So far (see previous posts on the Old Testament), we have seen that we cannot look to the specific Old Testament references to homosexuality nor to stories usually associated with homosexuality for assistance in our primary goal of discovering whether monogamous homosexual relationships are acceptable to God.  As we move to the New Testament, three things immediately strike the reader:  (1) none of the NT authors quote or refer to the OT laws about homosexuality; (2) there are no stories of the church dealing with homosexual individuals, even though we know it was absolutely pervasive in the prevailing culture; and (3) Jesus himself has absolutely nothing to say on the topic.

There are, in fact, only three verses that refer to homosexuality in the New Testament (Rom 1:18-27, 1 Cor 6:9-11 and 1 Tim. 1:8-11).  Most scholars agree that 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1 are ambiguous at best, leaving a single, fairly complex passage in Rom 1, which is an illustrative principle rather than a command, as our sole possible source of Biblical teaching about homosexuality.

1.1       The Cultural Context

Before we consider these passages, it is important to understand the Hellenistic cultural context, especially related to sexual practice amongst the Greeks and Romans.  Homosexuality was an accepted part of life in most parts of the Greco-Roman world[1].  Plato wrote:  “Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.”[2]  However, since it was such a vast empire, and each of the city-states and provinces had autonomy and diverse cultures, over a period of a few centuries, it is dangerous to generalise.  Yet, vast amounts of evidence exist regarding various culturally acceptable practices linked to homosexuality.

“To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes.  This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans.  It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation.  The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.  Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way.  An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans…. Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females.”[3]

In particular, a form of homosexuality known as pederasty (literally the “love of boys”) was widely practised.  This was invariably a voluntary relationship between an adult male and a young boy.  The adult male assumed the active sexual role, while the younger was passive (i.e. did not achieve orgasmic release – in fact, if he did he was often considered no better than a prostitute).  Key to understanding this practice is to understand both the pre-eminence of men especially in public life[4], as well as the Greco-Roman ideal of beauty which was focused almost exclusively on the young, androgynous male figure.  “Public culture of these centuries was male oriented, and the apposite intellectual and, indeed, effective partner to a male was another male…. in this all-male society the beauty of the male youth was, perhaps, the key symbol and organising centre for adult male eroticism” (emphasis in the original)[5].

Pederasty was not hidden, but openly practised, almost universally condoned, in some quarters extolled and seen by many as an ideal in the normal course of growing up.  Many of the adults engaged in pederasty would have been married.  Many of the youths involved submitted to this relationship as a means of being educated or of developing military prowess and skills.  Some of these relationships were possibly not of a sexual nature, especially those connected with gymnasiums and upper schools.  In fact, many philosophers argued that this love for others males was a higher love than the love of a man for a woman.  Protogones’ speech in Plutarch’s Erōtikos is indicative: “Genuine love has no connection whatsoever with the women’s quarters.  I deny that it is love that you have felt for women and girls, any more than flies feel love for milk or bees for honey…. But that other lax and housebound love, that spends its time in the bosoms and beds of women, ever pursuing a soft life, innovated amid pleasure devoid of manliness and friendship and inspiration - it should be proscribed.”[6]  As these young boys grew up, they would often swap their passive role for a more adult active role, seeking their own passive partner. 

In addition to voluntary pederasty, slave prostitution was also rife.  This involved boys being forced to provide sexual services for their masters or masters’ friends.  There were brothel houses filled with boys for this purpose, whilst others were household slaves.  “Apparently it was not uncommon to castrate such beautiful youths, in order to prolong their youthful appearance and therefore their usefulness for pederastic activities.”[7]  This form of pederasty is never defended in the ancient texts.

A third category was the voluntary prostitute, who deliberately presented himself as an effeminate call-boy.  This form of pederasty was normally treated with contempt in the literature.  A strong distinction was made between the higher (voluntary) and lower sorts of pederasty (prostitutes).  For example, in relation to the court case of a youth, Timarchus, the philosopher Aeschines explains about young boys: “To be in love with those who are beautiful and chaste is the experience of a kind-hearted and generous soul; but to hire for money and to indulge in licentiousness is the act of a man who is wanton and ill-bred.”[8]  As these call-boys grew older, many attempted to sustain their livelihood by adapting their appearance, removing bodily hair, using perfume and wearing their hair long with women’s clothing and jewellery.  Among several words used to slander such youths was malakos, a Greek adjective literally meaning “soft”, but metaphorically “effeminate”[9].  These youths are particularly vehemently attacked in the ancient texts. 

Many people in Greco-Roman times opposed pederasty in all its forms.  Jews specifically did.  The reasons include the fact that these young boys were effeminate and unmanly, were greedy and (in the case of the effeminate call-boys) had multiple lovers, thus provoking jealousy.  There were also concerns about abuse and the impact of these relationships on the boys.  These relationships were all characterised by gross inequality, impermanence, dehumanisation and potential humiliation.  Of all the accusations against pederasty, the most common was that it is contrary to nature, and the intended natural purpose of sex, which is procreation.

This seems to have been the only form of homosexuality known in Greco-Roman times.  There appear to be no texts of this era that refer to homosexual relationships existing between same-age adults[10].  The concept of a lifelong, loving relationship between two same-sex, equal partners was a completely foreign concept in NT times.  It is against this background that we can now look at the three NT texts that refer to homosexuality.

1.2       1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11

There are two Greek words, arsenokoitēs and malakos, used in 1 Cor 6, and arsenokoitēs is used in 1 Tim 1.  They have been translated variously as “homosexual offenders” (NIV), “perverts” (NIV), “sexual perverts” (Revised RSV), “effeminate” (KJV), “abusers of themselves” (KJV), “them that defile themselves with mankind” (KJV), “sodomites” (NKJV) and “homosexuals” (NKJV, NLT and RSV[11])[12].  The variation in translations is due to the fact that these are not well known terms, and are not the standard terms one would use in Greek to refer to homosexuals, same-sex relationships or to homosexual sexual acts.

Actually, “there was no word in classical, biblical or patristic Greek with the same meaning as the English word homosexual…. There appears to be no consciousness of a dichotomy such as the modern homosexual versus heterosexual.  There were names, however for persons who practised homosexual activity.  These included, for example, paiderastēs, pallakos, kinaidos, arrenomanēs, and paidophthoros.”[13]  There are also technical terms, such as the lover (erastēs), the beloved (erōmenos, paidika), to give the body for purposes of intercourse (charis, charidzesthai), as well as slang terms that could have been used to indicate various forms of culturally accepted homosexuality, or even homosexuality in general.  If it were Paul’s intention to indicate general homosexual activity as such, it is probable that he would have selected one of these terms.  Instead, he chooses to use obscure terms that are difficult to translate.

1.2.1       Malakos

Malakos literally means “soft”.  However, this makes no sense in the context of 1 Cor 6:9-10.

• “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes (malakoi) nor homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”  (NIV)

It makes more sense then to look at the metaphorical use of the term, best translated as “effeminate”, and in this case, in the masculine and plural.  These verses may simply be referring to the “passive” partner in a homosexual relationship, or to male prostitutes.  Some people understand them as referring to male sex slaves.  Given the cultural context outlined above, it is most likely to refer to the “passive” partner in a pedaristic relationship.  This makes even more sense in relation to the probable translation of arsenokoitēs (see below).

The difficulty is really that malakos is not a technical term to describe people involved in pederasty, and is an unusual choice by Paul.  However, there are a few precedents for this usage in ancient literature.  These include Socrates, who “thinks the base pederastic love seeks a person who is malthakon[14].  And the speaker in the Erōtikus[15] speaks of the willing youth consenting to pederastic intercourse as one who acts with malakia”[16].  “Thus the use of malakos would almost certainly conjure up images of the effeminate call-boy, if the context otherwise suggested some form of pederasty.” (emphasis in original)[17].  We must therefore turn our attention to an even more obscure word.

1.2.2       Arsenokoitēs

In both passages, the Greek word arsenokoitēs is used, in the masculine plural.

• “We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts (arsenokoitai), for slave traders and liars and perjurers-- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”  1 Tim 1:9-11 (NIV)

Of the few usages in ancient texts, it appears as if the NT instances are the earliest records of this term.  Paul may have actually coined its usage.  This word is a compound noun made up of two root words, arsen (“male”) and koitē (“sexual intercourse”)[18].  These are the two words used by the Septuagint (the Greek Scriptures that Jesus and the NT church used) to translate the unusual phrases related to homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20.  In Hebrew, the words are mishkav zekor (“lying with a male”).  By NT times, this Hebrew phrase had become almost a technical term for homosexuality (remembering that Hebrew also had no word for “homosexual”)[19].  However, as we have seen above, the cultural context of such usage was entirely related to abusive homosexuality, specifically to pederasty.  In order to establish if this is the correct translation of this word, we need to look at the context.

In 1 Cor 5 and 6, this context is most clear.  Paul is dealing with three specific issues of sinfulness that were manifest in the church at Corinth: (1) a man living with his father’s wife (5:1-5); (2) church members suing each other in civil court (6:1-8); and (3) church members going to female prostitutes and engaging in elicit, heterosexual sex (6:12-20).  There is no reference to homosexuality.  At the heart of Paul’s concern is the purity of the community.  He instructs the church to exclude sinful members, reminds them that they are washed and cleansed of their old pagan practices, and must leave them behind.  In order to make his point, he uses a standard literary device of the time, known as a “catalog of vices”[20].  In 1 Cor 5 and 6 there are actually three such lists.  It is easiest to see the flow of Paul’s usage of this device if these are laid out in a table format (all words from NIV, phrases under consideration left untranslated):

Its clear that Paul is using these lists as a device to support his main point.  As such, he is not so much concerned about the specific sins listed, but is using the items “as a foil to create the contrast between former impurity and present (desired) purity and to serve as a warning of the consequences of sinful living, of allowing further impurity into the community.”[21]  Having said that, these items are nevertheless considered sinful, and the translation of arsenokoitēs is still unclear.

Most of the 73 known uses of this term in the ancient texts[22] place it in lists of vices.  These lists often follow a set structure, usually listing sexual sins first, then violence and then others related to economics or injustice.  Where arsenokoitēs (and, in fact, malakos) appears in these lists it almost invariably occurs between sexual sins and those of social injustice and impropriety, and as such, since the translation is obscure, we do not know in which category to classify arsenokoitēs.  This placement appears deliberate, and as such could indicate that the term somehow relates to sexual injustice.  This would make sense of the context in which this term appears.  For example, the placement of arsenokoitēs just before “slave trader” in 1 Tim 1 is particularly appropriate, since, as we saw above, slaves were often used for homosexual sex in Greco-Roman times.

Of course, the literal etymology implies it is sexual, but there are two specific texts which indicate that this may not be the only meaning:

• “Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life). Do not arsenokoitēs, do not betray information, do not murder.  Give one who has laboured his wage.  Do not oppress a poor man.”[23]
• “And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoitēs, the thief, and all of this band...”[24]

In neither of these texts do we find any hint of sexuality.  In a detailed analysis of many related texts, Dale Martin indicates that the word usually infers some form of economic injustice, most probably related to male prostitution.  He concludes:  “I am not claiming to know what arsenokoités meant, I am claiming that no one knows what it meant.  I freely admit that it could have been taken as a reference to homosexual sex.  But given the scarcity of evidence and the several contexts just analyzed, in which arsenokoités appears to refer to some particular kind of economic exploitation, no one should be allowed to get away with claiming that ‘of course’ the term refers to ‘men who have sex with other men.’  It is certainly possible, I think probable, that arsenokoités referred to a particular role of exploiting others by means of sex, perhaps, but not necessarily, by homosexual sex.  The more important question, I think, is why some scholars are certain it refers to simple male-male sex in the face of evidence to the contrary.  Perhaps ideology has been more important than philology.”[25]

1.2.3       The “plain meaning” of the text

It might be argued that the approach taken above has made somewhat of a meal of the translation and context of these two verses.  It could be further argued that this seems to be a convoluted exegesis, and that it would be much simpler to take the texts at “face value”.  While to be as simple as that has an elegance to it, I would argue that it is incorrect in this case.  The main reason is that the words used in this text have no “plain meaning”.  They are not the obvious choices of words if Paul’s intention was to prohibit homosexual acts in general (let alone loving homosexual relationships).

There is another reason for being cautious of such a simplistic approach.  If we were to apply that thinking to other sections of the NT, we would say that women must wear head coverings (1 Cor 11:6, 10) or even full veils at church, be silent (1 Cor 14:25, 1 Tim 2:12), and not to wear any jewellery (1 Tim 2:9), while men “clearly” (“according to nature”) would need to have short hair (1 Cor 11:14)[26] (It is interesting that the examples just listed come from the same two books we are currently considering).  We’d also have to accept slavery as normal (Eph 6:5).  It seems that, similarly to the Levitical laws, we have become quite selective in which Biblical verses we apply literally, in their “plain meaning”, and which we are willing to interpret according to culture.  We need to be careful of simply applying the Bible to our preconceived judgments and prejudices.  In doing so, we go against the very principles of interpretation that we established at the start of this journey.  In applying those principles to these two passages, I believe its clear that we can only come to one conclusion.

1.2.4       Conclusion

This has been a fairly complex study of just two words.  In summary, it would appear that Paul wants to highlight the evil nature of all forms of involvement in pederasty and abusive sexuality, including prostitution, effeminate call-boys, those who purchase sex and those who trade in sex slaves.  All forms of abusive relationships that were culturally acceptable in Greco-Roman times are seen as reprehensible to God – the perpetrators are warned in dire terms that they will “not inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9, 10).  However, this can in no way be taken as a blanket condemnation of all homosexual activity, and especially has no relevance to lifelong, loving homosexual relationships. 

It may be that Paul was opposed to any form of homosexual behaviour, but we cannot use these two verses to make such a claim.  Similarly to the OT texts we have looked at, it is only by reading into the text that any condemnation of mutual, consensual, adult homosexuality can be found.

'it is only by reading into the text that any condemnation of mutual, consensual, adult homosexuality can be found.'

And likewise I would argue that only by reading into the text 'it can't be found.'

Posted by: Warren 12 Jan, 2006 - 01:58:49

To back up my previous statement, here are some interesting counter arguments.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf...

http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/haas_hermen.html...

Posted by: Warren 12 Jan, 2006 - 19:06:23

Graeme,
Please note in my responses I am not trying to specifically 'disprove' your view. I would be lying if I didn't admit to a specific position. I do, however, want to emphasize the point that a 'completely defensible position' is not attainable one way or the other. I doubt one side will deal a knockout blow to the other. I don't mind this tension since we have a propensity to establish and try live by a set of rules in an attempt to 'assure' our salvation. We are saved by grace alone.

However I do have some philosophical thoughts/questions.

Firstly if Paul was simply using a list of vices as a literary tool then I wonder why he would include a supossed 'relative contextual' vice within a list of mostly absolute vices. If the argument is that in some instances homosexuality is not wrong, can that same argument be applied to greed, stealing, adultery, slander & drunkedness? Can you prove harm or abuse in all cases?

If Paul's intention was to place 'approved' homosexual relationships on par with heterosexual relationships, surely he could stop at adultery and fornication. Shouldn't that apply equally to prohibited hetersex and homosex? Why go further?

When speaking about adult same-sex, monogamous, lifelong, committed relationships, what is your definition of an adult? Someone who has reached a specific age or someone who is post-pubescent and can procreate? Either way there is tremendous variance socially and phisiologically. Seeing as though the onset of puberty can occur relatively soon for some, wouldn't that allow some 10, 11 and many 12 and 13 year olds the right to engage in committed lifelong sexual relationships, perhaps with much older same-sex partners? Within the context of your argument how far are you willing to push the boundary?

According to some of the reading I have done Pederasty was not only limited to pre-pubescent boys but to post-pubescent boys as well. It is conceiveable that some of these relationships were committed, monogamous and ended up being lifelong. When would it progress from being unacceptable to being acceptable?

In a previous reply you raised the point that the bible is not specifically against sex before marriage (only in two specific cases). Based on today's context we can disregard one of those cases (the bride price). In your opinion when can one start? One month after puberty? Two? Perhaps a year or two? Does this allow for multiple sexual encounters (heterosexual and homosexual) before one is actually married or engaged in a committed monogamous lifelong relationships? I would assume it does. Or are you 'married' to the first person you sleep with? With this in mind should we only confine the Corinthian interpretation to monogamous, committed, lifelong same-sex relationships. Couldn't we extend that to all sexual forays before marriage. Doesn't that kind of dilute the whole Pederasty argument?

Posted by: Warren 13 Jan, 2006 - 19:36:17

Warren,

Thanks for your replies. In a future post, I will talk about the irreconcilable hermeneutics. I agree that basic presuppositions do impact interpretation, and would agree that each side is unlikely to see it from the other perspective. HOWEVER, my main point in this is that if the Bible allows multiple interpretations, then, according to hermeneutic principles, we MUST err on the side of the more open and inclusive interpretation. This will become more obvious in two posts time, when I look at the positive Biblical evidence on this issue.

With regards to your questions about age, I am not sure I understand your intent. However, the answer in my mind is fairly simple: homosexuals must adhere to same moral (and social?) requirements as heterosexuals with regards to marriage. This would include: abstaining from sex until marriage, marrying a partner for life, the ideal of no divorce, faithfulness within marriage, monogomy (marrying only one person), and mutuality (i.e. that the marriage is between equal partners). This final requirement would ensure that no-one took advantage of young people, and that (within my own "Western" and urbanised "African" context) marriage takes place sometime after becoming legally an adult, and not before.

In terms of sex before marriage, I was simply saying earlier that we do not apply a consistent Biblical sexual ethic to modern life, and since we don't, we cannot appeal to such an ethic to say that homosexuality is wrong.

I trust that makes sense.

Posted by: graemec 14 Jan, 2006 - 08:30:46

Dear Graeme

As I read these articles I get the feeling that you are attempting to make a
case for the acceptance of the homosexual behaviour within the church. I
live with this perpetually in the Anglican Church of which I am a part.

I think that the picture you have is far too narrow. Looking at some texts
without looking at the Text (the whole counsel of God) is really not a good basis for making ethical decisions. The strongest argument against homosexual behaviour is Genesis 1 - the evidence in our creation 'male and female' and in his image.

There is also strong evidence in the scriptures that God sees us (as he did
Israel before us) as his bride, he is our Lover. Marriage is a type of
this and reminds us constantly of God's longing for relationship with us.
The homosexual relationship holds up a very different model. Man with man
would be God telling us he does not need us - and female with female tells
he we do not need him. They are both travesties in the world which God
made and which reflects his creative genius and gracious love.

There is also a reminder in Genesis 3 about our primal temptation to play God - deciding for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, rather than fearing him and trusting him and accepting his insight revealed in his Word.
When we judge his word, we judge him. When we put ourselves under his word
and seek to honour him, we will find life.

Jesus does not address the homosexual issue because it is not an issue.
God's people in the gospel era were not confused about what he required if we are to be holy as he is holy.

In the texrts you chose to examine, you avoided looking at Romans 1 which is
far more challenging if you want a single passage rather than a text. It
speaks about detachment from God and the consequences that follow. Yes,
many sins are listed but unnatural sexual behaviour is used illustratively and expounded to help us and Paul's Gentile readers understand that having now come to belong to God, they would live differenty from those who do not know him.

I am not homophobic. I have loved and ministered to people who struggle
with their sexual orientation and have enormous compassion for them. I have
also had to work things through in my own sexuality. But I believe we do
people who struggle in this area a great disservice when we try to baptise
what God has not baptised. We live in a fallen world. For all of us
salvation will not be complete until we see him face to face and become like
him. Our struggles are part of what keep us close to him, trusting him and
not walking in our own light or strength.

Nigel

Posted by: Nigel 17 Jan, 2006 - 14:07:59

Nigel,

I agree that we must look at the whole council of Scripture. I am getting there. You will notice that these posts are coming in bite-sized chunks. I am currently finalising Romans 1, which has obviously led me back to Genesis 1. I agree with you that it is on the basis of the foundations for relationships laid out in Genesis 1 (and 2) that positions on this issue will stand and fall. So, I won't comment further on that until you have a chance to read my next posts.

With regard to your opening paragraph, you would be correct to say that as I have done this research I have become increasingly convinced that God's will for holy living does include lifelong, monogomous homosexual relationships. This was not my starting point, nor have I set out to proof text or manufacture a handy support for a preconceived conclusion. I have genuinely allowed the Scriptures, with the help of commentators on all sides of the debate, to guide my thinking. And I must say that I genuinely feel that I cannot stand by my original position. I trust that the remaining 3 or 4 posts in this series will expand on my journey.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Graeme

Posted by: Graeme 17 Jan, 2006 - 14:47:06

Graeme, I'm waiting for the completed paper before I decide whether you have gone completely mad ;) I agree with Nigel, you need to look at the whole bible not just the specific passages that mention homosexuality. I'm definately not a theologian but to me God's design for relationships is pretty clear in Genesis 2:24 (NLT) "This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one."

By the way there is a problem with the foot note links in this document.

Posted by: Atholl 12 Feb, 2006 - 14:53:40

Hi Graeme

I'm sure that there is also a perfectly rational explanation for Genesis 19 as well? And while we're about it, let's say that all descendants of Ishmael are also saved because of the blessing in Genesis 16 and 17, as some 'Christian' scholars say?

We can get the Bible to say whatever we want if we look hard enough. Don't forget that white-black separation and racism was based in many cases upon very thoroughly researched and interpreted information based on Genesis 9.

What I have said will very easily be explained away with wonderfully crafted words. Is homosexuality what God intended? When I read my Bible, I hear a resounding no. A PhD doesn't mean that one can understand scripture any better than a child - we need faith like a child, and the wisdom of this world will be brought to nought.

Is homosexuality what God intended? No. Just read the Bible

Regards
Dave

Posted by: Dave 18 Apr, 2006 - 13:10:49

Relation between Sexes
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

This topic of relations between sexes is a topic that rears much attention in today’s society. In church life and discussions it is clear how uncomfortable people are to engage this topic of sex, let alone the tension concerning homosexuality. This avoidance is clearly a result of the evangelical way of handling conflict which is possibly embedded in each of us through western traditions of Chritsianity. However having a background as an African Evangelical allows one to operate with some difference we I seek to engage the turmoil, conflict and more specifically the topic of relations between the sexes. I want to question the scriptures, and seek to understand the world of Paul and the people that he is speaking to, so that I am able to speak prophetically to my 21st century reality and the people that I engage. However, finding out what the texts mean is quite complex and tricky.

Hays informs us , that this text should not be used as it commonly is, to condemn one of the other classes of sinners in Paul’s list of sins, such as fornicators and homosexuals. Instead of reducing this text to just the issue of homosexual or condemnation of sins that people commit, we are advised to look at this scripture in the light of Paul using these list of sins to point out to the Corinthians were they came from, in his dealing with the problem of the Corinthians taking their conflicts to a secular court.

I also find that Hays politely introduces the thought that homosexuality is one of many other sins. This is important to take note of as I believe that the church forgets this point many a times, and places so much emphasis on the so-called sin of homosexuality and allows the sin of greed, slanderers and swindlers to pass by with little or no attention at all. We therefore find that, for other sins in Paul’s list there is grace but for homosexuality grace does not abound.

Jack Ellis commented, “It's just asking too much to elevate a scripturally forbidden relationship to the sacred level of holy matrimony. To do so would make a mockery of procreative marriage and drive the final nail in the coffin of the American family...” However supporters of same sex marriage agree that the Bible in various English translations condemns homosexuality and homosexual rape, but they also raise the fact that while English translations simplifies meaning to just homosexuality and homosexual rape, Hebrew and Greek refers to homosexual rape, homosexual rituals in Pagan temples, and homosexual orgies. The end point is that one situation in 1 Corinthians 6:9, which has so much ambiguity based on interpretation from the original Greek and the speculation that goes into explaining the cultural norms of Paul’s day, cannot be the deciding factor on the condemnation of homosexual relations. I guess that this topic of relations between the sexes should become a topic for more intensive study and dialogue, and should be approached with the attitude of “seeking to understand before being understood,” as stated by Stephen Covey.

Richard, B. Hays, “First Corinthians.” Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1997.
Jack Ellis, "Vermont and Same-sex marriage," at: http://cgi2.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/voices/051698/...
Religious tolerance .org, at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar7.htm...

Yours sincerely
Seth Naicker
Office of Reconciliation Studies
Bethel University
3900 Bethel Drive
St. Paul, Minnesota
55112-6999, USA
Tel: 651 638 6417
seth-naicker@bethel.edu
smnaick@hotmail.com

Posted by: Seth Naicker 26 Apr, 2006 - 09:39:17

I just received an email from someone who had seen this piece on 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 by a certain Graeme Codrington who is not a biblical scholar. I do hope that that Mr. Codrington will not continue to neglect the multiple arguments that I (and others) have put forward to justify the conclusion that Paul intended the terms malakoi and arsenokoitai to take in, collectively, all forms of homosexual practice. Mr. Codrington's oversight is unusual since I have probably written more on the matter than any other biblical scholar. All the biblical scholars that Mr. Codrington cites I have already refuted in my own work. This work has been out for 3-5 years in publications.

I discuss the texts extensively in my first book The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon Press, 2001; 500 pages) on pp. 303-36 (34 pages) and in my shorter second book (in a debate with Dan Via) Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress Press, 2003; specifically, pp. 81-88, plus 3 pages of small-print online notes [nos. 96-111] at http://robgagnon.net/2Views/HomoViaRespNotesRev.pdf,... containing some new material). For some online material I can point readers to two articles of mine. Go to my website at http://www.robgagnon.net, specifically http://robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm... and scroll down to:

Does Jack Rogers's New Book "Explode the Myths" about the Bible and Homosexuality and "Heal the Church?" Installment 3.

You can look at either the pdf file or html file for installment 3. The material on 1 Cor is discussed on pp. 9-13 (5 pages) of the pdf version (no page numbers for the html identical text). The pdf file can be obtained by going directly to http://robgagnon.net/articles/RogersBookReviewed3.pdf...

The second online article of mine to look at can be obtained by scrolling a bit further on my website to:

"A Comprehensive and Critical Review Essay of Homosexuality, Science, and the 'Plain Sense' of Scripture, Part 2," originally published in the academic journal, Horizons in Biblical Theology 25 (December 2003): 179-275. This article can be accessed directly at: http://robgagnon.net/articles/homoBalchHBTReview2.pdf.... Go to pp. 226-39 (14 pages).

These two online resources will provide readers with more than enough information to show the problems with Mr. Codrington's conclusions. If readers need more, though, they should consult my books.

Blessings,

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon
Associate Professor of New Testament
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Posted by: Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon 17 Aug, 2006 - 06:11:25

<p>You will need to do a little bit of Prom Dressesand visit some Cheap Prom Dress to find out the important information you are not familiar with buying Prom Dresses 2010. It's always good to take the Prom Dress and check prices and see Prom Dresses 2010 you can afford. Everybody has a Cheap Prom Dresses taking some time out to check your local Plus Size Prom Dresses can really help you with your plan.Typically the type of <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/plus-size-

Posted by: 3333333333333 28 May, 2010 - 08:08:37

The Wholesale Wedding Gowns belonging to the an excellent high quality Wedding Gown needs to be colorless the clarity or Cheap Wedding Dresses, the capacity of the light to pass readily round the Low Price Wedding Dresses the cut will be the shape of the wholesale wedding gown the cut may also have an effect on the actual short wedding gown all appearance of the designer wedding gown.A poorly cut one will not casual wedding gown. The carat is the weigh from the formal wedding gownthat will have an impact the strapless wedding gowncost of the diamond.If you are trying to find diamond jewelry which simple wedding gown big and striking then a asscher or emerald cheap wedding gown is going to do.

Posted by: wedding 28 May, 2010 - 09:01:34

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it