Changes

===Pederasty===

===Pederasty===

The common theme of the various prohomosex polemics is that none of the Biblical condemnations against homosex provide enough details to exclude sanction of "loving monogamous" same sex relations, though the word marriage is usually not used. As with the Levitical injunctions, those substantiating the traditional position evidence that all the prohibitions of illicit sex partners are motive exclusive, and that reading a motive clause into such texts is unwarranted, and would justify even consensual adultery. And that when motive is a factor as determining lawfulness, then it is specified. (Num. 35:21)

While acknowledging homosex is condemned, Scroggs denies that Paul is providing an moral list of sins in Rm 1, and sees Paul's description of the Gentiles abandoning natural relations [phusiken chresin] for unnatural ones para physin] as being similar to the argument "from nature" found repeatedly in Greco-Roman attacks on pederasty.[Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1983, , p. 114, 117] Thus, Scroggs concludes that, while Paul uses more general prohibitions in Rom. 1, he must have had pederasty in mind, and perhaps the most degraded form of it, when he attacked homosexuality in Rom. 1.

 

Scroggs surmises that Paul's concluding verse in his lists of sins (Rm. 1:28-32), “that they which commit such things are worthy of death”, (1:32)  only refers to idolatry, due to the absence of “thou shalt not” type statements, as well as a lack of explicit Old Testament correspondence to them, especially as capital offenses. However, it is first manifest that it is not necessary (or likely) to have explicit Old Testament references for sins of the heart in order for them to be considered morally prohibited, or requiring an explicit  “don't do this” type statement. Jesus' list in Mk. 7:21,22 contains some sins of the heart which are the same or similar to Paul's expanded list, and the negative conveyance there is similar to Paul's, but is certainty prohibitory even without a “thou shalt not.”  Likewise, Jesus list did not capital punishment for this, but defilement (and which is clearly moral) but sins some listed therein are capital sins. Yet in Romans death need not mean by civil powers. Later on in Romans 6:23, death is said to be the consequence of sins in general, while just as Paul lists the fruit of idolatry in Rm. 1:28-32, similarly  in Gal. 5:19-21 he lists the fruit of the flesh (god), and practicing such leads to death. (Rm. 8:13) Additionally, the wrath of God is stated to come upon “the children of disobedience” for sins of the flesh and the heart in Col. 3:6) 

 

In supposing that Paul is only referencing idolatry as a capital sin, Scroggs also misses a reason see by traditional exegesis for the injunction against idolatry. Which is not that God needs anything, (Acts 17:25), much less a loyal base, but that it is right and good for man to worship Him who is omnipotent, etc., and wholly good, and that is best for man, while idolatry works the opposite.  It is not seen that God judged pagan nations simply for worshiping “them” which by nature are no gods”, (Gal. 4:8)  or even for practicing things which are proscribed as part of ceremonial law. Rather these were judged for practicing the immoral effects of idolatry. Lv. 18:30; 20:22,23; Dt. 9:4,5; 12:30,31; 18:12; 1Kg. 14:24; 16:3, 2Ki. 17:34; Jer. 10:3)

 

Secondly, though he does see the similarity between “men with men” (Rm. 1:27) and  Lev. 18:22; 20:13, Scroggs sees Paul as expressing “Jewish propaganda" in censuring homosex, and reads his mind as referring to pederasty, as he states Philo did, due to what Scroggs assumes would be a lack of familiarity with Greek homosexuality by Paul, though he concedes he would be against such.

 

The latter aspect here is seen as unwarranted due to Paul's upbringing and educational, and substantiation of homosexual orientation being recognized in the Greek world.<ref>David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150:  599 (1993): 327-340.</ref>

 

Regardings pederasty, while this might have been the predominant form of homosexuality in the Greek world, the idea that Paul only had this form of homosex in mind in condemning sex between males with males is seen as very unlikely. Not only does Paul first list female homosex as part of the degeneration of mankind, and then likewise “also the men,” but the Bible often uses the term “young men” or “younger elsewhere to make distinctions between ages of males, (Mk. 14:51; Lk. 15:12,13; Acts 2:17; 5:6,10; 1Ti. 5:1; Tts. 2:6; 1Jn. 2:13,14) 

 

Malick comments, it is hardly also evident that Paul had other forms of homosexuality in mind when he refers in Rom. 1:26 to women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." Scroggs himself admits to being amazed that Paul refers to female homosexuality here, since it is never referred to in any Jewish and Greco-Roman discussions.[67]  <ref>http://www.phc.edu/gj_haas_hermen.php</ref>

 

The intent of the attempt by Scroggs and others to restrict Romans 1 to a certain category is to allow for “loving monogamous” homosexual relationships, but it is incongruous that Paul would not make such a distinction here. Moreover, laws regarding forbidden sexual partners throughout the Bible are never based upon motive (only divorce once was). In the light of the abundant moral and covenantal material in the N.T, it is untenable is any supposition that a form of homosex could be sanctioned without the Bible making that evident, being clearly sanctioned by marriage and doctrinally stated, especially as such is all the more necessary due to homosex being condemned without any apparent conditions, and being intrinsically contrary to the heterosexual union instituted by God, and which is clearly and consistently but uniquely sanctioned by marriage between the male and female.     

 

1Co 6:10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, [malakos] nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [arsenokoitai]  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

 

 

The controversy here focuses upon two obscure words, malakos and arsenokoitai, which prohomosex advocates have much labored with to disallow them as referring to homosexuals or homosex in general, and which attempts and their nature can be best seen in traditionalist responses.<ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS OR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY, James B. De Young]</ref><ref>[ http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 David E. Malick</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html PAUL, HOMOSEXUALITY, AND 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11]</ref><ref>[http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate 1by Calvin Smith]</ref><ref>[http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/linguistic-grounds-for-translating-arsenokoitai-as-homosexuals Linguistic Grounds for Translating Arsenokoitai as “Homosexuals”] De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications</ref><ref>[http://www.nwnet.org/~prisca/THE%20MALAKOI%20AND%20ARSENOKOITAI.htm THE MALAKOI AND ARSENOKOITAI (I COR 6:9): WHAT IS REALLY MEANT BY THESE TERMS?]</ref><ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoBalchHBTReview2.pdf</ref>

 

 

Wright questions not only Boswell’s arguments, but also his linguistic abilities, and notes that Boswell is almost alone in taking this position. Wright, `Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible’,296</ref>

 

 

 

ARSENOKOITAI (lit. "male beds")  does not occur prior to Paul because Paul likely coined it as he coined other terms. He almost certainly derived it from two words that occur together in the LXX of Lv. 20:13 (aresenos koiten) "whoever shall lie with a male a bed as a women"). This suggests that Paul had in mid the prohibition of adult homosexuality in Leviticus. Support for this position comes from the list of vices in 1Cor. 6:9-11 and 1Tim. 1:10, which correspond, even in word order, to the 10 commandments. In both lists, Paul add "homosexuals" to adulterers in expanding the range of prohibited sex, as he does with other commands.<ref>(cf. pp. 195-99) Homosexuality By James B. DeYoung</ref>

 

Scroggs knew that Paul uses the coined term arsenokoitai in 1 Cor. 6:9, for “abusers of themselves with mankind”, and that the two parts of this compound word is found in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13.  Scroggs see arsenokoitai as a literal translation of the Hebrew term mishkav zakur ("bed with a male" as with a women: Lv. 20:13), which he believes, without providing any sources, the rabbis used in their condemnations of pederasty, though as seen together in Lv. 20:13 no such restriction (to pederasty) is made.  However, even with sources using arsenokoitai to censure pederasty, it presumes much to hold that such a general term can be restricted to simply one form of homosex. Rather, it is far more conceivable that Paul is condemning both in Romans.

 

 

As noted in D.F. Wright's response to Boswell's explanation of the Greek term, it is much more likely that this compound term developed under the direct influence of the two parts of the compound used in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. Wright repeats this point in his review of Scroggs' book. The significance of this is that Paul's usage of arsenokoites is informed by the two passages of Leviticus, which are certainly not confined to pederasty. Wright drives the point home with two pointed questions:<ref>Guenther Haas, HERMENEUTICAL ISSUES IN THE USE OF THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE</ref>

 

If Paul had wanted to condemn (a kind) of pederasty, why did he not use one of the several Greek words or phrases for it current in Hellenistic Jewish writings [e.g., paidophthoreseis]? Why did he (create or) adopt a (relatively) new, certainly unusual term inspired by a Levitical prohibition and therefore one which prima facie has a broader meaning than pederasty?<ref>D.F. Wright, "Review of The New Testament and Homosexuality by Robin Scroggs," Scottish Journal of Theology 38 (March 1985): 119-20</ref>

 

 

Wright  has  highlighted  a  major  problem  here.  If  Paul  simply borrowed an existing vice list referring to very general sexual vices, including widespread and very general forms of pederasty, how can Scroggs then suggest Paul  is identifying a very precise  form of this vice?<ref>Wright, `Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible’ (op. cit.), 296.</ref> A number of other exegetes concur.  .... example, malakos could mean `call-boy', or something similar, and both  words  together  could  be  referring  to  the  active  and  passive roles  in  the  homosexual  act  (thus  malakos  would  be  the  male But Malick argues the terms clearly  mean  more  than  this,  that  linguistically  they  cannot  be limited  to  this  understanding  alone  (other  traditionalists  agree).http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf

 

Ukleja also has identified these terms in several examples of classical Greek literature, which  clearly  refer  to  homosexuals.<ref>P.  Michael  Ukleja,  `Homosexuality  in  the  New Testament' in Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (1983).</ref>

== See also ==

== See also ==