The New Testament Message of Liberation.
Some revisionists maintain that the message of Jesus is fundamentally a message concerning the liberation of captives (Luke 4:1819). These captives, it is argued, are to be understood not in individual terms as sinners, but in corporate terms as those who are forgotten or oppressed by the proud and powerful. In this view, the place to begin a truly Christian consideration of sexual ethics is not with Genesis and the legal code but with Exodus and freedom from law proclaimed by Jesus. The homosexual community, with its long history of persecution, naturally sees itself described in the Beatitudes and other offers of hope to the downtrodden. It sees analogies to modern heterosexism in the historic subjugation of women and of blacks. There are, however, many problems with an approach that so simply makes biblical material a vehicle for experience. One objection is that the choice of one kind of sexual proclivity as oppressed is arbitrary: there is no definitive reason to exclude pederasty or sadomasochism or adultery. Furthermore, the analogies to other modern liberation movements are dubious. In the case of slavery, for example, the biblical message is ambiguous; in the case of homosexual acts, on the other hand, what little material we have is all decidedly negative. Finally, it is impossible to evaluate a behavior by means of its perception, as if disapproval by the majority automatically constitutes legitimacy on the part of a persecuted minority. At some point the behavior itself must be held up to a light other than the fire of its own passion. The light of revelation in the New Testament message offers liberation, but explicit in this offer is the provision of power to conform individuals to full humanity as God created it. In order to exercise responsibility in relation to such an offer it is essential for believers to take seriously both the construction of full humanity as the Scriptures describe it, and deviations from that full humanity as the Scriptures warn against them.
The Gospels.
There is no explicit reference to same-gender sex in the Gospels, but there may be an echo of a reference in Mark 9:4210:12 (cf. Matt. 5:2732). A passage in the Talmud (b. Niddah 13b) links masturbation and pederasty together as violations of marriage, and in so doing makes reference to harming children, offending with the hand or the foot, and cutting off offending limbs rather than going down to the pit of destruction. These similarities of wording to the Gospel passages may suggest a common understanding in the first century that putting a stumbling block before one of these little ones involved sexual sin against them.
Pauls Epistles.
Two brief references in Pauls letters, where same-gender sex is mentioned in lists of prohibited activities, are important especially for their link to the Old Testament. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 arsenokoitai are condemned. The word, a compound of male and coitus or intercourse, does not occur prior to the New Testament. Some modern writers have attempted to narrow its meaning from homosexual acts in general to male prostitution, solicitation of male prostitutes, or (coupled in 1 Cor. 6:9 with malakoi, another obscure word possibly meaning the effeminate) the active partners in homosexual relationships. These suggestions, however, ignore the Greek Old Testament (LXX) versions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which use both arsenos and koiten, the latter passage placing them side-by-side; literally, whoever lies with a male, having intercourse (as with) a female. This is the obvious source of the compound word. Perhaps Paul himself, who knew and used the Septuagint extensively, or some other Hellenistic Jew not long before Pauls time, derived from the passages in Leviticus a compound word that described homosexual acts in general. This drawing in of Leviticus to Pauls letters is also significant in that it provides further demonstration that he perceived a moral and not merely purity-based prohibition of homosexual acts in the Old Testament.
Romans 1:2627.
The remaining passage appears to be an unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality. While many modern revisionists simply disagree with Paul or discount his proscription as applying only to prostitution or pederasty, some have attempted to reinterpret the passage as tacit approval of homosexuality. The argument is that Paul portrays homosexual acts as impure but carefully avoids the language of sin; he intends merely to distinguish a Gentile practice considered by Jews to be unclean in order to draw Jews (or weaker brethren) into his subsequent explanation of the gospel. Careful investigation of the passage, however, shows this explanation to be untenable.
Pauls general purpose in the context (Rom. 1:1832) is to show the need for the gospel in the Gentile world. As a result of idolatry, God gave them over to all kinds of sinful behavior. The trifold structure of the passage is a rhetorical device to drive home the point: a general complaint (vv. 2425), consideration of a specific vice (vv. 2627), and a culminating list of various vices (vv. 2832). The distinction between the second and third sections may follow another Greek-styled distinction of sins of passion and sins of the unfit mind.
Paul is accused of everything from extreme prejudice to repressed homosexual urges for choosing same-gender sex as his focus in verses 2627. But the scarcity of other references and the use of impersonal, rhetorical language here suggests, on the contrary, considerable detachment. The choice of homosexuality in particular is due to Pauls need to find a visible sign of humankinds fundamental rejection of Gods creation at the very core of personhood. The numerous allusions to the creation account in the passage suggest that creation theology was foremost in Pauls mind in forming the passage.
Pauls terminology in the passage clearly denotes sin and not mere ritual impurity. The context is introduced by the threat of wrath against godlessness and wickedness (v. 18). Those in view in verses 2627 have been given over to passions, a word group that elsewhere in Romans and consistently in Pauls writings connotes sin. Words like impurity (v. 24) and indecent (v. 27; cf. degrading, v. 24) had in Pauls time extended their meaning beyond ritual purity to moral and especially sexual wrongdoing. To do that which is unnatural (vv. 2627) or contrary to nature was common parlance in contemporary literature for sexual perversion and especially homosexual acts. Paul uses several expressions here that are more typical of Gentile moral writers not because he is attempting to soften his condemnation but because he wishes to find words peculiarly suited to expose the sinfulness of the Gentile world in its own terms.
The substance of Pauls proscription of homosexuality is significant in several respects. First, he mentions lesbian relations first and links lesbianism to male homosexuality. This is unusual if not unique in the ancient world, and it demonstrates that Pauls concern is less with progeniture than with rebellion against sexual differentiation or full created personhood. Second, Paul speaks in terms of mutual consent (e.g., inflamed with lust for one another, v. 27), effectively including acts other than rape and pederasty in the prohibition.
Third, the passage describes corporate as well as individual rebellion, a fact that may have implications for modern discussions of orientation. In other words, although Paul does not address the question here directly, it is reasonable to suppose that he would consign the orientation toward homosexual acts to the same category as heterosexual orientation toward adultery or fornication. The natural or fleshly proclivity is a specific byproduct of the corporate human rebellion and in no way justifies itself or the activity following from that proclivity. On the basis of any of these three implications, it is legitimate to use the word homosexuality as it is conceived in the modern world when speaking of Romans 1 and, by cautious extension, when speaking of the related biblical passages.
Responses to Pauls Proscription.
The discussion does not end with the conclusion that Paul condemns homosexuality. Some argue that a modern understanding of natural differs from Pauls and requires that we absolve those who discover rather than choose a homosexual orientation. These, it is argued, should be seen as victims, or simply different, and our definition of allowable sexual activity expanded accordingly. The major problem with this response is that it shifts the meaning of natural from Pauls notion of that which is in accord with creation to the popular notion of that which one has a desire to do. But deeply ingrained anger does not justify murder, nor does deeply ingrained greed justify theft or materialism, nor does the deeply ingrained desire of many heterosexuals for multiple partners justify promiscuity. Desire in all of these areas, chosen or not, must come under the reign of Christ. The action in question must be considered not in terms of its source in the person but in light of the relevant biblical principles. These principles often involve denial of deeply ingrained desires, for the heterosexual who desires multiple partners no less than for the homosexual who laments the option of celibacy.
There is considerable evidence that a homosexual orientation, and certainly the occasional homosexual experience, does not indicate a permanent state but an immature stage of sexuality that may be fixed at some point by physiological, psychological, or social factors, and by the individual will, all acting in combination. This has theological significance because it implies that movement toward completion or maturity will involve movement toward obedience to the biblical model. One need not conclude, then, that the homosexual orientation is an indication either of Gods approval of the orientation or that the orientation is Gods curse of the individual. It is, rather, a challenge to growth in discipleship, more or less difficult depending on individual circumstances, but accompanied by the promise of grace equal to those circumstances (Rom. 5:1921; 1 Cor. 10:13; 2 Cor. 12:9).
Thomas E. Schmidt Schmidt, Thomas E Ph.D., Cambridge University. Professor of New Testament, Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California.
Elwell, W. A., & Elwell, W. A. (1997, c1996).
Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology
Any of you pro homosexuals have any better, or Biblically accurate sources? BTW I haver more, if you promise to read the posts.