Sexuality & The New Testament
(Part 4 of the essay)
The basic sexual ethic
Jesus of Nazareth affirmed the testimony of Genesis with respect to marriage:
Jesus of Nazareth affirmed the testimony of Genesis with respect to marriage:
|
[A]t the beginning of creation God “made them male and female.” “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. (Mark 10:6-9; similarly, Matthew 19:4-6)
|
As marriage traditionalists point out, Jesus reaffirms here the Genesis account, including the “natural” state of male and female complementing each other and the “natural” facts of heterosexual, procreative union.
The basic (heterosexual) sexual ethic of the New Testament reflects that of the Old. Parallel with usage in the Old Testament (and reflected in the Septuagint's translation from Hebrew to Greek), there are two main concepts for sexual sin: adultery (moicheia) and fornication (equals “sexual immorality” in many translations) (porneia). With respect to moicheia, Jesus himself affirms the Seventh Commandment. (Matthew 19:18 inter alia) He also condemns divorce. (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18)
If anything, the New Testament's standards are higher, inasmuch as intention is now central. As the famous and terrifying lines in the Sermon on the Mount have it:
The basic (heterosexual) sexual ethic of the New Testament reflects that of the Old. Parallel with usage in the Old Testament (and reflected in the Septuagint's translation from Hebrew to Greek), there are two main concepts for sexual sin: adultery (moicheia) and fornication (equals “sexual immorality” in many translations) (porneia). With respect to moicheia, Jesus himself affirms the Seventh Commandment. (Matthew 19:18 inter alia) He also condemns divorce. (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18)
If anything, the New Testament's standards are higher, inasmuch as intention is now central. As the famous and terrifying lines in the Sermon on the Mount have it:
|
You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:27-30)
|
So, too, Christ's statement that "out of the heart come evil thoughts -- murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander." (Matthew 15:19)
Moreover, the role of love -- loving one's neighbor as oneself, as Leviticus 19:18 also commanded -- as the motivator for all ethics is made even clearer. Thus, Jesus, in the context of answering which of the particular commandments given in the Law is paramount says:
Moreover, the role of love -- loving one's neighbor as oneself, as Leviticus 19:18 also commanded -- as the motivator for all ethics is made even clearer. Thus, Jesus, in the context of answering which of the particular commandments given in the Law is paramount says:
|
The most important [commandment] ... is this: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” The second is this: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” There is no commandment greater than these.
|
Just so the point isn't missed, the text goes on:
|
To love [God] with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.
|
Indeed, to comprehend this truth means that one is “not far from the kingdom of God.” (The entire passage is Mark 12:28-34; parallel is Matthew 22: 34-40)
Nevertheless, as with the Old Testament, in terms of actual behaviors proscribed by the New Testament, the situation is not as clear as traditionalists might suppose. Moicheia -- adultery, breaking the marriage vow -- seems clear enough. But porneia -- fornication, sexual immorality -- is much less so. The standard Greek lexicons (e.g., Kittel’s and Strong’s) tell a consistent story: The word 'porneia' comes from 'porné' which is a noun that simply means “prostitute.” 'Porné' in turn comes from 'pernémi' which means “to sell” -- including, the selling of slaves. As with the Hebrew 'zanah', the reason early translators chose 'fornication' to translate 'porneia' is evident. (1)
Nevertheless, as with the Old Testament, in terms of actual behaviors proscribed by the New Testament, the situation is not as clear as traditionalists might suppose. Moicheia -- adultery, breaking the marriage vow -- seems clear enough. But porneia -- fornication, sexual immorality -- is much less so. The standard Greek lexicons (e.g., Kittel’s and Strong’s) tell a consistent story: The word 'porneia' comes from 'porné' which is a noun that simply means “prostitute.” 'Porné' in turn comes from 'pernémi' which means “to sell” -- including, the selling of slaves. As with the Hebrew 'zanah', the reason early translators chose 'fornication' to translate 'porneia' is evident. (1)
On Porneia: Part One
An etymology does not a meaning make, however. Especially for such a significant word, understanding 'porneia' as actually used by the authors of the New Testament is essential. In general, however, what you discover is that the lexicons take 'porneia' to refer to any sort of illicit sex (besides, strictly speaking, adultery). But when you ask as to what specifically counts as illicit sex, the definitions are unhelpful and vaguely circular. It would seem that engaging with prostitutes counts as illicit. But would “sex before marriage” count? What about the modern phenomenon of long-term cohabitation? From all we learn from the standard dictionaries, it’s hard to say: Because 'porneia' equals 'sexual immorality', it also is assumed to mean “all extramarital sex.” But this holds only because 'sexual immorality' is taken in the traditionalist representation as meaning “all extramarital sex”! Traditionalist views notwithstanding, the New Testament does not wear its meaning on its sleeves when it comes to what actually counts as porneia.
Enter Professor Kyle Harper, a New Testament scholar who has produced a fine piece of scholarship that explicates 'porneia' as it was used by the early Christians. In his article "Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm," Harper surveys the relevant, extant Greek texts and which were written over a 1,200 year span. (2) Here, I can only outline his conclusions.
Harper traces the evolution of the meaning of 'porneia' (and, by extension, 'moicheia') through four periods: First, how Classical Greek culture understood 'porneia' and 'moicheia'. Second, how Second Temple Judaism “took up” these words (both in the Septuagint and in other literature) and then transformed their meanings. Third, how 'porneia' is used in the Greek New Testament. And, fourth, how 'porneia' was understood in the first centuries after the New Testament.
Classical Greek culture -- the flowering of which was in the period of roughly the 8th-century BCE through the 4th-century BCE -- provided the contextual backdrop, both in terms of the meanings of these words and the general attitudes toward sex, against which later Jewish and Christian understandings must be compared and contrasted. Harper explains the basic idea of moicheia thus:
An etymology does not a meaning make, however. Especially for such a significant word, understanding 'porneia' as actually used by the authors of the New Testament is essential. In general, however, what you discover is that the lexicons take 'porneia' to refer to any sort of illicit sex (besides, strictly speaking, adultery). But when you ask as to what specifically counts as illicit sex, the definitions are unhelpful and vaguely circular. It would seem that engaging with prostitutes counts as illicit. But would “sex before marriage” count? What about the modern phenomenon of long-term cohabitation? From all we learn from the standard dictionaries, it’s hard to say: Because 'porneia' equals 'sexual immorality', it also is assumed to mean “all extramarital sex.” But this holds only because 'sexual immorality' is taken in the traditionalist representation as meaning “all extramarital sex”! Traditionalist views notwithstanding, the New Testament does not wear its meaning on its sleeves when it comes to what actually counts as porneia.
Enter Professor Kyle Harper, a New Testament scholar who has produced a fine piece of scholarship that explicates 'porneia' as it was used by the early Christians. In his article "Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm," Harper surveys the relevant, extant Greek texts and which were written over a 1,200 year span. (2) Here, I can only outline his conclusions.
Harper traces the evolution of the meaning of 'porneia' (and, by extension, 'moicheia') through four periods: First, how Classical Greek culture understood 'porneia' and 'moicheia'. Second, how Second Temple Judaism “took up” these words (both in the Septuagint and in other literature) and then transformed their meanings. Third, how 'porneia' is used in the Greek New Testament. And, fourth, how 'porneia' was understood in the first centuries after the New Testament.
Classical Greek culture -- the flowering of which was in the period of roughly the 8th-century BCE through the 4th-century BCE -- provided the contextual backdrop, both in terms of the meanings of these words and the general attitudes toward sex, against which later Jewish and Christian understandings must be compared and contrasted. Harper explains the basic idea of moicheia thus:
|
[Moicheia] refers specifically to the man’s violation of a respectable woman; although the standard English translation of the word is “adultery,” it would be better to emphasize “violation of a woman’s honor,” since the overwhelming connotation of the word points to the violation itself, even in later Jewish and Christian usage. (page 367 in Harper)
|
Greek culture -- male-centric and patriarchal as it was -- was focused on the legitimacy of children as those sustained and reproduced Greek households and cities. (366) Greek men managed this need through “the strict regulation of the sexuality of honorable women.” (367) Respectable women were the women -- wives, widows, daughters -- whose sexual honor was of concern to a male citizen. They were expected to maintain their virginity up till marriage and their chastity in marriage. (367) “The word [moicheia] would always evoke the visceral horror that accompanies the violation of a woman’s honor in a patriarchal society.” (367) Moicheia was foremost “a crime against another man”; the woman involved was “always of secondary concern.” (367)
In contrast, disreputable women -- women without sexual honor -- such as slaves and prostitutes were fair game. Harper, again:
In contrast, disreputable women -- women without sexual honor -- such as slaves and prostitutes were fair game. Harper, again:
|
From the origins of Greek civilization, slaves were prominent as a sexual outlet for men ... Throughout the classical period, slaves were subject to the complete private power of their masters, and their bodies were completely vulnerable to the master’s sexual advances. The place of slavery in the sexual landscape of classical antiquity could hardly be overestimated. (368)
|
The Roman Empire, later, took over this mindset. Indeed, one author pithily summarized Roman sexual policy as “forbidding adulteries, building brothels.” Thus,
|
[p]rostitution was considered a social necessity, an alternative to the violation of respectable women, in the Roman Empire no less than in classical Greece. (368)
|
As to the word 'porneia' itself, this didn’t refer to the institution of prostitution per se. Rather, 'porneia' is the substantive of a verb that meant “to prostitute oneself,” and so meant “the practice of selling access to one’s body.” (368) So, the focus was on the seller, not the user of the disreputable woman’s body. Harper summarizes the linguistic situation thus:
|
[C]lassical Greek lacked a single, encompassing term to describe the different forms of sexual experience open to men in the form of slaves, prostitutes, and concubines. (368)
|
Thus, classically, porneia was strictly limited to prostitution proper.
Second Temple Judaism refers to that period in the life of the Jewish people that ran from the rebuilding of the Temple (515 BCE) to the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans (70 CE). It overlaps with the Hellenistic period of Greek culture. A major literary accomplishment of the Jewish people during this time was the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek during the 3rd-century BCE, what is known as the Septuagint. According to Harper, it was the interplay -- the feedback loop, as it were -- between the Hebrew 'zanah' and its translation into the Greek 'porneia' that led to the distinctive Jewish view of sexual ethics which later became the background for the New Testament’s use of 'porneia'.
To begin, Harper confirms our earlier discussion as to the meaning of the Hebrew 'zanah'. The word
Second Temple Judaism refers to that period in the life of the Jewish people that ran from the rebuilding of the Temple (515 BCE) to the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans (70 CE). It overlaps with the Hellenistic period of Greek culture. A major literary accomplishment of the Jewish people during this time was the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek during the 3rd-century BCE, what is known as the Septuagint. According to Harper, it was the interplay -- the feedback loop, as it were -- between the Hebrew 'zanah' and its translation into the Greek 'porneia' that led to the distinctive Jewish view of sexual ethics which later became the background for the New Testament’s use of 'porneia'.
To begin, Harper confirms our earlier discussion as to the meaning of the Hebrew 'zanah'. The word
|
is limited in its primary usage to female subjects, since it is only for women that marriage is the primary determinant of legal status and obligation. (369, quoting Phyllis Bird). [It] is very close to meaning “to be shameful, to fall into sexual shame.” (369)
|
The connection with (female) prostitution is quite close. However, due to the metaphorical use of the word by the prophets (e.g., Hosea) to describe Israel’s idolatry and lust for foreign gods, for Second Temple Jews the Greek 'porneia' acquired a broader meaning than merely prostitution proper.
|
The metaphorical sense of [zanah] as idolatry would decisively influence the development of Greek [porneia]. The metaphorical meaning allowed spiritual fornication to be used with acts of male commission. This semantic extension reversed the gender dynamics that are inherent in the primary sense of [zanah]... In Second Temple Judaism, this reversal would feed back into the sexual sense of the term, so that sexual fornication became an act that men could commit. The association between false forms of worship and deviant forms of sexual behavior would also make [porneia] an especially important term in the construction of group sexual identities. (370)
|
So, in Second Temple Judaism we have this remarkable expansion of the meaning of 'porneia' such that both women and men can commit such. Moreover, while use of prostitutes by Israelite men had been tolerated in the Old Testament, during this time prostitution, for Jews, became illicit for both seller and buyer alike. Indeed, by the end of this period, porneia “was the chief vice in a system of sexual morality rooted in conjugal sexuality.” That is to say, for faithful Jews, marriage became the exclusive domain for sexual relations. (374)
Moreover, though 'porneia'
Moreover, though 'porneia'
|
was broad enough to cover sexual sins as diverse as incest and exogamy [marriage outside of one’s ethnic group] ... for Hellenistic Jews, in a culture where sex with dishonored women, especially prostitutes and slaves, was legal and expected, the term condensed the cultural differences between the observers of the Torah and Gentile depravity. The Greek root [of porneia] already suggested the public sexual availability of the prostitute, and it made the association between the term [porneia] and the types of sexual license permitted in Gentile culture practically inevitable. (374)
|
So, 'porneia' became a shorthand way (“a rhetorically charged term” as Harper puts it) to underscore the differences, both in terms of religion and sex practices, between pious Jews and degenerate outsiders.
On Porneia: Part Two
Turning to the New Testament itself, we have then two crucial pieces of context: the sexual license of the dominant Greco-Roman culture -- particularly the use of dishonored women for sexual gratification -- and the conjugal sexual ethic of the Jewish people. As the early Christians were themselves Jews, they both took up this rigorous sexual ethic and contrasted themselves with the licentious Greco-Roman culture in which they were surrounded. As Harper points out, the word 'porneia' shows up in various “vice lists” -- lists of illicit behaviors to be avoided -- across the New Testament. (3)
A fascinating insight into the clashing cultures of the early Jewish Christians and the first Gentile converts comes via the thus-named Apostolic Decree in the Book of Acts (15:20, 29; 21:25). When news of the Gospel’s advance among the Gentiles came back to the original (Jewish) church in Jerusalem, the church’s leaders were at pains both to affirm the faith of the Gentile converts and to minimize the ethical and behavioral requirements (e.g., circumcision) that these new converts would have to take up from Jewish culture. They decided that
Turning to the New Testament itself, we have then two crucial pieces of context: the sexual license of the dominant Greco-Roman culture -- particularly the use of dishonored women for sexual gratification -- and the conjugal sexual ethic of the Jewish people. As the early Christians were themselves Jews, they both took up this rigorous sexual ethic and contrasted themselves with the licentious Greco-Roman culture in which they were surrounded. As Harper points out, the word 'porneia' shows up in various “vice lists” -- lists of illicit behaviors to be avoided -- across the New Testament. (3)
A fascinating insight into the clashing cultures of the early Jewish Christians and the first Gentile converts comes via the thus-named Apostolic Decree in the Book of Acts (15:20, 29; 21:25). When news of the Gospel’s advance among the Gentiles came back to the original (Jewish) church in Jerusalem, the church’s leaders were at pains both to affirm the faith of the Gentile converts and to minimize the ethical and behavioral requirements (e.g., circumcision) that these new converts would have to take up from Jewish culture. They decided that
|
... we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality [porneia], from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. (Acts 15:19,20)
|
Significantly, then, a Jewish ethical requirement that did transfer over to Gentile converts was the prohibition against porneia.
However, it was ultimately from St. Paul’s letters that Christian understandings of porniea developed. (376) Pride of place must go to 1 Corinthians 5 – 7, where the Apostle is exhorting a group of recent converts immersed in a Greco-Roman sexual culture that was obviously tempting to them. There, Paul mentions types of unrighteous men, including the adulterer (moichos) and the fornicator (pornos). (1 Corinthians 6:9) Harper, again:
However, it was ultimately from St. Paul’s letters that Christian understandings of porniea developed. (376) Pride of place must go to 1 Corinthians 5 – 7, where the Apostle is exhorting a group of recent converts immersed in a Greco-Roman sexual culture that was obviously tempting to them. There, Paul mentions types of unrighteous men, including the adulterer (moichos) and the fornicator (pornos). (1 Corinthians 6:9) Harper, again:
|
The distinction between [pornos] and [moichos], even in Paul’s writings, does not turn on the man’s marital status; hence “fornicator” and “adulterer” are misleading in English. The overwhelming and pervasive sense of [moichos] is “violator" -- one who trespasses on honorable female sexuality. The sense of [pornos] is larger and less distinct. The [latter] implies the man with a lascivious lack of self-control; the [former] implies the man who corrupts respectable women. (377)
|
Harper writes that, for Paul, the key to the meaning of 'porneia', and hence to who is a pornos, lies in this famous passage:
|
“I have the right to do anything,” you say -- but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything” -- but I will not be mastered by anything. You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality (porneia) but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute (pornes)? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute (porne) is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality (porneian). All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually (porneuon), sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. (1 Corinthians 6:12-20)
|
From this text, then, Harper understands the Pauline notion of porneia as follows:
|
At issue is a category of sexual activity that some members of the Corinthian community believe is allowed but that Paul views as illicit. This category is most readily comprehensible as that wide subset of extramarital sexual activity that was tolerated in Greek culture, the sexual use of dishonored women. If there were any doubt that Paul had prostitution principally in mind, his immediate reference to the [porne] makes it clear that for him ... prostitution was the main venue of such pagan sexual license. (378) (4)
|
Subsequent to the New Testament, Christian understanding of porneia continued to develop, though within the basic outlines of what has been described. By the late fourth-century CE the distinction between “adultery” and “fornication” was fixed. Harper writes:
|
The church recognized a fundamental division between [moicheia] and [porneia]. [Moicheia] was sexual violation of a respectable woman -- extramarital sex with a wife, daughter, or widow. [Porneia] was extramarital sex that did not injure a third party such as a husband, father, or male relative who stood in a position of protection over a woman’s sexual honor. The nature of the sexual sin, for the fourth-century church, was determined by the woman’s place in society. (363, 364)
[Throughout these centuries... ] the dominant trend in the use of [porneia] was the ascendance of one particular meaning -- sex with dishonored women. If late Second Temple Judaism and first-century Christianity saw a widening of the term [porneia] to include virtually any prohibited sexual act, the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire went hand in hand with a narrowing of the term to refer primarily to [extramarital sex that did not injure a third party male.] (379) |
Let us summarize then Harper on porneia: 'Porneia' as used in classical Greek culture referred to the act of a woman selling herself for sexual use by a man. The various other elements of Greco-Roman sexual culture -- in particular, the sexual exploitation of slaves and other dishonored females by men -- did not count as porneia. However, during Second Temple Judaism -- driven largely by the interplay of Hebrew ideas with Greek ones as mediated by the Septuagint -- 'porneia' developed a broader meaning for faithful Jews. All of the sex practices of the libertine Greeks and Romans became porneia; men, as well as women, could commit porneia; and a conjugal sex ethic became the norm. In the New Testament we see the early Christians continuing within these same parameters. Jesus reaffirmed the creational-monotheistic vision of Genesis 1 - 3 with respect to conjugality. And for St. Paul 'porneia' referred to sex with dishonored women, specifically prostitutes. On into the first centuries of Christian teaching and practice, porneia became fixed -- in contradistinction to moicheia -- as extramarital sex in which a third party male was not injured. Hence the nature of sexual misconduct continued -- as with the ancient Israelites and the classical Greeks -- to be defined in terms of the woman’s social status.
Later, I shall consider the implications of these ancient facts to sexual ethics in a culture like ours: one that aspires to be non-patriarchal, where social status is not (primarily) fixed by marriage or kinship, and where women and men are equals.
Later, I shall consider the implications of these ancient facts to sexual ethics in a culture like ours: one that aspires to be non-patriarchal, where social status is not (primarily) fixed by marriage or kinship, and where women and men are equals.
Same-sex relations in the New Testament
I turn now to the New Testament’s witness about same-sex relations. In doing so, I shall make use of the excellent and sensitive assessment by scholar Richard B. Hays in his justly celebrated The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Hays provides an exegetically nuanced and theologically robust treatment of the relevant texts. Some of his theological conclusions I will consider later. Here, I focus on claims he makes in regard to the texts themselves.
Hays begins with the Holiness Code from Leviticus, considered above, as the backdrop for New Testament teaching.
I turn now to the New Testament’s witness about same-sex relations. In doing so, I shall make use of the excellent and sensitive assessment by scholar Richard B. Hays in his justly celebrated The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Hays provides an exegetically nuanced and theologically robust treatment of the relevant texts. Some of his theological conclusions I will consider later. Here, I focus on claims he makes in regard to the texts themselves.
Hays begins with the Holiness Code from Leviticus, considered above, as the backdrop for New Testament teaching.
|
It is worth noting that the act of “lying with a male as with a woman” is categorically proscribed: motives for the act are not treated as a morally significant factor. This unambiguous legal prohibition stands as the foundation for the subsequent universal rejection of male same-sex intercourse in Judaism. (page 381 in Hays; emphasis his)
|
Two Greek words -- both showing up in St. Paul -- refer to homosexual acts. Returning to 1 Corinthians, the same text that censures those who engage in porneia likewise condemns the malakoi and the arsenokoitai. ('Malakoia' is only used once in the New Testament in this sense. 'Arsenokoitai' is only used twice, once in 1 Corinthians, once in 1 Timothy 1:10.)
'Malakoia' -- literally “the soft ones” and by extension “effeminate” -- shows up in Hellenistic Greek as pejorative slang for the passive partner in gay sex. (Pederasty is part of the context here.)
As to 'arsenokoitai', the first use of the word in an extant Greek text is actually here in 1 Corinthians. Scholars have shown that the word is a coinage from the Septuagint’s translation of the phrase “lying with a male” from Leviticus. Thus, as Hays writes:
'Malakoia' -- literally “the soft ones” and by extension “effeminate” -- shows up in Hellenistic Greek as pejorative slang for the passive partner in gay sex. (Pederasty is part of the context here.)
As to 'arsenokoitai', the first use of the word in an extant Greek text is actually here in 1 Corinthians. Scholars have shown that the word is a coinage from the Septuagint’s translation of the phrase “lying with a male” from Leviticus. Thus, as Hays writes:
|
Paul’s use of ['arsenokoitai'] presupposes and reaffirms the [H]oliness [C]ode’s condemnation of homosexual acts. (382)
|
However, the most theologically salient text in Paul having to do with same-sex relations doesn’t even include these words. I’m referring of course to the famous passage in the first chapter of Romans. Because of its importance to subsequent arguments, I quote here the entire passage:
|
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (1:18-32) |
In his commentary Hays centers in on the words 'nature' ('physis'), 'natural' ('kata physin'), and 'unnatural' ('para physin'). Translating literally, he understands Paul to say that those who engage in homosexual actions exchange “the natural use for that which is contrary to nature.”
These categories -- natural behavior versus the unnatural sort -- were intellectually significant in Paul’s day. Stoic philosophy, for instance, identified right moral action with living according to nature (kata physin). (This is the concept of "the natural law," noted earlier.)
Hays tells us, inasmuch as there were no standard Greek words meaning “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” that “natural versus unnatural” was a common way to distinguish between the two kinds of sexual behavior.
These categories -- natural behavior versus the unnatural sort -- were intellectually significant in Paul’s day. Stoic philosophy, for instance, identified right moral action with living according to nature (kata physin). (This is the concept of "the natural law," noted earlier.)
Hays tells us, inasmuch as there were no standard Greek words meaning “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” that “natural versus unnatural” was a common way to distinguish between the two kinds of sexual behavior.
|
In Paul’s time, the categorization of homosexual practices as para physin was a commonplace feature of polemical attacks against such behavior, particularly in the world of Hellenistic Judaism. When this idea turns up in Romans 1 ... , we must recognize that Paul is hardly making an original contribution to theological thought on the subject; he speaks out of a Hellenistic-Jewish cultural context in which homosexuality is regarded as an abomination, and he assumes that his readers will share his negative judgment of it. In fact, the whole design and logic of his argument demands such an assumption. (387)
|
Furthermore,
|
[t]hough he offers no explicit reflection on the concept of “nature,” it appears that in this passage Paul identifies “nature” with the created order. [This understanding] does not rest on empirical observation of what actually exists; instead, it appeals to a conception of what ought to be, of the world as designed by God and revealed through the stories and laws of Scripture. (387)
|
Hays has much more to say, both in terms of theology and practice, on this matter, beyond what I've considered here. Some of that I will engage later. To this point, I've only drawn on his scholarship as to the key Greek words and concepts pertinent to understanding the teaching of the New Testament on same-sex relations.
This concludes my survey of the New Testament's witness on sexuality, gay and straight. I turn now to theological considerations pertinent to our topic.
This concludes my survey of the New Testament's witness on sexuality, gay and straight. I turn now to theological considerations pertinent to our topic.
Footnotes:
(1) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is the lexicon most commonly used by conservative evangelicals. It is quite dated. The standard lexicon used by serious scholars -- at least, formerly, before the Internet came along -- is The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, usually referred to as "Kittel's" due to its primary author's name. To judge from what I've studied while writing this essay, however, Kittel's too reflects seriously outdated scholarship. The relevant entry in Kittel's includes "porne'" (my transliteration) and its cognates.
(2) Kyle Harper, "Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm," Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 2 (2011): 363–383.
(3) Seven times, in fact: Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; and Revelation 9:21. Three times men who participate in porneia -- pornoi -- are called out: 1 Corinthians 6:9; Ephesians 5:5; and 1 Timothy 1:10. References are from Harper (375). Two other significant invocations of porneia -- beyond those treated below -- are: (1) the “Matthean exceptions” to divorce (Matthew 5:32; 19:9), where porneia on the part of a wife is listed as a legitimate reason for divorce, and (2) the forceful condemnation of Rome -- the idolatrous whore -- in the book of Revelation.
(4) A little further on in 1 Corinthians -- in chapter 7 -- Paul treats of marriage as, at least in part, a safeguard against porneia. Harper again: "Ultimately, [porneia] in Paul’s letters does have the broad sense of “sexual immorality,” but we must recognize what especially this meant in the context of the Greek city under Roman rule, where sex with dishonored women was permitted, legally and culturally. It is revealing that, whereas authors of the Roman period saw sex with prostitutes or slaves as the solution to adultery, Paul saw marriage as the solution to the temptations of easy sex with dishonored women. (379)
(5) Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: Harper Collins, 1996).
Credits for images:
"The Water of Life Discourse between Jesus and the Samaritan Woman at the Well" by Angelika Kauffmann
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8988425
"French prostitutes being taken to the police station" by Étienne Jeaurat
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=153264
"Temple at Corinth" https://pxhere.com/en/photo/640871
"Topographia Germaniae, 1642" by Matthus Merian
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14687860
(1) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is the lexicon most commonly used by conservative evangelicals. It is quite dated. The standard lexicon used by serious scholars -- at least, formerly, before the Internet came along -- is The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, usually referred to as "Kittel's" due to its primary author's name. To judge from what I've studied while writing this essay, however, Kittel's too reflects seriously outdated scholarship. The relevant entry in Kittel's includes "porne'" (my transliteration) and its cognates.
(2) Kyle Harper, "Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm," Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 2 (2011): 363–383.
(3) Seven times, in fact: Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; and Revelation 9:21. Three times men who participate in porneia -- pornoi -- are called out: 1 Corinthians 6:9; Ephesians 5:5; and 1 Timothy 1:10. References are from Harper (375). Two other significant invocations of porneia -- beyond those treated below -- are: (1) the “Matthean exceptions” to divorce (Matthew 5:32; 19:9), where porneia on the part of a wife is listed as a legitimate reason for divorce, and (2) the forceful condemnation of Rome -- the idolatrous whore -- in the book of Revelation.
(4) A little further on in 1 Corinthians -- in chapter 7 -- Paul treats of marriage as, at least in part, a safeguard against porneia. Harper again: "Ultimately, [porneia] in Paul’s letters does have the broad sense of “sexual immorality,” but we must recognize what especially this meant in the context of the Greek city under Roman rule, where sex with dishonored women was permitted, legally and culturally. It is revealing that, whereas authors of the Roman period saw sex with prostitutes or slaves as the solution to adultery, Paul saw marriage as the solution to the temptations of easy sex with dishonored women. (379)
(5) Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: Harper Collins, 1996).
Credits for images:
"The Water of Life Discourse between Jesus and the Samaritan Woman at the Well" by Angelika Kauffmann
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8988425
"French prostitutes being taken to the police station" by Étienne Jeaurat
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=153264
"Temple at Corinth" https://pxhere.com/en/photo/640871
"Topographia Germaniae, 1642" by Matthus Merian
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14687860