Marriage Matters

A Ministry of Jerry and Lynn Jones

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Conferences
    • Marriage Matters
    • Relationships Matter
    • Straight Talk
  • Materials
    • Video
    • Books
    • CD Collections
      • Marriage Matters Conference-on-CD
      • Growth from Gratitude: The Best of Lynn Jones
    • Session CDs
    • Session MP3’s
      • Marriage Matters MP3’s
      • Growth from Gratitude
      • Straight Talk
    • Session Outlines
      • Marriage Matters
      • Relationships Matter
  • Contact
  • Articles
    • The Occasional Nature of Paul’s Evangelistic Efforts
    • The Occasional Nature of the Pauline Letters
    • New Eyes on the New Testament Pt.1
    • New Eyes on the New Testament Pt.2
    • New Eyes on the New Testament Pt.3
    • Contextual Understanding the Role of Women in the Early Church Pt. 2 – 1 Cor 11:2-16
    • Contextual Understanding of the Role of Women in the Early Church Pt. 3 – 1. Cor. 14
    • Creation Theology
    • The Garden of Eden: Equality/Mutuality or Subordinate/Hierarchal?
    • The Meaning of “Brothers” in the New Testament
    • Introduction to the Study of the Role of Women in the Early Church, Pt.1
    • A Fifteen-Year Journey, Pt. 1
    • A Fifteen-Year Journey, Pt. 2
    • A Fifteen-Year Journey, Pt. 3
  • Stronger
    • Chapter 1
    • Chapter 2
    • Chapter 3
    • Chapter 4
    • Chapter 5
    • Chapter 6
  • FAQ
  • Schedule
  • Shopping Cart
You are here: Home / Daylight From a Deerstand

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Six

February 12, 2024 By Jerry Jones 1 Comment

Paul had no knowledge of the modern concept of sexual orientation.

Some revisionists assume Paul did not know about same sex orientation from birth and this influenced his perspective of sexuality.  They support their claim with two presuppositions:

(1) Paul saw sexuality as only heterosexual.  
(2) The medical world at the time of Paul did not know about orientations and genetic tendencies toward certain behaviors.  

Victor Paul Furnish states:  

The presuppositions about homoeroticism that shaped the views of ancient writers are now as outdated as any of their judgments about human anatomy and human reproductive system.  Especially because of the knowledge that has been gained about sexual orientation and the complex factors that are involved in its formation, the ancient presuppositions about sex and gender have been rendered obsolete.1 Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues. 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009), 91.

Matthew Vines writes:

And we are about to see, the new information we have about sexual orientation actually requires us to reinterpret Scripture no matter what stance we take on same-sex relationships.  If non-affirming Christians choose to maintain their interpretation of the Bible on homosexuality, they will have to change their interpretations on something else: celibacy.2 Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (New York: Convergent Books, 2014), 41.

The Bible doesn’t directly address the issue of same-sex orientation—or the expression of that orientation.3 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 130.

James Brownson agrees: 

Writers in the first century, including Paul, did not look at same-sex eroticism with the understanding of sexual orientation that is commonplace today.4 James Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 166.

This distinction is, of course, a modern one that would make little sense in the ancient world, where the notion of sexual orientation was absent.5 Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality,170.

Karen Keen believes same sex orientation is unchosen, yet indicates for some it is not permanent:

The church began to acknowledge that same-sex attraction is unchosen, often shows up during puberty, and does not change for the majority of people.6 Karen Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 101.

Concerning same sex orientation and science she writes:

He (Paul) assumed same-sex attraction is caused by rejecting God, an assertion we know is not scientifically accurate.7 Karen Keen, The Bible & Sexuality: A Course Reader. (Durham:Contemplatio Publishing, 2020),22.  Paul does not say same sex attraction is caused by rejecting God, but he does say same sex relationships are one of two illustrations or examples (idolatry being the other) of rejecting God.  

 Knowledge of Same Sex Orientation During the Time of Paul8 Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Text and Hermeneutics. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003),264. “Many human emotions (for example, lust, anger, jealousy, covetousness) obviously run counter to God’s intended design for nature and cannot be pronounced ‘good’ simply because they are felt.  Paul attributes such sinful impulses to the fall of Adam (Rom 5:12-21).”

Like other issues that surround the LGBTQ+ conversation, revisionist authors don’t always agree on whether the genetic tendency for same sex orientation was known during the time of Paul. Consider the following affirming writers:

William Loader states: 

Plato certainly knew of theories about sexual orientation, such as the one espoused by Aristophanes which offers an explanation of why some women are attracted to women, some men to men, and the rest of us to the opposite sex (Plato Symposium 189-193).  This was known.  Philo cited it (Contempl. 57-63) and, like Plato, did not agree, but with more substantial grounds, for it contradicted Genesis.  God created only male and female.  Paul similarly assumes that all people are male or female and that their natural orientation is towards the opposite sex.  This, he argues, was distorted not because of Adam’s fall but as a result of a perverted understanding of God, producing in them a perverted orientation towards members of their own sex.9 Preston Sprinkle (ed.), Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible. and the Church. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), William Loader, Response to Wesley Hill, 150.

It is very possible that Paul knew of views which claimed some people had what we would call a homosexual orientation, though we cannot know for sure and certainly should not read our modern theories back into his world.  If he did, it is more likely that, like other Jews, he would have rejected them out of hand, as does Philo… He would have stood more strongly under the influence of Jewish creation traditionwhich declares human beings male and female, to which he may have well be alluding in 1:26-27, and so seen same-sex sexual acts by people (all of whom he deemed heterosexual in our terms) as flouting the divine order.10 William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012),322-324. Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 41, 102. “And as we are about to see, the new information we have about sexual orientation actually requires us to reinterpret Scripture no matter what stance we take on same-sex relationships…the concept of same-sex orientation didn’t exist in the ancient world.”  Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 99.)  “If there’s a substantial difference between the type of behavior Paul condemned and the intimate, committed, relationships of gay Christians, then he has not relegated our gay friends and loved ones to the proverbial dustbin.”  Loader believes it was “inconceivable that he (Paul) would have approved of any same-sex activity,” Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality, 322.

Bernadette Brooten believes sexual “orientation” was acknowledged in Paul’s day and was thought to be arranged by the stars.  She writes:

Although they considered female homoeroticism unnatural, ancient astrologers mentioned it dozens of times, attesting to broad societal recognition of the phenomenon.  Further, contrary to the view that the idea of sexual orientation did not develop until the nineteenth century, the astrological sources demonstrate the existence in the Roman world of the concept of lifelong erotic orientation.  Because of a particular   configuration of the stars…determined a woman’s erotic inclination for the duration of her life.11 Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 140.

In 2006 James Brownson commented on the relationship between orientation and action:

One is not morally responsible for one’s orientation, but one is morally responsible for one’s behavior…This distinction between inclination and action assumes something enormously important for moral thinking: the centrality of the will.  At the heart of moral responsibility is our ability to choose.  We are morally responsible for what we choose to do (and the subsequent implications and consequences of our choices); we are morally responsible, however for what we have not actively or passively chosen.  Moreover, the distinction between inclination and action is critical for understanding human freedom.  We are not slaves to our impulses, but have the ability to control them and to choose the good.  This assumption is the foundation of human society.  So there is good reason to distinguish between orientation and behavior, between inclination and action.12 James Brownson, “Gay Unions: Consistent Witness or Pastoral Accommodations?” 9.

He reverses his thinking in a later book written in 2013.13 Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 2013.

Justin Lee addresses both orientation and source: 

…the question of orientation origin has become a battleground for gays and Christians on all sides of the issue.  In actuality, these arguments are built on nothing.  Gay sex could still be sinful even if same-sex attractions are inborn; we humans are born with all kinds of sinful temptations.14 Justin Lee, Torn: Rescuing the Gospel-vs-Christians Debate.  (New York: Jericho, 2012), 68.

At this point, the evidence makes it look very likely that biology has something to do with sexual orientation, but scientists are still learning, and nothing is set in stone.  It’s not only that we don’t know what causes people to be gay; we don’t know what causes people to be straight, either!15 Lee, Torn, 67.

Paul’s world view was impacted by his understanding of Torah.  Because of this, if he had known about same sex orientation there is no indication he would have considered it acceptable.  

Genetics and Same Sex Orientation

Modern day affirming authors also represent different viewpoints regarding same sex orientation and its relationship to same sex activity today.   

Justin Lee states: 

…so whether behavior is sinful or not doesn’t tell us anything about whether the related attraction has biological roots…We all have inborn tendencies to sin in any number of ways.  If gay people’s same-sex attractions were inborn, that wouldn’t necessarily mean it’s okay to act on them, and if we all agreed that gay sex is sinful, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that same-sex attractions aren’t inborn.  “Is it a sin?” and “Does it have biological roots?” are two completely separate questions.16 Lee, Torn, 62.

If one is born with same sex orientation, Lee does not believe it is possible to change and rejects any claims of “success” by reparative therapy.  Granted for the most part efforts to change such orientation have failed, however Karen Keen indicates 23% have made that change.17 Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 139. N.5.  “At this stage of the study it was 15 percent. The final number was 23 percent. This was still far lower than many of us in the ex-gay world wanted to admit, even though we regularly observed that most of us did not experience change.  We held on to hope by focusing on the few ex-gay leaders who seemed to ‘make it.’”  Prior to this understanding of a 23% success rate in changing one’s same sex orientation, Keen observed: “it eventually became clear that spiritual and therapeutic methods were not successful in changing most people’s sexual orientation.” Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 101.  Some have changed their same sex orientation (or at least the choice to act upon it) and have gone on to live heterosexual lifestyles, but this has not been the norm.  Whether or not people really “changed” as witnessed by the failure of ex-gay and therapeutic organizations is debatable.18 Some of the modern homosexual community deny changing orientation is possible.  Even some of the leaders of the ex-gay efforts agree.  For an opposite understanding, read: Stephen Black, Freedom Realized: Finding Freedom from Homosexuality & Living a Life Free from Labels. (Enumclaw, WA.: Redemption Press,) 2017.

John Corvina writes:

The fact is that there are plenty of genetically influenced traits that are nevertheless undesirable.  Alcoholism may have a genetic basis, but it doesn’t follow that alcoholics ought to drink excessively.  Some people may have a genetic predisposition to violence, but they have no more right to attack their neighbors than anyone else.  Persons with such tendencies cannot say “God made me this way” as an excuse for acting on their dispositions.19 John Corvino, Nature?  Nurture?  It Doesn’t Matter.  http://johncorvino.com/2004/08nature-nurture-it-doesnt/.

Science has indeed proven a genetic propensity for alcoholism.  That being the case, consider the following questions:

(1) Is drunkenness wrong for one born with the orientation or predisposition for alcohol?  Some pedophiles have used the studies on alcoholism to justify their conduct.  How these studies relate to same sex orientation is yet to be decided.  As far as the medical world can tell there has not been a “gene” discovered establishing same sex orientation.20 Jim Reynolds, Lepers Among Us: Homosexuality and the Life of the Church.  (Xulon Press: 2007). 81. For information about some of scientific literature see Mark Yarhouse and Stanton Jones.  Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in Church’s Moral Debate.  (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 35-38.

(2) If some in the LGBTQ+ community claim they were born with same sex orientation and cannot avoid acting upon that tendency, could those who work with other inclinations mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9 claim exemption by saying they were born with a tendency to lie, or be covetous or adulterous, and, as such, are not responsible for their actions? 

Michael Uklega summarizes the same observation: 

There is no such thing as nonabusive adultery; all adultery is wrong.  There is no such thing as nonillicit theft; the Bible clearly states that all theft is wrong.  Nor does the Bible teach such a thing as “responsible” covetousness.  The Bible emphatically declares that all reviling and swindling is illicit.  And without a doubt, homosexuality is placed in the same list of prohibitions in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10.  In the case of homosexuality, motives are not the issue.  To make them such finds no exegetical support in Scripture.21 Michael P. Uklega, “The Bible and Homosexuality Part 2: Homosexuality in the New Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra 140, no. 560 (1983), 353.

 Paul’s Use of “Exchange” in Romans 1

After Paul establishes the need of redemption for the gentiles in Romans 1, his discourse becomes more descriptive.  In Romans 1:22 Paul says mankind exchanged worshiping the “Creator” for worshiping the “creation.”22 In the garden of Eden, the woman “saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye” (Gen 3:6).  She was guilty of loving the created (fruit) instead of the Creator.  In a similar way the gentles “worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Rom 1:26).  Perhaps referencing his Jewish roots, Paul uses the term “exchange” that is reminiscent of Israel’s action when they made a “god” in the shape of a calf (Exod 32:4,8).23 Lev 19:4: “Do not turn to idols or make metal gods for yourselves.”  As Israel’s “turning” could be seen as a reversal, it could also be a form of “exchange;” God was exchanged for idols or metal gods. See 1 Thess 1:7-9: “turned from idols to serve the living and true God.” 24 ESV: “exchanged;” CEB: “traded;” NKJV: “changed.”  For more information concerning the parallels of the LXX to Romans see Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 175.   The terminology of Psalm 106:20 is quite like that of Rom 1:23:

They exchanged their glorious God for an image of a bull, which eats grass.25
 Ps 106:20                                  Rom 1:23 
καὶ ἠλλάξαντο              καὶ ἤλλαξαν
τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν                 τὴν δόξαν τοῦἀ φθάρτου θεοῦ
ἐν ὁμοιώματι μόσχου                ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος

Three times in Romans 1:23 through 26 Paul uses this term:26 In the first two exchanges the divine is traded for a non-divine substitute.  In the third exchange what should have been natural is traded for an unacceptable substitute (unnatural).

(1) Romans 1:23:  “they changed (allasso ἀλλάσσω) the glory of the immortal God for images27 NLT: “And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.” made to look like a moral human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”28 “They swapped the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of the image of mortal humans” (1:23) N. T. Wright, The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011),312.
(2) Romans 1:25: “They exchanged (metallasso: μεταλλάσσω) the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served created things.”29 Charles H. Talbert, Romans. (Macon, GA.: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2002), 70.  “What one worships will translate in how one behaves.”  Paul adds a prefix (meta) here to make the root term more emphatic.   
(3) Romans 1:26: The word for “exchange” in Romans 1:26 is μετήλλαξαν—the same term he uses in 1:25:  “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.”  

Again, the prefix is added for emphasis.  

The dual use of “exchange” (metallasso: μεταλλάσσω) in Romans 1:26 and 27 connects rebellion against God and the “shameless acts” of Romans 1:27.30Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. (San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996), 386-387.  Each time he uses the term, Paul shows how “foolish” they are even though they claimed to be “wise” (Rom 1:22).  The terms for exchange in Romans 1:23 and in Romans 1:26 are “parallel” concepts (idols for God and unnatural for natural) and are connected by the “exchange” of truth “for the lie” in Romans 1:25.  Gagnon outlines the results of this “exchange”: 

Quite appropriately, an absurd exchange of God for idols leads to an absurd exchange of heterosexual intercourse for homosexual intercourse.  A dishonoring of God leads to a mutual dishonoring of selves.  A failure to see fit to acknowledge God leads to an unfit mind and debased conduct.31 Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 253.

In summary, Romans 1:25-27 says:32 William Loader, “Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of Its Time,” Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1) 2017,130. “Paul sees the perverted state of mind, passion, and subsequent expression in acts as the outcome of exchanging what is true for what is false.  The motif of change or exchange occurs as a central feature in Paul’s discussion.”
ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ 
they exchanged the glory of the immortal God (Rom 1:23)
οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ 
they exchanged the truth about God (Rom1:25)
 μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν 
 exchanged natural intercourse (Rom 1:26)
“Paul’s argument is one about change or perversion which affects not only people’s actions but also their minds.  Thus ‘they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.’”
 
(1)Instead of being turned toward God, man turned to himself (Rom 1:25).
(2) Instead of women being turned toward men, they turned to other women (Rom 1:26). 
(3) Instead of men being turned toward women, they turned to other men (Rom 1:27). 

An examination of Paul’s use of the term “exchange” in Romans 1 does not resolve the question of same sex orientation being acquired or hereditary.  However, its use does suggest that same sex activity had not always been the case for some who were currently engaged in it.33 Paul’s use of the term “exchange” in Rom 1:23, 25, 26 communicates the idea that something once considered true is no longer. It represents a departure from current or former conditions.  (1 Cor 15:51)

Loader emphasizes Paul’s opposition to all same sex activity regardless of its nature:34 Loader, The New Testament and Sexuality, 499-500.  “I am also convinced that Paul’s anthropology in relation to sexual orientation needs supplementing with the reality that not all who engage in sexual intimacy with those of their own kind are engaging in perversion.  Those who are not should not then stand under the same judgment, but like all, be challenged to exercise the expression of their humanity in a way which is conformed to and informed by the generosity and goodness of God who confronts our reality and challenges us to authentic fulfillment.”   

In Romans 1, therefore, the most likely explanation is that Paul assumes that people were created male and female with heterosexual orientation of their natural sexual emotions.  Those who denied God’s reality had perverted minds and engaged in perverted acts:  they worshipped idols.  As punishment35 I am not sure the perverted minds were a punishment from God as much as they were a natural result of denying God and worshipping of idols. God gave them over to perverted minds with perverted passions and desires whose intensity they followed by engaging in perverted acts, females with females, males with males, and for both their mindset and their actions they stand condemned.  Paul does not differentiate between people of different sexual orientation, either to exempt homosexuals, or to make sure both are condemned.  He may have known that some made such differentiation, but he would not have believed it.  Nor does he focus only on pederastic relations. Without differentiation he condemns all with such sexual attitudes and desires and all acts which give expression to them.  He does so within the context of deliberately highlighting what he assumes his hearers will agree is outrageous sin, in order then to bring them to see that in fact all are under sin and in need of the gospel, including those so willing to condemn.36 Loader, The New Testament and Sexuality, 326.

Paul offers no reason why some were participating in same sex relationships other than attributing immoral acts to the power of sin (Rom 7:14 through 17).   His foundation for opposing same sex relationships are the boundaries established by God in the creation story of Genesis 1 and 2 and Holiness Code in Leviticus, “there can be no homosexual acts at all in Israel.”37 Richard Elliott Friedman and Shawa Dolansky, The Bible Now. (Oxford: University Press,2000) 35.   By stating that both women and men had “exchanged…” Paul indicates a choice had been made.  Preston Sprinkle concludes:

For Paul, the question of orientation is irrelevant. Homosexual unions violate the boundaries of gender established by God at creation.38 Preston Sprinkle, “Romans 1 and Homosexuality: A Critical Review of James Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality, Bulletin for Biblical Research 24. 4 (2014), 526.

Summary of Assumption Six

Even though the “jury is still out” concerning all the implications and questions about same sex orientation, Reynolds offers some interesting insights about the ancient world: 

The fact is that the notion of the innateness of homosexual passion in some persons at the time of Paul existed in the myth of human origins expounded in Plato’s Symposium (5th Century BC) and other influential ancient texts, including the writings of Aristotle (4th century BC) and later Philostratus (3rd century A.D.). The ancient pagan cultural context with its myths of homosexual innateness is not all that much unlike the contemporary 21st century context with its arguments for the innateness and beauty of consenting adult homosexual passion.39 Reynolds, The Lepers Among Us, 153.

Preston Sprinkle states:40 Eph 4:17; 1 Thess 1:9; 1 Cor 12:2

Paul’s world contained a vast array of perspectives on sexual orientation, examples of consensual and nonexploitative same sex couples, and even homosexual marriages. There is no historical reason why we should assume that Paul could not have had examples of consensual same-sex relations before his eyes when he penned Rom 1.41 Sprinkle, “Romans 1 and Homosexuality: A Critical Review of James Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality,” 523. 

Today, questions still exist as to the reasons individuals might be homosexual. 

Justin Lee writes:

…we don’t know what causes people to be straight…we can make only educated guesses and realize that there’s still a lot we don’t know.42 Lee, Torn, 67.

Sprinkle agrees: 

Same-sex orientation is way too complicated and we certainly have not arrived at a bulletproof understanding of it…According to everything I have read we still have a long ways to go.43 Preston Sprinkle, People to Be Loved:  Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015),192.

In her book written in 2008, Lisa Diamond44 Diamond is an American psychologist and feminist.  She is a professor of developmental psychology and health psychology at the University of Utah.  Her research focuses on sexual orientation development, sexual identity, and bonding.  She is married to her “partner, soulmate, and wife, Judi” (Sexual Fluidity, 326).  Her research is more involved than can be covered in this short article. proposes that sexuality is “fluid”:  

Sexual fluidity, quite simply, means situation-dependent flexibility in women’s sexual responsiveness.  This flexibility makes it possible for some women to experience desires for either men or women under certain circumstances, regardless of their overall sexual orientation. In other words, though women—like men—appear to be born with distinct sexual orientations, these orientations do not provide the last word on their sexual attractions and experiences.  Instead, women of all orientations may experience variation in their erotic and affectional feelings as they encounter different situations, relationships, and life stages.45 Lisa Diamond, Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008), 3.

Because some revisionists maintain God is relational and loving and he created some people with same sex orientation, he would not forbid them to act upon that tendency.  Consequently, a life of celibacy is not an option demanded by God or the church for gay and lesbian Christians. Undoubtedly, celibacy is not a gift everyone has (1 Cor 7:7;46 Paul’s option for celibacy is influenced by his eschatology, present famine, and devotion to God. Matt 19:11 and 12), but both Jesus and Paul taught it was an option for some people.47 Assuming same sex activity is approved by God, the revisionists have used 1 Cor 7:9 to justify their choices.  1 Cor 7:9 is directed toward heterosexual marriages.  Revisionists add Gen 2:18 (“it is not good for man to be alone”) as further support for same sex relationships.    Concerning lifelong celibacy, Karen Keen writes:

But the reality is that human beings are biologically made for sexual relationships, not for lifelong celibacy.  Pretending this is not true will only enhance the disorder evident since the sexual revelation.  People will have sex either within marriage or outside of it.48 Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 74.

For the most part revisionists do not emphasize the impact families of origin or traumatic life events49 Lee, Torn, 131. can have on same sex attraction.  Neither Torah nor the New Testament distinguish between acquired or inherited behaviors.  James writes that one is drawn away by his “own evil desire” (Jas 1:14).  The “desire” is not the sin, but the action that follows.  Individuals can be born tendencies for rage, prejudice, and greed, but that does not mean God approves on the actions that might follow.  Granted it is difficult to accept that God holds people responsible for something over which they have no control.  However, assuming one is born with a same sex orientation does not provide free license to act on that tendency.  Orientation is not a sin,50 Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 175. “If same-sex erotic acts are always morally wrong, then the impulse to engage in those acts is also a manifestation of a disordered and sinful inner state…If the acts are sinful, all inclinations to such acts are to be understood as manifestations of a sinful nature and are to be resisted as such.” however acting on an orientation can be.  

Without Romans 1:26 and 27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10, the New Testament is totally silent concerning same sex relationships.  It does seem strange that the Holy Spirit does not provide exception if some same sex relationships were and are acceptable (2 Tim 3:16).

Whether or not Paul knew about people born with same sex orientation cannot be determined. Regardless Romans 1:18-32 is an attack on gentile behavior and their need for justification (Rom 1:17; 3:10, 23).   As illustrations to God’s opposition to all ungodly conduct, he uses the term “exchange” twice in reference to idolatry and once in reference to same sex relationships.  (Rom 1:23-26).  Same sex activity is not the subject of his polemic, but an illustration of behavior God rejects.  Even if Paul was aware of same sex orientation, considering his dependence upon Torah and the information revealed to him by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; 1 Thess 2:13; Acts 2:4), there is no indication he would have accepted same sex relationships as approved of God. 

Questions For Consideration

(1) Could the attraction to animals (orientation) be considered “inborn” or “acquired?”   

(2) If the medical world concludes there is a sexual orientation toward bestiality, what would be the response of the modern affirming community? 

Filed Under: Christian Life, LGBTQ+

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Five

December 26, 2023 By Jerry Jones 1 Comment

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Five

The term unnatural (against nature) refers to heterosexual men and women engaging in non-procreative sexual relations. 

Romans 1:26 and the interpretation of the word “unnatural” is a critical part of the LGBTQ+ conversation:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural (phusikan: φυσικὴν) sexual relations for unnatural (para  physin:  παρὰ φύσιν). 

             Affirming Scholars Who Exclude Lesbian Activity in Romans 1:26

  1. James Brownson:

…Romans 1:26…was understood to refer, not to lesbian sexual activity, but to nonproductive forms of heterosexual intercourse.1James Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 244.

…in Romans 1:26 probably does not refer to same-sex activity but to dishonorable forms of heterosexual intercourse.2Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 222.

Therefore, there is good reason to question the contemporary assumption that Romans 1:26 refers to lesbian sexual behavior.3Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 208.

But as I have repeatedly noted, broad and generic concepts like “homosexuality” did not exist in the ancient world; and it is considerably less clear that Romans 1:26 even envisions same-sex eroticism between women.4Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 218.

In this context, the reference to “their women” in Romans 1:26 probably does not refer to same-sex activity but to dishonorable forms of heterosexual intercourse.5Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 222.

In other words, the “lesbian” reading of Romans 1:26 is completely unattested in the early church in the first 300 years of its life, despite fairly common discussion of this text among patristic commentators.6Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 207.

Brownson’s current understanding that Romans 1:26 does not refer to lesbian sexual behavior represents a 180 degree change from his teaching in 2006: 

Such behavior is rejected not only because of its links with violence, idolatry, and lust, but more importantly because it violates the essential creational intent of God regarding sexuality, distorting the “one flesh” union of male and female which is the basis for sexual ethics throughout the Bible…I believe that when Paul speaks in Rom 1:26f. of “nature,” he is referencing God’s creational intent,  that God intends genital sexuality to be expressed exclusively in the faithful union between a man and a woman in marriage, and that Paul speaks against homosexual behavior because it does not express that creational intent.7James Brownson, “Gay Unions: Consistent Witness or Pastoral Accommodations?  An Evangelical Pastoral Dilemma and the Unity of the Church,” 4.

During a question-and-answer period connected to the Reformation Project in Los Angeles on October 22, 2016, Brownson was asked about his understanding of lesbian activity in Rom 1:26.  The following was his answer: 

The most objective data about this is the fact (and I have looked very hard for information that contradicts this) to my knowledge that the first 300 years of the churches’ life, nobody read Romans as referring to lesbian sex and there are multiple instances of this referring to women engaged in oral or anal sex.  Non-reproduction sex is sex that is contrary to nature.  I know scholars who disagree with me and affirming scholars who disagree with me.

However, he expresses doubt to his conclusion:  

I am not willing to die on this hill.

  1. James Miller8Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Text and Hermeneutics. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 299. “Third, Miller fails to cite a single ancient source that explicitly refers to anal or oral intercourse as ‘unnatural’ or ‘contrary to nature. Yet female same-sex intercourse is cited as being just that… Anal and oral intercourse did not carry much of a stigma in Greco-Roman society. Even most later rabbis did not forbid such intercourse between a husband and a wife… The fact that Rom 1:26 puts the blame squarely and solely on women indicates that unnatural forms of heterosexual intercourse are not at issue.”

That verse 27 condemns male homosexual practice is clear.  However, verse 26 does not specify that the unnatural sexual partner of the women is another woman… There is little reason to read Romans 1:26 as a reference to female homosexuality and strong reason to understand Paul’s comments as a rejection of some or all unnatural (non-coital) heterosexual intercourse, the type of intercourse used in verse 27.9James Miller “The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual?” Novum Testamentum 37 (1995) 1, 11.

If a woman wishes to have non-coital intercourse with a man her options are those of the homosexual male, for once the woman decides not to use her vagina she has no other gender-distinctive orifice. In other words, the remaining options for the woman are oral intercourse, anal intercourse and intercourse which does not involve penetration.10Miller, “The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual?” 10.

Miller also ascertains lesbian activity was not a targeted issue for rabbis:

A similar situation may be found in Jewish culture.  In the Mosaic code male homosexuality is condemned but female homosexuality is ignored…The only restriction the rabbis placed on practitioners of female homosexuality was that they may not marry a priest, presumably because they do not quite measure up to the standard of virginity required in Leviticus 21.  The rabbis were familiar with the issue of female homosexuality, but in spite of their distaste they apparently knew of no tradition which forbids the practice outright and thus they gave it a marginal status in Priestly law.11Miller, “The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual?” 7.

(3)  Karen Keen:

However, it’s important to realize that early on Romans 1 was not always understood and interpreted as referring to female same-sex relations.  This underscores the importance of entering the world of the biblical authors rather than super imposing our modern assumptions on them.12Karen Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 121.

Keen expresses her reluctance to discuss Romans 1:26 by stating:

I will not be discussing the debate on whether Romans 1 refers to female same-sex relations.  The evidence is ambiguous.13Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 121.

Two years later in a second book Keen states:  

Significantly, Romans 1:26 is the only possible place in the Bible that refers to female same-sex relations.  But even this is not certain.  The text does not specify with whom the women exchanged the natural for the unnatural.  It doesn’t specifically say women were having sex with other women.  Some early church fathers, including Augustine thought Romans 1:26 referred to women having anal sex with men (likely as birth control).14Karen Keen, The Bible & Sexuality: A Course Reader (Durham: Contemplatio, 2020), 22.

Keen appears to support a double standard for men and women regarding same sex relationships:  

This is likely why Israelite men are prohibited from same-sex relations, but women are not.  Procreation potential was thought to reside in male ejaculation.15Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 21.

Old Testament sex laws do not prohibit female same sex activity because for Israelite authors sex requires penile penetration and ejaculation.16Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 22.

Keen believes while women are not condemned for same sex relations, they are forbidden to have sex with animals because of possible penetration:

Israelite women are however, prohibited from having sex with animals, a bizarre act, but one that hypothetically allows for penetration (Lev. 18:23; 20:16).17Keen believes sex with animals is wrong for women because it could involve penetration. Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 22. The prohibition  against bestiality in Scripture does not mention the danger of penetration. Three questions: (1) Would Israelite women be “prohibited from having sex with animals” provided the animals were female and there was no “hypothetical” danger for penetration? (2) Would it be acceptable for Israelite women to have sex with animals where penetration did not take place? (3) Would Israelite men be prohibited from having sex with animals provided there was no penetration? (Lev 18:23; 20:15-16; Exod 22:19; Deut 27:21).

Even though Keen denies women are even engaged in same sex relations with one another in Romans 1:26 and female same sex relations are not condemned in scripture, in her later book, The Bible and Sexuality, she entertains the “possibility” that same sex relationships between women are condemned:

Both traditionalist and progressive scholars agree that the biblical authors condemned male (and possibly female) same-sex relations…The references are too few and inconclusive for either traditionalists or progressives to dogmatically assert why same-sex relations were condemned.18Keen, The Bible & Sexuality, 27.

Keen further supports her understanding by redefining “unnatural”:

In common Greco-Roman and Jewish usage, the term “unnatural” often referred to sex that was non-procreative or violated the dominated/submissive paradigm for gender norms.  We don’t have clear evidence that the objection to same-sex relations was violation of anatomical complementarity only by itself.19Keen, The Bible & Sexuality, 23.

If Keen’s interpretation of “unnatural” as a non-procreative sexual relationship is correct, Abraham’s sexual relationship with Sarah was “unnatural.”  Sarah’s womb was dead and Abraham’s “body was as good as dead” (Rom 4:18-19).  The same would hold true of a married couple who because of age or medical issues could not conceive a child. 

Keen makes a case for the exclusion of homosexual women in Romans 1:26, however she shows the tentative nature of her position by using qualifying words and phrases in her writings:

  1. This is likely why Israelite men…
  2. The only possible reference to female same sex activity in the Bible is Romans 1. However, the text does not specify with whom women exchanged the natural for the unnatural…Thus, when Romans 1:27 says men did “likewise,” the biblical author intends to make a connection to sodomy with women.
  3. If this interpretation is accepted, the concern might have beenthat anal sex was used to prevent pregnancy, thereby enabling promiscuity.  In other words, men were wasting their seed20Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 21. Regarding men wasting their seed, Keen writes: “Concern for what happens to semen is also evident (e.g., Gen 38:8-10). This is likely why Israelite men are prohibited from same-sex relations, but women are not. Procreation potential was thought to reside in male ejaculation.” and women willingly participated…
  4. It’s reasonable to conclude that when Paul refers to para physin, his concern includes the non-productive nature of same sex acts.21Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 21, 23, 36.

In summary, Brownson, Miller, and Keen agree women are not involved in lesbian activity in Romans 1:2622Colby Martin, UnClobber: Rethinking Our Misuse of the Bible on Homosexuality. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2016),132. “Not referring to lesbianism, but referring to men and women having sex in unnatural way (that is, non-procreative sexual intercourse).” but men and women are engaged in non-productive sex.

            Affirming Scholars Who Include Lesbian Activity in Romans 1:26

It is not uncommon for affirming scholars to reject what other affirming authors have written:   

(1)  Louis Crompton 

  Another controversy centers on Paul’s reference to “changing” or leaving the “natural use” of women.  Some interpreters, seeking to mitigate Paul’s harshness, have read the passage as condemning not homosexuals generally but only heterosexual men and women who experimented with homosexuality.  According to this interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships.  But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical.23Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization: Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 114.

(2) Bernadette Brooten:24It is conceded by most writers (especially revisionists) on both sides of the LGBTQ+ conversation that Brooten has written the classic on the conduct of women in the Roman world.

Paul could have believed that tribades [the active female partners in a female homosexual bond JJ], the ancient kinaidoi [the passive male partners in a male homosexual bond JJ], and other sexually unorthodox persons were born that way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and shameful. . .  I believe that Paul used the word “exchanged” to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind. . .  I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God.25Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 244.

As we have seen, nearly all of the extent Roman-period sources on female homoeroticism condemn it as monstrous, unnatural, diseased, and more. Similarly, early Christian sources strongly condemn the sexual love between women.26Brooten, Love Between Women, 191.

Since, however, Paul was trained as a Pharisee and continued to view himself as “a member of the people of Israel,” we need to consider at least briefly his condemnation of female and male homoeroticism in the context of Judaism…Paul presents homoerotic behavior as contrary to nature, and he discusses female and male homoeroticism side by side.27Brooten, Love Between Women, 64.

The type of sexual relations engaged in by women most often called “contrary to nature” (para physin) in the Roman world sexual is relations between women.28Brooten, Love Between Women, 251.

This verse (Romans 1:27 JJ) makes explicit what v. 26 leaves open, namely the precise nature of the unnatural acts.  The phrasing is parallel: just as the females exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, so too do males give up the natural use of women.29Brooten, Love Between Women, 253.

According to Brooten the terms “natural” and “unnatural” in Romans 1:26-27 are dealing with “unnatural relations” between women and “unnatural relations” between men.  Paul is NOT contrasting the “natural” with the “unnatural” between women and between men.30Brooten, Love Between Women, 255.

With this analysis of the text, women having sex with other women (exchanged) and “in the same way” (Rom 1:27a) men having sex with other men (“for one another” Rom 1:27b) are considered “unnatural.”31Brooten, Love Between Women, 245. Brooten agrees with traditionist writer Richard Hays’ stance against Boswell’s interpretation of Rom 1:26. John Boswell is among the earliest writers (1980) to support the absence of lesbian activity in Rom 1:26. Brooten writes: “Richard Hays correctly argues against John Boswell that Rom 1.26f condemns sexual relations between women and between men (rather than referring to persons who are not homosexual committing homosexual acts, which are unusual or peculiar but not contrary to nature).”

(3) William Loader:

Female to female eroticism was more widely condemned in the Greco-Roman world than male, so that perhaps Paul chose to begin with the most abhorred, but this is not certain.32William Loader, “Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of Its Time,” Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1) 2017, 141.

For Paul as for Philo and other Jews of the time, contrary to nature is contrary to God’s created order…Paul is not just writing about acts or even intent to act, but about what he sees as a twisted orientation which is a manifestation of a twisted response to God.  Something has gone wrong with the mind.  It is darkened (Rom 1:21) and unfit (1:28).  Its orientation, not just the actions, is contrary to God’s creation.  For on the basis of his reading of Genesis 1:27, Paul, like other Jews of his time, believes that human beings are only male or female—in our terms, heterosexual.  Anything other than that is a perversion.33Preston Sprinkle, (ed.), Two Views: Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), William Loader, Response to Wesley Hill,149.

Loader also expresses his understanding of Philo’s (Paul’s contemporary) beliefs about sexuality in ancient Jewish and Christian thought:

In Philo we find the most extensive discussions of same sex relations…he targets both pederasty and adult-adult consenting sexual relations, including between women…34William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 33.

He (Philo) gives us by far the most extensive repertoire of arguments against same-sex relations…What is not according to nature is not according to God’s creation and is to be condemned…He also condemns same-sex relations between women and between men where the context is not pederasty but consensual adult behavior.35Sprinkle (ed), Two Views: Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. William Loader, Homosexuality and the Bible, 27.

Loader and Wesley Hill agree on the meaning of “contrary to nature”:

I very much concur with Wesley’s understanding of “contrary to nature” in Romans 1:26-27 as alluding to what God created people to be.36Sprinkle, (ed.), Two Views: Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. William Loader, Response to Wesley Hill, 149.

Even Keen highly esteems Loader for his understanding of ancient sexuality among revisionists.  She writes:

Loader is a top scholar on the subject of sexuality in ancient Jewish and Christian thought.37Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationship,24.

(4) Matthew Vines:

But in two verses (Rom 1:26-27), he described lustful same-sex relations between men, likely between women as well, and his words were starkly negative.38Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (New York: Convergent Books, 2014), 96.

Even when not dealing directly with Romans 1:26, Vines believes women as well as men were involved in same sex relationships:

While female same-sex relations were condemned nearly unanimously throughout the ancient world, they often didn’t draw as much attention as male same-sex relations.39Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 90.

Vines admits that Brownson wrote “the finest theological treatments of this issue” and his “biblical analysis is extraordinary careful and thorough” and shows an “uncompromising fidelity to the authority of scripture.”40Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 169.

  However he disagrees with Brownson’s exegesis of Romans 1:26 and sides with Brooten:

I’m inclined to agree with Brooten’s argument here, even though it isn’t definitive.41Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 204.

The inclusion of lesbian activity in Romans 1:26 by these four affirming authors (Crompton,  Brooten, Loader, and Vines) is significant.  Perhaps by taking the stand they do, Brownson Miller, and Keen are attempting to soften the teachings of Romans 1:26-27 against all same sex relationships.42Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues. 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009), 66-74. Furnish provides examples of others who reference same sex activity: Josephus, Philo, Seneca, Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom, Musonius Rufus and the Sibylline Oracles. I disagree with his summary written in 88-92. He states that the Pauline texts do not provide “unambiguous proof that homosexuality and all homosexual activity are inherently degenerate, disordered, and degrading” Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul, 89.

                      “Natural” and “Unnatural”

  1. Definitions connected to creation
    “Natural” (physin)43Physin in noun form is found eleven times in Paul’s writings and three other times in the New Testament. refers to a predetermined social or biological behavioral conduct and means “God’s created order” or his intended purpose for the world and his people.  Acting “against natural” (para physin)  violates the order established by God.  In the LGBTQ+ conversation “against natural” is a rejection of the procreative complementarity established by the creation of male and female as defined in Genesis 2:24.  To support their position, revisionists have seemingly changed the definition of para physin  (against natural) to “against one’s personal (sexual) nature.”44Preston Sprinkle, People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 188.

When the Creator is rejected (Rom 1:23) it follows that God’s created order is also rejected. Paul states they “exchanged the natural (ten physiken) for what is against nature (para physin).”   This “unnatural” activity is a perversion (Rom 1:27).  For Paul, “natural” is what God created.45Paul uses the language of creation (arsen and thelus) rather the normal words for man and woman (aner and gune).

  Same sex relationships are an example of the “unnatural.”

2. “Natural” and “unnatural” defined by three non-affirming authors

Robert Gagnon provides the following translations of para physin:  

        Fifth, the translations “beyond nature” and “contrary to nature” for para physin cannot be played off against each other and, moreover, “nature” here has little to do with innate desires.  The meaning “beyond” (the more common and general meaning of para with the accusative) and “contrary to, against, in opposition to” (a specific sense of this general meaning) are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Same-sex intercourse is “beyond” or “in excess of” nature in the sense that it transgresses the boundaries for sexuality both established by God and transparent in nature even to gentiles.46Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 389-390.

He further explains: 

However, Rom 1:27 is quite explicit about what “the natural use of the female” was exchanged for:  sex with members of the same sex.  For the “likewise” of 1:27 to be appropriate, both the thing exchanged, and the thing exchanged for must be comparable.  Hence, sex with members of the same sex, not non-coital sex, is the point of comparison between 1:26 and 1:27.47Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 298-299.

Richard Hays states:

There are abundant instances, both in the Greco-Roman moral philosophers and in literary texts, of the opposition between “natural” (kata physin) and “unnatural” (para physin) behavior.  These categories play a major role in Stoicism, when the right moral action is closely identified with action kata physin.  In particular, the opposition between “natural” and “unnatural” is very frequently used (in the absence of convenient Greek words for “heterosexual” and “homosexual) as a way of distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual behavior.48Richard B. Hays, “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1.” Journal of Religious Ethics. Vol 14 (1986), 192.

I have cited these texts at some length because they demonstrate that in Paul’s time the categorization of homosexual practices as para physin was a commonplace feature of polemical attaches against such behavior, particularly in the world of Hellenistic Judaism.  When this idea turns up in Romans 1 (in a form relatively restrained by comparison to some of the above examples), we must recognize that Paul is hardly making an original contribution to theological thought on the subject; he speaks out of a Hellenistic-Jewish cultural context in which homosexuality is regarded as an abomination, and he assumes that his readers will share his negative judgment of it.  In fact, the whole design and logic of his argument demands such an assumption.  Though he offers no explicit reflection on the concept of “nature,” it is clear that in this passage Paul identifies “nature” with the created order.  The understanding of “nature” in this conventional language does not rest on empirical observation of what actually exists; instead, it appeals to an intuitive conception of what ought to be, of the world as designed by God.  Those who indulge in sexual practices para physin are defying the creator and demonstrating their own alienation from him.49Hays, “Relations Natural and Unnatural,” 194.

Paul Pollard provides the following summary of “against nature” and “according to nature”:

The problem with homosexual lesbian sexual activity for Paul was that  it is unnatural.  The phrase he used, παρὰ φύσιν (para phusin, “against nature”), has a long and interesting history.  In Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish traditions, homosexual practices were seen as “violations of the created order” and “contrary to nature.”  Early traditions stemming from Plato, to the Hellenistic Judaism of Philo and Pseudo-Cyclades used language very similar to Paul’s in 1:26, 27 in the following ways:  (1) All the texts opposed same-sex intercourse by both men and women; (2) they describe such acts as “against nature” (para phusin) the same words used by Paul; and (3) they use the same words for “male” (arsen) and “female “(thelus) in reference to sexual activity “according to nature” (κατά φύσιν, kata phusin).  Paul’s language does not come from Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13, neither of which mention same-sex female acts or any appeal to “nature.”  In contrast, the writings of Plato, Philo, and Pseudo-Phocylides do appeal to “nature.”  Evidently Paul knew other ancient traditions making similar arguments to his, and he may have drawn from these Hellenistic Jewish arguments against homosexuality.50Paul Pollard, Romans: An Exegetical Study. (Searcy, AR.: Resource Publications, 2018), 63-64.

3. “Natural” exchanged for the “unnatural”51For more information on Paul’s use of “exchange” in Romans 1 see Assumption Six.

The women are targeted first for engaging in unnatural (para physin) relationships because they had turned away from “natural sex” (passive receptacles) to “unnatural.”  The New Living Translation translates Romans 1:26:

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.  Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Wesley Hill (a gay celibate Episcopalian priest) connects idol worship and same sex relationships to the meaning of “exchange”:

Finally, in Rom 1:26-27, God gives humanity up to same-sex sexual coupling—which is itself described as an “exchange” that illustrates or symbolizes the previous two.  Paul is giving same-sex intercourse a theological interpretation.  Such sexual coupling is not simply transgression of an arbitrary divine norm; it is, rather, a departure from the structures of creation, on a par with Israel enacted with its worship of a self-made golden idol.52Sprinkle (ed.), Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. Wesley Hill, Christ, Scripture, and Spiritual Friendship, 136.

N.T. Wright translates Romans 1:26-27: 

So God gave them up to shameful desires.  Even the women, you see, swapped natural sexual practice for unnatural; and even the men, too, abandoned natural sexual relations with women, and were inflamed with their lust for one another.  Men performed shameless acts with men, and received in themselves the appropriate repayment for their mistaken ways.53N. T. Wright, The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 312.

4. The term “likewise” in Romans 1:26-27

54 The following is the Greek “constructed” parallel between Rom 1:26 and 1:27: γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν (with men) εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν,
ὁμοίως 
οἱ ἄρσενες              ἀφέντες      τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας (for unnatural ones)
Their women exchanged natural sexual relationships (with men)for unnatural ones    
     In the same way the men abandoned natural (sexual) relationships with women
(for unnatural ones)
The bold letters are not in the text but were added to show the parallel construction.

Paul begins 1:27 with the “likewise” (homoios)55“In the same way” (NRSV CEB) or “likewise” (ESV, ASV) parallels the same sex activity of women and men (1:26-27). The use of ὡσαύτως (translated “in the same way”) in 1 Tim 3:8 and 3:11 illustrates the same contrast between men and women as does 1 Tim 2:8-9. As the men had issues with proper prayer the women had issues with dress (ὡσαύτως καὶ γυναῖκας). The beginning phase for 1 Tim 3:8 and 11 are identical in form: Διακόνους ὡσαύτως σεμνούς, μὴ διλόγους (3:8) and γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνάς, μὴ διαβόλους (3:11). Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate. (Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1983), 114. “Since the following verse is without question an attack on male homosexuality, however, and since the two verses are so closely linked in the Greek, it is virtually certain that Paul and the tradition on which he is dependent has lesbianism in mind.”

“in the same way.”56In 1 Timothy 3:8,11 Paul uses a slightly different Greek word than he does 1 Corinthians 7:3-4 but it has the same meaning. In 1 Timothy 3:8,11 the Greek word is ὡσαύτως (hosautos) and in 1 Corinthians 7:3-4 the Greek word (used twice) is ὁμοίως (homoios). This is the same word for “likewise” found in Romans 1:27 and means “pertaining to being similar to something else in some respect.” Paul joins the overseers (1 Tim 3:2) and the deacons (1 Tim 3:8) with the phrase “in the same way.”

  The term refers to what the women were doing—that is having sexual relations with other women (Rom 1:26).  Both the women and the men of Romans 1:26-27 are guilty of sexually crossing the gender boundaries of creation.57Brooten, Love Between Women, 240-241. “The text speaks of ‘their women’ which points to the group nature of the transgression. Rather than the image of isolated individuals worshiping idols, the text invokes a picture of groups engaging in such religious practices. Jewish readers would think of groups of pagans. Thus ‘their women’ connotes the wives and daughters of the gentiles. The relativizing ‘their’ occurs only for the women (the text does not speak of ‘their men’). Indeed, it is a logical term in male- dominated societies, in which women belong to men and are seen in relation to them. The qualifying of women underscores their subordinate status within this culture.”

  Some revisionists have attempted to negate this wording.  

James Miller explains Paul’s use of “likewise in Rom 1:27: 

Thus the similarity in function described in Romans 1:26 refers to non-coital sexual activities which are engaged by heterosexual women similar to the sexual activities of homosexual males.58Miller, “The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual?” 10.

William Loader states: 

The connecting phrase at the beginning ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες makes good sense if Paul in 1.27 is similarly talking about the same kind of behavior as in 1.26, this time between males.59Loader, “Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of Its Time,”141.

The men had “abandoned natural relations with women “in the same way” as the women when they “exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.” 

Bernadette Brooten writes:

         Most interpreters believe that v 26 speaks about sexual relations between women, although a few suggest bestiality and anal intercourse.  I argue that “unnatural intercourse” refers specifically to sexual relations between women because (1) the “likewise” (homoios) of Rom 1:27 serves to specify the meaning of Rom 1:26; and (2) other ancient sources depict sexual relations between women as unnatural (Plato, Seneca the Elder, Martial, Ovid, Ptolemy Artemidoros, probably Dorotheos of Sidon).60Brooten, Love Between Women, 248-250.

This verse makes explicit what v. 26 leaves open, namely the precise nature of the unnatural acts.  The phrasing is parallel:  just as the females exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, so too do males give up the natural use of women.61Brooten, Love Between Women, 253.

James DeYoung agrees with Brooten:

He compares lesbianism with male perversion (note the use of likewise).  Female pederasty was virtually unknown, but occurred between adults in mutuality, so the force of the comparison argues for male adult-adult mutuality.62James DeYoung, Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), 158.

Ben Witherington writes:

Vv. 26-27 are about as clear a condemnation of homosexual and lesbian behavior as exists in the NT.  Paul speaks of actions, not inclinations, attitudes, or genetics.  He says quite literally that those who practice such behavior have exchanged the natural function of intercourse for that which is against nature.  In both Jewish and Greco-Roman tradition there was a long history of seeing such behavior as “unnatural” or counter to the way God originally created and intended things to be… Paul certainly believes there is a natural order of things that God put into creation which ought to be followed.63Ben Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 69.

The New Living Translation translates Romans 1:26b:

Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 

This same version translates Romans 1:27 as a direct parallel to Romans 1:26: 

And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women,64ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας

burned with lust for each other.  Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

 5, “Unnatural” as an inversion

The term unnatural can also be considered an“unnatural inversion.”  Paul provides two examples of this:

         (1) Man worshipped idols65Lev 19:4 “Do not turn to idols to make metal gods for yourselves.”

and not the God who made him (Ps 139:14; Rom 1:25).  Idol worship is an“unnaturalinversion” because man was never intended to worship something he created.66DeYoung considers homosexual relations as an inversion. “The following portions of Plato also support the view that the Greeks knew of homosexual condition or inversion, as well as the various practices of homosexual behavior.” DeYoung, Homosexuality, 205.

         (2) Same sex relationships were “unnatural inversions” because man with man and woman with woman lacked “fitness.”

Paul’s use of both words (natural κατὰ φύσιν and unnatural παρὰ φύσιν) in Romans 11:24 supports the concept of “inversion”:  

After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature  (παρὰ φύσιν)67“For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree” (ESV).

  were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, thenatural  (κατὰ φύσιν ) branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!68εἰ γὰρ σὺ ἐκ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν(natural) ἐξεκόπης ἀγριελαίου καὶ παρὰ φύσιν (unnatural) ἐνεκεντρίσθης εἰς καλλιέλαιον, πόσῳ μᾶλλον οὗτοι οἱ κατὰ φύσιν(natural) ἐγκεντρισθήσοντal τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐλαίᾳ (Rom 11:24). 

Gentiles were not originally part of the olive tree (God’s chosen people), and were “unnaturally” grafted in.  Under normal circumstances only the “natural” could be grafted into the olive tree.  God did an “unnatural inversion” in making the gentiles joined equally together with the Jews (God’s chosen people).  God can change the original design—not man as is the case in Romans 1.

6. Revisionists and the term “natural” in 1 Corinthians 11:1469οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ διδάσκει ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ, ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστιν. and Galatians 2:15

To promote their definition of “natural” revisionists use two texts:  1 Corinthians 11:14 and Galatians 2:15.  According to their interpretation, the term nature (φύσις) in 1 Corinthians 11:14 and Romans 1:26 refers to a man with long hair.  The meaning of any word—Greek or English—must be determined by its context.70A church decided to put their mission statement on the back wall of the auditorium. It read as follows: Affirming Relational Missional Equipping. Because of the changing definition of “Affirming” they decided to take it down.

  In the case of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16  Paul is dealing with men and women and head coverings.  Women were to pray with their heads covered so the glory of God could be seen by the uncovered heads of the men (1 Cor 11:7).  The word “nature” in the context of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has nothing to do with ethical behavior as in Romans 1:26.  Rather, Paul is referencing a long-standing cultural practice that would have been known by the Corinthians.  Robert Gagnon explains: 

If in Paul’s view inappropriate hairstyles and head coverings were a source of shame because they compromised the sexual differences of men and women, how much more would a man taking another male to bed be a shameful act (Rom 1:27), lying with another male “as though lying with a woman”?  Paul did not make head coverings an issue vital for inclusion in God’s kingdom, but he did put same-sex intercourse on that level.71Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 328.

Countryman summarizes the relationship of 1 Corinthians 11:14 and Romans 1:26:

Here “nature” seems to mean something like “widespread social usage.”  Paul draws an argument by analogy from such usage:  just as women in his world were expected to wear their hair long and men to wear theirs short, so, too, women ought to wear something on their heads when leading worship while men should not.  This usage of “nature,” however, is less likely to be relevant to the passage in Romans 1.72William Countryman, Dirt Greed & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 114.

In Galatians 2:15 Paul uses the term “nature” to mean “birth.”73ESV, RSV, NLT: “birth.” NKJV, ASV, NASV: “nature.”

We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles.74Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί

Clearly the use of the term “nature” is not the same in 1 Corinthians 11:14 and Galatians 2:15.  Because the word for “unnatural” does not appear in 1 Corinthians 11:14 or Galatians 2:15, those texts are not helpful in determining the meaning of “natural” in Romans 1:26-27.75Additional examples of the Pauline use of “nature”: In Rom 2:14, φύσις means agreeing with traditions and customs. In Gal 4:8, φύσις pertains to something within a certain culture.

7. The use of “natural and unnatural” by ancient writers

Ancient authors other than Paul use the terms natural and unnatural in referring to heterosexual and homosexual behavior.  

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE)

In the second century Clement of Alexandria used the phrase para physin to describe women involved with other women: 

…women behave like men in that women, contrary to nature, (para physin: παρὰ φύσιν) are given in marriage (gamourmenai) and marry (garousai) other women.76Clement of Alexandria, Paidagogos 3.3.21.3 is quoted in Sprinkle, Did Adult Consensual Same-Sex Relationships Exist in Bible Times? 8.

Bernadette Brooten explains:

Like other authors of the Roman period, Clement defined relations between females and between males as unnatural (para physin); his discussion also overlaps conceptually with non-Christian discussions of homoeroticism.77Brooten, Love Between Women, 320.

Consequently, in addition to Christian sources, Clement also drew upon non-Christian literature to support his view of same-sexual behavior as unnatural, and he explicitly quotes Plato on this subject.  In addition to frequent references to Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Musonius Rufus, and numerous other philosophers whose views shaped early Christian thinking about gender…78Brooten, Love Between Women, 321.

          Josephus (first century CE)

The Law recognizes no sexual connections except the natural (kata physin)     union of man and wife, and that only for the procreation of children. But it abhors the intercourse of males with males, and punishes any who undertake such a thing with death.79Against Apion 2:24. Quoted by Hays, “Relations Natural and Unnatural,” 193.

Victor Paul Furnish explains:

        This description of the intercourse between husband and wife as “natural” implies that same-sex intercourse is “unnatural.”80Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul, 67.

      The Testament of Naphtali (Second Century BCE) 

              In the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, in all the products of his workmanship discern the Lord who made all things, so that you do not become like Sodom, which departed from [lit.,”changed”] the order of nature.81Testament of Naphtali. 1-5,. Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998),106.

                  Plato (428-347 BCE)

Concerning “natural and “unnatural” Plato writes:82Plato was a student of Socrates and a teacher of Aristotle.

     One could place the blame for this first and foremost on your two cities and on other cities that are especially devoted to gymnasia.  Regardless of whether one approaches this subject in jest or in earnest, there is one thing that one must recognize and that is that the sexual pleasure experienced by the female and male natures when they join together for the purpose of procreation seems to have been handed down in accordance with nature, whereas the pleasure enjoyed by males with males and females with females seems to be beyond nature,  and the boldness of those who first engaged in this practice seems to have arisen out of an inability to control pleasure.  And we are unanimous in accusing the Cretans of fabricating the story of Ganymede,…83Plato, Laws 636-B-D. quoted in Thomas K. Hubbard, ed, Homosexuality in Greece and Rome, 252.

    Joining with males and boys in sexual intercourse as though with females, adducing evidence the nature of animals and pointing out that (among them) male does not touch male for sexual purposes because that is not natural… Our citizens must not be worse than birds and many other animals which…when they reach (the) age (for breeding) pair off male with female according to instinct and female with male and for the remaining time they…(remain) firm to their first agreements of love.84Plato, Laws (836C.840D-E) as quoted in Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 179.

          Musonius Rufus (30-62 CE)

Regarding “against nature” Rufus states:

But of all sexual relations those involving adultery are most unlawful, and no more tolerable are those of men with men, because it is a monstrous thing and contrary to nature.85Musonius Rufus, “On Sexual Matters,” 12. quoted in Hubbard, Homosexuality in Greece and Rome, 394-395. Rufus was one of the four great Stoic philosophers of the Roman empire who lived around the time of Nero and his successors. In 65 CE he was banished by Nero.

Summary of Assumption Five

Greco-Roman history is threaded with all types of deviant sexual behavior.  Thomas Hubbard explains: 

Just as sexual behavior in Greece and Rome was irreducible to any single paradigm, moral judgments concerning the various species of same-gender interaction were far from uniform.  The widespread notion that a “general acceptance” of homosexuality prevailed is an oversimplification of a complex mélange of viewpoints about a range of different practices, as is the dogma that a detailed regimen of protocols and conventions distinguished “acceptable” from “unacceptable” homosexual behaviors.  There was, in fact, no more consensus about homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome than there is today.86Hubbard, Homosexuality in the Greco-Roman World, 7-8.

As time passed from the Greek to the Roman period, attitudes about sexual behavior also changed.  However, the writers of these two periods are unanimous in their denunciation of same sex relationships.  None of the writers of these periods try to justify same sex relationships as “natural.”87Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, 3.14. As quoted in Preston Sprinkle, “Did Adult, Consensual Same-Sex Relationships Exist in Bible Times?” published in the Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender, 8. A second century Egyptian astrologer/mathematician (Ptolemy of Alexandria 100-170) refers to women who have “lawful wives.”

Both the ancient Israelites and the LGBTQ+ community agree that bestiality and incest are sinful, but why?  Bestially (sex with an animal not a human) is “against nature.” Incest ( sex with relatives Lev 18:6-17) is “against nature.”  Pederasty (older men having sex with boys) is “against nature.”  Same sex relationships (sex with the same gender) are “against nature.”  The common denominator which makes bestially, incest, pederasty, and same sex relationships “sinful” is that they are “against nature.” The gentiles could determine this using only creation (Rom 1:20) and the law “written on their hearts” (Rom 2:15).  If same sex relationships are approved of God because they can be mutual and permanent, could not the same be said for an incestual relationship that is also mutual and permanent? 

Paul’s opposition to same sex activity in Romans 1 is not based on “procreation” nor the “passive” nature of one person (i.e. a man acting as a woman), but rather it is based on making “difference” into “sameness.”  Consider: 

(1) Mankind changed from worshipping God (Rom 1:22) to worshipping images “like a mortal human being.”  Man worshipped himself (sameness). 

(2) Women changed from a sexual relationship (Rom 1:26) with men to a sexual relationship with other women (sameness). 

(3) Men changed from a sexual relationship (Rom 1:27) with women to a sexual relationship with other men (sameness).  

 The revisionists’ interpretations of Romans 1:26-27 do not fit the textual information.88The holiness code of Leviticus 17-26 and especially Leviticus 18-20 influences how Paul sees ethics. See his quotations in Romans 10:5, Galatians 3:12 (Lev 18:5) and Romans 13:10 (Lev 19:18, 34).

  Idolatry and same sex relationships are “reversals” and form the foundation of Paul’s rejection of idolatry and same sex relationships.  The only approved sexual expression in Scripture is found in creation (Genesis 1-2) and emphasized by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6.89Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 254. Without knowledge of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 pagans could understand same sex relationships were “against nature” because the sexual organs did not fit! As a result, Paul claims the gentiles were “without excuse” (Rom 1:20) whereas the Jews had “no excuse” for a different reason (Romans 2:1). The heterosexual activity provides both mutual and pleasurable experience.

  Foundational to Paul’s opposition to same sex relationships is the nature and character of God. 

*The terms “revisionist” and “affirming” are used interchangeably throughout.

Filed Under: Christian Life, LGBTQ+

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Four

July 19, 2023 By Jerry Jones 1 Comment

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10 refer only to abusive relationships and do not address modern same sex relationships.

Key Terms:   Arsenokoitai and Malakoi  

Some revisionists attempt to make the two texts, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, irrelevant to modern same sex relationships. The main issue lies in the translation of the Greek words arsenokoitai and malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and arsenokoitai in 1 Timothy 1:10.1 William Petersen, “Can ARSENOKOITAI Be Translated by ‘Homosexuals”?” (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10) Vigiliae Christianae 40 (1986), 189. “Therefore, when viewed either from the perspective of the ancient world or contemporary society, the translation of ἀρσενοκοῖται by ‘homosexual’ is seen to be mistaken.” This is best illustrated in thirteen different translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9:2 Dale Martin, Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2006), 43. “I am not claiming to know what ἀρσενοκοῖτes meant. I freely admit it could have been taken as a reference to homosexual sex.”

9 Don’t you know that people who are unjust won’t inherit God’s kingdom? Don’t be deceived. Those who are sexually immoral, those who worship false gods, adulterers, both participants in same-sex intercourse. Footnote:  or submissive and dominant male sexual partners. (Common English Bible)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men(New International Version) A footnote says the words “men who have sex with men” is a translation two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals (Today’s New International Version) 

9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, (New Living Translation)

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, (New King James Version) Footnote: defines “homosexuals” as those submitting to homosexuals and sodomites as “male homosexuals.

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (King James Version)

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, men who engage in illicit sex, (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition, 2021).  Footnote: the meaning of the two Greek words is “uncertain.”3https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6&version=NRSVUE

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, (New American Standard Bible)4Preston Sprinkle, People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 119. “The NASB goes on to translate arsenokoites as ‘homosexuals,’ which is a terrible translation.” Footnote: The two Greek words could refer to submissive and dominant male homosexuals.

9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, (New English Translation)

9 Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, (New Century Version)

9 Don’t you know that the unjust will not inherit God’s kingdom? Don’t be deceived! Neither immoral people nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor practicing homosexuals of whichever sort, (The Kingdom New Testament by N.T. Wright)5The two words of 1 Cor 6:9 can be translated in three ways: (1) passive and active persons, (2) two examples of immorality, (3) two separate actions: male prostitutes and active gay men.

Robert Gagnon translates the text:6 Robert Gagnon. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Text and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 303-304. Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1996), 260. “’men who assume a passive sexual role with other men’ (malokoi), and ‘those who have sex with men (arsenokoitai)’”. Victor Furnish, Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues. 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abington Press, 2009), 80 “It could refer to ‘a male who lies [has sex] with a male’ or to ‘a male who lies [has sex] with’ either a male or a female. In this case the first meaning is likely because the word that immediately preceded it in 1 Cor 6:9b…” Or do you not realize that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s kingdom? Stop deceiving yourselves. Neither the sexually immoral (pornoi), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate males who play the sexual role of females (malakoi), nor males who take other males to bed (arsenokoitai)…7 Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι ⸂θεοῦ βασιλείαν⸃ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

Considering the translation dilemma, some revisionists have taken a two-fold approach. 

According to the first approach arsenokoites and malakos are not unquestionable references to modern same sex relationships. Matthew Vines states: 

        So even the sexual use of malakos doesn’t necessarily refer to same sex behavior…as we’ve seen malakos doesn’t refer to merely a single act.  It encompasses an entire disposition toward immoderations.8Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (New York: Convergent Books, 2004), 122.

        So even if the compound word arsenokoitai did originate from Leviticus, that still wouldn’t tell us what it means in 1 Corinthians 6.9 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 124.

Regarding the connection of arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10) to the Levitical texts, James Brownson10

 Andrew Goddard, Review: James V. Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships. 

“Finally, even on Brownson’s home turf of biblical exegesis, there are a number of places where his claims are highly debatable and represent a minority view among commentators. These include his quick dismissal of the widely accepted view that arsenokoitai is a term originating in Paul’s reading of Leviticus 18 and 20, his view that lesbianism is not a concern in Rom. 1 (contra Brooten and others), and his reading of 1 Tim. 1 that makes no mention of the widely recognized echoes of the Decalogue in the vice list and instead conflates three broad terms so as to narrow the concern to the sex trade in young boys for older men.”
states that linking them “is speculative and lacks external confirming evidence.”11 James Brownson. Bible Gender Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013),271. 

The second approach maintains that if the texts are describing same sex relationships, they are referring to those that are abusive.

Karen Keen writes:

The apostle Paul likely had in mind what he saw around him namely, pederasty or sex with male slaves and prostitutes.12 Karen Keen, Scriptures, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 18.

Matthew Vines states:

One of the most prominent forms of sexual exploitation in the ancient world was the practice of pederasty.  If arsenokoitai does refer to male same sex behavior, it’s likely that it refers to pederasty.13 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 125.

Such statements seek to eliminate 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 from the discussion of modern same sex relationships.  The evidence and information surrounding these texts do not provide as much information as Romans 1:26-27, however they do supply additional information from Paul as to the practice of same sex relationships.

Even though Vines admits arsenokoitai  (1 Cor 6:9) could be connected to the Levitical text14 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 123., he contends that 1 Corinthians  6:9 and Romans 1 are not applicable to the committed same sex relationships that exist today15 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 114. “We’ve found that, while Paul’s words are certainly negative, they appear in a context that differs greatly from the debate taking place within the church today.”.  To support his claims, Vines redefines two Greek words (arsenokoites and malakos) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and uses those definitions to influence his reasoning.  He limits arsenokoites to only abusive relationships and he denies malakos refers to the passive person in a same sex relationship.  He states:

The word malakos actually was more frequently applied to men who succumbed to the charms of women.16 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 120.

        So even the sexual sense of malakos doesn’t necessarily refer to same-sex behavior.  In fact, reading it as a reference in same sex behavior is a recent trend in biblical interpretation.17 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 122.

Vines’ assumption that Romans 1 does not apply to modern same sex relationships seems to have influenced his understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:9.  He does not view the clearer text of Romans 1 as relevant to all same sex relationships18 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 131., nor does he use that text to interpret a more confusing text (1 Cor 6:9).  Instead, Vines appears to reason backwards.  That and his new definitions of the two Greek words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 provide a questionable foundation for God’s approval of modern same sex relationships.  Even though Vines contends the Bible is silent “on committed same-sex relationships,” he admits this “silence” does not mean God approved.19 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 131. “Granted, the Bible’s silence on committed same-sex relationships doesn’t necessarily mean those relationships are blessed.”

Definition of arsenokoitai

The word for male in the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew bible) is arseno and the word for bed is koite.  (NOTE: The English word coitus “sexual intercourse” is a derivative of koite.) The term means sexual acts happening in a bed.20 “Invariably κοίτηςhas, as one might expect, a verbal force on which is dependent the object or adverb specified, in the first half of the word.”  David Wright, “Homosexual or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai, (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae, Vol 38, No 2 (1984), 130.  In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 Paul uses the term arsenokoitai which originates in the Levitical texts.21 Paul uses Lev 18:5 and 19:18 in Rom 10:5, 13:9; Gal 3:12, 5:14.  In both texts he addresses both consensual and nonconsensual same sex relationships. This indicates he chose the compound word22 Paul uses a compound word for idolaters (εἰδωλολάτραι).  The word είδωλο is the term for idol and λάτραι is the word for worship or serve.  Paul creates a compound word in 1 Thess 4:9 (theodidaktai: θεοδίδακτοί) from Isa 54:13 (didaktous theos).  Isa 54:13 says “taught by the LORD” and 1 Thess 4:9 says “taught by God.” on purpose and was not just addressing pederasty.  If Paul had meant to limit the 1 Corinthians 6:9 text to pederasty it stands to reason he would have chosen paiderastes (lover of boys). 

The Hebrew equilavent of the compound23 Sprinkle, People to Be Loved,108.  Other compound words can be formed using koite.  A doulokoites is one who sleeps with slaves.  A metrokoites is one who sleeps with his mother. Greek word24 ἀρσενοκοῖται arsenokoitai25 It is not unusual either in English or Greek to transform a verb into a noun.  Someone who “swims” (verb) can be called a “swimmer.”  Other examples include playwright, fishermen, and birdwatcher.  The word koitai means to “lie with” and “arsen” are men, hence arsenokoitai are men who lie with other men. Sprinkle, People to Be Loved, 109.  Arsenokoitai is only used twice in the New Testament.  The term first appeares in the verb form around the first century B.C.E. in the Sibylline Oracles (2.73).  Since it is not used in other literature, some believe Paul “created” the word. used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is mishkav zakar (“who sleep with other males”).  Arsenokoitai is defined in the Greek English Greek Lexicon as “a man who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex.”26 Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 135.  It is quite possible mishkav zakar was commonly used in Paul’s day and being bilingual, he decided to use the Greek equivalent. The Hebrew phrase “lying with a male” (mishkav zakar) is used synonymously with same sex relationships regardless of age or role of either male.  Leviticus 20 condemns the behavior regardless of age or motive of the participant.  

James DeYoung expresses the same understanding:

Paul coined arsenokoitai from Leviticus 20:13, which forbids adult homosexual behavior without distinguishing forms. Paul does not make distinctions. Also, Leviticus holds both partners morally culpable to the point of being put to death and being “cut off.” Adult mutuality in same-gender behavior must fall within the parameters Paul gave the term.  Finally, Leviticus influenced Paul to use two terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, in 1 Corinthians.27 James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications 2000), 201.

Torah and arsenokoitai

Same sex relationships are opposed in Torah (Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13).  Paul was a well-educated Jew and as such he would have found harmonizing such behavior with creation and the ethics of Torah basically impossible.  When writing to the early Christians (who knew only Greek) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, it was natural for him to use arsenokoitai,the Greek equivalent of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.28 Sprinkle, People to Be Loved, 111-112.    Even though this was the first and only time the word is used in the New Testament, evidently Paul believed his readers would understand it.29 Combining words can be a problem in English.  For example, “outbuilding” and “outhouse” can have different meanings and yet the wording is similar.  The story is told of an American missionary who, through a German translator, preached a sermon on Job of the Old Testament.  The missionary later learned he had preached a sermon on “work”!  It is unimaginable that Paul could have approved of same sex relationships in a consensual, committed, monogamous relationship and condemn same sex relationships either in a casual or an abusive/non-monogamous context. 

Revisionist writers, arsenokoitai, and the Levitical texts 

Several influential revisionist writers admit the Levitical texts supply the background for Paul’s use of arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9: 

  (1) Robin Scroggs states:

I have argued above that in early rabbinic legal discussion, the term most often used to describe male homosexuality is mishkav zahur, ‘lying with a male.’ Arsenokoites can be seen as a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase.30 Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 107-108. 

(2) Matthew Vines concedes:

So it’s possible that Paul coined the term arsenokoitai based on his familiarity with the Greek translation of Leviticus 20. 31 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 123.

(3) WilliamPetersen believes arsenokoitai connects to Leviticus and should be translated: 

the ones (masc.) who lie/sleep with men.32 William Petersen, “Can ARSENOKOITAI Be Translated by ‘Homosexuals”?” (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10)  Vigiliae Christianae 40 (1986), 187.  Peterson believes the translation of “homosexual” is unacceptable.  Sprinkle believes the NASB translation “is a terrible translation.”  Sprinkle, People to Be Loved, 119.

(4) Williams Loader agrees:

Exploitation was a common feature in most same-sex encounters, but not all.  Thus it is better to take the word as closely cohering with what Paul condemns in Romans 1 and reflecting the prohibitions of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 on which it appears to be built. 33 William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 331-334.

(5) David Wright is convinced the parallel text in Leviticus 20:13 (meta arsenos koiten gynaikos)34μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός is so close to Paul’s arsenokoitai that it is “surely inescapable.”35 David Wright, “Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae, Vol 38, 2 (1984), 129.

Definition of malakos

The word malakoi (μαλακοὶ)36 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 122.  “New Testament scholar David Fredrickson has argued that malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 be translated as ‘those who lack self-control.’  Based on the evidence, that translation stands on firmer footing than any interpretation that defines the word as a specific reference to same-sex behavior.  As we’ve seen, malakoi doesn’t refer to merely a single act.  It encompasses an entire disposition toward immoderation.”  in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is translated “sexual perverts” (Revised Standard Version) and “passive homosexual partners” (New English Translation).   Because there is no background information for malakoi its definition is more ambiguous.  Consider the following:

      (1) It can mean “soft” as in describing a garment (Matt11:8; Luke 7:25).37 It can be used to describe a male who shaves his chest hair.

      (2) It can mean “pleasant” (Pro 26:22). 

      (3) It can mean “gentleness” (Pro 25:15).38 Both Proverbs texts are from the Septuagint.

Sexually, the word refers to someone who is penetrated while arsenokoitai refers to the penetrator.  The term has been used to describe effeminate39 KJV boys or the “passive person” in same sex relationships, but it should not be assumed every malakoi was involved in same sex activity. 

Arsenokoitai and malakos as descriptive of same sex relationships

The Greek text of 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads “neither the adulterers (οὔτε μοιχοὶ), neither the malakoi (οὔτε μαλακοὶ), neither the arsenokoitai (οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται).”  The term malakoi is found between two immoral active behaviors—adultery and same sex activity—and can easily imply “soft.”  This understanding of malakoi 40 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 122.  “So even the sexual sense of malakoi doesn’t necessarily refer to same-sex behavior.” is also supported by Greek lexicons that define the term:  “to be passive in a same-sex relationship.”41 BDAG, 613.   Michael Ukleja makes the following observation about the definition of malakos when used with arsenokoitai:

  While there is some ambiguity with regard to μαλακός, it is not beyond reason to use the word representing the passive parties in homosexual intercourse. 

This is even more reasonable when it is in juxtaposition with ἀρσενοκοίτης which does imply an active homosexual role.  It is interesting that in Aristotle’s Problems, a lengthy discussion of the origins of homosexual passivity, he employs the word μαλακός.  In its general sense the word does mean “unrestrained,” but not without any particularity homosexual context.42 Michael P. Ukleja, “The Bible and Homosexuality Part 2: Homosexuality in the New Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra 140, no. 560 (1983), 351.

Robin Scroggs further explains: 

If the malakos43 Malakos is singular and malakoi is plural.  Arsenokoites is singular and arsenokoitai is plural. points to the effeminate call-boy, then arsenokoites in this context must be the active partner who keeps the malakos as a “mistress” or who hires him on occasion to satisfy his sexual desire.44 Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality, 108.

Bruce Winter writes:

Furthermore, the citing of the term μαλακός first, with its very strong connotations of passive homosexuality, would have automatically expected a word describing an active homosexual.  It was not a reference to a male prostitute.  If Paul had been seeking a specific term proscribing that profession, the LXX’s choice of πορνεύων in Deuteronomy 23:17 would have provided him with an appropriate one (Cf. 1 Cor. 6:15) …

       This interpretation helps to answer the question why Paul used two words to describe homosexual persons (6:9), rather than one general term.  He referred to the passive and active partner in homosexual intercourse because Roman society and literature observed such a distinction.  Those who engaged in homosexual activity assumed either one role or the other.45 Bruce Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethic and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 119-120.

Mark Smith observes the following:

Active/passive distinctions between male homosexual lovers have   been commonplace in every culture for which we have any evidence of homosexual activity in history, including our own.46 Mark Smith, “Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27,” Journal of American Academy of Religion IXIV/2, 228.

Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner agree with Mark Smith:

With the next two terms Paul refers to homosexual behavior of one form or another.  Rather than referring to “male prostitutes and practicing homosexuals” (TNIV), they are better understood as referring to those who willingly play the passive and active roles in homosexual acts.47 Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 241.

William Loader provides his understanding of the two words:

On balance, then, Paul probably uses the two terms with reference to men who engage in same-sex behavior, with the first referring to the willing passive partner, whether by private consent or as a male prostitute, “those who engage in sexual penetration by other men”, and the second referring to “those who engage in sexual penetration of other men”, which would have a broader reference and include, but not be limited to exploitation, also by force.48 Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality, 331-332.

       My own reading of the two terms which appear in the lists of 1 Corinthian 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is close to Wesley’s and concludes on the balance of probability, the words do refer to active and passive partners in male same-sex relations.49 Sprinkle, (ed), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. William Loader, Response to Wesley Hill,150.

The footnote of 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the English Standard Version reads: “The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.”  The footnote in the Christian Standard Bible reads:  “Both passive and active participants in homosexual acts.”The footnote in the Common English Bible says they refer to “submissive and dominant male sexual partners.”  Considering Paul’s use of Greek words, the situation described in 1 Corinthians 6:9 better fits a consensual same sex relationship than an exploitive one.  In addition, the word malakos appears in the list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God.  If Paul had been referring to the practice of pederasty or sex with same sex nonconsensual partners, they would have been considered victims and not guilty participants.50 Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality, 328.

Arsenokoitai in 1 Timothy 1:10

1 Timothy 1:10 appears in the context of behaviors that do not conform to the gospel.  While

malokos is not found in 1 Timothy 1:10,  arsenokoitai is sandwiched between individuals who are immoral (porneia) and slave traders.  This indicates the seriousness of the conduct.51 πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς Assuming porneia includes adultery, arsenokoitai could be an additional form of “unfaithfulness” in the homosexual world.  If that is the case, adultery and homosexuality could be seen as condemned parallels.  According to Loader, slave traders could have easily been involved in supplying young boys for older men.52 Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality, 333.

As a trained rabbi Paul wrote using Torah as a foundation for his teaching.  Unacceptable behaviors have strong roots in Torah and 1 Timothy 1:10 closely parallels the fifth through the ninth commandments.

  • “who kill their fathers and mothers” (Honor your father and mother)
  • “murderers” (You shall not murder)
  • “sexually immoral” (You should not commit adultery)
  • “slave traders” (You should not steal)
  • “liars and perjurers” (You shall not bear false witness)

Summary of Assumption Four

Some revisionists believe that monogamous, consensual, and committed same sex relationships did not exist in the first century. However, information from secular sources both before and after Paul supports the existence of same sex monogamous relationships in the Greco-Roman era even though they were in the minority.53 See the information provided in Assumption Three.  For further information consider the following:

  1. Thomas K. Hubbard, Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook Basic Documents. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.
  2. Louis Crompton, Homosexuality & Civilization.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Paul’s stance regarding immoral behavior is pronounced throughout his ministry.54 Christian Reformed Church Report on Human Sexuality, 102.

(1)  He urges the church to avoid sexual immorality and not live like pagans (1 Thess 4:3-5).
(2)  He rebukes the church in Corinth for not standing against a man who is having sex with his stepmother (1 Cor 5:1-11). 
(3)  He states that Christians must not have sex with prostitutes (1 Cor 6:12-20). 
(4)  He mentions sexual immorality first in the “sin lists” of Galatians 5:19 and Colossians 3:5. 
(5)  He emphasizes that Christians are not to have even a “hint of sexual immorality” (Ephesians 5:3).
(6)  His possible references to “homosexual relationships” always appear in negative contexts (1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:10). 

Judaism rejected same sex relationships regardless of the situation (abusive or consensual). Paul’s writings reflect his love for and respect of Torah, and when Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; and Romans 1:26-27 are read without any comment they are consistent in opposing these relationships.  

Much of the discussion of same sex behavior in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 has centered on the translation of two Greek words.  While arsenokoitai is easily connected to the Levitical texts the word malakoi has been more problematic.  Regardless, both texts are included in activities that Christians are to avoid.  

In addition to Paul’s use of malakoi and arsenokoitai to describe immoral behavior, in Romans 13:13 he incorporates a different word that is connected to the Levitical texts (as in 1 Cor 6:9).  Instead of using the common word for sexual immorality (porneia)55 1 Cor 7:2 “But since sexual immorality occurring… ” (διὰ δὲ τὰςπ ορνείας). he uses the Greek word for bed (koitais)56 ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν, μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις, μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις, μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ, which is the same term used for bed in Leviticus 18: 22 and Leviticus 20:13. The word is also used in Hebrews 13:4 (marriage bed).57τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος, πόρνους ⸀γὰρ καὶ μοιχοὺς κρινεῖ ὁ θεός (Heb 13:4).

Paul spent 18 months in Corinth and knew the Corinthians quite well as indicated by his “exchange of letters.”  That being the case it is very possible he knew of committed and monogamous same sex relationships.  Regardless, he makes no distinction between those relationships and other same sex relationships any more than he distinguishes between immoral behaviors committed by Christians and non-Christians.  

Paul condemns sinful behavior in 1 Corinthians 6:9-1158 Of the ten of the items in 1 Cor 6:9-10, six are repeated from 1 Cor 5:11.  Paul uses porneia six times in his corpus and five of them are found in 1 Corinthians 5-7.  but he also stresses how, as Christians, they have been washed, sanctified, and justified.  When the Greeks wanted to show a strong contrast, they used the Greek word alla.  This term appears before washed, sanctified, and justified therefore emphasizing what they had been and presently were.59 καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε· ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν.  Regardless of the motivation for same sex activity, Paul targets the what and not the why.  He teaches they could not choose what they wanted to do with their bodies60 1 Cor 6:19 “your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit…received from God.” because they were not their “own” and “were bought at a price” (1 Cor 6:19b and 20a).  Failure to use one’s body correctly dishonors God (1 Cor 6:20b).

The list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 form an inclusion61 “Inherit the kingdom of God” in 1 Cor 6:9 and at the end of 1 Cor 6:10 form an inclusion. of those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).62 All the sins are equally condemned.  The text has a twofold function:

(1) It reminds the readers of their past.
(2) It provides a warning to not fall back into their previous lifestyle.

He wants his readers to realize they WERE (past tense) among these who would not “inherit the kingdom of God,” but they were not NOW (present tense).63 Regardless of the sin, Paul emphasized their forgiveness.   Paul believes sinful behavior can be altered (1 Cor 6:9). 

In a summary of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, William Loader writes: 

Nothing in these writings suggests a departure from the wider Jewish rejection of same sex relations rooted in the Leviticus prohibitions and understanding of human beings as created either male or female.64 William Loader, “Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of Its Time,” Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1) (2017),128.

Consider the following:

(1) If same sex, loving, monogamous, Christian relationships are acceptable, does the same hold true for envy, murder, deceit, gossip, and slander (also mentioned in Rom 1:28-29) if engaged in by loving, monogamous Christians?65 Sprinkle, People to Be Loved, 101.

(2) If God does not bless same sex relationships, is it wise to promote those relationships among God-loving Christians? 66 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 131.

(3) If same sex relationships are only wrong if committed outside of a mutual and committed atmosphere, would incest in a mutual and committed atmosphere be acceptable?

Filed Under: Christian Life, LGBTQ+

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Three

April 29, 2023 By Jerry Jones Leave a Comment

Paul was only opposing pederasty (sexual behavior between an adult male and adolescent boy) and other abusive/non-consensual sexual relationships in Romans 1 and does not address modern same sex relationships.1

Jewish morals contrasted with those of other nations in second century B.C.E. “{Jews} are mindful of holy wedlock, and they do not engage in impious intercourse with male children as Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Romans, spacious Greece and many nations and others. Persians and Galatians and all Asia transgressing the holy law of immortal God, which they transgressed.” Sibylline Oracles 3.595-600 quoted in The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues (3rd ed) by Victor Paul Furnish, 66-67.

In the high cultural circles of ancient Greece same sex relationships between older men and young boys were common.

Linda Belleville writes:

Unlike today, same-sex relationships in antiquity were largely confined to the upper crust of Greek society. Also, unlike today, it was considered an “honorable service” for a young Greek male student to be intimate with his male mentor.2 Linda Belleville, “The Challenges of Translating Arsenokotai and Malakoi.” In 1 Cor 6:9; A Reassessment in Light of Koine Greek and First Cultural Mores,” Bible Translator 62 (2011), 25.

To responsibly address Assumption Three, a couple of issues need to be addressed:

  • Was Paul only opposing pederasty and other abusive same-sex relationships in Romans 1?
  • Does Paul address modern same sex relationships in Romans 1?

Issue One: Was Paul Only Opposing Pederasty and Other Abusive Same-Sex Relationships in Romans 1?

Affirming writers Matthew Vines and Robin Scroggs maintain pederasty and abuse are a central focus of the same sex relationships of Romans 1.

In 2014 Matthew Vines wrote:

Remember, the most common forms of same-sex behavior in the Greco-Roman world were pederasty, prostitution, and same-sex between masters and their slaves…

Paul viewed same-sex relationships as stemming from excessive sexual desire and lust, not as a loving expression from a sexual orientation.3 Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (New York: Convergent Books, 2014),130.
Robin Scroggs believes Paul was opposing pederasty in Romans 1:
I know of no suggestions in texts that homosexual relationships existed between same-age adults…Thus what the New Testament was against was the image of homosexuality as pederasty…4 Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 35, 126.

Much of my argument depends up on the judgment frequently stated above, that the only model of male homosexuality was pederasty, and that even deviations in the usual age patterns of pederasty did not disturb the functioning of the modeI itself….I do think I have presented enough to demonstrate amply that pederastic model was at the very least the dominant and always assumed pattern for male homosexual relationships.5 Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, 130.

Response to the Pederasty and Abusive Relationships Only Explanation of Romans 1

To responsibly speak to this analysis, three areas need to be considered.

  • Other affirming writers (Loader, Brooten, and Crompton, Via, Pronk) do not agree with the pederasty and abusive relationship only argument.
  • Specific terms were used in the Greek language to describe pederasty.
  • The practice of pederasty experienced a transition in the ancient world.

1). Affirming writers with a different perspective

Affirming author Bernadette Brooten disagrees with the early writings of her predecessors (John Boswell and Robin Scroggs) regarding Romans 1:18-32. She states:

This material runs counter to John Boswell’s view that premodern Christians accepted love and marriage between women. Further, the ancient sources which rarely speak of sexual relations between women and girls, undermine Robin Scroggs’ theory that Paul opposed homosexuality as pederasty.6 Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 361.

In noting Robin Scroggs’ inconsistency with the men and women in Romans 1:26-27, Brooten writes:

If however, the dehumanizing aspects of pederasty motivated Paul to condemn sexual relations between males, then why did he condemn relations between females in the same sentence? Scroggs concedes that ancient authors normally did not assume a pederastic model for female-female relations.7 Brooten, Love Between Women, 253 (n 106).

Brooten further explains that Romans 1:27 cannot be limited to pederasty:

If Paul directed Rom 1:27 mainly against pederasty out of humanitarian concern for the passive boy partner, several interpretive problems emerge. Why does Paul apply the phrase “deserve to die” (Rom 1:32) to the foregoing acts, not distinguishing between victims and perpetrators?8 Brooten, Love Between Women, 256-257.

Even though Bernadette Brooten affirms Paul’s opposition to all same sex relationships in Romans 1, she supports the affirming community in the practice of modern same sex relationships.9 Brooten, Love Between Women, 302 “I hope that churches today, being apprised of the history that I have presented, will no longer teach Rom 1:26f as authoritative.” Bernadette Brooten thinks that Paul maintained “a gender asymmetry based on female subordination.” Perhaps this weighs into her reasoning.

Affirming writer William Loader also opposes the pederasty only interpretation of Romans 1. He concludes:

Our discussion above also reflects the widespread nature of such relations, including those under attack, which included, but by no means, limited to exploitive pederasty. The broader nature of the phenomenon, the reference to lesbian relations which does not fit pederasty…10 William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 324-325.

He is not just talking about exploitation of slaves or about pederasty. He is talking about those whose passion is mutual, of consenting adults (with or for one another, Rom 1:24, 27).11 Preston Sprinkle, (ed), Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016) William Loader, Response to Megan K. DeFranza, 105.

Nothing, however, indicates that he is exempting some same-sex intercourse as acceptable. It is all an abomination for Paul. The mutuality implied in his description of what is attacked “for one another,” makes it unlikely that he is addressing only one-sided exploitative relations as in pederasty.12 William Loader, Making Sense of Sex (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 137.

Affirming author Louis Crompton concurs. Even though he died an active gay man at age 84, Crompton states the following about same sex relationships in Romans 1:

Some interpreters, seeking to mitigate Paul’s harshness, have read the passage as condemning not homosexuals generally but only heterosexual men and women who experimented with homosexuality. According to this interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. . The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any Jew or early Christian.13 Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 114.

In a discussion of homosexuality with Robert Gagnon, revisionist Dan Via stated:

Professor Gagnon and I are in substantial agreement that the biblical texts that deal with specifically homosexual practice condemn it unconditionally.14 Dan Via and Robert Gagnon, Homosexuality in the Bible: Two Views. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 93-94.
Revisionist Pim Pronk agrees the scriptures do not support homosexuality:
Christians, as a matter of course, appeal to the Bible for their position on homosexuality, be it pro or con. It is for them a faith position, after all the people are eager to see it supported by the Bible. In this case that support is lacking.15 Pim Pronk, Against Nature? Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 323.

Based upon their understanding of the Scriptures, affirming authors William Loader, Bernadette Brooten, Louis Crompton, Dan Via, and Pim Pronk believe Romans 1:18-32 includes both pederasty and consensual same sex relationships.16 Preston Sprinkle, People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue), Grand Rapids: Zondervan,2015), 192. “Call me old-fashioned but I do believe that Paul’s word in Romans 1 is authoritative for Christians.” Another affirming author Joel Hollier states 17 Joel Hollier, A Place at His Table: A Biblical Exploration of Faith, Sexuality, and the kingdom of God (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2019), 122. that “the majority of scholars” do not believe the Scriptures condemn monogamous same sex relationships. This seems to indicate his lack of knowledge of other scholarly affirming writers (specifically) and their understanding of the scope of Paul’s opposition in Romans 1.

2). The Greek language and pederasty

If Paul had wanted to only describe pederasty in Romans 1, he could have used specific Greek terms.18 Sprinkle, People to Be Loved, 116, 189. Pederasty comes from a compound word paiderastes 19 παιδεραστής meaning the lover of boys. Paid means boy or child and erastes20 ἐραστής is connected to love, hence together meaning “lover of boys.” Historically an erastes was usually an older man and the boy or slave an eromenos.21 ἐρώμενος Richard Friedman and Shawna Dolansky provide the following description of ancient pederasty:

The most common and idealized form of homosexual relationships between aristocratic males in Greece was known as paederastia: “boy-love.” An older male citizen, known in Athens as an erastes, would court a young adolescent youth of a good family much in the way a man might court a future wife. If his courtship was successful, the youth would become the eromenos to the erastes, and the erastes would educate, protect, and offer love to the eromenos. Social conventions dictated that when the youth became a man, the sexual nature of the relationship must end in order to avoid the shame associated with a full- grown male citizen being penetrated by a social equal. One could be an eromenos only in one’s youth, before becoming a citizen. In fact, while the eromenos must honor and respect his erastes, even as a youth he was never to reciprocate the sexual desire of the erastes, for this would bring shame on himself and his family.22 Richard Elliott Friedman and Shawna Dolansky, The Bible Now (Oxford: University Press, 2000), 33.

Historically these words were used by Jews, Christians, pagans, and anyone else who spoke Greek.23 Sprinkle, People to Be Loved, 116. In fact, it is not plausible that anyone would write or talk about pederasty without using the term paiderastes or other terms derived from it.24 Sprinkle agrees. “There were many Greek words used to describe pederasty (paiderastes [“the love of boys”], paidophthoros[“corruptor of boys”], paidophtoreo [“seducer of boys”]), and none of them are used here. Neither is there any explicit mention of master-slave relations, rape, or prostitution.” Preston Sprinkle and Jeff Cook. A Debate About Homosexuality: Part 5 “The Sin ‘of’ Homosexuality.”

3). The practice of pederasty experienced a transition in the ancient world

Even though other same sex activity continued, about four hundred years before Paul pederasty began to decline and the Romans started to view it as a “vice of the Greeks.” Mark Smith writes:

By the early second century BCE Rome had passed the Lex Sac(n)tinia and the edict De adtemptata pudicitia which made pederastic behavior and even the attempt to seduce a freeborn boy, liable to criminal prosecution. By the time of the Principate, pederasty becomes extremely rare in the sources, while at the same time there appears to be a significant increase in homosexual activity among consenting adults.25 Mark Smith, “Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27,” Journal of the America Academy of Religion IXIV/2, 233.

This decline indicates Paul’s instruction to the Romans included all same sex relationships—not only pederasty. Mark Smith further explains:

In sum, the extant sources for Greco-Roman homosexual practices demonstrate many exceptions to pederasty and a decline in the prominence of pederasty in the last three centuries immediately preceding Paul. Very few references to specifically pederastic activity occur in the literature and art of the last century before Paul’s era. Considerations of space prevent us from exploring the evidence for homosexual use of male slaves (which was commonplace) and the role of male homosexual prostitutes (both active and passive) for which there was apparently a viable market. Suffice it to say that they only offer a yet more varied picture of homosexual life in the ancient world, and none of these can be construed to conform to the “model” of pederasty.26 Smith, “Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27,” 237-238.

Although pederasty was considered normal and acceptable by the Roman conquerors during the period when the New Testament was written, first century Rome saw a transition from the Greek, romanticized view of homosexual activity to such activity being more abusive. Historian Thomas Hubbard writes:

Literature of the first century C.E. bears witness to an increasing polarization of attitudes toward homosexual activity, ranging from frank acknowledgment and public display of sexual indulgence on the part of leading Roman citizens to severe moral condemnation of all homosexual acts, even with slaves. One no longer finds the idealized and romantic images of Vergil and Tibullus, inspired by Greek models, but instead an obsessive interest in the most graphic and salacious aspects of same-sex relations.27 Thomas K. Hubbard, (ed.) Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook Basic Documents. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 383.

According to David Wright, Jewish and Stoic writers alike opposed pederasty. He writes:

Although Paul said remarkably little about homosexuality…what he does say reveals a remarkable originality, in part by adopting the broader perspectives of the tradition that derived from the Old Testament and from Leviticus in particular.28 David Wright, “Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible,” Evangelical Quarterly 51:4 (1989) 300.

Mark Smith summarizes the sexual situation of the Greco-Roman world and its possible relationship to the modern world in this way:

I have no doubt that Greeks or Romans would agree that Kinsey’s continuum also represents their behavior, albeit with some differences in cultural expression. We have our Man-boy Love associations, our bathhouses, our bisexuals, and our committed monogamous homosexual relationships, as well as our faithful and less-than-faithful heterosexual marriages. On the one hand, then, we must conclude that there are significant similarities in the cultural expression of sexual activity between the Greco-Roman world and our own. On the other hand, we must be careful not to minimize the remaining cultural differences. The Greeks idealized youthful male beauty; we do not. Many Greeks and at least some upper-class Romans were widely tolerant of male homosexual activity, within certain limits; our culture tends to treat homosexuality as one of the more heinous of evils, perhaps as a result of our medieval European heritage. Women in Greek, and to a lesser extent in Roman, culture were held in extreme subjugation to their male superiors (Cantarella 1987), a far cry from our cultural assumptions and practices. Our conceptions of romance, dating, and meaning of marriage are to a large extent foreign to ancient cultures (Boswell 1994: 3ff.) Pederasty, in our culture, would be translated as sex with a minor and prosecuted as Lewd and Lascivious Conduct or Statutory Rape. If bisexuality was considered “normal” in Greco-Roman culture, it is not in ours, which emphasizes heterosexuality as the only “normal” sexual option. The distribution of sexual activity along Kinsey’s continuum may have looked somewhat different for ancient people than it does for modern Americans. Perhaps homosexual activity was more widespread among Greeks and Romans, as a result of the relative acceptability of such behavior in their cultures (though the evidence is by no means sufficient to make any judgments about relative frequency). These are legitimate distinctions between two cultures, and I have no doubt others could be added.29 Smith, “Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27,” 248-249.

In Karen Keen’s dialogue with Wesley Hill in Chicago in April of 2022, she admits she has some doubt as to what Paul was opposing in Romans 1.

In my own process of studying this, I was not able to come to an affirming position on the basis of exploitative argument. It is a credible argument and may well be the reality that all the passages that refer to this in scriptures are pertaining to exploitation. But I could not prove that was the only reason they condemned it.

Matthew Vines does not believe the New Testament addresses modern same sex relationships and has some doubts as to them being blessed:

Granted, the Bible’s silence on committed same-sex relationships doesn’t necessarily mean those relationships are blessed.30 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 131.

Justin Lee expresses a similar doubt about Paul and Romans 1:31 Justin Lee, Torn: Rescuing the Gospel-vs-Christians Debate. (New York: Jericho: 2012), 183.

Perhaps he would have condemned the gay sex even if it weren’t in the context of idolatry.

Despite Matthew Vines’ question regarding the Bible’s blessing same sex relationships and Justin Lee’s doubts about the influence of idolatry on Paul’s condemnation of gay sex, Karen Keen uses them to support her position of God’s approval of same sex partnerships:

Gay-affirming evangelicals believe that same-sex partnerships can be blessed by God. Prominent leaders in this group include Justin Lee and Matthew Vines.32 Karen Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018) 13.

Neither Vines nor Lee see themselves as scholars on the matter. Matthew Vines writes:

I am not a biblical scholar, so I have relied on the work of dozens of scholars whose expertise is far greater than my own.33 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 2. According to Christopher Yuan, Vines “attended Harvard for three semesters and never received a bachelor’s degree.” (See: Yuan, Holy Sexuality and the Gospel, 149).

Justin Lee admits he is not “a preacher, or a theologian or a scholar.”34 Lee, Torn, 210.

These statements by Karen Keen, Matthew Vines, and Justin Lee indicate they are not 100% sure their understanding of Romans 1 is correct. This is significant, especially considering the firm opposition of their fellow affirming scholars including Loader, Brooten, Crompton, Via, and Pronk.

Issue Two: Does Paul Address Modern Same Sex Relationships in Romans 1?

Some affirming writers believe Romans 1 is not applicable to modern same sex relationships. Consider the following six examples:

1). Matthew Vines clearly states he does not necessarily believe same sex marriages are blessed, however earlier in the same book he makes the following observation:

…he wasn’t addressing what we think of today as homosexuality. The context in which Paul discussed same-sex relations differs so much from our own that it can’t reasonably be called the same issue.35 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 106. Throughout his book, Vines maintains Paul does NOT condemn modern-day same sex behavior. “We’ve found that, while Paul’s words are certainly negative, they appear in a context that differs greatly from the debate taking place within the church today.” (114) “…the context in which he would have been making that statement would differ significantly from our context today.” (126)

…what Paul was describing is fundamentally different from what we are discussing.36 Vines, God and the Gay Christian,103.

That isn’t to say that no one pursued only same sex relationships or that no same-sex unions were marked by long-term commitment and love. But such examples were rare…37 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 104.

It is important to observe that six years later Matthew Vines changed his understanding of “same-sex unions” from being “rare” to no longer existing “in ancient times.”38 Matthew Vines, For the Bible Tells Me So: Hermeneutics and the Debate About LGBTQ Inclusion (You Tube) (March 6, 2020).

Even though same-sex marriage is not mentioned in any part of the bible because same-sex relationships between social equals were not even on the radar screen in ancient times…

The notion of two men or two women of equal social status entering into a lifelong monogamous relationship would not have been accepted even by the most “progressive” Greeks and Romans, as such an arrangement would have undermined the patriarchal foundation of their societies.

A comparison of Matthew Vines’ writing from 2014 and his teaching in 2020 appears to show a progression in his efforts to justify modern same sex relationships.

Vines also states:

Ironically, that means the equal-status gay marriages we see today would not have been accepted in most of the ancient world.39 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 37.

2). Robin Scroggs does not believe the bible addresses modern same sex relationships:

The fact remains, however, that the basic model in today’s Christian homosexual community is so different from the model attacked by the New Testament that the criterion of reasonable similarity of context is not met.40 Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality,127.

3). Justin Lee rejects Leviticus and Romans as applicable to modern same sex relationships:

The Leviticus and Romans passages had a clear context of idolatry, not committed relationships. If 1 Corinthians 6:9 was condemning the same things, or something else like pederasty then the Bible didn’t address committed gay relationships at all.41 Lee, Torn: 186.

4). Jeff Cook agrees and writes:

Monogamous same-sex relationships are nowhere in sight when reading Romans 1.42 Preston Sprinkle and Jeff Cook Debate. Part 6: “Gay Sex—What is Paul Cranked Up About?”

5). Regarding his understanding of pederasty in ancient literature Joel Hollier writes:

Of course, we know from the vast libraries of ancient literature available to us that there were numerous such models available to them, none of which were faithful, exclusive, or mutually self-sacrificing.43 Hollier, A Place at His Table, 126.

In fact, over the past forty years, the majority of scholars who have written theological works exploring the Bible’s view of homosexuality have concluded that the Bible as a whole does not condemn faithful, monogamous same sex-unions—their pillars have fallen also.44 Hollier, A Place at His Table, 122. Because of his book being a recent treatise (2019) there have been no reviews or references made to it by either traditionalists or revisionists.

6). Karen Keen makes the following comment about same sex relationships in antiquity:

But the biblical authors don’t write about the morality of consensual same-sex relationships as we know them today. To put it simply, to say that the biblical authors object to prostitution or pederasty is not to say that the authors object to monogamous, covenanted relationships. That would be comparing apples and oranges.45 Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 20.

Progressives might respond to this concern by saying that the Bible does not speak to covenanted same-sex relationships and thus we can feel confident in discerning God’s will on the basis of virtues. In this they are correct; the Bible doesn’t address covenanted same-sex relationships as we know them today.46 Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 57-58.

But the biblical authors don’t write about the morality of consensual same-sex relationships as we know them today.47 Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 20.

In essence, Paul does not address the question of gay people who love God and want to share their life with someone in a caring, monogamous relationship.48 Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 39.

Even so, Keen does not eliminate the possibility that consensual same sex relationships existed in Paul’s day because she uses the terms “rarely,” “rare,” and “primarily,” and “likely” in referring to them. She writes:

Consensual peer relationships are rarely mentioned.49 Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 17.

Peer relationships were rare.50 Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 20.

Homoeroticism during the Greco-Roman period consisted primarily of pederasty.51 Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 17.

The apostle Paul likely had in mind the behavior he saw around him, namely pederasty or sex with male slaves and prostitutes.52 Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 18.

If, as Keen and others indicate, there is a possibility that Paul knew of “consensual peer relationships,” does it not stand to reason that Paul would have distinguished between them and pederasty and other abusive relationships?

In response to Preston Sprinkle’s review of her book (December 16, 2018) Keen writes:

But we can’t prove that Paul or other biblical authors knew monogamous, covenanted same-sex couples. For all we know their primary exposure was to the predominant exploitative practices. Neither traditionalists nor progressives can make a case on this basis alone. It remains speculative. That is why I focus on the Scriptural basis for mutuality.

Response to Romans 1 Excluding Modern Same Sex Relationships

At the beginning of his explanation of Romans 1, Matthew Vines writes:

There is no question that Rom 1:26-27 is the most significant biblical passage in this debate.53 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 96.

But his words in Romans 1 have long been read as a rejection of all same-sex relationships. What we need to ask is: is that a faithful application of the text today?54 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 99.

Vine’s question is a valid one and requires consideration of several topics:
(1) An examination of Romans 1.
(2) An examination of outside literary sources.
(3) The use of porneia in two texts.
(4) The research of Preston Sprinkle.
(5) Paul’s knowledge/travels and covenanted same sex marriages.
(6) Paul and dedicated monogamous same sex Christians.

1). An examination of Romans 1

According to the terms Paul uses in Romans 1:27-28, there is no indication this text precludes the actions from being consensual.55 Romans 1 is not a condemnation of only same sex relationships. The phrase of “sexual impurity” (Rom 1:24) includes several types of immoral sexual behavior (adultery, rape, prostitution). He makes a general statement about degrading “their bodies with one another” (Romans 1:24b)56 The Greek in Rom 1:24 is: “ho autos soma en autos” (τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς) which is not the exact term as “one another” in Rom 1:27 (ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους). therefore implying mutuality. He describes men abandoning “natural relations” and committing “shameful acts with one another,” and receiving “in themselves due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:27b).57 It has been suggested the “due penalty” (antimisthian ἀντιμισθίαν) or “recompense” could refer to the soreness both persons could experience in anal intercourse. Sprinkle, (ed) Homosexuality: The Bible, and the Church. William Loader, Homosexuality and the Bible, 42. In the New English Translation of Romans 1:27a58 ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν (auton) εἰς ἀλλήλους mutuality is again seen: “were inflamed in their passions for one another.”59 The prefix “ek” (exekauthesan: “inflamed”) showed intensity of the verb. Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Text and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abington Press, 2001), 237. Paul’s use of “themselves,” “their,” and “one another” indicate both partners were equally guilty.60 Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality, 325. He does not believe Romans 1 is limited to pederasty. In fact mutual responsibility is indicated four times in Romans 1:27b:61 The CEB translates Rom 1:27b: “Males performed shameful actions with males, and they were paid back with the penalty they deserved for their mistake in their own bodies.” The YLT:   “and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.”
(1) “toward one another”62 See Rom 1:24 for “one another.” εἰς ἀλλήλους is a reciprocal pronoun.
(2) “men with men”63 ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν
(3) “in themselves”64 αὐτῶν
(4) “their error”

In commenting about the phrase “for one another,” William Loader makes the following observation:

…Paul’s depiction in 1:27 of mutual desire (εἰς ἀλλήλους) suggest that what he has in mind is not primarily exploitative pederasty and certainly not limited to it. The same applies to Jewett’s speculation that Paul may have sexual abuse of male slaves in mind. Those who have interpreted Lev 18:22 as referring to some form of cult prostitution frequently try to read this into Romans 1, so that Paul’s focus would not be same-sex acts in general but those preformed within idolatrous ritual contexts.65 Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality, 325.

Paul’s terminology is also telling. If Paul had only been condemning older men having sex with boys, he would not have used a reciprocal pronoun “toward one another” and the phrase “men in men.”66 εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν The word for young (neotez)67 νεότης is used in 1 Timothy 4:12. The word for child (teknon) 68 τέκνον is used in Ephesians 6:4 and Romans 8:16-17 and 21.69 Obviously the three words have overlapping usages. Because of the terms used there is no indication the “mutual” same sex relationships were with slaves or prostitutes but rather with two equal men. The word used to describe adolescence (that spanned late childhood to early adulthood) is neaniskos. Because Paul held both individuals accountable, it was not reasonable for Paul to have included a “mounted boy.” 70 ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης. (Rom 1:27) The text does not imply a power play of an older man with a young male, a master with his slave, nor a rape situation.71 Playing the part of the woman was degrading for men regardless if the sex act was forced or consensual.

According in the Hebrew Bible when homosexual conduct was mutual BOTH parties were punished (Deuteronomy 22:22-24). When such behavior was not mutual, this was not the case (as seen in rape situations Deuteronomy 22:25-27).72 The same use of mutual terms is repeated in Rom 1:24-27. Had Paul been targeting only pederasty, he would have clarified the culpability of the “innocent” party.

The same sex relationships Paul condemns is further defined at the beginning of Romans 1:27. He states, “in the same way” which means the men paralleled the mutual lesbian73 Bernadette Brooten has written perhaps the most important book on lesbianism in antiquity and its relationship to early Christianity (especially Rom 1:26). “Lesbian” comes from a 7th-6th century BCE gay poet named Sappho who was from the Greek island of Lesbos. Therefore “Lesbos” is the source for “lesbian.” activity of the women in Romans 1:26. There is no evidence older women exploited younger women, consequently this condemnation references same sex relationships between “men” and “men”74 The Greek phrase (“men in men”) and context indicate anal sex. The Latin Vulgate translates the Greek as masculi in masculos indicating the nature of the act.It can also be translated “men effecting shamelessness in men”, or “men working genitals in men” – in the LXX is a euphemism for genitals. and not “men” and “boys.”75 William Loader, “Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of Its Time,” Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (108:1 2017),140. “As Jewett suggests, anal intercourse might best explain Paul’s additional comment, which would be referring to the soreness of the anus or the penis or both. Jewett translates the words τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι as ‘working (up) shame’ and referring to an erection, and ἣν ἔδει as a reference to construction of tightness, producing the subsequent soreness…But even without these readings which may be claiming too much, I (William Loader JJ) consider Jewett’s proposal the most plausible-thus far of the many suggestions with regard to the meaning of the words τὴνἀ σχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴνἀ ντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες. Paul does not appear to assume the principle of matching punishments so that in the broadest sense God’s punishment for human beings’ perverted approach to himself in their minds is abandon them in their minds to a perverted approach to each other. Similarly, the perverted activity with the penis and anus produces punishment though soreness of both.” In connection with the damage of “men in men,” the phrase of “dishonoring their bodies’ (Rom 1:24) and “passion of dishonor” (Rom 1:26) could be added.

The parallel to female behavior stands. Is it possible that limiting Paul’s opposition to same sex relationships only to pederasty is an example of “reading into the text” a window of acceptability which is not there?

As Paul closes his condemnation of the gentiles in Romans 1, he mentions sins God opposes and states in 1:32, “that those who do such things deserve death.” There was no law which demanded death for these sins except murder. William Loader makes the following observations:

It is likely therefore that Paul remains focused here on same sex relations, where Lev 20:13 declares the death penalty for lying with a man as with a woman. The fact that he also attacks those who applaud such practices may well also reflect that focus, since it is a charge expressed, for instance, by Philo, who was concerned about public support for such practices. 76 William Loader, “Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of Its Time.” Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1) 2017, 145. Loader listed the following sources for Philo: e.g. Philp, Specleg IV 89; VitCont 53-56.61).

The final verse suggests that Paul still has same-sex relations in mind when he speaks of people propagating and promoting such sin…77 Sprinkle (ed.), Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. William Loader, Homosexuality and the Bible, 41.

2). An examination of outside literary sources

According to the cumulative evidence, Paul was probably aware of ongoing consensual monogamous relationships.
(1). Plutarch and Monogamous Covenanted Same Sex Couples

Evidence indicates same sex relationships among equals was practiced in the Greco-Roman world. Mark Smith summarizes Plutarch’s (45 CE to 120 CE) awareness of such behavior in the following way:

Plutarch describes the famous Sacred Band of fourth century BCE Thebes, which became the military powerhouse of Greece. One qualification for membership in this elite military corps was to become the homosexual lover of another band member, on the assumption that lovers would fight more fiercely for each other. There is no evidence that there were any pre-adolescent members of this group; we must assume that they were all of prime fighting age. Pederastic practices would be unlikely in such a context, because they all must fight side-by-side as equals. Plutarch portrays Pelopidas as married at the same time that he was captain of the Sacred Band and, thus, attached to a male lover…Epaminondas, the great Theban military leader, was so attached to his lover, Caphisodorus, that the two fell together at the Battle of Mantinaea and were buried together like a married couple.78 Smith, “Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27,” 236.

Paul was well educated and assumedly knew the history of the Sacred Band of Thebes and the 150 consensual/committed /monogamous same sex couples willing to die for each other.

(2). Plato and Monogamous Covenanted Same Sex Couples

Several authors have commented on Plato’s acknowledgement of these relationships. Jim Reynolds writes:

Plato’s Symposium contained moving statements about the compassionate and beautiful character of same-sex love, describing various celebrants (including Socrates) during a time of light drinking after a banquet that occurred in 416 B.C. Plutarch’s Dialogues (750 B.C.) contained strong affirmation of loving same-sex relationships contending for their superiority over heterosexual lovemaking. The same attitude was defended in the Pseud-Lucianic Affairs of the Heart (ca. 300 A.C.). These references indicate that the ancient context contained powerful proponents of adult same-sex lovemaking not unlike the contemporary context of the early 21st century.
Then, as now, pagan writers advocated exploitative homosexual acts as well as homosexual acts of love. It is the lack of gender polarity, thereby distorting God’s created intent, that is at the root of the Biblical as well as the contemporary church’s opposition to homosexuality. (Romans 1:18-32, Genesis 1 and 2).79 Jim Reynolds, The Lepers Among Us: Homosexuality and the Life of the Church. (Xulon Press, 2007), 151.

Robert Gagnon makes the following observation about Plato (427 BCE to 346 BCE):

Even on the surface of it, the notion that mutually caring same-sex relationships first originated in modern times sounds absurd. Are we to believe that nobody with homosexual or lesbian urges in all of antiquity was able to provide a healthy example of same-sex love? In fact, moving statements about compassionate and beautiful character of same-sex love can be found in Greco-Roman literature. Among the example are the speeches in Plato’s Symposium. In it is narrated a series of discourses on Love (Eros) by various celebrants (including Socrates), during the time of light drinking after a banquet that occurred in 416 B.C.E.80 Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 350-351. Gagnon follows with several examples of committed and loving relationships.

James DeYoung summarizes the information from Plato in the following manner:

Second, given Plato and other evidence, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that the ancients knew virtually all forms of homosexuality, including orientation, centuries before Paul.81 James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications 2000), 157.

Since Plato lived from 427 B.C. to 346 B.C. the discussion among Greek intelligentsia was underway hundreds of years before the apostle Paul. The following portions of Plato also support the view that the Greeks knew of homosexual condition or inversion, as well as the various practices of homosexual behavior. Indeed, some of them touted them as superior to heterosexuality—an early example of “gay pride.”82 DeYoung, Homosexuality, 205. DeYoung follows with extensive quotes from Plato and other ancient writers.

(3). During the classical Greek period, pederasty was a common practice among the socially elite Greeks, but this does not mean there were no mutual same sex relationships. Thomas Hubbard summarizes the Grecian influence on homosexual activity:

Greek homosexual activity, despite popular misconceptions, was not restricted to man-boy pairs. Vase-painting shows numerous scenes where there is little or no apparent difference in the age between the young wooer and his object of courtship.83 Hubbard, (ed.) Homosexuality in Greece and Rome, 5.

3. The use of porneia in two texts

(1). Corinthians 7

In Corinthians 7:2 Paul uses of the plural form of “sexual immorality”84 The plural form can be used to describe “several acts” and not necessarily “many kinds.” The singular use can describe a “category.” therefore indicating he was aware of different kinds of immoral sexual behavior.85 In 1 Cor 7:2 Paul uses the plural form of porneia (πορνείας) to show the extent of immorality in Corinth. He would have been aware of the brothels in the Greco-Roman world. In Romans he claims people were so depraved that “they invented ways to do evil” (Rom 1:30). See Mark 7:21-22. As such, the term could have included the sexual sins of 1 Corinthians 6:9. It is also quite possible the “many people” (Acts 18:8) in Corinth included types of same sex relationships and other relationships considered to be immoral.86 Acts 18 10; 1 Cor 1:26-31; 1 Cor 5:1- 2

(2). Acts 15

Paul and Barnabas had had great success teaching the gentiles and consequently the church was confronted with the issue of circumcision and salvation among the gentile converts (Acts 15:1).87 Acts 13:46; 14:1, 27; 15:12 To clarify the matter a letter was constructed by the apostles, elders, and the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:8, 23, 28) to the gentile churches outlining the behavior they were expected to follow as believers (Acts 15:23). Significantly the letter follows the same order88 The original letter mentioned by James follows a different order (Acts 15:20). The abstaining “from food polluted by idols” (ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων) in Acts 15:20 is qualified in Acts 15:29 with “food sacrificed to idols” (εἰδωλοθύτων). “Sexual immorality” is connected to “idolaters.” (Rev 2:14, 20; 1 Cor 6:9; Gal 5:19-20 εἰδωλολατρία) or was something to be avoided (1 Thess 4:3). The “what is strangled” is followed by the mention of “blood” (Gen 9:4). Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 118-119. Conzelmann believes the letter (Acts 15:29) follows the order of Leviticus 17-18. as Leviticus 17-18. Because of Paul’s ministry to the gentiles (Acts 9:15), his knowledge of their past,89 1 Cor 6:9-11; 12:2; Rom 1:26-27 and his understanding of Torah, it can be assumed he had a major influence on the contents of this letter. Gentiles were expected to abstain from:90 Paul alludes to the letter written to gentile believers declaring “we have written to them our decision” (Acts 21:25). This correspondence follows the order of the letter in Acts 15:29. Later Paul adds a note regarding eating foods sold in the market (1 Corinthians 10:25; Romans 14:2).
(1) food sacrificed to idols (Leviticus 17:7)
(2) blood (Leviticus 17:12)
(3) meat of strangled animals (Leviticus 17:13; Genesis 9:4)
(4) (porneia) sexual immorality (Leviticus 18:1 through 23)91 “Sexual immorality” (Acts 15:29) is the translation of the Greek word porneia. In Acts 15:29 porneia does not appear in the plural as found in Mark 7:21 and 1 Corinthians 7:2. However the singular form could have included several examples of immorality.

As in 1 Corinthians, Paul chooses the plural of the term porneia in this text which most likely includes same sex relationships.92 As same sex relationships can be included in porneia (Acts 15), according to the LXX the word can also include adultery. In Hosea 2:2b “adulterous” and “unfaithfulness” are both mentioned. “Let her remove the adulterous look from her face and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.” The first word is zenuniym and means “fornication” or “sexual unfaithfulness.” The second word, na’pupiym, means “adultery.” There does not seem to be a clear distinction between them other than the first term is perhaps broader. The LXX uses the word porneia to describe the “look from her face” and the word adultery moikeia to describe what was “between her breasts.” In three New Testament texts porneia (sexual immorality) and moikeia (adultery) are listed separately: Mark 7:21, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Matthew 15:19. Because the writers mention “adultery” in addition to sexual immorality, adultery appears to be a subset of sexual immorality (porneia).

In the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Walter Bauer and Frederick Danker translate Acts 15:29 as “abstaining fr. things offered to idols, blood, things strangled, and irregular sexual union.”93 Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 103. The lexicon translates “εἰδωλοθύτων καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνικτῶν καὶ πορνείας” as: “abstain fr. things offered to idols, blood, things strangled, and from irregular sexual union Ac 15:29.” They then refer the reader to Leviticus 18:6-30, especially Leviticus 18:20. By defining porneia mentioned in Acts 15:29 as “irregular sexual union” and referencing the Leviticus texts, it appears their understanding of porneia includes same sex relationships in addition to incest, adultery and bestiality.94 The sins of Leviticus 18 are bookended by “I am the LORD your God” (Lev 18:2 and Lev 18:30.) The section begins with the admonishment by God to “Keep my decrees and laws” (Lev 18:5). After the sins are listed God says: “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled” (Lev 18:24). Lev 18:27 acknowledges “all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you.”

Question: Would the gentile believers have understood the letter commanding them to abstain from sexual immorality (porneia) ONLY applied to abusive same sex relationships, and not to consensual, monogamous, and committed relationships?
Reply: It was not necessary for apostles and elders to make a distinction between two “kinds” of same sex relationships because Judaism was united in opposition to ALL same sex relationships. A distinction between same sex relationships (abusive/consensual versus polygamous/monogamous) was foreign to Jewish understanding.

4. The research of Preston Sprinkle

In his book Brownson contends Paul does not address consensual, committed, and monogamous relationships95 Brownson maintains the bible neither affirms nor condemns committed same sex relationships which means God overlooked these relationships in the first century and continues to do so. and does not know of any such relationships. Preston Sprinkle who has written and lectured extensively on same sex relationships from the viewpoint of a traditionalist summarizes evidence to the contrary:

Paul’s world contained a vast array of perspectives on sexual orientation, examples of consensual and nonexploitative same sex couples, and even homosexual marriages. There is no historical reason why we should not assume that Paul could not have had examples of consensual same-sex relations before his eyes when he penned Rom 1.96 Preston Sprinkle, “Romans 1 and Homosexuality: A Critical Review of James Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.4 (2014), 523.

In any case, consensual and loving homosexual relationships can be seen during the Roman period as well. For instance, Xenophon’s second century AD novel An Ephesian Tale depicts a young man named Hippothous who falls in love with another man of the same age named Hyperanthes.97 Sprinkle, People to Be Loved, 63. See Sprinkle. “Romans 1 and Homosexuality: A Critical Review of James Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality,” 527 for more examples of consensual same sex love.

5. Paul’s Knowledge/Travels98 Preston Sprinkle, Did Adult Consensual Same-Sex Relationships Exist in Bible Times? 9. With the limitations of the literature from the Greco-Roman era, Paul’s information in Romans 1 becomes even more important. Paul did not have the elite status of other Greco-Roman writers because he was a “leather worker” (Acts 18:3) from Tarsus. He attempts to “level the playing field” (Galatians 3:28) by writing in the common language of his day. and Covenanted Same Sex Couples99 Sprinkle, Did Adult Consensual Same-Sex Relationships Exist in Bible Times? 1-12.

Paul’s world view (Acts 22:3; Philippians 3:5) encompassed the known world as far as Spain (Romans 15:24). He would have crossed paths with followers of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (Acts 17:18), those in the slave community,100 Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; 1 Cor 7:21; Phile 1:16 and those engaging in the “sexual creativity” of Corinth (Acts 18:11). We have already confirmed the possibility of long term committed, loving, and long-term same sex relationships during Paul’s time.101 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 104. “That isn’t to say no one pursued only same sex relationships or that no same-sex unions were marked by long-term commitment and love. But such examples were rare… “ His numerous travels, knowledge of the Greco-Roman world, education, awareness of contemporary writings, and interactions with people from a variety of backgrounds would have exposed him to various forms of same sex relationships102 1 Cor 6:9-11; 12:2; 1 Tim 1:10 including casual, abusive, consensual, and even those which were committed/monogamous.

Paul was known as the apostle to the gentiles103 Acts 14:46; Rom 11:13; Gal 2:8) which implies his knowledge of their culture. In his letters he mentions the gentiles had turned from idols (1 Thessalonians 1:9), did not know God (1 Thessalonians 4:5;104 “Not knowing God” is connected to sexual sins (1 Thess 4:1-8). The name of God is mentioned five times in eight verses. Acts 17:23), were sinful (Galatians 2:15), and were engaged in sexual immortality (1 Corinthians 6:9). The Corinthian church had a background of paganism (1 Corinthians 12:2) and in 1 Corinthians 5:1 Paul indicates he possesses detailed knowledge of occurring sexual immorality that was not even tolerated by pagans. In Ephesians 4:17, he instructs his readers to “no longer live as the Gentiles.”

There are no indications in any of Paul’s writings that consensual, committed, and monogamous relationships were not included in his instruction of Romans 1:26-27. If Paul meant to only condemn pederasty and abusive same-sex relationships, and not those in consensual, committed, and monogamous same-sex relationships, it seems he would have made that clear. Just as he did not feel it was necessary to list the different types of incestual relationships (Leviticus 18:7-17), he did not list the types of same sex relationships that violated Christian ethics.

It also stands to reason that Paul was involved in the conversion of people involved in same sex relationships. As part of their response to repentance Paul called all believers out of sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:11). The type was insignificant.105 1 Cor 1:26; 6:9-11; 12:2; Acts 18:8-11; 1 Tim 1:10; Eph 5:8 He gives no hint that those involved in same sex monogamous and committed relationships could continue in those relationships after their conversion any more than those involved in other types of sexual immorality.

6. Paul and Dedicated Monogamous Same sex Christians

As far as can be determined, Paul was never confronted with committed and monogamous Christians in same sex relationships.106 Why a person is born with the same sex attraction cannot be answered any more than why a person is born blind (John 9:1-4) or with a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12:7). In the situation of the blind man, Jesus said, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3). Of his own situation Paul said, “Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me” (2 Cor 12:7). If he had been:
(1) What would have been his response?
(2) Would he have reasoned that same sex relationships within the context of idol worship were sinful but lawful when engaged in by consensual, committed, and monogamous Christians?
(3) Would he consider same sex relationships today acceptable or sinful based on the circumstances?

We can only surmise Paul’s answers to these questions by using his own words. His attitude toward immoral Christians (assumed to be dedicated and God-loving) in Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:11) is telling. He cautions the churches up and down the Lycus Valley to not even hint (aroma) at immorality by their actions (Ephesians 5:3). He writes to the Thessalonians:

It is God’s will that you should be sanctified that you should avoid sexual immorality, that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans who do not know God. (1 Thess 3:3-5)

The Corinthian Christians tried to rationalize immoral behavior because, “I have the right to do anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12), and “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food” (1 Corinthians 6:13). Paul did not agree. In fact, his message was more in tune with, “My only right as a Christian is to give up my other rights” (1 Corinthians 8:9-10; Romans 14). What one could do or could not do with their own body was a major concern for him. Just as Paul’s message was counter-cultural as he opposed consensual, heterosexual, immoral behavior (1 Corinthians 5:9-11),107 In the Jewish world a Jewish husband could have sex with a non-virgin, a non-married woman, or a non-pledged woman and not be guilty of adultery because there was no property violation. he was counter-cultural in his opposition to same sex relationships.

Summary of Assumption Three
Basis Of Paul’s Opposition to Same Sex Relationships

Even though some teachings from Torah do not appear to be repeated in the New Testament (such as the practice of the levirate marriage, Deuteronomy 25:5 through 10), the same cannot be said for same sex relationships especially in the light of the teachings in Romans 1:18-32.

Paul was opposed to ALL same sex relationships under any circumstances whether by Christians or pagans, abusive or consensual. If same sex relationships among Christians were approved by God, Paul made no attempt to differentiate them from same sex relationships among pagans who had rejected God for idols.

Romans 1 has two revelations: the righteousness of God (Romans 1:16-17) and God’s punishment for ungodliness and unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). As mankind cannot be saved without a knowledge of the gospel (Romans 10:14-15) mankind cannot be condemned without a knowledge of sin. Both gentiles and Jews were without excuse—the Jews had the law (Romans 1:20; Romans 2:1), and the gentiles had creation (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1-6, Ecclesiastes 3:11) and the law that was “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15). If Paul meant to imply consensual same sex relationships were acceptable to God as opposed to abusive ones (pederasty), how were the gentiles to know the difference having only creation and the law “written on their hearts?” The law “written on their hearts” confirms knowledge that is intuitive, natural, and intrinsic. Both signify same sex relationships were not God’s intention at creation. Even though Paul affirms the capacity of the “heart” to believe (Rom 10:10), scripture also warns the heart can be deceived (Jeremiah 17:9; Hosea 10:2). Such is the case with all sin.

Succinctly put, the “Genesis marriage” is supported both by Jesus (Mark 10:6 through 9) and by Paul’s analogy of Jesus and the church compared to husband and wife (Ephesians 5:21-33). Even though same sex relationships are not mentioned in Genesis:
(1) They oppose the creation ideal found in Genesis. When God created the earth, sun, moon, stars, seas, and animals they were designed to work together to accomplish certain purposes. The same was true of man and woman. Veering from this plan creates “irregularity” and can be traced back to the “orderliness” or “design” of creation.108 “according to their kinds” (Gen 1:12, 21, 24, 25). “And God saw it was good” (Gen 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25). “God saw all that he made, and it was very good” (Gen 1:31) Same sex relationships do not fit the “design purposes” of creation.
(2) They oppose the ethics in Torah which are connected to character of God.
(3) They oppose Jesus’ explanation of God’s plan for marriage (Matthew 19:1-12).
(4) They oppose the complementary nature of pairs (male and female), i.e.: man was to leave father and mother (male and female), and man was joined to his wife (male and female).
(5) They oppose God’s plan because of the nature of the partner, i.e.: 109 Even if done in a mutual and committed manner, none of these behaviors could be considered acceptable. adultery involves sex with someone other than a spouse; incest involves sex with a relative; bestiality involves sex with an animal; same-sex relationships involve sex with one who is biologically the same.

Filed Under: Christian Life, LGBTQ+

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption Two

April 13, 2023 By Jerry Jones 1 Comment

The background for Romans 1:18 through 32 1

The most radical effort to do away with Rom 1:18-32 as opposing same sex activity has been put forth in Martin Colby’s effort to cast doubt on it being “Pauline writings.” Colby Martin, UnClobber: Rethinking Our Misuse of the Bible on Homosexuality. (John Knox Press: Louisville, 2016), 118. “There is compelling reason to believe that these fifteen verses were not written by, or at least original to, Paul. This composition, word choice, and overall flow of the Greek are notably un-Pauline in comparison to the rest of his body of work.” is the Wisdom of Solomon. 2 In addition to its link with the Wisdom of Solomon, Keen also emphasized “impartiality and divine justice” as the focus of Romans 1. “Paul eventually develops his argument of sin in later chapters of Romans, but at this point he is focused on impartiality and divine justice.” Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 38.

Karen Keen maintains the Wisdom of Solomon is the backdrop for Romans 1:18 through 32. The Wisdom of Solomon was written in first century BCE and is considered a non-canonical apocryphal book. She writes:

This connection has long been recognized by scholars…. The point is that Genesis is not the backdrop for Paul; Wisdom of Solomon is the text he is engaging. That has crucial implications for understanding the meaning of Romans 1. 3Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 38.

Paul doesn’t use Wisdom merely to copy it. In fact, he overturns the position of Wisdom that gives Israel greater favor before God than the pagans. 4Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships. 38. Keen used a commentary by Andres Nygren to support what she has stated. A careful reading of Nygren reveals he attributed his understanding of the Gentles from what anyone would know about them plus what could be understood from the Old Testament in addition to Jewish literature such as the Wisdom of Solomon. The following is what Nygren wrote:  “It is a dark page which Paul writes about the unrighteousness of the Gentiles. He had gathered the material from conditions that were manifest to anyone who observed them, their idolatry and their moral waywardness. He could have found the same in the Old Testament and the wisdom literature of the Jews. (cf. especially the Book of Wisdom, chaps. 13-14) They direct attack against paganism with its idolatry. They marshal tables of indictments” (Emphasis mine JJ) Andres Nygren, Commentary on Romans. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983, 112. Later in his commentary, Nygren will reference the influence of the Book of Wisdom on Romans 2. “These chapters (Book of Wisdom 13-14 JJ) clearly supply the key to the second chapter of Romans.” Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 114.

Instead of Genesis, Paul makes his argument in conversation with the Wisdom of Solomon.5Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 37.

Colby Martin agrees:

The tone, language, and arguments of Romans 1:18 through 32 are nearly identical to those found in Wisdom. And this was intentional.6Colby Martin, UnClobber: Rethinking Our Misuse of the Bible on Homosexuality (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2016), 123.

Karen Keen’s Thesis About the Wisdom of Solomon and Romans Rejected

Traditionalists and revisionist writers both connect creation with Romans 1 rather than the Wisdom of Solomon. Consider the following quotations from traditionalist writers:

Robert Gagnon writes:

(1) Scripture rejects homosexual behavior because it is a violation of the gendered existence of male ordained by God at creation.7Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 487.

(2) Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner write:

Paul opposed homosexual behavior on the basis of creation theology and because it is marked as a vice in the Torah and was stressed as a vice by Jews. 8Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 242

(3) Preston Sprinkle writes:

Homosexual unions violate the boundaries of gender established by God at creation. 9Sprinkle, “Romans 1 and Homosexuality: A Critical Review of James Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality, 526.

The following are five examples from revisionists stressing creation as the backdrop of Romans:
(1) William Loader writes:

The perverted approach to God results in a perverted mind, which produces passions which head in a perverted direction, producing acts which are contrary to what God intended in nature as divine creation. 10 Loader, “Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of Its Time,” 145.

The current order of creation as portrayed in Genesis also influences Paul’s stance on same-sex relations. 11William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 496.

On Romans 1, I also find much common ground with Wesley. Clearly Paul has the creation stories in mind, both in his depiction of idolatry and images of animals and when he speaks about same-sex relations. Here I would note in particular the language of “male” and “female” (Rom 1:26-27), which must be alluding to Genesis 1:27.12 Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. William Loader, Response to Wesley Hill,149.

In addition to creation being the basis for Romans 1, William Loader also believes the fall was connected to Romans 1:

Of course, for Paul all sin traces its origin to the fall, and the sin in Romans 1 is no exception. Paul’s argument is Romans 1, however, is not that the particular sin of having a perverted sexual response derives from the fall, but that it derives from having a perverted response to God. One perversion, as he sees it, produces another.13Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. William Loader, Response to Wesley Hill,149.

(2) Bernadette Brooten writes:

For Paul, same-sex love in Rom 1:26f is a sin against the social order established by God at creation…13 Brooten, Love Between Women, 264.

“Men….with men.” The Greek term for “men” is literally “males,” which includes men of all ages. The language calls to mind both Gen 1:27 (that God created humanity “male and female”) and Lev 18:22; 23:13 (on lying with a male as with a woman). Romans, like Leviticus, condemns same-sex relations between males of all ages, not only pederasty.14 Brooten, Love Between Women, 256.

She also mentions Clément’s understanding of Romans:

Clément’s view, as a Christian, of what it means to be a human male or female—his theological anthropology—-shapes his condemnation of female homoeroticism. For him, the Genesis creation narratives lay the framework for understand nature as gendered, while Christ’s maleness further helps to delineate human nature.15Brooten, Love Between Women, 323.

(3) Wesley Hill writes:

The backdrop for Paul’s indictment is, however, equally crucial for an understanding of its precise contours. Paul appears to be telling a story rooted in Israel’s Scripture and specifically in the Genesis creation narratives. .…In short, the story of God’s making the world, God’s giving a command to Adam, and Adam’s subsequent “fall” form the backdrop for Paul’s diagnosis of the human condition in Romans 1.16Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. Wesley Hill, Christ, Scripture, and Spiritual Friendship, 134-135.

Paul’s view of same-sex sexuality appears to be stamped by his reading of God’s design for human beings as found in the book of Genesis.17Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. Wesley Hill, Christ, Scripture, and Spiritual Friendship, 137.

(4) James Brownson writes:

The purity laws attempt, in general, to replicate the order of the original creation, where there was “a place for everything, and everything was its place.” They tend toward preserving what was perceived as the order of creation, and avoiding inappropriate mixtures. 18Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 269.

Prior to Brownson changing his position on same sex relationships, he stressed the importance of creation in respect to modern homosexual relationships. He writes:

…it violates the essential creational intent of God regarding sexuality, distorting the “one flesh” union of male and female which is the basis for sexual ethics throughout the Bible. 19Brownson, “Gay Unions: Consistent Witness or Pastoral Accommodation?” 4. it does not express that creational intent. 20 Brownson, “Gay Unions: Consistent Witness or Pastoral Accommodation?” 4.

(5) Matthew Vines writes:

It’s true, though, that some aspects of the language in Romans 1 do recall language in Genesis 1”…. Words like “creation” and “Creator,” “females” and “males,” and “image” and “likeness,” among others, appear in both passages.21 Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 110.

Creation and Pauline Ethics22Sin can be defined as doing harm against someone else (slander/rape/murder/stealing), falling short of God’s expectations, and transgression (crossing over) but it can also be defined by not living according to the creation design.

The creation account in Genesis 1-2 shaped Paul’s worldview and throughout his letters he uses creation for teaching purposes. For example:

  • 1). When Paul deals with the issue of head coverings for women and men in the assembly, he incorporates creation (1 Corinthians 11:8 through 12).
  • 2). When Paul addresses the false teachings in the church at Ephesus, including acetic food practices, he alludes to creation (1 Timothy 4:1-3).
  • 3). When Paul explains the nature of submission in a marital context, he references creation (Ephesians 5:31).
  • 4). When Paul wants to describe the new self of the Christian, he uses the image of the creator (Colossians 3:10).
  • 5). When Paul declares Christians “are God’s handwork” he adds they were “created in Christ Jesus to do good works” (Ephesians 2:10).
  • 6). In a similar way to Colossians 3:10, Paul writes the new self was “created to be like God” (Ephesians 4:24).
  • 7). In describing the mystery, Paul refers to “God who created all things” (Ephesians 3:9).
  • 8). In dealing with immorality, Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 (1 Corinthians 6:16).
  • 9). Even though it is not a direct reference to creation, Paul uses Eve’s deception by the serpent to illustrate how the Ephesian women were deceived by false teachers (1 Timothy 2:14). In dealing with the deception of the Corinthian church, Eve is used as an example (2 Corinthians 11:3).
  • 10). Paul uses Adam to explain the fall (Romans 5:12 and 14; 1 Corinthians 15:22).
  • 11). Paul reminds his readers that God created all things through Jesus (Colossians 1:16; John 1:3) and “everything God created is good” (1 Timothy 4:4).
  • 12). When Paul explains Jesus, he uses Adam as the contrast (1 Corinthians 15:45).
  • 13). When Paul references “the grace given us in Christ Jesus,” he states it was “before the beginning of time” (2 Timothy 1:9).

As Paul taught new Christians how they should see themselves, he incorporates creation. For example:

  • 1). As Paul completes his emotional letter to the churches of Galatia, he places the Christian life in proper perspective.
    Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation (Galatians 6:15).
  • 2). Paul declares the new creation is the result of reconciliation:
    Therefore, if anyone is in Christ the new creation has come. The old has gone, the new is here (2 Corinthians 5:17).

The Creation Story of Genesis 1 Through 3 Compared to Romans 1

A strong parallel exists between the information in the first chapters of Genesis and Romans 1.23For Paul to deal with the woman first, (Rom 1:26) follows the “fall story” in Genesis. The following topics are significant in both:

  • 1). lie: Romans 1:25; Genesis 3:5
  • 2). shame: Romans 1:27; Genesis 3:1 and 8
  • 3). knowledge: Romans 1:19 and 21 and 28 and 32; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:5
  • 4). death: Romans 1:32; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:4 and 5, and Genesis 3:20, and Genesis 3: 22 and 23
  • 5). wisdom: Romans 1:22; Genesis 3:5

The emphasis on creation in Romans 1 is also seen by Paul’s choice of words.

  • 1). Romans 1:2324They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images (eikonos) in the likeness of (homoiomati) mortal mankind (anthropou) and birds (peteinon) and animals (tetrapodon) and reptiles (herpeton) Rom 1:23 repeats some of some the same terms used in Genesis 1:26,25 Then God said “Let us make mankind (anthropon) in our image (eikona) in our likeness (homoiosin) so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds (peteinon) in the sky over the livestock (ktenon) and all the wild animals and over all the reptiles (herpeton) that move along the ground” Gen 1:26for example: image, likeness, mankind, animals, and reptiles.
  • 2). When referring to women and men, Paul does not use the usual terms for females and males26Paul used θήλειαι (females) and ἄρσενες  (males) instead of the normal words for women and men (andres and gynaikes). but rather employs the words for females and males found in Genesis 1:27 in the Greek Old Testament.27Theleias occurs five times and arsenes occurs nine times whereas gune occurs 215 times and aner occurs 216 times in the New Testament. These were the two words used in the LXX Gen 1:27) in connection with God creating a male and a female. CEB, ASV and NKJV (footnote) have males and females.
  • 3). When referencing God, Paul says “Creator” not “Father” 28Eph 1:2, 17; 4:6; 3:14; 6:23 (Romans 1:25). 29 Besides Genesis 1-2 there are forty verses in Psalms about creation and creation was stressed in Isaiah 40-55. In Isaiah 40-55 the following references to creation: (1) “beginning” 40:21; 46:10; (2) “created” 40:26; 41:20; 43:7; 45: 8, 12, 18; (3) “Creator” 40:28; 42:5; 43:15; (4) “maker of all things” 44:24; 45:9; (5) “create” 45: 7 (twice); 45:18. Harold Shank, Listen and Make Room (Abilene: Abilene University Press, 2020), 24.

William Loader connects Paul’s opposition to same sex relationships and creation in the following way:

Indeed, his declaration of perversion applies to both men and women and to both the active and passive partners. The allusion literally to “males” and “females” probably has in mind creation of male and female (Gen 1:27) which along with the prohibitions of Leviticus will have shaped Paul’s stance.30Loader, Making Sense of Sex, 137-138. Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 90. “That understanding also sheds light on why Leviticus contains no parallel prohibition of female same-sex relations.”

Because of the many references and allusions to creation that are woven throughout the 24 verses of Romans 1:18 through 32, Paul’s foundation for his denunciation of the gentile world was God’s original intent and creation. In this way, he connects “creation” with “truth.” The condemnation of the gentile world did not rest on their disobedience of the Torah as was the case with the Jews (Romans 2). The condemnation of the gentile world rested on their failure to see God in creation,31“exchanged the truth about God for the lie” as the Creator 32Romans 1:25; 1 Peter 4:19 and to adhere to the law that was “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15).33Gentiles don’t have the Law. But when they instinctively (Emphasis mine JJ) do what the Law requires they are a Law in themselves, though they don’t have the Law Rom 2:15 (CEB) For that reason, “the wrath of God” was presently “being revealed 34 Ἀποκαλύπτεται is a present passive indicative 3rd person singular. There are two revelations in Romans 1: (1) The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel (1:16-17). (2) The wrath of God is revealed through his punishment of the wicked (1:18). With both “revelations” Paul established the fact that God does not punish those who do not know (ignorant) or who are not guilty. from heaven against all wickedness of people who suppressed the truth by their wickedness” (Romans 1:18). The “suppression” resulted in both idolatry (vertical) and same sex relationships (horizonal). Whether same sex relationships were done abusively (pederasty 35Pederasty was a sexual practice in the Greco-Roman world involving older men sexually abusing young boys (age), slaves (status) or prostitutes. For the most part the boy might receive some gifts, be prideful for his beauty and some possible educational benefits. Originally the relationship was for mentoring purposes, but this was not always the case. In pederasty there was always the issue of dominance where one was active and the other passive (dominator/dominated). or involved consensual, committed, and monogamous individuals, it was against the character of God and the creational intent and design.

In summarizing creation’s significance in understanding biblical sexuality, Thomas Schreiner writes:

A New Testament perspective on homosexuality is anchored in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. The indispensable framework for interpreting the NT teaching on homosexuality is Genesis 1–2, the creation narrative. We read in Genesis 1:26–27 that God made man in his own image, but the image of God is reflected in two distinct genders, male and female. The distinction between man and woman is underlined in the fuller account of their creation in Genesis 2:18–25. The physical differentiation of the man and the woman, and yet the amazing complementarity of such for bearing children indicates that marriage consists of the union of one woman and one man. The creation narrative, then, functions as the paradigm for males and females, and how they are to relate to one another sexually. The two different genders signify that marriage and sexual relations are restricted to the opposite sex, and that same sex relations are contrary to the created order. 36Thomas R. Schreiner, “A New Testament on Perspective on Homosexuality” Themelios 31, no. 3 (April 2006), 1.

Paul’s Use of Non-Inspired Sources37The only other possible references to apocryphal books would be the citations in Jude 9 (Testament of Moses) and Jude 14 and 15 (First Book of Enoch).

Paul was widely traveled and well educated, consequently he would have had a broad knowledge base38In addition to what he could have learned from Dr Luke (Col 4:14). The books of Luke and Acts support Luke having a broad education. of information available in the Greco-Roman world. Quite possibly he could have known about the Wisdom of Solomon as he did other Jewish literature of his time that addressed the wickedness of the gentile world. For example:

  • 1). Paul quotes the poets in (Epimenides and Aratus of Soli in Cilicia)39In addition to what he could have learned from Dr Luke (Col 4:14). The books of Luke and Acts support Luke having a broad education. when establishing the nature of God and his connection to mankind in Acts 17:28
  • 2). When Paul opposes the false teachers of Crete in Titus 1:12, he quotes one of their own poets Epimenides (600 BCE) who said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” Note: Paul was not indicating ALL Cretans were liars, but he used the quote to shame the false teachers and anyone who would follow them.40Gordon Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy Titus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2011), 179.
  • 3). The quotation in 1 Corinthians 15:33 was taken from a proverb called Thais written by the Greek poet, Menander.
    When Paul does quote outside sources in his writings, it is clear they are direct quotes. In Acts 17:28 he claims, “your own poets” said “we are his offspring.” In Titus 1:12 he claims one of the Crete prophets said: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” In contrast, Keen provides no examples of any direct quote from the Wisdom of Solomon in Romans 1:18 through 32.

Because the wisdom of Solomon was probably written around the first century BCE,41Talbert, Romans, 63. Rom 1:22-23 (Wis 14:12); 1:20 (Wis 13:8); 1:24-27 (Wis 14:22-27); 1:29-31 (Wis 14:23-26); 1:28, 32 (Wis 14:22b); 1:27 (Wis 14:31; 16:24); 2:1 (Wis 15:1-6 esp. v. 2).
there is the possibility Paul may not have had access to it.42Brooten, Love Between Women, 294-295. However, even assuming that he did, it would not have been the norm for him to build an entire case on materials not in the Torah. If he had used the Wisdom of Solomon instead of the creation story as the background for Romans, Paul’s opposition to same sex relationships could have been easily misconstrued as lacking both divine foundation and divine condemnation.43Even though Keen believed “Of all the New Testament texts, Romans 1 provides the most information for analysis and remains the text in the church’s debate on same sex relations” she did not devote a large portion of her book to this key text. On whether Romans 1 deals with same sex relations among women she felt the evidence was “ambiguous” and will not discuss it. Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 18, 121 n.14.

Granted, Paul’s denunciation of the gentiles in Romans 1:18 through 32 does hold a striking resemblance to some information in the non-canonical Wisdom of Solomon 13 and 14 which connects idolatry to sins—including sexual ones. It is not beyond reason that Paul would condemn similar sins found in the Wisdom of Solomon and use “creational” understanding to bolster his case.44Wisdom of Solomon 14:12: “For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them was the corruption of life.”

Summary of Assumption Two

Michael Ukleia summarizes Paul’s knowledge of his world as follows:

As far as Paul’s knowledge of such sins is concerned, it must be remembered that Tarsus was the third intellectual city in the world, ranking behind Athens and Alexandria. Paul grew up there and would have learned about the Greco-Roman world along with its associated philosophies and practices. He could quote Stoic poets. He could cite familiar Stoic virtues. He had learned popular debating techniques. In Tarsus he would have learned about homosexual practice called pederasty. He would have been familiar with the view among the Greeks that homosexual was highly regarded as a form of love.45 Michael Ukleia, “The Bible and Homosexuality Part 2: Homosexuality in the New Testament.” Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (1983), 354.

Paul depended on guidance from the Holy Spirit (John 14:6), an understanding of creation,46Paul saw God in three roles: God of creation, God of the Exodus, and God/Father of the son of God. God revealed himself by what he did. Paul’s view of monotheism and election shaped his teachings and his life (Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5; Acts 17:27-28) his respect for the Torah, and his knowledge of Jesus’s teachings 47 1 Cor 7:10; 9:14; Acts 20:35; 1 Thess 2:13 as the basis for comprehending the will of God.48For the importance of creation in Romans 1, see the following source: Reformed Review 59.1, (Autumn 2005). James Brownson, “Gay Unions: Consistent Witness or Pastoral Accommodations? An Evangelical Pastoral Dilemma and the Unity of the Church,” 3-18. Even though Genesis does not provide explicit commands about sexuality it does provide a foundation for commands in the New Testament. Attempting to find approval for same sex relationships undermines God’s design and the creational intent.

Filed Under: Christian Life, LGBTQ+

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption One

March 22, 2023 By Jerry Jones 2 Comments

Assumption One 1 (JJ) Karen Keen attempts to trace the origin Torah’s law codes to pre-existing laws: “the biblical writers were influenced by these pre-existing laws” Karen Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 46. (JJ) This is an old argument from classic liberalism which states there could not be a detailed law code as found in the Torah at this time in civilization. When the code of Hammurabi was discovered in 1901, classic liberalism changed and claimed it was the source Moses used. The legal texts are dated 1750 B.C.E. and can be found in the Louvre Museum in Paris, France.

Leviticus’ texts are not applicable to modern same sex relationships. 

Both early and later affirming authors contend the Leviticus texts have no application to modern same sex relationships.  Consider the following statements from affirming writers:

  1. John Boswell writes:

            Almost no early Christian writer appealed to Leviticus as authority against homosexual acts.  A few patristic sources involved Leviticus precedents about eating certain animals in relation to homosexuality, but they did so incorrectly…It would simply not have occurred to most early Christians to invoke the authority of the old law to justify the morality of the new; the Levitical regulations had no hold on Christians and are manifestly irrelevant in explaining Christian hostility to gay sexuality. 2 John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 104-105.

  1. Justin Lee maintains the traditional view that same sex relationships are sinful because they are “based on a misinterpretation of Scripture” and none of the Bible is “applied to modern-day monogamous, Christ-centered gay relationships.”3 Justin Lee, Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate (New York: Jericho, 2012), 168.

He interprets Leviticus and Romans in the following way: 

The Leviticus and Romans passages had a clear context of idolatry, not committed relationships.4 Lee, Torn, 186.

  1. Karen Keen writes: 

Progressives argue that the prohibition is applicable only to the Israelites and their cultural context.  The mandate is no more binding on Christians than the law against eating shrimp (Leviticus 11:9-12).5 Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 44.

Later in responding to a review of her book by Preston Sprinkle, she states: 

The Levitical law doesn’t prohibit female-female relations…Notably, women are singled out for bestiality laws, making the lack of female same-sex laws even more curious.6 2nd response to Sprinkle’s review December 30, 2018.

  1. James Brownson writes:

In such a context, Leviticus’s concerns about idolatry, violations of male honor, and the like seem distinctly out of place… In short, the religious, purity, procreative, and honor-shame contexts that form the underlying moral logic of the Levitical prohibitions, understandable and coherent as they may be in their own context, simply do not apply to contemporary committed Christian gay and lesbian relationships.

Finally, it is also worth noting that this analysis applies quite apart from the more general problem that Christians no longer regard much of the Levitical law as applying to the church today… It is simply inadequate, from a Christian perspective, to attempt to build an ethic based on the prohibitions of Leviticus alone.  This is important material to reflect on, but it cannot stand at the center of a responsible Christian moral position on committed gay or lesbian relationships.7 James V. Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 273.

As support for their claims, some revisionists maintain other things prohibited in the Leviticus texts are not applicable today.  For example: 

(1) Cutting a beard a certain way (Leviticus 19:27)

(2) Making a garment out of two different materials (Leviticus 19:19)

(3) Abstaining from sexual activity during menstruation (Leviticus 18:19)8 There is no potential for procreation.

Because these laws are grouped with homosexual activity (that is connected to pagan worship practices), revisionists believe Leviticus has nothing to say about consensual, committed, and monogamous relationships. 

The Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26)

After the Israelites exited Egypt, God’s intent was that they trust and follow him.  This was to differentiate them from the Egyptians and other nationalities.  

You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. (Leviticus 18:3)

To that end and to keep them pure, God provided his people with boundary markers — part of which is the Holiness Code found in Leviticus 17-26.  The code’s foundation consists of four divisions and is found in Leviticus 19:2 and Leviticus 20:7-8:   

(1)  Leviticus chapter 17:  Aaron and his sons

(2)  Leviticus chapters 18-20:  the people 

(3)  Leviticus chapters 21-24:  the priests

(4)  Leviticus chapters 25-26:  agriculture, covenant blessings, and curses

Six times throughout the code the phrase “keep the decrees” is repeated (Leviticus 18:5,26; 19:19,37; 20:8,22).  Woven throughout the Holiness Code is the constant reminder, “I am the LORD your God.”9 In Leviticus 18-20, the phrase “I am the LORD your God” or “I am the LORD” is found 24 times.

Consecrate yourselves and be holy because I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD who makes you holy. (Leviticus 20:7) You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own. (Leviticus 20:26)10 Lev 21:6-8

Foreigners11 NRSV (aliens); ESV (strangers) who lived among them were expected to keep the same laws the Israelites followed (Leviticus 18:26; 20:2).  If the code was not kept, they would be “vomited” or removed from the country (Leviticus 18:25,28; 20:22).  

Holiness means “separate.” Israel was to refrain from serving foreign gods and to separate themselves from the people who worshiped those gods: “Do not follow their practices” (Leviticus 18:3; 1 Corinthians 10:6-8). Note:  Maintaining these differences also explains the rationale for maintaining a beard (Leviticus 19:27), refusing to be tattooed (Leviticus 19:28), or mixing materials in a garment (Leviticus 19:19). 

Another part of this code maintains the integrity of the family12 Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul, 59-63. and includes specific, unclean, and forbidden relationships: 

(1)  Sex with relatives (Leviticus 18:6-18)  NOTE:  Extended families often lived closely together—perhaps even in the same house.  This might explain the significance of the length of this section.

(2)  Sex with a menstruating female (Leviticus 18:19)

(3)  Sex with a neighbor’s wife (Leviticus 18:20)

(4)  No intercourse for man with man (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13)

(5)  No intercourse with an animal (Leviticus 18:23)

(6)  No intercourse with a sister, father’s wife, daughter in law, brother’s wife, uncle’s wife (Leviticus 20:10-21)

Leviticus clearly opposes same sex activity between two men: 

And with a male you shall not lie as with a woman13 “lying with a male” in Hebrew is mishkav zakar. The phrase is very wooden:  “with a man you shall not lie the lying of a woman” (וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא).  The LXX: Kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gynaikeian (Leviticus 18:22) 

And whoever will lie with a male as with a woman14 Kai hos an koimethe meta aresenos koiten gynaikos (LXX) (Leviticus 20:13) 

Finally, the Holiness Code as a unit resembles the ten commandments.  Robert Gagnon states: 

Indeed, most of Leviticus 18-20 can be thought of as an expanded commentary on the ten commandments, with prohibitions against idolatry and witchcraft, stealing and lying, adultery and incest; and commands to honor one’s parents, keep the sabbath, and to “love one’s neighbor as oneself” (Lev 19:18).  Ritual and moral, eternal and contingent, are combined in the profile of holiness developed in Leviticus 17-26.  Christians do not have the option of simply dismissing an injunction because it belongs to the Holiness Code.  The same God who gave the laws of Mosaic dispensation continues to regulate conduct through the Spirit in believers.15 Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice,121.

Response to the Leviticus Texts not being Applicable Today

Consider the following observations: 

  1. Some Laws in Leviticus Still Apply

Some statements in Leviticus pertain to the culture of the day, but many of its prohibitions are still applicable to the modern world. These prohibitions include:

  (1)  Stealing (Leviticus 19:11a) 

  (2)  Lying (Leviticus 19:11b)

  (3)  Deceiving another (Leviticus 19:11c) 

  (4)  Swearing falsely (Leviticus 19:12) 

  (5)  Defrauding or robbing a neighbor (Leviticus 19:13)

  (6)  Cursing the deaf (Leviticus 19:14) 

  (7)  Showing favoritism for the great (Leviticus 19:15) 

  (8)  Slandering (Leviticus 19:16a) 

  (9)  Endangering one’s neighbor (Leviticus 19:16b)

  (10)  Hating (Leviticus 19:17)

  (11)  Seeking revenge or bear grudge (Leviticus 19:18a) 

  (12)  Making one’s daughter a prostitute (Leviticus 19:29) 

  (13)  Turning to mediums or wizards (Leviticus 19:31)16 Preston Sprinkle and Jeff Cook. A Debate About Homosexuality: Part 5 “The Sin ‘of’ Homosexuality.” Preston Sprinkle, People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 50. 

It is significant that Romans 1:18-23 reflects the Leviticus text.  Bernadette Brooten writes:

Even though Romans 1 does not explicitly cite Leviticus 18 and 20, they overlap at three points: (1) Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 and 20 use similar terminology. (2) both Romans 1 and Leviticus contain a general condemnation of sexual relations between men, and (3) both describe those engaging in such relations as worthy of death.17 Brooten, Love Between Women, 282-283.

These hearers who had studied Leviticus and its detailed teachings concerning holiness, purity, impurity, and abomination, would have been attuned to the overlap in content and terminology between Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 and 20.18 Brooten, Love Between Women, 219.

The passage echoes—perhaps surprisingly—concepts and commandments of the book of Leviticus, and also contains significant overlap with postbiblical Jewish legal thinking.19 Brooten, Love Between Women, 217.

  1. Revisionists’ Presuppositions Regarding the Leviticus Texts 

The first presupposition shared by some revisionists is that the Leviticus texts do not include consensual, committed, monogamous same sex relationships.  Affirming writer William Loader disagrees:20 Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. William Loader, Response to Wesley Hill,152. “I see no substantial grounds for upholding the Leviticus prohibitions in our day, but in saying that I do so with respect for why they are there and for the assumptions they reflect about the heterosexuality of all human beings. Changing that assumption (that all human beings are heterosexual) has, in my mind, to have implications for how we read both Leviticus and Paul.”

In addition, nothing in the text suggests that Paul is making such a distinction and it is inconceivable that he would approve of any same-sex acts, if, as we assume, he affirmed the prohibitions of Lev 18:22; 20:13 as fellow Jews of his time understood them.21 William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 322.

Wesley Hill (a celibate, gay, Episcopal priest) explains Leviticus 18:22: 

          The structure against same-sex sexual intercourse here in Leviticus 18:22 would appear to be rooted in creation, applicable in multiple situations…There is no clear reason to believe it does not prohibit any and all forms of same-sex intercourse.22 Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. Wesley Hill, Christ, Scripture, and Spiritual Friendship,134.

The canonical primacy of the Genesis narratives, coupled with the lack of situational specificity in the prohibition of Lev 18:22…makes it likely that the latter is best heard as an echo of the Genesis creation stories…And, positively, the text also appears to allude to or echo the foundational narratives of Genesis.  This suggests that what Lev 18:22 prohibits has wide application and is rooted in the divine act of creation.23 Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church.  Wesley Hill, Christ, Scripture, and Spiritual Friendship, 133.

William Loader agrees with Wesley Hill on Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13:

I find myself in broad agreement with Wesley in his interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. He reads them canonically suggesting they are influenced by the creation stories in Genesis. 24 Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church.  William Loader, Response to Wesley Hill, 148.

Importantly the Leviticus texts include both abusive and consensual same sex relationships.  Leviticus 20:13 describes a consensual and not abusive same sex relationship in which case both persons are to be put to death:

“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman both of them have done what is detestable.  They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” 

The use of “both” in Leviticus 20:10-12 prior to Leviticus 20:13 supports the consensual nature of Leviticus 20:13.

In case of adultery: “both the adulterer and adulteress are to be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10).

In case of sex with father’s wife: “both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” (Leviticus 20:11).

In case of sex with a daughter-in-law: “both are to put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their heads” (Leviticus 20:12).

In contrast Torah is clear when only one was to be punished. In Deuteronomy 22:25-26, only the perpetrator was punished and NOT the non-consensual partner.

“But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her ONLY the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death.”

Death was not the penalty for a rape victim or a prostitute.

Upon further examination perhaps a “committed relationship” is not the only issue here.  The implications are far reaching.  If revisionists use the same reasoning with an incestual relationship, would such a relationship be acceptable?  If the teachings of Leviticus are not applicable today because they were directed to the pagan world, then the teachings about incest and bestiality25 Men and women were to be put to death along with the animal (Lev 20:15-16). would also be void—they all stand together. 

The second presupposition shared by some revisionists emphasizes the Leviticus texts do not mention women. 

Karen Keen writes: 

Does Leviticus describe loving, peer same-sex relationships? Is the prohibition based on complementarity? Possibly, but that remains speculative. The Levitical law doesn’t prohibit female-female relations, suggesting something besides complementarity might be the concern–probably patriarchal gender norms (“do not lie with a man as with a woman”). Notably, women are singled out for bestiality laws, making the lack of female same-sex laws even more curious.26 2nd response to Sprinkle’s review Dec 30, 2018.

Conversely, Bernadette Brooten disagrees with  Keen and states:

We might view Paul as the only ancient Jew to extend Lev 20:13 to include women. 27 Brooten, Love Between Women, 64-65.

When she hears his words about males becoming enflamed with passion for one another, she thinks of Leviticus, a text she has heard read aloud in the synagogue so many times since she was a child.28 Brooten, Love Between Women, 300.

Since, however, Paul was trained as a Pharisee and continued to view himself as “a member of the people of Israel,” we need to consider at least briefly his condemnation of female and male homoerotism in the context of Judaism.29 Brooten, Love Between Women, 64.

In limiting the same sex relationships of Leviticus 18:22 to only men the following questions are raised:

(1) Does having sex with a neighbor’s wife apply equally for a woman and her neighbor’s husband (Leviticus 18:20)? 

(2)  Does sacrificing a child apply only to men and not to women (Leviticus 18:21)? 

(3)  Does Leviticus 18:23 prohibit bestiality for both men and women?

Eliminating women from the Leviticus texts is problematic for two reasons:

(1)  IfLeviticus 17-26 is read in connection with creation, lesbian behavior violates the command to procreate given in Genesis.

(2)  Leviticus was written in a male dominated, hierarchal world.  As such the Jewish people would have understood the inclusive nature (for both men and women) of the prohibitions of Leviticus even though they are directed at men. 

Even though women are not emphasized in the Leviticus texts that does not mean they were excluded from its teaching. 30 David Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 215. “On the other hand, lesbianism was known in Rome and Paul might have wanted to comment on it in a letter to believers living there.”  Greenberg went on to observe that “Brooten (1983) cities a number of references to lesbianism in the Greco-Roman world, all derogatory.”

(3) Leviticus does not support any kind of deviant sexual activity31 Even though bestiality has been a part of humanity for centuries, it is difficult to determine the attitude toward towards it in every civilization because that varies from culture to culture and dispensation to dispensation. Cave dwellers depicted it on cave walls in ancient times. In ancient Babylon the Code of Hammurabi (1955-1913 BCE) condemned the practice.  Bestiality was practiced by the residents of Canaan; hence the warning was given to the Hebrews in Leviticus.  Both the ancient Egyptians and Greeks show evidence of the practice of bestiality.  In Arab countries, it was believed a man’s penis could be enlarged by sex with an animal.  Even among native Americans and Eskimos it was practiced in some tribes and was largely acceptable. To what degree bestiality was practiced in the days of Jesus cannot be totally determined.

Incest and bestially are included in the list of forbidden activities in Leviticus 18:6-23. The same sex activity mentioned in Leviticus 20:13 is sandwiched between adultery/incest in Leviticus 20:10-12 and between incest/bestially in Leviticus 20:14-16.32 Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 129-130 “Few today, give this argument much credence and for good reason.  The repetition for the prohibition against homosexual intercourse in 20:13 does not follow immediately upon the reference to child sacrifice in 20:2-5. But rather is sandwiched in between prohibition of adultery and incest (20:10-12) and prohibitions of incest and bestiality. The link with child sacrifice in Lev18:21 probably involves nothing more to threats to the sanctity of the Israelite family.”

  In Leviticus 18:23 bestiality is called a “perversion.” The Hebrew root form for “perversion” means “mingle or mix.”  In this context, it carries the idea of mixing or confusing humans and animals.33 Lev 18:17 “wickedness;” 18:22 “detestable;” 18:23 “perversion.”

  God’s displeasure with the activity cannot be denied.34 Other words were used to show God’s displeasure with certain activities: dishonor 20:11; wickedness 20:14; disgrace 20:17.

  By the time the New Testament was written, incest and bestiality were firmly rejected by Judaism. The silence of the New Testament does not infer something was acceptable when there was already a mandate in place.35 The condemnation of same sex relationships applied to both the Israelites and pagans (Lev 18:26; 20:2).

The same sex relationships of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 were “detestable” (abomination) for two reasons:36 Both men and women were forbidden to engage in bestiality (Lev 20:15-16). Captured people were sodomized as a form of punishment. Being dominated was an expression of scorn and contempt. It is highly possibly the Jews were subjected to this in Babylon.

(1)  The honor of both was violated. The penetrated male was violated because he played the part of the woman, and the penetrator was violated because he dominated the male.37 Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul, 62-63.

  This was the ultimate act of disrespect.

(2)  This union reversed the proper sexual relationship and was not natural (“against nature”).38 Jim Reynolds, The Lepers Among Us: Homosexuality and the Life of the Church (www.Xulon Press.com, 2007), 145. Derrick Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1955, 68. “Such acts are regarded as ‘abomination’…because, as a reversal of what is sexually natural, they exemplify the spirit of idolatry which is itself the fundamental subversion of true order.”

  The union of a male and female is a natural fit.  This is not the case with a male/male sexual relationship or a female/female sexual relationship. 

The sins of Leviticus 18:20-23 were to be avoided because they were ungodly. 

(1)  Adultery destroyed the stability of the family. 

(2)  Sacrificing children to a pagan god destroyed the fruit of the couple. 

(3)  The law against bestiality was mixing one made in the image of God and one not made in the image of God. 

(4)  The law against same sex relationships lacked “fitness” and thus became “against nature.” 

Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:1339Lev 18:21; 20:2, 3, 4, 5; 1 Kings 11:5, 7; 11:33; 2 Kings Leviticus 18 and 20 are not essays against same sex relationships, but rather provide a framework for to maintain family values and to keep God’s people from following the worship and conduct associated with pagan gods. Leviticus 18 agrees with Leviticus 20 with its opposition to incest (Lev 18:6f), bestiality (Lev 18:23), and child sacrifice (Lev 18:11).23:10, 13; 2 Chron 28:3; Isa 57:5, 9; Jer 7:30-31; 19:5; 32:35; 49:1, 3; Zeph 1:5; see also Acts 7:43 teach similar concepts about same sex relationships but both are separated by seemingly unrelated commandments. Between the two injunctions is a well-known text: “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18).  Immediately following are commandments about livestock, farming, and garments (Leviticus 19:19). Because of this some revisionists believe the prohibition against same sex relationships belongs to the ceremonial law.  In contrast, Richard Hays makes the following observation: 

The Old Testament, however, makes no systematic distinction between ritual law and moral law.  The same section of the holiness code also contains, for instance, the prohibition of incest (Lev 18:6-8).  Is that a purity law or a moral law?  Leviticus makes no distinction in principle.  In each case, the church is faced with the task of discerning whether Israel’s traditional norms remain in force for the new community of Jesus’ followers.  In order to see what decisions the early church made about this matter, we must turn to the New Testament. 40 Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996), 382.

As the centuries passed some of the laws of the Holiness Code were carried over into the New Testament era and others were not.  Apparently, the laws connected to morality have a continuing element because they are connected to the character of God and not ceremonial laws.  For example, Jesus, Peter, and Paul are clear about the application of dietary laws (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:14-15; Romans 14:1-4).  Most probably each command of Leviticus 18-20 should be examined on an individual basis.

(4) Leviticus Opposes Mixing Two Different Kinds

The Holiness Code places great emphasis on keeping everything as it was in the beginning (not mixing materials41 Lev 19:19 or species).  This includes mixing two kinds of animals (cross breeding), two kinds of seed, and two kinds of material in the same piece of clothing (Lev 19:19).  When Genesis records the creation of the sea, sky, and land, the phrase “according to their kind” is repeated (Genesis 1:11, 16, 23, 24, 25).  Decrees against incestuous relationships and same sex relationships were a further extension for the concern about mixing of “kinds.”  

       Summary of Assumption One

Torah was used to bring about the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7), consequently the moral teaching of Torah is still foundational in the New Testament and for those who are part of the new covenant.42 If modern same sex relationships are no longer forbidden because they are found in the context of other ritual and pagan practices of Egypt and Canaan, could it not also be true of the child sacrifice and other obvious sinful acts? Israel did not need a law to know child sacrifice was forbidden.  Same sex relationships and child sacrifice were understood normally without involving the other nations. The early church did not consider opposition to bestiality, adultery, and incest also found in Leviticus as obsolete as evidenced in 1 Cor 5:1-6:20.  David Wright, “Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible,” Evangelical Quarterly 61:4 (1989), 293.

  It was not unusual for Paul to use Torah43 Paul’s training in the Torah provided the foundation for his ministry. (1) In 1 Cor 5:13 the language of Deut 22:22 (“purge the evil from Israel”)  was applied to the situation where Paul suggests excommunication (“Expel the wicked person from among you”) and not execution. (2) In 1 Cor 5:1-2, Lev 18:8 (“Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife,” repeated in Lev 20:11) was used to condemn the man who was “sleeping with his father’s wife.” Note: Lev 18:8 and 20:13 condemn same sex relationships. (3) In 1 Cor 10:1-11, Paul uses an event in the lives of the Israelites to direct the church.  “Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did” (Exod 32:6; 1 Cor 10:6). He uses the word “example” again in 1 Cor 10:11. (4) In 1 Cor 9:4 and 1 Cor 9:11-12, Paul establishes the right to receive financial support by using Deut 25:4. Paul cites a “command” as a “principle” that applies to a situation other than the historical situation in which it was found. (5) When dealing with the use of tongues in the assembly (1 Cor 14:20-28), he quotes Isa 28:11-12 which has an historical context unlike a Christian assembly. as a basis for teaching ethics because44 Rom 3:20; 7:7, 12; 15:4; 1 Tim 1:7; 2 Tim 3:16-17 he believed Torah was “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16); could make one “wise for salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15; Acts 17:11); and was the basis for reasoning with unbelievers (Acts 17:2).

The nature of the prohibition against same sex relationships is related to and connected to the nature of the Decalogue.  James DeYoung describes Leviticus 18 in the following way:

The covenant-treaty form of chapter 18 is like the form of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 where the Decalogue is presented…Leviticus 18-20 corresponds to the laws of the Decalogue with a distinctive form known as the Holiness Code.45 DeYoung, Homosexuality, 241.

These prohibitions applied to both the Israelites and the foreigners (pagans) who lived among them.46 Lev 17:8, 10, 12, 13; 18:26; 19:33; 20:2

Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 make no exceptions concerning the nature of sexual relationships between two men or possibility a man and a boy/slave/prostitute.  The Holiness Code was opposed to both exploitative or abusive same sex relationships and mutual or consensual same sex relationships. The continued significance of the opposition to same sex relationships from Leviticus is summarized in the following:

  1. Many of the prohibitions of Leviticus are still applicable.
  2. The wording indicates Paul was opposed to both non-consensual and consensual same sex relationships.
  3. The wording does not indicate pagan same sex relationships were the only focus.
  4. The Leviticus texts are referenced in the New Testament  (Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12 quote Leviticus 18:5, and Romans 13:9 quotes Leviticus 19:18.) 47 Lev 18:5 is 17 verses from Lev 18:22.

Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 provide the background for the Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Translated it means “men who have sex with men” in the NIV.48 The meaning of arsenokoitai and its connection to Leviticus will be discussed in detail in Assumption Four.

There are no regulations or modifications given to the prohibitions for men and women regarding same sex relationships, incest, and bestiality in Leviticus.  This is not the case with other prohibitions. In ancient Israel slavery was regulated (Exodus 21:2f; 1 Timothy 1:10).  Divorce was structured to give a woman a “fresh start” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)49 Deut 24:1-4 was designed to discourage the first divorce and if necessary, protect the second marriage. 

and a permanent second marriage. Vengeance was controlled with the “eye for an eye” teaching50 Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21 so  it would not exceed the crime. The cities of refuge were established to protect people (Numbers 35:6).  It seems that if some types of same sex relationships were exceptional, they would have been mentioned.

William Loader also believes the texts in Leviticus and the use of arensokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 could be connected to Paul’s words in Romans 1:18-32. 

Thus it is better to take the word as closely cohering with what Paul condemns in Romans 1 and reflecting the prohibitions of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 on which it appears to be built.51 Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality, 331.

Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner agree:

Paul’s opposition to all homosexual behavior (clearly targeting those who engaged in it freely and willingly; Rom 1:18-32) seems to derive from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which represent absolute bans.52 Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 242.

Filed Under: Christian Life, LGBTQ+

Understanding the LGBTQ+ Community

March 14, 2023 By Jerry Jones 3 Comments

Preface 

As I began studying the texts and other issues surrounding the Christian LGBTQ+ community1The word “queer” is an umbrella term including all gender identities or someone who is not “straight.”  The word carries the same meaning as LGBTQ+. (2) A transsexual identifies as something other than they were at birth.  At times they may resort to hormone or surgical treatment. (3) Transgender individuals feel they are not the gender they were born with. (4) An asexual individual is not attracted to either sex or lacks interest in sex. (5) Bisexual people are those who are emotionally or sexually attracted to their own gender and to another gender. This manuscript addresses the Christian LGBTQ+ community and NOT LGBTQ+ community which has no desire to be pleasing to God.. I was reminded of a story told by a scholar regarding his understanding of a certain subject and how he had changed his views.  When asked why he had supported his previously held interpretation, he answered, “That was where I wanted to go!”  There will always be the temptation to go to the Scriptures and find support for “where we want to go.”  

I have diligently tried to counter that tendency in this study.  Certainly, I do not consider my thoughts to be the “final word,” but hopefully this information will equip others to have a better understanding of the issues surrounding this conversation and will serve as a foundation for the research and writing of those who will come after me.   

The following are the definitions of words and phrases used in this discussion and those that follow.

  1. The phrase “modern same sex relationships” refers to relationships that are monogamous, committed, consensual, and covenantal.
  2. Revisionists, progressives, and the affirming community describe those who affirm  modern same sex relationships are acceptable to God.
  3. Traditionalists and the non-affirming community are those who reject all same sex relationships as acceptable to God.
  4. Homosexual refers to both gay men and lesbian women2Victor Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues. 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009), 57. Sometimes homosexuals are called “Κίναιδος”(Kinaidos).  The word is a compound word formed by κινώ”(move) and “αιδώς”(shame). The Latinized form is cinaedus. It is a condemning and insulting word. The word “homosexual” did not appear in the literature of the first century.  The first time the word appeared was in German in 1868 in a letter from a Hungarian-German physician named Karoly M. Benkert to Karl Heinrch Ulrichws.  The word first appeared in an English translation of the Bible in 1946.. 

As part of this study, I have extensively quoted revisionist writers for two reasons:

    (1)  Readers can better understand the revisionists’ diverse perspectives concerning the teachings of the Scriptures on this topic. 

    (2)  Unless by choice, readers will not have to purchase and read the books quoted on the subject.  Before the church (or individuals) make decisions about LGBTQ+ relationships, a solid biblical foundation is needed.  Because this presentation deals with “people” (unlike some doctrinal issues that can be more impersonal), emotions can play a part in how the principles are understood and applied.

After researching, reading, and listening to the affirming community, I became aware that ancient writers (Roman, Greek, Jewish, and New Testament) did not use the terminology and expressions used today (e.g., consensual/committed/monogamous) to describe ancient homosexual relationships.  Because the modern terminology is different, some in the LGBTQ+ community have decided the Scriptures dealing with modern same sex relationships are not relevant today.  Granted, “interpretive issues” will arise when going back some 2000 years as will difficulties in translating passages and terms into English.  This will necessitate “reading between the lines” in trying to determine the intent and relevance of any given author or biblical text.  If this were not the case, the opposing positions that exist today between affirming and non-affirming scholars would not exist.  It must be noted that a single quotation from one writer will not explain all the issues surrounding modern same sex relationships.  Close examination of several sources will provide a cumulative effect and hopefully clarify the concerns.   

Contemporary scholarship is involved in a theological contest between those who believe the condemnation of same sex relationships is based on God’s intent at creation and those who believe the condemnation is based on the limited exposure of the biblical writers in several areas.  These areas include:          

               (1)  The biblical writers did not know about the genetic roots of some same sex relationships.

               (2)  The biblical writers were not aware of the nature of modern same sex relationships.

               (3)  The biblical writers limited their condemnation to abusive, pagan, same sex relationships.

Introduction

 Scripture is the nearest thing to the breath of God (2 Timothy 3:16: 2 Peter 1:21).  It is important to acknowledge the inspired Scriptures must take precedent over uninspired writings3The inspired Scriptures provide for us “everything we need for a godly life” (2 Pet 1:3) and equip us “for every good work” (2 Tim 3:17)..   At the same time the problems of manuscripts, textual criticism, hermeneutics, and interpretation of history and translations must be taken into consideration.  All these factors filter into the reading of the various texts, but the main issues center on the meaning of the texts in the first century and how should they be understood in 21st century. 

This study will begin with an introductory study of Romans 1:18-32 because this section of scripture4Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (New York: Convergent Books, 2014). 96. “There’s no question that Romans 1:26-27 is the most significant biblical text passage in this debate.” Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Text and Hermeneutics. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 230. “Rom 1:24-27 is also the most difficult text for proponents of homosexual behavior to overturn.” is longer in its discussion of same sex relationships than any other New Testament text, and historically it has been referred to as the “go to” or “linchpin” text in understanding the topic5Mark D. Smith, “Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27,” Journal of American Academy of Religion IXIV/2, 224..  As such it has often been problematic for revisionists.  Consequently, some effort has been made to eliminate it from the current discussion6Bernadette J. Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 302. “I hope that churches today, being apprised of the history that I have presented, will no longer teach Rom 1:26f as authoritative.” Dale Martin, “Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences,” Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture edited by Robert L. Brawley (Louisville: John Knox Press,1996), 117. “The New Testament provides little ammunition to those wishing to condemn modern homosexuality.” Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 101, 127. “Not only is the New Testament church uninterested in the topic, it has nothing to say about it….Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant in today’s debate.” and make it non-applicable to the modern same sex Christian community.  Because of this it is important to have a contextual understanding of it and other related biblical texts.

Contextual Understanding and Background of Romans 1:18-327When the edict of Claudius was recanted at his death in 54 CE, the Jewish Christians returned to Rome after six years of absence (Acts 18:1-2).  The uniting of the Jewish and gentile Christians in house churches had not gone well and it was to this issue Paul addressed his letter.  As the gentile Christians were receiving the Jewish Christians back into their house churches, there were divisions about eating certain foods and observing certain days (Rom 14:2-5).  Almost immediately Paul stresses the importance of the gospel (Rom 1:14-16) to establish the unity that was needed to resolve these issues.  By emphasizing the gospel, Paul’s goal was for them to be filled with “joy and peace” as they accepted “one another” (Rom 15:7,13).  Although Paul was willing to compromise on matters of opinion, this was not the case with sexual ethics.  In Rom 13:12 – 13, Paul clarifies how they should deal with ungodly conduct (Rom 13:12b) and offers an alternative in Rom 13:14.

Although Paul wrote most of his letters to churches with which he had some connection, there are two exceptions—Colossians (Colossians 2:1) and Romans (Romans 1:14; Romans 15:24).  Romans is Paul’s monumental book describing redemption and how it affects the Christian life.  His concerns for the church8 Rom 1:13 “brothers and sisters” (adelphoi). (See Rom 7:1, 4; 8:12, 29; 10:1; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14, 36; 16:14, 17). See article: The Meaning of “Brothers” in the New Testament by Jerry Jones on www.marriagematters.ws. in Rome center on three areas:

(1) He had known many people living in Rome from other places (Rom 16:3-15), and he wanted the whole church (Jews and gentiles) to be united (Romans 14:1,19; Romans 15:7; Romans 16:17).

(2) He envisioned Rome as a launching pad for his plans to go to Spain (Romans 15:28).9 He had planned to go to Rome many times to have “a harvest” among them but had “been prevented from doing so” (Rom 1:13).

(3) Even though he had not been connected to the church in a personal way, he maintained a concern for it just as he did for other churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).

Romans 1:18-32 serves as the theological basis for establishing both Jews and gentiles as sinful, separated from God, and in need of the righteousness found in Jesus Christ.10 The term “sin” was is as a noun (ἁμαρτίαν) for the first time in Rom 3:9 and then as a verb (ἥμαρτον) in Rom 3:23.  The condemnation of the gentiles (who were without excuse Romans 1:20) continues with the condemnation of the Jews who were also without excuse (Romans 2:1).  Both gentiles and Jews were sinners (Romans 3:10,23; Galatians 2:15) and both needed the good news presented in Romans 3:21- 8:29.  

After the introductory remarks of Romans 1:1-17,11 The theme of Romans is taken from Hab 2:4.  Romans 1:18-3:20 answers the need for righteousness (defined as a right relationship with God). Paul begins his condemnation of the gentile world.12 Both gentiles and Jews were under the wrath of God (Rom 1:18; 2:5; 3:5). Instead of thanking, glorifying, and worshipping God who created them, they resorted to worshipping the idols they had made.13 Idols were off limits for the Jewish nation (Exod 20:3-5; Acts 7:43). Idolaters were “fools”14 Ps 14:1 with darkened hearts (Rom 1:21b-22a) and being fools they lacked wisdom.  Paul then accuses the gentiles of suppressing the truth and exchanging it for “the lie”15 The Greek: “for the lie” (ἐν τῷ ψεύδει). (Romans 1:25).16 As Paul moves into the condemnation of the Jewish world, he accuses the Jews of doing the “same things” twice (Rom 2:1b-2).  The Jews knew the law but did not obey it (Rom 2:23).   As he had done with the gentiles, Paul declares God’s judgment on the Jews was “based on truth” (Rom 2:2). “Wrath and anger” will come upon all “who reject the truth” (Rom 2:8)—both gentiles and Jews.  The condemnation of the gentile and Jewish worlds supports Paul’s conclusion that ALL are “under the power of sin” (Rom 3:9, 23) and there was “no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom 3:18; Ps 36:1; Lev 19:14).  God provided Jesus as an atoning sacrifice (Rom 3:25) so through him man could be “saved from God’s wrath” (Rom 5:9).  

Because the gentiles had rejected the revelation (Romans 1:21) God’s wrath was revealed (Romans 1:19-20).  Paul follows with three examples of their rejection (Romans 1:24-31) which are also illustrations of reversals of the creational intent of God. The three illustrations are prefaced with the phrase “God gave them over” (Romans 1:24,26,28):17 παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς (Rom 1:24)

  1. to idolatry18 “But God turned away from them (ὁ θεὸς καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς) over to the worship of the sun, moon, and stars” (Acts 7:42). “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” ( Acts 15:19).  (Romans 1:24-25)19
  2.  Exod 20:23: “Do not make any gods for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.” 1 Sam12:21: “Do not turn away after useless idols. They can do you no good, nor can they rescue you, because they are useless.”
  3.  “They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf” (Exod 32:8).   “…led them into such great sin” (Exod 32:2).
  4.  “You have committed a great sin” (Exod 32:30). “They made themselves gods of gold” (Exod 32:31).
  5.  “…so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman or like any animal on the earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below” (Deut 4:16-18).
  6. to sexual perversion (Romans 1:26-27). 
  7. to ungodly behavior (Romans 1:28-31).

Paul is explicit when he states they had been given over to their own lusts (Romans 1:24), because “…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…” (Romans 1:25).  This rejection of God and the reversal that resulted by turning to idols was nothing new and is easily traced to the garden of Eden.  Adam and Eve sought to reverse the wisdom of God for their own wisdom “you will be like God knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5).  In truth they became their own idols by attempting to place themselves on par or perhaps even above God.  From that point forward, the scriptures make a strong connection between mankind’s rejection of God for idols and the behavior which followed the rejection. Torah considered idol worship “corrupt (Deuteronomy 4:16) and a great sin” (Exodus 32:21,30).  Israel turned from worshipping god to worshipping idols made by “themselves” (Exodus 20:23; Exodus 32:8,31; Leviticus 19:4).20 Paul warns the Corinthians not to be idolaters as were the people of Israel who committed sexual immorality along with their idol worship (1 Cor 10:7-8). Paul (Galatians 5:20), Peter (1 Peter 4:3), and John (Revelation 2:14,20) connect idolatry and immorality in their warning to Christians. 

After declaring idolatry a reversal of God’s purpose for mankind, Paul follows with a second example of reversal—same sex relationships (Romans 1:26-27). This was not God’s original intent for males and females (Genesis 1-2). 

With the two reversals firmly established Paul returns to the theme of “wickedness”21 ἀδικία: adikia (introduced in Romans 1:18) which came from a “lack of knowledge of God” (Romans 1:28a).22 The creation story in Genesis 1-2 provides information about “the knowledge of God” (Isa 1:3; Ps 51:4; Gen 39:9; Hos 4:6). Instead of being “lovers of God,” they were “God-haters” (Romans 1:30).  Contrasted to righteousness, the twenty-one sins of Romans 1:29-31 serve as examples of the ungodly behavior “God gave them over to” (Romans 1:28).  They serve as poignant reminders of how far mankind—made in his “likeness” and his “image” (Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 5:1)—had come from what God had intended.  As Paul ends the condemnation of the gentiles, he mentions “no fidelity,23 1 Cor 10:13 no love,24 1 John 4:16 and no mercy.”25 Eph 2:4  These are all reversals of who God is and what God-like people should be (Romans 1:28-31;26 The word transgression (parabasis) is a combination of two words: para meaning contrary and baino meaning to go. It carries the idea of “overstepping” and purposely “stepping over the line.” Transgression is a synonym for ἁμαρτία. Hamartia means “missing the mark” or “breaks the law” (1 John 3:4 “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness” (Romans 4:15; Romans 5:14; Galatians 3:19; Psalm 65:3). Matt 22:37).  Note: Other examples  include:

  1. Selfishness27 “Egocentric” describes selfishness. is a reversal of the attitude of Jesus (Philippians 2:3-5).
  2. Seeking greatness instead of servanthood is a reversal of the nature of Jesus who “did not come to be served but to serve…”(Mark 10:41-45). 
  3. Refusal to “love God” and “deny self” is a reversal (Matthew 16:24; 22:37). 

The condemnation of same sex relationships occupies only two verses (Romans 1:26-27 with the possible inclusion of Romans 1:24) because it was not the focus of Paul’s condemnation of the gentiles—living a reversed life was!28 The Jews were not guilty of idolatry or same sex relationships, but of some of the “same things” (Rom 2:2-3) listed in Rom 1:29-31. Paul was not implying that all gentiles were involved in same sex relationships, but its prominence among gentiles was evidence of the degenerative nature of the gentile (pagan) world (1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 12:2; Ephesians 4:20; 1 Thessalonians 4:5).

Considering Romans 1:18-32, two questions beg a response:            

1. Are there any circumstances or conditions under which idolatry would be acceptable?  

The answer is no.  Idolatry is a reversal from worshipping God to worshipping something else.29 Question: Is the need for man to worship something considered a “human need”?

2. Are there any circumstances or conditions under which the sins of Romans 1:29-32 (greed, murder, strife, envy, God haters, insolent, boastful, arrogant, no love, no mercy) would be acceptable?  

The answer is no. All conduct should be avoided that does not reflect God, is not in harmony with the character of God,30 Without God as the center of their lives the gentiles were destined to become involved in all kinds of behavior that was “ungodly.”  Because idolatry is mentioned in various letters to gentile churches (Corinth (1 Cor 1:2; 10:7-8; 12:2; 2 Cor 1:2; 6:16), Pontus, Galatia (Gal 1:2; 4:20), Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1; 4:3), Pergamum (Rev 2:12, 14), Thyatira (Rev 2:18,20), the writers saw it as a “clear and present danger” for gentile believers. Modeling the life of Jesus by serving God  and not idols provides the proper direction for all believers (1 Cor 2:16; 11:1; Phil 2:5; 1 Pet 2:21). or is a reversal of who God is.31 “Be holy as I am holy” (Lev 11:44-45; 19:2; 1 Pet 1:15). “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:3-4; 20:22). “Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold” (Deut 4:15-20).

Sexual immorality is just another reversal and example of rejecting godliness.  Without a moral compass rooted in God, the “sin living” in mankind (Romans 7:17,20) makes us prone to serve ourselves or anything of our choosing. 

Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry (Colossians 3:5).

Filed Under: Christian Life, LGBTQ+

Slider 4

January 10, 2023 By garymoyers@gmail.com Leave a Comment

Filed Under: Slider

The LGBTQ+ Conversation

October 18, 2022 By Jerry Jones 2 Comments

According to the latest Gallup poll, those identifying as LGBTQ+ in the United States continues to increase.  Millennials (those born between 1981-1996) identifying as LGBTQ+ increased from 5.8% in 2012 to 10.5% in 2021.  Generation Z (those born between 1997 and 2012) identifying as LGBTQ+increased from 10.5 % in 2017 to 20.8% in 2021.  Currently approximately 7.1% of Americans consider themselves to have an LGBTQ+ identity.  Conversations surrounding this issue are ever present, and often the agenda supported by this community is promoted in the media, society, and politics.  

During the past 20 months I have devoted hundreds of hours to the current conversation concerning gender and sexual identity.  I have approached this venture with much prayer and with a determination to actually “listen” to the biblical texts in an honest manner.  To understand both sides of this dialogue, I have amassed a current library of over forty books and many theological articles, and have listened to hours of presentations.  Undoubtedly this study has caused me to be challenged by the questions and research done by the revisionists—ideas that for the most part I was unfamiliar with previously.  What you are reading now are my findings that have allowed me to better understand my brothers and sisters in the Lord who are in a real struggle to understand their own feelings and identities.  My purpose is not to debate nor pronounce judgements on anyone, but to help all of us understand these issues from the Scriptures.  Certainly, my thoughts are not the final word on this or any matter.  My prayer is only that what I have discovered will serve as a springboard to encourage you toward your own study and reflection. 

A large part of my study has centered on the writings and information of the affirming community itself.   The following Twelve Assumptions of the Affirming Community are a summation of their own observations.  Significantly, my writings focus on the Christian affirming community and NOT the LGBTQ+ community at large which has no desire to be pleasing to God.  

In this post I will simply list the twelve assumptions and in weeks to come I will attempt to unpack each of them.  The following definitions will prove helpful:

  1. Revisionists, progressives, and affirming community describe those who affirm modern same sex relationships as acceptable to God.
  2. Traditionalists are those who reject all same sex relationships as acceptable to God.
  3. The phrase “modern same sex relationships” means same sex relationships must be monogamous, committed, consensual, and covenantal.

Twelve Assumptions of the Affirming Community

  1. The Leviticus’ texts are not applicable to modern same sex relationships.

Karen Keen writes:

Progressives argue that the prohibition is applicable only to the Israelites and their cultural context.  The mandate is no more binding on Christians than the law against eating shrimp (Lev 11:9-12). 1Karen Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 44.

Justin Lee writes:

The Leviticus and Romans passages had a clear context of idolatry, not committed relationships.2 Justin Lee, Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate (New York: Jericho, 2012), 186. 

2. The background for Rom 1:18-32 is the Wisdom of Solomon.

Keen writes:

The point is that Genesis is not the backdrop for Paul; the Wisdom of Solomon is the text he is engaging. That has crucial implications for understanding the meaning of Romans 1.3Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 38. 

Martin writes:

There is compelling reason to believe that these fifteen verses were not written by, or at least original to, Paul.  This composition, word choice, and overall flow of the Greek are notably un-Pauline in comparison to the rest of his body of work.4Colby Martin, UnClobber: Rethinking Our Misuse of the Bible on Homosexuality (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2016),118.

3. Paul was only opposing pederasty (sexual behavior between an adult male and adolescent boy) including prostitution, sex with slaves, and rape and does not address modern same sex relationships.

Robin Scroggs writes: 

I know of no suggestions in texts that homosexual relationships existed between same-age adults…Thus what the New Testament was against was the image of homosexuality as pederasty…5Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 35, 126.

Matthew Vines writes:

Remember, the most common forms of same-sex behavior in the Greco- Roman world were pederasty, prostitution, and same sex between masters and their slaves…That isn’t to say that no one pursued only same- sex relationships, or that no same-sex unions were marked by long-term commitment and love.6Matthews Vines, God and the Gay Christian, The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (New York: Convergent Books, 2014), 104. 

…he wasn’t addressing what we think of today as homosexuality. The context in which Paul discussed same-sex relations differs so much from our own that it can’t reasonably be called the same issue.7Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 106.

Keen writes: 

To put it simply, to say that the biblical authors object to prostitution or pederasty is not to say that the authors object to monogamous, covenanted relationships.  That would be comparing apples and oranges.8Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 20.

In essence Paul does not address the question of gay people who love God and want to share their life with someone in a caring, monogamous relationship.9Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 39.[/mfnj]

In this they are correct: the Bible doesn’t address covenanted same-sex relationships as we know them today.9Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 58.

Jack Rogers writes:

Most Christians have been told at one time or another that the Bible condemns all homosexual relationships. That view is simply incorrect.10Jack Rogers. Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church (Louisville: Westminster Knox Press, 2009), 66.

4. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10 refer to only abusive relationships and does not include modern same sex relationships.   

Vines writes:             

So even the sexual use of malakos doesn’t necessarily refer to same sex behavior…as we’ve seen malakos doesn’t refer to merely a single act.  It encompasses an entire disposition toward immoderations.11Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 122. 

So even if the compound word arsenokoitai did originate from Leviticus, that still wouldn’t tell us what it means in 1 Corinthians 6.12Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 124. 

One of the most prominent forms of sexual exploitation in the ancient world was the practice of pederasty.  If arsenokoitai does refer to male same sex behavior, it’s likely that it refers to pederasty.13Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 125. 

Keen writes:

The apostle Paul likely had in mind (referring to 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:10 JJ) what he saw around him namely, pederasty or sex with male slaves and prostitutes.14Keen, Scriptures, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex relationships, 18.  

5. The words “against nature” (unnatural) refer to heterosexuals acting like homosexuals or rather engaging in non-coital sexual relations.15Lee, Torn, 183. ”Even so, Paul’s view toward the same-sex aspect of those rites didn’t seem very positive at all and he did call the sex acts (as the NIV put it) “shameful” and “unnatural.” Perhaps he would have condemned the gay sex even if were not in the context of idolatry” (Emphasis mine JJ).

Brownson writes: 

…Romans 1:26 probably does not refer to same-sex activity but to dishonorable forms of heterosexual intercourse.16James V. Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 222.

…Romans 1:26…was understood to refer, not to lesbian sexual activity, but to nonproductive forms of heterosexual intercourse.17Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 244.

6. Paul had no knowledge of the modern concept of sexual orientation.

James Brownson writes:  

Writers in the first century, including Paul, did not look at same-sex eroticism with the understanding of sexual orientation that is commonplace today.18Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 166.

7. Same sex relationships were condemned only in the context of pagan idol worship.

Lee writes: 

The Leviticus and Roman passages had a clear context of idolatry, not committed relationships.19Lee, Torn, 186. 

If gay sex was being condemned for its connection to idolatry and cult prostitution, that would explain the harsh punishment and the description of it as “abomination,” it wouldn’t apply to modern-day relationships at all.20Lee, Torn, 178. “But if gay sex was being condemned because gay sex is inherently sinful in all situations, then that condemnation would apply today, even in a committed relationship (Emphasis mine JJ). I wasn’t going to be able to solve this by looking at Leviticus in isolation.  I had to consider it in light of the New Testament.”

If this is about sex rites during idol worship, that didn’t seem to have anything to do with committed gay relationships.21Lee, Torn, 183.

8. Paul was opposed to same sex relationships in the context of excessive passion and lusts.

Brownson writes:

It is not desire itself that Paul opposes, but excessive desire, which directs itself toward what is not rightly ours, overcoming self-control and obedience to God.22Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 164.

The essence of lust (epithumia) lies in its intense passion (thumos). To the extent to which Paul’s rejection of same-sex eroticism is based on his assumption that which behavior is inherently lustful, marked by passions that are out of control.23Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 169.

9. Covenant fidelity, not sexual union or procreation is the foundation (or cornerstone) of Biblical marriage.

Keen writes:

Progressives agree that male and female are part of God’s good creation, but they believe loyal, covenantal love, not sexual differentiation is the foundation of biblical marriage… Progressives argue that the cornerstone of biblical marriage is covenant fidelity, not sexual differentiation….24Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 30, 43.

10.   Genesis 2:24 stresses sameness and not difference between males and females.

   Keen writes:

When Adam marvels that Eve is “flesh of my flesh” he announces a kinship bond.  This kinship language appears elsewhere in the Bible. Laban tells Jacob, “Surely you are my bone and flesh?” (Gen 29:14). The story of Adam and Eve demonstrates that marriage is, first of all, a union founded on commonality and not differentiation.25Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 30-31. 

11. Paul objects to same sex relationships because they do not lead to procreation, and it requires one male partner to act in a submissive role—something that Paul thought was shameful.  

Brownson believes Paul objected to same-sex activity for two reasons: 

(1) Paul felt same sex activity was “selfish and socially irresponsible” because it did not allow for the possibility of procreation. 

(2) A man treated like a woman (passive) was “shameful” and “violated the understood gender roles in the conventions of the ancient world.”26Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 267.

12. Historical evidence does not indicate early Christians held a negative attitude toward same sex relationships.

         John Boswell writes:

Not only does there appear to have no general prejudice against gay people among early Christians; there does not seem to have been any reason for Christianity to adopt a hostile attitude toward homosexual behavior.27John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 135.

The early Christian church does not to appear to have opposed homosexual behavior per se. The most influential Christian literature was moot on the issue; no prominent writers seem to have considered homosexual attraction “unnatural,” and those who objected to physical expression of homosexual feelings generally did so on the basis considerations unrelated to the teachings of Jesus or his early church followers.28Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 333.

Conclusion

Not every revisionist29Revisionists would be the same as “progressives” or the “LGBTQ+ community.” would necessarily embrace all twelve assumptions,  but all the assumptions are shared by some revisionists.  Certainly, revisionists do not represent a united front in their understanding of the teachings of Scripture related to same sex relationships.  Even some affirming writers are not sure gays or lesbians have the right to act upon their perceived orientations.                                                       

Just because an attraction or drive is biological doesn’t mean it’s okay to act on, (Emphasis mine JJ)…30Lee, Torn, 62.  

Granted, the Bible’s silence on committed same-sex relationships doesn’t necessarily mean those relationships are blessed.31Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 131.  

Filed Under: Christian Life, LGBTQ+

Contextual Understanding of the Role of Women in the Early Church Pt. 3 – 1. Cor. 14

April 30, 2021 By Jerry Jones 2 Comments

Part One

Introduction

Soon after Paul began his first letter to the Corinthian church, he addressed the immaturity that plagued them and the problems that ensued because of that immaturity. In 3:1-3, he calls them “infants in Christ,” needing “milk” (instead of “solid food” [Heb 5:14]), and “acting like mere humans.” Three times he calls them “worldly” (“people of the flesh” NRSV).  Throughout the letter, Paul continues to directly and indirectly revisit this theme.   Significantly, there is no mention of elders who might have been able to deal with the problems within the church in Corinth, and perhaps that is one reason Paul defaults to Christ as the head of the body and an example of how to achieve unity. 1Paul places a strong emphasis on Christ throughout the book (11:1).  He mentions it is possible to “sin against Christ” (8:12) and “sin against the body and blood of the Lord” (11:27). Problems in the Corinthian church can be traced not having the mind of Christ (2:16), following the wrong teachers and a dependence on wisdom of the world (1:12, 21).  

Of special interest to this article is how the theme of immaturity applies to spiritual gifts and the assembly, specifically the chaos in the assembly.  In 11:2-34, Paul emphasizes the need to respect each other.   He begins 12:1 with “now about the gifts of the spirit.”  The term “now about” (Περὶ δὲ 7:1, 25; 8:1, 12:1, 16:1; 16:12) indicates answers to questions they had asked.  Paul gives an explanation of these gifts in the rest of the chapter and emphasizes that the variety of spiritual gifts were to unite the body—not serve as a source of division (12:12-14, 19-20).  He stresses individuality of gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 by using the term “one” (ἑνὶ) six times in three verses (12:12-14).   Notably he follows these comments with a discussion on the importance of love in 1 Corinthians 13.  This sets the stage for 1 Corinthians 14 where once again he emphasizes their immaturity when addressing problems in the assembly (14:22-35).  He instructs them to “stop acting like children” (14:20) and to start thinking like “adults.”   

Basically, 1 Corinthians 14 can be divided into two sections:

  1. 1 Corinthians 14:1-21 explains the superiority of prophecy over gifts of tongues and interpretation. 
  2. 1 Corinthians 14:22-40 provides direction for the use of gifts in an orderly assembly.2 Paul chose to separate the “respect for culture issue” in 1 Corinthians 11 from the “chaotic issue” of 1 Corinthians 14 because they were different problems.  The issues of 1 Corinthians 11 needed a minor “tweaking” with their understanding of head coverings whereas the issues in 1 Corinthians 14 involved more people and required some major changes and corrections.

Chaotic Assembly
(Structure of the Assembly)

When we view the early church assembly through our 21st century lens, we often forget that early churches usually met in houses.  The number of people in each house church varied based upon the size and location of the house.  With the conversion of Crispus, who was a leader in the synagogue, it is possible the synagogue could also have become a meeting place for believers (Jas 2:2; Acts 8:3; 9:2; 16:3-5; 18:8; 26:11).  Traditionally, women were not commanded to learn the Torah but could be present in the synagogue.  We do know the family of Jesus (Matt 13:55-56; Mark 6:3), as well as “God-fearing Greeks” and “prominent women” were sometimes present in the synagogue (Acts 17:4; 18:26).  Similar God-fearing and/or prominent women could have been in the assembly mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14.

Whether or not the “whole church” (14:23) ever came together in one place is a possibility (Rom 16:23) but was unknown.  The visitors were friends and relatives of the believers (Acts 10:24) or unbelieving spouses of the believers (7:12-14), and were comprised of three diverse groups:  

 (1) foreigners 14:11 (βάρβαρος /barbarous Rom 1:14; Acts 28:2; Col 3:11)
(2) strangers or inquirers or outsiders 14:16, 23-24. (ἰδιῶται /idiotai)3 “a person who is relatively unskilled or inexperienced in some field of knowledge…one who is not knowledgeable about some particular group’s experience, one not in the know, outsider.” BDAG, 468.  Called an “inquirer” in NIV footnote. Some have described this person as not an expert or “layman” (as opposed to an expert) or a “stranger”. The word (ἰδιῶται) was used in Acts 4:13 to describe Peter and John as “ordinary” (untrained) men and in 2 Cor 11:6 it is translated not being “trained” (ἰδιώτης). “Unbeliever” is found in 14:22b and 14:23 but the words are separated by ἰδιῶται (idiotai). This indicates he did not belong to the community but was an alien or outsider who was attending the gathering. Colin Brown (ed), O. Flender, “Layman,” The New International Dictionary of the New Testament Theology. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1971)Vol 2. 456-457.   
(3) unbelievers 14:23-24 (ἄπιστοι /apistoi 7:12-16; 10:27; 2 Cor 4:4; 6:15) 

Misuse of Speaking in Tongues and Prophecy

Paul attributes part of the disruption in the assembly to a misunderstanding of how speaking in tongues and prophecy were to be used.  If 14:22 and 26 are taken at face value, the reader might be led to incorrect conclusions.  At times when Paul wanted to drive home a point, he chose wording that reflected what they were doing not what should be done (4: 6-8).  Such is the case in 14:22: 

Tongues, then are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers.  Prophecy, however, is  for the believers, not for the unbelievers.4 “That means that tongues are a sign of God’s power, not for those who are unbelievers, but to those who already believe. Preaching the word of God, on the other hand, is a sign of God’s power to those who do not believe rather than to believers.”  (J. B. Phillips 1 Cor 14:22) Note: This translation reversed the other translations. Some have thought a scribe (or Luke heard it wrong) copied the text incorrectly or that Paul misspoke.  

The information preceding and following 14:22 supports the exact opposite—using tongues with believers and prophecy with the unbelievers.  His explanation begins with the phrase “if therefore” (Ἐὰν οὖν); 14:23a, ASV, ESV, NRSV).   Unbelievers would not understand the tongues without an interpreter and their response would be “you are out of your mind” (14:23).5 Paul urges his readers to desire the gift of prophecy (14:1). Tongue speakers edified themselves whereas the one who prophesied edified the church (14:4). The tongue speaker does not speak to men, but to God (14:2).  The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in a tongue (14:5). Paul desires his readers to excel in gifts that build up the church (14:12). See 2 Cor 8:7. Assembling and encouragement are connected together (Heb 10:25).  The assembly was used as a tool for evangelism (14:24-25). Prophecy could edify the church (14:4-5).   When Paul corrected their conduct in worship, he wanted to make sure the purpose of edification and encouragement were accomplished. Even in the Hebrew Bible, worship was designed to change the worshipper (Isa 6:1-6; 58:1-7; Amos 5:21-27; Jer 7:3-11; Mic 6:6-8; Heb 10:1-25). On the other hand, prophecy would convict (ἐλέγχεται) unbelievers of sin and cause them to “fall down and worship God exclaiming God is really among you” (14:24-25). 6 Jesus taught the coming spirit would “convict the world of sin (ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον περὶ ἁμαρτίας John 16:8).  Succinctly put, the church was using the wrong gift on the wrong audience! 

1 Cor 14:26 further describes the chaotic assembly caused by parts of the worship being disorganized.  The activities were not wrong—they were just being done without regard for each other.   The resulting chaos defeated mutual edification (14:3-4). If drunk believers were present the chaos escalated (11:21).  There is also the possibility that new converts were bringing their pagan backgrounds into the assembly (12:2; Col 3:7; Eph 5:8; 1 Thess 1:9; 4:5; 1 Pet 2:12) 7 Sometimes in pagan worship women were known to cry out. The situation in 1 Corinthians 14 could have been a hold-over from the pagan worship (1 Cor 12:2). See Acts 19:17-20. causing further chaos and division (1:10; 11:18).

Correcting the Chaotic Assembly

Before beginning his correction of the chaotic church assembly (14:20-26), Paul reiterates the need to follow the way of love that he had presented in 1 Corinthians 13 (14:1a).  In 14:4-5, he stresses the need to “edify” the church by using two similar phrases: ἐκκλησίαν οἰκοδομεῖ (14:4 “edifies the church”) and ἐκκλησία οἰκοδομὴν (14:5 “church may be edified”).  The word “edify” is the root of “edifice” or building. Paul had indicated the church was a building in 3:5. This term (edification) is used seven times in 1 Corinthians 14 (3, 4 twice, 5, 12, 17, 26) and the chaotic assembly was not helpful in the construction of “God’s building.” 

In 14:2-6, Paul discusses the benefits and uses of tongues and prophecy in a general way and then illustrates his comments by using instruments as an example of the need for understanding (14: 6-9).  Musical instruments provide different sounds so they can be identified, and even the same instrument (i.e. bugle) can make sounds that mean “charge” or perhaps “go to sleep.”   The assembly should edify or build “up the church” (14:4-5, 12b, 26b), and the activities within the assembly should also be understood (14:10-19). 

The section of 14:26-40 provides the heart of Paul’s corrections.  Within these 15 verses Paul uses 14 commands (imperatives), thereby signifying their importance.   He makes five corrections for the assembly: 

(1) The number of tongue speakers and prophets were limited to three each. The assembly should not consist of all tongue speakers nor all prophets.
(2) If there was not an interpreter, (14:28) the tongue speaker should be silent (σιγάτω) “and speak to himself 8 The NRSV reads “themselves” and the CEB reads “they” instead of “himself” that is used in the NIV. ἑαυτῷ is a personal pronoun, dative, singular, masculine of ἑαυτοῦ.  ἕκαστος is translated “each of you” in 14:26 and it is adjective, nominative, singular, masculine. A pronoun can refer to either a man or woman.  The masculine pronoun is the default gender unless there is a specific reason to use the feminine or neuter.  If the masculine is intended, it is usually clear from the context. and to God” (14:27-28). 
(3) When one prophet spoke, the other prophets should be silent (σιγάτω) (14:29). 9 Matt 7:15; 24:11; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 John 4:1 When a prophet received a revelation from God and 10 According to 1 Sam 19:20 Hebrew prophets could make mistakes and sometimes had to wait for God to answer (2 Sam 7:3-5; 2 Kgs 2:16-17; Jer 28:10-13).  wanted to share it with the assembly (Acts 11:28; 21:10), Paul demanded it to be done in a non-chaotic manner.
(4) Others were to “weigh carefully” what was spoken (14:29).
(5) If the women of 14:34-35 wanted “to learn something,” (CEB, NKJV, ASV) they were to remain silent (σιγάτωσαν) and to “ask their husbands at home.”  

Three groups received the same message: Be silent!11

Comparison of the tongue speakers, prophets, and women:

Tongue Speakers

  1. Two or three.
  2. One at a time with an interpreter.
  3. Keep quiet (sigato).
  4. Speak to himself and to God.
Prophets

  1. Two or three.
  2. Others weigh what is said.
  3. Keep quiet (sigato).
  4. Instructed and encouraged.
Women

  1. Be submissive.
  2. Keep quiet (sigatosav).
  3. Ask husband and not be disgraceful.
Note: Sigato (σιγάτω) is a third person singular present imperative and sigatosav (σιγάτωσαν) is a third person plural present imperative. After each imperative, a positive statement of action was given. The common issue for all three groups was disruption in the assembly.

 (1) Tongue speakers: 14:28 σιγάτω: “keep quiet.”  
(2) Prophets:14:30 σιγάτω: “should stop.” 
(3) Women:14:34 σιγάτωσαν: “remain silent.”  

The command to be “silent” applied ONLY to tongue speakers and prophets who were being disruptive by speaking without an interpreter or prophesying while another was prophesying. The command for women to be “silent” applied ONLY to the women who were being disruptive. Silence was necessitated by circumstances and not by gender.

Throughout this section, Paul emphasized order: “For God is not a God of confusion (confusion NKJV, ESV, NRSV) but of peace” (14:33, 40). 12 Oster, 1 Corinthians, 353. “Unlike several pagan deities who engendered chaotic activities in worship and group meetings, the God of the Christian church in Corinth was no such deity.” Even though 14:32-33 directly addresses the prophets, given the thesis, it would apply to everyone. It is also noteworthy that the spontaneous disruptive conduct by believers could not be blamed on their gifts: “The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets” (14:32).  

Paul’s Terminology 

We know the Corinthian church as a whole did “not lack any spiritual gift” (1:7). We also know it included a large number of women (7:1-40; Acts 18:8, 10),13 Unless Cornelius had an all-male household, “the circumcised believers who came with Peter were astonished” when unbaptized women spoke in tongues (Acts 10:45-48) and praised God. See Acts 2:7, 12; 8:13; 9:21 for examples of “astonished.” Chloe among them (1:11). In order to fully explore this text and the role women played in the early church assembly, it is first beneficial to examine the terms Paul chose to use in 14:34-35.  First, according to the standard Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other translations,14

 The NRSV treats “brothers” as “brothers and sisters.”  The New Century Version (NCV), the New Testament for Everyone (NTE), Easy To Read Version (ERV), the Common English Bible (CEB), Christian Standard Bible (CSB), Names of God (NOG), Tree of Life Version (TLV), New Living Translation (NLT), Expanded Bible (EXB), The Voice (Voice), and New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)  treats the texts as “brothers and sisters” (12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39). The ESV does the same only in footnotes. The New Revised Standard Catholic Version Edition (NRSCVE) has “brothers and sisters” in 12:1; 14:6, 20. The only two places the NRSCVE does not translate adelphos as “brothers and sisters” is 14:26 and 14:39. In these two texts the translation is “friends.” “The pl. can also mean brothers and sisters.” Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and E.W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 18. Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in their Historical Setting. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 122-123. “Use of this term (brethren JJ) does not mean that Paul speaks here to the male members of the church only, for in his writing this term embraces ‘sisters’ as well.” Mark Strauss, Linguistic and Hermeneutical Fallacies in the Guidelines Established at the conference on Gender-Related Language in Scripture. JETS 41/2 (June 1998), 253. “When ἀδελφοί carries this inclusive sense (men and women JJ), it seems that the most accurate translation would be ‘brothers and sisters.’ This not a concession to a feminist agenda.  Rather it is exactly what the term meant in its first-century context.”

D. A. Carson, The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), 130-131, 156.  “But there is plenty of unambiguous evidence, both in the New Testament and outside of it, that ‘brothers’ very often meant what we mean by ‘brothers and sisters.’ “
the word “brothers” adelphoi (ἀδελφοί)15

 1 Cor 1:10; 2:1; 3:1; 8:13; 10:1, 14; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 20, 39; 15:1, 50, 58; 16:15, 20; Phil 1:11; 4:1. 

Sometimes the singular use of “brother” demands the inclusion of women because of context (1 Cor 8:11, 13; Matt 5:23).
can mean brothers or brothers and sisters.  When Paul was addressing a singular male or female, he used aner (ἀνὴρ) for the male and gune (γυνὴ) for the female.16 Paul conceded in 1 Cor 11:4-5 the women prayed and prophesied provided they had a head covering.  If he was opposed to the women prophesying in the assembly (11:4-5) he should have made it clear by using sigato as he had with the tongue speakers, prophets and the women of 14:34-35. The women prophets could have been unmarried (Acts 21:8-9) or married.  When Paul wanted his readers to know he was addressing males, 17 Sometimes even aner can include women (Jas 1:12). The NIV attempted to clarify the meaning of the text by translating it “one” instead of “man” even though the text used aner. In John 6:10, the NIV attempted to translate a problem text using andres. Jesus said: “Have the people (anthropous) sit down.”  There was plenty of grass in that place, and they sat down (about five thousand men (andres) were there).   he chose the plural word andras (ἄνδρας 1 Tim 2:8; Acts 20:30; Titus 1:6).   When he was addressing females, he chose the plural word gynaikas (γυναῖκας 1 Tim 2:9; 3:13).  The use of “brothers” meaning only “males” must be determined by the context. 18 Three examples of the use of “brothers” not including women: (1) the representatives of the churches in 2 Cor 8:23 and 9:3, 5; (2) Paul referred to the Sanhedrin as “my brothers” in Acts 23:1, 6; (3) Paul met with the Jewish leaders and called them “my brothers” (Acts 28:17). In both Acts 23:6 and 28:17, Paul used a phrase (ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί) that indicates he was talking to men and not women.  With ἄνδρες used before ἀδελφοί, Paul’s intended audience was declared but sometimes context demands exceptions (Acts 1:16; 15:7). At times adelphos appears in the singular and the translators include “sisters.” An example of the singular including “sister” is found in 1 Thess 4:6 (ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ). In this example ἀδελφὸν is a singular masculine accusative. (CEB: NIV; NRSV; MSG; NRSVCE).  Jesus’s use of singular “brother” in Matt 5:23 is another example. In English the masculine can include feminine (policeman; fireman; chairman; sportsmanship).  In several texts, Paul acknowledged both male and female prophets/tongue speakers.19 Paul’s continued combining “brothers and sisters” in his second letter to the Corinthians. In 2 Cor 6:16-18, Paul connects a series of three Old Testament quotations (Ezek 37:27; Isa 52:11; 2 Sam 7:14) in a chiastic form of ABBA. In 6:16, Paul writes what God is going to do: (A) He would “live” and “walk” among his people and “be their God” and they would be his “people.” Before he declares something similar in 6:18, there are two commands in 6:17 that form the middle of the chiastic form: (B) “Come out from them and be separate.” (B) “Touch no unclean thing.”  In 6:18, Paul returns to what God is going to do: (A) “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, (kai thugateras καὶ θυγατέρας) says the Lord Almighty.” The source of Paul’s quotation is found in 2 Sam 7:14, but Paul added “and daughters” to the quotation to show the equality he saw in God having both “sons” and “daughters” as equal sharers in his future covenant. This was not the only time Paul adapted an Old Testament text to fit his purpose (Eph 4:8/Ps 68:18. In the following, Paul changed singular to plural: Rom 3:18/Ps 35:1; Rom 4:7-8/Ps 32:1-2; Rom 10:15/Isa 52:7).In the context of 2 Samuel 7, God told David he would have an heir who would “build a house for my name” (7:13). Paul altered the quote by changing “his” to “you,” making “son” plural (sons), adding “says the Lord Almighty” and adding “daughters.” God is called the “almighty” two times in the context (7:8, 27).  It is the “house” or “temple” metaphor that led Paul to say: “What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God” (2 Cor 6:16).  Those who make up the temple of the living God reject idolatrous ways.  He explained spiritual gifts to the “brothers and sisters” (12:1) just as he had done in his final teachings to the “brothers and sisters” (11:33) regarding the Lord’s supper. 20

 Luke 14:26 γυναῖκα καὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τὰς ἀδελφὰς

                        wife    and children and          brothers   and        sisters

Mark 10:30 ἀδελφοὺς καὶ ἀδελφὰς καὶ μητέρας 

                    brothers   and sisters   and mothers

Luke 21:16 ἀδελφῶν καὶ συγγενῶν καὶ  φίλων,

                   brothers   and relatives  and friends

In Greek, ἀδελφοί (adelphoi) is the plural of ἀδελφός (adelphos). It is a combination of two words: α + δελφύς (delphys) and means “from” and “womb.”  The masculine (adelphos) and the feminine (adephe) are different forms of the same root (adelph). The plural form (adelphoi) could refer to a group of men or a group of men and women depending on the context.  Greek is different than English because in English you have two different roots (bro and sis). In Luke 14:26 and Mark 10:30, it is “brothers and sisters,” but in Luke 21:16, it is only “brothers” which would have to include sisters. Luke is not saying “sisters” would not betray. The NIV has “brothers and sisters” in Luke 21:18. In Matt 10:37, father, mother, son, and daughter are mentioned. In Acts 16:40 Paul met with the “brothers” in Lydia’s house. In Phil 3:1, 13, 17 and 4:1 he addressed the “brothers” including Euodia and Syntyche in 4:2.  Sometimes scriptures will use brothers and sisters in the same sentence, but it is used with the connecting word “or.” See ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ ἀδελφὴ in Jas 2:15 and 1 Cor 7:15.

William Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. (Downers Grove; InterVarsity Press, 2001), 143. “For instance, in Romans (8:29 JJ) Christ’s exalted status of the firstborn among many brothers uses the term brothers in a generic sense to include women believers.” 

In the context of the disruptive assembly in 1 Corinthians 14, 21 On occasion Paul used anthropos meaning all mankind and translated “people” in the NIV. See 1 Tim 2:1 (πάντων ἀνθρώπων: “all people”), 1 Tim 2:4 (πάντας ἀνθρώπους: “all people”) and 2 Tim 2:2 (πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις: “reliable people”) as examples. Paul used the term brothers 22 Paul had addressed the “brothers and sisters” in 12:1. When Luke mentioned Paul’s stay in Corinth, (Acts 18:18), he specifically mentioned the “brothers and the sisters” (CEB; NIV; ESV footnote). After the normal introduction to the letter (1:1-9), Paul emphasized he was addressing the “brothers and sisters” in 1:10 and 1:11 and the emphasis on the “brothers and sisters” continues throughout the letter.  He closed the letter with the same emphasis.  He encouraged them to “stand firm” and “give themselves (brothers and sisters) to the work of the Lord” (15:58). He urged them to submit to such people as the household of Stephanas (16:15-16). In a respectable manner, along with Paul, the “brothers and sisters” in Ephesus sent their greetings (16:20-21). With “brothers and sisters” mentioned before and after 1 Corinthians 14, there is nothing in the context of 1 Corinthians 14 that would prohibit 14:6, 20, 26 and 39 from including men and women.  at the beginning (14:6), in the middle (14:20, 26), and at the end of his corrections (14:39) 23 John Mark Hicks, Women Serving God: My Journey in Understanding Their Story in the Bible. (Private published) 2020, 85-86.  Hicks believes brothers (14:6, 20, 26, 39) includes men and women as it does in other texts. to refer to both men and women.  Note: Various translations even use the terms “brothers and sisters” (NIV 2011; NRSV; CEB; NLT).   When Paul wanted to use a general word referring to mankind (both men and women), he chose the word anthropos (ἄνθρωπος).  In 14:2-3 this term is translated “people.”

Second, in addition to the Greek word adelphoi (ἀδελφοί) Paul also uses other words when referring to both men and women. Specifically, in 12:7-10 he uses the terms “each one,” “to one” and “to another” in his initial explanation of gifts (12:7-10).  The literal translation of 14:5 is: “I want every one of you to speak in tongues…” (literally: “all of you” πάντας ὑμᾶς). In 14:23-24, Paul mentions that when “the whole24 The reference to the “whole church” (ἐκκλησία ὅλη 1 Cor 14:23) does not necessarily mean “every member” any more than the “whole town” (ὅλη ἡ πόλις Mark 1:33) meant “every citizen” in Capernaum.  church 25  The “whole church” coming together implies there were other times they did not, but rather met in smaller groups.  Because of the size of a city it would not have been practical for the whole church to come together every time. Since some of the cult groups met on a monthly basis the early church could have followed this model.  Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in their Historical Setting. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 33-42. This arrangement is implied at the beginning of the church in Acts 2:43-47. They met “together in the temple courts” and “broke bread in their homes.” See Acts 4:23, 31.   (14:23a) comes together, everyone (πάντες) speaks in a tongue” 26 1 Pet 4:7-11: “be clear minded and self-controlled…love each other…offer hospitality…each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others…if anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God…”  Was speaking the only gift women could not use?  (14:23b).  The literal Greek translation of 14:31 is: “you can all (πάντες) prophesy one by one so that all (πάντες) may learn and all (πάντες) be encouraged.”  In 14:26, “each of you” (ἕκαστος) is followed by various activities done in the assembly. 27 Paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 11-14:
Every woman who prophesies (11:5) when the church comes together, (11:18, 20) edifies the church and strengthens the church (14:4, 26), in addition to instructing and encouraging (14:31).  In the church (14:19) or when the whole church comes together (14:23), everyone is prophesying (14:24a) so a sinner will fall down and worship God (14:24b-25). When the church comes together (14:26), prophets should weigh what is said (14:29). You may prophesy, but not when someone else is speaking—you must take turns (14:31). 

Paul’s correction of the women in 14:34-35 is prefaced by his corrections to all the believers involved in the assembly, consequently men and women in the Corinthian church could well have been and probably were involved in three specific areas: 

(1) teaching 28 Lois (grandmother) and Eunice (mother) contributed to Timothy’s sincere faith that still lived in him (2 Tim 1:5-7; 3:14). 
(2) prophesying
(3) speaking in tongues 

The Roles of Women in the Assembly

Women as Teachers 29 None of the lists of gifts found in Eph 4:11-13, Rom 12:6-8 and 1 Cor 12:27-30 indicate there were gender limitations. Paul urged the believers who had the gift of teaching to teach (Rom 12:7). Paul believed those filled with knowledge should instruct others (Rom 15:14).  In 2 Tim 2:24, Paul described the “Lord’s servant” as one who must be “able to teach” (διδακτικόν) and used the same word for the overseers (1Tim 3:2). There is nothing in the context of 2 Tim 2:24 that would limit the “Lord’s servant” from including women.  In fact, the “evil desires” (ἐπιθυμίαις ποικίλαις 2 Tim 3:6) the women have been swayed by are similar to the “evil desires of youth” (νεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυμίας 2 Tim 2:22) that Paul told Lord’s servant to flee. Women teachers are supported in Acts 18:26; 21:9 and 1 Cor 11:4-5.   

In 14:26a, Paul wrote: “When you come together, (2nd person plural) each of you (ἕκαστος) has a hymn or word of instruction (didache)…” 30 Teaching through hymns was for everyone (Col 3:16; Eph 5:19). Teaching (didache) was for everyone (Col 1:18) including Timothy (2 Tim 4:2 “careful instruction”) and elders (Tit 1:9 “trustworthy message”). The term “you” refers back to the “brothers and sisters.”  If Paul had been limiting the activities of 14:26-33 to men only, he could have easily used the term andras (ἄνδρας) as he did in 1 Tim 2:8 when directing his comments to the men.  He then closes the discussion of the assembly telling the “brothers and sisters” to prophesy and speak in tongues (14:39). 

In other writings, Paul used similar terminology as he instructed believers in different situations.   The spiritual gifts he lists in Rom 12:6-13 were addressed to “brothers and sisters” (Rom 12:1) and “every one of you” (Rom 12:3).  Throughout his letter to the Romans, Paul mentioned “brothers and sisters” (1:13; 7:1,4; 8:12,29; 10:1; 11:25; 12:1; 14:13; 15:14, 30; 16:14,17).  Paul declared “brothers and sisters” were “competent to instruct 31 νουθετεῖν is translated “instruct.”  This same word is used for Paul teaching the elders from Ephesus (Acts 20:31) and the Corinthians (1 Cor 4:14). The word has been translated as admonish (ASV), teach (CEB, NLT), instruct (ESV, NRSV, NIVI).  one another” because they were “filled with knowledge” (Rom 15:14).  The word for instruct (νουθετεῖν) comes fromνουθετέω(noutheteo) and is the same word used to describe Paul’s admonition to the Ephesian elders (νουθετῶν) in Acts 20:31 (translated warn).  In fact, the entirety of 1 Thessalonians 532 1 Thess 5:1, 4, 12, 14, 25, 27  addresses the “brothers and sisters,” and part of their instruction is to warn (νουθετεῖτε) different groups of people (1 Thess 5:14).  Paul told the “brothers and sisters” (2 Thess 3:13) not to associate with anyone who did not obey the “instructions” (ὑπακούει τῷ λόγῳ) of the letter but to warn (νουθετεῖτε) them as they “would a fellow believer” (3:15).  Note: The noun form of this word warn (νουθεσίαν) appears in 1 Cor 10:11 to describe the function of Torah and is translated “instruction” (ESV; NRSV; RSV; NASV) or “warning” (CEB; NIV). Teaching was seen as an activity (Matt 28:19), and a gift (Rom 12:7).  As Paul taught and admonished (Col 1:28 νουθετοῦντες), all believers were expected to do the same as they sang (νουθετοῦντες) (Col 3:16). 33 Paul described his ministry as “admonishing and teaching everyone” (νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον Col 1:28). Paul used the same words when he told his readers to “teach and admonish one another” (διδάσκοντες καὶ νουθετοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς Col 3:16). Paul believed his ministry of teaching and admonishing could be done by the singing of “psalms, hymns and songs” (Col 3:16c) that everyone was expected to do. The book of Hebrews urged the “brothers and sisters” (Heb 3:1, 12; 10:19; 13:1, 22)34 In Heb 10:19  the writer told the “brothers and sisters “ to “draw near to God” (Heb 10:22), “hold unswervingly to the hope” (Heb 10:23), “spur one another on toward love and good deeds” (Heb 10:24), “not give up meeting together” (Heb 10:25a) and “encouraging one another” (Heb 10:25b). “Encourage” comes from the Greek word παρακαλέω (parakaleo) which means to admonish, exhort, cheer or comfort.  Paul used the word in Rom 12:1; 1 Cor 1:10; 16:15; Eph 4:1; 1 Tim 2:1; 1 Thess 4:1,10; 5:14).   to be teachers and go “beyond the elementary teachings about Christ” (Heb 5:12; 6:1).35 When Paul addressed the different gifts, he said they were “given to each of us” (Rom 12:6). This does not necessarily mean “everyone” received gifts (1 Cor 12:27-31), but it does indicate the gifts did not have gender limitations. One of the gifts was “teaching” which was to be used—“then teach” (Rom 12:7). Paul did not divide the gifts into “male gifts” and “female gifts.”  Paul closed the letter with a strong “urging” (Παρακαλῶ) to the “brothers and sisters” (Rom 16:17).   Paul urged Timothy to take what he had taught him to “entrust to reliable people” (anthropos)36  ἀνθρώποι.  Paul used the anthropos three times in 1 Tim 2:1-5 and context would demand the inclusion of women (2 Tim 3:2; Acts 17:30). The women at Paul’s “side” could have easily been involved in teaching (Phil 4:3; Rom 16:3, 12b). The admonition for older women to teach younger women instead of Timothy could possibly be related more to purity rather than gender (1 Tim 4:12; 5:1-2). Additional uses of ἀνθρώποι are 1 Tim 2:1, 4; 4:10; 6:5, 9,16; 2 Tim 3:2, 8, 13, 17; Tit 1:14; 2:11; 3:2, 8, 10.  Anthrōpous always refers to men and women in the pastorals (plural form). Since women are commanded to learn, they are also empowered to teach once they have learned.  who would “teach others” (2 Tim 2:2). By choosing to use the word anthropos (mankind) instead of andres (men), Paul did not make a gender distinction, therefore it is highly unlikely that Timothy would have interpreted the directive otherwise.   If the “reliable people” 37 The older women (Titus 3:3) were to be “teachers of good” (kalodidaskalous/καλοδιδασκάλους)which could easily correspond to the “reliable people” (pistois anthropois/πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις) who were to teach (didaxai διδάξαι) in 2 Tim 2:2. If the older women were to teach younger women, they needed to be “reliable teachers.”  included men and women, the “others” they were to teach most likely included men and women.38 Paul could have practiced 2 Tim 2:2 with Aquila and Priscilla before he left them in Ephesus (Acts 18:19). Soon after Paul’s departure, Luke recorded their teaching Apollos (Acts 18:24-26). This could be an example of entrusting to “reliable people” who would teach others.  The commission to “teach others” does not appear to have limitations of “who” or even “where” they can teach. The women and men mentioned in Rom 16:6-15 could have been among the entrusted “reliable people.”   

Women as Prophets  

Prophets, including women prophets, held prominent places in Torah.  Centuries before Joel had predicted women prophets (Joel 2:28-30).39 Peter said the Joel prophecy would take place in the “last days” (Acts 2:17a). Isa 2:1-3 and Mic 4:1 predicted the fulfillment of the word of the Lord going out of Jerusalem would take place in the “last days.”  Heb 1:1-2 connects the “last days” with the coming of Jesus. See 2 Tim 3:1; Jas 5:3; 2 Pet 3:3. As a well-educated Jew and believing everything “written in the Prophets” (Acts 24:14; 28:23), Paul would have been well versed in the teaching of the Jewish law.40 (Paul had a good knowledge of the minor prophets: Hos 1:10; 2:13 (Rom 9:25-28), Hos 13:14 (1 Cor 15:55), Hab 2:4 (Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11), and Mal 1:2-3 (Rom 9:13).  The Old Testament prophets were important to the early church (Acts 7:42; 13:40; 15:15; 26:27; Heb 1:1-2).   In Rom 10:13, Paul quotes Joel 2:32 so it can be assumed that Paul was aware of Joel 2:28-31. According to the text, prophets were foundational in the early church (Acts 13:1; Eph 2:20; 3:5), and we know that Paul was aware of Philip’s four, prophesying, unmarried daughters (Acts 21:8). 41 It could be assumed the four unmarried daughters were involved in the church in Caesarea (Acts 21:8).  Luke used a present active participle (προφητεύουσαι) indicating “action in progress” on the part of the four daughters. See Acts 21:9.  That being the case, women prophesying in other locations would not have surprised Paul. According to 11:4-5, women prophets were active within the assembly of the Corinthian church.

In the list of spiritual gifts prophecy is listed second only to the apostles (12:28; Eph 4:11).  The purpose of prophecy was instruction (learning: μανθάνω) and encouragement (14:31),42  πάντες μανθάνωσιν (learning 14:35; 1 Tim 2:11) καὶ πάντες παρακαλῶνται (urging 1:10; 1 Tim 2:1) therefore prophets were not restricted to “prediction” of events (Acts 11:28; 21:9-10; Luke 2:36), but also served as instructors involved in teaching (14:31).43 Because prophets are listed after the apostles, it can be assumed that Paul was not referring to Torah prophets. Prophecy by its nature assumes an audience.  Paul, when addressing the disorderly assembly, refers to the possibility of “everyone” speaking in tongues and “everyone” prophesying when the whole church came together (14:23-24).  Note:  This statement is bracketed between the “brothers and sisters” of  14:20 and 14:26. However, when done properly and the prophets spoke in turn, everyone was instructed, strengthened, encouraged and comforted (14:3, 31). The term “all” (πάντες) seems to include men and women because the word is mentioned three times in 14:31.   

Because prophecy included teaching, “others” were instructed to “weigh carefully” (Job 29:21; 1 Thess 5:21) what was said by other prophets (14:29).44 Some of the prophets could have been false prophets (1 Kgs 13:18; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 John 4:1; Acts 20:30; 2 Cor 11:13).  We do not know who the “others” were, but we can consider four possibilities: 45.Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ, 172.

(1) Other men or women prophets (11:5; 14:20, 26, 39; Acts 21:9).
(2) Those who had the gift of “discernment between spirits” (διακρίσεις diakrisis 12:10 NRSV). There is no evidence the gifts of Rom 12:7-11, Eph 4:7-11, 1 Peter 4:7-11; 1 Cor 12:27-31 and 1 Cor 12:10 had gender limitations.
(3) All of the assembled believers. 
(4) The women of 14:34-35. 

All four possibilities include women.  This produces a dilemma if 14:34 is used as a proof text that women should remain silent within the church assembly.  That reasoning simply does not fit the context of 14:26-33.  If anyone (man or woman) with the gift of “discernment between spirits” heard a prophet speak something untrue, they were instructed to correct it.  

Women as Tongue Speakers 

In his initial explanation of gifts, Paul states “now to each one (ἑκάστῳ δὲ) the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good” (12:7).  In 13:1, he mentions “the tongues of men.” The actual Greek text Is: ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων.  He did not choose the word for males (andres ἄνδρας) in this text, but rather a term that included both “men and women” (anthropos) therefore indicating both men and women had the gift of tongues.  This understanding flows into the issues of 1 Corinthians 14.

Conclusion

After his discourse on the greatness of love in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul opens the discussion about the chaotic assembly in 1 Corinthians 14 by saying: “Follow the way of love and eagerly desire the gifts of the spirit especially prophecy” (14:1).  He closes by telling the “brothers and sisters” to “be eager to prophesy” (14:39) as long as they did it in a “fitting and orderly way” (14:40). There is nothing in the text (14:1/14:39) that limits the “gender” of who had the gifts.

Because of his Jewish education,46 Paul’s mentor (Gamaliel) was known to have a high respect for women—even more so than most rabbis of his day (Acts 5:34-39; 22:3).  Paul would have been well aware the female leaders of his heritage such as Miriam (Exod 15:20; Micah 6:4 NIV, GNT), Deborah (Judg 4:4-5 prophet and judge), Noahiah (Neh 6:14), Isaiah’s wife (Isa 8:3),47 Isa 8:3 refers to “prophetess.”  Paul could have known about Anna (Luke 2:36) because he was close friends with Luke.  and Huldah (2 Kgs 22:13-20; 2 Chron 34:22-28).  He would have known that Israel was taught by both male priests and male/female prophets, and that women served at the entrance of the tent of meeting (1 Sam 2:22).   Assuming Paul saw Torah48 Rom 7:12; 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11; 2 Tim 3:16  as a learning and teaching tool for the church,49 The importance of teaching is mentioned throughout the New Testament: 1 Cor 14:26 (διδαχὴν); Col 3:16 (διδάσκοντες); 1 Tim 4:13 (διδασκαλίᾳ); Acts 13:1 (διδάσκαλοι); Tit 2:3 (καλοδιδασκάλους); 1 Tim 3:2 (διδακτικόν). Some did not see the importance of the Old Testament because it was “nailed to the cross” (Col 2:14).  and judging from his writing, he did not believe gender was a restricting factor for being a prophet, tongue speaker, or teacher.

When considered in context, the “women” of 14:34-35 are not all women, but disruptive women50 Paul did not demand the silence of women in 1 Cor 11:4-5, but he require that they respect the cultural understanding of the veil. If women of 14:34-35 were not to speak in the assembly of the church, then two questions beg answers: (1) Why did Paul not tell the women of 1 Cor 11:4-5 to “shut up” (sigato) like he did the tongue speakers and prophets (14:28, 30) because they were women? (2) Why did Paul allow something in 1 Cor 11:4-5 that he was going to stop in 14:34-35?    who were speaking while others were speaking. Paul declared the wives51 Oster, 1 Corinthians, 357. “If these two terms gunaikes and andres are kept away from marriage, then the gunaikes of 14:34 could include daughters (regardless of age) who were still in the home or a male (father, brother, or Roman guardian).”  should do the same as the tongue speakers and prophets: Stop their chaotic behavior!52 Sigato was different than hesukeia (1 Tim 2:11). Sigato meant to totally cease the talking and hesukeia referred to demeanor (“silent” meant total silence and “very quiet” showed demeanor Acts 21:10; 22:2). Luke set the stage for what happened using four Greek words in Acts (1) In 21:31, he used the word for confusion (synchynnetai). (2) In 21:34a, he used the word for shouting or crying out (epephonoun). (3) In 21:34b, he used the word for disturbance or uproar (thorybon). (4) In 21:35, he used the word for violence (bian).  The women were told to be silent because their conduct was not conducive to an “edifying” assembly (14:4-5) and not because they were women (Hab 2:20).

The use of the terms “to speak” (14:27-32), “silent” (14:28, 30, 34), in the church (14:28, 35) and “submit” (14:32, 34) indicate the emphasis is the abuse of speech and not speech in general. 

Issues Related to 1 Corinthians 14:34-3553 Some maintain Paul only mentioned what the women were doing in 11:5 and did not attempt to approve or disapprove, but in 14:35 he condemned the involvement of women in the assembly.  This understanding does not make Paul consistent in his teaching. Paul’s concern for women in both texts was two-fold: the need to respect the culture and the need not to contribute to a chaotic and disorderly assembly. If he had intended to teach that women could not speak in the assembly in 1 Corinthians 14, then the use of a veil in 1 Corinthians 11 would have been a non-issue because they were to “be silent” (sigato).  Assuming Paul had a consistent and coherent approach to the role of women, it is not plausible to believe Paul used 14:34-35 to counter and correct 11:4-5. 

Part Two

Introduction

While Part One of this article serves as the basis for understanding the role of women in the early church assembly, Part Two will examine additional issues addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14.  

Two issues Related to the Study of Textual Criticism 

Textual criticism seeks to restore the text in its original written form by the examination of ancient manuscripts. Two major issues mentioned in 14:33b-35 deserve consideration:

 (1)  Location of 14:34-35.
(2)  Location of 14:33b.

1.  Location of 14:34-35  54 Some believe 14:34-35 was a quotation from the opposition and that Paul used it as a rhetorical device and not his personal belief. It is the opposite of the behavior of women he approved in 11:4-5.  There are other texts in 1 Corinthians that appear to be quotations from another source (1:12; 6:12; 7:1; 8:1; 10:23; 15:12). 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 seems to be too large to have been added as a marginal note (on papyrus paper) at a later date.

In some ways 14:34-35 appears to be a digression and is often thought to be 55 Some scholars believe 14:34-35 was a later interpolation by a scribe and was not Pauline. There are two possible explanations for why it was left out.  First, it could have been accidently left out by the scribe. He could have written the word church in 14:33 (ἐκκλησίαις) and accidently dropped down the word church in 14:35b (ἐκκλησίᾳ). Second, the scribe decided to rearrange the material for a better flow. There are four reasons why it could have been added by a scribe: (1) It cannot be harmonized easily with 11:5. (2) It was a scribal commentary that was later added to the text. (3) Failure to explain what law was in 14:34 as he did in 14:21 and 9:9 supports the text from being non-Pauline. (4) An examination of the two texts (1 Tim 2:12) reveal two different problems and not two different teachings.  Paul taught the same role of women in both texts as he sought a common culture for all churches. See Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009for a detailed discussion of 14:34-35 being an interpolation (253-267) and 14:26-40 being a chiastic construction without 14:34-35.The following is Payne’s conclusion: (267) “The thesis that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation fits the external and the internal evidence far better than any other thesis. If 1 Cor 14:34-35 is a non-Pauline interpolation, it does not carry apostolic authority and should not be used as such to restrict he speaking ministries of women, nor should it influence the exegesis of other NT passages.”    an interpolation56 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 780-781.  not representative of Paul’s teaching.  Regardless, by placing 14:34-3557 The silence of the women in 11:5 was not to be forever, but only until they abided by the custom of a head covering. For the authenticity of 14:34-35 see the following article: Curt Niccum,” The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Cor 14.34-5” New Testament Studies Vol 43, 1997, 242-255. 1 Cor 14:34-35 appears in all available manuscripts in one place or the other. This supports Paul as the author and not a scribe.  at the end of the chapter, the flow of 14:33 into 14:36 is more coherent. The issues with the prophets begin in 14:29, and the excuse for their disruptive behavior while prophesying in the assembly is confronted in 14:32-33.  Additional information is given in 14:36-39 before Paul’s “therefore conclusion” in 14:40.    For our studywe will leave 14:34-35 where it is found and not put it at the end of the chapter.    

2. Location of 14:33b  58 Linda L. Belleville, Women Leaders and the Church: Three Crucial Questions. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 157-158.

Ancient manuscripts did not have spaces, punctuation, chapters or verses, therefore the discussion and subsequent disagreement as to the proper placement of 14:33b is challenging.  If “as in all the congregations of the saints” (14:33b) is attached to 14:33a, “God is not a God of disorder,”59 “Worship should reflect the character of God being worshipped, and in Paul’s view the biblical God, unlike pagan deities, was a God of both order (not chaos) and peace (not competition for airtime).”  Ben Witherington, Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 286. makes a non-chaotic assembly universal.60 “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.” (14:33 NIVI 2011).  If 14:33b is attached to the later, the phrase “women remain silent,” is a universal teaching for women in the assembly regardless of the circumstances.61 The NASB, NLT, and NIV (2011) do not attach 14:33b to the women of 14:34 whereas the RSV, ASV, ESV, CEB, NIV (1983) and NRSV do.  The placing 14:33b with 14:34-35 in some translations could have  possibly been influenced by the anti-feminist movement.   Attaching 14:33b to 14:33a is probably the best choice for the following reasons:

  1. Paul used this pattern in other places (4:17; 7:17; 11:16). 
  2. Paul established the common culture for the church in 14:26-33a and 14:33b was the   logical conclusion.  Placing 14:33b with 14:34 is redundant (“as in all the churches 62  ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις (“the churches”) is the Greek in both places. of the saints women should remain silent in the churches”) (RSV).63 The following translations put 14:33b with 14:34: ASV, CEB, ESV, NRSV.   
  3. Paul desired a non-chaotic assembly in “all the churches of the saints,” but Paul’s issue with the women in 14:34-35 was a local issue. 
  4. When 14:34-35 is placed at the end of 1 Corinthians 14, 14:33b Is not included.   Note:  The NIV (2011) corrected 14:34a from the NIV (1983) by adding it to 14:33a. 64 The NKJV and the NLT agree with the NIVI, but RSV, ASV, CEB, ESV and the NRSV does not.

Six Interpretive Questions Concerning the Women of 14:34-35

(1) Who are the women of 14:34-35?
(2) What does “to speak” (λαλεῖν) mean?
(3) What is the meaning of “allowed” (οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται)?
(4)What is the meaning of submission?
(5) What is the meaning of disgrace?       
(6) Is the restriction of women absolute/perpetual or temporary?

Who Are the Women of 14:34-35?  

Paul makes a three-fold declaration about women being silent in 14:34-35: 

(1) “should remain silent.” (Σιγάτωσαν)
(2) “not allowed to speak.” (οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν)
(3) “disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” (αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστιν γυναικὶ  λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ)

There are three possibilities as to the identification of the “women” of 14:34-35.65 The women could have been unbelievers and did not know how to conduct themselves in a Christian assembly (1 Cor 7:12)  

(1) They were among the “others” (14:29a) weighing “carefully what is said” (14:29b) and were doing so in a chaotic manner.  
(2) They were married women listening to the prophets (not their husbands) or interpreters and wanted to know more by asking them questions.
(3) They were wives of the prophets because they66 The women could have been other married women who were questioning the prophets and not their husbands. They were instructed to ask their non-prophet husbands at home what the prophets were teaching.  had “their own husbands at home” (14:35).  When examined closely, 14:34-35 appears to be a continuation of the discussion of the gift of prophecy and not a separate subject—women. Paul did not change subjects (prophets) but only who was contributing to the chaos.67 The issue was “how” they were asking and whether or not the “questions” were contributing to chaos of the assembly.   It is highly unlikely Paul was referring to “all women” for two reasons: (1) There were unmarried women in the assembly (7:8, 13, 25-28, 39-40), and probably women married to non-believers. In those cases, they could not “ask their own husbands.”68 1 Cor 7:2 ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα (his wife) Eph 5:33 ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα (his wife) 2:5 ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν (their husbands) John 4:16 ἄνδρα σου (your husband) Acts 5:10 ἄνδρα αὐτῆς (her husband)1 Peter 3:1, 5 ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν (your husbands). If the four unmarried daughters of Philip were in the assembly at Corinth and had questions, who were they to ask for answers?  The imperative (ἐπερωτάτωσαν) to “ask their own husbands” assumes the husband could answer. (2) Paul provided instructions for the men and women (“brothers and sisters”) tongue speakers and prophets who had been speaking (14:26-33). The women prophets and tongue speakers were not commanded to be silent. 

Quite possibly this entire situation had been influenced by their pagan backgrounds and the oracles at Delphi who were asked questions and provided answers.  Perhaps the women thought they could not get the information they wanted unless they asked the questions of those who were speaking.  It is interesting that at Delphi a female priestess was also addressed as a prophetess.  However contrary to the Christian assembly, the oracle at Delphi did not speak until a question was asked. 69 Witherington, Conflict & Community in Corinth,  276-290.  

What Does “to Speak” (λαλεῖν) Mean? 70 “Then indeed the women from such teaching, kept silence; but now there is apt to be great noise among them, much clamor and talking, and nowhere so much as in this place. They may all be seen here talking more than in the market, or at the bath. For, as if they came hither for recreation, they are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is confusion, and they seem not to understand, that unless they are quiet, they cannot learn anything that is useful. For when our discourse strains against the talking, and no one minds what is said, what good can it do to them? To such a degree should women be silent, that they are not allowed to speak not only about worldly matters, but not even about spiritual things, in the church.”  John Chrysostom (Homily 9 First Timothy)  

Perhaps two of the most troubling terms in 14:34-35 are “to speak” and “to learn” (“to learn”: ASV; NKJV; CEB; “know”:  NRSV; “inquire”: NIV).  The infinitive “to speak” (used twice in 14:34-35) is different from the “speaking” mentioned three times in 14:27-29 that was done by both men and women. 71

 In 14:27 λαλεῖ, (Pres. Act. Ind. 3rd Per. Sing); 14:28 λαλείτω (Pres. Act. Imp. 3rd Per. Sing.);

14:29 λαλείτωσαν (Pres. Act. Imp. 3rd Per. Pl.).
The “speaking” women in 14:34-35 were disruptive72 The “disruptive” nature of the “speaking” of the women in 14:34-35 was a different “disruptive” issue than the disruption found in 14:27-31.  The problems of tongue speakers/prophets and the women of 14:34-35 are separated by 14:32-33.    and were told to “shut up!”  This term as used in 14:34-35 has at least six possible meanings: 

(1) Chattering.73 “We may cite a specific example of the guild of Zeus Hypsistos, a religious association of the first century B.C. that had rules against factions, chattering, and indicting one another.” Ben Witherington, Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord’s Supper. (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 51.  In this case the term is not referencing “formal” speaking but rather disruptive “chattering.”74 BADG, 582 “…of informal communication ranging from engagement in small talk to chattering and babbling.” (See 1 Tim 6:20 and 2 Tim 2:16 kenophonia)  Note:  This would have especially unsettling in a small house church.  
(2) Disturbing. Perhaps these women were speaking loudly and incorrectly.  Just as with chattering would hinder an edifying assembly, so would loud and disturbing speaking.
(3)  Women were asking their husbands/prophets or other prophets questions they should have been asking at home. Their questions could have been out of place for five reasons: 

(a) They were inappropriate for the setting. 
(b) The questions were unlearned. Note: Generally, women married at a young       age and stayed home with the children.  As a result, they had limited opportunities to receive an education and their social exposure was         somewhat restricted.75 Roman women had enough education to appreciate their husbands but could not express their own opinions.  In public they were to appear in unspoken agreement with their husbands.  
(c) Possibly the women were asking questions at the same time the prophets       were prophesying (14:30).  
(d) The women were using the wrong tone of voice in asking the questions. 
(e) The questions were insincere.

(4) Paul had used this same infinitive “to speak” when referring to both tongues and prophecy (14:27-29). Men and women were involved in both. 
(5) “To speak” is a present active infinitive (λαλεῖν).76 The present active infinitive to speak (λαλεῖν) is used twice whereas Paul used an aorist active infinitive for “to learn” (μαθεῖν). By contrasting the present infinitive with the aorist infinitive would be supportive of the continuous action of “to speak.” It implies the “speaking” was “continuous” or “on going,” but even so its meaning is best determined by context more than verb tense.  Continuous talking was not conducive for an edifying assembly in a small house church.

Paul’s statement forbidding women to speak in the assembly is closely linked with his instruction for them “to learn” (“inquire” in NIV and “learning” in ASV; CEB; ESV; NKJV) by asking “their own husbands at home.” Viewed in context with 1 Corinthians 11, once the women had learned, they were qualified or allowed to speak. Paul had a short-term solution to the problem: Keep silent! (sigao) Paul’s long-term solution: Learn! 77 “to speak out” (TLV), “not allowed to interrupt” (TPT), “talking when they should be listening” (MSG) “not to take part in the discussion” (TLB), “not allowed to talk” (CEB).

(6)  Some women could have been responsible for “weighing” what the prophets were saying but they were asking questions in an unacceptable manner. Perhaps Paul was correcting a privilege and not as restricting the women speaking in general (see 11:4-5). 

What is the Meaning of “Allowed” (Permit) 

The term “allowed” (οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται)?78 ἐπιτρέπεται is a pres, pass, ind, 3rd per, sing from ἐπιτρέπω. The same word is used in 1 Tim 2:12 and is a present, active, indicative 1st person singular (ἐπιτρέπω). (14:34 NIV; CEB) means “permission” 79 Matt 8:21; Mark 5:13; John 19:38; Acts 26:1. The Jerusalem Bible: “Women are to remain quiet at meetings since they have no permission to speak, they must keep in the background as the Law itself lays down.” (“permitted” NRSV; ESV; NKJV; ASV; RSV).  Compared to other words Paul could have chosen in this text: “I urge” (1:10; 4:16; 16:15) or imperatives such as “forbid” (14:39), “urge” (translated “command”), and “give” (1 Tim 4:11; 5:7; 6:17), this term is rather weak. According to the text, he was acquainted with the imperative form of permit because Luke recorded Paul as saying: “Please (ἐπίτρεψόν) let me speak to the people” (Acts 21:39).  Paul had used the imperative form of “remain silent” in 14:34a (Σιγάτωσαν), therefore it would have been natural for him to follow with a second imperative instead of this present indicative (allowed).80  ἐπιτρέπεται pres pas ind 3rd per sing. “for it is not permitted unto them to speak” ASV.  In such case, 14:34 would have flowed well with three imperatives in a row (silent, allowing/permitting and submission).  Quite possibly, the commands to be “silent” and “ask” were imperatives in a “learning” context (14:35a μαθεῖν). (See 14:31 and the instructional (μανθάνωσιν) nature of prophecy for learning (CEB, NKJV, ASV).  For whatever reason he chose to close with an imperative (“must be in submission” ὑποτασσέσθωσαν)81 ὑποτασσέσθωσαν pres pas imp 3rd per pl (“be submissive”)  (14:34b). 

Even though most translations interpret 14:34b as “They (speaking of the women in 14:34a) are not permitted (allowed) to speak,” the verb is actually third person singular (ἐπιτρέπεται)—not third person plural.  In the versions that do recognize permit (allow) as singular, the phrase is rendered “for it is not permitted unto them to speak” (οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν: ASV; NLT; KJV).  If the latter is the proper way of translating 14:34b, the law is the subject of permit and not women.  This stands in contrast to the word choice in 14:35 when Paul instructed the wives to ask (ἐπερωτάτωσαν) their husbands (ἰδίους ἄνδρας) at home.  In this case he used a third person plural imperative in addition to the two third person plural imperatives (silent and submission: Σιγάτωσαν and ὑποτασσέσθωσαν). Paul was not forbidding women tongue speakers and prophets from “speaking,” but ONLY the women who were creating chaos by “speaking” or asking questions of the speakers.   Note:  The term “ask” (ἐρωτάω 14:35; Phil 4:3; 1 Thess 4:1; 5:12), (ἐπερωτάω, “interrogate” Acts 5:27; 23:34) is a strong word82 It was used by the high priest interrogating Jesus (Mark 14:60).  which Paul only uses one other time (ἐπερωτάω, Rom 10:20).  Perhaps the women were coming across harshly or in a condemning manner. 

Given the options, 14:34-35 is probably best read with the limitations of WHO (wives of prophets or other married women) and WHEN (prophesy was being used)—not ALL WOMEN during the entire assembly. Just as the tongue speakers were told WHEN to speak (interpreters were present) and the prophets were told WHEN to prophesy (no one else was prophesying), the women were told WHEN to be quiet (others were speaking or prophesying).  

What is the Meaning of Submission?

The Greek word submission (hupotasso ὑποτάσσω) is a combination of two words: hupo and tasso. Hupo means “under” and tasso means “rank” or “arrange.” Used together, the two terms translate “to put in subjection, to rank under.”83

Andrew Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ. (London: InterVarsity Press, 2019), 36. In Luke 7:8 the centurion said: ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ (hupo) ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος (tasso)

                         I        man        am      under.     authority     ranked    

“ For I also am a man set under authority” (NRSV)

 “For I also am a man placed under authority” (NKJV)
Believers are called to see others as more important than themselves (Rom 12:10; Phil 2:3).84 Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ, 34-36. (1 Cor 9:19; 16:13-16; 2 Cor 4:5; Gal 5:13; Eph 4:1-2; Col 1:7; 3:12-14) The term “submissive”85 Submission is something done by us and not to us. The little boy was told to go and sit in the corner. He said: “I am sitting down on the outside, but I am standing up on the inside.” can be “reflexive,”86

 “This middle reflexive understanding of the passive occurs when the ones subjugated are humans who are willingly submissive.  For instance, in Jas 4:7, it is preferable to read the aorist passive imperative as “submit yourselves therefore to God”. (KJV; NIV; NRSV), rather than “be submissive” (NEB; Phillips).  Similarly, in 1 Pet 2:13 should read “submit yourselves to every human authority” (KJV; NIV; NEB; NASB), rather than “be subject” (RSV).  Likewise, in Heb 12:9, the readers are exhorted “submit ourselves (ὑποταγησόμεθα) to our spiritual Father” (JB), rather than “be subject” (KJV; NASB; NRSV).

Whether the passive form of ὑποτάσσω carries a middle reflexive sense must be determined by the context.  As mentioned, in the NT only God and Christ have power and authority to subjugate and they do so only when the object is antagonistic…

The primary focus of “submit yourselves” must be on attitude.  One can be forced to obey the government, or a slave can be made to obey a master, but Christian submission is a voluntary surrender of one’s own rights, a placing of oneself at the disposal of, or in the service of, someone else.  Submission is a willing deference.” Kenneth V. Neller, “Submission in Eph 5:21-33” in Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity Vol 1 ed by Carroll D. Osburn (Joplin: College Press, 1995), 247-249.
  and in this case something the women did to themselves rather than something that was done to them. 87 The verb form of submission (ὑποτασσέσθωσαν) found in 1 Cor 14:34 and is a present passive imperative 3rd person plural. The passive and middle have the form. As a middle the word can be reflexive (done to oneself) and the passive is something done to the person.  Context determines the meaning to be either middle or passive.  The NASV translates 14:34b: “let them subject themselves just as the Law also says.” Paul used the term in this manner at the close of the letter as he emphasized the importance of submission to the household of Stephanos (16:15b-16 NIV). 88 Paul told his readers (brothers and sisters) to submit (ὑποτάσσησθε) to the household of Stephanas and “to everyone who joins in the work and labors at it” (16:15-16).  It could be assumed Stephanas did not have an all-male household.   

Consider the following options for the use of submission in 14:34: 

(1) Paul does not refer to a certain law as he did in 9:9 and 14:2. Since no such law is found in Torah perhaps he was referring to Gen 3:16. 89 Possibility Paul is referring to a law that did not exist but the Jews of Jesus’s day believed it did so Paul seized on this understanding.  Paul is not above taking a Hebrew text and changing it to fit his purpose.  The classic example is Psa 68:18 (Eph 4:8) which he changed from “received gifts” to “gave gifts.” In cases where Paul referred to Torah (9:9: Deut 25:4; 14:21: Isa 28:11-12), he followed with a quotation. He did the same in 2 Corinthians (8:13: Exod 16:18; 9:9: Psa 119:9). There were no explicit statements in the Torah that would keep women from speaking in the assembly. Besides Gen 3:16 there are three other possibilities for the meaning of “the Law says.” (1) Num 12:14, Miriam was a disruptive prophet and Numbers was considered one of the five books of the “law” (Num 12:1, 8). (2) Roman Law. (3) Oral law (Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth 24a; Josephus, Against Apion 2.24; Mishnah, Aboth 1.5).   
(2) Because man (andres) or husband is not mentioned in the text, man could not have been the object of the submission.  That being the case, perhaps they were to submit to the “learning” (14:35a) they were to receive.90 The New Testament teaches mutual submission (Matt 20:26-28; Phil 2:3; 1 Pet 5:4-5), voluntary submission (1 Pet 2:13; Heb 12:9) and willing deference (Col 3:18; Eph 5:21-22; 1 Pet 3:1). There are times that submission was hierarchical (Rom 8:20; 1 Cor 15:27-28; Phil 3:21). Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ, 34. “Being willing to take the lowest place for the good of others is at the heart of Christian love and living.  Jesus taught this and also live it, both in his ministry and supremely at the cross (Mark 10:42-43; John 13:1-17;15:12-17; Phil 2:5-8). Because Paul’s view of the world is Christ-centered, this theme is often picked up in his teachings.”  
(3) They were to submit to the concept of a non-chaotic assembly.

What is the Meaning of Disgrace?91 Osburn, Women in the Church, 204-205. Paul is dealing with a particular problem in Corinth.  The problem is not one of disdain for creation order or family order, but one of church order. Far from being intolerant, Paul neither teaches nor suggests in this text anything regarding hierarchism or female subjection. The real issue in not the extent to which a woman may participate in the work and worship of the church, but the manner…that these particular wives, like the uncontrolled tongue-speakers and prophets at Corinth, must defer to the assembly by voluntarily yielding to orderliness.”   

In 1 Cor 14:35, Paul uses the term “dishonor” (καταισχύνει)92 Καταισχύνει is a pres act 3rd sing from kαταισχύνω and is composed of two words κατ-αισχύνω.  to address conduct not gender.  He uses it when he was addressing men and women prophesying (11:4-5).  He uses the term “disgrace” (αἰσχρός aischros) regarding women who cut their hair (11:6) and men with long hair (ἀτιμία) (11:14).93

   11:4 καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ.

                dishonors    the   head     of his

      11:5 καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς

              dishonors     the    head    of her

      11:6 εἰ δὲ αἰσχρὸν         γυναικὶ τὸ κείρασθαι 

              it is disgrace   for a woman to be shorn

      11:14 ἀτιμίααὐτῷ

            disgrace to him    

      14:35 αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστιν 

                disgrace   for   it is

According to 1 Cor 11:6 and 14:35 the women were guilty of disgraceful behavior (αἰσχρὸν) and the men were guilty (ἀτιμία αὐτῷ) of participating in disgraceful behavior in 11:14.
  It was “disgraceful” (αἰσχρὸν) for a woman to speak disruptively”94

 34 “The women should keep quiet in these church meetings. They are not allowed to speak out but should be under authority, as the Law of Moses says. 35 If there is something they want to know, they should ask their own husbands at home. It is shameful for a woman to speak up like that in the church meeting.” East-to-Read

34-36 Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God’s Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking. Do you—both women and men—imagine that you’re a sacred oracle determining what’s right and wrong? Do you think everything revolves around you? Message. In this translation the women are identified as “wives” and the issue with them was “disruption” and not gender.
  (14:35),95 The Greek words καταισχύνει, αἰσχρὸν and ἀτιμία are closely related.  The word disgraceful is used in Eph 5:12 (shameful) and Titus 1:11 (dishonest).   but instead should ask questions of their husbands at home. 96 Paul used the word “for” (gar) to connect the imperative (ἐπερωτάτωσαν) with the principle of “for it is disgraceful” in 14:35b.  Women prophets and tongue speakers (14:27-31) could “speak in the church” and were not guilty of being “disgraceful” (14:35b) provided they abided by Paul’s directions. Paul regulated but did not terminate women speaking.97 Keener, Paul, Women &Wives, 77.   “Be silent” was directed at disturbance98 In Acts 15:12,” the whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling…”. It was not until “they finished” that James addressed the whole assembly. In Acts 15:12, the Greek says Ἐσίγησεν δὲ πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος. It could be translated “when whole assembly shut up!  In Acts 15:13, the Greek says: Μετὰ δὲ τὸ σιγῆσαι αὐτοὺς.  It could be translated “but when they had shut up” (NIV “When they finished…”) The dual use of sigato shows the meaning and use of the word.  In the context of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul used the word sigato with tongue speakers, prophets and wives of the prophets. When someone was speaking, the rest of the assembly was to shut up. After the speaker had finished speaking other people were allowed to talk.  in the assembly, whether done by men or women.99 It was not unusual for someone to ask a question in the assembly, but a disruptive question or a question that showed a lack of understanding was not welcomed.  The emphasis on “learn” indicates the question was not a good one or this was not the place to ask the question. Regarding questions, the Jewish world and the Greco/Roman world operated differently.  In Judaism, the prophet received a message from God, relayed the message to the people and the people accepted it in silence.  In the Greco/Roman world, people would inquire from an oracle (such as the one at Delphi near Corinth) about what should be done in any given situation. This difference on how to obtain information could be the background to the women asking questions. 

Is the Restriction of Women in 1 Corinthians 14 Absolute/Perpetual or Temporary? 100 He had been with them for 18 months but did not teach perpetual silence on the part of women.  The failure of the women to respect culture in 1 Corinthians 11 and the failure to conduct the assembly in an orderly manner in 1 Corinthians 14 are both issues that arose after he left Corinth.                   

If the instructions of 1 Corinthians are absolute/perpetual, Paul appears to contradict himself regarding the behavior allowed in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14.  In 11:2-16 Paul used the indicative mood (statement of fact) to deal with the how heads were covered or uncovered. Women prayed and prophesied in 11:4-5 provided they wore a veil.

Consistency requires that both the women tongue speakers (14:27) and women prophets (14:29) were allowed to speak under certain conditions.

Problems/Solutions in the Corinthian Assembly

Corrections Allowed Resumption

1 Cor 8:1 to 14:40 is really the heart of the divisions and quarrels expressed in 1:10-11 (3:3; 11:18). 101 From 7:1 to 14:40, Paul answered three (7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1) of the six questions (16:1, 12) indicated by “now about” (Περὶ δὲ: peri de). The believers were not taking into consideration how their insensitive conduct was affecting others in: eating (8:1-11:1; 8:11-13 NIV),102 The church must function as a body by deferring or being sensitive to one another (12:12-31) and not a group of individuals each wanting their own way. “Brother or sister” was mentioned twice. the wearing of veils (11:2-16), and the Lord’s supper (11:17-34; 11:21,33).103 When the Jews celebrated the Passover, it involved one or two families, and this influenced how the early church handled the Lord’s supper. Craig Keener and Walton, John (eds). “Banquets in Corinth.”   Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 2004-2005.   This same “insensitive or non-deferring attitude” was demonstrated by the conduct of the tongue speakers, prophets and wives of the prophets (14:1-40). All of the gifts were to be used in a “fitting and orderly way” (14:40).104 Oster, 1 Corinthians, 362. “The first pillar is the proper honor and appropriate reflection of the one triune God (12:4-11) who does not distribute gifts in a disorderly way (14:33).  The second pillar is the loving (agape) concern for others and their needs demonstrated concretely in choices made in the style and conduct of the assembly.  On these two pillars rests Paul’s theology of corporate worship in 1 Corinthians.”    Since Paul did not instruct the use of these gifts to stop, it can be assumed both the men and women resumed prophesying, speaking in tongues, singing hymns, giving interpretations and giving words of instruction (14:3, 26, 39) when the corrections were made.

Resumption of Questions?

The question/answer method of teaching was a popular method of learning (14:36; 15:29); therefore, asking questions was not necessarily out of place. As with the above gifts, If the women resumed asking questions, they should not create chaos.   

Separate Assembly Issues

Even though the assemblies of 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14 were the same, Paul chose to separate the issues by subject matter.  

(1) 1 Corinthians 11 was a cultural/creational issue and 1 Corinthians 14 was an issue of chaos.  As such the former was easier to address than the latter. 
(2)  The foundation supplied by 1 Corinthians 12 and 13 were probably more essential in addressing the chaos of 1 Corinthians 14 than the issues of 1 Corinthians 11.  

Conclusion 

Prophets Rebuked

Paul explains the purpose of the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12, but then further addresses the abuses of tongue speakers and prophets in 14:27-33.  After his comments about women (14:34-35) Paul again shifts his focus to the prophets and directs two questions to them:

 (1) Did the word of God originate with you (14:36)?  
(2) Are you the only people it has reached? 

 The obvious answer to both questions is “no.”  Both questions were a continuation of his discussion of the chaotic problems caused by the prophets (14:29-33).  If they thought they were great, (“prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit” 14:37) they needed to acknowledge Paul was an inspired apostle who had written the “Lord’s commands” (14:37).  In closing Paul acknowledged there was a place for prophecy and speaking in tongues, (14:39) however they must be done “in a fitting and orderly way” (14:40).

The Corrected Assembly

The information provided in 1 Corinthians 14 is more “correctional” than “instructive.”  The corrections (adjustments) were not intended to keep the prophets, tongue speakers, or wives from speaking, but rather all of this should be done in a non-chaotic manner.  It was not WHO (men and women) was doing WHAT (speaking in tongues or prophesying), but HOW the events were transpiring.    Paul’s remarks concerning the conduct in the assembly began in 11:2 and conclude with 14:40. In 14:33, Paul had said that “God is not a God of confusion, but of peace.”  How appropriate that his concluding remarks would reflect that same characteristic (14:40).  

Restoring the Purpose of the Assembly

The study of 1 Corinthians shows how easily it was for the early church to forget the purposes and objectives of the church assembly.  Quite possibly the principles outlined in 1 Corinthians 14 can serve as a model and a wake-up call for the church assembly today. 

Filed Under: Christian Life, Theology

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Next Page »

Enter your email address to subscribe to Daylight from a Deerstand and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Promotional Videos

Jerry & Lynn on Facebook

Jerry & Lynn on Facebook
WELCOME TO MARRIAGE MATTERS! A ministry of Dr. Jerry and Lynn Jones, Marriage Matters is a 13-session conference that focuses on the core issues of relationships and incorporating godliness into the solutions.

Our Conference
Each session of Marriage Matters explores some of the complex issues and emotions surrounding relationships and is filled with sound psychological advice and biblical direction. Both professional educators and dynamic communicators, Jerry and Lynn Jones are guaranteed to make you laugh, cry and truthfully evaluate yourself and your relationships.

By providing useful insights and practical information, Marriage Matters is for any individual or couple who wants to learn more about themselves and/or their relationships. Marriage Matters is for everyone!
*** VISIT OUR FACEBOOK PAGE! ***

Conference Goals

Jerry & Lynn will help you:

• Understand and address the core issues in personalities and relationships
• Learn the skills necessary for communication and conflict resolution
• Recognize and target the origins of depression
• Resolve anger
• Develop insights in how to really love and forgive yourself and others
Copyright © 2025 Marriage Matters • Website by Gary Moyers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Service