Dr. Haller wrote:

"The need on the part of some with a particular agenda to broaden the scope of Leviticus’ admitted condemnation of male-male sexuality among Jews in the Holy Land (as the leading scholar in the field of Leviticus, Jacob Milgrom, accurately describes it) into a timeless moral requirement binding forever on all humanity (including, apparently, women, significantly missing from the Levitical text)"

I think this is something of a mischaracterization. The orthodox argument is not burdened with the task of carrying the levitical prohibitions forward into the New Covenant. That has been done for us.

Our position is that the "some" who have brought these prohibitions forward include Jesus in Mark 7, St. Paul in Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6:9 and the early church in Acts 15.

Moreover, while the levitical text specifically identifies male homosexual behavior, Paul includes both male and female same sex behavior as symptomatic of our fallen nature in Romans 1.

Dear Matt,

I do understand your position, and your assertion of linkage between Mark 7, Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6:9 and Acts 15 to Leviticus 18. The problem is that this linkage is not self-evident. What "proof" do you have that this was the text Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles had in mind, other than your assertion. I have shown in the essay that there is no verbal connection between Acts and Mark and Leviticus 18. (I didn't mention Romans in this regard, nor 1 Cor, and the case for a linkage is somewhat better there, and I will say a bit more below.)

But how do you prove any of these links? It is no use simply cataloguing all of those who agree with your position, as if that constituted proof. As Hooker so clearly said, "Even such as are readiest to cite for one thing five hundred sentences of holy Scripture; what warrant have they, that any one of them doth mean the thing for which it is alleged? Is not their surest ground most commonly, either some probable conjecture of their own, or the judgment of others taking those Scriptures as they do?" (Laws, II.7.8)

This is precisely the hermeneutical dilemma in which we find ourselves. You claim that the citations you give "bring forward" into the New Testament a specific law from the Old. I would welcome seeing your evidence: though I've seen most of the arguments along these lines before.

Let me review: I would agree that Romans 1 may have some relevance to Lev 18, in that it contains a clear condemnation of male same-sex activity in connection with idolatry -- which is the significance of to'evah in Leviticus. This behavior is forbidden to Jews precisely because of its connection with Gentiles and their practices; and this relates to Paul's condemnation of the disordered life of Gentiles in Romans 1. But it should be clear that the disordered life of idolatry is not what is at issue in our present concerns addressing faithful, monogamous same-sex relationships between Christians.

To address at greater length the reliance on porneia in Mark and Acts -- there is no concrete evidence that any 1st century person would have connected same-sex sex (whether they approved of it or not) with porneia. Similarly efforts to relate arsenokoitai to Lev 18, are not as clear as it might seem. See, for instance, the common attempt to derive this rare word from Lev 18:22 on the basis that the two root words appear together. But they don't come together grammatically in Leviticus; they are in two different phrases. (The same is true in the Hebrew original.) The verse in question refers to koiten gunaikos (bedding of a woman, "beddings" -- that is, plural, in Hebrew). If you want to find a grammatically compelling source for arsenokoitai a better selection of verses is Numbers 31:17,18,35; where you actually have koiten arsenos / andros in a meaningful grammatical structure. The meaning here is, "one who knows a man by bedding him" and is referring to women. I am not suggesting that arsenokoitai could not well include men who sleep with men, but suggest that the range of meaning might be broader and include women who sleep with men (but who are not married to them, i.e., "loose women") as well. Indeed, when taken in conjunction with the following word, malakoi the idea of "looseness" is emphasized. Is not Paul's concern a life of license and disorder? It seems a massive stretch to extend this word to cover life-long same-sex relationships. It may even be a stretch to apply it to boy prostitutes, as is commonly done, since it might also refer to effeminacy, or weakness either of body or will. In any case both terms lack any hint of a longterm or loving relationship, and it appears, on the basis of context, rather to refer to licentiousness. "looseness" or 'sleeping around' -- in keeping with the rest of the vice list in which these words appear, summing up again (as in Romans) a vision of disorder.

Further, you make the claim that Paul "includes ... female same-sex behavior as symptomatic of our fallen nature in Romans 1." This is arguable, and indeed has been argued in the literature. But the text itself is by no means clear (another instance of the failure of "sola Scriptura" -- and hence, the argument). Augustine, for example, believed this text referred to women engaging in non-procreative sex with their husbands. He takes "natural use" to mean that which leads to generation; and so notes, "As regards any part of the body which is not meant for generative purposes, should a man use even his own wife in it, it is agaisnt nature and flagitious. Indeed, the same apostle had previously said, concerning women, 'Even their women did change the natural use... etc.'" (On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.20) I realize there are other early teachers who disagree with Augustine on this, and later scholars go one way or the other. But that just "prooves" the matter isn't settled.

So it is that we areback where we started. The Scripture is not "clear" in its condemnation of life-long committed same-sex relationships (except perhaps between Jewish males in the Holy Land); and there is no "proof" that lesbianism is covered in Scripture at all -- without going outside of Scripture to some external interpretative authority.

Matt, I know you are an ardent defender of Scripture, but I hope you see the large role that such interpretative authority must play, whichever side of the argument one wishes to take. As I said above, if the Scripture were entirely clear on the applicability of these texts to our present dilemma, life would be much easier and there would be no need for discussion. I accept that you take a certain view, and I do understand it. But I and many others do not regard it as "proof" -- and as I have noted in another context, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.

And, by the way, I'm not a Doctor. I'm a simple M.Div, with no ambition to any higher attainment along academic lines.

All blessings now and through the coming year.

Tobias+

Tobias+,

Thanks for responding. I think Romans 1 is the key text here. Paul links homosexuality not to the original turning away of humanity from God. Of course, any turning away involves idolatry and Paul, I agree, in the first part of the text is specifically referring to the sort of idolatry found among gentiles. However, homosexuality comes into the mix as an extreme example of the result of God's wrath. The gentiles turned away and so God gave them over to...and then he lists homosexual behaviors.

What is key here is to recognize that Paul goes on to list a large number of behaviors and character traits: Greed, malice, etc..that also resulted from God's "giving over" of the gentiles.

In all of this, and I think you will agree, he's setting a trap for his Jewish readers. They will be reading along nodding their heads at the dirty sins of the gentiles. By the time Paul turns to Greed etc...they might be getting a little uncomfortable.

And then just at the right moment, he turns the tables and includes not only the Gentiles but the Jews as well as among those who "do the same things..."

So then this forces the Jew to look back at the beginning, the run up from verse 18-32 and realise that Paul was speaking not only about Gentiles, but all human beings...a point he drives home in Romans 3:10-18.

So how does Paul employ homosexual behavior here? It is a general ramification or result of God's giving humanity over to their own desires to the point that these rebellios desires have come to characterize our very nature.

We were not created to be greedy, malicious, or to engage in homosexual behavior, but because our hearts have become darkened these things are a part of our nature.

As Dr. Gagnon says, and I think says well, were Paul to study the latest findings with regard to biological/genetic predispostions toward same sex behavior, he would not be suprised. Of course we are by nature drawn to do what we ought not to do. Our nature has fallen.

AS for the question of porneia, NT Wright points out, and I'll have to find the reference, that it was not an arbitrary decision to link porniea to leviticus 18. Rabbinical literature in the 2nd century used "porniea" as a gloss for the levitical sexual code. The word, in other words, is specifically tied to leviticus `8.

Furthermore, I do not think it plausible to suggest that a first century rabbi would have understood homosexual behavior as anything but lawless and forbidden. The suggestion that homosexual behavior would be excluded from the prohibition in Acts 15 or Mark 7 (Matt 15) cuts against everything we know about 1st century Judaism.

As for 1st Cor 6:9

here is a section from an article I wrote earlier

Here is the section:

In 1st Corinthians 6:9-11, St. Paul again turns to the subject of homosexuality and includes homosexual behaviors in a list of behaviors considered characteristic of people who “do not inherit the Kingdom of God” (see above). Some revisionist scholars have questioned whether the Greek words Paul uses here are intended to indicate all homosexual activity or whether St. Paul is addressing specifically male prostitution, in which case, they argue, this passage cannot apply to the monogamous homosexual relationships of today. Given Paul's very clear and strong condemnation of homosexual behavior in general in Romans 1, the argument over 1 Cor 6:9 is not all that crucial because we know that Paul condemned the homosexual act in general whether paid for or not.

But just to play along with the argument, let me note that the most common ways the two Greek words in question here, “Malakoi” and “Arsenokoitai,” were used demonstrate that Paul almost beyond a doubt was referring to male homosexual relations. “Malakos” refers most often to a male who is “soft” or effeminate, or passive. In the context of sexuality it was used most commonly to refer to the passive partner in a male homosexual erotic relationship. Some have argued that it refers specifically to young male prostitutes who take on the role of the female in bed, but there is another much more common word for these people, “kinaidos.” So, it's more likely, given the plain sense of the word “malakos” and the fact that there was a more common word available—“kinaidos”—that Paul was simply referring to the passive sexual partner in male homosexual intercourse, and the identification of these people as male prostitutes is incorrect.

“Arsenokoites,” the second word, means “one who lies with a male in a male homosexual erotic relationship.” This word as it was most commonly used in the context of sexual relations refers “in general” to any male who plays the role of the male in bed with another male, be he with a prostitute or with a lover.

The interesting thing about this word, as Richard Hays notes in his Moral Vision of the New Testament, is that coming from a learned Jew like Paul, “arsenokoites” would likely represent an allusion to the Greek text of Leviticus 20:13 “meta arsenos koiten gynaikos,” “arsenokoites” being a compound of “arsen” (male) “and koiten” (intercourse). The compound word, “arsenokoites” is in fact not known in Greek literature prior to the NT. For that reason Hays believes Paul likely created it in reference to Leviticus 20. The significance of this, of course, is that Paul understood the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality to be morally binding on the church beyond the context of ritual purity. Most likely these two words taken together represent a blanket condemnation of both the passive and assertive forms of male homosexual behavior. This passage, therefore, represents another explicit NT condemnation of homosexual behavior without regard to cultural or relational context. ( Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker Greek Lexicon of the NT and other Early Christian Literature )

I've posted a pair of long responses to Matt's comments here, which he also posted at my blog; as well as a long comment from Dr Null, and my reflections in response to it. I suggest looking there for further dialogue on this.

Tobias"
http://jintoku.blogspot.com/2007/01/leviticus-and-anglican-deformation.html