Episode Transcript
Carey Griffel: Welcome to Genesis Marks the Spot, where we raid the ivory tower of biblical theology without ransacking our faith. My name is Carey Griffel, and this is, technically, a continuation of my marriage series, but today we're going to work to answer the initial question that launched this series, now that I've built up what I think is a good foundation for looking at things. So this is once again an episode you might not want to listen to with kids around. So just a warning there.
[00:00:41] The question that I got was pretty specific. So hopefully I'll be able to get to all of the parts of it. But at any rate, we're going to talk about homosexuality today. And because I really started this series for this purpose, I'm going to try to bring together some of what I've already said, because I think it would be fair to not have to listen to all four of the previous episodes necessarily. But you can maybe listen to this one and then go back to the other ones for more details. So there's going to be some repetition. But there's also going to be new data because I haven't discussed homosexuality itself yet and the terminology of fornication and some things like this.
[00:01:25] Now, some people might say that getting too particular in our definitions of the terms might provide some loopholes for people, we might say. But my response to that is that we need to build biblical imaginations, not in order to set up this new system of legality, where we're creating some new definitions and boundaries in order to create "gotcha" moments for people who are doing something we don't like, but rather, we need biblical imaginations so that we can understand what wholeness is supposed to be, what it means, what it ideally looks like, but also with the realization that we live in the real world where things are not yet idealized. I think we need to see how it has actually historically looked like to care for others in the best possible way in the real world.
[00:02:22] We need not a new set of nitpicky laws, but rather the mindset of wholeness and flourishing that the Bible presents to us. And once we have that as part of our imaginations, hopefully it becomes less a set of laws to be stringently adhered to and more a question of how do we help others with where they are at.
[00:02:46] And yes, I realize that the way I said that means that different people could take that different ways potentially, but to that I would say, be honest with your motivations, and be honest with looking at the themes of Scripture and how those set up what it means to be fruitful and multiply and to have dominion and care for one another. And also know that this is a process, and we live in an imperfect world, and God surely understands that.
[00:03:19] Okay, so one thing you might notice in all of this is that I haven't really given as many resources as you might expect. And it's not that there aren't good resources out there, because there's plenty. But the thing is, really, the modern discussion on these things tends to be couched in these ways that I really think are pretty seated in the modern day discussion. And that's not necessarily bad, I'm just talking about how we've now turned the alphabetic designations to our own use. And there's now a side A, and a side B, and a side X, and a side Y, and frankly, I'm just not going to wade into all of that.
[00:04:06] In a sense, I kind of don't even care, and a lot of that feels like infighting that shouldn't be going on, and people who just want to make general determinations that maybe it's not really their place to do that. Remember what I said about making new nitpicky laws that we are expecting people to fit into?
[00:04:26] But really, I'm also not trying to put down those people who are trying to address these complex issues. I just personally, from my own perspective, choose not to delve into the whole this side or that side type of debate.
[00:04:43] It feels like denominationalism to me, and while sides and denominations don't have to be bad, they're also coming at it from a later construct dealing with their own issues, and those just aren't places that I'm at. They can be helpful, maybe they're right, but I don't care to pick sides in that way.
[00:05:05] So, I'm not addressing this by trying to step into the modern conversation, though I will say that there has been helpful things in some of that. I'm not discouraging you from listening to those voices, but I think to really examine them well, we first need to have the ancient context in our heads. That's the best way to start out. And if you haven't started there, and you're already in the thick of things, well, it's not too late to go back to the text and start there and move forward.
[00:05:39] And last time, I did make a suggestion that it's even the case that the church maybe went a particular direction with views on sexuality and desire that are primarily taking the New Testament into account rather than seeing the Old Testament into the New Testament.
[00:05:57] And I'm not trying to judge the direction of the church, I'm just trying to point it out and you can do what you want with that. I have no solid data for this, but I do have an idea as to why. You see, the early, predominantly Jewish culture came out of worship practices like the synagogues.
[00:06:17] And those synagogues would have readings from Torah and the prophets. So Jewish Christians would have Torah deeply embedded into them. But what happened when the church became spread about? Well, we know as Paul was going around, he was still going into the synagogues, of course. But the more the church grew, the more Gentiles were being added into the church, and the less Jewish the church was.
[00:06:44] That means that people didn't have the same context in their heads when they became Christian. And we also know that not everyone had the same texts as they were being spread about. So, it got to the point that most Christians were not raised up knowing Torah. So, again, I have no information on how much Torah the so called Gentile Church had access to, but we can sure presume that after some time, in many places, they did not have anything that looked like a complete Old Testament. Not until we had codexes, and even then, not everyone would have access to those.
[00:07:26] So, we have a church that was more and more disconnected from the text of the Torah, at least for a time and in places. And because the core message of Christ would be foundational to the church, and Jesus fulfilled the Torah, so it's not as bad as it sounds, and I'm not trying to criticize the circumstances, but this, to me, seems like the explanation for why the early church has people who are wondering why women aren't being held accountable, so to speak. It's like, well, okay, read the Old Testament if you think that. But really, if you only had the New Testament, it might sound like men are primarily being chastised and women get off the hook. So you have homilies where they feel the need to point out, with no accompanying scripture that, you know, women have issues of their own. It's because they're not seeing why the New Testament says the things it does. It's not trying to be focused on one's sex. The New Testament is actually trying to balance out the predominance of women's sexual offenses in Torah law.
[00:08:36] So, it's just interesting, if the early church was primarily reading the New Testament, you could see how they didn't see that in the Old Testament it was actually primarily the women who are being targeted, you might say. So, it's not like there's nothing we can say for both sexes in all of this. When you have both Testaments, it's clear that men and women have responsibilities. I just think it's interesting, and it highlights why we see the interpretations of passages like Matthew 5 in the early church.
[00:09:09] Okay, but let's get into our specific question for today. I got this from a listener, and I'm going to read part of it, but before I do, I want it clear that I'm just going to be offering some perspective on this, and I'm not trying to say that I have a definitive answer, which I most certainly do not.
[00:09:29] But the question is, quote, When Paul says, when those who engage in specific activities, homosexuality, drunkenness, thievery, etc., will not inherit the kingdom of God, does that really mean that they won't join Jesus in eternity and will be cast into the fire? Or does that mean that they won't experience the fullness of the kingdom of God to the extent that it's available during this life? I have heard both, and I'm not sure how to figure out the answer. In the Faithlife Commentary on Logos, it says the kingdom refers to both present and future. It lists 1 Corinthians 6 9 as talking about the future kingdom, but also says to see the note on 1 Corinthians 4 20, which says it's the kingdom we are blessed with now, being delivered from the powers of darkness. So it basically says both. Any advice on where to go next? Or is it just both present and future kingdom? End quote.
[00:10:37] Okay, so I just, I love how this question is phrased and put into this really real textual position here. And it's connecting what we're looking at and what we're talking about here to the kingdom of God. And that's really a very good direction to go. And of course, I do have the position of the already, but not yet as far as the kingdom of God goes. But we're going to get into some specifics here. First, we need to talk about the sin list of 1 Corinthians 6, 9, and we're going to define terms and we'll talk about what it means to have these lists of sins. And does it mean that anyone practicing these specific things is going to be cut off, not saved, thrown into the lake of fire or what have you.
[00:11:25] Now, I haven't actually studied much Greek, so I will be reading from commentaries quite extensively in this episode, and I can also recommend a YouTube video by Mark Ward that I will be linking in the show notes. So hopefully that will be helpful, but be aware that he is very forthright and uses some strong language in it. Now, of course, there does often tend to be a desire to really look carefully at the language in the New Testament and try to find ways around what the church has traditionally said, or find loopholes, as I said earlier. So it is important to get some information from good Greek scholars on this.
[00:12:07] So here's this passage in 1 Corinthians 6 verses 9 through 10. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. End quote.
[00:12:41] This list is not unsimilar to First Timothy one nine through 11. It says, quote, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers, and liars, and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted, end quote.
[00:13:24] Right off the bat, we can see from the passage in 1 Timothy that these are not comprehensive lists because it says, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching. So, we shouldn't take these to mean that these are things that will necessarily keep you out of the kingdom versus other types of sins, but they go against sound teaching. The kingdom is not a place of lawlessness, but one in which the laws of God will be honored and obeyed.
[00:13:55] The passage in 1 Corinthians 6 is a little more pointed than in 1 Timothy with its claim where it says that none of those people will inherit the kingdom of God. But let's also acknowledge some hope right off the bat here.
[00:14:10] In 1 Corinthians 6 11, It says, quote, Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the spirit of our God. End quote.
[00:14:27] Now, it's kind of easy for us to see how someone could presumably stop being a thief or a drunkard or doing these other things on the list, right? But what about the effeminate, or homosexuals? To many people today, we use the term orientation, and that's about who you are as a person. And what if those things don't change automatically when one is in Christ? What then? Are they just out of luck? Unable to inherit the kingdom? And what about people who are going to continue to see themselves as gay or even leading gay lifestyles or if they're in a same sex marriage and whatnot? Is there no salvation for such people?
[00:15:15] Now, one thing I'll say to that is that we do tend to be very quick in judging other people's salvation. And I'd encourage us not to do that. It's critical to realize it's not our jurisdiction to determine another person's salvation. It's just not, and in my personal opinion, the quicker we get to realizing that all salvation is God's salvation, and we shouldn't be so quick to judge this for any person at all, including ourselves, then the better off we'll actually be.
[00:15:49] The stance we should have is of allegiance to God and hope in Him. We can't ever be fully sure because we don't know. Now, we can rest in the promises of God, and He will be good and just, and hopefully that means we personally are saved. But the instant we take that for granted, well, it's just not a place we want to be. We want to be continually reaching towards God and turning to Him.
[00:16:17] All right. So back to salvation for homosexuals and the effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6, 9. Hopefully it's easy to see that the way people in the past saw things is not the way that we see them. In my episode on gender, which was number 92, I gave a brief outline of how we got to where we are. And we can now see how identity politics and things like that are, frankly, new inventions.
[00:16:46] People in the Bible were not thinking like that in terms of identity and such. But some people are very steeped into this today, and what does that mean now? Well, again, please don't think I have a perfect answer here. I can only tell you what the original context is, as far as we understand it, and some of our recent history, and I can give you a personal opinion, but first let's get into defining terms.
[00:17:14] And, just so you know, we are not going to get into the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in this episode, because there's no way we would be able to do it justice. So that will have to be for another time. But let's look at the terms in 1 Corinthians 6 9. Fornication. So, we put a whole bunch of things into the box of fornication, though it may or may not be overly different from a biblical definition.
[00:17:39] Here's some definitions from our modern dictionary. Quote, sexual intercourse between people who are not married to each other, especially when considered as a sin. Second definition is, unlawful sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried person. The act of such illicit sexual intercourse between a man and a woman as does not by law amount to adultery, end quote.
[00:18:06] So here's a definition from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. It says, quote, Fornication, or sexual intercourse between a man and an unmarried woman, was forbidden. But if it occurred, the man was obligated to marry the woman. see Exodus 22, verses 16 and following, and Deuteronomy 22, verses 28 and following. Adultery, Or, sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who was married or betrothed to another man was forbidden, see Exodus 20, verse 14, and Deuteronomy 5, 20, and was punishable by the death of both parties, see Leviticus 18, 20, 20, 10, and Deuteronomy 22, verses 22 and 24. Deuteronomy 22, 23 through 27 further differentiates between rape and voluntary intercourse on the part of a young woman. End quote.
[00:19:10] All right. We've already gone through all of those verses, I think, and it doesn't seem like our idea of fornication is too different from the biblical one. But as this does point out, we do need to keep in mind that Torah law limited adultery as sex with a married woman. A married man, if he was having sex with someone who wasn't married, that would fit under the idea of fornication, not adultery, and that would matter for law purposes, like punishment.
[00:19:41] I'm not trying to create a loophole, that's just what we see. And I think they'd expect the family of the woman who was being violated to usually be none too happy about the idea of it, right? We have to keep in mind there were slaves, and divorced women, and widows, and women who were potentially not under the purview of a patriarch of a family, though.
[00:20:01] But our question needs to be in how fornication in general might show up in the Old Testament. Because, clearly, it does in Greek, in the New Testament, but what about the Old Testament? Does the term show up there? It does. And basically, it's where you see the term harlot show up in English. So it's again, very female focused in the Old Testament. Men aren't harlots, but they can be led astray by harlots.
[00:20:32] So what about prostitution? Let's read again from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Now keep in mind what it says about Judah. There are other opinions and there are some subtle hints in the language that what he was doing was not right, but straight out, we can't say he was condemned.
[00:20:54] All right. This is again from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and it says, quote, Practices regarding prostitution evidence a double standard in Old Testament Israel. There was no explicit condemnation of men who made use of the services of a prostitute. Judah was not faulted for his liaison with his daughter in law Tamar, who was disguised as a prostitute. But he acknowledged his guilt for not fulfilling his obligations under the Levirate marriage law. Tamar, however, was to have been executed for her harlotry in the same affair until Judah's fault was exposed. See Genesis 38, 24 through 26. Israel's neighbors engaged in temple prostitution, and the Israelites themselves fell into the practice. A cult prostitute, in Hebrew, kadesh, for male, or kedasha, for female, literally, holy one, worked in the service of a foreign god. See Deuteronomy 23 verse 17, 1 Kings 14, 23 and following, 15, 12, 2 Kings 23, 7, Hosea 4, 14, and Job 36, 14. Such prostitutes engaged citizens in sexual activity for hire to enlarge the temple treasury. The incident at Baal of Peor, recorded in Numbers 25, was a blatant example of ritual intercourse. It was all the more outrageous because it was performed by a Midianite woman and an Israelite man in the very inner room of the Israelite tent of meeting. Phineas took a spear in his hand and went after the man of Israel in the inner room and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman, through her body. The term dog in Deuteronomy 23, 18, apparently refers to a male cult prostitute, end quote.
[00:22:54] Temple prostitution was very common, but of course it also existed outside the temple, and there's different terminology for that. Remember that in a family tribal unit, a daughter would be under the protection of the male head of the household.
[00:23:10] Again from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, quote. The terms zonah, harlot, zenuim, and zenut refer to female promiscuity outside the context of temple prostitution. Israel had no direct legislation expressly forbidding prostitution or sexual intercourse outside the bonds of marriage for the man. What was clearly protected, however, was the exclusivity of the wife's relations. She might have relations only with the one man who was her husband. This notion of the man's exclusive rights to his wife lies at the heart of the frequent metaphorical use of harlot and harlotry in describing the relationship between God and his people. See Jeremiah two and three, Ezekiel 16, and Hosea one through three.
[00:24:03] So, technically, no laws against general prostitution, but because the fertility of a young woman would be a valuable asset, you could be sure that her family would be interested in protecting her and avenging it, if they were so inclined, rather than marrying her off. So it's not like it had to be against the law, really, because the family would be the law. They didn't need a national law to do what they saw was right in this case. But just like today, it's always been the case that vulnerable young women would be put in a place where prostitution and selling their bodies is their more lucrative recourse.
[00:24:45] So what we hear about very often is this connection with idolatry. Especially since Israel was often called a harlot for turning away from God and worshiping others. But I've got more to say about idolatry later, so we'll put that one to the side for the moment.
[00:25:00] And then 1 Corinthians 6 mentions adultery, which we've talked about quite a bit in previous episodes. And the context of adultery is sex with a married woman. So, a man is only committed adultery if the woman's married.
[00:25:15] Let's get to the last two terms. What about the term that is translated in the NASB as effeminate? Since they didn't have the modern categories of identity, what does this mean? It's right next to the term homosexual, so are these related and how? Are these only referring to exploitative sex? That is an argument that many people make, that these terms are only about an adult man and a boy having sex, and that is not a good situation.
[00:25:50] Well, this is where I will send you over to Mark Ward's video, because he can both pronounce the Greek and give a good rundown of the terms and the context. Again, I will leave a link in the show notes for that, but I warn you that it is mature content and he does use some language.
[00:26:11] in brief, the term translated as homosexual here, if you pull it apart, it means one who beds males or who has sex with males, like a man who has sex with other men, Now, as Mark Ward and many others point out, you can't always just take a word apart like that and assume that you know what it means.
[00:26:32] Butterfly is not a fly made out of butter. But this word first shows up here in Paul's letter, so we don't have a whole lot of other information to go on. And part of the argument is that Paul maybe was only referring to certain and particular types of sexual activity, as I mentioned. There's good arguments for dismantling those ideas, to say that that's not what Paul is getting at, and that he is, in fact, referring back to the Levitical laws, which, if you ask me, that makes perfect sense, because I do think Paul is very much about keeping to Torah laws. He's not going to suddenly say, well, you know, men having sex with men is okay, as long as it doesn't exploit anyone.
[00:27:17] Mark Ward gets into some of the Greek context of the time and discusses how, again, they may have had preferences, but there was no sense of orientation, and in general, they thought that most everyone would respond to either kind of sexuality depending on conditions, and that also there were times and places in which certain things were expected or were available.
[00:27:43] Now, the term homosexual was coined in 1869, just barely over 150 years ago. So, in a sense, it is anachronistic to use that term in the New Testament, if we want to import everything that we think about it back into the text. But really, it's not about orientation or identity, but about the act. It is our desires which tempt us and then give birth to sin in the act.
[00:28:15] Now, Ward does say that even desires for sin are sinful, and I don't know how much I'd agree with him on that, because I do think that we are to willfully engage our desires, and that in doing so, we can become a master over them, but it's a process that doesn't come lightly, and it might always be a struggle.
[00:28:40] The question is what do you do when you experience that desire? Do you work to master it? Do you just ignore it and say it doesn't matter? If you do nothing in response to a desire that would lead to sin, then yes, you are guilty of not taming your desires actively. And you may be guilty of not keeping yourself away from the situations that would breed that desire in you. So, there are active things here that you can be guilty of, but I think the desire that first arises may not be in itself sinful.
[00:29:15] But anyway, I think a large portion of what we can see here is that we should not be reading these terms as we do today. They do connect to activity and not simply desire or identity. The fact is we don't have a word today that separates homosexuality as an orientation versus just the act. So I think a straightforward reading of who the effeminate and homosexuals are, are that they are the two different partners in that kind of situation. And it's as simple as that. It's not talking about people who have some orientation or identity or it's not merely exploitative.
[00:29:57] Let's have a look at these verses in Leviticus because it's important to have them in our minds here.
[00:30:03] Leviticus 18. 22 says, You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination.
[00:30:12] Leviticus 20. 13 says, If there is a man who lies with a male, as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act, they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.
[00:30:28] And back to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, quote, Male homosexuality is forbidden in Leviticus. term sodomy derives from the Genesis 19, 4 9 account of the attempt by the men of Sodom to rape the two angels visiting Lot. In this story, the men of Sodom demand of Lot, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out that we might know them. A similar story is told about the men of Gibeah in the tribe of Benjamin in Judges 19. Both stories emphasize the brutality of the perpetrator's sexual assault and seem to find fault more with the rapacious quality of their deeds than with the homosexual nature of their sexual lust. Female homosexuality is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 22 5 forbids transvestitism. Neither a male nor a female was permitted to wear clothes of the other sex. End quote.
[00:31:30] Okay, so in this passage in 1 Corinthians, don't forget there are also thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers, and again, I think it's easy for us to see how those sins can be repented from, and you can stop doing them quite easily, sort of, but once you see this Greek context, homosexual acts would fit well with the acts of fornication You either do them, or you don't.
[00:31:58] I want to read another quote about 1 Corinthians 6, as well as 1 Timothy 1. This is from the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. This entry is written by David F. Wright, whom Mark Ward mentions in his video. Quote, These two verses may be discussed together. In whatever sense the pastorals may be termed Pauline, the use of arsenokotoi in 1 Timothy 1. 10 surely betrays a Pauline fingerprint, for this Greek noun is not attested before 1 Corinthians 6. 9. English translations vary considerably, partly because the obvious derivation of the word from the Septuagint of Leviticus 18 and 20 for so long went unnoticed. It denotes males who lie in bed with males. Not, as Boswell argues, males prostitutes who lie with either males or females, which linguistically is impossible. Whether a Jewish or Christian, even a Pauline neologism or new word, the term picks up the Levitical ban, which did not have a pederasty in view. Even if what Paul has chiefly in mind is pederasty, his choice of this word, at best very rare, depicts it as sinful in the generic context of males having sex with males. R. Scroggs attempt to find in the two Pauline uses not merely pederastry alone, but quite precise forms of pederasty, is rendered highly improbable by his other claim that Paul is merely reproducing preformed tradition. The Levitical associations of Arsenocotois are borne out by the context of its next occurrence in Sibylline Oracles. Do not practice homosexuality. The Malakoi, literally soft or effeminate, who precede Arsenocotoi in 1 Corinthians 6 9 May well be those who allowed themselves to be misused rather than took the initiative in male homosexual acts. The list in these two verses are similar in form to the vice lists found in Hellenistic pagan and Jewish moralists. But the parallel appearance of homosexual abuse in such lists is more often asserted than illustrated. End quote.
[00:34:29] Paul was saying it was wrong, and listed it with these other things that are also clearly wrong. This doesn't help us with our ideas of orientation though, which is why in this whole series to get to the answer of this question, I wanted to talk about gender first and how we got where we are with that, and why it mattered to talk about embodiment and how essential that is to our biblical imaginations of trying to understand what and how they thought in biblical times. Even though they had no concept of identity, there's still the conception that you are what you worship and you are how you act, and when those things don't match up to your biological who you are, then there's a mismatch, right?
[00:35:18] Are they excluded from the kingdom? Again, it's not really my question to answer, but I can suggest that you are not actually locked into going along with a modern supposition of yourself, just like you're not locked into the idea that you must choose to identify with any particular denomination. It's possible to some degree to rest your mind from modern ways of thinking and instead build up a biblical imagination.
[00:35:48] But anyway, I've got some other quotes that I think are really worth sharing for all of this. And I think we need to genuinely take a lot of care to not overstate what the Bible says, but at the same time it's also not really all that unclear.
[00:36:05] This is from the New Bible Dictionary. Quote, The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition, despite the rather misleading RSV translation of First Corinthians 6 9, but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much. the exegesis of the Sodom and Gibeah stories in Genesis 19 and Judges 19 It's a good case in point. We must resist D. S. Bailey's widely quoted claim that the sin God punished on these occasions was a breach of hospitality ettiquite without sexual overtones. It fails to explain adequately both the double usage of the word "know" and the reason behind the substitutionary offer of Lot's daughters and the Levites concubine. But neither account amounts to a wholesale condemnation of all homosexual acts. On both occasions, the sin condemned was attempted homosexual rape, not a caring homosexual relationship between consenting partners. The force of the other Old Testament references to homosexuality is similarly limited by the context in which they are set. Historically, homosexual behavior was linked with idolatrous cult prostitution. The stern warnings of the Levitical law are primarily aimed at idolatry, too. The word abomination, for example, which features in both of these references, is a religious term often used for idolatrous practices. Viewed strictly within their context, then, these Old Testament condemnations apply to homosexual activity conducted in the course of idolatry, but not necessarily more widely than that. In Romans 1, Paul condemns homosexual acts, lesbian as well as male, in the same breath as idolatry, but his theological canvas is broader than that of Leviticus. Instead of treating homosexual behavior as an expression of idolatrous worship, he traces both to the bad exchange fallen man has made in departing from his creator's intention. Seen from this angle, every homosexual act is unnatural. Not because it cuts across the individual's natural sexual orientation, which of course it may not, or infringes Old Testament law, but because it flies in the face of God's creation scheme for human sexual expression. Paul makes two more references to homosexual practice in other epistles. Both occur in lists of banned activities and strike the same condemnatory tone. In 1 Corinthians 6. 9 Practicing homosexuals are included among the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God, but with the redemptive note added, such were some of you. And in 1 Timothy 1 9, they feature in a list of the lawless and disobedient. The latter is especially important because the whole list represents an updated version of the Ten Commandments. Paul parallels the Seventh Commandment on adultery with a reference to immoral persons and sodomites, words which cover all sexual intercourse outside of marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual. If the decalogue is permanently valid, the significance of this application is heightened still further. It has been suggested that the meaning of arsenakoitois in 1 Corinthians 6. 9 and 1 Timothy 1. 10 may be restricted to that of a male prostitute. Linguistic evidence to support this view is lacking, however. It seems beyond reasonable doubt that Paul intended to condemn homosexual conduct, but not homosexual people, in the most general and theologically broad terms he knew. His three scattered references fit together in an impressive way as an expression of God's will as he saw it, as creator, law giver and king, the Lord's condemnation of such behavior was absolutely plain end quote.
[00:40:40] One last quote from the dictionary of Paul and his letters, regarding this, because I just like how it puts this. One net result of the preceding paragraphs is to vindicate greater originality and broader scope for Paul's brief references. Yet, Paul does not single out same sex intercourse as specially perverted or monstrous. He lists it alongside theft, drunkenness, and perjury, as well as adultery and murder. The paucity of Paul's references is inconsistent with its being incomparably excredible, but this fact does not imply its relative unimportance. The broader context of his teaching on sexuality supports the view that he saw same sex activity as so self evidently contrary to God's creative purpose as to allow of such brief but eloquent mention. Certainly, Paul could not have envisioned some facets of contemporary debates such as monogamous same sex relationships between persons of homosexual preference. It is, nevertheless, a safe conclusion that whatever might be said about individual orientations or dispositions, Paul could only have regarded all homosexual erotic and genital behavior as contrary to the Creator's plan for human life to be abandoned on conversion. End quote.
[00:42:11] I feel like that's fairly balanced. As I've said, we think of sexual sins as being particularly grievous, a notch above other kinds of sins, but really they're amongst this whole list of things that are wrong. All sin is serious, and we should treat it as such. You know, Adam gets the same kind of a rap a lot of times. Like, his sin was the thing that kicked everything off, right?
[00:42:37] So it's like, does that mean that his sin was worse than any other? I think more than anything, Adam is presented as an archetype, meaning that what can be said of him can be said of us. He wasn't super special before or after the sin. We're all in the same boat.
[00:42:57] And I think the takeaway should be that breaking the law equals death. Adam had a law to break, therefore death functionally entered the world. Yeah, that's a big deal, but it's the case for every single person who breaks the law. I don't think Paul, in talking about Adam in Romans 5, was saying that Adam was special in the sense that his sin was bigger than anyone else's. I think Paul is saying that everyone, without exception, has been under the same condemnation since Adam.
[00:43:33] And so, yes, sin is serious, and it has serious consequences, and we should see all sin in this framework, rather than sectioning out particular sins.
[00:43:44] Now, what about homosexuality and its connection with idolatry? Sexuality in general was very much an idolatrous thing, particularly in metaphor. We're going to turn to Romans 1 for that, and let's read a longer section to get this all in our heads, but we're primarily looking at verses 26 and 27. And again, what's interesting is that, like with adultery, separating out men and women in how they're viewed, in most other places, homosexuality is about men with men. In fact, that's the very definition of the term in the Bible, but this passage also calls out women.
[00:44:24] All right. Romans 1, verses 24 through 32, quote, Therefore God gave them over in the less of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions, for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind to do those things which are not proper. Being filled with unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God. Insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful. And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. End quote.
[00:46:02] So, note that, once again, it is not just same sex sex that's being called out. It's a whole litany of behavior, but it starts out with the idea of sex as connected to idolatrous worship.
[00:46:16] Now, I'm going to read from the Dictionary of Paul and his letters regarding Romans 1, 26 27. Quote, Most of the references to homosexuality in the New Testament occur in the Pauline letters. The clearest is Romans 1, 26 through 27. In the context, Paul is portraying the moral disorder that accompanies the rejection of the knowledge of God in the pagan world, exchanging the Creator for the idolatrous worship of creatures, issues in God's abandoning of women and men who then forsake the natural use of their bodies for a use against nature. The force of this unmistakable presentation of both female and male same sex intercourse as a mark of godlessness is today often blunted by minimizing arguments. It is claimed, for example, that condemnation concerns only homosexual depravity inspired by idolatry, and has no bearing upon same sex relations in other contexts. But this is to ignore the clear sequence of Paul's text, which cites the unquestionably immoral nature of homosexuality along with all manner of wickedness, such as envy, murder, slander, and disobedience to parents, as evidence of the consequences of abandoning God. Even less plausible is the interpretation of J. Boswell, among others, that limits Paul's reference to those homosexuals who pursue homosexual unions contrary to their individual heterosexual natures. The passage has no bearing, it is alleged, on people homosexual by nature. This atomistic reading of these verses is artificially strained, for Paul is commenting on human society at large and focuses on behavior itself. A distinction between persons of heterosexual and homosexual orientation was almost certainly unknown to him. Others again argue that unnatural simply means unconventional, contrary to accepted social practice. But the prominence of the theme of divine creation in the text surely requires that defiance of nature be construed of the flouting of sexual distinctions basic to God's creative design. After all, widespread social usage tolerated homosexual intercourse. Finally, L. W. Countryman thinks that Romans 1, 26 27 treats homosexual acts not as sinful, but only as unclean, an integral if unpleasantly dirty aspect of Gentile culture. Such a reading, which makes the import of Paul's statements cultural rather than moral, misses the parallelism of God gave them up in Romans 1, 24, 26, and 28, and invests the passage with an implausibly sophistic subtlety. These varied attempts to rule Romans 1 out of court in modern ethical discussion nearly all miss a feature which attests a remarkable insight on Paul's part. These verses contain one of the very earliest combined condemnations of female and male homosexuality alike. Only two earlier texts make the link in Plato and Pseudo Phocyclades. It is most unlikely that Paul derived it from preformed tradition. The fact that he condemns both female and male malpractice at one and the same time, together with his use of language that does not specifically identify pederasty as the male abuse, gives his statement a generic force. There was no equivalent to pederasty on the female side. Contrary to frequent assertions, pederasty as such is never mentioned in the New Testament. Despite the availability of a varied range of words and phrases denoting pederasty in particular, none of the New Testament references to same sex disorder specifies pederasty as a form of homosexuality of an exploitive or aggressive or venal character. End quote.
[00:50:39] This series started with the question of gender identity and homosexuality. And now we've finally answered the aspect of whether or not the Bible is just talking about abusive sexual relationships rather than loving, kind ones. I think it's clear that, frankly, those interpretations are just dodging the meaning of what we actually see. Now it's true that we have a different situation today than Paul did in terms of identity and things like that. Hopefully my episodes on gender and embodiment help to give some spin to that in order to develop that biblical imagination.
[00:51:19] So, the last part of the question, what about inheriting the kingdom? What even is the kingdom? First of all, I want to mention that one interpretation of Romans 1 is that it's referring to particularly Gentile sins and the Jews would be like well, at least we aren't like that! And I don't want to say that the Jews weren't thinking Gentile sins versus Jewish sins and seeing those things as different types of things But, something that has been fascinating to me is that the Kingdom of God is referring to restored Israel, like the complete Israel, but this time it's ruled by the Messianic King.
[00:52:08] And you get restored Israel via the bringing in of people into the New Covenant through faith in Jesus. And going back to those first chapters of Romans, Paul is going to be referring to the law written on our hearts instead of having the mediator or guardian of the written Torah, which cannot perfect us.
[00:52:31] So it is about keeping the law, but in a way that it hasn't been seen before. Rather than a set of guidelines and written laws, we are to live righteous lives from what is internally placed in us via the Spirit. We're living righteously because we are righteous, not because we are simply doing righteous things.
[00:52:55] Now, this doesn't actually go against anything in the written Torah, of course, and it doesn't invalidate the written Torah. It actually upholds it. But the idea is that we no longer need the guidelines of, okay, this is how you do it, like such and such. It's not a matter of legalistic law keeping, but rather having our hearts in alignment.
[00:53:22] It's the same with the circumcision of the heart versus the physical circumcision. It's not that the physical version is bad or wrong. But it doesn't save, and it's not effective in any case. So, while Paul might be bringing to mind what his audience thinks are particularly Gentile bad behavior, I think he's not restricting himself to saying that only Gentiles do this, because in that case, his implication there would be, if you do them, you aren't part of Israel, and you don't inherit the promises. I think he's being more universal than that, and he's turning things around to say that even the Gentiles can inherit because they actually could have Torah on their hearts too. That's what I think the context of the first part of Romans is.
[00:54:15] When the concepts of kingdom or inheritance show up, we should be thinking in terms of the promises made to Israel. And for some of Paul's audience, they were stuck in those notions that, hey, well at least Jews as part of Israel are inheritors of the promise. But in many places, Paul seems to be poking at that idea and saying, hey, you know what, the law actually matters, and you guys break it as much as anyone, and those who are unrighteous are not inheritors.
[00:54:48] So not being in alignment with Torah is a big deal to Paul. So, the list in Romans, it does seem to point to Gentile type behavior, but not in the sense of, here's the list of things that keep you out of the kingdom or Israel, but it's calling upon the imagery of the actions of those who are outside the covenant to make that point.
[00:55:12] So, the main question, then, is, are you in the new covenant? Being in the new covenant is being in Christ. Baptized as participants of His death and resurrection and having the spirit to indwell you and place the law upon your heart, so that you will now not just act righteously, but be righteous, and that is why you're acting righteous. It's putting our selfish needs aside in favor of living into the righteousness of God.
[00:55:44] A great place to wrap your mind around all of these ideas is in the two books by Jason Staples, The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism and Paul and the Resurrection of Israel But, here's a wrench thrown into things. The thing is, we want that to look a certain way. To BE a certain way. To put restrictions on what a person's discipleship walk has to look like, or to say that you're not a disciple if, or you're not repentant if.
[00:56:20] Now, ultimately, being in the New Covenant I think absolutely means that we get to a point where we do put off our flesh completely and we stop doing anything that is outside the Torah in its intent. So that would include being free of sexual deviancy or being fully repentant. But we aren't all there yet, and we shouldn't expect perfect law keeping.
[00:56:48] Again, it's not about creating new laws to burden people with. That's not what we should be doing, and I think we've actually done some harm with that. The other danger is, of course, secretly holding onto our sins and justifying them in the name of whatever, instead of giving them up and living righteously.
[00:57:09] But we should all recognize we're on a journey. What we should expect and strive for are those lives of repentance, continually turning back towards God. And if something happens that shouldn't happen, what do you do in response to it? But again, this is going to be a different struggle for different people.
[00:57:30] And when we look at other people and say, Ha ha, you're not doing it right! We don't understand the struggles in their hearts. We don't understand where they are. We really don't. And another prickly idea? Maybe we should ask ourselves if we're more concerned about the sins of others than our own sins.
[00:57:49] But also, it's not about our own willpower. It's really not. It's the change that is wrought in us by the Spirit, not by our own wills. It's not a change that we can do by ourselves. We don't make ourselves righteous. And it is being righteous that we need in order to be able to do all of these things. Just from personal experience and my opinion, I genuinely think that Jesus is capable of breaking down all of our self driven interests. Even in spite of ourselves, even when we don't want it, and even when we actively work against it. I genuinely think Jesus can do this in us. It's not us, it's him. It's his life being manifested in us.
[00:58:40] But who knows how long that takes. So often we want it to be like, Okay, I should be or do this thing because I see that's right. But deep down, we don't want to let go of those things because we have those selfish desires that we're not ready to give up yet. And we think, oh, that means I'm failing in following Jesus. I mean, maybe you are. Do you not think you're going to fail? Of course you are. We all do. But the covenant is about God's faithfulness.
[00:59:14] And I've seen Jesus move things in spite of myself multiple times in my life. We don't have to want it, in particular. We don't have to feel like doing it. We don't even have to necessarily choose that direction. But we have to choose him. And then he moves us. What we need to do is keep our eyes on him and turn towards him and be that pottery in his hands.
[00:59:45] It sure would be a little bit easier if repentance always looked the same way in everyone so that we can say, aha, yes, that person over there, he has repented. But there's so much complexity wrapped up in what we do and why we do it. I think we need to give people time and space to get to the point of being able to live out Torah as it is written on their hearts.
[01:00:09] People have to take time to get from where they are to being at that point, and it's not always going to look like what we think it should look like. Of course, we can and should take a hard stance on what is right and wrong. Call out sin. But God is working on the heart.
[01:00:30] So, what does it mean that we have this list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6 that says that people who practice them will not inherit the kingdom of God? Can practicing one sin really keep you from the kingdom? I mean, in a sense, yes. One sin leads to death and exile. We get that from the beginning with Adam. Does that mean that we cannot inherit the kingdom if we do a single sinful action? The point in verse 11 is that through Christ, even such sinners can be saved.
[01:01:05] I think the story of the Bible is one of overwhelming mercy. There is hope. It's not a hope of saying that you can continue in your sins as if they don't matter, but rather it's about being in Christ and having that law written on your heart and allowing that to work through you. It might take some time because, you know, sometimes we're slow learners.
[01:01:30] Hold fast to Christ and let the process of sanctification work in and through you. We can't do that work for other people. We cannot predict what is happening with another person on their journey. We have no idea where someone is on their path of repentance and discipleship. Again, call out sin, but do not presume that you know someone else's status or their struggles, or what they have to go through in order to go from where they are now to where they're going to be in the future in Jesus. We can preach the grace and wholeness that is found only in Christ Jesus. And it's Jesus and the Spirit's workings who will perfect that within each of us.
[01:02:14] And sometimes it's a long, drawn out process. The encouragement is to stay in Christ. And with that, I am going to wrap it up, and I thank you guys for this journey of looking at the topic of sexuality with what I hope is a biblical mindset, at least getting into that direction.
[01:02:37] I hope it's been helpful to you and maybe you've looked at some things with a different set of eyes, not for the sake of progress and change, but for the sake of biblical imagination. Let's develop that with a strong stance of realizing that we aren't in that time and place, but the wisdom sure carries forward.
[01:02:59] Again, if you guys have any questions or thoughts, I'd love to hear them. Thanks to you who have already reached out to respond to this. It's always, always a joy to hear your thoughts and responses. I do think I have at least one more episode in this, but we'll see. But don't forget to check out my website at GenesisMarksTheSpot. com, where you'll find blog posts, guest profiles, artwork, and you can find out how to support me financially, which I deeply appreciate. Thanks for all of you who do support me. You guys rock. I'm going to wrap up, but be on the lookout for some fun things for my 100th episode.
[01:03:41] Thanks for listening. Wishing you all a blessed week, and we will see you later.
