24/09/2018
Homos*xuality: A biblical view
Introduction
There was a time in this nation’s history when the mention of homos*xuality was just a whisper, but rarely if ever openly mentioned and paraded, although undeniably a secret activity. Now that this nation has become a part of a global village and the post-industrial information environment it is betraying an easy tolerance and vulnerability to every kind of wickedness imaginable, especially because of its mendicant status in a global economy.Hence, Thwaites (2013)statement in a recent sectoral statement that, “This government lifts up to our children the ideal of faithful love and marriage between a man and a woman as the basis of family even as we insist on tolerance and love for those who are disposed towards homos*xuality” [Emphasis added], (Sectoral Debate 3013-2014, p. 8). This status is resulting in a mortgaging of its values and sovereignty under the guise of change, modernity and development. It is in this climate that God’s servants are called bear witness to the truth and “…to speak with the greatest plainness and power, to shake…the careless hearts…” of men and women“…and make them see what it is to dally with sin; to let them know the evil of it, and its sad effects as regards both God and themselves” (Baxter, 1829). In this we have to be in dead earnest (Jude 3), for as Baxter, again points out we “…cannot break men’s hearts by jesting with them; men will not cast off their dearest pleasures at the request of one who does not seem to mean as he speaks, or care if his request is granted.”
Rationale
This study of the subject of homos*xuality is undertaken and limited to the biblical view for the following reasons:
· The belief of the church of God Reformation Movement in the inerrancy and the sufficiencyof Scripture, affirmed by Psalm 19: 7-11; 2 Timothy 3: 15-17, and 2 Peter 1: 2-7.On account of these beliefs the movement regard it as “…the rule of faith and conduct for this life and the standard by which we shall be judged in the day of judgment” (Gray, 1944, p. 6; Byrum, 1994).
· The natural and behavioural sciences are speculative, controversial and inconclusive on many issues of importance relating to the subject – issues, such as, the cause(s) of the problem and the possibility of change. As Winter (1986), referencing Steinbeck (1979) on the issue of the cause of homos*xual behaviour points out, “There is no genetic or chromosomal aberration underlying the disposition of homos*xuality…” (p. 157; Masters & Johnson, 1978), with others reaching opposite conclusions.
· To urge pastors and members of the body of Christ, who are all too often very silent and indecisive as the world on this and other thorny issues of morality, to be faithful to the prophetic tradition and the biblical mandate to preach the word, whether it is welcome or unwelcome (2 Timothy 4: 2).
· The Bible confidently asserts that homos*xual practice is a learned behaviour (Rom. 1: 27) and that change is possible (1 Cor. 6: 11).
· To admonish the faithful to contend earnestly for the faith delivered to the saints, by being always ready with an answer to “…everyone who asks you to give a defense (apologia) for the hope that is in you…” (Jude 2; 1 Peter 3: 15)
Instructional Objective
Members of the body of Christ will be able to:
· identify all the passages that relate to the homos*xuality
· list all the passages relating to homos*xuality
· explain the passages on homos*xuality in the context
· give scriptural justification for their rejection of the homos*xual practice
· defend the sufficiency of scripture in dealing with homos*xual problems.
· show from scripture that homos*xual behaviour can change
· point out from scripture the reasons change is necessary
· confront homos*xuals with the need to change
· show a spirit of willingness to help homos*xuals to change
· show love and patience in waiting for change to occur.
Definition of Homos*xuality: “…preferential erotic attraction to a member of the same s*x which usually, but not inevitably, involves some physical expression of this attraction” (Winter, 1986, p. 145). Collins (2007) gives us a three-tier break down of the term “homos*xual.”
· The first, are those with same-s*x attraction: This is a more inclusive group involving those who keep their attraction and feelings private and those who openly express them.
· The second group is those with homos*xual orientation: This is a much smaller group that has strong s*xual feelings for, attraction to and thought about having s*xual in*******se with people of the same s*x, but never get to the place where they engage in s*xual activities with anyone of the same s*x.
· The third group is those with gay identities: This group openly admits that it is gay or le***anand engages in homos*xual acts, even occasionally, with someone of the same s*x.
Defense of both Homos*xual and Heteros*xual Relationships
As Jamaica becomes part of a global community, it cannot escape being enmeshed in a range of controversial and contentious issues, not the least of which isgay and le***an rights. Arguments have been posited and positioned on both sides of the divide. There is disagreement concerning whether same-s*x unions should be legalized or liberalized. Lauer and Lauer (2007, p. 46) have provided us with some of the arguments:
1. Arguments in favour of same-s*x union
Same s*x unions should be legal because they
· give homos*xuals equal rights with heteros*xuals;
· strengthen the bonds of homos*xual unions, cutting down on promiscuity;
· provide homos*xual partners with the same kinds of employee benefits, tax benefits, and inheritance rights as opposite s*x couples;
· permit homos*xual partners to legally adopt children; and
· give the homos*xual couples a sense of acceptance and legitimacy in the larger society.
This writer’s immediate reactions to these arguments are the following:
· They are predicated on the a priori assumption that same-s*x union is legal.
· Unlike the arguments against same-s*x unions no reference is made to the Judeo-Christian teaching as a basis for legalization and liberalization laws relating to the practice. In the Jamaican society, this is important, since many, if not all of our legal statues are predicated on the Judeo-Christian tradition.
2. Arguments against same-s*x unions
Same-s*x unions should not be legal because they:
· contradict the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage;
· are contrary to nature, which makes heteros*xual relations the basis for continuing the race;
· make young people think that, since such unions are sanctioned by law, they are an acceptable alternative;
· allow homos*xual partners to adopt children and raise them as homos*xuals;
· and deprive children of the opportunity to learn proper gender roles.
This writer’s immediate reaction to these arguments is that they do not go far enough, in that it should have mentioned that:
· If same-s*x unions are legalized, so should laws relating to those with other s*xual orientations, such as fornicators, pedophiles, and those with s*xual attraction to animals (be******ty) – to go no further.
· Thus, the call of same-s*x advocates should be for all forms of s*xual practices, now regarded as illegal, to be made legal.
· Failure to be inclusive is a denial of people with other s*xual orientations the right for which same-s*x advocates are fighting.
Discussion of the Biblical Teaching on Homos*xuality
A. Old Testament Teaching
Two Old Testament passages that unsparingly condemn homos*xual practiceand are a standing embarrassment to practicing homos*xuals and their sympathizers are Genesis 19 and Judges 19.
1. Genesis 19, which describes Lot as offering hospitality to two visitors to S***m, who were, in fact, angels. Men from the city came knocking on the door of Lot’s dwelling, demanding that the men be sent out to them that they“…may knowthem” [Emphasis added] (19: 5). Lot pleaded with them not to “…do this wicked thing” [Emphasis added] (19: 7). Instead, he offered his daughters “who have not known a man” [Emphasis added] (19: 8), instead of the visitors. But the men insisted on having their request granted and had to be struck with blindness by the angels.
2. Notice that among the “S***mites”, who came beating down the door of Lot, asking that the visitors be sent out to them, were young men (Gen. 19: 4). Krell (2005) has made the interesting point that the older men might have “…discipled the children in s*xual deviance…” and that “…there was s*xual abuse in the home that caused the little boys to respond like they did” (p. 1).
a. There are those (Baily, 1955) who regard the word “know” (yadha, in Hebrew) as referring toa breach of hospitality, rather than homos*xuality. However, the breach of hospitality argument falls on four counts:
i. It does not explain Lot’s description of the men as “acting wickedly” (19: 7).
ii. It does not explain the offer of his daughters instead of the visitors, saying that his daughters had no previous “…relations with men…” (19: 8).
iii. It does not explain the use of the same word “know” (yadha) in both the request of the men of S***m and Lot’s offer of his daughters instead.
iv. Nor does it explain the uses of the same word yadha (“knew”), in Genesis 4: 1, 17, and 25 – which are clear references to s*xual relations.
v. As Guzik (2013) has pointed out If we ignore the word of God at the point of homos*xual conduct, then we have no basis for saying that any of the other sins that are condemned with it are sins.
Note: This does not mean that in other contexts the word “know” does not have other meanings, such as “get acquainted with”, but surely not in these passages.
b. This writer is grateful to Davis (1989) for helping us to understand the context in which the breach of hospitality argument is to be understood and kept, when he wrote:
Verses 4 and 5 vividly describe the incredible depravity of the S***mites. Casting aside the good tradition of oriental hospitality [Emphasis added], they wanted to gratify their original lusts. The verb know designates s*xual activity many times in the Old Testament (cf. Gen. 4: 1; 19: 8; Judg. 19: 25), and this is what it clearly designates here…” (p. 201).
c. A better way of trying to circumvent the Genesis 19 and Judges 19 passages is to regard what Lot condemns as “…attempted homos*xual r**e, not a caring homos*xual relationship between consenting partners” (NBD, 1996, p. 479). But even this intellectual gymnastics founders by its failure to explain Lot’s offer of his daughters instead. Was he saying that ra**ng a female is less sinful than ra**ng a male? Or that heteros*xuality is less sinful than homos*xuality? Take your pick, after reading Romans 1: 26-27, “…their women exchanged their natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another…”
d. It is passages like the above, along with that of Lot in Genesis 19 andthe householder’s in Judges 19 who offered their daughters in exchange for the men, that incline this writer to take on board Geisler’s hierarchal ethics of greater and lesser sin, in positing the view that fornication and adultery – though unsparingly condemned by Scripture – are lesser sins than homos*xual ones. Hence, the expression “…natural functions for that which is unnatural…” and “…abandoned the natural function of the woman…” (Rom. 1: 26-27). There are some sins that are greater than others. Jesus conceded that (Jhn. 19: 11) - though he was not saying that we will not be punished for the lesser ones. The same principle seems to be implicit in Jones (2006) statement that heteros*xual fornication constitutes a misuse of “…the divinely ordered structure of s*xual difference. Homos*xuality…treats that order with complete disregard and denies, at a principal level, the significance of the difference and the place of the Creator” (p. 149).
e. It is further argued by homos*xuals and their sympathizers that homos*xuality was not the only sin of S***m. This cannot be denied (Ezekiel 16: 49), but neither can it be denied that homos*xuality was among the many sins for which “…punishment of eternal fire” (NASB), will fall on S***m and Gomorrah (Jude 7).
3. Judges 19: 22- Here we have a similar request from the men of Gibeah (19: 22), and a similar response from the owner of the house as in the case of Lot (19: 23-24), only that in this case the men of Gibeah took the daughters offered to them and r**ed them (19: 25). Again, as in the case of Lot, the request to send the men out to them had s*xual overtone and intention.
4. The Levitical Laws: (Lev. 18: 22; 20: 13)
a. In the Near eastern culture, homos*xuality was regarded as a kind of “carnal indulgence” and did seem to have played some part in Mesopotamian cultic worship, in which the s*xual indulgence seems to have been deified to the extent that temple pr******tes were called “holy ones” (Harrison, 1980). Harrison also points out that homos*xuality was not only uniformly condemned in Leviticus: 18: 22 as an abomination, but those who indulged the practice appear to have been described, euphemistically, as “dogs” (Deut. 23: 18). The Hebrew for “dogs” (kelebor kehleb)is used for “a male pr******te”, or homos*xuals generally (Harrison, 1980; Strong Exhaustive concordance; Moffatt’s translation uses the word “catamite”- a boy that is kept for homos*xual pr******te).
b. Professor R. K. Harrison is an internationally respected conservative Old Testament scholar. He makes an interesting comment in his discussion of homos*xuality in Leviticus 18: 22 that “…Talmudic authorities placed little stress on homos*xual interpretation of Genesis 19: 5, preferring instead to regard the S***mites as having violated normal canons of hospitality and justice” (Harrison, 1980, p. 192). Since homos*xuals and their sympathizers like to take any and everything on board that seem to bolster their argument for and justify their continuance in this sinful practice, the following statements need to be noted:
i.R. K. Harrison (1980) in the same vein went on to point out that “Homos*xuality was uniformly condemned in the Old Testament as an abomination, for which the punishment was death (Lev. 20: 13)…” (p. 192). So, his statement does not provide refuge and comfort for homos*xuals.
ii. This writer has taken the trouble to research the authenticity of Harrison (1980) statement regarding the attitude of Talmudic authorities on homos*xuality, and this is what turns up from a conservative Jewish source:
Sexual relations between men are clearly forbidden by the Torah. (Lev. 18:22). Such acts are condemned in the strongest possible terms, as abhorrent. The only other s*xual sin that is described in such strong terms is the sin of remarrying a woman you had divorced after she had been married to another man. (See Deut. 24:4). The sin is punishable by death (Lev. 20:13), as are the sins of adultery and in**st.
It is important to note, however, that it is homos*xual acts that are forbidden, not homos*xual orientation. Judaism focuses on a person's actions rather than a person's desires. A man's desire to have s*x with another man is not a sin, so long as he does not act upon that desire. In fact, Jewish tradition recognizes that a person who chooses not to do something because it is forbidden is worthy of more merit than someone who chooses not to do it because he doesn't feel like it; thus, a man who feels such desires but does not act upon them is worthy of more merit in that regard than a man who does not feel such desires.
I have seen one modern Orthodox source suggest that if homos*xuality is truly something hardwired in the brain, as most gay activists suggest, then a man who acts upon that desire is not morally responsible for his actions, but I am not sure how wide-spread that opinion is.
Interestingly, female homos*xual relations are not forbidden by the Torah. There is very little discussion of female homos*xuality in the Talmud[Emphasis added], and the few sources that mention it does not disqualify a woman from certain privileges of the priesthood, because it is "merely licentiousness," but there is a surprising lack of discussion of such issues as whether it would be grounds for divorcing a woman without her consent or without ketubah. Maimonides asserted that le***an practices are forbidden because it was a "practice of Egypt" and because it constituted rebelliousness (Msarko, n.d., p. 1).
iii. Additionally, Harrison (1980), in commenting on Leviticus 18: 22, made reference to the fact that the view has been held that the relationship between David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi might have been homos*xual ones. He also mentioned that rabbinic scholars have speculated about the nature of Potiphar officer’spurchase of Joseph, especially possibly because the word “officer” could mean eu**ch in Hebrew.
c. Winter (1986) points out that the word “abomination” (toebah), used in these passages, means more than a simple breach of Jewish law and custom. Rather, it refers to a complete reversal of God’s order of creation and how he expects his creatures to function(Winter, 1982; Harrison, 1980).This is the underlying principle for determining the rightness of any behaviour, including s*xual ones. In addition, the homos*xual aspect of the Levitical Code is echoed in Paul’s teaching on the subject (Rom. 1: 26-27; 1 Cor. 6: 9-11; 1 Tim. 1: 8-11), but not some of the others things listed above as wrong doing.
d. But homos*xual advocates and sympathizers argue that the “abomination” rests on idolatrous cult prostitution, which has been a practice, historically (1 Kings 14: 24; 15: 12; 22: 46). And while that contention is undeniable “…these OT condemnations apply to homos*xual activity conducted in the course of idolatry…” (NBD, p. 479).
e. But homos*xuals also reject references to the Levitical laws, on the basis that we are now living in a new dispensation. Further, they argue that if the condemnation of homos*xual practices are to be accepted as still binding, so must references to such practices as “…eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital in*******se during the menstrual period” (Winter, 1986, p. 153).
f. While it is true that ceremonial laws no longer apply today, having been superseded by the ultimate sacrifice of Christ, it needs to be understood that the laws were given not simply as prohibition of certain practices and preferences, whether s*xual or otherwise, but as an affirmation of his creative order and intention for men and women (Winter, 1986). This “creation ordinance” principle runs throughout Scripture. It is in this context that the condemnation of s*xual impropriety, however it is expressed, must be understood and interpreted.
g. Those of us who are concerned that much of the constant and present debate on homos*xuality could result the assimilation of our culture by big and powerful financial interest that have bowed to the practice might find the following comments interesting and useful:
But beyond the argument for harm vs. benefit is the fact that the rule in Leviticus 20:13 is meant for people in a dramatically different circumstance than our own society. The rule appears alongside a series of laws about maintaining purity, not mixing things of different qualities. These are laws intended for a very small, fledgling nation that was under the constant threat of assimilation into other cultures. The purity laws are safeguards against foreign domination, thus no longer relevant in the 21st century just as all biblical rules concerning animal sacrifice have long been considered ill-suited for righteous people ()
h. But even though it is true to say that in the 21st century the “…biblical rules concerning animal sacrifice have long been considered ill-suited for righteous people” – as is stated in the quote – not so with the principles of difference and holiness enshrined in the Levitical code of regulations as part of the covenantal relationship between God and his people (Harrison, 1980). The biblical mantra, “Be holy, as I am holy” is still applicable today as it was in the Old and New Testaments.
B. New Testament
1. Romans 1: 18-32
As Paul traces the history and marks of a decadent society and civilization in this passage, quite a few truths are laid down that should be carefully noted:
a. It is not only homos*xual practice that comes under attack, but “…all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men…” (1: 18). Therefore, the only reason the focus seems to be on homos*xuality and not the other sins that are condemned with it, is due to the fact that it is the only one that is in contention in the nation at this time.Also, because other sins are condemned along with homos*xuality does not let the homos*xuals of the hook. Nor is his mention of other vices intended to soften his condemnation of homos*xual sins (1: 24-26).
b. God’screative ordinance and intention for his creature has been made known from the beginning of creation. So, God’s creatures have no excuse for their sinful practices (1: 20).
c. Paul argues that once the worship of the Creator is abandoned or overturned for the worship His creation, anything is possible (1: 21-24).In other word, once creation ordinance is distorted, the possibilities are endless. This is the significance of such expressions as “exchanged… the truth for a lie” and “…the natural…for that which is unnatural” (1: 25-26). As Jones (2006) points out, “Once the creature becomes god, he gets to define what is normal” (p. 148). Another point made by Jones (2007), which is pertinent to Paul’s argument in this passage is that pagan gospel “…preaches that redemption is liberation from the Creator and repudiation of creation’s structures…The Christian gospel proclaims that redemption is the reconciliation with the Creator and honoring creation’s goodness” (p. 99).
d. Another argument of Paul is that the whole creation order is twisted and disordered, because of disobedience. Thus, if anything is genetically determined or inherited it is not homos*xual practice or propensity, butdisobedience(1: 20-23). Hence, according to Lovelance (1978):
All human s*xuality, in its heteros*xual as well as homos*xual forms is disordered by the inherited drive towards disobediencewhich we call original sin [Emphasis added], and by a broken social fabric of idolatrous societies. Human sin and God’s punishment upon it have deeply affected the processes by which s*xual identity is formed, with the result that none of us, heteros*xual or homos*xual, naturally desires to fulfill perfectly God’s plan for our s*xuality. We did consciously choose to have deviant s*xual orientation which drives us towards fortification, adultery or homos*xual practice. But we are confronted with the choice whether or not we act out our orientation and fulfill our natural desires, or whether instead we seek the control and transforming power of the Spirit of Christ to retain and orient our desires and our behaviour (p. 94).
e. Also, even if it conceded that homos*xual tendencies are inherited does not excuse the condemnation of the practice. The predisposition to sin or the sin principle is also inherited, but individuals will be condemned for it unless it is repented of.
f. An important point that should not be missed, either, is the fact that implicit in Paul’s argument is that fact that while heteros*xual fornication constitutes a misuse of “…the divinely ordered structure of s*xual difference. Homos*xuality…treats that order with complete disregard and denies, at a principal level, the significance of the difference and the place of the Creator” (Jones, 2006, p. 149).Or as Schaeffer (1968) has pointed out homos*xual practice “…has led…to an obliteration of the distinction between man and woman. So the male and female as complimentary partners are finished” (p. 57).
g. Also, such expressions as “…women exchanged their natural function for unnatural and abnormal ones” (1: 26 – Amplified Bible), and “men also turned from naturalrelations with women and were set ablaze (burned out, consumed) with lust for one another…”(1: 27 – Amplified Bible - Emphases added):
i. Constitute an uncompromising attack on homos*xual practice, not propensity.
ii. Make both male and female homos*xual practices unnatural and heteros*xual practice natural.
iii. Refute the argument that homos*xual practice is natural or genetically determined. Notethat the word “natural” comes from the Greekphusikos – meaning belonging to nature.
h. Paul’s teaching is backed up by Jude who describes promiscuous s*xual practices in its many and disordered forms as “strange flesh”, and like Paul, predicts ruinous consequences (Jude 7). Homos*xuality cannot be eliminated from this list of sins.
2. 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11
The Greek for “homos*xuals” in this passage arearsenokoitaiandmalakoi, words whichimply active and passive homos*xuals.
a. arsenokoitai ( meaning literally “lying with a male”or “male bedders”)refers to the active partner in a homos*xual relationship.
b. malakoi (literally meaning “soft”)refers to the passive partner.
Notice that in this passage, Paul mentions other sins along with homos*xual ones as coming under the judgment of God.
3. 1 Timothy 1: 8-11
a. Some authorities (NBD, 1996) regard the list that Paul gives, in this passage, as an “…updated version of the Ten Commandments” (p. 479).
b. Notice that as in the other passages (Romans 1: 18-26; and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11), homos*xual practice is condemned.
c. Notice that adultery and homos*xuality are placed together here because they both undermine creation ordinance for s*xual in*******se, which is marital relationship.
d. It should be pointed out that those who defend homos*xual practice forge a distinction between perverts and inverts. They regard “perverts” as those who are heteros*xuals who from time to time indulge homos*xual relationships. On the other hand, “inverts” are those with a “…fixed homos*xual disposition” (Winter, 1986, p. 156). Homos*xual advocates regard 1 Timothy 1: 8-11 reference to homos*xuals as having to do with “perverts”, not “inverts.” [See the Additional notes for further discussion of this point].
Dealing with Homos*xuals
· Maintain commitment to truth with an attitude of love (Eph. 4: 5).
· Distinguish between same-s*x attraction and orientation and homos*xual practice.
· Recognize the Bible condemns homos*xual lust and practice (Romans 1: 26-27; 1 Cor. 6: 9; 1 Timothy 1: 10) not condemn those who manifest same-s*x orientation or struggle with same-s*x attraction (Wright, 2012).Neither should we.
· Believe in the possibility of change and help the practicing homos*xual to recognize this and work towards it (1 Cor. 6: 11).
· Encourage the practicing homos*xuals and those with homos*xual tendencies and temptations to restructure the course of their lives by “…avoiding places in which homos*xual contacts frequently have been or may be made” (Adams, 1973, p. 408).
· Help the homos*xual to see that part of the restructuring, might involve heteros*xual union in marriage (Gen. 2: 22; Matt. 19: 6; 1 Cor. 7: 9; 7: 3-5), which is God’s ideal.
· Help the homos*xual to see that there is hope, which lies ultimately in:
Ø Christian conversion
Ø An acknowledgment and confession of the sin of homos*xuality leading to forgiveness.Fruits appropriate to repentance, such as:
ü Breaking with homos*xual practices and associates (1 Cor. 15: 33)
ü Rescheduling of activities, etc.
ü Restructuring one’s whole life, according to biblical principles by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Ø Unless God gives the gift of continence, he or she should seek to manifest a life of love by giving himself or herself to a spouse within the bonds of heteros*xual marriage.
· Be realistic and patient in your expectations of how God will minister His grace to those with homos*xual tendencies. Change is sometimes a gradual process, it does not always happen in a flash (2 Cor. 3: 18).
Conclusion
Adams (1996) ties this entire study by reinforcing the salient points, when he concludes that:
Regardless of the attempt of two same-s*x partners to justify ‘marrying’ by declaring in a ceremony that they will be faithful to one another, God will neither condone nor accept their acts — even if the state eventually does. Indeed, taking vows to remain in such a sinful relationship only aggravates the situation. Moreover, the church of the Lord Jesus Christ must never participate in nor promote the legalization of homos*xuality. ‘Ministers’ who do so either willingly or by coercion (should it ever come to that) thereby disqualify themselves as servants of Jesus Christ. In contrast, it is our duty and joy to affirm the biblical view of marriage — the union of one woman and one man. In the Bible, several facts are clear: It was God Himself who united a man and a woman in marriage (Gen. 2:22). Marriage, therefore, is a divine institution, not a human one (Matt. 19:6). Consequently, God, not man, has the right to define the terms of the institution…Homos*xuality and le***anism are not ‘natural’ (Rom. 1:6, 27). When Paul uses the word phusis, to denote that which is against ‘nature,’ he speaks of an act that is contrary to creation — contrary to the way in which God designed human beings to function s*xually.
To this must be added Lovelance’s excellent diagnosis and summary of the causes of the growing and easy tolerance of homos*xual practice within the church. He sees this as due to:
· a false religion opposed to biblical revelation and the authority of scripture;
· an ‘antinomian ethic’ that undercuts the balance between the law and the gospel;
· a ‘cheap grace’ that ignores repentance;
· and, a ‘powerless grace’ that denies the possibility of change.
C. Additional notes:
The argument that perverts, and not inverts is what Paul is condemning in 1 Timothy 1: 8-11, rests on the assumption that homos*xual conditions of an invert nature was not known in the days of Paul’s, hence the argument that Paul was referring to perverts. But, the Jewish philosopher Philo(a contemporary of Paul) and historian Josephus have put this contention to rest in that
“….Philo refers to those who ‘habituate themselves’ to the practice of homos*xual acts, so also Josephus indicates that homos*xual behaviour has become a fixed habit in some” (Winter, 1986, p. 156).
Use of the Greek malakoiand arsenokoitesin 1 Corinthians to refer to passive homos*xuals
Homos*xual activists have argued that the wordmalakoi is used todemonstrateusually “…intellectual weakness or moral weakness or some kind of softness which implied effeminacy but… was rarely, if ever, used to refer to homos*xuality…”
Note:
1. Use of malakoi
· The argument is speculative, as in the case of some heteros*xual exegetes.
· The use of the word “rarely”, in the above quote, does not rule out the possibility of the use of malakoi to refer to homos*xuals.
· Soards (1999) corroborates the interpretation of malakoi to mean passive homos*xuals by pointing out that “…malakoi…literally means “soft ones”, possibly referring to the so-called passive partner in homos*xual activity…” (p. 126).
· So does Barrett (1971) who points out that Paul’s use of homos*xuals (‘sodomites’) refers to “…the passive and active partners respectively in male homos*xual relations” (p. 140).
2. Use of the Greek arsenokoites(literally means "males who sleep together").
Pro-gay activists and pundits appeal to Philo to show that the Greek arsenokoites refers to shrine prostitution, and not to people in loving homos*xual relationship. The fact is that the records this writer has researched nowhere show that Philo makes any such distinction between homos*xual perverts and those in a so-called loving relationship, which means that his wittings cannot be enlisted in support of gay and le***an rights. In fact, below are Philo’s actual words on the subject, in a comment he made on S***m and Gomorrah of Genesis 19:
As men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature…” (Yonge, 1995).
3. Although some argue that the meaning ofarsenokoites is uncertain may even be restricted to “male pr******tes” to homos*xuality, no one to this writer’s knowledge has demonstrated that Paul is not using the word to mean homos*xual activities in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 and 1 Timothy 2: 8-11. Further, “linguistic evidence to support this view is lacking…” (NBD, 1996, p. 479). Also, even in some instances in which the use of the word is said to referto practices, like temple prostitution, homos*xual activity is admitted. Examine the following quote “…arsenokoites refers to shrine prostitution, in which male worshipers engaged in a**l s*x with male priests...”
4. It is also urged that some more recent scholars, like Professor Leon Morris, who are not pro-gay agree with Philo and gay Christians on this point that arsenokoites refers to idolatry and temple prostitution. It is pointed out that “…Leon Morris, in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on 1 Corinthians writes: “The inclusion of idolaters may point us to the immorality of much heathen worship of the day.” If this is so, Morris’ use of the word “inclusion” shows that he is not ruling out homos*xuality and homos*xuals.
5. Below is an extensive quotation from Professor Romano Penna, Professor of New Testament Studies, at Pontifical Lateran University in Rome. The quote is made to point out the degree to which those who are homos*xual activists, sympathizers, or who lack certainty regarding their position on the practice will go to take the edge of the practice and its consequences.
The Greek word in question, arsenokoitai, which the RSV translates differently each time (respectively "homos*xuals" and "sodomites"), is in fact a neologism that literally means "males who sleep together". It derives from the phraseology of the biblical Greek of the Septuagint where the Levitical text 20:13 is translated: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them". The linguistic and thematic reference to this passage, where no exceptions are allowed, makes it impossible to interpret the Pauline statement in the restrictedsense of only male prostitution, or more specifically, of pederasty, as some would like. On the other hand, it should be noted that the extreme severity of the punishment envisaged by the Levitical legislation is not repeated by Paul, who has the greatest respect for life. He however reacts to homos*xuality by pointing out its eschatological exclusion from the kingdom of God, precisely because the practice does not conform to the divine law, just like all the other infractions that he lists by way of example. A certain relativity of the Pauline assertion can be deduced from the fact that the Apostle's main intention in these passages is certainly not to impart a specific teaching on homos*xuality, which would in any case be very indirect; it is however unquestionably listed in a catalogue of actions judged reprehensible. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, like the biblical passage previously quoted, he only considers male, not female, homos*xuality. But, indeed, here he expresses himself in the manner of biblical tradition, as can be seen from the explicit reference to the law in the Letter to Timothy.
Note:
· Professor Penna cannot deny the condemnation homos*xuality by Paul, hence the use of such terms as “…restricted…” and “…unquestionably…”
· It is not simply homos*xuality practicethat will be excluded from the Kingdom, as Penna indicates by his use of the expression, “…its eschatological exclusion from the kingdom of God…”, but homos*xual Practioners as any honest reading of 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 and 1 Timothy 1: 8-11`will show.
· For the Pontifical Professor to contend that “…the extreme severity of the punishment envisaged by the Levitical legislation is not repeated by Paul…”is most disingenuous, because nothing can be more severe than “…exclusion from the Kingdom of God.”
