BIBLICAL RESOURCES FOR REFLECTION ON HUMAN SEXUALITY

(by  Stephen E. Westfall)


This handout is provided as a summary of and supplement to Adult Education sessions on scripture and human sexuality.  These were conducted on April 26 and May 3, 1992, at St. Mark's Episcopal Church, Glen Ellyn, Illinois, by the Committee for Moral and Pastoral Issues of Sexuality in order to carry out a Diocesan Convention call for all parishes to engage in a dialogue on human sexuality.

The purpose of the second and third sessions in our Adult Education series on human sexuality is to examine the evidence of scripture.  Scripture is acknowledged by the church as authoritative because Christians believe that God has spoken through the authors of scripture.  In Anglicanism, scripture is not the only authority to which we appeal, but it is of the utmost importance.  We therefore seek to discover what guidance it may provide regarding the subject before us.

There are a number of ways one could approach a study of human sexuality in scripture, each with its own merits.  One approach would be to examine all the historical phenomena reported in scripture which testify to the differing expressions of human sexuality, and to attempt to establish a history of the development.  Another approach might examine the historical record using the categories of sociology.  Since we seek to know what if anything the scripture specifically teaches, as opposed to simply reports, about human sexuality, the method used here to approach the subject in scripture is to examine the specifically theological and didactic (instructional) passages pertaining to sexuality.  This does not mean that we are ignoring history, however, because we want to understand these passages in their historical setting, and not import our modern categories when explaining them.  Furthermore, it is recognized that even passages of historical narrative are usually written from a religious/theological perspective.  Finally, we will look at passages containing historical narrative (e.g., the Sodom and Gomorrah story), when they are important for our topic.

It is important to recognize that we understand scripture through the lens of interpretation, and that many interpretations of scripture have changed throughout the centuries of the church's history.  Regarding passages in scripture bearing on the topic of human sexuality, it is fair to say that there are two broad schools of interpretation.  One of these I will call the "traditional" view, although there is considerable diversity within its representatives on some issues (e.g., the role of celibacy; divorce and remarriage; birth control).  The other school is a relatively recent development, and I will therefore refer to it as the "non-traditional" view.  In the two short sessions we have available, we cannot cover all of the scriptural evidence in depth, but I will attempt to touch on the main points and to give a fair summary of differing positions.  Some suggestions for further reading of representative views are included at the end of this handout.

All quotations of scripture are taken from the Revised Standard Version (RSV).  Alternative translations of some words occasionally will be noted.

I.    The positive significance of human sexuality as described in biblical literature.

The creation story in Genesis, gospel accounts of Jesus' teaching, and St. Paul all set forth a positive theology of human sexuality which finds the teleology or purpose of sex in God's original creation and design.  These passages are found in Genesis 1 and 2; Matthew 19:1-9; Mark 10:1-12; and Ephesians 5:25-33.  They all view sex as blessed by God and therefore good within the context envisioned by these passages, that is, within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman.  Scripture also presents joy or pleasure as part of the purpose for sexuality, although this is not the major emphasis.

A.  The Creation Narratives.

Genesis 1:26-28
 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.  And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
Genesis 2:18-25

 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."  So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.  The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.  So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.  Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."  Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.  And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

Notes on Genesis

In the earlier verses of this chapter where the creation of the animals is described, no reference to the sexual nature of animals was deemed necessary.  Animals are sexual creatures, but that is not significant to the writer's story.  But verse 27 emphasizes the special character of man as a species -- that he is created in the image of God -- and the sexual division into male and female is singled out for special mention.  Both of these are part of man's nature and are essential to God's purpose for man:  to multiply, that is, to procreate, and rule over the earth and all that is in it.  As the one and only created being which is like God, man is to rule the rest of God's creation, and procreation by means of the sexual union of male and female is part of the design for accomplishing that.

The first chapters of the Bible begin with the story of creation -- the entire created order is established by God.  Whether one interprets it literally or figuratively, the natural relationship and affinity between man and woman is the import of the statement that God made woman from man's rib (Genesis 2:21-22), and sex is the divinely ordained impulse which draws the man and the woman together to become "one flesh".  Within this framework, the bonding of a man and a woman into one flesh is viewed as God's design.  As such, it is declared good (see Genesis 1:31; 2:25).

B.  The Teaching of Jesus.

In several passages from the gospels, Jesus builds on and expands upon the creation accounts of Genesis in order to assert even more strongly the unity God creates in marriage.
 
 Matthew 19:3-9
 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"  He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?  So they are no longer two but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."  They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"  He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.  And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."
Mark 10:2-9

 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"  He answered them, "What did Moses command you?"  They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away."  But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.  But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'  'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'  So they are no longer two but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

Notes on Matthew and Mark

In discussing the question of divorce, Jesus draws on the creation narrative from Genesis to show God's purpose of unity in marriage.  In Matthew 19:6 the conclusion he draws from the creation narrative is that the sexual union creates a unity, that God has brought this unity about, and that man must not put an end to it.  The concept of "one flesh" obviously goes beyond the physical joining during sex, since it does not end when the sex act is over.  There is a non-physical aspect to this unity.  Without going into the larger issue of divorce and remarriage, the point I want to make here is that Jesus views marriage between male and female as the divinely ordered way for mankind (verse 4), and he goes further to affirm it as a permanent union which has been established by God, the logical outcome of the "one flesh" idea.

C.  The Teaching of St. Paul.

Like Jesus, St. Paul uses the Genesis creation narrative as a backdrop for his own teaching about marriage, specifically, about the essential characteristic of love, which was not discussed in the passages previously examined.

 Ephesians 5:25-33
 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.  Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his wife loves himself.  For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.  "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."  This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

In this section of Ephesians, the Apostle Paul gives instructions regarding relationships in the households of Christians.  Marriage between male and female is assumed, and the relationship is to be characterized by the same kind of redemptive and sacrificial love as was demonstrated by Christ in giving himself for the church.  Husbands should love their wives because they are one flesh, Paul says, which is both a physical and a mystical or spiritual unity.  He draws on two images to reinforce this:  the spiritual unity of Christ and the church, and the Genesis creation story, from which he quotes.  Note again that the physical union of man and woman in marriage is viewed as good.

To summarize, the passages examined so far set forth both a unitive and a procreative purpose for human sexuality.  It is a divinely designed joining or bonding of a man and a woman in what is intended to be a permanent union.  This union is such that the man and the woman are considered to be "one flesh" and joined by God.  It is the means of fulfilling the mandate of God to multiply and rule over the creation.  Within that framework, it is said to be good.  Note also that Jesus treated the creation story as normative for human sexual relations, and it deserves to be used in a normative way as we try to develop a Christian theology of human sexuality.

D.  Human Sexuality and Pleasure.

It should be noted that the pleasurable aspect of sex is approved of in scripture, even though this is not a major emphasis.  For example:

 Proverbs 5:15-23
 Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well.  Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets?  Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you.
Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a graceful hind, a graceful doe.
Let her affection fill you at all times with delight, be infatuated always with her love.
Why should you be infatuated, my son, with a loose woman and embrace the bosom of an adventuress?
For a man's ways are before the eyes of the LORD, and he watches all his paths.
The iniquities of the wicked ensnare him, and he is caught in the toils of his sin.
He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is lost.

II.    The Framework of Holiness and Purity within which Human Sexuality Functions.

Not only does scripture set forth a positive theology of human sexuality within marriage as set forth in Part I, but it also sets up a protective context or framework which provides the kind of social environment in which marriage can function and flourish.  This framework consists of exhortations and ethical regulations regarding faithfulness and holiness, and negative strictures on adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc.

A.  A Positive Ethical Context for Marriage.

In two key passages St. Paul discusses the characteristics of the Christian church which affect the expression of human sexuality in marriage.

  I Thessalonians 4:1-8
 Finally, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God, just as you are doing, you do so more and more.  For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus.  For this is the will of God, your sanctification:  that you abstain from unchastity; that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God; that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we solemnly forewarned you.  For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness.  Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.

In this passage St. Paul exhorts the Thessalonian Christians to avoid the sexual license that was commonly found in the hellenistic/Roman world and summarized in the word translated "unchastity" (RSV), "fornication" or "immorality" (Greek porneia).  Instead, he urges them to fulfill God's will, which is their sanctification, by abstaining from such sexual immorality and by a marriage characterized by holiness and purity.  Commenting on this passage Wayne Meeks writes:

In 1 Thess. 4 the controlling category is "holiness."  Its opposite is "impurity" (4:7), understood here as a metaphor for forbidden sexual connections.  "Holiness" implies separation; it is contrasted with passions attributed to "the gentiles who do not know God" (1 Thess. 4:5)."  (The First Urban Christians, page 100.  New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.)

The word "sanctification" also derives from the idea of separation, but not in the negative sense of withdrawal from non-Christians, which St. Paul specifically denies in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.  Rather, it refers to the distinctive way of living in purity which should characterize the Christian.

  I Corinthians 7:1-9, 25-38
 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote.  It is well for a man not to touch a woman.  But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.  The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.  For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.  Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.  I say this by way of concession, not of command.  I wish that all were as I myself am.  But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.  But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry.  For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.  I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.  Are you bound to a wife?  Do not seek to be free.  Are you free from a wife?  Do not seek marriage.  But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin.  Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.  I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it.  For the form of this world is passing away.

I want you to be free from anxieties.  The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.  And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.  I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry - it is no sin.  But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.  So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

In 1 Corinthians 7 St. Paul gives advice on the subject of marriage.  He personally favors celibacy, in light of his apocalyptic expectations of the imminent end of the world, and because the celibate Christian potentially can devote more of himself or herself to the service of God, while the married Christian has to contend with all the complex distractions of married life.  Nevertheless, Paul recognizes that marriage may be the appropriate avenue for others.  In such marriages, Paul recognizes the importance of regular sexual relations, since the absence of it creates temptation for the partners.  But he commends the celibate state for the one who is able as "doing better".

Matthew 19:12 also recognizes the place of voluntary celibacy in the service of God:  "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

What about polygamy?  Although polygamy is recorded as occurring not infrequently in the Old Testament, monogamy is generally found there, and it is presupposed in the New Testament.  Note that polygamy is not envisioned in any of the normative passages on marriage which were discussed above.  One man and one woman are in view.  While polygamy and divorce were aberrations from the model which were tolerated and regulated in the Old Testament legal code (e.g., Deuteronomy 21:15-17), in the case of divorce, at least, Jesus is said to have considered it an accommodation to human sinfulness.  He observed that "from the beginning it [legal permission to divorce] was not so" (Matthew 19:8), referring again to the model from the creation story.

B.  Negative Restrictions on Sexual Expression.

This section will note that the theology of human sexuality which we see in scripture is basically negative about any type of human sexual relations outside the framework described in the previous section, that is, outside the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman.

Rather than trying to arrange the following materials by category, we will for the most part simply follow the order of the English Bible, noting relevant passages.

Genesis 19 - The Sodom and Gomorrah Story.  Note that this story involves more than just homosexuality; it is a story about gang rape and violation of the ancient near eastern cultural code requiring hospitality to strangers.  This is not to say that it is favorable toward homosexuality, however.  At the time Genesis 19 was written, Sodom and Gomorrah had become proverbial examples of God's judgement (see Genesis 13:10,13; Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; compare also Isaiah 1:9-10; 3:9; Jeremiah 23:14; Ezekiel 16:48-50; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7).  Some modern exegetes claim that this and other passages such as Romans 1 demonstrate that the Bible knows nothing of committed, monogamous same-sex relationships, and that passages like this cannot be used to speak against homosexuality of that kind.  We will look at that assertion in more depth when we come to the Romans 1 passage.
 
Exodus 20 - The 7th commandment (20:14):  "Thou shalt not commit adultery".  The violation of the marriage covenant is considered to be a grave offense and is prohibited by the heart of Israel's law code.  Some related passages:  Leviticus 18:20 -- "And you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, and defile yourself with her."  Note that the use of the language of the purity code in this verse ("defile yourself with her") does not preclude other objections to adultery which are based on other than purity regulations.  Deuteronomy 5:18 -- "Neither shall you commit adultery."  See also John 8:2-11 (account of the woman caught in the act of adultery).  Leviticus 20:10 -- "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death."  Deuteronomy 22:22 -- "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel."  (See also Deuteronomy 22:23-27; Job 31:9-12; Proverbs 6:26; 7:6-27; Ezekiel 18:10-13; 22:11; Malachi 3:5; Matthew 5:27-28,31-32; Romans 7:3.)

At the root of adultery is a breaking of faith and loyalty owed a partner with whom one is bound in a covenant (see Malachi 2:13-16), and it is therefore not surprising to find that the word adultery and related terms eventually came to be used figuratively of the apostasy of God's people and their faithlessness in turning away from God (e.g., Jeremiah 13:27; Hosea 2:2; 7:4).

Leviticus 18 - 18:22 states:  "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination".  The Hebrew verb translated "to lie down" is commonly used in the sense of "lying with to have sexual relations".  The verbal form translated "You shall not lie" is masculine.  The Hebrew word order strongly emphasizes the phrase "with a male" by placing it at the very beginning of the sentence.  Hence it is clear that the act of a male lying sexually with another male is the thing being objected to, and this is contrasted with the acceptable act referred to by the phrase "as with a woman".

The word translated "abomination" in the RSV is related to the Hebrew verb meaning "to hate" or "to abhor" and is a very strong term of disapproval.  "Abomination" is used to describe the following kinds of acts:  offensive violation of established custom; foods prohibited as unclean; imperfect sacrifices; magic and divination; sexual irregularities; moral and ethical faults; reversal of the natural; idolatrous practices; idols.  (See Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, page 13 for an extensive listing of occurrences in the Old Testament.)

A clearer rendering of 18:22 would be:  "And with a male you shall not lie sexually in the way one would with a female; it is a detestable thing."

Note that 18:24-30 indicates that these "abominations" are not prohibited to the covenantal people, the Israelites, only; it is critical to note that the non-covenantal people who occupied the land before Israel committed these acts and were also held responsible for them by God, even though they were not a part of the theocratic state for which the levitical laws held sway.  Regardless of how we deal with the relation between the Old Testament Law and the Christian, this passage presents a list of sexual sins as being abhorred by God quite apart from any legal formulations.

Leviticus 20 -- 20:13 states:  "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."  This verse uses the same imagery as 18:22, but adds the sentence of death and guilt.  (Leviticus 20 prescribes the death penalty for the sexual offenses and for some other offenses mentioned in chapter 18, specifically:  Child sacrifice, necromancy (consulting mediums and wizards), cursing one's parents, adultery, incest, male homosexual acts, and bestiality.)

It has been argued by some that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 refer only to homosexual temple prostitution.  Male and female prostitutes, including homosexual prostitutes, were not uncommon in ancient near eastern religions.  Apart from the fact that nothing in the text limits the prohibition to the context of religious prostitution, it also should be noted that one would logically have to extend that interpretation to 18:23, where bestiality, or participating in sex acts with animals, is also prohibited.  Bestiality was also found in ancient near eastern religions, and it would not make sense to claim such a religious context for verse 22 but not for verse 23.  On the contrary, both homosexuality and bestiality are condemned in general in this passage, regardless of the context in which they occur.  They are called "abomination" and "perversion" (or "confusion"), respectively, because they are violations of the natural distinctions of God's created order.  (Parenthetically, it should be noted that the association of a practice with a pagan religion does not necessarily preclude other objections to that practice as well.)

Note that contemporary American culture has very different perceptions about the relative weight of the various offenses listed in the Levitical legal code.  For example, we no longer execute anyone for committing any of these acts, and probably few people consider it immoral to engage in sex during a woman's menstrual period (20:18).  (In ancient Israel, a woman was considered to be unclean during her menstrual period, and had to undergo purification afterward.)

Deuteronomy 22:5, 9-12 -- This passage prohibits cross-dressing, mixing different kinds of seeds when sowing a crop, yoking an ox and a donkey together to pull a plow, and garments made of more than one kind of material.  "The mixing of kinds was believed to be a violation of the differences which God had ordained" (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, p. 243).  But note that not all of these were called abominations -- only the one which violated the differences between man and woman.  Compare Leviticus 19:19 -- "You shall keep my statutes.  You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff."

As another example of cultural differences, Exodus 21 sanctions (or, at least, tolerates) slavery, and in the case where a man owns an ox that habitually gores and kills people, the owner of the ox is put to death unless the victim is a slave, in which case he is only fined 30 shekels of silver.  The closest analogy to this in American history is Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which apportioned representatives in the House of Representatives on the basis of the whole number of free persons and three fifths of the slave population.  That was changed, of course, by the fourteenth amendment in 1868, and we would never dream of making such distinctions now.

Having noted some of the problems we may have in dealing with an ancient legal code, it is also fair to distinguish, as Christian theologians always have, between regulations that were only based in the Israelite religious cultus (that is, in its tabernacle and temple-based worship), and those which also were grounded on principles which are still applicable today.  Jesus and the apostles did not confirm the importance of observing the Jewish regulations for ritual purity.  On the other hand, they did accept the moral framework of the Old Testament intact, along with its emphasis on sexual purity, and the New Testament even uses the language of purity in describing sexual ethics, although it certainly does not impose the Old Testament ritual purity code on Christians.

Exodus 22:16-17 states:  "If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall give the marriage present for her, and make her his wife.  If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equivalent to the marriage present for virgins."  (See also Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which adds that he may never divorce the woman.)  The Old Testament law has what might be termed a "casual" attitude about premarital sex.  However, the treatment was very different if the woman was betrothed, in which case it was treated as adultery since she is already viewed as another man's wife.  (Compare the Gospel story of Joseph's treatment of Mary when he learned she was pregnant and decided to "put her away quietly", i.e., divorce her without public embarrassment.)

Deuteronomy 22:13-30 contains further laws governing sexual relations which you may wish to examine on your own.

Acts 15:1-35 -- The decree of the first church council, held in Jerusalem, dealt with the issue of whether Gentiles who believed the gospel had to be circumcised and undertake to keep the Mosaic Law in order to be saved.  Was keeping the Law a requirement for salvation?  The Apostolic council decreed, to the contrary, that keeping the law, including the rite of circumcision, was not necessary, and it laid upon the Gentile Christians a minimal behavioral code which would allow Jewish and Gentile Christians to maintain fellowship.  The Gentiles were requested to abstain from two things which made it impossible for observant Jews to associate with Gentiles:  first, from food associated with idols or not drained of blood, and, secondly, from what is variously translated as "unchastity" (RSV), "fornication", or "immorality".  The Greek word is porneia, which is used in the New Testament of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse, including prostitution, unchastity, and fornication.  It is differentiated from adultery (Greek moicheia) in Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21, although adultery does appear as one form of fornication in some non-biblical Hellenistic texts.  porneia is also used in the book of Revelation in a figurative sense to refer to idolatry or apostasy from God (2:21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2; 18:3; 19:2).  (This is in keeping with Old Testament usage where fornication sometimes appears as a symbol for idolatry and apostasy.  See Hosea 6:10; Jeremiah 3:2,9; 2 Kg 9:22.)  In light of this, some interpreters (e.g., Countryman) have suggested that in Acts porneia is metaphorical for worship of other Gods, and that it has no reference to sexual behavior.  However, since the New Testament's figurative use of the word porneia seems to be confined elsewhere to the book of Revelation, the decree of the council appears most likely to enjoin the Gentile Christians from any form of sexual expression which was considered unacceptable by the Jews.  This interpretation is also likely in view of the widespread occurrence in the hellenistic and Roman world of what Jewish culture considered to be sexual immorality.

 Romans 1:16-32
 For I am not ashamed of the gospel:  it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.  For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live."

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.  So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever!  Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.  Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.  They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice.  Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Romans 1 is probably the passage cited most frequently in opposition to any acceptance of homosexuality by the church.  A plain reading of it certainly seems to place homosexual acts outside the limits of Christian behavior.  Before examining the passage's details, however, several recent interpretations should be noted, each of which serves to remove the passage's relevance for the church's deliberations regarding homosexuality.

John Boswell, in his influential work Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, makes four assertions about this passage in Romans, several of which have the effect of removing any negative ramifications regarding the practice of homosexuality in modern society.  Briefly, he notes:
  1. Paul was not simply targeting temple prostitution, since heterosexual temple prostitution was also common.  Also, the behavior itself is what Paul objects to, not its associations with pagan religion.  Finally, the acts which Paul has in view were motivated by lust, and not merely by ritual considerations.

  2. The purpose of Paul's reference to homosexuality is to support his general condemnation of the Gentiles for rejecting God.  The subject of homosexuality is dropped after that is established.

  3. The persons condemned by Paul are not the kind of people whom we know to be homosexual by nature, that is, whose sexual preference, to use a modern term, is homosexual.  Instead, Paul is condemning heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts.  Boswell's interpretation "rests on the observation that the women in question 'exchanged natural relations for unnatural' and that the men 'gave up natural relations with women'" (Hays, 1986: 186-187; see reading list at the end of this handout).

  4. A proper understanding of Paul's use of the phrases "natural" and "unnatural" (Greek para physin, "against nature") shows that Paul does not condemn homosexual acts, but only homosexual acts which are contrary to the nature of the individual committing them.
The first two of Boswell's points are not controversial.  Most commentators agree that Romans 1 is not talking about cult prostitution, and that the main point of the passage is not to discuss sexual ethics in general (if it were, it left out a lot), but "to proclaim that the wrath of God is now being revealed against all who do not acknowledge and honor God." (Hays, 1986:187).  Boswell's remaining points will be addressed in the following discussion of Romans 1.

Robin Scroggs, in his book The New Testament and Homosexuality, asserts that St. Paul only had in mind the hellenistic model of homosexuality in which a grown, otherwise heterosexual, man would establish an on-going sexual relation with a younger man.  In Greek culture this was sometimes considered to be something of a rite of passage into manhood.  Scroggs goes on to assert that St. Paul could not have had in mind what he claims is the modern model of homosexuality involving two consenting adults in a permanent relationship.

Finally, L. William Countryman, in Dirt Greed & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and their Implications for Today, sets forth the view that Paul is only claiming that homosexuality is ritually unclean, not sinful, and that the New Testament specifically releases the Christian from the purity laws.

So, what is Paul talking about in Romans?  Romans 1:16-17 announces the theme of the epistle:  The gospel of Jesus Christ is God's powerful act to save humanity.  That gospel reveals that acceptance with God comes through faith, whether one is a Jew or a Gentile.  Further, it reveals the righteousness of God, in answer to another major concern of St. Paul's, the problem of theodicy:  "does God deal justly with humankind?  Is God unjust to inflict wrath on us?  Has God abandoned his people?" (Hays, 1986:188).  Paul then contrasts this righteousness of God with the unrighteousness ("wickedness" in the RSV) of those without faith who suppress the truth about God (verse 18), even though that truth is part and parcel of the created order (verse 19, 20), and thus earn the condemnation of God.  The fundamental expression of mankind's unrighteousness is its general refusal to honor God and worship him (verse 21).  Men's denial of God has affected their minds and hearts (verse 21, 22), so that they have engaged in idolatry (verse 23, 25) and degraded themselves (verse 24, 26, 27).  Lesbian and homosexual acts are specifically mentioned in this context.  Finally, Paul says, God "gave them up" or abandoned them (verses 24, 26, 28) to "let the process of death work itself out" (New Oxford Annotated Bible, p. 1362).

It is critical to note that Paul does not say that mankind's depraved actions are the cause of its alienation from God.  On the contrary, the depraved acts listed by Paul are the consequence of the creature's rebellion against the creator (verses 24-31).  Because of their refusal to acknowledge him, God "gave them up", Paul says three times, to the various kinds of actions Paul discusses.  "Paul paradoxically reverses the cause and consequence:  moral perversion is the result of God's wrath, not the reason for it" (Ernst Kasemann, 1980:47).

Once mankind refused to acknowledge God, ignorance resulted, Paul says:  "they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened" (verse 21).  The same line of thought is expressed by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 -- ". . . they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

It is also critical to note that "Paul does not argue on a case-by-case basis that every single individual has first known and then rejected God; instead, thinking in mythico-historical categories, he casts forth a blanket condemnation of humankind. . .  The passage is not merely a polemical denunciation of selected pagan vices; it is a diagnosis of the human condition.  The diseased behavior detailed in verses 24-31 is symptomatic of the one sickness of humanity as a whole.  Because they have turned away from God, 'all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin' (3:9)" (Hays, 1986:189-190).

We are now in a position to examine what Paul says in Romans 1 about homosexuality.  Why did Paul choose homosexuality as his prime example of mankind's rebellion against the creator?  In the context of Paul's references to God as the creator, rebellion against the creator is all the more vivid "in the flouting of sexual distinctions that are fundamental to God's creative design" (Hays, 1986:191).  Recall that in part I we examined the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2, as well as echoes of those narratives in the gospels and in Paul, which portray the "one flesh" male-female relationship in marriage as God's way for mankind.  Hays comments:  "By way of sharp contrast, in Romans 1 Paul portrays homosexual behavior as a 'sacrament' (so to speak) of the anti-religion of human beings who refuse to honor God as creator:  it is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality, figuring forth through 'the dishonoring of their bodies' the spiritual condition of those who have 'exchanged the truth about God for a lie' (1:24-25).  Thus, Paul's choice of homosexuality as an illustration of human depravity is not merely random:  it serves his rhetorical purposes by providing a vivid image of humanity's primal rejection of the sovereignty of God the creator" (Hays, 1986:191).  Furthermore, we can conclude that Romans 1 is about sinful behavior, and not just about ritual purity (contra Countryman; see the later comments on Galatians 5:19-24 and Ephesians 5:1-20, both of which use the language of ritual purity to describe moral uncleanness which excludes one from the kingdom of God).

Notice the repetition of the word "exchange" in verses 23, 25, and 26.  Mankind has exchanged the glory of God for idols (verse 23).  Mankind has exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator.  And, finally, both men and women have exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural.

In 1:26,27 Paul uses the terms natural and unnatural, describing homosexual acts as unnatural, while heterosexual acts are viewed as natural.  Paul's use of these terms draws on the vocabulary of Greco-Roman moral philosophy, especially Stoic philosophy, which was in common use in that day.  Richard Hays cites examples at length to establish this, and concludes:
    . . . in Paul's time the categorization of homosexual practices as para physin ["against nature"] 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 . . , 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.  Though he offers no explicit reflection on the concept of "nature," it is clear that in this passage Paul identifies "nature" with the created order.  The understanding of "nature" in this conventional language does not rest on empirical observation of what actually exists; instead, it appeals to an intuitive conception of what ought to be, of the world as designed by God.  Those who indulge in sexual practices para physin ["against nature"] are defying the creator and demonstrating their own alienation from Him (Hays, 1986:192-194).

Some writers (e.g., Boswell) have claimed that Paul is talking only about heterosexual persons who engage in homosexual acts, and that Paul does not refer to people who have a homosexual orientation, i.e., are homosexual by nature.  This loses sight of the fact that in Romans 1 Paul is not describing the personal history of individuals; he is taking a "cosmic" or "mythic" view and convicting humanity as a whole of rejecting God, with homosexuality being his prime example of the result.  It is fair to say that Paul, and scripture in general, knows nothing of a homosexual orientation or character.  He only knows of homosexual activity.  Paul assumes that there is natural and unnatural, to use his terminology in Romans 1, and these are defined by God's design as established in creation.  A man engaging in sex with another man, or a woman with another woman, is committing an act "against nature", according to Paul.

The comments of Hays on Boswell's interpretation are worth quoting at length:
The "exchange" of truth for a lie to which Paul refers in Rom 1:18-25 is a mythico-historical event in which the whole pagan world is implicated.  This "exchange" continues to find universal manifestation in the moral failings which beset human society, as exemplified by the illustrations given in 1:26-32.  In the same way, the charge that these fallen humans have "exchanged natural relations for unnatural" means nothing more nor less than that human beings, created for heterosexual companionship as the Genesis story bears witness, have distorted even so basic a truth as their sexual identity by rejecting the male and female roles which are "naturally" theirs in God's created order.  The charge is a corporate indictment of pagan society, not a narrative about the "rake's progress" of particular individuals. . .  Thus, Boswell's proposal already runs aground when we recognize that the passage has no intention of discussing the developmental history of individuals.  But his proposal falls apart completely as exegesis of Paul when we recognize that the whole conception of "sexual orientation" is an anachronism when applied to this text.  The idea that some individuals have an inherent disposition towards same-sex erotic attraction and are therefore constitutionally "gay" is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the New Testament or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world. . .  In view of this situation, to suggest that Paul intends to condemn homosexual acts only when they are committed by persons who are constitutionally heterosexual is to introduce a distinction entirely foreign to Paul's thought-world and then to insist that the distinction is fundamental to Paul's position.  It is, in short, a textbook case of "eisegesis," the fallacy of reading one's own agenda into a text.  (Hays, 1986:200-201).
Several modern authors, including both Hays and Boswell, have pointed out that while Paul says homosexuality is "against nature," the phrase did not at that time have "the vehement connotation of 'monstrous abomination' which it subsequently acquired in Western thought about homosexuality."  Therefore it should not be cited as biblical warrant for a "frantic homophobia" (Hays, 1986:199).

I Corinthians 6:9-11
 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you.  But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

In this passage Paul lists the behavior of the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God, noting that some of the Corinthian Christians formerly belonged to some of the mentioned groups and were delivered from them through their new relationship with Christ.  Several of the groups of unrighteous people relate to sexual sins:  the immoral (Greek pornoi, or "fornicators"), adulterers, and what the RSV translates as "sexual perverts."  

Two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, are translated by the single phrase "sexual perverts" in the RSV and separately as "effeminate" and "homosexuals" by some other translations.  arsenokoitai occurs only here and in 1 Timothy 1:10 in the New Testament.  It is also found a few times in other literature from the Hellenistic period.  It has usually been defined as "a male homosexual, pederast, sodomite" (e.g., Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature).  However, this definition has been challenged recently by some scholars.  At this time it is unclear just what the word does mean, so one should avoid building any conclusions about homosexuality on this passage, except as they can be drawn from the general category of sexual sin called "fornication."
[Since the first publication of this paper in 1992, Richard B. Hays has written the following about the meaning of malakoi and arsenokoitai:

The word malakoi is not a technical term meaning "homosexuals" (no such term existed either in Greek or in Hebrew), but it appears often in Hellenistic Greek as pejorative slang to describe the "passive" partners - often young boys - in homosexual activity.  The other word, arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek text earlier than 1 Corinthians.  Some scholars have suggested that its meaning is uncertain, but Robin Scroggs has shown that the word is a translation of the Hebrew mishkav zakur ("lying with a male"), derived directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and used in rabbinic texts to refer to homosexual intercourse.  The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) of Leviticus 20:13 reads, "Whoever lies with a man as with a woman [meta arsenos koiten gynaikos], they have both done an abomination" [Hays' translation].  This is almost certainly the idiom from which the noun arsenokoitai was coined.  Thus, Paul's use of the term presupposes and reaffirms the holiness code's condemnation of homosexual acts.  This is not a controversial point in Paul's argument; the letter gives no evidence that anyone at Corinth was arguing for the acceptance of same-sex erotic activity.  Paul simply assumes that his readers will share his convictions that those who indulge in homosexual activity are "wrongdoers" (adikoi, literally "unrighteous"), along with the other sorts of offenders in his list.]  (Hayes, 1996:382-383)
The following passages are only briefly commented on.

Galatians 5:19-24
 Now the works of the flesh are plain:  fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like.  I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.  And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

In Galatians 5 Paul contrasts two types of person:  one who is controlled by the "flesh," and one who is controlled by the Spirit.  The former, who is characterized by the list of sins in verses 19-21, are said not to inherit the kingdom of God.  Note that "impurity" or "uncleanness" (Greek akatharsia) is said disqualify one from an inheritance in the kingdom of God.  The language of ritual purity is now being used to describe moral uncleanness which is still applicable to Christians.

Ephesians 5:1-20
 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.  And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.  But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints.  Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving.  Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.  Therefore do not associate with them, for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.  Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.  For it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret;  but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light.  Therefore it is said, "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light."  Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil.  Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.  And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, always and for everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father.

Note that the "impure man" (Greek akathartos) is said not to have an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.  As in Galatians 5:19, the language of ritual purity is being used to describe moral uncleanness.

1 Timothy 1:8-11
 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

See the previous notes on 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 regarding the translation of arsenokoitai, here translated "sodomite" by the RSV.

Ephesians 5:1-20
 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.  And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.  But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints.  Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving.  Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.  Therefore do not associate with them, for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.  Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.  For it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret;  but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light.  Therefore it is said, "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light."  Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil.  Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.  And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, always and for everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father.


Jude 3-7
 Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.  For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.  Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.  And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

The short Epistle of Jude refers to unnatural lust at Sodom and Gomorrah, but the reference is too vague to contribute to our discussion.

In summary, scripture is negative about all forms of sexual activity that are outside the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman.  Adultery (the violation of the marriage covenant), fornication and promiscuity (random sexual relations), and homosexual acts (the repudiation of the natural, created order) are all viewed in a negative light in scripture.  They violate the unitive and procreative purpose for human sexual relations which we looked at in the creation narrative and the Gospel accounts.  Pre-marital sex is not applauded, but it is not punished as long as it promptly leads to the marriage of the two parties, showing the inextricable connection between the purpose of sex and its use by men and women.

III.  Scripture and Pastoral Concerns

As was noted previously in the discussion of Romans 1, "it must be remembered that Romans 1:26-27 cannot be read as an account of how individuals become homosexuals." (Hays, 1986:209).  It is a diagnosis of the condition of mankind in general.  We must therefore be careful in drawing any conclusions about the state of any particular individual's soul or his attitude toward God, Christ, etc.

Romans 2:1 states:  "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."  Paul's main point in eliciting the reader's agreement about the awful nature of sin and judgement, as illustrated in the behavior discussed in 1:18-32, is to "hook" the reader, to convict him as being guilty of essentially the same things.  His conclusion is that all are guilty before God (3:9ff).  He does this, not to minimize the seriousness of the behavior mentioned in chapter 1, but to show that all are in need of the Gospel.  "If we are to be faithful readers of the text, we should never read Paul's condemnation of homosexual practices in 1:26-27 apart from the admonition of 2:1" (Hays, 1986:195).  This recommendation could help prevent any self-righteous attitudes from being maintained.

I Corinthians 6:11 -- "And such were some of you.  But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."  Pastorally, statements such as this by Paul offer a message of hope to individuals, no matter what kind of sinful activity they may be involved in.  Note also that many people who are concerned about dealing in a loving manner with people who are homosexuals have mistakenly concluded that in order to do so they must accept that homosexual behavior is not a sin.  But that is not Paul's approach in this verse.  The Christian way has always been to call sinners to repentance and to love them.  The gospel does not affirm people in their natural conditions -- it transforms them.  Whether a person is a homosexual, or a drunkard, or a murderer, or any other kind of sinner, the gospel is available to him or her.

Just as it is possible to love an alcoholic without approving of his drunkenness, it is possible to extend the love of Christ to a homosexual without affirming the goodness of homosexual behavior.  The Apostle Paul's remark quoted above indicates that there is hope, and does not abandon a person without hope.

Galatians 6:1-2 -- "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.  Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted.  Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ."  The church should be the kind of community which provides a context of love and support for sinners who wish to be transformed.

Finally, note also that there are people who for one reason or another are unable to marry, even though they may wish to do so.  The church has always called such people to a life of celibacy, not to promiscuous behavior.  That call is no different than the call to the homosexual to remain celibate, or to the alcoholic to remain sober, or to the person afflicted with any other besetting sin to refrain from that sin.

I Corinthians 6:9-10, 15-20 -- One function that this and other lists of sins should perform is to show Christians how selective their sense of sin can be.  We don't want to ordain homosexuals (rightly, I think) but what about the other things on Paul's list?  Why don't we get as upset about fornication and adultery, or about greed or drunkenness?  The point here is not to play down the seriousness of sexual sins, but to show that Christians need to examine their own sensitivity to sin in all its forms and to regain a sense of proportion.

As Christians, our primary identity is to be found in our relationship with God through Christ.  We are citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20).  Our identity is not to revolve around our political, cultural, social, economic, or sexual orientations, whatever they may be.  We are children of God first and foremost.

IV.  Birth Control

Scripture says nothing explicitly about the subject of birth control.  The passage about Onan in Genesis 38:6-10 does refer to an act of coitus interruptus, but the divine displeasure was incurred not because of that act, per se, but because Onan refused to fulfill the obligations of levirate marriage, wherein the brother-in-law was to produce a male descendant for his deceased brother, thus perpetuating the deceased's name and inheritance (see Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Ruth 4:1-12 on the duty to a brother's widow).  In summary, this passage has nothing to do with the subject of birth control.

Theological teaching against the use of birth control, such as that set forth by the Roman Catholic church, often is derived from a teleological form of argument which makes use of the general scriptural teaching about the procreative purpose of sex.  An important question is whether the procreative and the unitive purposes of sex should ever be separated.  The Roman Catholic church answers in the negative, saying that every act of sex should be potentially open to fulfilling the procreative purpose of sex.  Many other Christians allow for such a separation in purpose.  This is a subject  about which volumes have been written and cannot be settled in the space available here.

V.  Suggestions for Further Study

The following publications are listed to assist those who wish to study the subject of human sexuality in scripture in greater depth.

John Boswell.  Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.  Boswell seeks to explain the rise of intolerance of homosexuality in the early medieval period.  He contends that in later times Christianity was much more negative toward homosexuality than it had been in its formative period.

L. William Countryman.  Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today.  Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.  Countryman's basic thesis is that biblical prohibitions of homosexuality are based on a system of ritual purity which is not valid or binding for Christians.

C.E.B. Cranfield.  A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.  Volume 1.  International Critical Commentary.  Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975.  One of the best recent commentaries on Romans.  Very technical.

George R. Edwards.  Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective.  New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1984.  A look at the evidence of scripture from the perspective of gay liberation theology.

Richard B. Hays.  "Awaiting the Redemption of Our Bodies."  Sojourners, July, 1991,  pages 17-21.  A short article by a New Testament scholar (see the next reference) about his experience in ministering to a homosexual friend, and about grappling with the meaning of scripture in that context.

Richard B. Hays.  "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1."  Journal of Religious Ethics, 14:1 (Spring, 1986), pages 185-215.  An extremely well written article on the meaning of Romans 1.  Although it is at times somewhat technical, it is still easily understandable by the non-scholar.  Countryman (page 114, note 20) calls Hays article "useful though intemperate."  On the contrary, the only thing intemperate about Hays is that he disagrees with Countryman's interpretation of Romans 1.  Otherwise, he goes out of his way to point out that Romans 1 cannot be used to explain why any particular individual is homosexual; that Paul did not say anything that justifies homophobia or persecution of homosexuals; and that the condemnation of homosexual behavior in Romans 1 should never be read without including the very next verse (Romans 2:1), where Paul goes on to tell his readers that they are no better than the people he has been talking about previously, and that all people are in need of the forgiveness of God.

Bishop John W. Howe.  Sex: Should We Change the Rules?  Lake Mary, FL:  Creation House (Strang Communications Company), 1991.  A short summary of issues by a bishop of the Episcopal Church.

Ernst Kaseman.  Commentary on Romans.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.

Robin Scroggs.  The New Testament and Homosexuality.  Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.  Interesting survey of sexual practices and attitudes during New Testament times.  Scroggs believes that the biblical prohibitions of homosexual behavior do not apply to the modern phenomenon of homosexuality, which he thinks is characterized by long-term monogamous relationships.

[ Since this paper was first written in 1992, Richard B. Hays has published an introduction to New Testament ethics entitled The Moral Vision of the New Testament.  New York: HarperCollins, 1996.  This newer work incorporates some of his earlier writtings on the subject of homosexuality and maintains the same position as set forth in them. ]

© 2003 by Stephen E. Westfall