Homosexuals and Christians....

Re: re:

===



I know that only a handful here are interested in this. I've waited for further evidence, but, not receiving that, with, I hope, no perception of eager knee-jerking , I'll go ahead and make a comment ot two.

There are several hermeneutical approaches to this , besides the traditional, in what may be broadly termed Christendom: Roy Sano and Robert Jewett argue that NT writers base their prohibitions on the order of creation (male dominancy) , but now we know there to be another sexual ordering. Victor Furnish takes the position that mores of Scripture, including the NT, are time bound and culturally conditioned ; therefore, even were Paul in Romans and 1 Corinthians to have condemned homosexuality,that condemnation is not applicable to modern times.Walter Wink sees in the Bible so much prejudice and violence that he says homosexuality must be evaluated instead in the light of God's love. Nancy Duff holds that what counts is that the Christian individual be allowed to determine for himself what is required of his own unique relationship to God. Stanley Grenz says that texts such as Galatians 3:28 and Matt 7:12 motivate us to go beyond the Biblical prohibitions.

This article which Daniel provides, on the other hand, in contrast, is saying that the teaching in Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 IS applicable today, but it is misunderstood by traditionalists. Basically the evidence for this is said to be (1) the context of Romans 1:26, 27 where Paul, it is said, is SPECIFICALLY refencing temple idolatry ,and, (2) the meaning of some Greek words.

1.The context of Romans 1:26, 27.

Certainly this is MUCH broader than temple idolatry. The list of vices in 1:29-33 have ranges of application far beyond a temple setting and the list is reflective of such lists in 13:13; 1 Cor 5:10;2 Cor 12:20;Gal 5:19;Eph 4:31;Col 3:5,8;1 Tim 1:9; and, 2 Tim 2:5. But in none of those texts is the discussion focused on Temple idolatry. Consequently it should not be so thought here. Yes, idolatry IS mentioned. But not not all idolaters, I suppose, are disobedient to parents or gossips!

No, rather this is much broader! Romans 1:18-3:19 is meant to show that, in Paul's opinion, ALL are guilty of sin. 1:18-1:32 references ALL Gentiles--NOT just homosexuals. Homosexuality is only one issue that Paul here addresses. Then, in 2:1-3:19 Paul says Jews IHO too are guilty.

Homosexuality is not the main topic, and Temple male prostitutes or a fertility cult are NOWHERE even mentioned!

Consider this, ancient expositors of Romans 1:26, 27 as Cyprian to Donatus, 9, and Clement of Alexandria , The Instructor, 2:10 do not take Paul's referent to be a fertility cult! Nor do the Reformers as Luther or Calvin in their commentaries on Romans say that Paul here references a fertility cult or temple prostitutes! Neither do moderns as K. Barth or E. Kasemen in their commentaries say that Paul in 1:26,27 is talking about a fertility cult! Is any of these infallible? No! But neither are they a group of exegetical idiots.

Therefore, nothing in the context of Romans 1:26, 27 requires IMO that temple prostitutes or a fertility cult is Paul's referent!


2., the Greek words.

a) It is not clear to me why the the transcription by the writers of Daniel's has the word as "arsenookeetah." It should be " arsenokoitai."

This is a compound . Boswell has argued that arseno is adjectival, and not the object of the koitai. Then the term might reference a passive male prostitute. He lists Chrysostom, whose native tongue was Greek, as evidence for that claim.

Apparently Boswell did not actually consult Chrysostom as that father in his Homilies on 1 Corinthians says nothing in his comment on 6:9 about male prostitutes. (Homily 16).That father also scathingly condemns homosexuality in his Homily on Romans 1:26. Of course most do not care what Chrysostom says. My only point is to respond to Boswell. Here, then, in Chrysostom, a Greek church father disagrees with both Daniel's site and with Boswell about the meaning of the relevant Greek words!

Boswell also argues that arsenokoitai must reference male temple prostitutes as homosexuality as a manner of life was not known to the ancients. However, as one example, the speech of Aristophanes in Plato's Symposium shows that homosexuality was known among the ancients.

Consequently in the fine five volume lexicon DNTT, Martin, a prof of NT Language and Literature, defines arsenokoites as a male homosexual. The lexicon by Bagster defines it as "a male who lies with a male." Basing their opinion on Polycarp, the Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, and Catalogus Codicum Arndt and Gingrich say the word means a male homosexual.

It may very well be that Paul who so often used the Septuagint coined himself that word as a contraction of arsenos and koiten in Lev 20:13.

Therefore, I would not be overly quick to assume that your article, Daniel, is correct that traditionalists are wrong when they say that arsenokoitai means "homosexuality."

A basic meaning of malakos is "soft." So in the Septuagint (Greek trans of HEB OT) soft speech is the referent in Prov 25:15 and 26:22. Soft clothing is the topic in Mt 11:8 and Lk 7:25. However malakos may also , according to Arndt and Gingrich reference homosexuality.

Again, I would like to say that my only motivation is to see that NT texts are rightly interpreted. I have far too many faults to pick at the supposed vices of others and far too many reasons to not question God's love and acceptance of all who come to Him with open and honest hearts.

 

Re: Re: re:

I'm not one of the handful that was really interested but, your post was so thoughtful, delightful, and enlightening that I had to read it anyway.

Thanks,

 

Re: Re: re:

I've always found it rather interesting that the Orthodox and Conservative Jewish scholars, as well as the Greek Orthodox scholars, take a very conservative view on this topic.

And if anyone ought to know and understand Biblical Hebrew and Biblical (Koine) Greek, it is they.

 

You are right when you say that Conservative and Orthodox Rabbis take a conservative view. Homosexual behavior is seen as a violation of halakah.

But the Jewish idea of sin is not like the Christian (and Greek pagan) notion of striving for perfection in all things. Rather, for most Jews, life presents a series of discrete choices. You do this mitzvah, good, you violate that prohibition, bad...but there is no concept of eternal damnation or "falling short of the Glory of God". Jewish law concerns itself with leading a just life now. There should be no pyroxisms of guilt.

There IS guilt, of course, but not about this sort of thing.

 

And since halakah is Jewish law, and First John 3:4 says

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (KJV),"

is there really much distinction between the Jewish and Christian prohibitions of homosexual behaviors?

 

I can't really answer that because I don't really understand the Christian approach to Jewish law.

It seems to me that Christian preachers stress that Jesus' death freed Christians from the Law.

Well, what law? Ritual purity? That's what the Temple cult was all about...it's inoperative now anyway. The laws governing business and familial relationships? How? An orderly society MUST have a detailed body of commerical and family law to function.

Jewish law is not really about God. It's about people living together and remembering who they are. God is a necessary part of Jewish understanding because God is the authority for the law.

I do know that the Jewish concept of sin is radically different from the Christian view. An offense such as homosexual activity is not punishable by legal authorities; rather, Talmud tells us that punishment will be "at the Hand of Heaven". What this means is, it's nobody's business!

 

All of this analytical talk is making me horny.

But seriously, though, I figured it was a matter of time before someone mentioned Boswell, who was the liberal darling of the last couple of decades on this issue,

However, Boswell was hardly original. His work was essentially a restatement of D.S. Bailey's Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, which came out in the 1950's. Virtually all of the major pro-gay scholars or theologians (including John McNeill on the Catholic side, Norman Pittinger and Maklcolm Boyd for the Anglicans/Episcopalians, and Troy Perry, who founded the UFMCC denomniation) based their interpretations on the work of Bailey, as did Boswell. The only differences between the "practical pastoral" crowd and Boswell were that (1) Boswell was a Yalie, (2) he was cuter than the others, and (3) he is now dead (of AIDS, incidentally). But Boswell's scholarly significance is hardly unique.

 

Re: Re: re:

E.P. Sanders thinks that Paul was drawing upon existing Jewish diaspora teaching.

Romans 1:18-32 is very close to the Wisdom of Solomon, written in Egypt. Origin in the synagogues of Egypt is illustrated by Paul's reference to 'images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles' (Rom. 1:23). Birds and animals were commonly idolized in Egypt, but not in the broader Greco-Roman world.

1 Cor. 6: 9-10 is pre-Pauline in Sanders' estimation. The language of unrighteous not inheriting the kingdom of God and the list of sins was a traditional Jewish formulation, perhaps derived from synagogue sermons.

Sanders sees the Pauline homosexuality condemnations as part of a broader purpose to emphasize that the common behavioral presuppositions of Judaism applied to his "God-fearer" converts, many of whom had been raised in and continued to be influenced by a cultural environment rather different than the Jewish.

So I think that perhaps these Pauline prohibitions might have to be considered in the broader context of Paul's overall relationship to Jewish tradition, and to Jewish law specifically. Paul's big problem (or at least one of them) was always how he could reject some central and fundamental portions of Jewish tradition (like circumcision) without subverting the whole Jewish edifice. His views on these issues are very complicated and don't seem to me at least to always be consistent.

I like the Greek word 'arsenokoitis', because it sounds so much like the English phrase 'b*tt f*cker'. (It's interesting how Bible translations tip-toe around these words.)

Of course they knew about it, but they didn't necessarily conceptualize it the same way that we do.

Sanders has some interesting things to say about this. But first of all, a little background on ancient mores.

The ancient Greeks had evolved a citizen-soldier ethos and part of the education of young male citizens was physical training (conducted in the nude) in the government-run gymnasiums that were a feature of most Greek cities. Older men took younger men as their proteges and led them into manhood, both in terms of wisdom and bravery. Men appreciating other men was completely accepted and definitely extended to their bodies. It actually had military origins. Gradually this was estheticised and the human form was seen as having its own intrinsic beauty. That evolution is obvious in Greek sculpture and it is one of the reasons for its greatness.

Well, if the young male body was seen as the most beautiful thing in all of nature, it was natural that it would be desirable. This is one reason why the Greeks used to write about different kinds of love, distinguishing 'eros' (crude sexual desire) from more refined 'philos' (love without lust).

In understanding how all this translated into behavior, we have to remember that the Greeks dispised effeminancy in men. In sex, it was shameful for a man to be the passive partner. That 'soft' role was something for women and for slaves. In ancient Athens, willingly being the passive partner in sex was grounds for a man losing his voting rights as a citizen.

But there was little social stigma attached to being the active partner in sex with other males. That was just a natural extension of the male role.

OK, getting back to 'arsenkoitis' and 'malakos', Sanders suggests that it was part of Paul's intent to extend traditional Jewish behavioral mores to the 'God-fearers', many of whom had been raised in the Hellenistic environment.

Unlike the Greeks, the Jews had a view of homosexuality much more like the one that's typical today (not surprising, considering Christianity's subsequent impact on Western history). Jews condemned what we today call homosexuality whether or not a male assumed the active or passive role. That was something that Paul wanted to communicate.

In Paul's usage, 'arsenokoitis' is rather self explanatory and refers to the active masculine role, and 'malakos' (the 'soft one') refers to the 'effeminate' partner. Both were condemned.

 

Someone mentioned that Bailey's work was in the 1950s. This may be wrong. I think D. Sherman Bailey's "Homosexuality And The Western Christian Tradition" (London:Longmans, Green) was pub in 1975.

 

Nope, that was a reprint of the original, which was written in the 1950's. Bailey, a British Anglican theologian, died in 1984.

Full reference:

Bailey, Derrick S., Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London: Longmans, Green, 1955; repr. Hamden, Ct.: Archon/Shoestring Press, 1975)

Minor note for anyone who wants to do a search on his work, which has influenced all subsequent treatments of the issue, including Boswell's overly-touted tome: his full name was Derrick Sherwin Bailey.

 

Got it. sorry.

 

I am familiar with the former Pentecostal Perry, but only know of his church as Metropolitan Community Church. What's the UF stand for?

I'd look it up but am busy with Schleiermacher and his influence on Prolegomena, Prinzipienlehre, and Fundamentaldogmatik.

 

Each congregation is known as an MCC, or Metropolitan Community Church. Their denominational name is Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches.

Glad to help . . . I was merely reading TV Guide.

 

Thanks. When I was a kid I used to read TV Guide religiously. As a matter of fact, I learned how to read by reading it.

I could tell you what show came on, at what time, and on what station. I knew the whole guide by heart each and every week.

Of course, then there were only three major stations and shows lasted more than a half season.

Can't do that anymore. Heck, regular scheduled shows don't always come on in their regular time slots and days anymore.

Oh well, back to Schleiermacher.

 

===


Jimmy

Weren't you also in a Christmas movie about a BB gun? Didn't you in the dead of freezing winter stick your tongue on the flagpole where it froze?

I'm glad that umbrella didn't damage your eye else you couldn't read Scleiermacher

 

Now that's a low blow!

Actually, I was more like Kevin in the Home Alone Christmas movie. I was very ingenious. I could just about make, fix, and do anything, out of necessity (grew up very poor) rather than genius.

I was very creative and innovative. I repaired our radios, televisions, cars, etc. many times from about the fifth grade on.

Can't do much of that anymore--circuit boards, no tubes, and cars--forget it! Can't even get to the oil filter nor to the fourth spark plug (without removing A/C compressor).

Had a stray cat in the garage for a few days. He got up in the atic and we couldn get him. We tried everything, foggers, gunshots, water, etc. He would simply hide in the corners out of reach.

So, I came up with a great idea that worked. I took an aluminum broom handle that was hollow. I took a long piece of rope and threaded it through making a loop on one end. I took the loop, slipped it over the cat's head, pulled it tight and pulled him out. He took off into the field when I removed the noose.

The boy's still got it!

 

What a fascinating read!!

Well, back to Hans Kung



[PS. you are a very good sport, Jimmy!]

 

I try to be but don't always succeed.

Hans Kung is someone I used to like. I also used to count Schleiermacher, Harnack, and Ritschl among my favorites but not anymore.

I find myself really enjoying Geisler's and Garrett's books on systematic theology.

Well, been nice chating with you Bill. You, too, are a good sport and a good Internet friend.

Gotta go now, working on tomorrow's sermon on the wiles of Satan.