What the Bible Really

Says About

Homosexuality

By

Daniel Helminiak,

Ph.D.

Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

Romans 14:13-14

Formating Note:

The Vision of Daniel web site where this text came from used different colors to mark some texts, I have bracketed those texts to do the same thing (paragraphs bring marked top and bottom, and indivual words and phrases being bracketed in their particular sentences or paragraphs.

Text marked with *-* are not included in the current version of book, marked with *~* were added after most recent printing, and marked with *+* was not in original publication.

The icons interspersed throught this eBook are the ones that were up on the Vision of Daniel website, where Daniel Helminiak, placed them. The Title Page graphic is taken from the Book as is the biographical photo.

Preface

This information is copyrited and has been reprinted with the permission of Alamo Press. For further information into "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, " please see your local library or bookstore.

In America, it is widely taught that hating Gays and Lesbians is perfectly acceptable behavior. Hate and loathing of Homosexuals is even preached directly from the pulpit of many churches in the United States, with horrific results.

• 30 to 40 percent of the youth living on the streets are teenagers who were thrown out of or left their homes because they are homosexual.

• Thirty percent of teen age suicides are among homosexual youth. Proportionately, this figure is at least two to three times higher than for other adolescents.

• People lose custody of their children or visitation rights for being lesbian or gay.

• Men and women are evicted from their apartments or their houses are burned--because somebody said they were gay.

• Gay men and lesbians are routinely beaten up--and murdered--for being homosexual.

• Public officials make abusive comments about the homosexual minority and easily get away with it.

• A judge hands down a blatantly prejudiced judgment against a gay man's murders and then is easily re-elected.

• A presidential administration and much of the nation ignore an epidemic that in the US was initially most prevalent among homosexual men.

• A gay man dies of AIDS in his home, locked away from every outsider, without any medical attention, because his family did not want others to know.

• Much human potential is squashed and wasted in people who live for years in secret self-hatred, taught to be afraid of their own hearts.

And now the time has come for all of that to end. Daniel Helminiak has published a book titled: What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality. His work, along with the research of top scholars--such as Yale history professor John Boswell and New Testament professors L. William Countryman of Berkeley and Robin Scroggs of Union Theological Seminary--shows that those who perceive Bible passages as condemning homosexuality are being misled by faulty translation and poor interpretation.

Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D., respected theologian and former Roman Catholic priest, explains in a clear fashion the fascinating new insights of these scholars. The Bible has been used to justify slavery, inquisitions, apartheid and the subjugation of women. Now read what the Bible really says about Homosexuality!

Religious Arguments Against Homosexuality

*-*

No religious argument against homosexuality stands up to critical analysis. Every standard religious reason is but a fiction of blind conviction. The "argument" is just personal preference. Choice sustains the position, not reason. Religion becomes a cover for prejudice.

*-*

The Bible does NOT Condemn Homosexuality As Such

Recent research has exposed long-standing mistranslation and faulty interpretation of biblical passages about homosexuality. Most simply, for example, Ezekiel 16:48-49 and Wisdom 9:13-14 define outright the sin of Sodom (Genesis 19): pride, hatred, abuse, hardheartedness; they never mention sex. Or again, the "unnatural" in Romans 1:28-29 should be translated "atypical" or "Unconventional." Understood on its own terms, the Bible offers no blanket condemnation of homosexual acts. See D.A. Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Alamo Press, 1994).

Christianity has NOT Always Opposed Homosexuality

Until about 1200, except for a period around the fall of the Roman Empire, Christian Europe was generally accepting of homosexuality. In 7th Century Visigoth Spain, a series of six national church councils refused to support the ruler's legislation against homosexual acts. By the 9th Century, extensive law codes throughout Europe treated sexual matters in detail, but none outside of Spain forbade homosexual acts. By the high middle ages a gay subculture thrived, and a standard body of gay literature was studied in the church-run universities. See J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1980).

In Church Practice, Procreation is NOT essential to Sex

Stoic philosophy held that conception of offspring is the only ethically acceptable reason for having sex. Early Christianity incorporated this notion, and some churches invoke it to condemn homosexual acts. Yet many of these same churches allow the use of birth control, and they allow marriage (and sex) between known sterile couples or between couples beyond child-bearing age. Even the Catholic Church has recently emphasized the emotional bonding and loving sharing that are central to sexual intimacy. Evidently, the churches do not really believe that the core purpose of sexual sharing is procreation.

Complementarity" is NOT Coherent"

The Argument of "Complementarity" is NOT Coherent

Supposedly, complementarity of the sexes is a God-ordained requirement for sexual relationships. But "masculinity" and "femininity" are stereotypes. Personality traits in real people are mixed and cover the map. Any two people, heterosexual or homosexual, could easily qualify as complementary on some psychological characteristics or other. Therefore, the complementarity in question must be biological, and appeal to complementarity is really just a way of saying that only a male and a female may share sex. Thus, the real argument is this: homosexual sex is wrong because only sex between a man and a women is right; homosexual couples may not share sex because they are not heterosexual. The argument explains nothing; it is circular; it begs the question. Or else, pushed even further, complementarity claims that the only permissible sexual act is penile-vaginal intercourse but gives no reason for this claim (which few believe, in any case).

Homosexuality is NOT a Sickness

Religions claim that homosexuality is an aberration from the order of God's creation. However, the bulk of mounting scientific evidence--zoological, medical, psychological, sociological, anthropological--shows that homosexuality is a natural variation. Not only prevalent in many animal species, among humans homosexuality is biologically based, fixed by early childhood, and present in virtually every known culture. There is no credible evidence that sexual orientation can--or should--be changed. Unless simply being homosexual is itself to be deemed pathological, current science can detect nothing "sick" in homosexuality and finds it a natural part of the world that God created.

Homosexuals are NOT Irreligious

Many condemn homosexuals as Godless and sinful. but contemporary homosexual Christians recognize their self-acceptance as the work of God's grace. They report that, since "coming out," they are happier, healthier, more productive, more loving, more peaceful, more joyful, close to other people-- and closer to God. According to Jesus' own criterion. "By their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:16), homosexual Christians must be true prophets of our day. In contrast, focusing on only the worst element in the homosexual--or heterosexual--community is an unfair way of assessing the matter.

Genesis 19: 1-11

The story of Sodom is probably the most famous Bible passage that deals with homosexuality--or, at least, is said to deal with it. This story is found in the book of Genesis, chapter 19, verses 1 to 11:

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with this face to the ground. He said, "Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way." They said, "No, we will spend the night in the square." But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them" Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." But they replied, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien (Lot was not originally from Sodom), and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down. But the men inside reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they were unable to find the door.

The visiting angels then warned Lot that God was going to destroy Sodom in a downpour of fire and brimstone. So Lot and his family escaped the town. However, Lot's wife disobeyed the command not to look back, and she was turned into a pillar of salt. Sodom and neighboring Gomorrah were destroyed, "and lo, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace." (19:28)

A Common Interpretation of the Story

Since about the Twelfth Century, this story has been taken to condemn homosexuality. Even the word "sodomite" was taken to refer to someone who engages in anal sex, and the sin of Sodom was taken to be male homogenital acts. So supposedly God condemned and punished the citizen's for Sodom, the Sodomites, for homogenital activity.

To Know" Mean?"

What Does "To Know" Mean?

Indeed, there is a clear sexual reference in the story. Lot offers his daughters as sex objects to the men crowding around his door. His daughters were virgins. Lot said they did not know a man.

In the Bible, "to know" sometimes means "to have sex with." That is the meaning of the word in the Christian Testament (also know as the "New Testament") where the angel told Mary that she was to be the mother of Jesus. Mary wondered, "How can this happen, since I do not know Man" (Luke 1:34)? The verb "to know" occurs some 943 times in the Hebrew Testament (also know as the "Old Testament"). In ten of those cases the word has a sexual meaning. The present text is one of those ten.

It is shocking to think that Lot would have offered his daughters to the Sodomites. This is a good example of how different Lot's culture was from our own. In that time the father of the house actually owned the women. They were his property. He was free to do with them almost whatever he wanted. It would have been very costly for Lot to give his daughters to those men, financially costly. For no one would then want to marry those women, already "used." It is surprising that Lot preferred to let the men of the town rape his daughters than to let them abuse his house guests.

What did the men of Sodom want with Lot's two visitors? They say they wanted "to know them." Some take this to mean the men wanted to have sex with the visitor. Lot's offering his daughters for sex in place of the male visitors certainly indicated as much. Still, others argue the word "to know" need not refer to sex. It may simply be that the men of Sodom wanted to find out who these strangers were and what they were doing in their town. After all, Lot was not a native of Sodom. He, too, was an outsider. The townsfolk were not happy with his inviting strangers in.

In the end there is no way of being absolutely certain whether this text refers to homogenital acts or not. In fact, most experts believe that it does. What is certain is that this text is concerned about abuse, not simply about sex.

As we will see below, in the many biblical references to the sin of Sodom, there is no concern whatever about homogenitality, but there is concern about hardheartedness and abuse. Allowing that the word "to know" really does have a sexual meaning here, what is at stake is rape, not simply malemale sex.

The Duty of Hospitality

Why would Lot have been willing to expose his daughters to rape? Why would Lot object to the townsfolk interrogating and abusing the visitors? Lot was a just man or, as the Scriptures say, a righteous man. He did what was right, as best he could. Of all the people in Sodom, only he had the kindness to invite the travelers in for the night.

In desert country, where Sodom lay, to stay outside exposed to the cold of the night could be fatal. So a cardinal rule of Lot's society was to offer hospitality to travelers. The same rule is a traditional part of Semitic and Arabic cultures. This rule was so strict that no one might harm even an enemy who had been offered shelter for the night. So doing what was right, following God's law as he understood it, Lot refused to expose his guests to the abuse of the men of Sodom. To do so should have violated the law of sacred hospitality.

The Meaning of Male Anal Sex

If, in addition, the Sodomites did want sex with the town visitor's, the offense against them would have been multiplied. For forcing sex on men was a way of humiliating them. During war, for example, besides raping the women and slaughtering the children, the victors would often also "sodomize" the defeated soldiers. The idea was to insult the men by treating them like women. So part and parcel of the practice of male-male anal sex was the notion that men should be "macho" and that women are inferior, pieces of property at the service of men.

In fact, throughout Western history, a main reason for opposition to male male sex was that it supposedly makes a man act like a woman. Saint John Chrysostom in the Fifth century and Peter Cantor in the Twelfth, outspoken Christian opponents of homogenitality, both raised that argument. To be the active partner was generally more acceptable, but to be the receptive partner was "unmanly." Evidently, the objection was more to a man's being "effeminate" than to his having sex with another man.

The Sin of Sodom

So what was the sin of Sodom? Abuse and offense against strangers. Insult to the traveler. Inhospitality to the needy. That is the point of the story understood in its own historical context.

When male-male rape becomes part of the story, the additional offense is sexual abuse--gross insult and humiliation in Lot's time and in our own. The whole story and its culture make clear that the author was not concerned about sex in itself. Lot offered his daughters without a second thought. The point of the story is not sexual ethics. The story of Sodom is no more about sex than it is about pounding on someone's front door. The point of the story is abuse and assault, in whatever form they take. To use this text to condemn homosexuality is to misuse this text.

The Bible's Own Understanding of the Sin of Sodom

That is the conclusion that follows from an historical-critical reading of the Sodom story. But in this particular case the meaning of the text is obviously from other parts of the Bible. For the Bible often refers back to the story of Sodom and says outright what Sodom's sin was.

The prophet Ezekiel (16:48-49) states the case boldly: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy travelers.

*~*

Some people would like to see homosexuality in that text. They point out that the word "abomination" occurs throughout this chapter of Ezekiel and even in verse 50, right after the verse about Sodom. They understand this to refer to the abomination of Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."

But in the Hebrew Scriptures the word "abomination" is used to refer to many things. The abominations in question here are Jerusalem's "adultery" and "harlotry," and these words are being used symbolically. They do not refer to sexual acts but to idolatry, to Israel's infidelity to the Lord God, and to child sacrifice and murder. Even though verse 50 mentions "abominable things" and is referring to Sodom, verse 49 says exactly what those abominable things were. It says outright what the wickedness of Sodom was, and male-male sex is simply not mentioned. Chapter 16 of Ezekiel is clearlyabout other things.

*~*

According to Wisdom 19:13, the sin of Sodom was a "bitter hatred of strangers" and "making slaves of guests who were benefactors." Recall that the strangers, the guests, were actually angels on a mission from God. The sin was to treat them abusively. The reference to "making slaves of guests" may refer to a common practice of the day wherein the master of a house would freely use the slaves for sexual purposes. But again, the offense was not in having sex nor even in keeping slaves but in taking advantage of, demeaning and abusing others.

Even Jesus makes reference to Sodom, and the issue is rejection of god's messengers:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instruction: "...Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave...If any one will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." (Matthew 10:5-15)

What is the reference in this gospel incident? There is no reference to sex. But there is a clear reference to rejection of God's Messengers. The parallel between the gospel and Sodom is the closed heart that rejects the stranger, the wickedness that will not welcome God's heralds.

There are other less direct biblical references to Sodom: Isaiah 1:10-17 and 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14 and Zephaniah 2:8-11. The sins listed in those places are injustice, oppression, partiality, adultery, lies and encouraging evildoers.

Adultery is the only sexual sin in that list, and even in this case sex itself is not the concern. In the mind of the Hebrew Testament, adultery is not an offense against a woman nor against the intimacy of marriage nor against the inherent requirements of sex. Adultery is an offense against justice. Adultery offends the man to whom the women belongs. Adultery is the misuse of another man's property.

The Bible often uses Sodom as an example of the worst sinfulness, but the concern is never simply sexual acts. Least of all is the concern of homogenital acts.

The Sin of Sodom Today

Even Jesus understood the sin of Sodom as the sin of inhospitality. Other passages in the Bible come right out and say the same thing. Yet people continue to cite the story of Sodom to condemn gay and lesbian people.

There is a sad irony about the story of Sodom when understood in its own historical setting. People oppose and abuse homosexual men and women for being different, odd, strange or, as they say, "queer." Lesbian women and gay men are just not allowed to fit in; they are made to be outsiders, foreigners in our society. They are disowned by their families, separated from their children, fired from their jobs, evicted from apartments and neighborhoods, insulted by public figures, beaten and killed on the streets. All this is done in the name of religion and supposed Judeo-Christian morality.

Such oppression is the very sin of which the people of Sodom were guilty. Such behavior is what the Bible truly condemns over and over again. So those who oppress homosexuals because of the supposed "sin of Sodom" may themselves be the real "sodomites, " as the Bible understands it.

Leviticus 18: 22 & 20:13

Leviticus 18: 22

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20: 13

"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."

The Abomination of Leviticus: Uncleanness

The specific concern in the story of Sodom is not homogenital acts. But there is one reference in the Hebrew Testament where that is the concern. Leviticus 18:22 states, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Then Leviticus 20:13, completing this reference, adds the punishment: "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."

In this passage the Bible uses a roundabout way of talking: to lie with a male as with a women. The Hebrew text, translated literally, is even more obscure. It reads, "With a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman." Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the text refers to male homogenital acts. There is no hint of lesbian sex acts here. The offense is called an abomination, and the prescribed penalty is death. This all sounds pretty straightforward, and it sounds pretty bad. But what does this text mean in its own historical context?

They Shall be Put to Death

First, consider the death penalty. It really is severe. But Leviticus prescribes the same penalty for cursing one's parents. Other sexual sins also merit the death penalty: adultery, incest and bestiality. The law in Leviticus considered all these crimes to be very serious--but for different reasons.

Cursing one's parents, for example, was a major crime against society. Israelite society of the time was built around the extended family, the clan or the tribe. Slaves were subject to the children of the household. The children in turn were subject to their parents, and the mother was subject to her husband. Yet even the husband remained subject to his own father, as long as his father was alive. The eldest father and husband, the patriarch, was head of the whole household, which included people, animals, land and other property. The patriarch might be something like the mayor of a town in our system of government. The operation of that whole patriarchal system depended on obedience within the family hierarchy. So to oppose one's parents was to threaten social disorder. In our terms such behavior would be insurrection or treason, punishable by death.

Adultery was another matter. For us, a married person, man or woman, commits adultery by having sex outside of the marriage. The offense is infidelity, betrayal of a trust or commitment, and it is against one's husband or wife. It is a personal offense. In ancient Israel, adultery was an offense only against the husband; it was an unlawful use of his woman, his wife. More than a personal offense, it involved a financial loss: the man had paid his wife's father a bridal price for her, and she was important to the expansion of his family, the increase of his property.

Marriage and childbearing determined lines of ownership and inheritance in the patriarchal family.Property was passed on to the male children. Unlike the Romans, the Israelites did not recognize adoption as a basis for inheritance. It was important that he child born of a man's woman be his legitimate heir. But if someone else had sex with a man's wife and she later had a child, whose child would it be? To what property was the childentitled? Similarly, if a man's new bride was not a virgin, how sure could he be that a child born through her was his own? A 'used woman was of no value to anyone.

Having sex with someone else's woman could cause serious financial and social problems. The theft involved was major. In ancient Israel, that offense was seriousenough to be punished by death.

So merely knowing that a certain crime carried the death penalty does not say very much. The important question is, what really was the offense being punished and why was the offense considered so serious? In ancient Israel cursing one's parents and committing adultery had meanings very different from what those acts have in our culture.

Similarly, engaging in homogenital acts had a very different meaning. As we will see below, the sex itself was no the issue. Among the early Israelites, as Leviticus sees it, to engage in homogenital sex meant to be like the Gentiles, to identify with the non-Jews. That is to say, to engage in homogenital acts was to betray the Jewish religion. Leviticus condemned homogenital sex as a religious crime of idolatry, not as a sexual offense, and that religious treason was thought serious enough to merit death. Like a broken seal on a sterile medicine, an apostate disqualifies the whole people. The flaw must be corrected. The betrayer must be eliminated.

A Religious Consideration: Jewish Differentness

The condemnation of homogenital acts occurs in a section of Leviticus called "The Holiness Code." This list of laws and punishments spells out requirements for Israel to remain "holy" in God's sight. What does this mean?

According to Jewish belief, Israel was God's "chosen people" and was bound to God by a covenant,a pact. That covenant required that the Israelites not take part in the religious practices of the Canaanites, the people the Israelites had conquered "with God's help" and whose territory they had taken over as there own "Promised Land." To remain separate from the Gentiles, to be "holy"--set apart, different, chosen, God-like, consecrated.

So a main concern of The Holiness Code was to keep Israel different from the Gentiles. Thus, chapter 18 of Leviticus begins, 'You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes. My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes you shall keep following them: I am the Lord your God."

The Canaanite religion included fertility rites--or, at least, that is how the Hebrew Testament portrays the matter. These ceremonies allegedly involved sexual rituals that were thought to bring blessing on the cycle of the seasons, the production of crops, the birth of livestock. Supposedly, during these rituals whole families and groups of families--husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins--all might have sex with one another.

Having sex with a menstruating woman and offering child sacrifice to the Canaanite god, Molech, are other alleged Canaanite practices listed in this section of The Holiness Code.

The Holiness Code prohibits all those acts. It calls them all "abominations" and prescribes that "whoever commits any of these abomination shall be cut off from their people" (Leviticus 18:29). This same section of The Holiness Code includes the prohibition of male homogenital acts.

The point is that The Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits male same-sex acts because of religious considerations, not because of sexual ones. The concern is to keep Israel from taking part in Gentile practices. Homogenital sex is forbidden because it is associated with pagan activities, with idolatry, with Gentile identity.

The argument in Leviticus is religious, not ethical or moral. That is to say, no thought is given to whether the sex in itself is right or wrong. All concern is for keeping Jewish identity strong.

Comparisons with Contemporary Experience

There used to be a church law that forbade Roman Catholics to eat meat on Fridays, and in some places the same requirement, now less strictly interpreted, still applies during Lent. The church law was considered so serious that violation was a mortal sin, supposedly punishable by hell. Yet no one believed that eating meat was something wrong in itself. The offense was against a religious responsibility: one was to act like a Catholic.

Or again, we sometimes hear of satanic rituals that include sexual acts. Jews and Christians today would certainly object to such sex. They would object even if the sex occurred between a married man and woman. Why? Not because a husband and wife have no right to share sexual experience, but because that sex involves worship of the devil. Religious concerns, not sexual ethical ones, are the reason for the objection.

These examples are parallels to the prohibition of male-male sex in Leviticus. Not sex, but violation of Judaism is what was prohibited.

The situation in ancient Israel was very different from our own. Except under unusual circumstances, sex in our culture plays no role in religious rituals. No sex today, gay or straight, has the religious associations to which Leviticus objected. So the Leviticus code is irrelevant for deciding whether gay sex is right or wrong. Though the Hebrew Testament certainly did forbids male homogenital activity, its reasons for forbidding it have no bearing on today's discussion of homosexuality.

What is an Abomination?

One last consideration confirms that interpretation. The Leviticus text says that it is an "abomination" for a man to lie with a man as with a woman.

Once again, in standard English, that sounds pretty bad. As one preacher vividly described it, an abomination is something that makes God want to vomit. But what does the word mean to the ancient Hebrew mind? There it's not as bad as it sounds to us.

Leviticus 20:25-26 suggests what "abomination" means. It reads:

"You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples to be mine."

Evidently, "abominable" is just another word for "unclean." An "abomination" is a violation of the purity rules that governed Israelite society and kept the Israelites different from the other peoples.

Certain animals were thought to be clean and so allowed to be eaten; and for differing reasons certain other animals--like pigs, camels, lobsters and shrimp--were thought to be unclean, not to be eaten. Likewise, certain practices that involved the mixing of kinds--like sowing a field with two different kinds of seeds or weaving a cloth from two different kinds of fibers or a man's have sex with another man as with a woman--were thought to be unclean and so were not to be done. Moreover, certain events, generally unavoidable--like menstruation on a women, seminal emission in a man, attending to a burial, giving birth--made a person unclean for a certain length of time.

It is difficult to recapture the meaning of "clean" and "unclean, " "pure" and "impure, " in ancient Israel. What was the rationale behind all those different instances of uncleanness? What made all those things abominations?

Some suggest that the Jewish purity rules were principles of sanitation, that certain things were forbidden because they were health hazards. But this suggestion presumes more medical knowledge than the ancients had, and the suggestion does no make complete sense of the purity laws. What is unhealthy about mixing cotton and linen in a fabric? Or cotton and polyester, for that matter?

Even in obvious matters of health, that suggestion does not pan out. for example, a person with certain skin diseases was considered "leprous"--not in today's technical sense of the term--and was declared unclean. But if the disease spread and covered the whole body, the person was no longer unclean: "since it has all turned white, he is clean" (Leviticus 13:13). Apparently completeness or consistency in a person, rather than disease or infection itself, provides some key to understanding Israel's notion of purity. But what sense does this make compared with what we now know about health and infection?

Whatever the rationale was behind the ancient Hebrew purity laws, such thinking certainly had nothing to do with ethics as we understand it. Indeed, such thinking is almost completely foreign to our own culture.

Contemporary Examples of Uncleanness

That is not to say that there is no concern for "clean" and "unclean" in our own day. We still do sometimes call things "dirty, " and we mean disgusting and forbidden, just as the ancient Israelites did. But our reasoning is different. And even among ourselves, there is hardly anything that everyone would agree is "dirty" or "unclean." The following examples may at least provide a comparison with Israel's concern about cleanness and uncleanness. Except for mixing up God in the matter, the preacher was on target when he said that an abomination, something dirty, makes you "want to vomit." What a culture considers dirty is usually something that makes its members uncomfortable. They feel funny perhaps even feel sick. We learn what's "dirty" when we're little and people say, "Ugh! That's dirty!" "That's gross!" We learn to feel uncomfortable about things that the people around us don't like--like throwing food or soiling our pants or playing in the potty. Being "dirty" does involve uncomfortable feelings--and those feelings are learned.

Perhaps most people would agree that picking your nose and eating snot is gross and disgusting. Some might even say it's dirty, especially when talking to a child.

But just because it's dirty, just because people find it disgusting, does not mean it is wrong. In fact, eating snot is not even unhealthy. Mucus that is not removed from the nose just passes down the back of the throat and into the stomach anyway. Dirty and wrong do not necessarily go together--neither in our culture nor in ancient Israel.

In some societies people eat dogs, cats, snails, raw fish, ants or grasshoppers. To us that may be disgusting. It may seem gross or dirty. But it certainly is not wrong. It is just something with which we are uncomfortable.

In the early 1950s, styles were changing and women were just beginning to wear pants suits. Lots of women felt uncomfortable about that and even debated whether or not it was right. Should women wear pants outside the home or for shopping or even in church? From childhood they were taught how girls are supposed to behave. Though it was only custom they learned, they and never known anything else. Their custom seemed eternal decree, "the way it has always been." some even argued, "God never meant for women to wear pants!" Custom was turned into the law of God. A matter of mere social convention was thought to be a matter of morality.

That same kind of thinking surrounded other issues as the styles changed: women smoking or driving cars, men wearing long hair or brightly colored shirts or earrings and other jewelry. What felt uncomfortable was taken to be wrong. Social taboo was turned into sin.

That same uncomfortable feeling and descriptions like "disgusting" and "gross" often also surround sexual matters. But talking about sex may be the one time when we still use the words "dirty" or "impure." Supposedly, certain sexual words are dirty, and some people really are upset by them But others just shrug all this off. With more frequent usage, the emotional impact of "dirty words" has worn off.

Similarly, many people are uncomfortable with sex, so children "pick up" from them that sex is "dirty." Many never get beyond the influence of those powerful feelings, learned early in life. They never appreciate the difference between what is supposed to be dirty and what is wrong. Especially where sex is concerned, for them "wrong" means that they feel funny about it.

Most people's attitude toward homosexuality is just like that. They feel funny about it, so they say it's wrong. Pressed to explain why it's wrong, they cannot come up with good reasons. They just squirm and screw up their face, seeming to say, "It disgusts me" or "I just don't like it." But "dirty" has to do with custom and feelings, not with well-reasoned ethical judgments.

The book of Leviticus calls male homogenital acts an abomination. That means it was considered unclean. The early Israelites thought it was dirty. It was prohibited not because it was wrong in itself but because it offended sensitivities. The Book of Leviticus associated those sensitivities with Israelite religion and made homogenital acts a ritual violation. So according to Leviticus male-male sex was abominable because it offended religious Homogenitality made a man like a Canaanite. And to the Israelites, God's chose people, that was unacceptable.

A Hebrew and Greek Word Study

The very Hebrew term used in Leviticus conveys the meaning just explained. "Abomination" is a translation of the word toevah. This term could also be translated "uncleanness" or "impurity" or "dirtiness." "Taboo, " what is culturally or ritually forbidden, would be another accurate translation. The significance of the toevah becomes clear when you realize that another Hebrew term, zima, could have been used--if that was what the authors intended. Zimah means, not what is objectionable for religious or cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. It means an injustice, a sin.

Clearly, then, Leviticus does not say that for man to lie with man is wrong or a sin. Leviticus says it is a ritual violation, an uncleanness; it is something "dirty."

The conclusion of this little word study is no accident. It finds further confirmation in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Testament.

In the centuries before Christ, more and more Jews were living outside of Palestine. Many of them no longer understood Hebrew, but they did speak Greek, the common language of the Roman Empire at that time. So sometime between 300 and 150 B.C.E., a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures was prepared so that Greek-speaking Jews could still read and study their Sacred Scriptures.

*+*

In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word toevah in Leviticus 18:22 is translated with the Greek word bdelygma. This is the word most commonly used in the Old Testament to translate toevah. Fully consistent with the Hebrew, the Greek bdelygma means a ritual offense. In other places, like Proverbs 3:22, 6:16, 16:5, etc., toevah is actually translated uncleanness, akatharsia. (This very Greek word plays an important role in the first chapter of Romans, as we shall see.)

But once again, there were other Greek words available -- like anomia, meaning a violation of law or a wrong or a sin; or poneria, evil practice; or asebeia, ungodliness. These words could have been used to translate toevah. In fact, in some cases they were used. In nine places in chapter 16 of Ezekiel -- where the prophet outright defines the sin of Sodom -- toevah is translated with anomia, and the offenses in question are not just ritual impurity but real wrongs, like idolatry, child sacrifice, adultery, and basic wickedness. Anomia also translates toevah in Ezekiel 18:12, 13, and 24, where the discussion is about individual moral responsibility. In Proverbs 26:25, referring to a deceitful and wicked person, poneria is used to translate toevah. And in Ezekiel 14:6, in reference to idolatry, the Greek word asebeia is used to translate the Hebrew toevah.

The ancient Greek translators could also have used anomia or poneria or asebeia to translate toevah in the case of "man lying with man." They could have used one of these stronger terms with clear ethical implications-- if that is what they intended. They did not use a stronger term; they used bdelygma.

Evidently, the Jews of that pre-Christian era did not understand Leviticus to forbid male-male sex as something definitely wrong in itself. They understood Leviticus to forbid male-male sex as an offense against Jewish religion: it was dirty and Canaanite-like, it was unjewish. And that is exactly how they translated the Hebrew text into Greek centuries before Christ.

*+*

The Meaning of Leviticus 18:22

All the evidence points to the same conclusion. An analysis of The Holiness Code and its cultural context and a study of the Hebrew and Greek term used in the Leviticus text both show that Leviticus 18:22 forbids male homogenital acts because of their cultural and religious implications. But Leviticus makes no statement about the morality of homogenital acts as such. This was evidently not a concern in the Hebrew Testament.

Therefore, it is a misuse of the Bible to quote Leviticus as an answer to today's ethical question, whether gay sex is right or wrong. Leviticus was not addressing this question. The concern in Leviticus, the cultural context of that text, and the meaning of male-male sex in ancient Israel are all very foreign to the present situation. Today's question and that in Leviticus are simply two different things.

Well then, does the Bible offer some positive teaching in its treatment on homogenital acts in Leviticus? Distilled through an historical-critical reading of the text, the biblical lesson is this: Appreciate the legitimate place of taboos in society. There is a difference between good taste and bad taste, between social propriety and grossness, between decency and indecency, between courtesy and rudeness. Recognizing and respecting this difference is important.

We avoid some behaviors not because they are particularly wrong in themselves but simply becausethey offend people. Picking one's nose, burping, or passing gas are obvious examples--in our culture. Saying "bad" words in another. In fact, no word is bad, though some words are vulgar or crude. Still, depending on the situation, every word can be used for good or for harm. If certain words are offensive to some people, it might be wrong to use them around those people--not because the words themselves are wrong but because offending people is wrong. What is taboo is not necessarily wrong, still under certain circumstances it might be wrong to break a taboo.

This examination of homogenital acts in Leviticus provides a useful reminder. Rules of etiquette and courtesy and accepted social convention are necessary for the harmonious functioning of society. Much of what we do or avoid in public depends on what is socially acceptable or unacceptable. To attend to this matter is part of being a virtuous person--or, said religiously, part of being a good Jew or a good Christian or a good member of any religion.

On the other hand, social conventions and taboos are always shifting and changing. Indeed, when conventions are misguided, unreasonable or oppressive, they ought to be changed, and change in these matters often entails heated debate and outright conflict. Thus, the late Twentieth Century is a time of unprecedented social upheaval. Despite it all, the important point is to recognize the difference between real wrong and mere taboo.

Though it is not always easy to know the difference, we must not be hardheaded and treat as an ethical issue what is simply a matter of convention. Rather, with openness, intelligence, reasoned judgment, and good will we must continually work together to form a just, high minded and noble society.

Purity Concerns in the Christian Testament

The Hebrew Testament forbids homogenitality for purity reasons. Male-male sex makes one unclean. It breaks a religious taboo. It associates one with the Canaanites. The Hebrew Scriptures also list other purity requirements--like washing at prescribed times or not eating certain foods.

The prime example of a religious requirement was the circumcision of all males. If a man was not circumcised, he did not qualify as a Jew. If he did not bear on his body the mark of the religion of Israel, he was not a member of God's chosen people.

But no one thought that God rejected the uncircumcised, that they could not be just and holy, that hey could not enjoy God's approval. the prophets of Israel often praised the righteousness of Gentile people even while condemning Israelites for abandoning God's ways. Likewise, no one thought that non-Jews had to follow the dietary laws of the Jewish religion, though many Gentiles were recognized as good people. Circumcision and the purity requirements of the Jewish Law were part of being a Jew. They were not necessarily part of being a good person, just and righteous before God. Jesus' Teaching about Purity

Jesus knew that difference. He is very clear that being a good person and keeping the requirements of the Jewish Law are not the same thing. He is also very clear that the only thing that matters is being a good person. One of the reasons that Jesus was killed was because he challenged the real importance of the Law. "Listen and understand, " he said,

It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles. . . . What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. for out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands dopes not defile. (Matthew 15:10, 18-20)

In that way Jesus rejected the importance of the Jewish purity/uncleanness laws. The only purity that mattered for Jesus was "purity of heart."

Pure of Heart""

Being "Pure of Heart"

What does this "cleanness of heart" mean? some people took it to mean you were not supposed to have "dirty thoughts." You were not supposed to be "impure" referred to sex: you were not supposed to think about sexual things.

What a distortion of Jesus' teaching! Jesus was not preoccupied with sex. He was concerned about being a good person, about being good to the core.

Jesus objected to external religious show--fasting so others can see, praying in front of everybody, putting a lot of money into the collection so others will notice. Jesus said, "Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them....Whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret" (Mark 12: 42-44). Jesus praised the widow who was able to put only the smallest of coins into the collection. He praised her because she gave from her heart (Mark 12: 42-44).

Jesus insisted that virtue must go as deep as the heart. So in Mark 7:6, Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah against those concerned about ritual washings: "This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." Or when Jesus teaches about forgiveness, he says you must forgive others "from your heart" (Matthew 5:28). Jesus is not impressed with externals. He looks into the heart.

In summary Jesus says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8). For Jesus the "pure in heart" will see God, not those who are merely pure or clean according to the practices of the Jewish Law. Being a good person--honest, loving, just, kind, merciful, peaceful--is what matters before God. The purity requirements of the Law are no longer significant. Early Christian Attitude Toward Purity

The early follower of Jesus held that same attitude. Chapter 15 of Acts of the Apostles--as well as many other places--records the debate in the early church about circumcision. Some claimed, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). But the council of apostles and elders decreed that circumcision was not necessary. Thus, the early Christian church rejected a central requirement of the Jewish Law.

Peter, the leader of the twelve apostles, had come to that same conclusion regarding clean and unclean animals. In a dream, Peter saw the heaven opened, and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. Then he heard a voice saying, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat." but Peter said, "By no means Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane." (Acts 10: 11-15)

Soon Peter realized the far-reaching implications of that revelation. He applied it to people, to Gentiles, saying. "God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean" (Acts 10:28). Peter explained himself with the same reasoning that Jesus used; "I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to God" (Acts 10:34). What matters is not ritual purity, not keeping the requirements of the Jewish Law, but justice and righteousness.

The apostle Paul also makes the same point over and over. He writes, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments is everything" (1 Corinthians 7:19). Or again, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love" ( 5: 6).

Echoing the teaching of Jesus, Paul says, "A person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart--it is spiritual and not literal" (Romans 2:29). In this way Paul reinterprets what is means to be God"s chosen people; it is a matter of the heart. He states boldly, "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself" (Romans 14:14).

That teaching summarizes a major theme in Paul's letter tot he Romans. And, as we shall see, in order to make that very point, Paul mentions homogenital acts at the beginning of that letter. Homogenitality in the Christian Testament

What does the Christian teaching about purity of heart say about homogenital acts? The single text in the Hebrew Scriptures that talks about homogenitality forbids it--but precisely because it is "unclean, " not because it is wrong in itself. The Christian Scriptures insist that cleanness and uncleanness do not matter. Only whether you are doing good or evil matters.

Jesus and the Christian Testament reject the only biblical basis for condemning male-male sex. So we should expect no condemnation of homogenitality in the Christian Scriptures, or, if there is such a blanket condemnation, we should expect it to include some new reason for the condemnation. We should expect the Christian Scriptures to show that something about homogenitality or in itself is wrong--that is, harmful, unkind, destructive expect same-sex acts to be condemned only when they do include these other wrongs, only when the sexual expressions are abusive, hurtful, or lewd, just as heterosexual acts would be forbidden for these same reasons.

How do those expectations square with what the Christian Testament actually says? Following an historical-critical reading, genital sex in and of itself in the Christian Testament--neither because of purity concerns not other concerns. At the same time, the Christian Testament is concerned about outlawing the abuse and exploitation that might be part of same-sex acts. Analysis of the relevant texts supports these conclusions.

Romans 1: 18-32

Here is only Christian Bible text that actually discusses homogenital acts at any length. It occurs in the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans. This is the famous text from which people get the notion that gay sex is "unnatural." This is also the text from which they argue that venereal diseases--and today, HIV disease--are punishment for homogenital activity. This may also be the only Bible text that mentions lesbian sex. But considering to whom Paul is writing, how he is making his point, and to what end, all these conclusions seem to be wrong. Here is the text of Romans 1:18-32. Only verse 27 is a clear reference to homogenital acts, male homogenital acts, though verse 26 is said to refer to lesbian sex. To understand these verses, however, the context of the rest of this long passage is required. At critical points, the original Greek words are noted in parentheses. Reference to these will help explain the meaning of this passage.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness (asebeia) and wickedness (adikia) of those who 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 eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though 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 fooled; and they exchanged the glory of the immoral God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four footed animals or reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity *-*(akatharsia)*-*, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to degrading (atimias) passions. Their women exchanged natural (physiken) intercourse for unnatural (para physin), and in the same way also the men, giving up natural (physiken) intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless (aschemosyne) acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up a base mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness (adikia), evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God's decree, that those who do such things deserve to die-yet they not only do them but even applaud those who practice them.

Unnatural": Out of the Ordinary"

The "Unnatural": Out of the Ordinary

Paul's letter to the Romans raises a question about the ""natural" and the "unnatural." He says men "gave up natural relation with women and were consumed with passion for one another." This is certainly a reference to homogenital acts. And the words translated as "unnatural" are para physin. What do these words mean?

Physisis the Greek word for nature. It is the root of the English word "physics, " the study of the natural world. the adjective form of the same word, physikos, occurs in the English word "physical." But even as English usage suggests, the word could be used in various senses.

What exactly did Paul mean when he used this word? This is not easy to say, but this much is clear: Paul did not use the word "nature" in our abstract sense of "Nature and the Laws of Nature." His usage was more concrete. For Paul, the "nature" of something was its particular character or kind.

Consider some examples.

In Galatians 2:15, Paul speaks of those who are Jews by nature, and in Romans 2:27, he speaks of those who are Gentiles by nature (though the literal reference to the Gentiles reads "uncircumcision by nature"). It is difficult to make sense of this usage. Attempting to do so, the English translations in our Bible omit any reference to nature and simply read "Jews by birth (physei)" and "those who are physically (ek physeos) uncircumcised," but the Greek word for nature occurs in both these passages. In Romans 2:14, Paul speaks of Gentiles who follow their own conscience and "do instinctively (physei)what the law requires, " but the Greek text reads "by nature, " and the implication is that these Gentiles act as is consistent with the kind of persons they are. In Galatians 4:8, Paul mentions "being that by nature(physei)are not gods, " and his reference is to the powers or "spirits" which supposedly govern the universe. Or again , in 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul writes, "Does not nature (physis) itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him?"

In all those cases, Paul uses the term "nature" to imply what is characteristic of peculiar in this or that situation. You would not expect a Jew not to be a Jew or the uncircumcised not to be uncircumcised. That is, you would not expect someone raised as a Jew to be ignorant of the Jewish Law, and you would not expect a Gentile to act like a Jew; that is not their "nature." According to the standard practice of Paul's day, you would not expect men to wear long hair; that is not what "nature" requires (though it is obvious that Paul refers to custom and that "nature, " as we understand the word, has nothing to do with the length of a man's hair). Once you knew the true God of the universe, you would not believe the forces of this world are divine; that is not to be expected, for by their very "nature" they are otherwise.

For Paul, something is "natural" when it responds according to its own kind, when it is as it is expected to be. For Paul, the word "natural" does not mean "in accord with universal laws." Rather, "natural" refers to what is characteristic, consistent, ordinary, standard, expected and regular. When people acted as was expected and showed a certain consistency, they were acting "naturally." When people did something surprising, something unusual, something beyond the routine, something out of character, they were acting "unnaturally." That was the sense of the word "nature" in Paul's usage.

The Greek word para usually means "beside, " "more than, " "over and above, " "beyond." We retain this meaning in many English words. A paraprofessional is someone who is not trained in a particular field but who assists those working in that field. For example, "paralegal" refers to people who are not lawyers but who work with lawyers and other legal professionals.

In a handful of stock phrases, para can also mean "contrary to, " so para physin could be translated "contrary to nature." But given Paul's own usage of these terms the sense is not "in opposition to the laws of nature" but rather "unexpectedly" or "in opposition to the laws of nature" but rather "unexpectedly" or "in an unusual way, " what we might mean if we said" "Contrary to her nature, Jean got up and danced last night."

So what does it mean when Romans says that the "women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another"? It means that these women and men were engaging in sexual practices that were not the ones people usually perform. The practices were beyond the regular, outside the ordinary, more than the usual, not the expected.

There is no sense whatever in those words that the practices were wrong or against god or contrary to the divine order of creation or in conflict with the universal nature of things. According to Paul's usage, the words only say that the practices were different from what one would generally expect. Rather than "unnatural, " the words para physinin Romans would more accurately be translated as "unusual" or "peculiar" or "our of the ordinary" or "uncharacteristic."

Unnaturally""

Even God Acts "Unnaturally"

A study of the Greek words suggest that there is no ethical condemnation in Paul's use of para physin. This conclusion seems certain. Why? Because there is further evidence on the matter, and that evidence is weighty.

In Romans 11:24, Paul uses those very same words to talk about God. Paul described how God grafted the Gentiles into the olive tree that is the Jews. Now Jew and Gentile are one in Christ. But to graft a wild tree into a cultivated tree is not the ordinary thing to do; it is something unusual. Still, that is what God did through Christ.

In Paul's understanding of the words, God himself acted para physin. God did what was "unnatural." God behaved "in an unusual way."

If to act para physin is immoral, then God must be immoral--and that is patently absurd. Therefore, there can be no moral meaning in those Greek words for Paul. Once again the conclusion emerges: Romans is not a moral condemnation of male-male sex.

Other Opinions about para physin

There is considerable debate on this matter. Some biblical scholars insist that para physin does mean "unnatural" or "contrary to nature" and understand "nature" in the abstract sense of "Nature and Nature's Laws." The term para physin was used in Stoic philosophy, which pervaded the Roman Empire in Paul's day, and by then Stoic philosophy was well on its way to developing a notion of natural law built into the universe.

We use the words "stoic" or "stoical" today to mean unfeeling, unmoved by

emotion, austere, rigidly disciplined. This popular meaning comes from Stoic

insistence that all things are governed by a law built into nature and that

human reason can discern that law. Virtue consists in living by reason, not

by emotions or feelings.

When applied to sex, this philosophy said that the purpose of sex is procreation, so any use of sex for mere pleasure violates its core nature. Any non-procreative sex was called para physin. Homogenitality--and other sex acts, like heterosexual intercourse during the woman's period--fell into this category. Sex that could be procreative was called kata physin or "according to nature." Thus, when the world of Paul's day spoke of sex para physin, the reference might be homogenital acts.

Paul was certainly aware of that terminology. He could hardly have lived in Greek-speaking world of his day without picking up some Stoic thought. Indeed, in the very passage of Romans under consideration here, Paul speaks of "things that should not be done" (1:28). The Greek is ta me kathekonta, and this is another standard Stoic formula.

Some biblical scholars go so far as to suggest that in this passage Paul integrates Stoic thought about natural law with Jewish and Christian thought about God's creation of the world. For Paul refers to the Creator, and Paul faults the Gentiles for images of humans, birds, beasts and snakes. So these scholars conclude that Paul had in mind the Genesis account of creation of the world and of all the animals as well as the role of Adam and Eve, man and woman, as part of God's plan. They argue that Paul sees homosexuality as a violation of this plan, as the subversion of the natural order build into the created universe.

However, the more common opinion is that only Wisdom 13:1-9, and not Genesis, is behind Paul's argument in Romans 1:18-23. The theme in Wisdom closely parallels Paul's criticism of the Gentiles. They ought to know God from all that is created, but they foolishly worship idols instead. Moreover, to find a case about sexual orientation in Genesis is clearly to read into that ancient text a twentieth-century concern. More on this in Chapter Eight.

The key question in this debate is whether to read Paul on his own terms or in terms of Stoic philosophy. Though Paul certainly knew some technical Stoic terms and even uses them in this section of Romans, close attention to how Paul uses them suggests he ignores their technical meaning--if he even understood it.

Clearly, Paul does not use the term "nature" the way the Stoics did. Paul's usage is concrete; the Stoic usage is abstract. Moreover, although Paul is aware that sex para physin would refer to non-procreative sex, including same-sex acts, he certainly is not concerned about procreation. Paul was expecting the speedy return of Christ, the end of the world, so nowhere in his writings does he show concern for procreation.

Finally, in Romans 11:24, Paul seems to take the Stoic terminology and throw it to the wind. Paul uses the analogy of grafting cuttings into a stock. He writes to the Gentiles about the Jews as follows: God has the power to graft them in again. For if you have been cut from what is by nature [kata physin] a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature [para physin], into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural [kata physin] branches be grafted back into their own olive tree." Paul seems deliberately to play with the Stoic term kata physin and para physin. Those prescriptions have no hold on the power of and mercy of God.

Do not miss the point here. It is not that he is opting for a miracle, rather than a down-to-earth approach to religion. It is not that Paul is rejecting natural-law theory. The point is that Paul simply did not understand such theory. Paul was simply not using these words as the Stoics did. If he were, he could not and would not have portrayed God acting "contrary to nature."

Therefore, Paul is not to be understood in terms of Stoic philosophy. If he is understood on his own terms, it becomes clear that Paul is merely being the good preacher. He know how to work his audience. A preacher today might quote the first line of a rock song to get the attention of the teenagers, though the preacher does not follow popular music and could not really say what the song is about. Likewise, Paul throws around the terminology of the day to impress his Roman readers. He wants to identify with them and win a hearing. He becomes all things to all people so that he might save at least some (1 Corinthians 9:22). But the technical Stoic Paul was an urbane citizen of the Roman Empire. But he was a Jew at heart, not a Stoic. And his Jewishness, more than his urbanity, explains his discussion of same-sex acts in Romans.

A list of other considerations, which confirm this conclusion, unfolds below. Paul's Jewish mind on this manner is very different from what the stoic terminology would suggest.

What about Lesbian Sex?

The words para physin actually occur in verse 26. It talks about women who "exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural." Is this a reference to female same-sex acts? Many have thought so.

Undoubtedly, one reason people think verse 26 refers to lesbian sex is because it mentions "unnatural" sexual relation, and, as the term is used today, "unnatural sex" means homogenital acts. Moreover, this is what the Stoic term of Paul's day could also mean.

But, as we have seen, Paul does not use the words para physin in the strict Stoic sense. Even if Paul knew those words could be used to refer to same-sex acts, the implication of those words for him was not the same as for the Stoics. According to the evidence in Paul's own writings, for him para physin simply meant something outside the ordinary.

So the reference to female sexual relation that are "beyond the ordinary" could mean many things. It might mean sex during menstruation, sex with an uncircumcised man, oral sex, heterosexual anal sex, having sex while standing up, or anything that would not be considered the standard way of having sex. In our own day, for anything other than the "missionary position" is out of the ordinary. There is no need to read homogenitality into the para physin of verse 26. In Paul's usage this phrase could mean several different things. And if these sexual acts were non-procreative, they would qualify as para physin in the Stoic sense of the term, too.

There is another reason people might think verse 26 refers to female samesex acts. The word "likewise" or "in the same way" links verse 26 with verse 27 and verse 27 clearly refers to male homogenital acts. That "in the same way" sets up a parallel between what the women do and what the men do.

But is the parallel that both the women and the men perform same-sex acts? Or is the parallel simply that both the women and the men gave up the expected way of having sex for something else, whatever it might be?

The latter explanation make perfectly good sense of the text. The men and the women could both be involved in something "beyond the ordinary" without both being involved in homogenitality. Only if it is assumed that para physin means "unnatural" and that "unnatural sex" necessarily means homogenitality, does verse 26 have to refer to lesbian sex. But close attention to Paul's usage show that those assumptions are very questionable. There is no need to read lesbianism into verse 26.

In fact, if verse 26 refers to lesbianism, some explanation is needed. Lesbianism was not a major topic of knowledge or discussion in the Greco- Roman world. We have only a handful of references to it in all the existing texts form the ancient world. Moreover, lesbianism is not mentioned anywhere else in the Christian Testament. Why, if it is so important, is it never mentioned again?

There is also further consideration, and it is the most telling. In verse 24, Paul introduces the topic of impurity. At issue is ritual violation of the Jewish Law. Under this topic Paul mentions what the women do and then what the men do. As will be shown below, this section of Paul's argument is precisely about uncleanness, not about sin. But the Hebrew Scriptures never mention female homogenitality. How could it fall under the Jewish heading of impurity? but something else, like sex during the menstrual period, could have qualified both as violating the Jewish Law and as non-procreative. Paul must have had something like that in mind when he spoke of the women doing sexual things para physin or outside the ordinary. In any case, the burden of proof that verse 26 refers to lesbian sex certainly rests on those making that claim.

There is a lot at stake in the interpretation of this verse. If this verse does not refer to female homogenitality, then nowhere does the Bible even mention it, and condemnation of female homogenitality would have no biblical basis. What sense would the case against homogenitality make if only male, but not female homogenital activity is to be condemned?

On the other hand, if the Bible nowhere condemns homogenitality in itself-- as is the argument here--then the easier reading stands without problem: verse 26 does not refer to female same-sex acts but to some kind of heterosexual practices that were considered taboo, unusual or unclean, and were perhaps also non-procreative. This interpretation seems the more reasonable.

But even if this interpretation is wrong, even if verse 26 is a reference to female same-sex acts, the general conclusion argued below must still apply "Romans may refer to same-sex acts, but it intends no ethical condemnation of them."

Social Disapproval, Not Ethical Condemnation

*-*

Thus far we have seen that the Greek words translated as "unnatural" would be more accurately translated as "unusual" or "atypical." This realization led to the conclusion that Romans is not portraying male homogenital acts as unethical or morally wrong and that Romans is not even referring to lesbian acts.

Now we turn to two other Greek words that Paul uses in verses 26 and 27 to describe the sexual acts he has in mind: "degrading passions" and "shameful acts." Just like the words para physin, "atypical," these words also have no ethical connotation. Both simply refer to social disapproval.

*-*

Take "degrading passions, " for example. The Greek word translated as 'degrading" is atimia. It means something "not highly valued, " "not held in honor, " "not respected.' "Ill reputed" or "socially unacceptable" also convey the sense of the word.

That is the very sense in which Paul commonly uses that word. For example, in 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul applies that word to himself. He notes that he is sometimes held in disrepute or shame because of his commitment to Christ. Evidently, then, to be in atimia is not necessarily a bad thing. Again, in 1 Corinthians 11:14 Paul uses the word to suggest that it is "degrading" for a man to wear long hair. Even though, as we saw above, Paul says this is what "nature" teaches, it is clear that no ethical judgment is intended. Or again, in Romans 9:21 *-*and 2 Timothy 2:20*-*, Paul speaks of clay pots fashioned "for dishonor." That is a polite way of talking about chamber pots, something people do not consider very nice. *-*Finally, in 1 Corinthians 15:43, Paul speaks about our buried bodies as "sown in dishonor [or humiliation], raised in glory."*-*

In none of those cases does the Greek word express a moral judgment. So when Paul calls certain passions "degrading" in Romans 1:26, he is not saying they are wrong; he is merely saying that they do not enjoy social approval.

Basically the same meaning applies to the word aschemosyne, translated as "shameless acts" in verse 27. Literally the word means "not according to form." You may recognize the English words "scheme" or "schematic" in the middle of that Greek word. The sense of the word is "not nice, " "unseemly, " "uncomely" or "inappropriate."

*-*

In 1 Corinthians 12:23, the prudish Paul uses this word to refer to the "unseemly" or "unpresentable" parts of the body. Of course, he means the genitals. Revelation 16:15 has the exact same usage. Then in 1 Corinthians 13:5, Paul uses this word to describe love: it is not "rude." The King James Version reads, "It doth not behave itself unseemly." Finally, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul advises people not to marry because he believes that the world is going to end soon. But, he says in verse 36, if this arrangement is embarrassing or disgracing the young woman [because she has no husband], if the man thinks he is "not behaving properly" toward her, then they should by all means get married.

*-*

Those references carry no weight of moral judgment. Likewise, then, in using those words Paul does not imply that male-male sex is wrong. He merely says it is not looked upon well. It is not considered nice.

Once again the same general conclusion arises. Paul uses certain words to describe male-male sex. Astudy of these words shows that he makes no ethical condemnation of male-male sex. He merely points out social disapproval of it.

A Convergence of Evidence

Without doubt, Romans does refer to homogenital acts. But equally without doubt, on an historical-critical reading, Romans makes no ethical condemnation of those acts. Both Paul's peculiar use of the term para physin and his use of atimia and aschemosyneto describe homogenital acts come together and support the same conclusion.

Why Bring Up Homogenitality at All?

If Paul does not think that homogenital activity is wrong, why does he say that it is uncomely and disreputable? And why would Paul ever say such things when he is writing to the Romans? Homogenital sex was an everyday part of their world. They thought it perfectly natural for men to be attracted to other men. While there was concern about some excessive and abusive practices, the Greeks and Romans saw nothing improper in such sex in itself. Why does Paul bring up the topic at all?

Social Disapproval and Jewish Uncleanness

Paul states there is something socially unacceptable about male-male sex. You may recognize here the same sense that we saw in the use of the word toevah in Leviticus. Translated "abomination, " meaning is "ritual taboo or impurity, " something unacceptable for Jewish society. The word carries with it a sense of disapproval or improperness. Likewise, "dishonorable passions and "shameless" acts in Romans carry that same sense of "inappropriate, " "not socially acceptable."

The parallel with Leviticus seems to be deliberate. There were words, both Hebrew and Greek, that meant "ethically wrong." Those words could have been used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, but, as we have seen, those words were not used. Similarly, Paul also had words that mean "ethically wrong, " and he could have used them to refer to male-male sex. But he did not.

In fact, such words of ethical intent occur in that same first chapter of Romans. They occur before the section on homogenital acts, and they occur after the section on homogenital acts.

In verse 18 Paul notes the "ungodliness and wickedness" of people who suppress the truth. These words translate the Greek asebeia and adikia. they mean something that is really wrong, unethical behavior, sin. This sense comes through even in the English translation. Then adikia occurs again in verse 29. With it there is a long list of things that are clearly wrong in themselves, wicked and evil, not just things that might offend people's sensitivity. Again, even the English makes that perfectly clear. And not one sexual offense occurs in that list.

Just as Leviticus deliberately called homogenital acts "unclean" but not sinful nor wrong, so Paul called homogenital acts socially unacceptable but not sinful nor wrong. Both Paul and Leviticus clearly intend to speak of homogenitality only as something inappropriate. This similarity here is real. And, although Leviticus talks of religious disapproval while Romans speaks only of social, the difference is not as big as it seems.

In the ancient Hebrew mind, religious uncleanness and social dishonor went hand in hand. This is clear in the Hebrew Scriptures According to Genesis 34:14, it is dishonorable for Jewish women to be given to uncircumcised men. According to Ezekiel 22:10, a man who has sex with a menstruating woman shames her. In Ezekiel 28:10, the phrase "death of the uncircumcised" is a way of saying "a disgraceful death." And according to Job 36:4, cult prostitutes are considered to be the lowest of the low in society disrepute. So the similarity between Leviticus and Romans is real, it is strong and it is deliberate.

Paul Raises a Purity Concern

Therefore, when he talks of homogenitality in Romans, Paul seems to have the Jewish Law in mind. He seems to regard homogenitality as dirty, an uncleanness, an impurity.

Is that the case? Is that why our interpretation of Romans has the same feel as Leviticus? Yes! Obviously so! Paul says as much in verse 24: God gave them up to impurity and to dishonor. Paul is making an issue over purity.

*-*

It must be admitted that Paul's use of the word "impurity" (akatharsia) here is out of line with his usage elsewhere (1 Thessalonians 2:3, 4:3-8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Collosians 3:5-6; Ephesians 4:19, 5:3-5; and perhaps Romans 6:19). Paul has already understood Jesus' teaching that the only real uncleanness is uncleanness of the heart. So for Paul, as for Jesus, impurity means moral corruption, and it truly is a matter of ethics. However, in those other places Paul links the word "akatharsia" with things that are clearly wrong and sinful, like greed and covetousness, deceit and trickery, or idolatry. In striking contrast, in Romans 1:24 Paul links uncleanness only with disgrace and shame. As we have seen, these have no ethical connotation for Paul. So Paul's use of akatharsia here really is peculiar. He is using impurity in the old sense associated with the Jewish Law. And when the Jewish Law is in question, other places in the Christian Scriptures also continueto use the word "impurity" in the Jewish sense (Matthew 23:27; Acts 10:14, 28, 11:8).

*-*

But why is Paul making a point of impurity? Jesus and Christianity are not concerned about purity;the Gentile Romans never did have such Jewish concerns. So why does Paul mention it?

The Two-fold Effect of Gentile Idolatry

*-*

A close look at the words Paul uses to refer to same sex acts makes it clear that Paul is not offering an ethical condemnation. He is only pointing out social disapproval. In the terms of ancient Israel, Paul is presenting these acts as "unclean" and "impure." The question arose, Why would the Christian Paul make an issue of purity? Attention to the structure of this passage of Romans answers this question. Paul is merely emphasizing the difference between ritual impurity and real wrong. Following the teaching of Jesus about purity of heart, Paul is drawing a stark distinction between taboo and sin.

*-*

Paul accuses the Gentiles of idolatry: they knew God but did not worship God. And what was the result of their idolatry? Paul says it was two-fold. It resulted in uncleanness and in real sin.

We have already seen that Paul uses two different kinds of words to describe the Gentiles deeds. He calls their sexual deeds degrading, shameful, dishonorable. He calls their other deed wickedness, evil, malice. The terminology itself shows a deliberate contrast between what is socially objectionable and what is ethically wrong. Paul has two categories of deeds in mind.

The structure of Paul's argument highlights that contrast in vocabulary. Three times Paul repeats the phrase, "God gave them up." this repetition divides his statement in to different section. Paul is arguing that, because they did not worship God, two situations resulted.

Paul begins verse 24 with "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hears to impurity." This statement introduces the first effect, impurity. But, as Paul often does, he digresses in praise of God. He catches himself and gets back on track in verse 26, repeating the catch phrase that structures his argument: "for this reason God gave them up to degrading passions." Then Paul talks of the first effect of Gentile idolatry: uncleanness in sexual matters.

In verse 28 Paul moves on to the second effect. He recalls his main argument: neglect of God brought these things on the Gentiles. He begins verse 28 with "And." Evidently, he is introducing something new. This time he goes on to talk of evil, malice and real sins. He write, "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and things that should not be done."

Both the structure and the content of Paul's argument show that he has two different things in mind: uncleanness and real wrong. Not only did their idolatry lead the Gentiles into committing other ethical wrongs, real sins which do merit death, but because of there idolatry, God also "gave them up" to impurities, naughty conduct, shameful and disreputable things, like homogenital acts.

Well, that is a partial answer to the question. Paul mentions homogenital acts as an example of the impurity that is one effect of Gentile idolatry. Still, what is Paul getting at?

Disapproval of Male-Male Sex

Is Paul disapproving of homogenitality, even though it is just an impurity? It certainly seems that way--at least for the time being. But watch what comes later. At his point Paul appears to be sympathizing with the common Jewish feeling that the Gentile culture is unclean, the Gentiles are dirty.

It sound like Paul is taking part in a petty name-calling bout. He seems to be playing a game of we're-better-than-you. In fact, that's just what is happening. Paul is quoting Jewish prejudice precisely to counter and reject it. Paul will use that nasty rivalry between the Jews and the Gentiles to his own advantage.

Paul is appealing to Jewish self-righteousness. He is echoing the Jewish claim to moral superiority. Paul begins his letter to the romans by allowing that both sin and uncleanness are the two-fold result of Gentile idolatry. And the Jews in Rome would certainly applaud him.

The Due Penalty for their Error""

"The Due Penalty for their Error"

That understanding also explains another aspect of the Romans passage, and being able to explain that aspect strengthens the overall argument. Verse 27 says that because men commit shameful acts , men the receive "in their own person the due penalty for their error." There has been much debate about what this verse means. A very common understanding of this verse sees homosexuality as the error, and sexually transmitted diseases or even AIDS is supposedly the due penalty.

But that interpretation doesn't make sense. Heterosexuals also have sexually transmitted diseases, and if AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality, God must love lesbians, for of all social groups they are least at risk for AIDS. Obviously, this text needs a better interpretation.

Besides, what is translated as "in their own persons" reads differently in the Greek. A better translation would be "among themselves." The reference is not to individuals and their persons but to the Gentiles as a whole, to their culture.

Moreover, the word "penalty" offers a loaded translation; it carries a negative connotation that is not in the Greek. The Greek word simply means "recompense, " "reward" or "payment, " which could be positive, negative or neutral.

Given what we already understand about the first chapter if Romans, a very easy explanation of verse 27 arises. The error Paul refers to is not homosexuality but Gentile idolatry. Idolatry is his concern throughout the whole of that chapter: they knew God but did not worship God. And the recompense that comes to the Gentiles because of their not worshiping God is the uncleanness that is a regular part of their culture.

Paul is saying that, in addition to committing real sin, the Gentiles are also soiled. Their culture is filled with unclean practices. Both sin and impurities abound among the Gentiles.

Paul's reasoning differs from what we generally think. We would say that, because people sin, they are idolaters, they distance themselves from God. This idolatry, this turning from God, is the gravest of all human faults. For Paul and the Jewish religion, this is sin--and all the things we would call sins are merely expressions of this core fault.

So wrong doings and impurity are the result of Gentile idolatry, the result of their not worshipping God as the Jews do. Not acknowledging the Jewish God, they do not acknowledge the Jewish Law, so they do not share the Jewish purity rules. Therefore, they are unclean. The dirtiness of the Gentiles comes from their idolatry.

There it is, plain and simple. Rid the text of the prejudices that the Twentieth Century reads into it and all the pieces fall together. The text makes perfect sense. The only requirement is to recognize Paul's argument that Gentile idolatry had two very different results: sin and uncleanness. Paul raises the issue of homogenitality only as an uncleanness.

The Self-righteousness of the Jewish Christians

But the question still remains: why did Paul make a point of impurity again?

In fact, the issue was there all the while. Keeping or not keeping the Jewish Law was a hot issue of debate in early Christianity. The "Council of Jerusalem, " as recorded in Acts 15, decreed that Gentiles converted to Christianity need not be circumcised nor keep the rest of the Jewish Law. But arguments and rivalries still went on. The issue was still quite alive.

For example, Paul wrote to the church at Corinth rebuking them for disputes during their common meals. Evidently, arguments over clean and unclean food were disrupting the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 8-11). Paul confronted Peter and "opposed him to his face" because Peter refused to eat

with the Gentile Christians. Jewish Christians were putting strong pressure on Peter to keep the purity requirements of the Law (Galatians 2).

Many Jewish Christians still kept the Jewish Law, and they felt some sense of superiority because of that. Paul, of course, took the side of the Gentiles, teaching that faith in Christ and not fidelity to the Law is what justifies a person (Galatians 2:16). Paul was well known for his position.

Paul's Appeal to the Jewish Christians

So when Paul wrote to the Romans, he had quite a feat to accomplish. He intended to visit Rome, and he wanted the Christian church there to welcome him. But the Christians in Rome were like the Christians almost everywhere else: a mix of both Jewish and Gentile converts. Paul had to appeal to both sides without offending either of them, and they were often at each other's throats.

How did Paul handle the matter? Pretty shrewdly. He started his letter by addressing the Jewish Christians, and he played on their sense of superiority. Paul wanted to win the good will of the Jewish Christians. At first he would take their side. He said what they felt; what they might even boast, that the Gentiles are a dirty lot. He put the Gentiles down by pointing out their homogenital practices.

Ah, so that is where the question of homogenital impurity comes in! But already by chapter two, Paul turns the tables on the Jewish Christians. He approaches the matter cautiously. At first he addresses them anonymously: "Therefore you have no excuse, O human beings, whoever you are, when you judge another" (Romans 2:1). But by verse 17 it is clear that Paul is addressing no one other than the Jewish Christians: "But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law..."

So the Jewish Christians have their circumcision, and they avoid impurities. But, as Paul points out, their real sins still break the Law. They steal, commit adultery and rob temples. Therefore, the Jewish Christians have no right to boast about the Jewish Law. They have no right to look down on Gentile Christians.

Paul hooks the Jewish Christians on their sense of superiority over the Gentile impurities, and then he reels them in. He undermines any sense of superiority the Jewish Christians might have. He disqualifies their selfrighteousness over not engaging in dirty behaviors. Incisively he makes his point. In the face of faith in Christ and Christ's call for purity of heart, ritual behaviors and impurities do not matter. "A person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart--it is spiritual and not literal" (Romans 2:29).

Paul's Appeal to the Gentile Christians

But Paul doesn't let the Gentile Christians off the hook, either. In Paul's mind and Gods plan, the Gentiles come second. But Paul does eventually address them.

In chapter 9, Paul begins to turn attention to them, gently drawing them into the discussion. As he did with the Jews in Romans 2:1, at first he refers to them only indirectly, as "they" and as "the Gentiles." But by 11:13 Paul puts it to the Gentiles, addressing them directly: "Now I am speaking to you Gentiles." He rebukes them for thinking themselves better than the Jewish Christians, the first to be God's chosen people.

Homogenitality in the Overall Plan of Paul's Letter

*-*

We have seen that Paul's terminology in Romans 1 presents male homogenital acts as socially unacceptable or impure--but not as ethically wrong. Then we saw that the very structure of that passage highlights the difference between taboo or impurity, on the one hand, and real wrong,

injustice, or sin, on the other hand. Now, aware that Paul is writing to a Christian community split between Jewish and Gentile converts, we can understand how Paul's mention of homogenitality fits into the whole letter to the Romans.

*-*

Paul structures his letter to he Romans so that he can win the favor of both the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. He tries to appeal to both while keeping them in harmony with one another. He wants all to know the salvation that comes to everyone who has faith, "to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16). That is his gospel: grace and peace to all from God and the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 1:7). "For as in one body we have many members, and not all the members have the same function, so we, who are many are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of

another (Romans 14:14).

Now Paul's reference to same-sex acts finally makes complete sense. Seen in the context of the whole letter to the Romans, that reference serves a rhetorical function. It is part of Paul's plan to win the good will of his Jewish Christian readers. Then he uses the same issue to make his point: the ritual requirements of the Jewish Law are irrelevant in Christ. Why did he choose homogenitality and not some other purity issue? Why not talk about unclean foods or about circumcision? Well, from a twentiethcentury point of view, the answer may sound crazy. But from a first-century point of view, the answer makes perfect sense: in those days homogenital activity was a safe topic.

Paul could not talk about clean and unclean foods because debate over foods was still splitting the Christian communities. Likewise, circumcision was still too sensitive an issue. But evidently homogenitality was not. It was an obvious point of difference and apparently there was no argument over it.

The Jews were well aware that Leviticus forbade male-male sex only as an impurity; they would not say the Gentiles were sinning because of their homogenital practices. Paul's mention of homogenitality could let the Jewish Christians feel superior without, in anyone's eyes, accusing the Gentile Christians of real sin.

At the same time, the whole Gentile world was well aware of the Jew's peculiar attitude toward homogenial acts. The Gentiles just chuckled and shrugged the whole thing off. They would not be offended if Paul raised that issue in his letter. Besides, they knew that Paul was the "apostle to the Gentiles" (Romans 11:13). Surely, if anything, he was on their side.

So unlike other purity issues, homogenitality was the one that would work. With it, Paul could do what he needed to do in writing to the Romans:

• first gain the sympathy of the Jewish Christians by seeming to side with their prejudices;

• next show that the Jewish Christians were as guilty as anyone else in breaking the Jewish Law;

• then argue that in Christ the Jewish Law was superseded and that, above all, purity issues in the Law do not matter;

• and thus incline the Jewish Christians to better acceptance of the Gentile Christians;

• and finally rebuke the Gentile Christians sharply for any smugness they might by then be felling.

The mention of homogenitality, Gentile "dirtiness, " becomes a clever rhetorical ploy in Paul's presentation of "the gospel of God" (Romans 1:1).

Another Confirmation of the Same Conclusion

In Romans, homogenitality serves merely as an instance of Gentile "uncleanness, " judged by Jewish standards. Paul introduces this "uncleanness" precisely to make the point that such matters have no no importance in Christ. This is clear from every consideration already presented. Moreover, only if that is really the case does the whole structure of Romans make sense.

*-*

First, attention to the terms in the passage,

second, study of the structure of the passage, and

third, analysis of the whole letter

-- all converge on the same conclusion.

*-*

A further conclusion follows. Not only did Paul not think homogenital acts are sinful; more than that, he seems to have been deliberately unconcerned about them. In his considered treatment of the matter, he teaches that it itself homogenial activity is ethically neutral.

The Sin that Paul Would Condemn

Once again, a sad irony surround this matter. There is a religious lesson to be learned.

A long-standing and naive reading of the Scriptures has led many sincere followers of Jesus astray. The oppose and oppress lesbian and gay people in the name of the apostle Paul. Bolstered by societal prejudice and zealous in their sexual self-righteousness, Christians have been misreading Paul's letter to the Romans and rejecting members of the Christian community because of it.

Yet to insure the unity of believers was a major reason for Paul's writing. Paul insisted on faith and love as the things that really matter in Christ. But by misunderstanding Paul's argument, people unwittingly rely on tastes and customs instead of the word of God. They argue about what's dirty or clean, dispute who's pure and impure, and pit heterosexual against homosexual. Thus, they divide and splinter the church over what does not matter in Christ. In god's name they ferment hatred and fuel oppression and disrupt society at large. They commit a grave injustice, the very offense that Paul's letter meant to counter.

This is a sad state of affairs. It is unworthy of followers of Jesus.

Biography

Daniel Helminiak is a psychotherapist, social scientist, and theologian, who lives in

Atlanta. He is concernedo integrate religion and psychology in theory and in practice andthus to suggest what wholesome human living means in a pluralistic and secularized world. Said otherwise, his specialization is spirituality. His areas of special interest are adult development and human sexuality. He holds a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Andover Newton Theological School and Boston College, where he was teaching assistant to Professor Bernard Lonergan, and a Ph.D. in educational psychology from The University of Texas at Austin, where his research topic was midlife transition. He is a Fellow of The American Association of Pastoral Counselors. He was Assistant Professor of Psychology at the State University of West Georgia, Assistant Professor for Systematic Theology and Spirituality at Oblate School of Theology, and has ministered as a Roman Catholic priest. His books are The Same Jesus: A Contemporary Christology (Loyola University Press, 1986), Spiritual Development: An Interdisciplinary Study (Loyola University Press, 1987), What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality (Alamo Square Press, 1994), The Human Core of Spirituality: Mind as Psyche and Spirit(State University of New York Press, 1996), and Religion and the Human Sciences: An Approach via Spirituality (State University of New York Press, 1998).

His work in progress is, Portraits of a New Christianity. He has also published in, Anglican Theological Review, Christopher Street, Dignity/USA Journal, Ecumenical Trends, Emmanuel, The Heythrop Journal, Human Development, The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, The Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, The Journal of Pastoral Care, The Journal of Psychology and Theology, The Journal of Religion and Health, Marriage and Family, National Catholic Reporter, New Blackfriars, NOVA-PSI Newsletter, Pastoral Psychology, Religion Teacher's Journal, Review for Religious, Soundings, Southern Voice, Spirituality Today, Spiritual Life, This Week in Texas,and Worship. He lives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.