User:Mitm0412/Homosexuality in the New Testament

In quotes: orignal article

Bold text: edits made by me

Article Draft

Lead

'There are at least three passages that refer to non-heterosexual sexual intercourse in the New Testament (NT), all of which are found in the Pauline epistles: Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10. A fourth passage, found in Jude 1:7, is often interpreted as referring to homosexuality. In the synoptic Gospels, Jesus discusses marriage only in a heterosexual context when he cites the Book of Genesis during a discussion of marriage (Mark 10:6–9 and Matthew 19:4–6)."

" The references to homosexuality same- sex relationships itself in the New Testament hinge on the interpretation of three specific Koine Greek terms: arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης), malakos (μαλακός), and porneia (πορνεία) along with its cognates. While it is not disputed that the three Greek words apply to sexual relations between men (and possibly between women), Females themselves are the subjects of v.26 and male homoeroticism follows in v.27. There is no direct mention of female homoeroticism and is an assumption based on the rest of the text. some academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while some scholars hold the historical position that these passages forbid all same sex sexual acts and relationships." The forbidding of all same sex sexual acts and relationships is upheld through a historical position. However, relevant passages can be interpreted as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality.

Romans 1:26-27

Saint Paul writing his Epistles

Epistle to the Romans 1:26–27 (English Majority Text Version, EMTV):

For this reason [viz. 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.

The context is Paul's mission to the gentiles, the gospel being "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (1:16), followed by a description of pagan idolatry in verses 1:21–25. The phrase "passions of dishonor" (KJV: "vile affections") translates πάθη ἀτιμίας, ἀτιμία 'atimia'meaning "dishonour, ignominy, disgrace". In the expressions "natural use" and "contrary to nature", "nature" translates φύσις, i.e. Physis. The term "error" translates πλάνη, 'planē' (lit. "straying, wandering").

The authenticity of the passage is in doubt; scholars and theologians have proposed its being part of a larger non-Pauline interpolation. David Aune says Paul is taking a protreptic approach, meaning that Paul taught on homoeroticism orally and then consolidated these views into written text in order to bring people to the gospel. Furthermore, many contend 1:18-32 represents not Paul's own position but his summary of Hellenistic Jewish legalism. Calvin Porter, for example, concludes that "in 2:1-16, as well as through Romans as a whole, Paul, as part of his gentile mission, challenges, argues against, and refutes both the content of the discourse [of 1.18-32] and the practice of using such discourses. They are ideas which obstruct Paul's gentile mission theology and practice."

Natural law

The authors of the New Testament had their roots in the Jewish tradition, which is commonly interpreted as prohibiting homosexuality. A more conservative biblical interpretation contends "the most authentic reading of [Romans] 1:26-27 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".

Several early church writers^[who?] state that Romans 1:26b is a condemnation of men having unnatural sex with women. Underlying Paul's thinking is Genesis 2:22-24, "The Lord God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman. When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; ...That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body." For Paul, God's intended order is for male and female sexual relationships, united in marriage. Unnatural law is also related to who is being penetrated. Plato argues that homosexual penetration disrupts the hierarchy of men on top and women being mounted. That is what he saw as natural, and therefore same sex relationships were unnatural.

The passage has been described by David Hilborn of the Evangelical Alliance as "the most important biblical reference for the homosexuality debate". In common with many traditional commentators, Hilborn 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.

Yale University professor John Boswell (1980) speculated that the text does not condemn "homosexual acts by homosexuals", but rather "homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons".^{[page needed]} Boswell argues that the conceptual modality (natural laws) which would provide the basis for the condemnation of homosexuality did not exist prior to the Enlightenment era. 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. Thielicke relates Paul's teachings to the fall of mankind, where no sin in greater than the other.

John J. McNeill (1993) also invokes "heterosexuals" who "abandoned heterosexuality" or "exchanged heterosexuality for homosexuality". Joe Dallas (1996), opposing what he saw as "pro-gay theology" behind such interpretations, contended that the apostle Paul is condemning changing "the natural use into that which is against nature" (Romans 1:26-27), and to suggest that Paul is referring to "heterosexuals indulging in homosexual behavior requires unreasonable mental gymnastics".

Idolatrous practices

Paul, using Jewish narratives about idolatry follows the narrative that humans have always known God and they willingly turned to idolatry, including sexual deviance. Jeramy Townsley goes on to specify the context of Romans 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 Romans 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 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. Brooten notes that the idea of sexual acts between women were disapproved by pagan gods as well, noting that Isis turned Iphis into a male to cure "monstrous" love between Iphis and Ianthe, meaning gentile sin in pagan idol worship can not be directly linked to same-sex love. Mona West argues that Paul is condemning specific types of homosexual activity (such as temple prostitution or pederasty) rather than a broader interpretation. 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).

Female homosexuality[edit]

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". This is the only known specific reference in the Bible to female homosexuality. 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.

"Unnatural" intercourse between women can also link to the passive-active role that was present in Roman culture. A female acting as a penetrator or a male acting as the penetrated would unhinge the standards of masculinity and femininity at the time.

While Paul does not explicitly address female same-sex relationships, Harper suggest that his silence speaks for itself and that Romans holds unspoken prejudice about the passive partner.

Brooten cites both Anastasios and Augustine as explicitly rejecting the 'lesbian hypothesis' (p. 337). Hanks asserts that "not until John Chrysostom (ca 400 CE) does anyone (mis)interpret Romans 1:26 as referring to relations between two women" (p. 90).Townsley notes that other early writers, possibly including Chrysostom, reject the 'lesbian' hypothesis, specifically, Ambrosiaster, Didymus the Blind and Clement of Alexandria.