Clergy Connect
Sola Publishing
Make Donation
WordAlone® Network is a religious, non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, and your contributions are fully tax-deductible.
This document should print approximately 80 pages
INTRODUCTION
Go to www.elca.org and key in the word “welcoming.” When I did this I found 1655 matches. This included 71 significant stories in The Lutheran in the last seven years and 145 overall entries in the magazine. The content of the welcoming was wide and varied. The category labeled elca.org had 405 entries. The first entry was “Welcoming Gays and Lesbians: a view from the pew.” The second was titled “Welcoming Gay and Lesbian People.” The third was “Tools for a Healthy Congregation – Welcoming.” Welcoming is obviously a needed action in our church, in general, and in recent years the need to be welcoming to gay and lesbian people has received needed attention. In the midst of the talk it is good to reflect on the following. When it comes to questions about welcoming gay and lesbian people, just what does it mean to be a welcoming community of grace?
Perspective for the issue. In July 2000 The Lutheran magazine reported action taken by several synod assemblies regarding homosexuality. The article entitled, “Assemblies take a stand on… same-sex unions,”[1] reported that the Milwaukee Synod adopted the following resolution by a 141-103 vote. This Synod “affirms the blessing of such committed same-gender relationships by pastors of this synod after counseling with the couple seeking such a blessing.” Is this what it means to be a welcoming community of grace?
More perspective for the issue. In June of 2001 The Lutheran reported the unofficial “ordination” of a non-celibate woman living in a long-term lesbian committed relationship. Though it was not an official ordination, as it is precluded by present policy, one active Bishop and three former Bishops were present at this event, along with 160 ELCA pastors, giving emotional support to the idea that it is time for an official policy change regarding homosexuality. Is this what it means to be a welcoming community of grace?
The August 2001 Churchwide Assembly paved the way for officially considering just such change by calling for a study that would lead to official decisions about these issues. That 2001 Churchwide Assembly called for a church-wide study on homosexuality and an action-plan for implementation. January 13, 2005 the ELCA Sexuality Task Force gave recommendation to change the existing policy by retaining the existing policy words but allowing for violation of that policy. April 11, 2005 the ELCA Church Council basically adopted the recommendations of the Task Force and added a resolution to process the allowed violations. This ELCA Church Council decision will be voted on at the official policy-making Churchwide Assembly in August of 2005. The answer to the question “what does it mean to be a welcoming community of grace?” will play a critical roll in how people vote. So, what does it mean to be a welcoming community of grace?
What does it mean to be a welcoming community of grace? There are at least two senses of welcome in the scriptures. One is “to receive kindly or heartily”[2] (in a friendly, sincere, cordial way). The second is “to receive with hearty assent (acceptance of an opinion or proposal).”[3]
THESIS - I submit that the church is to welcome ALL people kindly and in a friendly, sincere, cordial way. But the church need not embrace all people with hearty assent, accepting just any opinion or proposal that comes its way. Taken as a general policy, this second sense of welcome would be ludicrous. The scriptures should instead govern the churches’ assent. In regards to homosexuality, I will argue in this paper that the scriptures leave no room for condoning active gay clergy to be active pastors in the ELCA; nor do the scriptures give reason to bless same sex unions. The scriptures leave no such room for such things because the scriptures give no reason to remove the word sin from any same gender sexual activity. Instead the scriptures call us to provide loving pastoral care and outstretched welcoming ministering arms to homosexual people. To not give welcome in the second sense but to give it in the first sense is to speak of law and gospel. The purpose of this paper is to give a law and gospel approach to the issue of homosexuality and by so doing give needed direction to become a truly welcoming community of grace.
Second Edition ©2005
Personal Reflection
After reading the letter page in a good many issues of The Lutheran, one might conclude that the predominant sexuality issue of the church is homosexuality. I do not believe this is true. Heterosexuality that is out-of-bounds is by far our worst sexual problem: couples living together before marriage, premarital sex, and pornography present a mammoth problem. However, because of the 2005 deadline asking us to make official policy decisions about homosexuality I will move the heterosexual question into the appendix.
To say that homosexuality is not the predominant sexual issue in the church is not to minimize the issue. This is a very serious issue. It is serious because the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is toying with officially sanctioning sin. (The first section of this paper will be a reasonable defense of this claim.)
What is at stake here? Consider this allegory. (a.) If a thief steals, the thief is individually responsible. (b.) If a thief steals and jumps into a car where a second person is the getaway driver, then, though the getaway driver did not actively steal, the getaway driver is in complicity with the thief. (c.) If the 2005 Churchwide Assembly should vote that stealing is no longer wrong, (or acknowledges that we have laws about stealing on the books – but recommends that we need not follow those laws) then WE ARE ALL DRIVERS OF THE CAR. This thinly veiled allegory spells out why we should vie for the defeat (and vie for reversal if it passes in August) of the recommendations of the ELCA Church Council: we will all be in complicity with the decision if it becomes official church policy to look the other way from blessing same sex unions or turn a blind eye to ordaining pastors who are living in “committed same sex relationships.”
Therefore, we cannot allow ourselves to get distracted in the presence of other important issues. For instance, many voices are being heard to say we should place “unity” at the highest premium. Unity must be a high premium but it must not be higher than holiness. We confess in the Nicene Creed that the church is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” The call for unity (“oneness”) is not a higher calling than holiness. Nor is the call to “missions” (the church’s apostolic call) higher than holiness. “One, holy, catholic, and apostolic” must stand on the same plane, even while they are at times in tension.
What are the implications of this? Even though this takes time, we must give this issue its due attention. I would rather give my attention to other important issues. But I don’t have this luxury. To simply go on to other important issues and not examine the issue thoroughly will leave the church weaker and less effective. Therefore I have listened carefully to objections people have had to my basic thesis. The following is my response to these voices and a vision for moving ahead. Now that we are beyond the first phase of Journey Together Faithfully, where many pastors felt compelled to not speak of their personal position, I invite all to now enter the dialogue, placing on the table what you think and believe, and why. This is my attempt to do this with as much integrity and seriousness as I can muster
OUTLINE...
A Law and Gospel Approach to Sexuality
Second Edition ©2005
Assumptions
Before I begin, here are my assumptions that I start with. From the perspective of a Lutheran pastor writing to largely Lutheran readers I strongly agree with our constitution’s statement on the authority of the scriptures. Our constitution states, “This congregation accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.” (C2.03) The dictionary defines norm as a standard, model, or pattern for a group. Then it gives further nuance. The dictionary nuance that best describes how I understand norm is not (a): norm as a median or average, nor (b): Norm as what is typical to a group, but instead I understand norm to mean (c): “a standard of conduct that should or must be followed.”
The scriptures themselves state, “All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for instruction, correction and reproof and training in righteousness...” I Tim. 3:16 Therefore, this paper will largely take into account the voice of the scriptures to see how they instruct, correct, and train us regarding these important sexuality questions.
In Defense of the Norm
Some, even within our Lutheran church, wonder, “Why would you allow the will of an earlier generation (a generation that had less knowledge then we have available) to be normative in the sense you describe above?” To this I say, “It is not the will of people that is normative, but rather the will of God.” People sometimes then respond, “How is it that God has expressed his will through fallible humans? The Caiaphas story in John 11 describes how God is able to speak through people, going beyond what they themselves intended, while at the same time not violating their will.
The story is John 11:45-53
Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
What are we accomplishing?’ they asked. “Here is this man performing many miraculous sings. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, ‘You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.’
He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. So from that day on they plotted to take his life.”
This story illustrates how God can accomplish getting his message communicated through fallible means, and even without violating the speaker’s will. The leaders were concerned that Rome would come in and destroy the temple and maybe all of Jerusalem if the crowds rose up to follow Jesus. So Caiaphas wanted to reassure the other leaders that one man (Jesus) would die so that the Romans would not come and destroy the nation (destroy Jerusalem and the system of organization stemming from Jerusalem.) “You know nothing. It is necessary for one man to die for the nation.” Here Caiaphas clearly stated what he wanted to say. But words are like roads; they take you to different places, depending on which way you take them. God was able to inspire Caiaphas to use certain words that described Caiaphas’ intent while at the same time… when taken differently… described God’s intent. God meant… it is necessary for one man (that is Jesus) to die for the nation (meaning for the sins of the world.) John made this explicit when he explained, “Caiaphas did not speak on his own accord, but as high priest he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation….”
This is an amazing and instructive story. God is like a good poet who knows how to use words to say two different things with one sentence. So God, knowing what Caiaphas wanted to say, inspired him to say what Caiaphas wanted in such a way that God also accomplished what He wanted to say. God was even able to speak through a person who wasn’t intending to speak God’s words.
How much more, then, is God able to speak through people whose burning desire was to answer the call to be a prophet and speak out God’s word? They were listening intently, waiting to hear God speak, and watching closely… eager to step into the flow of what God had been doing with his people.
But there is more. Even with this burning desire, God went beyond what those prophets and writers thought. I call this the Penny Lane factor. In the song “Penny Lane” by the Beatles there is a funny line that describes a man who, “Though he thinks he is in a play, he is anyway.” The line startles and amuses us. We expect the line to finish, “though he thinks he is in a play, he really isn’t…” But that isn’t what is said. Something like that was going on even with the prophets and writers of scriptures. Though they thought they were speaking and recording God’s will, “they were anyway.” It turns out that words are like roads not only in that they can be taken in different directions, but that they also can have more than one lane. And sometimes the lanes split off and separate only to connect later, like I35 W and I35 E splitting again and again to go around and through Dallas and other cities. In the same way words can split off with different meanings and nuances. So we ask, “Is Isaiah 53 about Israel, or about Jesus? And the answer is, “Yes.”
Some at this point might say, “O.K. I understand what you are saying. But how is this possible? How does God intermingle His will in such a way?” To this I say, “I will answer that if you answer this question, ‘How does human will move a person? How does human will operate?’ It’s a trick, of course. I know I will never have to answer the question because we cannot even explain how our own wills function. We some day might be able to follow all the chemicals and electrical impulses through their courses down to the muscle, etc. But how does that first signal ever get started? And what role does the will of others play in that beginning? If we were closer to understanding these questions we might be closer to an answer concerning how God affects his will in the midst of our own will. But if we take the scriptures seriously we will know that the closer we get to the God question, the more complicated the answer will become. Isaiah 55 says, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.’ says the Lord.”
What am I saying? Am I saying, “Sit down and stop asking questions?” No. Ask all the questions you have. But put your questions in perspective with other questions. It wouldn’t be wrong of someone, when asked about the theory and workings of calculus, to ask the question, “Just how much prior math have you had?” How can calculus be clear if algebra is a mystery?
When we find we don’t know all the answers to our questions, what we need to do is step back and ask more basic questions. Some questions that are pertinent here are, “The one who made the eye, can he not see? The one who made the ear, can he not hear?” (Psalm 94:9) To these good questions some have added questions of their own. “The one who made the mouth, can he not speak?” If limited, little Satan can place tempting thoughts in our minds, cannot the infinite personal One True God place His good thoughts in the midst of our thoughts? To all these questions I answer, “YES.” I am not ashamed of the mystery. In the end it only makes intuitional sense that the One True living infinite personal God has been at work with His people to express his loving will to us, even through vessels that are “jars of clay.”(II Cor.4:7)
A second assumption I have is related to science and scientific method. I admire science and affirm a place and a need for scientific method. I see a significant intersection between faith and scientific method at the level of inductive reasoning.[5] (See also Appendix #1.) However, scientific method moves from a hypotheses attained by inductive reasoning to testing this hypotheses using deductive (if... then) reasoning, using repeatable and measurable experiments for each “if... then” step. This deductive process is both science’s strength and weakness. Science, when done well, is especially well equipped to speak about “What (physically) Is.” It is not equipped to talk about what “Should Be.” The following discussion in Part One will largely be a discussion about what should be, and as such will help you (at least this is my intention) to critique the sexuality issues confronting the church.
A Welcoming Community of Grace
A Law and Gospel Approach to Human Sexuality
Part One
A. Out-of-bounds Heterosexuality:
Contrary to what many people think, homosexuality is not the most problematic sexual issue of our day. Homosexual issues are complex and opinions are often passionately held, drawing a great deal of media attention. Nevertheless, sheer numbers of people suggest that an out-of-bounds heterosexuality is by far our church’s most pervasive sexual problem. Appendix #2
However, because the ELCA has set a 2005 deadline to make official decisions regarding homosexuality policy, these less pervasive issues must be brought to the foreground.
B. Out-of-bounds Homosexuality
A number of scripture passages speak to the issue of homosexuality: Lev.18:22; 20:13; and Rom.1:18-32 are examples. “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (Lev.18:22) “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Lev.20;13) “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Roman 1:26-27) These passages give clear boundaries. Same gender sexual expression is not to be practiced. A clear decisive conclusion like this brings a torrent of objections. (1.) You are selectively enforcing laws. (2.) Of those passages that you say speak clearly regarding homosexuality you have not adequately taken into account the complexities of language and historical context. (3.) We have changed how we look at scripture before; for instance, look at woman’s ordination or the slavery issue, or issues surrounding divorce. Why not change in this instance? (4.) Look how science has generally changed how we interpret scriptures, and particularly, what if people are genetically wired to be homosexual? Shouldn’t that change how we look at this issue? (5.) The gospel calls us to love everyone. You aren’t being loving if you hold to such boundaries.
The following will be my responses to these objections
Objection #1 You are selectively enforcing passages.
The Lutheran article, “What about same-sex unions?” [Sept. 2000] quoted Pastor Hesford’s objections to the use of Lev.18:22 and Lev. 20:13 as normative passages. Rev. Hesford, pastor of Christ Lutheran in Detroit, said, “…individuals can’t selectively enforce only one part of the Levitical code while ignoring its other laws.”[6]
Which Laws are Functioning?
It isn’t only Pastor Hesford who sounds this objection. Many sound this objection as if there is no response. But there is a clear response. Being clear about this will place the discussion on a good foundation to then deal with the other objections. So which laws are functioning? How do we decide which laws are to be enforced?
First I will argue there are 10 laws and one general category of law that have been abolished. Then I will explain why this is, contrasting the abolished law’s strictly external nature to the internal nature of the law that remains.
Ten + One Laws are Abolished... and Why.
The church aims to produce another draft about sexuality out of the study that is under way. No doubt this next draft will consider past drafts, both ones that were ratified and ones that weren’t. In the unratified 1993 draft titled The Church and Human Sexuality: A Lutheran Perspective we see a recognized belief about the law. On page 4 line 43 it states, “Christians are freed from the requirement to observe numerous cultic and purity laws.”[7] This statement is correct. But what needs to be clear is why this is correct. Is the draft’s statement true because we now are free to just pick and choose what laws we like and what laws we don’t like? Do we simply leave out the ones that seem particularly foreign to us, or seem mundane or archaic? What is the basis on which such decisions are made?
Lutherans can point to our constitution for the answer to this question: “This congregation accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.” (C2.03) The scriptures themselves should be the final norm to answer what is in force and what is not in force. The scriptures themselves have pointed to changes: ten specific laws are changed, and one general category of law has changed. These changes, the scriptures tell us, are brought about by a “change of priesthood.”
A Change in Priesthood Means a Change in Law
Hebrews 7:12 says, “When there is a change of priesthood there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” Hebrews doesn’t entirely explain why this is. I assume it is something akin to when one government falls and an entirely different governmental system arises. They have a new constituting convention... or they do some reasonable facsimile of that. There is a new legislative process established. Probably there is no government that changes all laws. Some laws would be seen as natural and necessary. But, it would be up to the new government to establish the new system. In a similar vein, the new priesthood institutes some changes in the law.
“When there is a change of priesthood there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” (Hebrews 7:12) Is there a new priesthood? Yes. Hebrews 8:1 speaks of Jesus as our new high priest. He is not of the Levitical family from whence priests formerly were to emerge but instead Jesus was from the family of Judah that didn’t have provisions for its members to be priests (Heb. 7:5-17). Because He is not from the priestly tribe of Levi but rather from the royal tribe of Judah, when He became our high priest He introduced a whole new order… (similar to a scenario where the “speaker of the house” became also the president and head supreme court justice, all the while retaining all functions at once.) As Jesus the King became simultaneously the High Priest, a new system had to be established. So, there was “a change of priesthood.” This was a huge change. As Jesus began a non-Levitical royal priesthood there was “necessarily a change in the law as well.”
Now, what specifically are the changes in the law? Once again, it needs to be said that the “scriptures themselves are the norm for all matters of faith and life.” The scriptures themselves tell us what changes have occurred.
What changes have occurred? The scriptures tell us that there are ten specific changes that have occurred.
First of all, there have been changes in the (1) sacrificial laws.
Hebrews 10:1 says, “Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who approach.” Hebrews 10:8 continues the thought: “When he said above, you have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings, these are offered according to the law, then he added, ‘See, I have come to do your will.’ He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. And it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.”
So the scriptures themselves tell us that the sacrificial laws have been abolished. They also tell us why: the sacrificial laws were only a shadow of the true sacrifice - Jesus Christ. Now that Jesus has completed his work, there is no need to retain the shadow procedures.
Next, (2) food and (3) drink, and (4) religious festivals/special days and (5)Sabbath regulations have been laid aside.
COLOSSIANS 2:16-17 states, “Therefore, do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths. These are only a shadow of what is to come but the substance belongs to Christ.”
Once again we see that these items were only shadows of the substance. Food and drink, and festivals, and the observing of special days (and even practice regarding that special day of special days: the Sabbath) were prescribed to create a distinct people, a people separate from other peoples, who would pass the promise of Abraham from generation to generation without “fumbling” the promise. Indeed, when Jesus came... “the whole world was truly blessed.” (Genesis 12:3) Having helped hold this people together, having helped keep the promise alive by keeping a distinct people who respected their own heritage and remembered the promise, these laws of food and drink, and special days served their purpose. Therefore, after Jesus came there was no need for these laws any longer. We are now free in regard to these laws.
Sixth, the scriptures have abolished (6) circumcision laws.
GALATIANS 5:2-4 says, “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
Once again, circumcision was there to keep the people of Israel distinct. It also served as a shadowy symbol of the need to cast off the old and become new. Baptism is spiritual circumcision and it now carries this symbol substantively: (Col. 2:11-12) “Flesh” is “removed/covered” in baptism. “The one who is baptized is clothed with Christ.” (Gal. 3:27)
Seventh and eighth, the laws regarding the (7) priesthood and regarding the (8) sanctuary(In order to get the full impact of this you need to read Hebrews chapter 4 through 10. I won’t quote all of this, but will quote significant portions. The underlined portions will be the most salient in which they served have been dropped.
Hebrews 7:15 states: “It is even more obvious when another priest arises, resembling Melchizedek, one who has become a priest, not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent, but through the power of an indestructible life. [17] For it is attested of him, ‘You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.[18] There is on the one hand the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual[19] for the law made nothing perfect; there is on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope, through which we approach God.[20] This was confirmed with an oath; for others who became priests took their office without an oath, [21] but this one became priest with an oath, because of the one who said to him, ‘The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, you are a priest forever.’[22] Accordingly Jesus has also become the guarantee of a better covenant.[23] Furthermore, the former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office;[24] but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercessions for them.”
Hebrews 8:1-2, 4-5: Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up.
[4] Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They offer worship in a sanctuary that is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one; for Moses, when he was about to erect the tent was warned, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”
This is significant material in light of what was earlier sited from the 1993 draft. Why is it true that “Christians are freed from the requirement to observe numerous cultic and purity laws,” as the draft rightly says? We have been freed from these laws because the cultic laws are precisely laws related to the priesthood and the sanctuary. These “shadows” have passed, and the reality has come. Furthermore, many (perhaps not all) of the purity laws deal with the sanctuary as well: many of the purity laws served to screen unclean people from entering the sanctuary until they were again clean.
Now, purity was not always a matter of sin or not sin. Sometimes purity concerns were introduced to distance Israel from pagan practices. They introduced a wisdom very similar to what the Apostle Paul expressed when he said, “Be not misled. Bad company corrupts good morals.” (I Cor.15:33) I think much of the purity law was of this kind; though, because of our cultural and historical distance, it is often very difficult to see it. For instance, I used to wonder why God prescribed pork as impure food. Then I read an archeology article that spoke of a pagan temple where a multitude of hog bones were found. A possible explanation came to mind. Perhaps God was trying to distance his people from pagan sacrifices, and thus prescribed this particular food law.
I think it is possible that we no longer know the reasoning for most of these purity laws because we do not know many of the cultural customs of the day. We shouldn’t resign ourselves to this lack of knowledge. We should continue our study. Nevertheless, what is clear is sanctuary and priesthood laws have been dropped.
Ninth: (9) Tit for tat revenge is abolished.
Tenth and last: (10) various ceremonial washings have specifically been abolished along with a more general principle. This more general principle is summarized in the phrase “external regulations.” Strictly external regulations have passed away.
Hebrews 9:9-10 in the New International Version says, “This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered (in the earthly sanctuary) were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings - external regulations applying until the time of the new order.”
Here, once again, we see food and drink laws apply only until the time of the new order. (And we know the new order has come.) Also, we see “various ceremonial washings” added to the list of laws that have passed away. The writer of Hebrews could have kept going, listing specific kinds of “external regulations” which have passed away. But instead, he gives a general summary of these laws. He categorizes “food and drink” and “ceremonial washings” as “external regulations.” And he lets us know that the observance of external regulations cannot clear the conscience of the worshiper. Therefore, they have passed away with the coming of the new order.
This external regulation category of law is very helpful for us to see what regulations have passed away. God first watches what is happening inside of us, and then secondly watches what happens on the outside of us as it flows from within. For instance, on the one hand, if a person intentionally picks up something that isn’t his or hers and walks off with it, this is called stealing. But on the other hand, if a person unintentionally picks up something that isn’t his or hers and walks off with it, this is an oversight, not theft. The difference between the two is what first happens within the person. This is not to say there is no such thing as unintentional sin. Clearly there is. Exterior actions that flow from sin within us is sin whether we consciously realize it or not. But this is to say that the law, which remains in the “new order”, always makes a connection with the inner thoughts, motives, inclinations, and beliefs of a person.
Internal Nature of the Law that Remains
Jesus shows the internal nature of the law in Matthew 15:3 & 18-20. “Why do you break the commandments of God for the sake of your tradition? For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what makes a man unclean; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him unclean.”
So first, God is concerned about what is happening within us. Secondly, in conjunction with the interior, he is concerned with how the internal plays itself out on the exterior. Strictly exterior regulations fall by the wayside -though for the sake of others they may be freely adhered to so as to not cause another to stumble. (Romans 14) In other words, there is no physical THING in and of itself that is sinful. This inherent external nature is evident in most of the laws mentioned thus far: laws of sacrifice; food and drink; religious festivals and special days; circumcision; sanctuary; and various washings are all exterior regulations which are no longer needed because Christ has begun something new. He has introduced a New Covenant. The New Covenant’s treatment of the law is first a matter of heart, as the scriptures say, “and I will write my law on your heart.” (Jeremiah 31:33) See also Appendix #3
Thus, external regulations, with no relationship to the internal, are no longer needed. The “exterior regulation” principle would also direct us to drop laws such as: clothing (including the one that says we aren’t to weave more than one kind of material into a shirt) Deut. 22:11; hair, Lev. 10:6; kinds of fields we plant (including the one that says we can’t create hybrid crops) Lev.19:19; kinds of animals we raise (including the one that says we can’t cross-breed animals.) Lev. 19:19.
With the ten above mentioned specific kinds of laws which have been abolished and the one general principle of “exterior regulations”, we should be able to go through the entire Old and New Testaments and discern what we are still obliged to follow and what we are not obliged to follow. And it would determine what we give assent to what we do not give assent to. This is not a matter of the New Testament over against the Old Testament. Furthermore, this is not a matter of a particular book (like Leviticus or Deuteronomy, etc.) or a particular chapter in a book, or even a particular verse. There may be one element in one verse that has been abolished and in that same verse one element which hasn’t been abolished. The “10+ exterior regulations” principle is very helpful to us to discern which laws still apply and which ones do not. With this method we avoid simply picking and choosing, as some have charged.
When we apply this method to Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13 what is the result? The result is that there is no reason to remove the moral imperative. Any sexual act is ultimately never just an exterior physical act. It has been said, “The biggest sex organ we have is our brain.” I agree with this statement. Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 have not been negated.
See Appendix #4 for treatment of Menstrual Laws, which deal with matters that are physically internal but nevertheless are “external regulations.”
Important Questions
What about the laws that tell us to corporally punish?
What about the laws that tell us to corporally punish people? This hasn’t been mentioned thus far under laws that have been abolished. Are we thus obliged to follow these? When someone commits adultery, or some other sexual sin, do we stone him or her? When some one curses an elder, do we stone him or her? Or, specific to the issue at hand, when someone engages in a same gender sexual act do we stone them? The answer to these questions is a resounding NO. The reason for the resounding NO will be found later in the gospel section. (If you want to read the explanation now it is on pages 51-52 under the section of “Mercy”.)
What about apparent contradictions?
This 10 + 1 abolition provides a solid basis from which to address questions about same gender sexual behavior. Therefore, I need to take some time to show it is a firm basis to move from, and deal carefully with questions that arise. For instance, if we are taking God’s word seriously, how does the abolishment of the 10 + 1 laws go with what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19?
“Think now that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.” Matt. 5:17 See Appendix #5 for a thorough response to this.
Still others take the idea of “change in law,” and, without a clear set of principles regarding what should now be in force, open the door wide to directions we should not go. (Read my response to Dr. Fretheim in Appendix #6)
Objection #2 Seemingly clear passages about same gender sexuality are not that clear.
I have argued that Lev.18:22 and 20:13 have not been negated. But many argue that these passages (along with Roman 1:1-32) are about sexual situations other than mutually committed homosexual relationships. They say these passages do not even speak about people in committed homosexual relationships. Do they or don’t they? This is what must be looked at next.
“The Big Umbrella”
Are these passages about homosexual acts, the ones that have not been negated, are they talking about ALL homosexual acts? Might they not be speaking just against any connection to foreign practices, or more specifically against male prostitution (especially temple prostitution), or perhaps against abusive male on male situations, and not speaking against, or even conceiving of, committed homosexual relationships? These questions must be thoroughly looked at.
Leviticus not merely distinguishing itself from foreign ways
David K. Switzer, in his book entitled Pastoral Care of Gays, Lesbians, and Their Families, in the chapter titled “What the Bible Says About Homosexuality (Homosexual Acts)”, wrote this:
“Leviticus 18:22;20:13. These two passages state clearly that a man should not lie ”with a male as with a woman.” It is an ‘abomination.’ Leviticus 20:13 also states that ‘they shall be put to death.” These statements are among the large number of different rules by which the Hebrews were bound and which are found in the Holiness code (Lev.17:1-26:46).
Bamberger, rabbi and Hebrew scholar, makes clear that Israel distinguished herself from her neighbors by distinguishing Yahweh from all of the other gods. A part of the difference was the sexual nature of the other gods, both male and female. Male and female prostitutes in the temples served the purpose of the worship of the sexual union between these gods. For the Jews, Yahweh was not sexual, but rather was the creator and thus the source of human sexuality. God’s purpose is achieved by responsible use of this gift, not by mindless surrender to sensuality. The sexual impulse is not to be repressed, but it is to be controlled.”
“Bamberger goes on to mention a number of the practices of other tribes and nations, including religious practices, and indicates how the Torah explicitly shapes Jewish practice in order to contrast sharply with these other people with their false gods. He points our attention to Leviticus 18;1-3,24-30 as the basis of the refection of the practices spoken of in that particular chapter. ‘The Land of Israel is literally the Holy Land and its sanctity would be defiled by the actions forbidden in this section.” In other words, “Do not do these things because other people with their false gods do them, and your God is Yahweh.” The whole purpose of the Holiness Code is to make an absolute distinction between the Israelites and all other people. “If they do it, we don’t.” It is the way of affirming Yahweh. Within these chapters are ways of worshipping God, caring for one another, and being ritually clean.” All of these are what is meant by holiness, without any other distinctions between the laws themselves, except for varying punishments.”[8]
Granted, strong elements of “If they do it, we don’t ” exists in the holiness code. But it is a great overstatement to say, “The whole purpose of the Holiness code is to make an absolute distinction between the Israelites and all other people.” If this were so, look where it would lead us. Colin Spencer, in his book Homosexuality; A History, wrote, “We know from the Egyptian Book of the Dead that it was thought wrong to steal, to covet, to tell lies, to commit adultery and to kill – at least half of the sins forbidden in the Ten commandments as revealed to Moses.”[9] Recognizing that the Ten Commandments are reiterated in the holiness code in Lev. 19 shows us that there is no “absolute distinction” between Israel and Egypt. So we shouldn’t get sidetracked here. These lines aren’t necessarily just about “do not do these things because people of other lands do them.” These lines need to be looked at on a deeper level by looking at language and history.
What we learn from language itself
Secondly, David Switzer said “Another necessary procedure for interpreting any passage of Scripture written in our common language is to look at the exact wording in the original language.”[10]
Here Switzer raises the issue of language itself. Some have suggested a low bar, indeed, when speaking of language. In the introduction to the book, We were baptized Too: Claiming God’s Grace for Lesbians and Gays, the authors write, “The word homosexual was not even in use in the English language until 1897, and it first appeared in a biblical translation in 1952 with the release of the Revised Standard Version. The original biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek have no word for homosexuality, let alone specific vocabulary to connote any particular understanding of sexuality, gender identity, or sexual orientation.”[11] To even bother to state that the word homosexual did not come into being until 1897 is a particularly anachronistic argument with an incredibly low bar. After all, as Shakespeare wrote, “a rose by any other name is still a rose.” It could be possible to descend hopelessly into semantics and legalese hairsplitting, sort of like President Clinton arguing about what “sexual relations” is, or worse yet, making a case “depending on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” But the question of language that Switzer raises is an important question. Do those words in Lev.18:22 and 20:13 actually speak of some specialized form of homosexuality, like temple prostitution, or sexual violence? These questions are not legalese hairsplitting. What do we find when we look at the language itself?
Hebrew has specific words for temple prostitute and sexual violence
When we look at just the words themselves several observations are pertinent. If Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 were intended to specifically mean “male temple prostitutes” the Hebrew language does have words that means that. The word “qadesh” specifically means temple prostitute. Therefore Deuteronomy 23:18 uses “qadesh” when it says, “No Israelite man or woman is to become a temple prostitute (“qadesh”). You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the Lord your God to pay any vow, because the Lord your God detests them both.” So if the Hebrews wanted to make very clear that they were talking about temple prostitution in Lev. 18 and 20 they could have used “qadesh.” Or, are Lev.18:22 and 20:13 talking about sexual violence? Here too, the Hebrews had a word that referred to this. This word is “shagal.” “Shagal” is used in Deuteronomy 28:30, Is.13:16, Zech 14:2, and Jer.3:2. “Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished (shagal).” Is. 13:16
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 uses a more general word
Now, just because they do not use these two more specific words does not necessarily mean Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 aren’t about temple prostitutes and sexual violence. The Hebrew language is notoriously a language of context. One word can mean many things depending on the context. Let’s look at the word “shakab,” which is the word that is used in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. (Before I look at the specifics please note “shakab” is a verb. Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 are about acts.) “Shakab” is one of those general words with many meanings. It means to “lie down” in a general sense. It can mean just lie down in a bed, in a death bed, on a couch, prostrate yourself, rest, lodge, and the like. It also has many sexual angles. It can mean violent incestuous rape, as when David’s son raped Tamar, David’s daughter. II Sam 13:15. Or it can mean figurative prostitution (related to other gods) as used in Ezek. 23:3. But it can also mean other negative things. It can mean incest as with Lot and his daughters Gen. 19:33. It can mean adultery as with David and Bathsheba. II Sam 11:4. Or it can mean fornication as in laws regarding seducing a virgin Ex. 22:16. It was also used to describe Potiphar’s wife’s attempt to seduce Joseph. Gen. 39:7 It is also used three times in a marriage context, two of those instances are definitely a negative use. The first marriage situation that is negative is found in Gen. 30: 15. Leah convinces Rachel to let her lie with Jacob. When she tells Jacob she says, “I have hired you to lie with me.” Obviously she is making a negative reference using “shakab.” The second instance is after David did lie with Bathsheba. She is pregnant and David has called Uriah home to get him to sleep with Bathsheba so as to hide the adultery. The problem is Uriah is a soldier of great integrity. He says, “The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my master Joab and my lord’s men are camped in the open fields. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and lie with my wife? II Sam 11:11 Here, sexual relations is not negative in any sense except it doesn’t fit into this soldier’s loyalty code of conduct. So, even though having sexual relations with a wife would not be a negative thing it is portrayed from Uriah’s perspective as negative. Now, the one not necessarily negative instance regards David and Bathsheba. David has now had Uriah killed in battle and he has made Bathsheba his wife. II Samuel speaks of his relations as “lying” with Bathsheba. In fact, when Solomon is conceived they say it is a result of “lying” with Bathsheba. II Sam 12:24
Now, what is the point of all this detail about the word “shakab?” The point is, “shakab” is used in a variety of heterosexual ways other than just temple prostitution or sexual violence. The word “shakab” is an umbrella with a wide array of kinds of sexual acts beneath it. The word ranges from sexual violence to “mutual consent” situations (though as fornicative seduction). It also applies to a range from prostitution to marriage situations. So the word itself is inconclusive as to whether it is just talking about sexual violence or temple prostitution – it could be talking about that. But it could be talking about more. Where do we go to understand this word in the context of Lev.18:22 and 20:13? Because the “lying” of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 are “as” the lying of a man with a woman one could legitimately take this wide array of ways heterosexuals lie with each other and apply those same kinds of acts to homosexual instances. When we consider this logical simile process of interpretation can we find actual historical instances of this wide array of heterosexual acts in same gender sexual contact? This is an important question. If there were no examples of this wider array of same gender sexual experience we might wonder why this would have been in the mindset of Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13. But, in fact of history there are examples of this wide array of same gender sexual experience.
Cultural context helps us understand passages
The Big Tent - “the majority and minority experience”
Switzer wrote, “We need to ask, ‘what was the ‘man lying with a man’ behavior that the Jews knew of?” “…The male homosexual practice that was known to the Hebrews was prostitution and/or other male-with-male sexual activity as a part of the worship of other gods.”[12] “I would hope that it would be clear that the bible knows nothing of what we are increasingly aware of today with the number of gays and lesbians who live together in committed relationships.” p.57
To say that “the bible knows nothing of what we are increasingly aware of” is to say that there were no examples either in their own culture or in the cultures Israel mingled with of androphile (men in love) relationships and of word-pictures that intersected in some sense with the idea of sexual orientation. The history of homosexuality paints a different picture than what Switzer describes.
In their introduction to Homosexuality in the Ancient World, Wayne R. Dynes and Stephen Donalson wrote this.
“The ancient civilizations of the Near East (including Mesopotamia), Egypt, Greece, and Rome are lineal ancestors of Western civilization. As such, the literary and archaeological records of these Mediterranean societies have attracted intense scrutiny and debate. This study has revealed with increasing clarity that the ancient patterns of same-sex behavior did not, for the most part, conform to the androphile model of modern industrial societies – a model that involves pairs of adults, both considered to be of the same gender, of roughly equal social status, and reciprocal in their behavior. Instead they generally adhered to gender – and age-differentiated patterns, Egypt being partial exception. The best-known types are the male temple prostitution of the Near East and the institutionalized pederasty of Greece.”[13]
Majority and minority experience
Egyptian
The above quote at first glance seems to support Switzer. But looking closer we see something else. Two phrases are important to note in the above quote. First of all they say “for the most part.” While a quick glance at Near Eastern same sex experience fits the picture that Switzer describes, there is more going on; thus they say, “for the most part.” Secondly, “Instead they generally” (note the word “generally”) “adhered to gender – and age-differentiated patterns, Egypt being a partial exception.” Note there are exceptions. (It needs to be said here that Homosexuality in the Ancient World is not written from a perspective like mine.) As soon as it is established that you need to say “for the most part” and note that there are “exceptions” the argument of Switzer’s (and many others who share his viewpoint) begins to break down.
When it comes to homosexual practice there is a majority experience and a minority experience. Switzer has described the majority experience. I will now take time to look at the minority experience. This minority experience flies in the face of “The bible knew nothing of what we are increasingly becoming aware of.” I will begin with Egypt and then skip over to the Roman experience. You may read about Mesopotamia (which provides context to a time that the books of Moses were perhaps edited together) and Greece (which gives context to the Roman experience) in Appendix #7.
“Ancient Egyptian literature provides the first example of royal homosexuality in the androphile love affair of the Old Kingdom pharaoh Pepy II (2355-2261 BC) with his general Sisine – the oldest documented pair of homosexual lovers.” “The tomb of the Two Brothers at Thebes likewise points to androphilia.”[14] Thus the minority homosexual experience begins to be noted.
The Dallas Morning News ran an article indicating the evidence continues to be updated with ongoing research. An even older example of androphilia than cited above was written about in an article titled “Evidence of gay relationships exists as early as 2400 B.C.”[15] on July 20, 1998. The article describes a 1964 finding of a tomb of two Egyptian men named Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep. The two men were depicted in poses similar to how tombs might have depicted a male-female married couple: nose to nose in a close embrace, their waist ties from their garments seem to be tied together. In other pictures Khnumhotep is shown in poses normally reserved for a wife. Their names when put together means “joined in life and death.” Nevertheless, even with these suggestive poses questions as to the exact relationship have remained. The two figures look like two very typical men. But if you go to the tomb and take a tour you can see proof positive that this is a same gender sexual attraction depiction. Go to http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/dallas.html for the entire article written by John McCoy, staff writer. Click on the tomb scene and you will find convincing proof that this is in fact a same gender attraction depiction. Go to the banquet scene and you will see the two males sitting across from one another at a table. One of the men’s wives, behind him, is rubbed out. Across the table is the other man holding a lotus plant. The lotus plant is the convincing proof that this is a same gender attraction picture. Only women hold lotus plants in this tomb. But here is one of the men holding the plant while the other man’s wife is rubbed out. But it isn’t just that he is the only male with a lotus plant in the tomb that shows this is a picture of same gender sexual attraction. The proof comes in what the lotus plant actually was. We know from other Egyptian tombs that the lotus plant is a sign of sexual attraction. In fact, an entire PBS hour long segment out of a series on Egyptian tombs was given to the investigation of the lotus plant. Researchers separated out the chemical properties of lotus plants and found the lotus plant has a chemical property very similar to Viagra.
So, McCoy’s article titled “Evidence of gay relationships exists as early as 2400 B. C.” was an accurate assessment of the tomb. And the inscription “Overseer of the Manicurists in the Palace of the King, King’s Acquaintance and Royal Confidant” gives further evidence of same class, same gender committed sexual relationships in ancient Egypt. So it seems archeology continues to update what Switzer thinks “we know.”
Colin Spencer, in his book entitled Homosexuality, a history says, “Though we know much more about ancient Egypt than almost any other archaic civilization, there is not one legal text extant. We have instead tomb pictures that revel in every possible sexual activity and position.”[16]
Spencer also wrote, “Bisexuality in the male was accepted as natural and never drew adverse comment, but passive homosexuality made the Egyptians feel uneasy. What if a king showed such a feminine disposition? Again, a puzzle, for Amenhotep III, called the Magnificent, a great hunter of lions and husband of Queen Tiy, at the end of his reign had himself portrayed in female attire and maintained a bevy of royal male favorites. His successor and son (though some dispute this) was Akhenaten (1370-1352 BC) who was strong enough to form a new religion and in his lifetime break away from the priests of Amon, supplanting him with a new deity. Akhenaten also appeared in reliefs with his co-regent and son-in-law (or it could also be his eldest son) Smenkahare, obviously showing him affection and often both were naked – a rare convention in the depictions of royalty. Smenkahare is even given titles and endearments which had been used before of Akhenaten’s queen and concubines.”[17]
Ancient culture is being shown to be more diverse than some have depicted. Giving credence to this, Dynes, and Donaldson wrote at the end of the introduction to Homosexuality in the Ancient World., “The study of homosexuality in the ancient world is fraught with methodological problems stemming from the selective nature of the surviving literature. The ancients themselves wrote chiefly of the mores of the upper classes, neglecting the erotic life of women, while fashioning images of their own practices that tend to be either ideal and poetic or satirical and overdrawn. In addition, Christian disapproval influenced the selection of works for copying, and hence survival through the ages, further distorting our picture. The result is a mosaic with huge gaps. Scholars need to make efforts to fill in the blank spaces, drawing upon such sources as the Pompeiian graffiti, and beginning to gather all the scattered references to homosexual liaisons in the Greek and Roman sources which fall outside the usual framework (lower classes, women, pairs outside the conventional age range, sex with eunuchs, etc.). Only when the investigations have found their way to publication can we begin to pretend to a systematic understanding of homosexuality in the ancient world.”[18]
I am not pretending a systematic understanding of Egypt. But these androphile examples give concrete examples of sexual situations other than just temple prostitutes and male sexual violence. Mesopotamia and Greece also give examples of the Minority and Majority homosexual experience. (See Appendix 7 ) But because Rome gives direct context to how Paul would have thought about Leviticus and his own writings I turn to Rome.
The Roman majority experience
“While Greek civilization was in its prime, the Etruscans dominated central and northern Italy. Their surviving art documents homosexuality, which appears to have been androphilic.
Their successors, the Romans, who established the greatest of the ancient empires and left substantial traces of their culture behind in Britain, Germany, and France as well as the Mediterranean world, led sexual lives which have continued to fascinate Westerners to the present day.
Whatever the earliest Roman customs may have been, reflecting perhaps Etruscan influence, by the later Republic Roman sexuality was already an inextricable aspect of the Roman political and economic dominance of their part of the world. Roman rule brought not only vast numbers of slaves from the conquered lands, but Hellenistic culture, including its widespread pederasty, as well. Cultivated Romans were aware of the classical pedagogical role of Greek pederasty, but chose not to revive that aspect of it; see Ramsay McMullen’s article, included herein
Slaves played an important role as passive sexual objects for the Romans, who analogized the act of sexual penetration to that of political and military conquest. The result was a system in which any adult Roman male could take the active role with another male without opprobrium, but severe sanctions attended his assumption of the passive one, seen as a political threat to all Romans. They assigned the passive role to slaves, foreigners, freedmen, and boys. Roman soldiers (professionals could not marry) were allowed to rape enemy soldiers after victory in battle. This gave the Romans a type of same-sex relationship, called dominance-enforcement homosexuality, all their own; it divided roles constantly not on the basis of age (though boys were often preferred, this was not a rule) or effeminacy but on political or power relationships. Similar conceptions appeared later among the Vikings and the soldiers of the Ottoman Turkish army. Even today the Roman type of homosexuality dominates American prisons and characterizes instances of same-sex rape, usually a heterosexual’s act of conquest rather than a token of response to beauty.
The most powerful Romans of all, the emperors, indulged themselves to the utmost in a wide variety of sexual acts, only one of the first fifteen of them (Claudius) being apparently exclusively heterosexual. Their lusts provided grist for the chronicles of historians such as Suetonuis and Tacitus. Being above the law, some of the later ones (such as Heliogabalus) even indulged in the passive role. The emperor’s sexual indulgence, even when extreme, does not, however, appear to have had negative consequences for their administration of the empire.
Lesbianism was of little concern to the male Roman and has left little trace in the literature, though some ladies seem to have been bisexual; see Judith Hallett’s article, included herein.
Roman satirists and poets such as Juvenal, Martial, Petronius, and Catullus frequently wrote of homosexual practices and attachments without trace of homophobia. See Christopher Gill’s article on Petronius and J. P. Sullivan’s on Martial, included herein. The philosophers present a more mixed picture, with Cicero politically attacking Mark Antony for having been penetrated as a boy, Lucretius indifferent, and the Stoics calling for moderation. Homophobia in the modern sense seems to have been virtually absent from Roman culture.
Rome’s contemporary European cultures, those of the Celts and Teutons, have undergone less scrutiny, having left little documentation behind. Aristotle amongst others noted the Celts’ devotion to male homosexuality, and Athenaeus wrote of the pederasty of Celtic warriors. There may have been a tradition of initiatory homosexuality among the Celts, or the practice also practiced pederasty, according to various Roman writers, and stigmatized the adult who took a passive role.
The Romans showed little concern with the sexual lives of their conquered subjects and did not attempt to extend their form of homosexuality throughout the Empire.
The Christian takeover of the Roman Empire under Constantine I in the early fourth century spelled the end of the relatively free status of homosexuality in the ancient Western world; the first enactment of the death penalty for sodomy followed in 342. Justinian (reigned 527-565) launched a witch-hunt against homosexuals in Constantinople, but Byzantine homophobia did not preclude a number of later homosexual emperors and continuing scandals in the sex-segregated monasteries.”[19]
The Roman Minority Experience
The above long quote spells out the majority experience of Roman thinking. But Dynes and Donaldson also acknowledge more than this. They say in their conclusion in the introduction to their book (quoted earlier but worth quoting again),
“Scholars need to make efforts to fill in the blank spaces, drawing upon such sources as the Pompeiian graffiti, and bringing together all the scattered references to homosexual liaisons in the Greek and Roman sources which fall outside the usual framework (lower classes, women, pairs outside the conventional age range, sex with eunuch, etc.) Only when these investigations have found their way to publication can we begin to pretend to a systematic understanding of homosexuality in the ancient world.”[20]
Dr. John Boswell, former chairman of Yale History Department from 1990 to 1992, and developer of the Yale University’s Lesbian and Gay Studies Center, was making the effort to “fill in the blanks spaces,” drawing upon scattered references to homosexual liaisons in Greek and Roman sources which “fall outside the usual framework.” His book, published in 1994 shortly before he died from complications of A.I.D.S., entitled Same-Sex Unions in the Premodern Europe has a chapter titled “Same-Sex Unions in the Greco-Roman World.” The chapter describes many relationships describing what I have called the minority Roman Experience. This minority, though a minority, would have been the type of thing that was known at large.
Dr. Boswell began his chapter, “During this same period (i.e., roughly 400 B.C.E to 400 C.E.) there were, very broadly speaking, four types of same-sex relationships; these exhibit some parallels to heterosexual unions, but also some peculiarities.” The next fifty-five pages of the book were spent describing these four types: lover, brother, friend, and lastly formal union. (The formal union part spans 25 pages.)
I will move more or less chronologically as I give examples from Cicero (106-43 BC) to St. Paul; and, taking social inertia into consideration I will go beyond St. Paul into the second century. First of all I will start with a general statement by Dr. Boswell, then move to specific examples.
“Roman same-sex relationships have been less studied, and one is inclined to contrast, mentally at least, the rather idealized and formal lover/beloved relationships imputed to the Greeks with the riotous and promiscuous sexuality that forms such a lurid mythology about the Roman empire. In fact, in addition to the rather more sensational aspects of Roman sexuality presented – as sensational – by imperial literature, there were also many same-sex couples in the Roman world who lived together permanently, forming unions neither more nor less exclusive than those oft the heterosexual couples around them.”[21]
Lover
Dr. Boswell wrote, ‘By far the most common type of same-sex relationship in pre-modern Europe (as it is now in the modern West) was that of ‘lover’ – i.e., two women or two men united by affection, passion, or desire, with no legal or institutional consequences for status, property, household, and so on.” P.57 I’ll note just a few examples of this. Virgil (70-19 BC) called “Aeneid’s Nisus and Euryalus’, a pair of soldiers in the army of Aeneas who were greatly devoted to each other, [He called] their relationship ‘blessed” and [said] that they would be “remembered as long as his poetry.” P.64 Cicero, the great orator and philosopher, living from 106-43 BC, mentions casually that “Catiline’s ‘lover’ – a consul – approached him on Catiline’s behalf.” p.66 Ovid (43B.C.-A.D.17) wrote the Art of Love. Williams stated that in Ovid “the beloved in this poetry can be either male or female.”[22]
Brother
Catullus, a lyric poet living 87-55 B.C, made specific and unambiguous references to the use of “brother” as a sexual term. Dr. Boswell summed up the use in this way. "’Brother’ and ‘sister’ were common terms of endearment for heterosexual spouses in ancient Mediterranean societies – most notably in those cultures that linked marriage with love – and in this sense their use by homosexual couples constitutes a parallel to rather than a deviation from the majority culture. Using words suggesting sibling relationship or affective, intimate, family ties rather than the terms of control related to power and hierarchy – constituted a hallmark of ancient lovers of whatever gender. It evokes a relationship of general equality, of persons in the same generation, in which neither party is dependent on or subordinated to the other, without coercion or status differential. This is probably an accurate reflection of the rather looser and more egalitarian love relations under the empire.”[23]
Friend
Plutarch, who “was born in Boeotia in central Greece about 45 C.E., came to Rome as a teacher of philosophy, became a consul, and returned to his native Greece to administer Roman government as procurator,” (p.71) was a contemporary of St. Paul living 45 C.E., to 120 C.E. Boswell says, “Although writers sometimes infer from the literary stereotypes of fourth-century Athens that all ancient homosexual relationships were temporary and age-related, the evidence suggests, as noted above, that this picture is exaggerated even for Athens, and homosexual relationships in the rest of ancient Europe were certainly far more varied and flexible than this, probably not very different from their heterosexual counterparts. Plutarch, writing in Greek for a Roman audience of the second century, makes this point explicitly: ‘…the lover of beauty will be fairly and equably disposed toward both sexes, instead of supposing that males and females are as different in the matter of love as they are in their clothes.’ He suggests, further, that the upper age limit for ‘lovers’ and lower limit for ‘beloveds’ would be precisely the same regardless of the genders involved.”[24]
Noting homosexual permanence, Dr. Boswell argues, “Most ancient writers – in striking opposition to their modern counterparts – generally entertained higher expectations of the fidelity and permanence of homosexual passions than of heterosexual feelings. Plutarch adduces with evident disapproval cases of husbands who allowed their wives to be unfaithful to gain some advantage, and then notes, ‘By contrast, of all the many [homosexual] lovers there were and have been, do you know of a single one who surrendered his beloved, even to gain honor from Zeus? I do not’” (Erotikos 760B) p.74 “Indeed, Plutarch, speaking of “friends” makes explicit what sometimes we must adduce from context when he “refers to the attachment between lovers as ‘erotic friendship’ – combining the two concepts – and says that a lover is ‘a friend inspired by god.’ In his discussion of the nature of love he uses (eros – from which we get the word erotic) and (philos – friendship) interchangeably, as do a great many ancient writers… Obviously Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Cicero, and other ancient males had and knew friendships that were not erotic, and love relationships that were not friendships. The point is not that that two could not be distinguished, but that there was a substantial overlap…”[25]
Formal Union
“A fourth type of homosexual relationship known in the ancient world consisted of formal unions – i.e., publicly recognized relationships entailing some change in status for one or both parties, comparable in this sense to heterosexual marriage. Cicero, though notoriously straight-laced, persuaded Curio the Elder to honor the debt his son had incurred on behalf of Antonius, to who the younger Curio was, in Cicero’s words, ‘united in a stable and permanent marriage, just as if he had given him a matron’s stola.’ It is most unlikely that Cicero, in making this comparison, actually regarded the relationship as a ‘marriage,’ either morally or legally. His remark is bitterly sarcastic. What is open to speculation is whether he felt that there was some de facto comparability between this sort of same-sex relationship and established heterosexual unions.”[26]
Williams also gives numerous examples in his Appendix 2 titled, “Marriage between Males.”[27]
What did St. Paul know?
One could ask the question, what did St. Paul actually know about? I would assert that in general not much escaped the eyes of the Jewish people who were everywhere in the Roman empire. What is for certain knowable in many instances is not feasible to debate when it comes to Nero. Nero reigned from 54-68 A.D. Paul was active in Christianity from 31 A.D.(?) to probably 62 A.D. (other suggest 68 AD) when he was most likely executed in Rome. Paul specifically tells us in Phil. 1:12 that the gospel had spread to the imperial guard. If news traveled toward the imperial you can assume it also spread from the imperial – not to mention how news of Nero’s exotic life most likely couldn’t be stopped from being spread all around Rome and filtered out to the extremities of the empire.
You can be sure that when Nero “married a man [named Sporus] in a very public ceremony with a dowry and a veil, with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse” (p.80) the imperial guard knew about it…as probably did all Rome. Dr. Boswell tells us ‘A friend gave the ‘bride’ away, ‘as required by law.’ …He took this Sporus with him, carried on a litter and decked out in the finery normally worn by empresses, and often kissed him.’ The marriage was celebrated separately in Rome and in Greece. On another occasion, (multiple marriages, regardless of gender, were not unusual) the emperor himself ‘was given in marriage to a freedman, just as Sporus had been given to him, and even imitated the cries and wailings of a virgin being deflowered.”[28]
Masters and Johnson wrote in their well known work Sex and Human Loving, “In the early days of the Roman Empire, homosexuality was apparently unregulated by law, and homosexual behavior was common. Marriages between two men or between two women were legal and accepted among the upper classes, and several emperors, including Nero, reportedly were married to men.”[29] Dr. Boswell wrote, “By Juvenal’s time” (60?-140 AD?) “such ceremonies had become, at least in his disapproving view, absolutely commonplace: ‘I have a ceremony to attend tomorrow morning in the Quirinal valley.’ ‘What sort of ceremony?’ ‘Nothing special: a friend is marrying another man and a small group is attending.’” Or about another situation, “‘Gracchus has given a cornet player a dowry of four hundred sesterces, signed the marriage tablets, said the blessing, held a great banquet, and the new ‘bride’ reclines in his husband’s lap. A man who once bore the waving shields [of Mars]… now dons brocade and a long train and a bridal veil… A man born to nobility and wealth is given in marriage to another man!’ Although Juvenal adduces this as an example of the decline of Roman mores (the subject of all his poetry), part of what dismayed him was obviously its casual and accepting reception by his contemporaries.” Though Juvenal was post Paul, I include him in this discussion reasoning that social trends don’t become “absolutely commonplace” over night. Besides the just cited material Dr. Boswell also gives numerous quotes from novels of the first and second century.[30]
The sum effect of these examples gives, to my mind, ample evidence that what Switzer says “the bible knows nothing of what we are increasingly aware of today with the number of gays and lesbians who live together in committed relations” is in fact not correct. Obviously, male/female relationships were different then, yet we still call them marriages. We shouldn’t, likewise, fail to see degrees of continuity in same gender sexual expression between then and now. The people corresponding to biblical time could have had significant intersections to what we now know.
Therefore, let us return to the initial question of this section. Is Leviticus 18: 22 and 20:13 speaking about A BIG UMBRELLA COVERING A BIG TENT? Is it talking about all homosexual acts or is it talking just about abusive acts or temple prostitution acts?
Summary
I believe the word (shakab) encompasses many types of sexual encounters (abusive, and temple prostitute, but also adultery and fornication, and also marital relations). The word itself does not narrow the meaning down to temple prostitution or abuse. Neither does the cultural context. The cultural context does not narrow the meaning of (shakab) by not providing any picture other than prostitution and abuse.
In the general period of the time Leviticus speaks of, and in the time the writings were perhaps edited together into a whole, and in the subsequent times when these passages would have been heard, there was a wide range of same gender sexual activity that could have given intersection to an equally wide range of heterosexual experience as described by “shakab.” I therefore conclude that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid any and all types of same gender sexual activity. This should in turn determine what we give assent to.
Moving from the old to the New Testament
So Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are never negated by the 10 + 1 abolitions, and the words found therein encompass all types of homosexual experiences. As far as the scriptures go, since these verses are not negated, this is all the further we would have to go. It is normative. But since the New Testament carries forward this view I will look at this as well.
Jesus
Sometimes people attempt to argue from silence that Jesus overruled the Old Testament passages regarding homosexuality. True, Jesus never says anything about the subject. Nevertheless, we can’t take Jesus’ silence to be consenting of this form of sexuality anymore than we can take his silence about incest to be consenting
Pauline Tradition
The Pauline tradition takes the same view as Leviticus 18:22 and adds more clarity to the issue. In Romans 1 Paul explains that the proscription also includes women, and in I Corinthians 6 he clarifies that this includes both the passive and the active partners. The following discussion will bear this out. Furthermore, the discussion will show that without ever explicitly appealing to Leviticus Paul makes implicit connections to the passages. I Timothy 1:10, I Corinthians 6:10, and Romans:1-2 all bear this out.
I Timothy 1:10
I Timothy 1:10 makes implicit connections to Leviticus 18 and 20.
The implicit connection starts with a general nod to the law. I Timothy 1:10 is placed in a discussion about how the law is often misused. He says, ‘As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. They promote controversies rather than God’s work – which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.” (I Tim.1:3-8)
Paul then gives a list of things that he summarizes as “contrary to sound teaching.” (verse 11). The first word in the list of the thirteen things contrary to sound teaching is “lawlessness” further making reference to the law in general. His list is a typical kind of Jewish catalogue of vices. While the things in the list are not necessarily related to one another each item is clearly contrary to sound teaching. The tenth word that appears in this list is “arsenokoites.” This word could be said to make an implicit connection to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in that it is a word that is created from two words that appear in the Greek translation of the Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Furthermore, making further implicit connections, in Lev.20:13 the two words are found side by side. Because Greek manuscripts do not have spaces between words the two words look like the one word “arsenokoites” (except arsenos drops the s sound between the words.) The two words used are “Arsenos”: translated to mean “man” and “koites”: meaning “bed”, (figuratively meaning sexual intercourse: just as we still euphemistically say “he went to bed with her.”) Putting the two words together the one word means same gender sexual intercourse. The word is clear enough.
So Paul demonstrates how to not misuse the law here (verse 8). He is not being “lawless,” (vrs. 9) but instead is referring back to the law (vrs.10) to show what is “contrary to sound teaching...” (vrs.11)
I Corinthians 6:10
A second time Paul makes implicit connection to Leviticus is in I Corinthians 6. The context of our passages bring the law into the picture. Paul is castigating the Corinthians for taking one another to court over trivial matters. He then contrasts trivial matters with matters that are not trivial… acts that are faith-killers. Appendix#8 He characterizes these acts as being acts of wickedness. In this list of actions he includes two words “malikos” and (as used before in I Timothy 6) “arsenokoites”. In this context “malikos” clearly means the passive participant in same gender sexual activity. Malikos’ Latin equivalent, “cincaidi,” had a long history of this meaning. Craig William in his book Roman Homosexuality; Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity gives about 25 pages out of his chapter titled “Sexual Roles and Identities” to how “cincaidi” operated and how they were viewed. We learn interesting small details like Roman astrologers sought to explain the innate softness by the stars. But the biggest thing we see in these passages is the attitude of Rome towards the passive partner. As was stated earlier in the historical section on Roman sexuality, the majority of Roman culture had no issue with same gender sexual activity as long it was active and not passive. William’s work bares this out. Paul, here in I Corinthians 6, stands against this cultural view by stating clearly that it isn’t just the penetrated person who is committing acts that adversely affects his faith but also the penetrater… the ‘arsenokoites”: the man-sexual-intercourser”. So Paul again makes a connection to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 by using the word “arsenokoites.” Secondly, he made implicit connections to Lev. 18 and 20 by explicitly referring to both the active and the passive participant. While this was out of step with Roman culture, this was in step with the scriptures: Lev. 18:20 logically spoke to both partners in the same fashion as the old saying “it takes two to tango.”
Romans 1:18-22
Lastly we look at Romans 1:18-32
Romans 1:18-32 has been misread by both sides of the debate. On the one hand, some have used the phrases “the wrath of God,” and “God gave them up,” to justify accusations that A.I.D.S. is an active judgment from God, and sometimes have justified pouring out their own wrath on gay people (in the form of verbal abuse, and sometimes in the form of criminal violence). Such abuse and violence must be strongly condemned. See the Appendix for a discussion on the “wrath of God” and the phrase “God gave them up.” Appendix #9 & #10
On the other hand, the other side has used the phrase “against nature” to assert that these clear passages are not so clear. They claim Paul could only conceive of the world as heterosexual and therefore all same gender sexual activity was by definition then “against” their heterosexual “nature”. In this way of thinking, Romans 1 would not touch on the present debate because the present debate is often about sexual orientation, acts that would be said to be according to nature. I will respond to this thinking at length. In the end, Paul’s conclusion isn’t different than the Leviticus passages we have looked at except Paul provides the clarification that both men and women involved in same gender sexual activity are acting sinfully. The following will attempt to clear up the above misused phrase.
Against Nature
The phrase “against nature” that Paul uses in Romans 1:27 had a divergent history in the Greek and Roman worlds. This history is explored with some depth by Craig Williams in his book Roman Sexuality in his 13 page Appendix titled “The Rhetoric of Nature and Same-Sex Practices.” One person, referred to earlier, who has taken a particular reading of “against nature” is Dr. John Boswell. Dr. Boswell’s writings articulate many people’s opinions. In short, this is his argument.
Dr. Boswell believes that Paul considers same gender sexual participators to be heterosexual people acting in a homosexual way. Boswell gathers this argument from his understanding of what is “natural” and what is “against nature.” If a person is naturally heterosexual and then behaves in a homosexual way, then they are acting “against (their own) nature.” Dr. Boswell asserts Paul thinks all homosexual activity is heterosexuality acting unnaturally. Therefore he thinks this text doesn’t speak to today’s context where orientation plays such a big part of the conversation.
Because this view has such a huge following it must receive a response. First I will cite the Romans passage in question. Then I will quote Dr. Boswell’s interpretation at length. Then I will respond. In short, I will argue Paul’s use of the word “natural” is different than what Boswell thinks it is. In the end, Paul isn’t saying anything different than Leviticus with the addition of making it clear that Lesbian homosexual acts are also wrong.
Here is Paul’s passage.
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations against nature. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their errors.” Romans 1:26-27
The following is Dr. Boswell’s interpretation.
“… it should be recognized that the point of the passage is not to stigmatize sexual behavior of any sort but to condemn the Gentiles for their general infidelity. There was a time, Paul implies, when monotheism was offered to or known by the Romans, but they rejected it (vv.19-23). The reference to homosexuality is simply a mundane analogy to this theological sin; it is patently not the crux of this argument. Once the point has been made, the subject of homosexuality is quickly dropped and the major argument resumed.”
“What is even more important, the persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons. The whole point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling, and gotten off the true path they were once on. It would completely undermine the thrust of the argument if the persons in question were not “naturally” inclined to the opposite sex in the same way they were “naturally” inclined to monotheism. What caused the Romans to sin was not that they lacked what Paul considered proper inclinations, but that they had them: they held the truth, but “in unrighteousness’ (v.18), because “they did not see fit to retain Him in their knowledge” (v.28) “Although the idea that homosexuality represented a congenital physical characteristic was widespread in the Hellenistic world (Dr. Boswell’s footnote: Plato and Aristotle had both suggested variations on this idea, and it was a commonplace of Roman medicine.) … it is not clear that Paul distinguished in his thought or writings between gay persons (in the sense of permanent sexual preference) and heterosexuals who simply engaged in periodic homosexual behavior. It is in fact unlikely that many Jews of his day recognized such a distinction, but it is quite apparent that – whether or not he was aware of their existence – Paul[31]
Dr. Boswell’s argument revolves around how he interprets the word “natural” and “against nature.” Dr. Boswell interprets natural as meaning: “inherent,” “congenial,” “the very essence,” “inborn” “essence,” and the like. This is one of the possible meanings to the word “physis” from which “natural” and “nature” are translated. However, other meanings to physis exist.
The word nature (physis) has many different meanings. Paul uses the word a number of times in the book of Romans and he uses it with many different meanings in those various places. One of the meanings of “physis” is to see it as the regular natural order. This meaning would be the one used when someone might say the hand naturally fits in a glove. The fingers and thumb find an orderly natural fit.
People in Paul’s time sometimes applied this natural order understanding of “against nature’ to homosexuality. “…Seneca (a contemporary of Paul’s) suggest(ed) that men’s maleness ought to preclude them from being penetrated, and… Musonius Rufus (first century) condemn(ed) all sexual practices between males as unnatural. These philosophers’ comments seem to rest on certain assumptions about the function of sexual organs; certainly Seneca emphasizes the notion of the proper order or debitus ordo, according to which men should not ‘drink wine before eating, grow roses in the winter, build buildings over the sea, or penetrate males.’ In short, some kind of argument from ‘design’ seems to lurk in the background of Cicero’s, Seneca’s, and Musonius’ claims: the penis is ‘designed’ to penetrate a vagina, the vagina is ‘designed’ to be penetrated by a penis.”[32]
Could Paul have used this interpretation of “physis”? How would this reading have sounded in Romans 1? With this second understanding of physis one would interpret Romans 1:26 to mean “Even their women exchanged the natural hand in the glove fit given by God for a sexuality that does not fit as well. In the same way the men also abandoned the hand in the glove natural fit with women and were inflamed with lust for a lesser fit with other men.”
Dr. Boswell rejects the natural order argument. He says, “The concept of “natural law” (which flows out of natural order) was not fully developed until more than a millennium after Paul’s death, and it is anachronistic to read it into his words… Nature is not a moral force for Paul…”[33]
At the same time, Boswell acknowledged other contemporaries of Paul did have a seminal understanding of “natural law.” He acknowledged, “Philo Judaeus and a few of the Greek fathers clearly entertained some notion of overriding laws of “nature,” violation of which was inherently sinful even for those ignorant of the law of God. Even in Philo, however, there is considerable overlap of divine law, “natural law,” human legislation, and other sources of moral insight… Among the fathers influenced by or familiar with Philo’s (or similar) ideas the confusion was increased rather than diminished, and in the West there was little clear apprehension of the concept until the High Middle Ages. The writings attributed to Paul show no familiarity with such associations of “nature “and if some familiarity had been present, it would indicate little about Paul’s attitude, since the tradition itself was confused. A strikingly similar passage in Plutarch (Moralia 751), for instance, uses “against nature” and “shameful/indecent” together in discussing homosexuality, but it is hardly illuminating.”[34]
So Dr. Boswell acknowledges some notion of overriding laws of nature at Paul’s time but says that because there was no clear developed system of thought Paul couldn’t have been drawing from them. But what Dr. Boswell misunderstands is that Paul was never endorsing any particular system of thought that described ideas of natural order. Instead, Paul endorses THE CONCLUSION those thinkers came to WHEN they intersect with the law of God. Nothing more. In the same way that he endorsed the conclusion found within a Greek poem -“In him we live and move and have our being.” “We are all God’s children.” (Act 17:28) - without endorsing the system of thought of that poet, nor even the rest of the poem, Paul was able to make distinctions between various Stoic conclusions without endorsing the system of thought as a whole. Paul was able to make distinctions between the thoughts that intersected with God’s word and the systems of thought that housed those ideas.
So if Paul is not getting his ideas about nature from gentile philosophers, or even Jewish philosophers influenced from stoic philosophers, where does Paul, then, get his ideas? Paul, I believe, gets his ideas from the scriptures in general, and perhaps Psalm 19 in particular. “The heavens are declaring the glory of God. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” It seems to me that Paul is simply extending Psalm 19 to a next step. He is simply asserting God somehow speaks through nature, without trying to explain it. The proof that God does speak through nature without the law is that sometimes people do have the same conclusions as the law (as we see in many examples from and before Paul’s day.)
Psalm 19 not only casts light on “against nature” and “natural” as used by Paul in Romans 1 but also casts light on the Logic of Romans 1 in general. Paul is saying that just as the heavens speak without words about God’s glory (Ps.19), so creation also speaks without words about God’s eternal power and divinity (Rom.1). Paul is not personally starting with “nature” to get to the idea of God as creator; no doubt, he was starting from Moses just as Psalm 19 endorses Moses more so than creation: Psalm 19 does not say this speech coming from nature is perfect. No. Psalm 19 moves from creation to the law. After reveling in how God speaks through the glory of the heavens Psalm 19 then moves quickly to the law by saying, “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul. The statues of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right giving joy to the heart. The commandments of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever…”
So the heavens (nature) declares God’s eternal power and divinity. As all are under the heavens, none have an excuse. So also, nature somehow communicates moral truths. Some people - Stoic philosophers and the like - were shown to have heard some of this truth. This communication would not have been thought by Paul (or any other Jew) to be perfect communication. God’s law is perfect speech. But the communication from nature is good enough to not leave anyone with an excuse. And this, after all, is the main argument that Paul is making. In the end Paul will show that all, Jew or Gentile, are without excuse before God.
So then, which reading is the most satisfying reading, natural order or inborn endowment? I think I’ve shown that Dr. Boswell’s concern about anachronism and no consistency between the many users of this language is not an issue. That not withstanding, which one is it? Is “physis” to be read inborn endowment? Or is to be read as a natural order? The answer will be found by seeing which is the most internally consistent in the context it is used, and by seeing which is most externally consistent with the larger logic and context. When you look at the internal and external logic NATURAL ORDER is the better choice.
Dr. Boswell argues internal logic is important. As quoted above, he says, “It would completely undermine the thrust of the argument if the persons in question were not “naturally” inclined to the opposite sex in the same way they were “naturally” inclined to monotheism.” The problem with Dr. Boswell’s “nature” argument is that it does NOT follow in the same way in both sexuality and monotheism, at least it doesn’t in the way Paul actually sets it up.
Follow the thinking. Dr. Boswell says these people are naturally heterosexual: naturally meaning endowed from birth… or in our terms genetically oriented to heterosexuality. But Paul does not speak of people being “naturally” inclined to monotheism in the same way. People are not endowed from birth toward monotheism. Paul states in verses 19-20, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divinity – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” The natural inclination toward monotheism happens in response to what is seen (“the heavens are declaring the glory of God”) it wasn’t endowed from birth. So, in the way Paul sets it up Dr. Boswell has a problem.
Dr. Boswell tries to fix the problem changing Paul’s time frame. Dr. Boswell argues, “There was a time, Paul implies, when monotheism was offered to or known by the Romans, but they rejected it (vv.19-23).[35] ” Dr. Boswell includes this explanation in the footnote. “The idea that pagans had once had a chance at salvation is a commonplace of Semitic religious polemic: see the Qur’an 11:33. All subsequent exegesis assumed that the pagans could have known the truth if they had wished to (e.g., Theodoret).” p.108 Here, you see, Dr. Boswell tries to place the gentile knowing in the past…(“there was a time”) as if this knowing were perhaps in the conception of the Gentile nations. Dr. Boswell needs to speak in these terms in order to make his argument hang together. So when the gentile nations were “born” they were monotheistic (Were Romulus and Remus monotheistic? When was this time? When did it end?). Then they rejected God. If this were what Paul was saying his argument would hang together. But it isn’t what Paul is saying. Even the supporting citations Dr. Boswell gives are suspect. He quotes the Qur’an (7th century A.D.) and Theodoret (5th century A.D.). These examples are post fact.
When you look at the time frame prior and during Paul’s life you see many things being said that support my reading of “against nature.” “In Wis. 13:5 we read, ‘For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their creator.’ Ep. Arist. 132 sums up as follows: ‘there is only one God and his power is evident through everything.’[36] But it isn’t just that there is other literature in Paul’s time frame speaking similarly to Paul that shows Dr. Boswell is wrong. It is Paul’s own words in the Romans text that do not say what Dr. Boswell says it says. Paul says, “For since the creation of the of the world God’s invisible qualities… have been clearly seen, being understood…” (v.20) [The preposition “since” is the Greek word (apo). It has a “directional” sense to it. What is the direction? (Apo) goes from the creation of the world to the present: (The words “have been clearly seen” are a present tense… and the participle “being understood” is a present tense participle translating the participle’s time frame to be at the same time as the main verb (have been clearly seen). The main verb is a “Static Present” representing “a condition which is assumed as perpetually existing.”[37] In other words, Paul is saying that all people from the creation of the world till now are confronted with the truth of God’s existence. This meaning then supports Paul’s main point: he is trying to show that all people (gentile and Jew) are without excuse before God. Dr. Boswell’s way of reading the text would not support this main argument: if it is a past generation that overtly rejected God then why would the present gentiles be held accountable for the past generation’s actions? So therefore, the internal logic of this text tips not towards “nature” as endowed from birth, but rather “nature” as natural order.
If you read “nature” as I have described it (as natural order) then monotheism and moral thoughts regarding sexuality ARE inclined in the same way. Both happen as a result of seeing: 1. All see the heavens and are confronted with the idea that there is a Creative God. Most reject the idea but because the idea came to them they are without excuse. 2. All see something about men and women’s sexual apparatus (some describe this apparatus as a natural fit of men and women concluding that it is like a natural hand in the glove fit – some describe it in other terms). Most in Paul’s gentile world rejected this moral idea but because the idea came to them they are without excuse.
When you compare the two internal logics “nature” in terms of “natural order” is consistent, while “nature” in terms of “endowed from birth” does not live up to what Dr. Boswell says is needed. (“It would completely undermine the thrust of the argument if the persons in question were not “naturally” inclined to the opposite sex in the same way they were “naturally” inclined to monotheism.”) Is Dr. Boswell’s argument “completely undermined” like he said it would be if it wasn’t “in the same way?” I don’t know. But I do know the “natural order” argument isn’t undermined at all.
External logic
The external evidence doesn’t support Dr. Boswell’s reading either. Dr. Boswell describes the Old Testament passages in a way that is consistent with his Romans argument; however, he has to misrepresent the passages to make them agree with his facts. This makes me think Dr. Boswell is just trying to corral the earlier texts so that they don’t get out and cause him trouble. His attempts don’t work.
Attempt to corral
I find most of his arguments in chapter four to be uncharacteristically loose, and in some cases Clintonesque. (Dr. Boswell is characteristically in other places very thorough and careful.) As a first example, he argues, “Sodom is used as a symbol of evil in dozens of places, but not in a single instance is the sin of the Sodomites specified as homosexuality.”[38] Not a “single instance?” Well that depends on what you mean by “specified;” like Clinton thought it depended on what was meant by “sexual relations.” Ezekiel 16:49-50 specifically says, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominations before me.” Now, obviously the sin of Sodom was wider than homosexuality. That is clear. But the list DOES include “did abominations,” the very word used to characterize homosexual acts in Leviticus 18:22. How specific do the scriptures have to be?
Again, Dr. Boswell amazingly states, “None of the many Old Testament passages which refer to Sodom’s wickedness suggests any homosexual offenses… On the basis of the text alone, there would seem to be four inferences one could make about the destruction of Sodom: (1) the Sodomites were destroyed for the general wickedness which had prompted the Lord to send angels to the city to investigate in the first place…”[39]
You would think that with this clear statement no specific connection would be found between homosexual acts and “wickedness”. But that is not what we find. We find the exact opposite. Genesis 19 specifically refers to the homosexual threat of Sodom as “this wicked thing.” “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, ‘No, my friends, Don’t do this wicked thing.” (Gen.19:5-7) So when Jeremiah said, -“Both prophet and priest are godless; even in my temple I find their wickedness… They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me, the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.” (Jeremiah 23:11,14) - it is no stretch to include in the general wickedness of Jerusalem the specific wickedness mentioned in Sodom in Genesis 19. Once again, how specific do the scriptures have to be?
Thirdly, Dr. Boswell also attempts to explain away Leviticus 18:22 and Lev. 20:13 by relating it not as moral law but as ritual impurity, the kind of law which (in my earlier language) has been abolished
He says, “The Hebrew word ‘toevah’ here translated ‘abomination,’ does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft , but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters.”[40]
Notice the word “usually”. He has to say “usually” because the word “toevah” (abomination) does also include moral categories, such as when the scriptures say that it is an abomination to have “two differing weights in your bag – one heavy, one light. Do not have two differing measures in your house – one heavy, one light…” (Deut. 25:13-16) (see Appendix #11 for the scripture’s wide treatment of “abomination.”)
He continues on, “Although both chapters also contain prohibitions (e.g., against incest and adultery) which might seem to stem from moral absolutes, their function in the context of Leviticus 18 and 20 seems to be as symbols of Jewish distinctiveness.”[41]
I can’t imagine Dr. Boswell is saying that incest and adultery are not in moral categories. I think he is saying that in these chapters the emphasis is on Jewish distinctiveness. But if it is both Jewish distinctiveness and a moral category, what is to stop verses 22 and 13 from being both? Dr. Boswell is doing everything he can to get these verses out of a moral category. But it isn’t working.
Dr. Boswell thinks the Leviticus passages are irrelevant to the Romans discussion. He says, “The irrelevance of the verses was further emphasized by the teaching of both Jesus and Paul that under the new dispensation it was not the physical violation of Levitical precepts which constituted ‘abomination’ but the interior infidelity of the soul.”[42]
For both Jesus and Paul sinful acts came from the heart, but then moved to outward actions. Certainly murder begins with hatr