Fresh perspective on the New Testament and LGBTQ+ topics

The Fourth R Volume 21-3 May-June 2008

Across this nation, the primary Christian sects find themselves deeply split regarding the subject of homosexuality. Consequently, it becomes essential to investigate any insights that the New Testament, if any, can offer into this contentious matter. It seems most individuals presume the New Testament conveys robust disapproval towards homosexuality, yet this simply isn't accurate. When taken as a whole, the succeeding six assertions result in the judgment that the New Testament furnishes no explicit direction for comprehending and rendering verdicts on homosexuality within the contemporary sphere.

Assertion 1: In the strictest sense, the New Testament offers absolutely no commentary on homosexuality.

There isn't even a solitary Greek term or expression featured in the entirety of the New Testament that lends itself to translation into English as either "homosexual" or "homosexuality". The very idea of "homosexuality"—much like those of "heterosexuality," "bisexuality," and indeed, "sexual orientation"—represents essentially a contemporary concept that would have been essentially incomprehensible for those who wrote the New Testament. The expression "homosexuality" only began to gain traction in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, and, according to New Testament researcher Victor Paul Furnish, it and similar terminology "hinge on a level of comprehension of human sexuality that was only achievable with the arrival of contemporary psychological and sociological examination." Putting it differently, "The ancient authors... were functioning without the faintest concept of what we've come to identify as 'sexual preference'." 1 (To maintain simplicity, I will utilize the terms "homosexual" and "homosexuality" throughout the rest of this piece strictly for ease of understanding.)

Assertion 2: At most, the New Testament contains just three sections that allude to actions that we would now categorize as homosexual. The topic goes entirely unmentioned within any of the four gospels. This indicates that, as far as our knowledge extends, Jesus remained silent on the topic of homosexuality, and thus we lack any means to definitively ascertain his likely stance. Moreover, there's no reference to homosexuality to be found in the Book of Acts, the Book of Hebrews, the Book of Revelation, nor the letters credited to James, Peter, John, and Jude. Furthermore, homosexuality is absent from discussion across ten of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul. Conceivably, allusions to homosexuality appear only in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11. 2 The infrequency of mentions of homosexuality within the New Testament implies that it did not hold significant importance for either Jesus or the early Christian community.

Assertion 3: Two of the three instances that may relate to homosexuality are merely fairly commonplace compilations of actions deemed unacceptable, without assigning particular weight to any single element of the collection.

According to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, certain individuals "will not acquire God's kingdom." The classification of such individuals initiates with the sexually immoral, idolaters, and adulterers, concluding with thieves, the avaricious, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers. Found near the middle—sandwiched between adulterers and thieves—are a duo of Greek terms rendered as "male prostitutes" (specifically, homosexual male prostitutes) and "sodomites" within the New Revised Standard Version. Nonetheless, these individuals are not given any peculiar consideration; their names are simply added to the list alongside others. Similarly, 1 Timothy 1:8-11 explains that the law was not created with good individuals in mind but for those who are wicked, subsequently furnishing a list displaying representative examples of potential "wicked individuals." Featured within the listing—placed near the conclusion this time, yet once again devoid of specific emphasis—is the Greek term that the New Revised Standard Version translates as "sodomites". Across both texts, these kinds of individuals are mentioned almost in passing, within essentially ordinary collections of behaviors viewed as inappropriate, but without any extraordinary emphasis or focus directed at them.

These sorts of eclectic catalogs of "vices" are fairly typical not only within the New Testament and similar early Christian works but also across Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greco-Roman, and Jewish writings. 3 They appear to have possessed a slightly stereotypical quality, acting as something of a superficial summary or indiscriminate assortment of detrimental labels that could be promptly produced and put to use for purposes of rhetoric, giving only minimal thought to the specific items on the list. To offer something of a likeness, I'll cite a section originating from Arlo Guthrie's well-known ballad, "Alice's Restaurant." Describing his personal arrest for littering as well as his designation to "Group B" while in jail, Guthrie portrays this group in the subsequent way:

Group B is the place you get sent if you're deemed not moral enough to serve in the armed forces as a consequence of committin' your special crime. The bench was occupied by all kinds of mean, nasty, ugly-lookin' individuals. Present were mother rapers... father stabbers... father rapers... Father rapers! Seated directly on the bench beside me!

The catalogues within 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 plus 1 Timothy 1:8-11 list "all kinds of mean, nasty, ugly-lookin' individuals" in a somewhat analogous fashion. It should similarly be observed that distinct catalogues possess a remarkable tendency to share content. In general, they enumerate the selfsame varieties of "vices". What's more, it seems writers frequently assumed and modified such inventories originating from earlier documents. This suggests that the New Testament scribes may not actually have put together the catalogues in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and also 1 Timothy 1:8-11. Quite possibly these are merely conventional lists, excerpted and adapted out of earlier records before being put to use here for the sake of rhetoric. Should this be the case, the inclusion of phrases rendered as "male prostitutes" along with "sodomites" may signify little more than a chance occurrence.

No matter the scenario, neither catalogue—whether it be 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 or 1 Timothy 1:8-11—singles out homosexual action for any specific consideration. They simply list, in an indiscriminate way, several forms of conduct considered inappropriate.

Assertion 4: It's entirely possible that the twin inventories of unacceptable actions—namely, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11—make no reference to homosexuality at all.

Here's the New Revised Standard Version's rendition of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Are you not aware that those who do wrong will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who practice homosexuality nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor revilers nor swindlers will inherit God's Kingdom.

For the sake of our discussion, the pair of essential phrases on offer remain "male prostitutes" in addition to "sodomites," without a doubt. It may very well turn out to be factual, all the same, that these do not represent the most fitting translations for the Greek underneath the surface of the scripture. 4

The Greek term interpreted as "male prostitutes" is the adjective malakoi (the plural form of malakos). This specific adjective denotes "softness," similar to a "soft" mattress or "soft" pillow. It suggests traits like "lazy," "self-indulgent," "cowardly," "lacking self-restraint," and the like when referring to individuals. Typically, when applied to men, it alludes to characteristics commonly perceived as feminine-like "weaknesses:" such males could be labeled as "soft," "flabby," "weak," "cowardly," "unmanly," or "effeminate." Having said that, designating a male as "effeminate" may or may not imply connections to homosexuality. Sometimes it did, but definitely not always. Whenever it did, it may have pointed to the alleged "passive" or "effeminate" participant in the homosexual dynamic. Even so, we cannot assert with any confidence that malakoi pertains to homosexuality within First Corinthians 6:9. The reference may pertain to "softness" and even "effeminacy" in some different context. In any case, the application of the adjective malakoi to characterize males should probably be recognized as fundamentally "gynophobic" as opposed to "homophobic." It demonstrates apprehension towards women, or at minimum toward conduct from men that is woman-like—in other words, "soft" or "weak." 5

Individuals have commonly supposed that malakoi does allude to homosexuality within 1 Corinthians primarily due to the fact that arsenokoitai represents the subsequent term on the list (as defined below)—the assumption being, without a doubt, that a connection joins both words conceptually since their positions exist in immediate proximity on the list. In no way does this have to be the situation. "The greedy" and "drunkards" also sit alongside each other on the list, but identifying a connection between the two of them would prove challenging.

Even assuming malakoi and arsenokoitai somehow correlate conceptually, it remains entirely unclear how arsenokoitai merits translation. The word stems from a combination of a duo of Greek words: namely, arsen, signifying "male" (as opposed to "female"), plus koite, which translates directly to "bed," despite the fact that its utilization may evolve into being a euphemism to represent sexual interaction (equated to "going to bed" alongside someone). This illustration would hint that arsenokoitai addresses males who "go to bed" alongside other males. Although Dale B. Martin has brought to light the idea that dissecting a compound term into pieces, analyzing the significance of each component, and then merely fusing these meanings does not necessarily determine its implication as a whole. Martin utilizes the English term, "understand," as a sample, noting that it bears no connection to either "standing" or "being under." 6

Plenty of other samples could be offered, despite my intention to point out one situated closer to the subject under examination. The word I'm thinking of translates to the coarse term, "mother-fucker." In a literal sense, we have awareness of this word's connotation. Nevertheless, individuals typically do not refer to a person engaging in sexual intercourse with his mother (or even with someone else's mother) whenever they use it. Indeed, sexual activity remains totally irrelevant to the word in standard instances. Though usually interpreted as highly disparaging, it is occasionally applied in a roughly neutral manner and potentially even as a sign of admiration or fondness within certain circles. In spite of everything, the fact is that its initial sexual implication frequently goes unrecognized within actual utilization. The selfsame phenomenon may truthfully stand for the Greek term arsenokoitai. Martin undertook research studying the real manner in which ancient Greek literature uses the word. It is an unusual word.

First Corinthians 6:9 quite possibly constitutes the earliest instance available to us, with the majority of further cases merely representing quotations and allusions to 1 Corinthians 6:9 and/or 1 Timothy 1:10 (being the only locations the word appears inside the New Testament).

According to Martin, regardless, when the word surfaces on its own, it is typically located in collaboration with transgressions connected to economic disparity and exploitation, as opposed to breaches of sexual immorality. Consequently, Martin draws the conclusion that arsenokoitai most predictably alludes to "exploiting others through the means of sex, perhaps, although not necessarily, using homosexual sex" rather than homosexuality itself. 7 In my opinion, however, it could even refer to exploitation lacking any association with sex. To express items that have nothing at all to do with sex, we regularly use sexual speech. By way of illustration, someone might assert, "I really screwed up!" without harboring any sexual intent whatsoever. Or consider the fashion in which we occasionally use the term "screw." In a case where I say, "I really got screwed on that business deal," I'm not engaging in a conversation about sex; exploitation is actually what I'm addressing. The consistency between these scenarios resides with Martin's verdict that arsenokoitai gives the impression of referring more precisely to exploitation as opposed to sexual activity. To summarize, we essentially lack awareness of the term's true connotation along with its application throughout the first century. 8

Consequently, malakoi basically conveys "softness," potentially alluding to "effeminacy," albeit with the potential to bear absolutely no connection to homosexuality. Simultaneously, the potential for arsenokoitai to explicitly point toward homosexuality remains uncertain. On that account, it becomes impossible for us to state that First Corinthians 6:9-10 makes any reference to homosexuality with absolute certainty. First Timothy 1:8-11, which contains the word arsenokoitai yet excludes the word malakoi, stands in the same position. In either instance, there's the potential for a complete lack of reference to homosexuality.

Assertion 5: Granted that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 including 1 Timothy 1:8-11 do address homosexuality, they in all likelihood take into consideration not homosexuality by its very nature, but as an alternative, one particular manifestation of homosexuality, one perceived as especially exploitative including degrading.

Several academics have proposed that malakoi singles out attractive young men, or perhaps boys, whose sexual offerings were either acquired via purchase and otherwise brought about through the use of force on the part of older men, also that arsenokoitai identifies those older men who thereby "used" as well as exploited the younger men. 9 Depending upon this particular interpretation, malakoi plus arsenokoitai do indeed reference male homosexuality, although the issue in contention does not necessarily come down to male homosexual action in itself, instead it pertains to the prostitution, coercion, and/or exploitation that typically went along with one exclusive variety of male homosexuality. As a result, this interpretation falls in line with Martin's resolution that arsenokoitai speaks more precisely to exploitation rather than to sex. Furthermore, if that turns out to be the actual state of things, we then simply lack any means to figure out what the scribes that authored the New Testament might have expressed in relation to a loving, committed, monogamous homosexual dynamic that is neither exploitive nor coercive. The rationale behind this is because those authors writing the New Testament were not having a discussion regarding that sort of homosexual dynamic.

If we assess everything in a final examination, we can't proclaim these passages touch upon homosexuality with any degree of conviction. On the occasion that they do, they solely achieve this through passing mentions contained in commonplace catalogues featuring different categories of actions recognized as unacceptable.

Assertion 6: The single section of the New Testament that practically is guaranteed to tackle homosexuality relies upon several exceptionally debatable presuppositions regarding its inherent qualities plus origins.

The section that prompts this conversation is in Romans 1:26-27. In the early part of this chapter, the author deliberates on idolatry, otherwise known as the worship of false deities. The shift begins near verse twenty-four, when he touches upon the end results that come about as a consequence of idolatry. He then moves on to use verses twenty-four combined with twenty-five for purposes of pinpointing these end results of idolatry as lust, impurity, in addition to the degradation of one's body. Subsequently, the author goes further in depth to employ verses twenty-six coupled with twenty-seven for purposes of spelling out the inherent qualities of this lust, impurity, coupled with bodily degradation as presented in the subsequent way (New Revised Standard Version):

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way also the men, giving up natural relations with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameful acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

A list of other results that arise from idolatry takes form as the portion of the chapter that follows verses twenty-six combined with twenty-seven, which bears a somewhat close resemblance to the catalogues found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 alongside 1 Timothy 1:8-11. Having said that, homosexuality stands only as one unacceptable behavior among others.

What has to be brought to the forefront, then, centers around the point that homosexuality has little to do with the complete passage taken in its entirety. Its focus rests upon idolatry. The sole rationale that the author references homosexuality at all is based upon the presupposition that it represents a consequence that comes about due to purposeful idolatry. Comprehending to the fullest extent that there exists only one accurate God, people nevertheless independently elect to revere deities lacking legitimacy. As punishment with regard to this idolatry, God "gives them up" to be engaged in homosexual activity. In that respect, thus, homosexuality should not be seen so much as being a sin, but more a punishment that is distributed as a consequence for sin. Having said that, this ought to suggest that no monotheist would willingly take part in homosexual action at any point—neither someone who is practicing Judaism nor those that practice Christianity or even Islam. Simply put, devotees of deities that lack legitimacy would take part in such conduct. Throughout first-century Judaism, that proved to be a commonplace belief, which makes it one of the questionable underlying assumptions contained within Romans 1:26-27. That has to be incongruent that what it is that we have the potential to observe from the world that surrounds us. In any event, this remains crystal clear.

With no less than two different suppositions to its name, the passage similarly brings to light why it proves essentially irrelevant with regards to contemporary dialogues regarding homosexuality. In the beginning, the passage presupposes that something about homosexuality has qualities which cause it to be "unnatural" in some manner—being contradictory to nature—otherwise, a translation that proves to be more accurate might take on the appearance of "beyond what is natural." Putting it in a different fashion, for individuals to be engaged in homosexual action isn't just something which proves to be unusual. Rather, it represents something abnormal; rather, it "goes beyond" that which represents something natural. Even so, according to the American Psychological Association, "the majority of scientists that exist in today's world find themselves in agreement that the root of sexual orientation has, with the highest probability, connections to complex interaction that takes the form of environmental, cognitive, in addition to biological factors." 10 Moreover, when speaking about human behavior, psychologists show great restraint about making use of categories that take on the form of "natural" along with "unnatural," or "normal" along with "abnormal."

In the second place, homosexuality becomes presumed by the passage as being something that exemplifies lust that can't be satisfied. People go in the direction of homosexual action as a consequence of heterosexual action simply failing to bring satisfaction. They desire more! Drawing from what Dale B. Martin points out, it possesses qualities that allow it to be likened to gluttony to some extent: with gluttony, the action of eating goes too far; and with homosexuality, the action of engaging in sex goes too far. 11 People participate in homosexual action as a consequence of the fact that in any other scenario, they "can't get enough" of sex. In relation to the assumption that homosexuality "goes beyond" that which proves natural, that has its roots there. In its essential form, homo sexuality has qualities that cause it to exemplify sexuality that goes too far. In conjunction with the author's increased emphasis on the verb "exchange," this gives the understanding that in contemporary terms, bi sexuality as opposed to homosexuality finds itself to be more closely affiliated with the reference the passage makes. The passage would not appear to have much significance for individuals whose sole orientation has connections to homosexuality, provided that ends up being the case.

In light of the assumptions that support Romans 1:26-27, perhaps consideration needs to be given to raising the subsequent question during the process of interpreting these verses: "Specifically what is it that is being opposed here, combined with why does that opposition exist?" Is the opposition directed simply toward homosexuality per se, and otherwise, is it directed toward the idolatry, the qualities causing it to be "abnormal," as well as the lust that is unable to be fulfilled, which in the minds of Jewish individuals during the first-century, existed in association with homosexual action? And the subsequent question brings light to this: What response would the author of Romans 1:26-27 come up with in relation to a loving, committed, monogamous homosexual dynamic—one that was not established on the basis of idolatry, one that did not exemplify rejecting one's actual true nature, including one that lust that causes inability to be fulfilled did not characterize? As a final answer to this query, there simply cannot be any degree of awareness on the part of us because, as it has been said before, the author gives a quite different explanation about something.

Conclusion: In reality, the New Testament fails to furnish any direct guidance for purposes of comprehending plus rendering judgements with regards to homosexuality throughout today's world.

To the extent that it truly does make reference to homosexuality, the New Testament gives the impression of making mentions of simply distinct homosexual varieties, which it speaks about on the foundation of presuppositions that touch upon homosexuality that are looked upon at this instant as being exceptionally questionable. In that case, we might perhaps put what it is that the New Testament states about homosexuality into a different form, as presented here: Provided that homosexuality has qualities that cause it to be exploitive, at that point it proves wrong; provided that homosexuality has its roots established in idolatry, at that point it proves wrong; provided that homosexuality exemplifies a denial that touches upon one's actual true nature, at that point it proves wrong; provided that homosexuality exemplifies lust that can't be satisfied, at that point it proves wrong. Even so, couldn't a parallel statement hold with heterosexuality?

On the occasion that homosexuality lacks connections with any of these things in any way, shape, or form, it would then give the impression that the New Testament has nothing it can say in relation to it throughout any sense that can be called direct. Giving specific focus to the Pauline letters, albeit employing words that are appropriate for the New Testament when taken in its entirety, the Pauline academic Victor Paul Furnish puts it in the subsequent way:

In relation to questions being encountered by today's church, there exists a lack of ability for [Paul's] letters to give any detailed responses. Must individuals who practice homosexuality be given the opportunity to be members of the church? Will they be given areas of responsibility throughout a congregation? Shall instructions be given to them in order for them to attend to the church's ministry? The Apostle does not put forward these questions, nor does he answer them. ... When making reference to those points, there are no texts available that can be considered irrefutable, irrespective of which end of the spectrum they might come from. Giving support to any detailed stance in relation to those matters, it has to be recognized that it is an error to call forth Paul's name. 12

In a concise manner, there lacks any element throughout the New Testament that directly communicates to us irrespective of whether homosexuality per se has qualities that cause it to be an exceptional thing or an awful thing, otherwise if it should simply be considered a fact that makes up life.

To be sure, whenever consideration is given to the message it communicates from an all-encompassing perspective, the New Testament might supply guidance in an indirect manner touching upon homosexuality. In reality, it may effectively turn out that a twenty-first century "Paul" would give Galatians 3:27-28 a revise, causing it to read in the subsequent way:

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female, there is neither homosexual nor heterosexual; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

William O. Walker Jr. is Jennie Farris Railey King Professor Emeritus of Religion at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, where he served as a member of the faculty and as an administrator until his retirement in 2002. He is the author of Paul & His Legacy: Collected Essays (2014) and Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (2001).

David Appreciates Jonathan

Stephen J. Patterson

Bible School made me aware that David stood as the Bible's warrior who can be described as the most clever, toughest, combined with the most illustrious. Do you have any recollection of him? There's something that the lessons I had in Bible School never taught in relation to David: There existed appreciation between David in addition to Jonathan. ... Continue with reading

At any Time a Man takes a Rest with a Man as He Would with a Woman

Stephen J. Patterson Individuals that exist in today's world possess a broad range of beliefs that communicate that the Bible makes homosexuality a target of condemnation. The formation of that idea originates from, properly speaking, interpretations that they give to the Bible. In any event, what had it in mind to truly 'lie with a man as with a woman?" ... Continue with reading

Work That Has Been Consulted

American Psychological Association. 'Responses in Relation to Queries You Have About Sexual Orientation in addition to Homosexuality.' Washington: The American Psychological Association, 1998.

Furnish, Victor Paul. The Moral Instruction of Paul: Issues That Have Been Pinpointed. Second Edition. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985.

Martin, Dale B. Sex in addition to the Individual Who Rescues: Gender including Sexuality When Interpreting the Bible. Louisville in addition to London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Notes

1. Furnish, Moral Instruction of Paul, p. 65.

2. There exists some individuals who have put forward the argument that Mark 10:6-9 including Jude 6-7 ought to get an addition made to the list, but the majority of academics consent that there's a lack of any connections between those passages, in any way, shape, or form, in relation to homosexuality.

3. When giving thought to the New Testament, it can be seen, by way of illustration, with Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21-22; Luke 18:11; Romans 1:29-31; 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:10-11; 2 Corinthians 12:20-21; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 4:31; 5:3-5; Colossians 3:5-9; 1 Timothy 6:4-5; 2 Timothy 2:3-4; Titus 1:7; 3:3; 1 Peter 2:1; 4:3, 15; Revelation 9:21; 21:8; 22:15

4. I owe much of what is presented in what follows to Dale B. Martin, Sex in addition to the Individual Who Rescues, pp. 37-50.

5. In terms of the gender stereotyping that has the most sway, behavior that can be described as "feminine-like" at the hands of men would be perceived as being a "weakness," while behavior that can be described as "masculine-like" at the hands of women would be perceived as being "hybris."

6. Martin, Sex in addition to the Individual Who Rescues, p. 39.

7. Martin, Sex in addition to the Individual Who Rescues, p. 43.

8. Martin, Sex in addition to the Individual Who Rescues, pp. 38-43. To give consideration, inclusion in a list of "vices" on the part of arsenokoitai gives the implication that the root meaning has a negative association, but the footing that causes a connotation to come to be may possess the qualities that cause it to be more complicated that what it makes itself out to be. Just like with how malakoi may essentially have qualities that cause it to be "gynophobic," arsenokoitai may similarly be "gynophobic" coupled with also being "misogynistic." It may create a reference to males who address other males in a manner that causes them to be like females by causing them to be dominated and otherwise in some form—either with full effect and otherwise symbolically—emasculating them (with the implication being, of course, that it proves to be entirely satisfactory, as well as fully appropriate to address females in that sort of manner).

9. When having discussion, take a look at, by way of illustration, Furnish, The Moral Instruction of Paul, pp. 67-72; also give consideration to pp. 58-67, followed by the entirety of the chapter, pp. 52-82.

10. "Responses in Relation to Queries You Have."

11. Martin, Sex in addition to the Individual Who Rescues, p. 57.

12. Furnish, The Moral Instruction of Paul, p. 78.