Opinions on this article please - backgornd reading

[Sobornost]

I want to create a supplementary thread so as not to interrupt the flow of the main thread.

[Sobornost]

I am so gifted at making dyslexic glitches – I really didn’t see my error in the thread title until too late .
Here is an article I found on the internet by an American Christian that relates to something Matt has said on the main Article thread at

Opinions on this article please?

Great stuff there, Eric James, just to balance it out bro, Jesus did say ‘beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, and of Herod’. I always thought by the Pharisees he meant being self-righteous and spiritually arrogant and all of that, like you pointed out, but by Herod I think he meant basically being hedonistic and totally immoral… So I always took this to mean that we shouldn’t go too far one way or the other… I don’t believe that being nice or soft or liberal naturally falls …

I place the article here because it is not directly relevant to the discussion at the moment. However it does chime with Matt’s post and James’ replies and it chime with my earlier post at

Opinions on this article please?

Hi Andy (and Sass too, because this is relevant to a private conversation we’ve had ) – Andy the complimentary ‘Wow!’ is returned is returned to you . Your post is so helpful – and I don’t think progress with legislation in the USA is a ‘bally awful mess’ ; it sounds confusing but you have a huge country with such variety to somehow unify and reach consensus in. Civil partnerships for gay people should not be a problem with Christians in my view, however m…

A brief word of introduction to the article: I agree with a lot of what Gayle D. Erwin has to say here (for what my opinion is worth). However, I think it also throws up some interesting issues about historical context and the Bible – and the difficulties of sometimes making everything relevant with one to one correspondences in terms of today’s world.
As far as I am concerned, in terms of labels, the Sadducees are actually the conservatives in the New Testament story. They held to a conservative interpretation of the Jewish Testament – in not believing in the Resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. In the Mosaic books/the Torah the resurrection of the dead is not mentioned – unless we read certain passages in the light of later books for sings and symbols. Immortality is biological, attained through begetting children. Hence ‘Abraham and his seed forever’. And the Sadducees believed purely in biological immortality – as some very Orthodox Jews still do today. The Sadducees were very powerful in the Sanhedrin, Council of Elders. They were prepared to placate the Romans in order to keep the peace to try and prevent the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple of which they were guardians – hence Joseph Caiaphas’ willingness to hand over Jesus as the scapegoat so that one man would die to save the many. So they were conservatives but not the equivalent of religious or political conservatives in, say, America today (and American conservatives do not have to deal with an occupying power). Perhaps Erwin sees the Sadducees as liberals because liberal Christians today are often (but not always) agnostic about a literal interpretation of the resurrection; but this is a very different issue.

I actually see the Pharisees as liberals in a sense –but again not equivalent to religious or political liberals today. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come – and in this were influenced by later writings in the Bible, especially books that Protestants consign to the Old Testament apocrypha. They were centred on worship in local synagogues rather than exclusively on the Temple cultus. They were also open to debate about how to interpret the Torah in a different world from the one it was originally written for. One school of interpretation was relatively strict/severe, another relatively lenient/merciful. Jesus has a great deal in common with the Pharisees. However, he differs in teaching the Gospel that is not bounded by issues of exclusivism and purity. Perhaps the reason why Jesus debates with the Pharisees are so acrimonious is that when there is similarity with small but important differences, the controversy/rivalry is often more intense.

With the above reservations – I still think Gayle D. Erwins article is worth reading and learning from.
You can view the full article at -

servant.org/p_loh.htm

**LEAVEN OF HEROD

---

by Gayle D. Erwin

Jesus issued the warning, “Beware the leaven of Herod” (Mark 8:15). Yes, he warned of other leavens-- Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes–but the leaven of Herod gets ignored. We can ignore it no longer.

While the Pharisees (fundamentalists) and the Sadducees (liberals) represented the extremes of the religious world (against which Jesus warned), Herod symbolized the political world. Actually we have violated all of the Leaven warnings of Jesus, but strange companions have been uncovered in the bedroom of Herod. In the day of Jesus, the Sadducees, from what we might call a “liberal” stance, had chosen to make some political compromises with the ruling country of Rome. As a result, Rome decreed that the chief priest would be a Sadducee. Thus, the political bedfellows were Herod and the Sadducees.

Today, we have kicked those Liberals out (Herod is safely still in bed) and we conservatives (Pharisees?) have crawled under the sheets in the political arena. Why did we do that? Simply because we believed that the salvation of our country depended on our ability to rope the raging bull of political power and get him in our corral.

---

OUR MAN

The dream was clear: We must get “our man” in office, then everything will he all right. We had set the stage well. Books like The Power and the Glory and our frequent preaching of the tea, “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I bear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land,” (2 Chronicles 7:14) had led us to believe that we were the new “chosen people” and that the United States had replaced Israel as the central focus of the Bible. The implications that followed were obvious:

If the United States were the new “promised land” and “God’s Chosen,” then, Like the Pharisees and Sadducees, we must do something about Herod. Back then the Pharisees despised Herod, The Sadducees compromised with him and other major groups such as the zealots (radical activists) fought with him and the Essenes (monastics) withdrew from him. The Zealots still fight, the Essenes still withdraw, the Sadducees lick their wounds of diminished power, but now the Pharisees are doing the compromising with Herod.

We have hoped in three Christian presidents in succession. About each of them I have heard many stories of spiritual commitment and dedication to Biblical standards. Stories abounded of who became Christian by walking what aisle; of who prayed with whom; of the sincerity of voice when prayer was requested; of who was pastor of whom.

The question is not whether all of the above stories are true. I’m sure they are. The question is whether we should put our hope in Herod–any of our hope–even just a tiny bit, like leaven.

Each president, regardless of his commitment to Christ, has failed to place us at the right hand of God and failed to place us in dominion over the world. What a pity. It wasn’t because we didn’t try hard enough.

I have never seen such frenzied and unquestioning political activity on the part of church people, all of it built around the argument, “When we take over, or when our man gets in, we will turn this country around and have utopia.”

Now, (Would you believe it?) a whole new theology has sprung up preaching that we should be the Herod. This theology flies several banners: "Dominion Theology, “Kingdom Now Theology,” “Restoration Theology.” The bottom line of these approaches is that we Christians should take over all the power centers (financial, governmental etc.) of the world and establish the Kingdom of God so Jesus can come back and reign. They must think that this great we called the Church is better qualified, organized and trained to be the Herod than Nixon, Carter or Reagan were. It seems that I hear the mother of James and John asking for some special privilege for her good boys again. Somehow we think that power corrupts everyone else, but we are in a special category. We never learn.

---

PILGRIM’S PROGRESS

The Bible is filled with scriptures that should give us pause before we plunge headlong into redemption by world power. Jesus informed Pilate that his kingdom was “not of this world” else his followers would fight. When Jesus told us we should be as the “younger,” he was placing us in the category of pilgrim, even rebel. The younger was one who had little or no stake in the system of the world. The status quo was not his friend. We have abandoned that stance in order to become as the elder brother. We now wish to be the establishment. Jesus died “outside the gate” in shame. We want to live inside the gate in honor. (Hebrews 13:11-13) “Here we do not have an enduring city…” (Hebrews 13:14) but we are trying to prove the Scripture wrong and build our enduring city now.

We are no longer “looking for a city that is to come.” (Hebrews 13:14) We have decided that that city is now in the United States and we get to build it."

Isaiah learned a lesson appropriate for our day. Uzziah may have been Isaiah’s hero and candidate for messiah, but then a terrible thing happened–Uzziah died! (Isaiah 6) Then Isaiah records his incredible vision that resulted. “In the year Uzziah died, 1 saw the Lord…” At that same time, he also saw himself and his people as having unclean lips and needing help from the altar of heaven. I hope I can see this lesson clearly.

Perhaps, if we applied this passage to our day, we would have to say: “In the year that Nixon discovered Watergate, I saw the Lord…” " In the year that Khomeini discovered Carter, I saw the Lord…" “In the year that Reagan discovered the stars, I saw the Lord…” “In the year that the USA discovered drugs, I saw the Lord…” In the year Robertson discovered the Baptists of South Carolina, I saw the Lord…"

---

SO, WHAT NOW?

So, having said all of this, what is my answer. It is too simple. We are people of hope and our hope is in Jesus and him alone. If our hope is in this life, as Paul reveals, we are most miserable, but we are people of a different Kingdom whose rules the world cannot understand and whose establishment waits a returning king. In the meantime, the king rules in our hearts and in our actions.

We are to be a people who are not fooled by any of Herod’s seductive ways. We can even be brave enough (as Jesus was) to say to a threatening Herod, “Tell that Fox” that we will go on healing and doing the work of God’s kingdom until we reach our goal. (Luke 13:32) We will focus our attention on Jesus himself and do all we can to make his Name known. We will refuse to be identified by any party or power of our day. We are His. Does this mean we must have nothing to do with politics? Not at all. We must be as good as we can and as involved as we must for this day, but never lose our understanding that we are not people whose destiny is "this day.

The rules of the political world have not changed: Rule 1, get in power; Rule 2, stay in power; Rule 3, increase your power. The power to wash feet, to serve, is an afterthought, if it is thought at all. We must never hope that any of the systems of this world carry an ounce of redemption for us. I often told my students that maturity was simply being disillusioned and handling it wisely and that I prayed they would be disillusioned quickly so they would place faith in only God himself. Hopefully, we have now been disillusioned by the political world, and our hearts long for the government to be “upon his shoulder.” Let us see the Lord.

-Gayle D. Erwin **

[Sobornost]

Well actually I think this article is a little too world weary. Politics should be about pragmatic problem solving and compromise in pursuit of balancing the rights of the individual and the good of the community, in my view – it should never be made sacred in itself; but it is a sphere in which we can do our duty of service informed by our ideals of compassion and justice. Certainly the maintenance of democratic institutions that check monopolies on power and attempt to make good and just laws are not idolatrous in my view – and are actually part of our duty to get ‘as involved as we must for this day, but never lose our understanding that we are not people whose destiny is this day’.

[Sobornost]

Here’s an extract fmor an interview wiht Philp Yancey abot gya Christians whihc some mmay find helpful - I’d call Yancey a compassionate conservative Christian wiht an open mind and an open heart. The orginal article is at -

acceptingevangelicals.org/wp … Yancey.pdf

Amazed by Grace - Extracts of an Interview with author Philip Yancey

It was Yancey’s description of his friendship with Mel White in “Grace” that touched me most deeply. White’s story, documented in his own book Stranger at the Gate, has been well documented in the gay and lesbian community. White was a ghostwriter for such right-wing leaders as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell until he came out. Shunned by his former employees, White went on to found Soulforce, a social action group dedicated to the spiritual equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender believers.

Yancey’s steadfast support for his friend Mel, and his own struggle with the sinfulness of homosexuality is documented in the book and is one of the most honest accounts of grace in the face of struggle that I believe I have ever read. It was this chapter that led me to write to Yancey and tell him how much his books had moved me.

He was kind enough to send me a reply that emboldened me to ask for an interview. He agreed to an email interview, given his busy schedule. I was amazed that he would lend his name to a publication like Whosoever - and eternally grateful.

I cannot recommend his work strongly enough. If you thirst for grace, peace and joy, read Yancey’s works. You will not be disappointed.

Whosoever: You have a new book out “Rumors of Another World” that is really quite extraordinary. What is the main thrust of this book and why did you feel led to write it?

Philip Yancey : I wrote it for people in the “borderlands of faith,” people who have a spiritual sense but who, for a variety of reasons, have not found a home in the church. I try to speak their language, not preaching to them about the things they ought to believe but rather starting with that spiritual sense–these are the “rumors of another world”–and trying to track some of those rumors back to the source. OK, I admit that although I had this audience in mind, in truth I write all my books for myself. I started asking myself, “Philip, can you explain your faith in a way that makes sense to someone who sees the world very differently than you do?”

Whosoever: In your book “What’s so Amazing about Grace?” you tell about your friendship with Soulforce leader Mel White and your support of him at the March on Washington in 1987. Your description of your friendship with him and your feelings toward the gays and lesbians you met at the march was probably the most grace-filled writing I’ve ever read from an Evangelical Christian. What is your position on gays and lesbians in the church?

Yancey: You don’t beat around the bush, do you? Mel was one of my closest friends for years before he revealed to me his sexual orientation. (He still is, by the way.) He had repressed and hidden his homosexuality, and in fact was married and was making a fine career in Christian publishing and ministry. Mel became a window to me into a world I knew nothing about. He tells his own story in the book “Stranger at the Gate.” Readers of your magazine know well how explosive this issue can be. I get hate letters full of equal venom from both sides: from conservative Christians appalled that I would maintain a friendship

On an issue like that, I try to start with what I’m absolutely sure of, and work outwards. I’m sure of what my own attitude should be toward gays and lesbians: I should show love and grace. As one person told me, “Christians get very angry toward other Christians who sin differently than they do.” When people ask me how I can possibly stay friends with a sinner like Mel, I respond by asking how Mel can possibly stay friends with a sinner like me. Even if I conclude that all homosexual behavior is wrong, as many conservative Christians do, I’m still compelled to respond with love.

As I’ve attended gay and lesbian churches, I’m also saddened that the evangelical church by and large finds no place for homosexuals. I’ve met wonderful, committed Christians who attend MCC churches, and I wish that the larger church had the benefit of their faith. And at the same time, I think it’s unhealthy to have an entire denomination formed around this one particular issue–those people need exposure to and inclusion in the wider Body of Christ.

When it gets to particular matters of policy, like ordaining gay and lesbian ministers, I’m confused, like a lot of people. There are a few–not many, but a few–passages of Scripture that give me pause. Frankly, I don’t know the answer to those questions. I’m a freelancer, not an official church representative, and I have the luxury of saying simply, “Here’s what I think, but I really don’t know,” rather than trying to set church policy.
The polarization makes me very sad. My church in Chicago spent a couple of years carefully studying the issue. The church had openly gay members, but did not allow practicing homosexuals in leadership positions (as they did not allow unmarried “practicing heterosexuals,” whatever that means). The committee studying the issue looked at the biblical and theological and social aspects and finally came down in the same place: welcoming but not affirming homosexuals in leadership roles. Conservatives got mad and left. Many gays and lesbians also left, hurt that the church reinforced their “second-class citizen” status.

I don’t have a magic answer, and I can’t see one on the near horizon. Whole denominations are struggling with the very same issue, as you know.

Whosoever: How can other Evangelical Christians develop an attitude of grace (if not acceptance) toward gay and lesbian Christians?

Yancey: The only way is through personal exposure. It’s amazing how feelings change when suddenly it’s your daughter or your brother who comes out of the closet. In my case, it was my friend Mel. The issues I had read about suddenly had a face, a person with a story. When that happened, everything changed. That’s one reason why I think it’s sad that the churches have so little contact. I have attended gay and lesbian churches whose fervency and commitment would put most evangelical churches to shame. Disapproving conservatives should have contact with those people, and vice versa.

Whosoever: Many gays and lesbians have been harmed by the church’s attitude toward them, so much so that they will never set foot in one again. What do you say to these people who have been ostracized from the church and who have perhaps lost their faith?

Yancey: They may need a time away from the church. I am convinced, however, that the Christian life is not meant to be lived alone, in isolation. If a person can’t see fit to enter into an institutional church, at least they should look for a small group or Bible study or some gathering of live human beings struggling along on the same pilgrimage. I also find it helpful for a wounded person to look for a radically different kind of worship experience than the one that wounded them. If they came from an Assemblies of God or Brethren church, try an Orthodox or Episcopal church, which approaches worship very differently and may not trigger the defense mechanisms from the past.

I could tell you stories–and in my books I do tell stories–about the church I grew up in. For sheer meanness and closed-mindedness, it rivals any church I’ve seen. And yet if I simply gave up on all faith because of my past church experience, I would be the one who loses most.

Whosoever: When my partner and I moved to a new state, we began searching for a church home. I wrote a letter to the local Episcopal rector explaining who we were and asked if we would be welcome in his church. His response, in a nutshell, was that we would be very welcome, if only we gave up our “sinful lifestyle” and sought out good, Christian (presumably Episcopalian) men to marry. This is the reaction of many Christian churches to gays and lesbians. We must give up our sexual orientation to be accepted. What do you say to churches like this?
Yancey: I’m probably not the best person to address a church like that–you are. Obviously, if a church is saying you need to give up sexual orientation, that church needs some education. I know of some ministries who try to change sexual behavior, but none that try to change sexual orientation–all admit that any change involves a lifelong struggle. I would hope a minister or rector is open to dialogue, and I would hope you have the strength and confidence to sit down with him and discuss your own story as well as the biblical objections he has.

I’m not gay or lesbian, so I would probably approach that rector differently. I would point to how Jesus dealt with people who were moral failures–I’m starting where the rector is, who sees you as a moral failure. Jesus chose one such woman, a woman who had had five failed marriages, as his first missionary. I would also ask if he requires all who attend his church to leave their “sins” at the door. Does he interview each person about their sexual activity? Does he exclude people who show pride, hypocrisy, or legalism, which are the sins that seemed to upset Jesus? Does he see the church as a place only for people who see things alike, and for people who have arrived rather than people who are on the way? I’d ask questions like that.

[Eric_Fry]

Fantastic and fascinating interview, Dick. Thanks for sharing it.

This one line from the article really hits the nail square on the head:

“Christians get very angry toward other Christians who sin differently than they do.”

I’ve heard few things about the behavior of Christians that ring truer than that.

[Sobornost]

Thanks Eric – glad you like it; adn that’s a very striking quotation you picked out. I guess Philip Yancey’s view is especially relevant in America because he is an editor of Christianity Today (and not John Shelby Spong). I very much enjoyed his book ‘What’s So Amazing about Grace’ – not least because of its broad charity to Christians on both the left and the right (he highlights some good thing about the Moral Majority for example, including a charity for working with single mothers which is part of a Pro-life initiative).

Here’s another article I thought might be of interest. I mentioned Peter Tatchell in one of my posts. Well here is an extract from his website that gives the lie to the idea that all gay people are intolerant of those who disagree with them. Peter here makes common cause with the Christian Institute – a very , very conservative Christian body in the UK - in the cause of liberty.

You can view the original at -

petertatchellfoundation.org/ … -order-act

Reform the Public Order Act
posted by Peter Tatchell on Wed, 16/05/2012 - 10:55
Section 5 threatens free speech & the right to protest
London - 16 May 2012
David Davis MP leads cross-party calls for reform
Secularists, faith groups and human rights campaigners unite in support
Where: Committee Room 5, Palace of Westminster
When: 11.15am, Wednesday 16th May
Who:
David Davis MP
Peter Tatchell, human rights campaigner
Edward Leigh MP
Simon Calvert, Christian Institute
Keith Porteous Wood, National Secular Society

Today’s launch of the Reform Section 5 campaign will increase the pressure on Home Secretary Theresa May to amend the 1986 Public Order Act.

Section 5 of the Act outlaws “insulting words or behaviour.” What constitutes “insulting” is unclear and has resulted in many controversial arrests and prosecutions. Civil liberties campaigns, faith groups and secular organisations have joined forces to have the word “insulting” removed from the legislation on the grounds that it restricts free speech and penalises campaigners, protesters and even preachers.

The Reform Section 5 campaign is headlining with the slogan: “Feel free to insult me”, and asks the vital question: “Who should decide whether words, posters or ideas are insulting?”

The campaign points out that the law rightly protects the public against discrimination, harassment, threats and violence – but that it has no legitimate role protecting us from having our feelings hurt.

Peter Tatchell, Director of the human rights lobby, the Peter Tatchell Foundation, said:
"Despite my well known disagreements with David Davis and the Christian Institute, in defence of free speech and the right to protest we’ve sunk our differences and are working together to reform Section 5. Freedom of expression is so important. It transcends party politics and ideology.

"It is commendable that David Davis and the Christian Institute are prepared to work with a gay left-wing Green atheist and secularist like me. We’re all putting the right to free speech before our personal politics and beliefs.

"I have been a victim of Section 5. In 1994, I organised a small peaceful protest against the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, some of whose members had endorsed the killing of Jews, homosexuals, apostates and women who have sex outside of marriage. I displayed placards that factually documented the persecution of gay people by Islamist fanatics. I was arrested and charged under Section 5 with behaviour that was deemed insulting and likely to cause distress. I fought the charges and eventually won, but not before spending many hours in police cells and standing trial.

"This experience convinced me that Section 5 is open to abuse by over-zealous police and prosecutors. That’s why I am supporting the Reform Section 5 campaign. The campaign brings together an unlikely alliance of people who would otherwise be political foes. Both my own Peter Tatchell Foundation and the National Secular Society have been traditionally at loggerheads with the Christian Institute over its opposition to gay equality and its defence of religious privilege. But on this issue we agree.

“The Section 5 ban on insults is a menace to liberty. It has been abused to variously arrest or threaten with arrest people protesting non-violently against abortion and for gay equality and animal welfare. Other victims include Christian street preachers, critics of Scientology and even students making jokes.

“In 2008, a teenager was given a court summons for holding a placard that denounced Scientology as a dangerous cult. Three years earlier, an Oxford student was arrested for jokingly suggesting that a police horse was gay. In both cases, even though the charges were later dropped, the victims had their freedom of expression infringed and they suffered public humiliation by the police.

“Section 5 has been also used unjustly against Christian street preachers who have merely condemned homosexuality, without being abusive or threatening. Although what they said was homophobic and should be challenged, they should not have been criminalised. Dale McAlpine was arrested in 2010 for saying that gay sex is sinful. In my view, Dale is a homophobe but he should not have been prosecuted. On free speech grounds, I offered to testify in his defence.
“Under Section 5, is it an offence for a person to use “insulting words or behaviour” in a way that is “likely” to cause “harassment, alarm or distress.” There is no requirement to prove that anyone has been harassed, alarmed or distressed. The mere likelihood is sufficient to secure a conviction. Moreover, an offence is committed regardless of the person’s intention. Innocently intended words, behaviours or signs can result in a criminal record. The police and the courts can decide if you or someone else might feel insulted.

“When does an insult cease to be a legitimate (if bad mannered) expression of opinion and become a matter for arrest and prosecution? Much satirical comedy and many polemical critiques of religion are deemed insults by some people.
“What constitutes an insult is a subjective judgment, open to widely different interpretations. For some ultra-sensitive people, what others regard as valid criticisms may cause them to feel insulted and distressed. Indeed, any controversial or dissenting viewpoint has the potential to upset someone and result in them - or the police - deciding that they feel insulted and distressed.

“If we accept that insults resulting in likely alarm or distress should be a crime, we risk limiting free and open debate and criminalising dissenting opinions and alternative lifestyles that some people may find offensive and upsetting. The right to mock, ridicule and satirise ideas, opinions and institutions is put in jeopardy. Section 5 can, in theory, be used to criminalise almost any words, actions or images, if even just one person is likely to be alarmed or distressed by them.

“There is no right to be not distressed or offended. Some of the most important ideas in history – such as those of Galileo Galilei and Charles Darwin – caused great offence and distress in their time.

“Do we really need the police and the courts to criminalise insults? Should we not just accept that the risk of insult is a fair
price to pay for living in a society which respects free speech?

The law rightly protects us against discrimination, harassment and incitement to violence. It should not be used to protect us from mere insults. It’s time to reform Section 5,” said Mr Tatchell.

ComRes poll: Nearly two-thirds of MPs back Section 5 reform

A recent ComRes poll commissioned by the Reform Section 5 campaign shows that 62% of MPs believe it should not be the
business of government to outlaw “insults.” Only 17% of MPs believe that removing the contentious “insult” clause would undermine the ability of the police to protect the public. Furthermore, only 1 in 5 MPs believe that reform would put minorities at risk and the majority of MPs in each Coalition party support the removal of the “insult” clause.

[Andy]

Hi Dick,

Very interesting interview with Mr. Yancey. I am glad you posted it. Full acceptance may yet be far off, but I believe more and more Christians in America are looking at this issue through fresh eyes and are less quick to condemn.

I’m also glad that the UK seems to be revisiting restrictions on free expression. It’s understandable that offensive speech is bothersome and upsetting, but it seems near impossible to me that a truly free society can guarantee that anyone will never be offended by the views of another. An American judge (Oliver Wendell Holmes, I believe) once wrote something to the effect that the proper remedy for bad speech is more speech, not censorship.

Love,

Andy

[Sobornost]

Thanks Andy – and love to you too
Here are two articles from Wikipedia about Homosexuality and the Bible. I note that there are editorial problems with both articles currently. Btu having said this they are written by a proper scholar of the terrain – someone how knows or has consulted those who know Hebrew and New Testament Greek for example. They also give a good overview of the issues and seem to be attempting to be fair at balancing conservative and liberal opinions. I think some may appreciate these articles.

Homosexuality in the New Testament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual … _Testament
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
• It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since March 2011.
• Its citation style may be unclear. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking. Tagged since March 2011.
• It may contain original research. Tagged since June 2011.
• Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since June 2011.
In the New Testament (NT) there are three passages that refer specifically to what today would be called homosexual activity (or four passages, if including Jude 1 which ambiguously refers to the sin of Sodom). These passages appear in the Pauline epistles Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10. None of the four gospels mentions the subject from which it can be inferred that homosexuality was not a matter of major concern either for Jesus or for the early Christian movement. (On the other hand, it must be noted that Jesus and the gospels are also silent on many other important matters, e.g. slavery). Moreover, there is nothing about homosexuality in the Book of Acts, in Hebrews, in Revelation, or in the letters attributed to James, Peter, and John.
The references to ‘homosexuality’ in the NT hinge on the interpretation of three specific Greek words, arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης), malakos (μαλακός), and porneia.[1][2] For example, according to the English Standard Version (ESV), the words translated by the phrase “men who practice homosexuality” (in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10), refer to the “passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts”.[3] While it is not disputed that the two Greek words concern sexual relations between men (and possibly between women) some academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, but other scholars have presented counter arguments.[4][5][6] The historical context has also been a subject of debate.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Homosexuality in the Pauline epistles
o 1.1 Romans 1:26-27
o 1.2 Corinthians 1 6:9-10
o 1.3 Timothy 1 1:9-10
• 2 Words with disputed or ambiguous meanings
o 2.1 Arsenokoitēs
 2.1.1 Arguments against a reference to homosexual behaviour
 2.1.2 Arguments for a reference to homosexual behaviour
o 2.2 Malakos
 2.2.1 Arguments against a reference to homosexual behaviour
 2.2.2 Arguments for a reference to homosexual behaviour
o 2.3 Porneia
o 2.4 Pais
• 3 Other issues of sexuality
o 3.1 Eunuchs
o 3.2 Female homosexuality
• 4 Historical and cultural issues
• 5 References
• 6 Notes
[edit] Homosexuality in the Pauline epistles
[edit] Romans 1:26-27
In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (English Majority Text Version, EMTV), Paul writes
“ For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error. ”
This has been described by Hilborn as “the most important biblical reference for the homosexuality debate”.[7] It is also the only apparent reference in the Bible to female homosexuality, though some maintain that this prohibition applies only to male homosexuals.[1] Hilborn (op cit) argues that in the wider passage (Romans 1:18-32) Paul writes that the “global scope of salvation history has been made manifest not only in ‘the gospel of God’s Son’ (cf. v.9), but also in the very ‘creation of the world’ (v.20).” In common with many traditional commentators, Hilborn (op cit) goes on to argue that condemnation of homosexual activity is derived from the “broad contours” of Paul’s argument, in addition to the selective reading of individual words or phrases.
Some scholars speculate that the text does not condemn homosexual acts by homosexuals, rather “homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons”[8], or heterosexuals who “abandoned” or “exchanged” heterosexuality for homosexuality.[9] Boswell argues that the conceptual modality (natural laws) which would provide the basis for the blanket condemnation of homosexuality did not exist prior to the Enlightenment era.[clarification needed] In contrast, Joe Dallas (who opposes what he sees as the “gay agenda”) contends that the apostle Paul is condemning changing “the natural use into that which is against nature”[citation needed], and to suggest that Paul is referring to “heterosexuals indulging in homosexual behavior requires unreasonable mental gymnastics”.[10]
Rev Mona West argues that Paul is condemning specific types of homosexual activity (such as temple prostitution or pederasty) rather than a broader interpretation.[11] West argues that Paul is speaking to a Gentile audience in terms that they would understand to show that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
A more conservative biblical interpretation contends “the most authentic reading of Rom 1:26-7 is that which sees it prohibiting homosexual activity in the most general of terms, rather than in respect of more culturally and historically specific forms of such activity”.[7][12] That “nature” in Rm 1:26 refers to acting contrary to design and man’s normality is seen as evidenced by its use in Romans 11:21,24. Hays argues that Romans 1:26,27 is part of a general condemnation of humans, in which males and females, have rejected their creational (as in Genesis) distinctions, with homoeroticism being intrinsically wrong.[13]
Early church commentary on these verses does little to support the modern interpretation that Paul here intends to condemn all homosexuality, as such. For example, contemporary English translations imply that Rom 1:26b condemns lesbian sex, while 1:27 condemns sex between men. However, several early church writers clearly state that Rom 1:26b is a condemnation of men having unnatural sex with women. Brooten cites both Anastasios and Augustine as explicitly rejecting the ‘lesbian hypothesis’ (p. 337) [14]. Hanks asserts that “not until John Chrysostom (ca 400 C.E.) does anyone (mis)interpret Romans 1:26 as referring to relations between two women” (p. 90). [15] Townsley notes that other early writers, possibly including Chrysostom, reject the ‘lesbian’ hypothesis, specifically, Ambrosiaster, Didymus the Blind and Clement of Alexandria. [16] Townsley goes on to specify the context of Rom 1:26-27 as the continuation of Paul’s condemnation of the worship of pagan gods from earlier in the chapter, linking the ‘homosexuality’ implied in Rom 1:27 to the practice of temple prostitution with castrated priests of Cybele, practices condemned more explicitly in the Old Testament (1 Kings 15:12, 2 Kings 23:7), the same religious group that violently attacked Paul in Ephesus, driving him from the city (Acts 19). The implication is that the goddess religions, the castrated priests and temple prostitution had a wide impact in ancient Mediterranean culture (similar to the devadasi system in India today) so would immediately evoke an image for the 1st century audience of non-Yahwistic religious idolatry, practices not familiar to the modern reader, which makes it easy to misinterpret these verses.
[edit] Corinthians 1 6:9-10
Wycliffe Bible (1382): “Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men”
King James Version (1611): “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind”
Amplified Version (1987): “Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality”
[edit] Timothy 1 1:9-10
Wycliffe Bible (1382): “…and witting this thing, that the law is not set to a just man, but to unjust men and not subject, to wicked men and to sinners, to cursed men and defouled, to slayers of father, and slayers of mother, to manslayers [witting this thing, that the law is not put to a just man, but to an unjust and not subject, to unpious men and sinners, to cursed men and defouled, to slayers of fathers, and slayers of mothers, to menslayers] and lechers, to them that do lechery with men, lying-mongers and forsworn, and if any other thing is contrary to the wholesome teaching.”
King James Version (1611): “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine”
Amplified Version (1987): Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers,[For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers–and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine
[edit] Words with disputed or ambiguous meanings
[edit] Arsenokoitēs
The Greek word arsenokoitēs appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:
“ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ”
The word translated as “practicing homosexuals” has been alternately rendered as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (King James Version, 21st Century King James Version), “sodomites” (Young’s Literal Translation), or “homosexuals”(New American Standard Bible), or “men who practice homosexuality” (English Standard Version) or “those who abuse themselves with men” (Amplified Bible) or " “for those who have a twisted view of sex” (New International Readers Version) or “for sexual perverts” (Good News Translation) or “for abusers of themselves with men” (American Standard Version). The original term is very unusual, ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs), thought to mean “one who has sexual intercourse with a male” (Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην [arrhēn / arsēn] “male”; κοίτην [koitēn] “sexual intercourse”), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. Within the Bible, it only occurs in this passage and in a similar list in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Paul may have been drawing from the Greek (Septuagint) translation of Leviticus 18:22: καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός• βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν (kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gunaikos. bdelugma gar estin “And you shall not have sexual intercourse with a male as with a female. For it is unclean.”).
[edit] Arguments against a reference to homosexual behaviour
In contrast, Boswell (1980) argues that this is a term specifically created by Paul, and that given its unusual nature, the fact that Paul did not use one of the more common pagan Greek terms, and given its direct reference to the Levitical laws, it is a matter of debate whether Paul was referring generally to any person having homosexual sex, or whether (as discussed below) it referred only to anal sex of any form (cf. Elliott 2004). Other translations of the word, based on examinations of the context of its subsequent uses, include Martin’s (1996), who argued it meant “homosexual slave trader” and Boswell’s (1980) who argued it referred to “homosexual rape” or homosexual prostitutes. Scroggs perceives it as referring to exploitative pederasty.[17]
The term arsenokoitai was rarely used in Church writings (Elliott 1994), with Townsley (2003) counting a total of 73 references. Most are ambiguous in nature,[citation needed] although St. John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, seems to use the term arsenokoitai to refer to pederasty common in the Greco-Roman culture of the time and Patriarch John IV of Constantinople in the 6th century used it to refer to anal sex: “some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives” (Townsley 2003). Moreover, Hippolytus of Rome in his Refutation of all Heresies describes a Gnostic teaching, according to which an evil angel Naas committed adultery with Eve and arsenokoitēs with Adam.[18] The context suggests the translation of arsenokoitēs as pederasty,[19] although it might have a different meaning.[20]
[edit] Arguments for a reference to homosexual behaviour
Some scholars argue against the restriction of the word to pederasty. For example, Scobie states that “there is no evidence that the term was restricted to pederasty; beyond doubt, the NT here repeats the Leviticus condemnation of all same-sex relations”.[21] Similarly, Campbell writes, “it must be pointed out, first, that arsenokoitēs is a broad term that cannot be confined to specific instances of homosexual activity such as male prostitution or pederasty. This is in keeping with the term’s Old Testament background where lying with a ‘male’ (a very general term) is proscribed, relating to every kind of male-male intercourse.” Campbell (quoting from Wenham) goes on to say that, “in fact, the Old Testament bans every type of homosexual intercourse, not just male prostitution or intercourse with youths.”[22]
Others have pointed out that the meaning of arsenokoitēs is identified by its derivation from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, where the component words “with a man (arsenos) do not copulate coitus (koites) as with a woman” refer to homosexual conduct. For example, according to Hays, although the word arsenokoitēs appears nowhere in Greek literature prior to Paul’s use of it, it is evidently a rendering into Greek of the standard rabbinic term for “one who lies with a male [as with a woman]” (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). Moreover, despite recent challenges to this interpretation, the meaning is confirmed by the evidence of Sybilline Oracles 2.73. Paul here repeats the standard Jewish condemnation of homosexual conduct.[23] Malick (op cit) writes, “it is significant that of all the terms available in the Greek language, Paul chose a compound from the Septuagint that in the broadest sense described men lying with men as they would lie with women.”[5] According to Scobie, "it clearly echoes the Greek of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 in the LXX (arsen = “male,” and koite = “bed”), so that arsenokoitēs literally means “one who goes to bed with a male”.[21]
David Wright argues that the compound word refers to those who sleep with males, and denotes “‘male homosexual activity’ without qualification.”[24][25] Haas, reviewing the various arguments on both sides, concluded that “an examination of the biblical passages from linguistic, historical and ethical-theological perspectives fails to support the revisionist ethic and reinforces the traditional Christian teaching that homosexual practice is morally wrong.”[26] Via also agrees arsenokoitēs refers to homosexual activity.[27] James B. De Young presents similar arguments.[4]
Standard Greek lexicons and dictionaries understand this word as a reference to homosexual behavior.[28][29][30][31][32][33]
[edit] Malakos
This word is translated as “male prostitutes” (TNIV), “effeminate” (NASB), or “catamites” (TJB; in the footnotes of the NKJV), in 1 Corinthians 6:9.
[edit] Arguments against a reference to homosexual behaviour
The Greek word μαλακός; malakos carries a root meaning of soft, luxurious or dainty, but here, G. Fee argues, it is used in a much darker way, possibly referring to the more passive partner in a homosexual relationship.[34] According to Scroggs (op cit), the word malakos in Paul’s list refers specifically to this category of person, the effeminate call-boy.[17] Others, for example Olson, [35], based on previous and subsequent uses of the term, interprets malakos to mean an effeminate but not necessarily homosexual man. Olson argues that the μαλακοί in Paul’s time, “almost always referred in a negative, pejorative way to a widely despised group of people who functioned as effeminate ‘call boys’.” Some theologians have argued that, when read in historical context, the Jewish Platonist philosopher Philo of Alexandria used the term in reference to temple prostitution.[36][37]
[edit] Arguments for a reference to homosexual behaviour
Lexical evidence from Greek texts indicates the word was used to refer to the passive partner in a male homosexual act. For example, Malick (op cit) writes that a significant expression of this usage is found in a letter[note 1] from Demophon, a wealthy Egyptian, to Ptolemaeus, a police official, concerning needed provisions for a coming festival.[5] According to Ukleja, “a strong possible translation of both malakos (and arsenokoitēs) is the morally loose (effeminate) who allow themselves to be used homosexually and the person who is a practicing homosexual.”[38] Ukleja cites a number of classical Greek sources in support his assertion.[note 2]
The meaning of the word is not confined to male prostitutes. According to Malick (op cit), when malakos is employed in reference to sexual relationships of men with men, it is not a technical term for male call-boys in a pederastic setting. The term may mean effeminate with respect to boys or men who take the role of a woman in homosexual relationships.[5] Nor is the meaning of the word confined to sexually exploited males.[39]
Standard Greek lexicons and dictionaries understand this word as a reference to the passive partner in a male homosexual act.[40][41][42][43][44][45]
[edit] Porneia
In Matthew 15: 19-20 (KJV) Jesus says:
“ For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. ”
In Mark 7: 20-23 (KJV) it says:
“ And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual impurities, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. ”
Whether these lists include homosexuality depends on the translation of porneia (sexual impurity). Translations of these passages generally translate porneia as fornication rather than sexual impurity (see Leviticus). Some[who?] interpret the translation of porneia more broadly, to encompass sexual immorality in general, though there is disagreement over whether such an interpretation is supported by the writings of the Church Fathers. Although the rabbis of the 1st century generally included homosexuality within their condemnations of sexual immorality (Saltlow, Michael 1995 Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality. Scholars Press. ISBN 07885015); Jesus did not necessarily agree with the conclusions of the Jewish authorities of the time (e.g. his Antithesis of the Law).
Porneia appears a number of times in Paul’s letters, always with arsenokoitais. Yale University professor John Boswell argues that ‘arsenokoitai’ in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 refers specifically to male prostitution;[8] various conservative scholars have presented countering arguments.[4][5][6]
[edit] Pais
Further information: Healing the centurion’s servant
This event is referred to in both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 and tells of Jesus healing a centurion’s servant. Luke 7:2 (TNIV) says: “There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die.” The term translated from the Greek as “servant” is pais. This can be translated in a number of different ways including “child” (e.g., Matthew 2:16; Lk 2:43, 8:51-54 where it refers to a girl), “son” (John 4:51) or “servant” (Lk 15:26, Acts 4:25); elsewhere it is unclear whether “son” or “servant” is meant (Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, 4:30).
Horner[46] and Helminiak[47] both suggest a homosexual theme to this text. Helminiak argues that this is implied by the broader context of the narrative suggesting an unusual level of concern about the servant, whereas Horner suggests that use of the term “valued highly” implies a sexual relationship. Horner goes on to argue that, as Jesus commended the centurion for his faith (Matthew 8:10; Luke 7:9), it shows that Jesus approved of their relationship, otherwise he would have condemned him. However, a contrasting viewpoint is that the term “highly valued” (Greek ἔντιμος or entimos) simply suggests a genuine care for the person or, more archaically, that the centurion was fond of this slave. [48]
Other biblical scholars dismiss any suggestions of a homosexual theme as deliberately distorted interpretations of the text.[49][50] Marston argues that Jesus would not have condoned any homosexual relationship, in line with the weight of other scriptural evidence, while Chapman (2005) suggests that even if the relationship had been homosexual, his lack of condemnation does not necessarily equate to his approval of them.
None of the standard professional Greek lexicons and dictionaries identify pais as a reference to a homosexual partner.[51]
[edit] Other issues of sexuality
[edit] Eunuchs
In Matthew 19:12, Jesus discusses eunuchs who were born as such, eunuchs who were made so by others, and eunuchs who choose to live as such for the kingdom of heaven.[52] This passage has often been interpreted as having to do with homosexuality. Clement of Alexandria, for instance, wrote in his commentary on it that “some men, from their birth, have a natural sense of repulsion from a woman; and those who are naturally so constituted do well not to marry”.[53]
Main article: Ethiopian eunuch
The Ethiopian eunuch, an early gentile convert encountered in Acts 8, has been described as an early gay Christian, based on the fact that the word “eunuch” in the Bible was not always used literally, as in Matthew 19:12.[54][9]
[edit] Female homosexuality
In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (ESV), Paul writes, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature”. Most interpreters assume that, due to the analogy with same-sex lust between males, Paul is referring to female same-sex behavior. This assumption is not conclusive, and it remains difficult to discern exactly what Paul meant by women exchanging natural intercourse for unnatural.[55]
[edit] Historical and cultural issues
Many commentators have argued that the references to homosexuality in the NT, or the Bible in general, have to be understood in their proper historical context. For example, William Walker says that the very notion of “homosexuality” (or even “heterosexuality,” “bisexuality” and “sexual orientation”) is essentially a modern concept that would simply have been unintelligible to the New Testament writers.[56] The word “homosexuality” and the concept of sexual orientation as being separate from one’s perceived masculinity or femininity (i.e. gender identity) did not take shape until the 19th century.[57] Moreover, although some ancient Romans (i.e. doctors, astrologers, etc.) discussed congenital inclinations to unconventional sexual activities such as homosexuality, this classification fails to correspond to a modern psychological, biological and genetic distinction between homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual orientations.[58] However, according to Gagnon, the concept of homosexual orientation was not wholly unknown in the Greco-Roman milieu. Moreover, he asserts that there is absolutely no evidence that modern orientation theory would have had any impact on Paul changing his strong negative valuation of homosexual practice.[59]
A statement by the General Synod of the Church of England (Issues in Human Sexuality) illustrates a categorisation and understanding of homosexuality, claiming that in ancient times “society recognized the existence of those, predominantly male, who appeared to be attracted entirely to members of their own sex.” (Issues in Human Sexuality para 2.16, lines 8-9) which almost parallels that of modern ideation. The same study is careful to point out that “the modern concept of orientation has been developed against a background of genetic and psychological theory which was not available to the ancient world.”
[edit] References

1. ^ Berlinerblau, Jacques (2005). The secular Bible: why nonbelievers must take religion seriously. Cambridge University Press. p. 108. books.google.com/books?id=sGkp3Y4PUlsC&pg=PA108.
2. ^ Countryman, L. William (2007). Dirt, Greed, & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today. Fortress Press. pp. 116–118. books.google.com/books?id=SKKPveZTbgAC&pg=PA116.
3. ^ 1 Corinthians 6 (English Standard Version) Bible Gateway.
4. ^ a b c The source and NT meaning of Arsenokoitai, with implications or Christian ethics and ministry James B. De Young
5. ^ a b c d e The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 David E. Malick
6. ^ a b Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate, by Calvin Smith
7. ^ a b Hilborn, D. (2002) Homosexuality and Scripture. Evangelical Alliance.
8. ^ a b Boswell, J. (1980) ‪Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality‬: ‪Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century‬. The University of Chicago Press.
9. ^ a b McNeill, John J. (1993). The Church and the homosexual (4 ed.). Beacon Press. pp. 63–65. books.google.com/books?id=UD-5Gnn87W8C&pg=PA63.
10. ^ Dallas, J. Responding to Pro-Gay Theology, Part III: Scriptural Arguments
11. ^ Mona West The Bible and Homosexuality Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC).
12. ^ Howard, K. L. (1996) Paul’s View of Male Homosexuality: An Exegetical Study. M.A. thesis (unpublished). Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Deerfield, Illinois.
13. ^ Hays, R.B. (1986) Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans I. Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 14, 199-201.
14. ^ Brooten (1996). Love Between Women. Univ Chicago Press
15. ^ Hanks (2000) The Subversive Gospel. Pilgrim Press
16. ^ Townsley (2011) “Paul, the Goddess Religions, and Queer Sects.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130:707-727.
17. ^ a b Scroggs, Robin (1983). The New Testament and homosexuality: contextual background for contemporary debate. Fortress Press. pp. 62–65; 106–109. books.google.com/books?id=4pdeZ_MWcWIC&pg=PA62.
18. ^ Hippolytus. Refutation of all Heresies. Book V, Ch 21
19. ^ See, e.g., Pearson, B. A. Ancient Gnosticism (Fortress Press, 2007), Ch. 6, p. 44. ISBN 0-8006-3258-3
20. ^ Martin, D. B. Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences
21. ^ a b Scobie, C.H.H. (2003) The Ways of Our God: An approach to Biblical Theology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Google eBook)
22. ^ Campbell, K.M. (2003) Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. InterVaristy Press. (Google eBook)
23. ^ Hays, R.B. (2011) Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching. First Corinthians. Westminster John Knox Press. (Google eBook)
24. ^ Wright, D.F. (1984) Homosexuals or Prostitutes: The Meaning of arsenokoitai (I Cor. 6:9; I Tim. 1:10). Vigiliae Christianae 38 (June): 13.
25. ^ Wright, D.F. (1987) Translating arsenokoitai I Cor. 6:9; I Tim. 1:10. "Vigiliae Christianae 41 (December): 398.
26. ^ Haas, G. (1999) Hermeneutical Issues In The Use Of The Bible To Justify The Acceptance Of Homosexual Practice. Global Journal of Classical Theology 01:2 (Feb).
27. ^ ‘True the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts (Martin 119). But in this case I believe the evidence suggests that it does.’, Via, ‘Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views’, p. 13 (2003).
28. ^ ‘ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ arsenokoitēs male homosexual* Referring to a male who engages in sexual activity with men or boys: 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; Pol. Phil. 5:3; W. L. PETERSEN, “Can ἀρσενοκοῖται be translated by ‘Homosexuals’?” Vigiliae Christianae 40 (1986) 187-91. — D. F. WRIGHT, Translating ΑΡΣΕΝΟΚΟΙΤΑΙ,” Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987) 396-98.’, Balz & Schneider, ‘Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament’, p. 158 (1990).
29. ^ ‘ἀρρενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ, sodomite, AP9.686, (Maced. iv/vi A.D., v. BCHsuppl. 8 no. 87); (ἀρσ-) 1Ep.Cor.6.9.’, Liddell, Scott, Jones, & McKenzie, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’, p. 246 (rev. and augm. throughout, 19996).
30. ^ ‘ἄρσην G781 (arsēn), male; θῆλυς G2559 (thēlys), female; ἀρσενοκοίτης G780 (arsenokoitēs), male homosexual, pederast, sodomite.’, Brown, ‘New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology’, volume 2, p. 562 (1986).
31. ^ ‘88.280 ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου m: a male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’’, Louw & Nida, ‘Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains’, volume 1, p. 771 (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition 1996).
32. ^ ‘733. ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoítēs; gen. arsenokoítou, masc. noun, from ársēn (730), a male, and koítē (2845), a bed. A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10 [cf. Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:27]).’, Zodhiates, ‘The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament’ (electronic ed. 2000).
33. ^ ‘a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 (on the impropriety of RSV’s ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, ’86, 187–91; cp. DWright, ibid. 41, ’87, 396–98; REB’s rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term ‘sexual pervert’ is lexically unacceptable), of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός (difft. DMartin, in Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality, ed. RBrawley, ’96, 117–36); 1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27. Romans forbade pederasty w. free boys in the Lex Scantinia, pre-Cicero (JBremmer, Arethusa 13, ’80, 288 and notes); Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution (on its rarity, but w. some evidence concerning women used for sacred prostitution at Corinth s. LWoodbury, TAPA 108, ’78, 290f, esp. note 18 [lit.]), or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service (s. Wright, VigChr 38, ’84, 125–53).’, Arndt, Danker, & Bauer (eds.), ‘A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature’, p. 135 (3rd ed. 2000).
34. ^ Fee, G. (1987). The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 243
35. ^ Olson, M. (1984) Untangling the Web: A Look at What Scripture Does and Does Not Say about Homosexual Behavior. The Other Side, April, pp.24-29.
36. ^ God Is Not a Homophobe: An Unbiased Look at Homosexuality in the Bible by Philo Thelos, p.68-69, Trafford Publishing, 2004, esp. “…when Philo reads the Biblical laws against homosexuality, he interprets them as a reference to the expression of that act prevailing in his day - pederastry - in both secular form and in prostitution, especially as performed by the womanized malakos …] Young boys were commonly forced to serve as homosexual prostitutes in the gates of idol temples.”
37. ^ What did Paul mean when he used the Greek word arsenokoitai?, section “Philo on shrine prostitution,” by Rick Brentlinger, Gay Christian 101
38. ^ Ukleja, M. (1983) The Bible and Homosexuality, Part 2: Homosexuality in the New Testament. Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (October-December 1983): 351.
39. ^ ‘The terms malakoi and molles could be used broadly to refer to effeminate or unmanly men. But in specific contexts it could be used in ways similar to the more specific terms cinaedi (lit., “butt-shakers”) and pathici (“those who undergo [penetration]”) to denote effeminate adult males who are biologically and/or psychologically disposed to desire penetration by men. For example, in Soranus’s work On Chronic Diseases (early 2nd century A.D.) the section on men who desire to be penetrated (4.9.131-37) is entitled “On the molles or subacti (subjugated or penetrated partners, pathics) whom the Greeks call malthakoi.” An Aristotelian text similarly refers to those who are anatomically inclined toward the receptive role as malakoi (Pseudo-Aristotle, Problems 4.26). Astrological texts that speak of males desirous of playing the penetrated female role also use the term malakoi (Ptolemy, Four Books 3.14 §172; Vettius Valens, Anthologies 2.37.54; 2.38.82; cf. Brooten, 126 n. 41, 260 n. 132). The complaint about such figures in the ancient world generally, and certainly by Philo, centers around their attempted erasure of the masculine stamp given them by God/nature, not their exploitation of others, age difference, or acts of prostitution.’, Gagnon, ‘Dale Martin and the Myth of Total Textual Indeterminacy’ (2007); robgagnon.net/DaleMartinResponse.htm.
40. ^ ‘pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship, opp. ἀρσενοκοίτης (Dionys. Hal. 7, 2, 4; Dio Chrys. 49 [66], 25; Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 15, 10; Vett. Val. 113, 22; Diog. L. 7, 173; PHib 54, 11 [c. 245 B.C.] may have this mng.: a musician called Zenobius ὁ μαλακός [prob. with a sideline, according to Dssm., LO 131, 4—LAE 164, 4]. S. also a Macedon. ins in LDuchesne and CBayet, Mémoire sur une Mission au Mont Athos 1876 no. 66 p. 46; Plautus, Miles 668 cinaedus [Gk. κίναιδος] malacus; cp. the attack on the morality of submissive homoeroticism Aeschin. 1, 188; DCohen, Greece and Rome 23, ’76, 181f) 1 Cor 6:9 (‘male prostitutes’ NRSV is too narrow a rendering; ‘sexual pervert’ REB is too broad)=Pol 5:3.—S. lit. s.v. ἀρσενοκοίτης. B. 1065. DELG. M-M.’, Arndt, Danker, & Bauer (eds.), ‘A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature’, p. 613 (3rd ed. 2000).
41. ^ The vice catalog of 1 Cor 6:9 mentions the μαλακοί, soft people / weaklings, as reprehensible examples of passive homosexuality (cf. Rom 1:27; Lev 20:13; Ep. Arist. 152; Sib. Or. 3:184ff., 584ff.; see Billerbeck III, 70; H. Conzelmann, 1 Cor [Hermeneia] ad loc. [bibliography]).’, Balz & Schneider, ‘Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament’, volume 2, p. 381 (1990).
42. ^ 'figuratively, in a bad sense of men effeminate, unmanly; substantivally ὁ μ. especially of a man or boy who submits his body to homosexual lewdness catamite, homosexual pervert (1C 6.9)’, Friberg, Friberg, & Miller, ‘Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament’, p. 252 (2000).
43. ^ ‘88.281 μαλακόςb, οῦ m: the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’ For a context of μαλακόςb, see 1 Cor 6:9–10 in 88.280. As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse.’, Louw & Nida, ‘Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains’, volume 1, p. 771-772 (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition 1996).
44. ^ ‘μαλακός , ή, όν soft, fancy, luxurious; homosexual pervert (1 Cor 6:9)’, Newman, ‘A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament’, p. 110 (1993).
45. ^ ‘3120. μαλακός malakós; fem. malakḗ, neut. malakón, adj. Soft to the touch, spoken of clothing made of soft materials, fine texture (Matt. 11:8; Luke 7:25). Figuratively it means effeminate or a person who allows himself to be sexually abused contrary to nature. Paul, in 1 Cor. 6:9, joins the malakoí, the effeminate, with arsenokoítai (733), homosexuals, Sodomites.’, Zodhiates, ‘The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament’ (electronic ed. 2000).
46. ^ Horner, T. (1978) The Centurion’s Servant. Insight: A Quarterly of Gay Catholic Opinion, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Summer).
47. ^ Helminiak, D.A. (2000) What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality. Alamo Square Press.
48. ^ Luke 7 NET Bible.
49. ^ Marston, P. (1995) Dear Peter Tatchell The Independent, Tuesday 21 March 1995.
50. ^ Marston, P. (2003) Christians, Gays and Gay Christians. Free Methodists.
51. ^ Balz & Schneider, ‘Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament’ (1990), Liddell, Scott, Jones, & McKenzie, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’ (rev. and augm. throughout, 19996), Brown, ‘New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology’ (1986), Louw & Nida, ‘Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains’ (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition 1996), Zodhiates, ‘The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament’ (electronic ed. 2000), Arndt, Danker, & Bauer (eds.), ‘A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature’ (3rd ed. 2000). Kittel, Bromiley, & Friedrich (eds.), ‘Theological Dictionary of the New Testament’ (1964-).
52. ^ Matthew 19:12
53. ^ Clement of Alexandria: The Stromata, or Miscellanies. Book III, Chapter I. The Gnostic Society Library.
54. ^ McNeill, John J. (2010). Freedom, Glorious Freedom: The Spiritual Journey to the Fullness of Life for Gays, Lesbians, and Everybody Else. Lethe. p. 211. books.google.com/books?id=C0oWZsYv2RIC&pg=PA211.
55. ^ Nissinen, M. (1998) Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. ISBN 0-8006-2985-X.
56. ^ What the New Testament Says about Homosexuality Westar Institute, 2008.
57. ^ Halperin, D. M. (1990) One Hundred Years of Homosexuality. New York: Routledge.
58. ^ Brooten, B. (1998) Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago Series on Sexuality, History & Society). University of Chicago Press.
59. ^ Gagnon, R.B. (2008) The Faulty Orientation Argument of Anglican Archbishop Harper of Ireland. Fulcrum.
    [edit] Notes
60. ^ “Demophon to Ptolemaeus, greeting. Make every effort to send me the flute-player Petoüs with both the Phrygian flutes and the rest; and if any expense is necessary, pay it, and you shall recover it from me. Send me also Zenobius the effeminate μαλακόν] with a drum and cymbals and castanets, for he is wanted by the women for the sacrifice; and let him wear as fine clothes as possible” (“Letter of Demophon to Ptolemaeus” [from mummy wrappings found in the necropolis of El-Hibeh about 245 B.C.], The Hibeh Papyri: Part I, no. 54, 200–201).
61. ^ In classical Greek, μαλακός was also used to refer to boys and men who allowed themselves to be used homosexually. It was also applied to a man taking the female or passive role in homosexuality. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote Roman Antiquities around 7 B.C., described Aristodemus of Cumae as μαλακός because he had been “effeminate” (θηλυδρίας) as a child and had undergone the things associated with women. In classical literature the word μαλακός is sometimes applied to obviously gay persons. Lucian describes the blood of some priests he condemns for passive homosexual behavior as μαλακός. This cannot be dismissed as not indicating anything about the sexuality of the individuals in question. These were priests who spent their time seeking group sexual encounters. While there is some ambiguity with regard to μαλακός, it is not beyond reason to see the word representing the passive parties in homosexual intercourse. This is even more reasonable when it is in juxtaposition with ἀρσενοκοιτής which does imply an active homosexual role. It is interesting that in Aristotle’s Problems, a lengthy discussion of the origins of homosexual passivity, he employs the word μαλακός. In its general sense the word does mean “unrestrained,” but not without any particularly homosexual context (Ukleja, op cit).

The Bible and homosexuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_ … osexuality
Jump to: navigation, search
This article’s citation style may be unclear. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. (March 2011)
Part of a series on
Christianity and
sexual orientation
• Christianity and LGBT
• Christianity and transgenderism

• History of Christianity and LGBT
• The Bible and LGBT
• Queer theology
• Blessing of same-sex unions
• Ordination of LGBT clergy
• LGBT-affirming churches
Denominational positions
• Anglican
• Baptist
• Eastern Orthodox
• LDS Church
• Lutheran
• Methodist
• Presbyterian
• Quaker
• Roman Catholic
• United Church of Christ
• Uniting Church in Australia
• Metropolitan Community Church
• v
• t
• e
The Bible refers to homosexuality several times, but the extent to which it mentions the subject and whether it is condemned, has been interpreted in variously different ways and contexts. Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus prohibit “lying with mankind as with womankind” and the story Sodom and Gomorrah have been interpreted by some social conservatives as condemning homosexuality, as have several Pauline passages. Scholarly debate over the interpretation of these passages has focused on placing them in proper historical context, for instance pointing out that Sodom’s sins are historically interpreted as being other than homosexuality, and on the translation of rare or unusual words in the passages in question. In Religion Dispatches magazine, Candace Chellew-Hodge argues that the six or so verses that are often cited to condemn LGBT people are referring instead to “abusive sex.”[1] She states that the Bible has no condemnation for “loving, committed, gay and lesbian relationships” and that Jesus was silent on the subject.[2]
Both the Jewish Bible and the Christian New Testament contain passages some have interpreted as describing same-sex relationships, for example David and Jonathan or the centurion and his servant; these are also the subject of scholarly debate, with most arguing that the relationships depicted are platonic.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Hebrew Bible
o 1.1 Leviticus 18 and 20
o 1.2 Possible references
• 2 Passages from the New Testament
o 2.1 Romans 1
o 2.2 Other Epistles
o 2.3 Matthew 8; Luke 7
o 2.4 Matthew 19:12
o 2.5 Acts 8
• 3 Interpretations
• 4 See also
• 5 References
• 6 Literature
• 7 External links
o 7.1 Texts and definitions
[edit] Hebrew Bible
Main article: Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible
[edit] Leviticus 18 and 20
Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code, contain the following verses:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[3](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[4](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
The two verses have traditionally been interpreted by many Jews and Christians (including fundamentalists but not exclusive to) as blanket prohibitions against homosexual acts. [5][6]
[edit] Possible references
See also: Sodom and Gomorrah
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis has traditionally been interpreted within Christianity as a punishment for homosexuality due to the interpretation that the men of Sodom wished to rape the angels sent to retrieve Lot. This interpretation became so prevalent that the name Sodom became the basis of the word sodomy, still a legal synonym for homosexual and non-procreative sexual acts, particularly anal sex. However, homosexuality is never clearly identified as the sin for which Sodom was destroyed; in Ezekiel 16:49-50 the specific sin for which Sodom was destroyed is identified as arrogance, apathy towards the poor, and “detestable things”,[7] an interpretation alluded to by Jesus in Matthew 10:14-15 when he tells his disciples that the punishment for houses or towns that will not welcome them will be worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.[8] On the other hand, in Jude 1:7 the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are said to have given themselves “up to sexual immorality and perversion.”[9]
The Hebrew Bible uses the word kedeshah for prostitute. The meaning of the male form kadesh or qadesh is not entirely clear.[10] Some translations imply a male cultic attendant, apparently with some sexual implication.
The account of the friendship between David and Jonathan in the Books of Samuel, depicted by traditional and mainstream religious interpretation as a relationship of platonic love, has been interpreted by some secular writers as being of a sexual nature.[11][12] The story of Ruth and Naomi is also occasionally interpreted in this way.[13]
[edit] Passages from the New Testament
Main article: Homosexuality in the New Testament
[edit] Romans 1
“ (26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) 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. ”
However, it says in verse 27, “In the same way…”, which is a comparative phrase, meaning that the women in verse 26 practiced unnatural relations in the same way that the men in verse 27 did, through homosexuality. This passage is also debated, both in terms of its relevance today and in terms of its actual prohibition.[14] Most Christian denominations maintain that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexuality.[15][16][17][18][19] However, some contend the passage is not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality at all,[20][21][22] and some argue that Paul’s writings must be considered fallible because of his support for slavery and the oppression of women.[23][24][25][26][27]
A more recent interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 has also been explored as well. In Romans 1:26 it starts out saying, “For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women (Romans 1:26-27b).” This passage is talking about heterosexually-orientated men and women, who “gave up,” and “exchanged [their] natural [sexually-orientated] relations” just to self-satisfy, and vent their sexual pressure to the closest, and easiest people around; their own gender. So basically these heterosexually-orientated men just “gave up,” and the heterosexually-orientated women finally decided to “exchange” what seemed natural and just basically said, “Let’s have sex,” without exercising faith in a loving God who would bring them one man and one woman that they could honorably marry. “God gave them up to dishonorable passions,” because these people should have had faith in God that He would bring a wife or a husband to them so that they could “take a wife for himself in holiness and honor (1 Thessalonians 4:4, RSV).” So the righteous and honorable thing for these heterosexual men and women would be to do is to exercise faith that God would bring wives and husbands to them; but these men and women, claiming to be wise, became fools by venting their sexual frustrations on their fellow heterosexual men and women.
[edit] Other Epistles
In the context of the broader immorality of his audience, Paul of Tarsus wrote in the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
“ Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, arsenokoitēs, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)[28]
”
The word arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης) has challenged scholars for centuries, and has been variously rendered as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), “sodomites” (YLT), or “men who practice homosexuality.” Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην [arrhēn / arsēn means “male”, and κοίτην [koitēn] “bed,” with a sexual connotation":[28] Paul’s use of the word in 1 Corinthians is the earliest example of the term; its only other use is in a similar list of wrongdoers given (probably by the same author) in 1 Timothy 1:9–10:
“ Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, arsenokoitēs, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Timothy 1:8–10)
”
Later Christian literature used the word to mean variously prostitution, incest or rape without any single clear meaning – Patriarch John IV of Constantinople, in a passage dealing with coercive and non-procreative sex, speaks of “…many men [who] commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives”.[29] Other scholars have interpreted malakoi and arsenokoitēs as referring to weakness and effeminacy, or to the practice of exploitative pederasty.[30][31]
[edit] Matthew 8; Luke 7
Further information: Homosexuality in the New Testament#Matthew 8; Luke 7: “pais” and Healing the centurion’s servant
In Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, Jesus heals a centurion’s servant who is dying. The Greek term “pais” used for the servant, and the fact that he was “valued highly” by the centurion, have led some commentators to suggest a homosexual relationship between the two, while others disagree that this interpretation is correct.
[edit] Matthew 19:12
In Matthew 19:12, Jesus speaks of eunuchs who were born as such, eunuchs who were made so by others, and eunuchs who choose to live as such for the kingdom of heaven.[32] This passage has been interpreted as having to do with homosexual orientation; Clement of Alexandria, for instance, wrote in his commentary on it that some men, from birth, are naturally averse to women and should not marry.[33]
[edit] Acts 8
Main article: Ethiopian eunuch
The Ethiopian eunuch, an early gentile convert encountered in Acts 8, has been described as an early gay Christian, based on the fact that the word “eunuch” in the Bible was not always used literally, as in Matthew 19:12.[34][35] Commentators generally suggest that the combination of “eunuch” together with the title “court official” indicates a literal eunuch - not a homosexual - who would have been excluded from the Temple by the restriction in Deuteronomy 23:1.[36][37]
[edit] Interpretations
Scholarly debate over the interpretation of these passages has focused on placing them in proper historical context, for instance pointing out that Sodom’s sins are historically interpreted as being other than homosexuality, and on the translation of rare or unusual words in the passages in question. Both the Jewish Bible and the New Testament also contain passages some have interpreted as describing same-sex relationships, for example David and Jonathan or the centurion and his servant; these are likewise the subject of scholarly debate, with most arguing that the relationships depicted are platonic.
Some biblical references on this subject are debated depending on one’s school of theology. The historical grammatical method is a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. Thus references to historical Biblical culture may or may not be relevant to other societies. What is believed to be a timeless truth to one person or denomination may be considered a cultural norm or minor opinion to another.[38]

[Sobornost]

The wiki article on David and Jonathan seems especially thorough, balanced and well sourced. You can view the original (with footnotes and citations) at -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_ … oeroticism

Here are the relevant bits for you to scan
A platonic interpretation for the relationship between David and Jonathan has been the mainstream view found in biblical exegesis, as led by Jewish and Christian writers. This argues that the relationship between the two, although strong and close, is ultimately a platonic friendship. The covenant that is made is political, and not erotic; while any intimacy is a case of male bonding and homosociality.

David and Jonathan’s love is understood as the intimate camaraderie between two young soldiers with no sexual involvement.[16][17] The books of Samuel do not actually document physical intimacy between the two characters aside from “kissing,”[18] while missing are euphemisms the Bible uses for sexual relations, and nothing indicates that David and Jonathan slept together. Neither of the men are described as having problems in their heterosexual married life. David had an abundance of wives and concubines as well as an adulterous affair with Bathsheba, and apparently suffered impotence only as an old man, while Jonathan had a five year-old son at his death.[19]

In response to the argument that homoeroticism was edited out, some traditionalists who subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis note the significance of the lack of censoring of the descriptions at issue, in spite of the Levitical injunctions against homoerotic contact. Gagnon notes, “The narrator’s willingness to speak of David’s vigorous heterosexual life (compare the relationship with Bathsheba) puts in stark relief his (their) complete silence about any sexual activity between David and Jonathan.”[20]

Presuming such editing would have taken place, Martti Nissinen comments, “Their mutual love was certainly regarded by the editors as faithful and passionate, but without unseemly allusions to forbidden practices … Emotional and even physical closeness of two males did not seem to concern the editors of the story, nor was such a relationship prohibited by Leviticus.” Homosociality is not seen as being part of the sexual taboo in the biblical world.[21]

Medieval and Renaissance allusions

Medieval literature occasionally drew upon the Biblical relationship between David and Jonathan to underline strong personal and intimate friendships between men. The story has also frequently been used as a coded reference to homoerotic relations when the mention was socially discouraged or even punished.

The anonymous Life of Edward II, ca. 1326 AD, wrote: “Indeed I do remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David, Achilles loved Patroclus.” We are also told that King Edward II wept for his dead lover Piers Gaveston as: “… David had mourned for Jonathan.” Similarly, Roger of Hoveden, a twelfth century chronicler, deliberately drew comparisons in his description of “The King of France (Philip II Augustus) [who] loved him (Richard the Lionheart) as his own soul.”

Both the Renaissance artists Donatello and Michelangelo brought out strong homoerotic elements in their respective sculptures depicting the youthful David.[22]

Abraham Cowley’s Davideis (1656) as an epic poem deals abundantly with the friendship motif. George Frederic Handel’s oratorio Saul (1739) contains a setting of David’s lament upon the death of Jonathan.
Some modern scholars and writers have interpreted the love between David and Jonathan as more intimate than platonic friendship. This was first pioneered by Horner, then rehearsed by Boswell and Halperin.[23][24] This interpretation views the bonds the men shared as romantic love, regardless of whether or not the relationship was physically consummated. Jonathan and David cared deeply about each other in a way that was arguably more tender and intimate than a platonic friendship.

David’s praise in 2 Samuel 1:26 for Jonathan’s ‘love’ (for him) over the ‘love’ of women is considered evidence for same-sex attraction, along with Saul’s exclamation to his son at the dinner table, “I know you have chosen the son of Jesse - which is a disgrace to yourself and the nakedness of your mother!” The “choosing” (bahar) may indicate a permanent choice and firm relationship, and the mention of “nakedness” (erwa) could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, giving the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan’s and David’s relationship.[25]

Some also point out that the relationship between the two men is addressed with the same words and emphasis as other love relationships in the Hebrew Testament, whether heterosexual or between God and people: e.g. ‘ahava’ or אהבה.‎[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]

When they are alone together, David confides that he has “found grace in Jonathan’s eyes”, a phrase proponents say normally refers to romantic or physical attraction. Throughout the passages, David and Jonathan consistently affirm and reaffirm their love and devotion to one another, and Jonathan is willing to betray his father, family, wealth, and traditions for David.

That there is more than mere homosociality in the dealings of David and Jonathan is asserted by two recent studies: the Biblical scholar Susan Ackerman,[34] and the Orientalist Jean-Fabrice Nardelli.[35] Ackerman and Nardelli argue that the narrators of the books of Samuel encrypted same-sex allusions in the texts where David and Jonathan interact so as to insinuate that the two heroes were lovers. Ackerman explains this as a case of liminal, viz. transitory, homosexuality, deployed by the redactors as a textual means to assert David’s rights against Jonathan’s: the latter willingly alienated his princely status by bowing down, sexually speaking, to the former. Nardelli disagrees and argues that the various covenants Jonathan engaged David into as the superior partner gradually elevated David’s status and may be seen as marriage-like.

Susan Ackerman also believes that there is highly eroticized language present in six different sections in the Hebrew Bible in regards to the relationship of David and Jonathan.[36] The six sections she mentions are 1) David and Jonathan’s first meeting in 1 Sam. 18:1-18:4 2) the most important description of David and Jonathan’s first few meetings in 1 Sam 19:1-19:7. 3) the incident of Saul berating Jonathan for his friendship with David in 1 Sam 20:30-20:34 4) David fleeing from the court of King Saul in 1 Sam. 20:1-20:42 5) the description of David and Jonathan’s final meeting in 1 Sam. 23:15-23:18 and 6) David’s lament (the Song of the Bow) for Saul and Jonathan. Of these six examples, Ackerman identifies the most important example being the last one (the Song of the Bow) due to David’s assertion that Jonathan’s love to David “was more wonderful than the love of women”.[36]

Although David was married, David himself articulates a distinction between his relationship with Jonathan and the bonds he shares with women. David is married to many women, one of whom is Jonathan’s sister Michal, but the Bible does not mention David loving Michal (though it is stated that Michal loves David).

Counter-arguments

Other interpreters point out that neither the books of Samuel nor Jewish tradition documents sanctioned romantic or erotic physical intimacy between the two characters, which the Bible elsewhere makes evident when between heterosexuals, most supremely in the Song of Solomon. It is also known that covenants were common, and that marriage was a public event and included customs not seen in this story.[37][38]

The platonic interpretation of David and Jonathan’s relationship is advocated by Robert A. J. Gagnon[39] and the Assyriologist Markus Zehnder[40] and is consistent with commonly held theological views condemning same sex relations.[41]

The removal of the robe is seen as a ceremonial act following the precedent of Aaron, of whom God commanded, “And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son”,[42] in transference of the office of the former upon the latter. In like manner, Jonathan would be symbolically and prophetically transferring the kingship of himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would come to pass.[43][44][45]

Even if the mention of “nakedness” in 1 Samuel 20:30 could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, it is related to Jonathan’s mother Ahinoam rather than Jonathan (“to the shame of the nakedness of your mother”). Jon Levenson and Baruch Halpern suggest that the phrase suggests “David’s theft of Saul’s wife”, and that the verse supports the construction that Ahinoam, the wife of Saul is the same Ahinoam who became David’s wife.[46]

These interpreters also argue that the description in 2 Samuel 1:26 of the “love” (Hebrew: “ahava”) between David and Jonathan that is greater than the “love of women” should be understood in light of the two earlier mentions of “love” (ahava) between David and Jonathan where it is described not as love for a romantic partner but love for self (“he loved him as his own soul,” 1 Sam 18:3; 20:17).

Furthermore, the phrase “David has found grace in Jonathan’s eyes,” mentioned above, is not normally a reference to romantic or physical attraction, since in 45 of the 46 other occurrences it refers to finding grace either in the eyes of God,[47] of a ruler or wealthy landowner,[48] of a close relative,[49] of the father of a potential bride,[50] or of a nation.[51] The only occurrence where the phrase is used of lovers is a wife no longer finding grace in the eyes of her husband, not because he no longer finds her physically attractive but because he has “found some indecency in her” (Deuteronomy 24:1).[52]

In platonic respects, such as in sacrificial loyalty and zeal for the kingdom, Jonathan’s love is seen as surpassing that of romantic or erotic affection,[53] especially that of the women David had known up until that time. The grammatical and social difficulties are pointed out in respect to 1 Samuel 18:21,[54] as well as the marked difference in the Bible between sensual kissing (as in Song of Songs) and the cultural kiss of Near Eastern culture whether in greeting or as expression of deep affection between friends and family (as found throughout the Old and New Testaments).[55] The strong emotive language expressed by David towards Jonathan is also argued to be akin to that of platonic expressions in more expressive or pre-urban cultures.[56]

[edit] Literature and legacy

David, Michelangelo, 1500-1504.
At his 1895 trial, Oscar Wilde cited the example of David and Jonathan in support of “the love that dare not speak its name”: Such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare.[57]

Contemporary American literature also show attempts at fictionalisation of the David narrative. Gladys Schmitt’s 1946 novel David the King took a risk, especially for its time, in portraying David’s relationship with Jonathan as overtly homoerotic, but was ultimately panned by critics as a bland rendition of the title character.

In Thomas Burnett Swann’s Biblical fantasy novel How are the Mighty Fallen (1974) David and Jonathan are explicitly stated to be lovers. Moreover, Jonathan is a member of a winged semi-human race (possibly nephilim), one of several such races co-existing with humanity but often persecuted by it.

The erotics of the battle between David and Goliath feature in Richard Howard’s poem ''The Giant on Giant Killing" in his book Fellow Feelings (1976).

Wallace Hamilton declared to be faithful to the Bible texts in his exploration of the love triangle between Saul, David and Jonathan (David at Olivet, 1979).

Allan Massie wrote “King David” (1995), a novel about David’s career which portrays the king’s relationship to Jonathan and others as openly homosexual.

In modern times, in his Lambeth essay of December 2007, James Jones the Bishop of Liverpool, drew particular attention to the relationship between David and Jonathan,[58] describing their friendship as:

…emotional, spiritual and even physical. There was between them a deep emotional bond that left David grief-stricken when Jonathan died. But not only were they emotionally bound to each other they expressed their love physically. Jonathan stripped off his clothes and dressed David in his own robe and armour. With the candour of the Eastern World that exposes the reserve of Western culture they kissed each other and wept openly with each other. This intimate relationship was sealed before God - it was not just a spiritual bond it became covenantal. He concludes by affirming: Here is the Bible bearing witness to love between two people of the same gender

Nissinen has concluded:[59]

Perhaps these homosocial relationships, based on love and equality, are more comparable with modern homosexual people’s experience of themselves than those texts that explicity speak of homosexual acts that are aggressive, violent expressions of domination and subjection.

Rachel Caine’s Weather Warden series includes two Djinn named David and Jonathan. In flashback, the two are shown fighting in a battle as humans. When mortally wounded, Jonathan is transformed by the Earth into a Djinn, and he encompasses David in this transformation. At the beginning of the series, Jonathan is the more powerful of the two and the leader of the Djinn, with David as the second in command. This represents a reversal of their Biblical roles.

In the short-lived TV series Kings, a semi-modern update on David’s story, Michelle (the equivalent of Michal) and David are in love, though Jonathan is explicitly homosexual and his feelings towards David are complicated.

[Bret_Belko]

Hi again Prof,

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for postings these articles. You see, IF I did such a thing, it could be mistaken for me having a “gay agenda,” thereby disqualifying what one might learn from these postings. Sad, but true. So again, thank you so much and I have learned a ton by reading this material. This is stuff I have NOT allowed myself to think or to go down that road. I think it’s because I had “accepted” the idea that as a gay man, I was less than, therfore, why even try to defend something that folks do NOT understand. If one wants to KNOW about REAL love, put yourselves in Stephen’s place (my partner) for a day. What he does for me is nothing short of love… and even though he does NOT believe in God, where would his devoted and undying love come from if not God? Steph is a perfact example of love to me, through my illness, he sees me for who I really am/was and now has CHOSEN to stick by me in “sickness and health, until death do us part.” No, we have never been allowed to exchange those vows in public, but after 19 years, I can safely say we are in this for the long haul.

Thanks Prof, you da’ man!

Love,
Bret

[Sobornost]

Hi Bret – of course it’s the truth you speak and nothing but the truth. And I note that it is very telling that despite all of the anxieties you are feeling your main concern is that other Christian realise that what your partner has with you is real love. To care and to persist in caring in sickness and in health is real love – if people were to put this in their ‘unnatural’ box they should realise, in my view, that it is only ‘unnatural’ because it is within the economy of grace that completes and fulfils creation.
I hold you both in my thoughts and prayers. Its bens me time since I’ve actually worried about the Biblical issues regarding same sex partnerships. Bob (Wilson) is right – what changed my view – once muddled and prejudiced – was not biblical ‘exegesis’ (groovy word!!!); it was knowing that when gay people accepted their sexuality they appeared whole and healed, gay partnership could be intimate places of care and sacrificial love, gay cure therapies wrecked people, vociferously anti-gay Christians showed all the symptoms of acute pharisaism, and that homophobia had all of the characteristic of scapegoating violence.

The biblical issues are important however, especially to evangelical Christians – so I’m only too happy to find stuff to stimulate debate. And people should note that it is quite hard/impossible to find hard line conservative materials that try to be even handed about the debate. Merely to suggest that there is a debate to be had is a movement away from a hard line stance. The thing I like, for example, about the two wiki articles I’ve posted here is that they do try to be fairly even handed; and people can always look to the footnotes and bibliographies (and/or google some of the conservative scholars that are mentioned if they wish).

Blessings

Dick