritually unclean actions.

Nissinen concludes that the

laws serve as a polemic against a non-Israelite cult (but

grants that little is known about “cultic homoeroti-

cism”) and that, consequently, they serve to maintain

Israel’s distinct identity from the other nations.

Commentators also point to the fact that many of the

purity distinctions seem quaint and antiquated. So in

19:19 we read, “You shall not let your animals breed

with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with

two kinds of seed; nor shall you put on a garment made

of two different materials.”

Others question whether the distinction between ethi-

cal behavior and ceremonial purity is a valid distinction

for the Holiness Code.That distinction may work well

in contemporary Western societies, but in Israel the two

were not normally set over against each other (Hosea

6:6 being an exception). Moreover, no one today

would argue that the laws against incest and bestiality

are void simply because they are found in a section that

deals with cultic matters or together with materials that

are quite specific to the culture within which they were

formulated. In addition, the word “abomination”

points to the ethical seriousness of same-gender rela-

tions.

Even apart from those considerations, Robin

Scroggs maintains in discussing 18:22 that the law in

its present form does not show a cultic context and

“is a general prohibition of male homosexuality.”

(4) The laws deal with Israel’s understanding of creation and are

therefore relevant.

In partial response to the third position

and keyed by attention to the kinds of laws evident in

19:19, scholars have sought to probe beneath the laws

themselves to discover why it is that a piece of cloth-

ing could not be made from two different kinds of

material. The answer is that, while Israel’s theological

thinkers could conceive of God’s ongoing creative

activity, they also thought of creation as fundamentally

fixed and ordered. Everything in creation had a place,

and the proper location of everything was in that God-

designated place. Anything out of place needed to be

restored to its original and proper place. The various

purity laws of Israel were designed to do just that. By

restoring things to their proper place the laws also

restored the holiness of the people and of the land.

In this view, the problem with male same-gender

relations is that they violate God’s creative intent for

human sexuality by “mixing” two things that were not

intended to be mixed.

That male and female were

intended to be “mixed” is clear both from the Genesis

creation accounts and from human physiology.

contrast, to lie “with a male as with a woman” is, on

the part of one male, to act as though the partner were

a woman, and on the part of the other male, to act as

though he were a woman. Both actions are considered,

implicitly, contrary to human nature as established by

God. Because, for Leviticus, this activity so violates the

gender boundaries God established at creation it is, as

we have seen earlier, an “abomination.” At that point,

some argue that such behavior also is idolatrous, not

because the persons worship another god, but because

they deny the God-created intention for their sexuali-

ty.

Perhaps that is why the two laws in Leviticus are

so absolute: there is nothing about status differential

between the two males, nothing about age differential,

nothing about exploitation or abuse. Any such contact

is an abomination.

Nor is the concern solely with creative intent. It is also

with living in society, which is the same concern seen

in the other laws on sexual behavior in Leviticus 18

and 20.Thus the laws promote “a pattern [of behavior]

conducive to the healthy functioning of a people set

apart to serve God’s holy purposes.”

And, as opposed

to Western thought, “at stake is the protection of the

community and its social structures, a concern which

apparently takes precedence, at least in the matters list-

ed here, over the free expression of the individual.”

As counter to the position based on creative intent,

Nissinen emphasizes that the issue is one of gender

roles, specifically that the male by engaging in same-

gender relations is being reduced to the lower, degraded

status of a woman.

Since that view is based on male

dominance over women, and since the relationship of

women and men in contemporary Western societies is

one of equality, the basis of Leviticus’s understanding

of same-gender relationships is removed. Bernadette

Brooten takes a similar position.

(5) Although the laws deal with Israel’s understanding of creation, that

understanding need not be normative today.

According to this

view, the complementarity of male and female that is

assumed in the laws of Leviticus, based primarily on

human anatomy (but also on the self-understanding of

most people), does not do justice to what is known

about human sexuality in modern times.The concepts

of sexual orientation, heterosexuality, and homosexuali-

ty were unknown to the biblical writers. In current

understanding, however, it is widely recognized that

a person’s genitalia are only one part of one’s sexual

make-up; therefore the “anatomical complementarity”

that seems so obvious is not the primary clue to any

one person’s sexual orientation, even if it is for most

persons.

One’s self-understanding as a sexual being

is more a matter of the mind than it is of physiological

appearances. Accordingly, to absolutize Israel’s under-

standing of creation in matters of human sexuality and

to refuse to consider newer understandings of human

sexuality (such as the concept of sexual orientation) is

to deny the God-given powers of reason, observation,

and experience.

As Luke Timothy Johnson has

phrased it: “For many persons the acceptance of their

homosexuality is an acceptance of creation as it applies

to them.”

Since the refusal to consider newer under-

standings is not done in other areas of human inquiry

and understanding,

the argument goes, it should not

be done here either.

Can this way of thinking be accepted? If so, other

issues arise. One is the whole world of the interpreta-

tion and application of Scripture. When, where, and

how is a “biblical” view of anything normative? When

can it be considered time-and-culture bound? How is

one to decide? Another issue raised is the question

of a Christian anthropology (understanding of the

human) for today. What sources shall one use? To

what degree does a Christian anthropology depend

upon Scripture, and how much does it depend on

tradition, scientific observation, and experience?

These questions go to the heart of debates of various

kinds that the church faces.

(6)

The laws deal with “abnormal” sexual behavior in the eyes of the

ancient Israelites, but that does not settle the matter subsequently

According to this view, every cultural group has its

understanding of what is “normal” and what is “abnor-

mal.”What is reflected in the Levitical laws is an attitude

concerning a behavior that is considered dangerous to

the community.

The laws represent a “codification of

[Israel’s] disdain” for same-gender sexual relationships,

but that “in no way represents an unalterable law inher-

ent in human nature.”The condemnation expressed in

these laws “derives from fears and taboos” that should

not be perpetuated in the present.

This position is the most sweeping of those discussed.

The interpreter who adopts it should ask whether it is

sufficient to explain the origins of biblical law (in this

case at least) in taboos rather than in theological

reflection on the nature of human life.

Finally, apart from arguments regarding the content

of the verses in question, can Christians use passages

from Leviticus in developing ethical positions today?

Many say “no.” Those who reject the Bible in general

as a source of ethical direction would, of course, also

reject the Leviticus passages. Others who use the Bible

as at most the source of guiding principles would find

these laws much too specific. But things are seldom

that simple. When Christians search the Bible for guid-

ing principles they often highlight “You shall love

your neighbor as yourself,” a saying that comes from

Leviticus 19:18 (part of the same Holiness Code!) and

that is used by Jesus (Matthew 19:19; 22:39; Mark

12:31, 33; Luke 10:27), Paul (Romans 13:9; Galatians

5:14), and James (James 2:8). As Erhard Gerstenberger

has written, “Leviticus consists of a peculiar mixture

of the most primitive taboo regulations, intricately

refined purity regulations, and lofty ethical norms.”

Mark Allan Powell poses the dilemma well: “The prob-

lem for interpreters is to discern which passages speak

of what Christians should regard as enduring or uni-

versal standards and which reflect matters specific to

the culture of Israel.”

The New Testament church

began that process.Thus some purity laws were set

aside—most notably those regarding dietary rules and

separation of Jews from Gentiles (Acts 10:9–29, e.g.),

but others such as the Leviticus laws on incest and

adultery have remained in force.

One criterion that the church has used to discern the

enduring or universal standards is to see what material

is used in the New Testament witness.

As we will see,

some commentators see that usage in the Romans, 1

Corinthians, and 1 Timothy texts discussed below.

As one interpreter has put it, “unlike dietary laws,

which are specifically overturned in the New Testament,

the proscription of homosexual activity specifically

remains in the New Testament.”

On the other hand,

as we shall also see, other interpreters have concluded

that while the New Testament prohibits certain kinds of

same-gender sexual behavior, it is silent on others.

Romans 1:26–27

Like other biblical texts, Romans 1:26–27 should not

be read in isolation from its larger contexts, both liter-

ary and historical.We shall discuss both of these con-

texts, beginning with the literary one.

The passage belongs within a rather lengthy portion of

Paul’s Letter to the Romans, extending from Romans

1:18 to 3:20.That section begins with the declaration:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against

all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their

wickedness suppress the truth” (1:18, NRSV). It is

important to bear in mind that in 1:18–3:20 Paul does

not, strictly speaking, carry on a doctrinal discussion.

What he is doing (within the larger purpose of the

letter as a whole) is exposing the situation of humani-

ty before God, thereby explaining the basis for the

wrath of God against all. When he has done that to his

satisfaction, he will make a complete turn-about at

3:21 to declare that “but now” the “righteousness of

God” has been revealed in the death and resurrection

of Christ, by means of which God justifies all who

believe in the gospel.

The two verses under discussion here should be read

within the context of 1:18–3:20, and more specifically

within 1:18–32.The comments that follow pertain to

the latter portion.

1.The section has to do with the Gentile world.

See especially those verses that speak of idolatry

(1:23, 25). Paul turns to Jewish accountability

before God in 2:17–3:8.

2.The idolatry of the Gentile world has provoked the

divine wrath, which expresses itself in God’s aban-

doning that world to its own destructive behavior.

The three-fold pairing of the verbs “exchanged” and

“gave them over” (NRSV) in 1:23–24, 1:25–26a,

and 1:26b–28 should probably be taken as one

dynamic, expressed in three different ways, rather

than as a sequence of three occasions.

3.The consequences of the idolatry of the

Gentiles—and their being abandoned to their own

devices—include foolish thinking and destructive

behavior (including such things as wickedness,

malice, murder, slander, insolence, rebelliousness

against parents, and much more). Here an interpre-

tive question arises. Does that larger context have

implications for our understanding of 1:26–27 in

particular? The literary context appears to favor the

view that indeed even in those verses a destructive

behavior is being referred to. But what that might

include is a matter to which we should return in

light of historical and philological considerations.

4. In order to make the point that the Gentiles

stand before God as condemned because of their

idolatry and their consequent behaviors, Paul

paints not only with a broad brush but also with

extremely dark, vivid colors. The behavior of

which he speaks in 1:18–32, including 1:26–27,

appears to apply to the Gentiles as a whole and as

something typical of them.That does not mean

that every single Gentile indulges in any one item

listed, but it means that Paul is being indiscrimi-

nate in describing how the Gentiles tend to be:

idolatrous, immoral, and violent.

5. All through 1:22–27 the indicative verbs in

Greek are in aorist (simple past) tense.The effect

is that Paul carries on his discourse as though he

is talking about something that happened at some

point in the past (

in illo tempore, “in that time” of

mythical origins) that explains the present. In

effect, he is saying that the way to account for

Gentile misbehavior in the present is that “ever

since the creation of the world” (1:20) the

Gentiles have had the opportunity to worship God,

but instead they have been idolatrous; and their

misbehavior flows from that.

Once these observations have been made concerning

literary matters, a host of interpretive issues arise. Not

least of them are historical and philological questions,

and the conclusions one draws from the answers to

those questions will vary.

One interpretive process might proceed as follows. In

order for Paul to paint the Gentile world with a broad

brush and with vivid, dark colors, it is convenient and

not particularly surprising that he would pick up and

use a familiar “topos” in Hellenistic Jewish tradition.

A familiar topos in that tradition is that, when a writer

wants to make a sweeping, negative statement about

Gentiles, he calls them idolaters and sexual deviants.

Common criticisms of the Gentiles are that they have

tendencies toward adultery

and that they indulge in

same-gender sexual activities, for nearly all of the

known Hellenistic Jewish texts that speak of and con-

demn same-gender sexual activities are directed

against Gentiles.

(Exceptions are texts that refer to

prior Old Testament passages.

) In fact, such activities

were often considered a Gentile vice.

Moreover,

instances in intertestamental and later Jewish literature

where idolatry and sexual misbehavior are linked

together specifically are cases where pederasty is being

condemned.

(Pederasty is an on-going relationship

between an adult man with a boy, in which the elder

assumes the active role, and the latter the passive, in

sexual relationships.

) Interpreters across the spec-

trum are in virtual agreement that, while pederasty

was not the only form of same-gender sexual activity

that the Hellenistic Jewish writers criticized, it was the

most obvious, most prominent, and most despicable.

It has also been maintained by some that the most

public and most severely criticized same-gender sexual

activities were not between persons of the same age

and class; in fact, according to some historians,

but

not all,

same-gender sexual activities between per-

sons of the same age and class are virtually unknown

in the sources (exceptions being adult male prostitu-

tion). If it is the case that Paul picks up and uses a

“topos” at Romans 1:26–27 to build a case, it can be

argued that it is not likely that the apostle envisions

actual situations in which two persons of the same

gender are committed to one another in a permanent,

committed, and loving relationship. Furthermore, the

fact that his statement is so sweeping indicates that he

is not directing his comments to a small minority of

the population who could be regarded as “homosexu-

als” today (a term not current in Paul’s day); rather, he

has the whole Gentile world in mind.There is plenty

of evidence in the sources to indicate that various

forms of same-gender sexual activity were practiced

and tolerated widely among Gentiles—from abusive

to non-abusive, one can assume. Paul includes all of

it in one category.

The person who holds such a view concerning

Romans 1:26–27, however, must acknowledge that,

when all is said and done, Paul does nevertheless

depict same-gender sexual activity known to him or

to his tradition in negative terms. Furthermore, he

places it at the top of the list of misbehaviors of the

Gentiles.

While that must be granted on all sides of

the discussion of human sexuality, the responses will

differ. From one point of view, the matter is settled:

“both idolatry and same-sex intercourse are singled

out by Paul as particularly clear and revolting examples

of the suppression of the truth about God accessible to

pagans in creation and nature.”

From another point

of view, the question remains open whether there is

any direct correlation between what Paul knows, envi-

sions, or imagines as same-gender sexual behavior

within this topos and what the Church is facing in our

time (permanent, committed, and loving relationships

between persons of the same gender). Do we have

“apples and apples” or “apples and oranges”?

Other interpretive issues, widely debated among inter-

preters, include the meanings of certain words and

phrases in Romans 1:26–27. Even to provide a literal

translation of these verses becomes a problem, since

the ways that a person translates the words and phrases

in question predetermines to some degree how he or

she will interpret them. One literal translation of

1:26b–27a would be: “their females exchanged the

natural use (

ten physiken chresin) for that which is con-

trary to nature (

para physin); likewise also the males,

putting aside the natural use (

ten physiken chresin) of the

female were consumed with passion in their lusts for

one another.” A comparison of this with other current

translations (e.g., the RSV, NIV, and NRSV) shows that

there are different ways to go.

There are two translation and interpretive problems to

mention in particular. First, what is the meaning of the

word

chresis (the dictionary form [nominative] of the

accusative used above,

chresin)? Its most basic meaning is

“use, usage,” but it is translated as “relations” (meaning

sexual relations) in the RSV and NIV and as “inter-

course” in the NRSV.

Yet one can wonder about the

nuances of the Greek term.The English terms “sexual

relations” and “sexual intercourse” imply a reciprocity

(or mutuality) that the Greek term does not necessarily

imply. Although there were certainly loving sexual rela-

tionships among persons in the Greco-Roman world, the

literature refers often to sexual activities that were any-

thing but that, and were in fact exploitive and casual.

Exhortations in the New Testament to husbands that they

should love their wives (Ephesians 5:25; Colossians

3:19; 1 Peter 3:7) cannot be passed over lightly.

Having made that point, however, the interpreter can

be asked:What term other than

chresis should Paul have

used to speak of sexual relationships? He used a term

current in the Greco-Roman culture of his day.

The other term under frequent discussion is the word

translated “nature” (

physis), as well as its adjectival form

(

physike,“natural”) and the phrase translated “contrary

to nature” (

para physin). Here the scholarly literature is

mixed. An investigation into Paul’s use of the terminol-

ogy elsewhere does not finally settle its meaning here.

He uses the adjectival form only twice, and both are in

these two verses. He uses “nature” (

physis) seven times

other than here. In those instances the term has a wide

range of meanings. Accordingly, it can refer to one’s

origins (“we who are Jews by nature,” Galatians 2:15);

to deny legitimacy to something (“beings that by

nature are not gods,” Galatians 4:8); to mean little

more than a custom (nature teaches that a man should

not have long hair, 1 Corinthians 11:14); and to mean

what the NRSV translates as “instinctively” (Romans

2:14; RSV and NIV have “by nature”). In still other

places the term refers to what is true to, or consistent

with, the order of things (branches grown from their

native tree, Romans 11:21, 24; males being born uncir-

cumcised “by nature,” 2:27).

What then would Paul mean when he speaks of natu-

ral, unnatural, and contrary to nature in this passage?

One response ready at hand among various inter-

preters is that “nature” in this context refers generally

to Genesis 1–2 and the created order.

Consequently,

it has been proposed that, for Paul, “nature” in

Romans 1:26–27 refers to “the material shape of the

created order,” and that sexual activity “contrary to

nature” is that which does not fit the norm of “the

anatomical and procreative complementarity of male

and female.”

Other interpreters have viewed the lan-

guage at stake here quite differently. It has been held,

for example, that for the ancients “nature” expresses

essentially that which is conventional, and that “unnat-

ural” is a synonym for what is “(seriously) unconven-

tional.”

Similarly, it has been maintained that,

specifically in the writings of Paul, “nature” is used in

ethical contexts and never in the sense of its meaning

in modern natural science.Whatever is in accord with

nature is true to its type, customary, or according to

the rules.

Other interpreters have focused not so much on the

word “nature” itself, since it has various shades of

meaning, but on the phrase translated here as “con-

trary to nature.” In their view, the translation of

para

physin

itself is flawed. It should not be translated “con-

trary to nature” but as “beyond nature” or “in excess

of what is natural.”

According to this view, same-

gender sexual activity was considered to be “the most

extreme form of heterosexual lust.”

For those who

maintain this view, their point can be supported by

giving attention to the words and phrases that follow.

The idolatrous Gentiles know no bounds. Since the

beginning of time, their men were and have been

“consumed in their passion” for one another.The verb

translated here as “consumed” (as in the RSV and

NRSV, but as “inflamed” in the NIV) is

ekkaio, and the

noun used for “passion” (RSV and NRSV, but “lust” in

the NIV) is

orexis. Both appear only here in the New

Testament. The verb has the meaning of being utterly

consumed by fire and can be used metaphorically not

only in connection with sexual passion but also in

regard to wrath and rage. It appears dozens of times in

Hellenistic Jewish texts,

as in Sirach 23:17 (23:16b

in English versions): “A fornicator will not cease until

fire utterly consumes him.”The noun for “passion”

has a pejorative, negative connotation in other Greek

sources,

as at Sirach 23:6 where gluttony is called

“passion of the belly” (

koilias orexis).That which is

“unnatural” or “beyond what is natural” is therefore

regarded as excessive, uncontrolled passion that trans-

gresses normality.

Here again, however, there is no unanimity among

interpreters.There are many passages that speak about

same-gender sexual activities, using the term “against

(or beyond) nature” (

para physin).

The problem with

drawing upon these passages for interpreting Romans

1:26–27 is that they do not brand any one kind of

behavior as “against (or beyond) nature.”

In any

case, it is certainly a matter of debate whether their

authors always had insatiable and addictive passions

in mind as they wrote.

This passage in Romans is distinctive in many respects,

and one that is especially significant is that it is the

only biblical passage that speaks of same-gender sexual

activity among females. In 1:26b Paul writes that

“their females exchanged the natural use (

ten physiken

chresin

) for that which is contrary to (or beyond?)

nature (

para physin).” He places that activity prior to the

similar activity of the males, and interpreters have

made various suggestions for the reason why. One

view is that it allows Paul “to give more emphasis to

the male perversion by referring to it in the latter part

of the sentence” and allows him to deal with the latter

“more fully.”

Another is that the female activity he

has in mind was more shocking, and so by mention-

ing it first Paul employed “a rhetorical strategy adapted

to his cultural context: lead with one’s strongest

suit.”

Whatever the reason, it is again the case that

Paul makes a sweeping claim about the Gentiles—not

to a small percentage of them that would be identified

today as homosexual persons. “Their females,” from

early on, behaved and have behaved in disgusting

ways. Paul does not spell out exactly what he has in

mind. Is he speaking of abusive behavior? Or does he

mean that their behavior is “contrary to (or beyond)

nature” in the sense that the females of the Gentile

world “confounded societal categories of gender that

classify all females as passive, subordinate recipients of

penetration” and became like males, “trying to tran-

scend the passive, subordinate role accorded to them

by nature by attempting to take on a dominant, pene-

trating role”?

In fact, is it possible that he is not

speaking here of same-gender sexual activity among

females at all? After all, he does not say that the

females indulged in same-gender activity, but only

exchanged what is customary for what is

para physin.

There are interpreters who maintain that here Paul is

referring to an inordinate desire of females within

marriage,

although that is certainly a minority view.

The fact that Paul speaks of female same-gender sexual

activity in this passage undercuts the claim that the

only form of same-gender activity Paul has in mind is

pederasty. For some interpreters, that means that in

this passage Paul speaks about same-gender sexual

activity, male and female, in a comprehensive way and

condemns it. Others would nuance that by repeating

what has been said above. Paul picks up a “topos” to

build a case against the Gentile world, in which all

kinds of sexual activity were practiced and tolerated.

According to him, they lived in an idolatrous and

therefore “false world” inhabited “equally by women

as well as by men.”

One final matter should be touched upon before leav-

ing this text.The closing words of 1:27 speak of “the

due penalty for their error.” According to one popular

view, Paul is speaking here of AIDS as a consequence

of homosexual behavior.Three things can be said in

response. First, if that is the case, one must conclude

that these words from Paul could not have been under-

stood by readers until late in the twentieth century

when AIDS became a well-known and widespread dis-

ease; the verse was meaningless for nearly two thou-

sand years. Second, on the world scene HIV infection

has been transmitted more by heterosexual than

homosexual activity. And third, it has been spread not

only by sexual contact but also by other means as well

(infected blood supplies, infected instruments and

needles, etc.). As commentaries usually say, “their

error” in the phrase most likely refers to idolatry, and

the “penalty” to their abandonment to their own

destructive behavior.

It is helpful in interpreting this passage to ask the ques-

tion, “Why does Paul bring up the matters he deals

with in Romans 1:26–27? Is he aware of behavioral

problems in the Christian congregation(s) at Rome?”

The answer has to be that that is not likely to be the

case. As indicated earlier, these verses must be under-

stood within the larger context of Romans 1:18–32

and then of 1:18–3:20. Paul is discussing the wrath of

God against all humanity, Jew and Gentile alike, prior

to speaking of the good news of the righteousness of

God in Jesus Christ, by which salvation is made possi-

ble for all.The verses discussed here are not about

“homosexuality” per se but about same-gender sexual

activities that are a symptom of a fallen world.The

question before the church is whether the activities he

envisions as typical and characteristic of the Gentiles

are symmetrical with those forms of same-gender sex-

ual activities that are currently under discussion.

1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10

One passage in 1 Corinthians figures prominently in

discussions of same-gender relationships:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not

inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be

deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male

prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy,

drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will

inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what

some of you used to be. But you were washed,

you were sanctified, you were justified in the

name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit

of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–11)

Paul had founded the congregation in Corinth, Greece,

having worked there from approximately the winter of

A.D. 50/51 until the summer of 52. Altogether his initial

missionary labor in the city lasted eighteenth months

(Acts 18:11).

Paul tells us that he is in Ephesus when

he writes the letter we call 1 Corinthians: “But I will stay

in Ephesus until Pentecost” (16:8). Pentecost is in the

spring of the year. After he leaves Ephesus he plans to

travel through Macedonia (northern Greece) on his way

to Corinth, where he may spend the next winter (16:5–7).

The question regarding the date of Paul’s writing is more

difficult, since the only time reference in the letter is that

Paul was writing before Pentecost—but in what year?

Paul had left Corinth in 52; he left Ephesus in 55. Giving

him time to travel to Ephesus and to hear about prob-

lems in Corinth, we have 53 as the earliest probable date

for 1 Corinthians.Thus Paul wrote somewhere between

53 and 55.

From Chloe’s “people” (slaves or employees;

1 Corinthians 1:11) Paul has received oral reports

about divisions in the community.The more immediate

reason for writing is a letter he has received from

Corinth (7:1). But Paul also has received a delegation

from the city (16:17). It is probable that the three men

in the delegation (Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus)

are waiting for Paul’s letter to take back with them to

Corinth.

It is even possible they brought with them

the letter referred to in 7:1.With the three men wait-

ing for his reply, Paul dictates 1 Corinthians.

The letter he dictates focuses on two items. First, in the

face of various disagreements, the letter is an extended

plea for unity. Second, many of the problems relate to

behavior, and the Corinthians have raised with Paul a

number of questions about how they as Christ-believers

should be conducting themselves.The questions deal

with real-life issues, including: sexual immorality

(someone is having relations with his father’s wife,

5:1–13), lawsuits between followers of Christ (6:1–11),

relations with a prostitute (6:12–20), and marital rela-

tionships (including instruction to the married, the

unmarried, widows, and those considering divorce,

7:1–40).Thus the letter is also an extended admonition

on what the Corinthians should and should not do.

The tone of admonition is evident in the first words of

6:9: “Do you not know?” Paul is telling them—once

again—what he has told them before.

The introduc-

tory words likely point to the fact that this material

was used catechetically in the early church, i.e., in

instruction for converts and for those already baptized.

The word “wrongdoers” (NRSV) is misleading.The

actual Greek term is

adikoi, “unjust” or “unrighteous,”

which indicates that the misbehavior also affects one’s

relationship with God. And so the persons who are

“unjust” “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (6:9).

The solemnity of that statement is carried into the

warning that introduces the list of activities that dis-

qualify one for the kingdom: “Do not be deceived!”

The words can also be translated, “Don’t go astray!”

They introduce a list of ten disqualifying behaviors.

Despite the NRSV translation, Paul in the Greek has

placed a negative in front of each term: “neither forni-

cators nor idolaters nor adulterers ….” This rhetorical

device

serves to highlight and draw attention to each

individual term.

Of the ten items listed in 6:9–10 three are of particu-

lar interest for our topic:

pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai.

The meaning of each of these words needs comment.

Pornos (the singular form of pornoi) means “one who

practices sexual immorality,

fornicator.”

While pornos

can be used to refer to a male prostitute, it is a gener-

al term that can be applied to a wide range of sexual

activities. Later in the same chapter, for example, Paul

adamantly opposes a Christian man who would join

his body to a prostitute (

porne, 6:15–16); such an

action is

porneia (6:13; i.e., immorality, unlawful sexu-

al intercourse), from which the Christian is to flee

(6:18). Already in chapter 5 Paul has used the term to

label the actions of a man living with his stepmother

(

porneia, 5:1). Since pornos is listed first, to be followed

by idolaters and adulterers, and since therefore it is

not immediately connected with terms referring to

same-gender sexuality, it does not seem to refer

specifically to same-gender sexual expression.

The next two terms (

malakoi and arsenokoitai) are much

more central to discussions regarding same-gender

sexual activity. Although some interpreters consider the

two words to be unrelated to one another, the usual

view is that they are indeed linked (and that is the

view expressed here), and therefore each term sheds

light on the other. The word

malakos (singular for

malakoi) is the ordinary Greek word for “soft,” and it

has that meaning within the New Testament writings

(Matthew 11:8; Luke 7:25). The term was also used,

however, in a moral sense already by Aristotle to refer

to persons who lack moral self control.

Beginning

with the KJV (1611), the term has also been translated

as “effeminate.”

With an eye toward the second of the two words,

translators and interpreters in modern times have con-

sidered the term to have a sexual connotation. The

first edition of the RSV (1946) translated the two

terms (

malakoi and arsenokoitai) together, combining

them into one term, “homosexuals.” This was revised

later so that the 1971 edition read “sexual perverts.”

Several other English versions have also combined the

two Greek words to designate one thing. The NEB

(1961) translated them together to mean persons

“guilty of…homosexual perversion.”The TEV (1966)

has “homosexual perverts.” The first edition of the

NAB (1970) has “sodomites” (for the second edition

of this version, 1986, see below). The REB (1989) has

“sexual pervert.”

Most translations, however, use two terms at this place.

Following the various versions in chronological order,

the translations are as follows (the first noun referring

malakoi and the second to arsenokoitai):

KJV (1611): “nor effeminate, nor abusers of

themselves with mankind.”

ASV (1901): “nor effeminate, nor abusers of

themselves with men.”

JB (1966): “catamites, sodomites.”

NASB (1960): “nor effeminate, nor homosexuals.”

NIV (1973): “nor male prostitutes nor homo-

sexual offenders.”

NKJV (1982): “nor homosexuals, nor

sodomites.”

NJB (1985): “the self-indulgent, sodomites.”

NAB (1986): “nor boy prostitutes nor practic-

ing homosexuals.”

NRSV (1989): “male prostitutes, sodomites.”

As can be seen, the translations differ widely. It should be

pointed out that even when the term “homosexuals” is

used, there is a vast difference between “homosexuals,”

“practicing homosexuals,” and “homosexual offenders.”

The two Greek terms are no doubt related, but just

how they relate is debated. In the standard Greek-

English lexicon of the New Testament used today, the

term

malakos is said to pertain here “to being passive in

a same-sex relationship,

effeminate.”

The other term,

arsenokoites (the singular of arsenokoitai), on the other

hand, is said to refer to “a male who engages in sexual

activity with a person of his own sex,

pederast,” referring

to the “one who assumes the dominant role.”

The

entries in the lexicon for these terms illustrate how dif-

ficult it is to pin down the precise meanings of these

two Greek terms.The words “effeminate” and “ped-

erast” (both in bold italics in the lexicon) are consid-

ered “formal equivalents” for the terms in question,

according to the way the lexicon has been composed.

But there is a big difference between rendering the pas-

sage to say that “the effeminate and pederasts” will not

inherit the kingdom of God and rendering it to say, in

a general way, that persons who are passive and domi-

nant in a same-gender sexual relationship will not

inherit the kingdom.

Discerning the meaning of the word

arsenokoites is partic-

ularly difficult, since it does not exist in any known

sources prior to Paul’s own use.Various interpreters

have sought to get at its most likely linguistic origins

and meaning. In recent scholarship there appears to be

a consensus that the term was coined—either by Paul

or within Hellenistic Judaism before him—from the

words “male” (

arsen) and bed (koite) that appear in each

of the two Leviticus verses in the Greek Old Testament

(the Septuagint) that have been discussed above. In

Leviticus 18:22 two words separate the pair, but in

20:13 the two words occur next to each other.

When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 6:9, therefore, he

coined a term—or picked up a current term—that has

its background in reflection on those passages in

Leviticus.Thus he appears to presuppose the ongoing

relevance of the Leviticus passages, giving them an

application to what he has observed in his own time.

Interpreters are divided, however, concerning the

range of applicability that the terms used here will

bear. Some conclude that Paul refers to homosexual

activity in a general sense. If that is so, he uses the two

terms to speak, respectively, of the passive and active

partners in male homosexual relations.

On the other

hand, there are interpreters who have concluded that

the terms have a more specific meaning in light of the

predominant overt same-gender sexual activity in

Greco-Roman culture. According to this view, the

malakoi were the prepubescent boys used in pederasty,

and the

aresenokoitai were those who kept them for their

sexual favors.

Still others suggest that the former

were prostitutes (“call boys”), and the latter their cus-

tomers.

Further, it has been suggested that the for-

mer could be male prostitutes, and the latter could be

men who engage in same-gender sexual relations in

general.

Finally, it has been said that the terms are

too vague and should not be used for generalizations

beyond Paul’s experience and world.

100

This state of affairs makes it all the more difficult

to translate the two terms into modern English.The

translation of the terms as “male prostitutes” and

“sodomites” of the NRSV and “male prostitutes” and

“homosexual offenders” of the NIV illustrate the dif-

ficulty. If the term

malakoi means “male prostitutes,” it

does not then refer in general to those who take on

the passive role in a same-gender sexual encounter.

Likewise, if the term

arsenokoitai refers to “homosexual

offenders,” it does not thereby refer to “sodomites”

in general—unless the NIV translators intended to

mean that all males who take on the active role in

same-gender sexual encounters are “offenders.”

There are larger issues at stake concerning what Paul

says in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11. How much can be

inferred from the context, both immediate and more

broadly in Scripture? According to one approach, the

larger context of these three verses helps to explain

why such relationships are not allowed, according to

Paul.They are not allowed because they are not monog-

amous, opposite-gender marriages (7:1–6; this is also

a typical ancient Jewish approach). For Paul any other

genital expression is

porneia (immorality; 1 Corinthians

6:12–20; 7:2). And why is that so? Paul does not

answer that question at the beginning of chapter 6, but

in 6:16 he quotes Genesis 2:24 that “the two shall be

one flesh.” He thus takes his readers to the Genesis cre-

ation stories and perhaps implies that what he says in 1

Corinthians 6:9–11 is based on his understanding of

God’s will revealed in creation, an argument that is

more clearly seen in Romans 1. Jesus, too, quotes

Genesis 2:24 as well as Genesis 1:27 (Mark 10:6–9).

According to another approach, the context for these

three verses is more limited, and the reference to

Genesis can be seen differently. The context has to do

with relationships and behaviors within the Christian

community, and that is a sufficient interpretive frame.

One person (or perhaps more than one) is taking oth-

ers to civil courts to settle disputes (6:1–8). Others

claim that their presumed freedom from the law

allows them to say, “All things are lawful for me”

(6:12), and therefore fornication and sexual relation-

ships with prostitutes are permissible (6:13–16).

Concerning the latter, Paul insists that Christians are

“members” of Christ and are “united” with him.

Union with a prostitute entails a union with her

(6:16, quoting Genesis 2:24 as support) and, by

implication, severance from Christ. Paul’s reference to

Genesis 2:24 is seen then as an appeal to a biblical text

concerning the consequences of sexual intercourse (an

indissoluble union); he does not make use of the

Genesis text as a basis for claiming that same-gender

sexual activity is contrary to the divine intent for all

men and women. (Paul might indeed have thought

that way, if asked about it, but he does not make the

point here.) In any case, 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, like

those before and after it (6:1–8, 12–16), is about rela-

tionships and behaviors within the Christian commu-

nity. It consists of a declaration that the “unjust” or

“unrighteousness” (

adikoi, 6:9) will not inherit the

kingdom of God.The list that follows illustrates those

who belong to the

adikoi (ten kinds of persons in both

the Greek and the NRSV).

Whatever the activity Paul has in mind, he writes, “And

this is what some of you used to be” (1 Corinthians

6:11, along with other things listed in 6:9–10).What

exactly such previous activities were is the nucleus of

the debate over these verses.The more generally one

understands the references in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11,

the more applicable the passage is to today’s situation.

The more narrowly one defines the references to pros-

titution, pederasty, and/or to the call-boy, the less

applicable the passage is.

We encounter similar decisions when we turn to

1 Timothy 1:9–10. 1 Timothy is a deutero-Pauline

work, meaning that the document was probably

written in the 90s of the first century by someone

other than Paul to update him for a new era.

101

This means understanding that the law is laid

down not for the innocent but for the lawless

and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for

the unholy and profane, for those who kill

their father or mother, for murderers, fornica-

tors, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers,

and whatever else is contrary to the sound

teaching. (1 Timothy 1:9–10)

The interpretive key is, once more, three words—two

of them already encountered in 1 Corinthians:

pornoi,

arsenokoitai, and the new term, andrapodistai.These three

words are translated in modern versions as follows,

saying that “the law is laid down” for:

KJV: “whoremongers, for them that defile

themselves with mankind, for menstealers.”

ASV: “fornicators, for abusers of themselves

with men, for menstealers.”

RSV: “immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers.”

NASB: “immoral men and homosexuals and

kidnappers.”

NEB: “fornicators, perverts, kidnappers.”

JB: “those who are immoral with women or

with boys or with men.”

TEV: “the immoral, for sexual perverts, for

kidnappers.”

NAB (1st ed.): “fornicators, sexual perverts,

kidnapers.”

NIV: “adulterers and perverts, for slave traders.”

NKJV: “fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers.”

NJB: “the promiscuous, homosexuals, kidnapers.”

NAB (2d ed.): “the unchaste, practicing homo-

sexuals, kidnapers.”

NRSV: “fornicators, sodomites, slave traders.”

REB: “fornicators, perverts, kidnappers.”

Pornos (the singular of pornoi) could refer, as we have

seen, to a wide range of sexual behavior. Although it

could at times mean “male prostitute,” the more obvi-

ous meaning in most places in the New Testament and

in the only occurrence of the word in the Septuagint

(Sirach 23:17)

102

is that of a sexually immoral person

in general—but that will be part of the interpretive crux

(see below). We have, in addition, seen that the second

term,

arsenokoites (the singular of arsenokoitai) is usually

understood to refer to the active partner in a male

same-gender relationship, although there is not univer-

sal agreement on the kind of relationship involved.

The third term is

andrapodistes (the singular of andrapodistai),

which is translated in the standard Greek lexicon as

“one who acquires persons for use by others,

slave-dealer,

kidnapper.” The editor indicates that for our passage per-

haps the meaning is “procurer.”

103

The term occurs

only this one time in the New Testament.

There are two basic approaches to understanding how

these three words relate to each other and therefore

what, if anything, they have to say regarding same-

gender relationships.The first approach is to take the

three words together. In this approach the

arsenokoites

designates the active partner in the homosexual rela-

tionship. He hires the

pornos, understood as a male

prostitute, to satisfy his desires.There is certainly no

sense of an equal relationship.

How, then, does the third term fit in? Its basic mean-

ings are slave-dealer or kidnapper. In our world those

terms designate two different concepts, but in the first

century they were similar in meaning. A person was

kidnapped, normally, not for ransom or to avoid a

court-ordered custody arrangement, but to be sold

into slavery. Moreover, one market for an attractive boy

or girl was prostitution.Thus, in this first approach,

the kidnapper or slave dealer is the one who provides

the

pornos, who is used by the arsenokoites.This view,

developed particularly by Scroggs, is summarized in

his translation of 1 Timothy 1:10: “male prostitutes,

males who lie [with them], and slave-dealers [who

procure them].”

104

Thus this list in 1 Timothy does

not condemn same-gender sexual relationships in gen-

eral, but only that specific form of pederasty that con-

sisted of enslaving boys or youths for sexual purposes,

and the use of these boys by adult males.

The second approach considers the three terms as

independent of each other.That will mean that

pornoi

has a more generic meaning. As indicated above, while

the term can be used to refer to a male prostitute, it is

a general term that can be applied to a wide range of

sexual activities.

105

Then too the term andrapodistai

means simply “kidnappers,” without any connotation

of involvement in prostitution.This leaves

arsenokoitai as

the only term needing further consideration. Here,

once again, the conclusions of interpreters differ. For

some, the term means “homosexuals” (even though

the term would not have been understood in antiqui-

ty).

106

For others, it does not mean “homosexuals”

per se, but refers to persons who are actively engaged

in same-gender sexual relationships.

107

And for still

others, it refers to persons involved in pederasty.

108

It is common, if not universal, for interpreters to draw

attention to connections not only between 1 Timothy

1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 (on which it is most likely

dependent for the word

arsenokoitai), but also between 1

Timothy 1:8–11 and Old Testament law. The author of

the Pastorals writes at 1:8–9: “Now we know that the

law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means

understanding that the law is laid down not for the

innocent but for the lawless and disobedient ….”

Specifically, as interpreters have pointed out, those

denounced in 1:9–10 are persons who break the Ten

Commandments (Exodus 20:1–16). Correlations can

be drawn as follows: lawless and disobedient (Exodus

20:1), godless and sinful (20:2), unholy and profane

(20:7), parent killers (20:12), murderers (20:13),

fornicators and

arsenokoitai (meaning sodomites, per-

verts, or pederasts, 20:14), slave traders (20:15), and

liars, perjurers (20:16).

109

Whatever the specific

meanings of

pornoi and arsenokoitai, they are together

considered persons who break the commandment

against adultery—whether that means that they break

the marriage vow or (by extension) are unchaste.

Final Observations

The question posed at the beginning was: How is it

that biblical scholars, studying the same texts and

using comparable methods of interpretation, come

to different conclusions in regard to what the Bible

teaches concerning homosexuality? In response to

this, the following points can be made.

1. As far as we can tell, the biblical writers knew nothing

about “homosexuality” as a sexual orientation.The con-

cepts of “homosexuality,” “homosexual,” “heterosexuali-

ty,” and “heterosexual” are modern, first articulated in

the latter part of the nineteenth century.

110

As strange as

it may sound, it can be said that the Bible teaches noth-

ing concerning homosexuality.

2. Having said that, however, the Bible does have

things to say about sexual relationships between men

and women and between persons of the same gender.

In regard to the latter, the “fault line” between inter-

preters is a narrow one, but it is very real. On the one

hand, there are interpreters who—on reading the texts

with care—conclude that, even if the passages in

Genesis 19:1–11 and Judges 19:16–30 are set aside

(or at least placed on the periphery), the remaining

passages speak clearly of same-gender sexual relation-

ships as inherently prohibited. One need not narrow

the matter down to any particular kind or kinds of

same-gender sexual relationships.The relationships are

themselves “against nature” and contrary to the will

of God expressed in creation from the beginning.

Other interpreters—on reading the texts with care

also—conclude, however, that the same passages pose

challenges. Those in Leviticus seem to be the clearest

at the purely descriptive level, but as the discussion

above has shown, some interpreters question their rel-

evance beyond their time and place.There is a broad

consensus among interpreters that the term

arsenokoitai

(1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10), used by Paul

and by the author of the Pastorals, is based on the two

texts in Leviticus, but that would not necessarily mean

that the Leviticus passages are picked up as normative

for Christians in the New Testament. It is possible that

whoever coined the term (Paul or a predecessor) used

it in a general way to refer to a specific type of same-

gender activity that was highly visible and repugnant

in his own time. In the final analysis, “the etymology

of a word is its history, not its meaning.”

111

3.The difference between interpreters should not be

understood as a conflict between those who seek to be

“true to Scripture” and those who seek to “twist the

Bible” to their own liking. The disagreements are gen-

uine. Nor is one approach intrinsically more “conserva-

tive” and the other more “liberal.” It is instructive here

to recall that in his translation of the New Testament in

1521 Martin Luther translated

arsenokoitai (1 Corinthians

6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10) as

Knabenschänder (“pederasts”),

which is often considered today the “liberal” (“innova-

tive” or “revisionist”) rendering of the word, but he

translated

malakoi as Weichlinge (which can mean “weak-

lings,” “soft ones,” even “effeminate ones”), which

could be considered the “conservative” (KJV) render-

ing. This illustrates how labels like “conservative” and

“liberal” are both meaningless and inappropriate.

4.The Bible is the primary place to which Christians

turn to discern God’s will, but on the basis of the fore-

going paragraph, it should be clear that decisions

within and for the church concerning “homosexuali-

ty” and its attendant issues cannot be arbitrated by

biblical scholars alone.Their role must remain modest.

They are able to help clarify issues by bringing evi-

dence, arguments, and proposals to the table. But final-

ly their contributions are only one part of a larger dis-

cussion among those who seek the mind of Christ in

the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

American Standard Version (ASV), Jerusalem Bible (JB),

King James Version (or “Authorized Version,” KJV), New

American Bible (NAB), New American Standard Bible

(NASB), New English Bible (NEB), New International

Version (NIV), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), New King James

Version (NKJV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV),

Revised English Bible (REB), Revised Standard Version

(RSV),Today’s English Version (TEV).

Their similarities are discussed by Claus Westermann,

Genesis 12–36:A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion

(Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985), 297.

Gerhard von Rad, Genesis:A Commentary, Old Testament

Library, rev. ed., trans. John R. Marks (Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1972), 218.

Westermann, Genesis 12–26, 300.

James D. Martin, The Book of Judges (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1975), 206; J. Alberto Soggin, Judges:A

Commentary, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster

Press, 1981), 288.

Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation Commentary

(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 164. A similar review of

Old Testament texts is made by von Rad, Genesis, 217–18.

Frederick W. Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New

Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed. (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 2000), 102. An explanatory

comment is added to the translation: “i.e., as humans solic-

iting sexual relations with transcendent figures.”

J. N. D. Kelley, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, Harper’s New

Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row,

1969), 258.

Ibid., 258; Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter,Word Biblical

Commentary 50 (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 54.

Soggin, Judges, 282.

Martin, Judges, 206.

Cf. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament:

Community, Cross, New Creation:A Contemporary Introduction to New

Testament Ethics

(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996),

385; 381; Martti Nissinen,

Homoeroticism in the Biblical World:

A Historical Perspective

, trans. Kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 1998), 45–52.

Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice:Texts and

Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 78. Gagnon

adds that the Yahwistic material in Genesis 2–3 “gives etio-

logical sanction only for marriage and sex between male

and female.”

Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 48.

See Ibid., 37–38; Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus,

The New International Commentary on the Old Testament

(Grand Rapids:Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979), 9–11.

This position goes back to the work of Julius Wellhausen

in the nineteenth century (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der

historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments [Berlin: Georg Reimern,

1889]). See also Phyllis Bird, “The Bible in Christian Ethical

Deliberation concerning Homosexuality: Old Testament

Contributions,” in Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of

Scripture, ed. David L. Balch (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans,

2000), 149 (n. 16); she acknowledges that both chapters 18

and 20 show stages of growth.

So Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, Anchor Bible 3A (New

York: Doubleday, 2000), 1361–64; and Wenham, Leviticus,

13: “A much earlier date [than post-exilic] is required by

the evidence.” See also Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness

Code:An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in

Leviticus 17–26,Vetus Testamentum Supplement 67 (Leiden: E.

J. Brill, 1996), 202–07.

See Martin Noth, Leviticus, trans. J. E. Anderson;The Old

Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965),

128. For a brief history of the discussion, see Walter C.

Kaiser, Jr., “The Book of Leviticus,” The New Interpreter’s Bible,

ed. Leander E. Keck; 12 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press,

1994–2002), 1:993–95; and Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual

Practice,111–12 (n. 179).

Both quotations are from Terence E. Fretheim, “The Old

Testament and Homosexuality”

(http://www.thelutheran.org/0105/page55.html).

On chapter 20 as a further development of chapter 18

see Bird, “The Bible in Christian Ethical Deliberation,”

150–54; Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 37; Erhard S. Gerstenberger,

Leviticus, trans. Douglas W. Stott;The Old Testament Library

(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1996), 288–89.

So too Mark Allan Powell, “The Bible and

Homosexuality,” Faithful Conversation: Christian Perspectives on

Homosexuality

, ed. James M. Childs, Jr. (Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 2003), 23.

Erhard Gerstenberger, “t‘b,” Theological Lexicon of the Old

Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, trans. Mark

E. Biddle; 3 vols. (Peabody: Henrickson Publishers, 1997),

3:1430.The term is found frequently in Deuteronomy (17

times), Proverbs (21 times), and Ezekiel (43 times).

Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 44.

Endnotes

See, e.g., George R. Edwards, Gay/Lesbian Liberation:

A Biblical Perspective (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1984), 64–69;

H. Kimball Jones, To w ard a Christian Understanding of the Homosexual

(New York: Association Press, 1966), 69; Letha Dawson

Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Is the Homosexual

My Neighbor? A Positive Christian Response,rev. ed. (San Francisco:

HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 63–66. For additional refer-

ences, see Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 129

(n. 202). On the existence of homosexual cultic prostitu-

tion, see Gagnon, pp. 100–08.

Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 39 (and nn. 10 and 11), 41.

Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian

Tradition (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1975), 30. Gagnon,

The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 108–09, uses the existence of

male cultic prostitution as an argument against positive

same-gender relationships: since cultic relations were the

most socially acceptable same-gender relations in the

Ancient Near East, he argues, the fact that they were for

Israel an abomination highlights how disgraceful Israel con-

sidered other same-gender relations.

Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 132–33, lists five,

but he does not himself adopt this position.

Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1567–68, 1750, 1785. Cf. also

Samuel E. Balentine, Leviticus (Louisville: John Knox Press,

2002), 159. Other interpreters who share this view are list-

ed in Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 132 (n. 208).

Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1750.

Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming:An Evangelical

Response to Homosexuality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox

Press, 1998), 45; cf. Bird, “The Bible in Christian Ethical

Deliberation,” 151. But Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual

Practice, 142, identifies the “inability to procreate and misuse

of semen” as important secondary factors underlying the

position of Leviticus.

John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay

People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the

Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1980), 100–01. So also Victor Paul Furnish, “What Does the

Bible Say about Homosexuality?” in Caught in the Crossfire:

Helping Christians Debate Homosexuality, ed. Sally B. Geis and

Donald E. Messer (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 57–66.

Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 42–44.

Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming, 43–44.

Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual

Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1983), 72.

Daniel Boyarin, “Are There Any Jews in ‘The History of

Sexuality,’?” Journal of the History of Sexuality 5 (1995): 341–48.

See the remarks by Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice,

138–39, 142.

Conclusions reached by two advocates of fuller accept-

ance: Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition,

59–60; H. Darrell Lance, “The Bible and Homosexuality,”

American Baptist Quarterly 8 (1989): 145.

Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 136; see also

Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 42.

Frederick J. Gaiser, “Homosexuality and the Old

Testament,” Word & World 10 (1990): 164.

Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 42–44.

Bernadette J. Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian

Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1996), 294.

The complementarity of the sexes is the main point for

Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice,at many places in his

discussion, e.g. pp. 142, 254, 256, 257, 264, 266, 488.

Reflections are developed along this line by Luke Timothy

Johnson, Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church

(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 146; Bird, “The Bible in

Christian Ethical Deliberation,” 155; Nissinen, Homoeroticism,

123–28; and Alice Ogden Bellis and Terry L. Hufford, Science,

Scripture, and Homosexuality (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2002),

75–77.

Johnson, Scripture and Discernment, 146 (italics in the

quotation).

Examples include the modern understandings of the sun

as the center of the universe, the age of the earth, the rela-

tionships between species, races, and cultures, etc.

For discussion, see the section “Christian Anthropology in

Relation to Natural Science” in Emil Brunner, The Christian

Doctrine of Creation and Redemption (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,

1952), 79–88; and Philip J. Hefner, “The Human Being,”

Christian Dogmatics, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, 2

vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 1:337–39.

Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 254, 298–99; Choon-Leong Seow,

“Textual Orientation,” in Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality, ed.

Robert L. Brawley (Louisville:Westminster John Knox Press,

1996), 18.

Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 298–99.

Ibid., 9.

Powell, “The Bible and Homosexuality,” 24.

Marion L. Soards, Scripture and Homosexuality: Biblical Authority

and the Church Today (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,

1995), 18: “We must ask whether the New Testament text

has similar statements or remarks that would indicate that

the earliest Christians preserved particular elements of the

Levitical Holiness Code as valid instructions for Christian

life and thought.”

Gaiser, “Homosexuality and the Old Testament,” 165.

That Romans 1:18–32 is a critique of Gentiles is held

explicitly by interpreters across the spectrum.This includes

major commentaries: C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical

Commentary, 2 vols. (Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1975–79),

1:105 (“primarily the Gentiles”); James D. G. Dunn, Romans,

Word Biblical Commentary 38, 2 vols. (Dallas: Word Books,

1988), 1:51; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, Anchor Bible 33

(New York: Doubleday, 1993), 270; Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s

Letter to the Romans (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press,

1994), 33–38. Not all interpreters agree. For the view that

the section speaks about all humanity (or the human condi-

tion in general), not simply the Gentiles, cf. Brooten, Love

between Women, 203–14; and Hays, The Moral Vision of the New

Testament, 385.

A “topos” (directly from the Greek word topos) is a com-

mon theme or commonplace in speeches and letters. Cf.

David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment

(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), 172–74, 189.

Cf. the statement of Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 112: “Paul’s

thoughts have a background in Hellenistic Jewish tradition

and language….In his criticism of homoeroticism as such,

he does not present any independent ideas.” For a collection

of texts and references in Jewish literature to Gentiles as

immoral, cf. Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish

Identifiers: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud

(New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 54–58.

Wisdom of Solomon 14:22–27; Philo, On Abraham 135.

Some of the better known texts are: Letter of Aristeas 152;

Philo, Special Laws 3.37–42; Josephus, Against Apion 2.273–75;

Josephus, Antiquities 15.28–29; Testament of Naphtali 3.3–4;

Sibylline Oracles 3.596; 5.166.

Examples are passages that refer to the Sodom and

Gomorrah narrative (Genesis 19:1–11) and Leviticus 18:22

and 20:13, such as Philo, On Abraham 135–36; Josephus,

Antiquities 1.200; and other texts.The Mishnah text Sanhedrin

7.4 picks up the legislation of Leviticus 20:13 but would

have been written down later (ca. A.D. 200) than the writ-

ing of the books of the New Testament.

See Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 94, who cites texts.

These are in the Testament of Levi 17.11 and in the Sibylline

Oracles 3.586–600. Both documents are commonly thought

to have been composed in the second century B. C. In the

latter text there is a list of national groups that are said to

practice pederasty: the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Romans,

Greeks, Persians, Galatians, and all the people of Asia Minor!

A text commonly regarded as from late in the first century

A.D. that connects idolatry and pederasty (or perhaps the

rape of a child) is 2 Enoch 10.4. For texts, see Old Testament

Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols. (Garden

City: Doubleday, 1983–85), 1:794, 1:375, and 1:118,

respectively.

Loving a boy (pederasty) is considered superior to loving

a woman, according to Pausanias in Plato, Symposium 181b, c.

The relationship was usually terminated by the adult male

when the youth showed signs of reaching adulthood, partic-

ularly the onset of a beard. Cf. David M. Halperin, One

Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love (New

York: Routledge, 1990), 88.

Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, 126, et passim;

Nissinen, Homoeroticism,96–97; Gagnon, The Bible and

Homosexual Practice, 162.

Kenneth J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1978), 16, 202–03; Arno Karlen,

“Homosexuality in History,” in Homosexual Behavior:A Modern

Reappraisal, ed. Judd Marmor (New York: Basic Books, 1980),

79; Halperin, One Hundred Years, 21 (“reciprocal erotic desire

among males is unknown”); and Scroggs, The New Testament

and Homosexuality, 35. Dover writes: “On growing up, in any

Greek community, the eromenos [the boy in a pederastic

situation] graduated from pupil to friend, and the continu-

ance of an erotic relationship was disapproved, as was such

a relationship between coevals” (pp. 202–03).

Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 28–30,

70–87; idem, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (New York:

Villiard Books, 1994), 56–82.

This point is made in particular by Hays, The Moral Vision of

the New Testament, 388. Cf. also Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual

Practice, 264.

Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 337.

The meanings provided by Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon,

1089, are: “use, usage, usefulness, relations, functions,” and

to the last term the additional words are added: “esp. of sex-

ual intercourse.”

Plato, Laws 8.841a (where such acts are said to be fol-

lowed by a sense of shame); Philo, On the Virtues 30;

Athenagoras, On the Resurrection 21.4. For additional texts on

chrésis in Greco-Roman literature and discussion, cf. David

E. Fredrickson, “Natural and Unnatural Use in Romans

1:24–27: Paul and the Philosophic Critique of Eros,” in

Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture, ed. David L.

Balch (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 199–205.

C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, Black’s New Testament

Commentaries (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1971), 39;

Cranfield, Romans, 1:126; Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans,

Interpretation Commentary (Atlanta: John Knox Press,

1985), 41; Dunn, Romans, 1:65–66; Richard B. Hays,

“Awaiting the Redemption of Our Bodies:The Witness of

Scripture concerning Homosexuality,” in Homosexuality in the

Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville:

Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 8; idem, The Moral Vision

of the New Testament, 387; Brendan Byrne, Romans, Sacra Pagina 6

(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1986), 64, 69. Specific refer-

ence to creation and the Creator are found in 1:20 and 1:25.

That Paul is not referring here to “creation” or the “created

order,” see Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, 114–15;

Victor P. Furnish, “The Bible and Homosexuality: Reading

the Texts in Context,” in Homosexuality in the Church¸ed. Siker,

30; and Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 107.

Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 256 and 254. What

follows, then, is that by refusing to honor God as Creator,

the women in 1:26 and the men in 1:27 deny one of the

created purposes for their sexual lives, and they are there-

fore living out in their bodies their denial of God as Creator.

Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 105.

Oda Wischmeyer, “Physis und Ktisis bei Paulus: Die paulin-

ische Rede von Schöpfung und Natur,” Zeitschrift für Theologie

und Kirche 93 (1996): 371.

Dale Martin, “Heterosexism and the Interpretation of

Romans 1:18–32,” Biblical Interpretation 3 (1995): 343; D.

Fredrickson, “Natural and Unnatural Use in Romans

1:24–27,” 205.

Victor P. Furnish, “The Bible and Homosexuality,”

Homosexuality: In Search of a Christian Understanding, ed. Leon Smith

(Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1981), 13; D. Martin,

“Heterosexism,” 342.

Some examples from the Septuagint include Exodus 21:6;

Deuteronomy 29:20; 32:22; Numbers 11:1; Judges 15:5; 2

Samuel 22:9; 2 Chronicles 34:21, 25.

For examples, see Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott,

A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1940), 1558.

Some examples include Plato, Laws 1.636c; Testament of

Naphtali 3.4 (concerning Gentile behavior due to their idola-

try); Philo, Special Laws 3.39 (clearly a case of pederasty);

Josephus, Against Apion, 2.273; 2.275 (concerning certain

“pleasures” among the Greeks regarded as “against” or

“beyond nature”). For additional references, cf. Brooten,

Love between Women, 251 (n. 103).

For example, according to Brooten, Love between Women,

247: “At only three points does Philo use or imply the term

“contrary to nature” (para physin): (1) of relations between a

man and a woman during her menstrual period; (2) of rela-

tions between a man and a boy; and (3) of relations

between one species of animal and another.” On p. 251

(n. 103) Brooten summarizes various things that are consid-

ered para physin in ancient sources, including unnatural

desires, desire itself (several times in the sources), disease,

ownership of slaves, the eating of meat, and more.

Cranfield, Romans,1:125.

Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 301. Brooten, Love

between Women, 240, seems to favor this view, but offers other

possibilities as well.

Brooten, Love between Women, 241; cf. also Nissinen,

Homoeroticism, 108.

James E. Miller, “The Practices of Romans 1:26:

Homosexual or Heterosexual?” Novum Testamentum 37 (1995):

4–8, 10; and D. Fredrickson, “Natural and Unnatural Use in

Romans 1:24–27,” 201 (n. 15). Miller maintains that it is

only when the categories of homosexuality and heterosexu-

ality are assumed that 1:26 appears to speak of females hav-

ing sex with females.

Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, 115.

For a discussion of possible dates in relationship to the

famous Gallio inscription, see Anthony C.Thiselton, The First

Epistle to the Corinthians,The New International Greek Testament

Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000),

29–30. For a somewhat earlier date, see Ben Witherington

III, Conflict and Community in Corinth:A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary

on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids:Wm. B. Eerdmans,

1995), 71–73.

So also Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation

Commentary (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), 5; simi-

larly in Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 32, with other

theories on pp. 31–32. Witherington, Conflict and Community,

73, places the writing in 53 or 54.

Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, Sacra Pagina 7

(Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 4.

For other uses of the formula, “do you not know,”

see 3:16; 5:6; 6:3, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24.

Collins, First Corinthians, 235.

The technical name is polysyndeton.

Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon, 855.

Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 1150a.

Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon, 613.

Ibid., 135.

See the editor’s “Forward,” in ibid., viii.

The argument is particularly worked out by D. F. Wright,

“Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai

(1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984):

125–53. In addition,Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians,

445, argues for the Old Testament origin of kingdom of

God as well as all ten of the terms listed in 1 Corinthians

6:9–10. He denies, therefore, that the list is simply an ethi-

cal catalog taken over from the culture (p. 444); rather each

term designates a specific vice at Corinth (pp. 447–48 and

the literature cited there).

These include C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle

to the Corinthians, 2d ed. (London: A. & C. Black, 1971), 140;

Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1976), 108; Charles H. Talbert, Reading

Corinthians:A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2

Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 23; E. P. Sanders,

Paul (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 112–13;

Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New

York: Doubleday, 1997), 529–30; Gagnon, The Bible and

Homosexual Practice, 303–339.

Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,New

International Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.

Eerdmans, 1987), 243–44; Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste

Brief an die Korinther,4 vols. Evangelisch-katholischer

Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 7 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener Verlag, 1991–2001), 1:431–32; Witherington,

Conflict and Community, 166; Christian Wolff, Der erste Brief des

Paulus an die Korinther,Theologischer Handkommentar zum

Neuen Testament 7 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,

1996), 118; Herman C. Waetjen, “Same-Sex Sexual

Relations in Antiquity and Sexuality and Sexual Identity

in Contemporary American Society,” in Biblical Ethics &

Homosexuaity: Listening to Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley

(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 109–10;

J. Paul Sampley, “The First Letter to the Corinthians,” in

The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Keck, 10:858–59. According to

Collins, First Corinthians, 236, the term malakoi refers to “pas-

sive partners, often young boys, in homosexual activity,”

but the meaning of aresenokoitai is not explored.

Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, 106–09;Victor

P. Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues, 2d ed.

(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), 72; Graydon F. Snyder,

First Corinthians:A Faith Community Commentary (Macon: Mercer

University Press, 1992), 73; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor,

1 Corinthians, Doubleday Bible Commentary (New York:

Doubleday, 1998), 49; and Elisabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza, “

1 Corinthians,” in The Harper Collins Bible Commentary, ed. James

L. Mays (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000), 1081.

Hays, First Corinthians, 97.

100

Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 118.

101

On the questions of date and authorship, see Walter F.

Taylor, Jr., “1 and 2 Timothy, Titus,” in The Deutero-Pauline

Letters: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy,Titus, ed.

Gerhard Krodel, Proclamation Commentaries, rev. ed.

(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 59–93. The most

notable exception to deutero-Pauline authorship is enunciat-

ed by Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy,

2 Timothy,Titus, The New Testament in Context (Valley Forge,

Pa.:Trinity Press International, 1996), 3–33.

102

See, e.g., Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The

First and Second Letters to Timothy,The Eerdmans Critical

Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 87.

103

Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon, 76.

104

Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, 120.

105

Cf. Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy,

87, 99. For an argument against the term as designating a

male prostitute, see William L. Petersen, “On the Study of

‘Homosexuality’ in Patristic Sources,” in Studia Patristica 20, ed.

Elizabeth A. Livingstone (Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 284–85.

106

A.T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles,New Century Bible

Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982), 59;

George W. Knight III, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles¸ New

International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids:

Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982), 85–86; I. Howard Marshall, The

Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentry (Edinburgh:

T. & T. Clark, 1999), 378–80;William D. Mounce, Pastoral

Epistles,Word Biblical Commentary 46 (Nashville:Thomas

Nelson, 2000), 29, 39; Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second

Letters to Timothy, 99, 101.The latter also see 1Timothy at the

least in continuity with 1 Corinthians and likely using it.

107

Raymond F. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus:A Commentary,

New Testament Library (Louisville:Westminster John Knox

Press, 2002), 33 (“active homosexuals”—which presum-

ably does not include “heterosexuals” [in the modern sense]

who might be pederasts).

108

Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral

Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, Hermeneia

(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 22; Joachim Jeremias,

Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, Das Neue Testament Deutsch 9

(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 12; Lorenz

Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe, Herders Theologischer

Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 11/2, 3 vols. (Freiburg:

Herder, 1994–96), 1:22, 27.

109

Adapted from Arland J. Hultgren, I–II Timothy, Titus,

Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minneapolis:

Augsburg Publishing House, 1984), 57; see also Dibelius

and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 23; Nissinen, Homoeroticism,

114; Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy,

95–96; Collins, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, 30.

110

It is commonly thought that the term “homosexuality”

appeared for the first time in the writings of Karoly Benkert

(whose pseudonym was “Kertbeny”) of Vienna in 1869. Cf.

Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 143 (n. 23).The earliest entries for

both “homosexuality” and “homosexual” in English are

from 1892 in the The Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed., ed. J. A.

Simpson and E. S. C.Weinger, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1989), 7:345.

111

Quoted from Dale B. Martin, “Arsenokoites and Malakos:

Meanings and Consequences,” in Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality,

ed. Brawley, 119, who attributes the point to James Barr, The

Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press,

1961), 107–10.