In 5 Parts: Against the Christian Oppression of Individuals Based on Sexual Orientation and Identity
 |
| Andy Caulfield / Getty Images |
Introduction
The issues of sexual orientation and gender identity affect many individuals, including our family members, our friends, those in our churches and places of work. The theology and doctrine most commonly held in the evangelical church precludes full personhood for individuals identifying as homosexual and also for those who do not conform to traditional notions of gender identity and gender expression. This theology effectively results in a wide ranging oppression of these individuals that reaches far beyond the specific congregations that hold the doctrines.
In what follows I argue that the biblical evidence and theological arguments offered in support of these doctrines are insufficient to support the oppressive stance held by many in the church, and that individuals and congregations identifying as Christian should reconsider how we relate to the many individuals affected by these issues.Much has been written on this subject. My goal is to encourage Christians to consider these issues with an open mind. For the sake of this discussion, I am working from an assumption of the Bible as a primary source for matters of faith and without any particular commitment to Bible authority. Given the historical and cultural distance between now and Bible times, and the complex issues of language meaning, it is unrealistic to expect the Bible to be a reliable guide for every contemporary issue, and in fact such a perspective has led to a lot of harm and abuse in the name of Scripture. That being said, the perspective of this article is to take the Bible as it is and inquire as to whether it says about this topic what many conservative 20th interpreters claim that it says. My conclusion is that, even within these assumptions of an authoritative Scripture, the oppressive doctrines on the issue of homosexuality are not warranted by a close and careful interpretation.
It is sad that many Christians feel compelled to stand by this oppressive position even though they may be unsure of the scriptural and theological basis, even though it may seem inconsistent with other life affirming and life giving values of their faith, even though it may be inconsistent with their understanding of the loving nature of God and the inclusive human interactions demonstrated by Jesus, even though it puts them in a position of rejecting the full personhood of their own family members, friends, and co-workers whom perhaps they know to be just as wonderful, as moral, as spiritual as anyone else they know.
How tragic and unnecessary it is that our sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends, relatives and acquaintances choose to move out of state or across the country to escape the rejection and stigmatization of their homosexual identity, unable to enjoy family holidays and church gatherings with their partner in avoidance of the judgment, the glances, the whispers, all in deference to this oppressive teaching which, I intend to show, has the thin and questionable claim of validity based not on the Ten Commandments, or the messages of the Old Testament prophets or the teaching of Jesus, but on the interpretation of the meaning of obscure words in three verses of Paul and three passages in the Old Testament that have widely varying interpretation. We will look at each of these in turn.
If you sense the internal discord between this teaching which excludes and devalues people based on orientation or identity and the rest of your faith, then I urge you to consider carefully the arguments that follow. You do not have to remain in that untenable position. And you should not be afraid to take a stand and speak up and speak out.
Here I explore these issues from an assumption of the Bible as authoritative for Christian life and practice and as a primary source of insight and guidance for the purpose of living as a Christian with ethical principles consistent with the teaching and example of Jesus. Even within this assumption, the historical and cultural distance between now and then requires the use of all available tools and methods in the close analysis of the original language texts.
Historically, there are many cases in which social norms have been defended using Scripture and have been used to oppress or to diminish the personhood and exclude individuals from full participation in the church and the community, only to be overturned or abandoned through closer analysis of Scripture and/or more subtle insight into ancient cultures as well as historical changes in ethical standards (most prominent example: slavery). Ethical responsibility requires that we examine and question doctrines, social norms, and laws that bear upon the dignity, equality, and opportunity extended to individuals in the light of ethical principles that are clearly established by the witness of the Bible and the life and teaching of Jesus.
The word "homosexual" does not appear in the 1611 King James Version of the Bible. It appears only two times in the New American Standard Bible and the Greek word used (αρσενοκοιτης / arsenokoites) is not clearly defined, being rarely used in the Bible and in ancient Greek literature (Note 1). Words that are used once or twice in the Bible (known as hapex legomena or dis legomena) present a special problem of interpretation in ancient literature because the most reliable word meanings are developed from usage and context. Without an adequate number of examples of use of the word, the meaning of these rare words is highly interpretive and at the very least, subject to debate.
The preceding paragraph represents the first step in a scriptural argument of Parts 1, 2, and 3 to follow, in which I argue that the scant amount of Scripture that is used to bear directly upon the issue of sexual orientation is insufficient to support a Christian doctrinal position against homosexuality as a sexual orientation and against (what could otherwise be considered moral) homosexual romance and sexual behavior. This is an argument from Scripture texts. In Part 4, I address a widely held theological argument against homosexuality which is based what might be called the creation model of family. Part 5 makes the case, as an outcome and in light the first two arguments, for use of a priority or hierarchy of New Testament moral values to urge Christians to refrain from oppressing individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual identity.
Part I: New Testament Argument: Arsenokoites.
I am puzzled by the reasoning of authors who quote multiple scholars in debate over subtleties of possible meaning and historical factors as if this will close the historical distance and create clarity of meaning when such is not warranted, particularly in this case of a dis legomena which is not well attested elsewhere in ancient Greek literature. After such an exercise by Hall, he quotes NT scholar Gordon Fee who actually says “this is the first appearance of arsenokoites in preserved literature, and subsequent authors are reluctant to use it, especially when describing homosexual activity.” (Hall, p. 39, quoting Fee). So Hall is, in one breath, stating that Paul seems to have created or invented the word and that after Paul’s use of the word (two times in the New Testament), that it is rarely found elsewhere, and then, in the next breath, coming to the conclusion that he knows definitely what the word means. I am mystified by this course of reasoning, and I have to conclude that Hall and others have other reasons for their conclusions, but decisive evidence for the meaning of this word is lacking. (And this is leaving aside the question of Paul's tendency to state behavioral directives which we must interpret to be culturally specific, a topic addressed in the next article.)
A significant and relevant feature of the issue of homosexuality and Scripture is the small number scriptural passages that are used to address the topic. In fact, there are only six passages of Scripture in the entire Bible that are interpreted as directly addressing the issue. In the LGBTQ community these are known un-affectionately as "the clobber passages." I recognize that there are additional arguments about homosexuality and gender identity that are theological in nature, rather than being directly scriptural in nature. First, I examine the relevant Scripture.
Passage (1) and passage (2): As noted above, the Greek word translated as “homosexual” in some modern translations is the word arsenokoites (αρσενοκοιτης). The only two New Testament occurrences of arsenokoites are 1 Corinthians 6:9 (Note 2) and 1 Timothy 1:10 (Note 3). Both passages present lists given by (the first century Christian teacher and biblical writer) Paul of prohibited behaviors, most of which have clear biblical meanings attested by frequent use and are easily understood. Included in the two above lists are three hapex legomena, one being malakos, which seems to have a basic meaning of "soft" and is translated by the KJV and the NAS as "effiminate," the second being loidoros, which is translated "reviler" and the third being epiorkos, (Note 4)
I argue here on the basis of the widely accepted principle of biblical interpretation that biblical meaning and significance relies upon how the word is used in context in various biblical and extra-biblical passages of the New Testament era. Words used more frequently have a more established meaning, and words used with extreme rarity may be difficult to define, other things being equal. In the present case, the two words in question in this list, arsenokoites and malakos, have insufficient usage in New Testament Greek, ancient Greek literature, and in the Hebrew Bible to stand as the basis for a significant doctrinal position.
In previous articles I have examined virtually all of the New Testament Scripture that can fit in the category of prohibition of behavior (often called “vice” lists). This analysis identifies approximately 150 different prohibition or vice words in over 500 Scripture references. Within these references I have identified no less than 48 individual (Greek language) prohibition words that are used at least five times in the New Testament, covering the widest range of behavioral prohibitions likely including almost every significant ethical issue you can think of. (Note 5) (Please see my previous articles What is Right, Parts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.) Of course the list includes untruthfulness or deceit, adultery and sexual immorality, blasphemy, slander and other forms of abusive speech, coveting and greed, hypocrisy, murder, hate, strife and quarreling, sensuality and lewdness, prostitution, idolatry, jealousy and rivalry, arrogance, fraud and deprivation, uncontrolled drinking, verbal abuse, selfishness, favoritism … Here I have listed over twenty items and I could go on.
My methodology in my analysis is not of the nature of a survey of the literature, as if a majority of scholarly opinion would be sufficient to remove the obscurity around this word and these verses. The questions around the meaning of these texts indicate that it is possible that the word arsenokoites refers, in simple terms, to homosexual sexual activity. Or, it could refer to pedophilia, or to homosexual prostitution. Some argue that the linguistic construction indicates “many beds,” which would indicate a meaning of promiscuity, such as the use of the Greek word for “bed” in Romans 13:13 where the translations are, variously, "sexual promiscuity," "licentiousness," "debauchery," or "unchaste.” The use of the words in question is highly debatable. The witness of the rest of the New Testament is clear on behaviors characterized as licentiousness or sexual promiscuity. It is anything but clear on the meaning of the word arsenokoites.
The issue of homosexuality is simply not among the list of ethical topics that are clearly addressed by the New Testament.The variety and extent of documents and the diversity of authors found in the New Testament provides ample opportunity for the validation of important ethical concepts through a multiplicity of references and contexts. The issue of homosexuality is simply not among the list of ethical topics that are clearly addressed by the New Testament. The question arises, how can we construct a significant moral doctrine or directive which affects untold numbers of individuals, families and churches based a scant collection of references with obscure meaning?
My methodology in my analysis is not of the nature of a survey of the literature, as if a majority of scholarly opinion would be sufficient to remove the obscurity around this word and these verses. The questions around the meaning of these texts indicate that it is possible that the word arsenokoites refers, in simple terms, to homosexual sexual activity. Or, it could refer to pedophilia, or to homosexual prostitution. Some argue that the linguistic construction indicates “many beds,” which would indicate a meaning of promiscuity, such as the use of the Greek word for “bed” in Romans 13:13 where the translations are, variously, "sexual promiscuity," "licentiousness," "debauchery," or "unchaste.” The use of the words in question is highly debatable. The witness of the rest of the New Testament is clear on behaviors characterized as licentiousness or sexual promiscuity. It is anything but clear on the meaning of the word arsenokoites.
I am puzzled by the reasoning of authors who quote multiple scholars in debate over subtleties of possible meaning and historical factors as if this will close the historical distance and create clarity of meaning when such is not warranted, particularly in this case of a dis legomena which is not well attested elsewhere in ancient Greek literature. After such an exercise by Hall, he quotes NT scholar Gordon Fee who actually says “this is the first appearance of arsenokoites in preserved literature, and subsequent authors are reluctant to use it, especially when describing homosexual activity.” (Hall, p. 39, quoting Fee). So Hall is, in one breath, stating that Paul seems to have created or invented the word and that after Paul’s use of the word (two times in the New Testament), that it is rarely found elsewhere, and then, in the next breath, coming to the conclusion that he knows definitely what the word means. I am mystified by this course of reasoning, and I have to conclude that Hall and others have other reasons for their conclusions, but decisive evidence for the meaning of this word is lacking. (And this is leaving aside the question of Paul's tendency to state behavioral directives which we must interpret to be culturally specific, a topic addressed in the next article.)
Due to the rare instances of use, and the historical distance, it simply is not clear from this single word what behavior is in question. Paul's use of the word in the two passages above provides a very thin and insufficient textual foundation for building a doctrine on such a significant and debatable issue. Granted, there are other relevant passages. In what follows, I will examine these in turn.
 |
| Photo: Gustavo Facci / Argentina |
Herein is presented Part 2 in a discussion of the biblical content considered as possibly relevant to the issue of homosexuality. Part 1 examined linguistic issues and the two passages in the writing of Paul which use the Greek word arsenokoites, concluding that the evidence on meaning is inconclusive. This article engages more of a theological discussion of Paul’s comments in Romans 1 about “natural” and “unnatural” sexual behavior and how this text bears upon the issue.
Passage (3): Romans 1:18-32 (Note 6) – On a surface reading it appears that Paul here speaks against homosexual conduct in some respect, although from the reference, the specific prohibition is not clear. The meaning is not straightforward, and comes in the context of a larger theological argument for the gospel in the light of Jewish and Greek religion and philosophy. In the development of the argument, Paul affirms that people have some level of natural knowledge of God’s nature and of morality, and that people have fallen short of even of these moral principles and substituted their own. As part of the explanation of how people have gone their own way, Paul lists a collection of behaviors and attitudes ranging from the very serious and egregious (murder) and including others that we might consider more commonplace and difficult to avoid, though we should not say, less serious, including greed, arrogance, and strife and even being unloving or unmerciful.
He describes natural versus unnatural sexual function, sexual behavior. How is this idea of “natural” used elsewhere in the New Testament? The Greek words are is phusis (φυσις) or phusichos (φυσιχος) (both used in Romans 1:26), translated variously as "natural" or "by nature" or "by instinct" in about 13 occurrences as follows: in the two instances under discussion, Romans 1, natural vs unnatural sexual relations; in Romans 2:14, how Gentiles instinctively do the things of the Law; in Galatians 4:8, Paul notes that some Christians were formerly in bondage to things which were natural rather than divine; Paul uses the word in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 to argue "does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is to her glory"; Peter uses the word in 2 Peter 2:2 to speak of natural reasoning as instinctive reasoning and as such, like an animal, exactly the opposite meaning that one would use in an ethical argument; the same is the case in Jude verse 10, in which the word refers to reasoning by instinct, as an animal would reason.
He describes natural versus unnatural sexual function, sexual behavior. How is this idea of “natural” used elsewhere in the New Testament? The Greek words are is phusis (φυσις) or phusichos (φυσιχος) (both used in Romans 1:26), translated variously as "natural" or "by nature" or "by instinct" in about 13 occurrences as follows: in the two instances under discussion, Romans 1, natural vs unnatural sexual relations; in Romans 2:14, how Gentiles instinctively do the things of the Law; in Galatians 4:8, Paul notes that some Christians were formerly in bondage to things which were natural rather than divine; Paul uses the word in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 to argue "does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is to her glory"; Peter uses the word in 2 Peter 2:2 to speak of natural reasoning as instinctive reasoning and as such, like an animal, exactly the opposite meaning that one would use in an ethical argument; the same is the case in Jude verse 10, in which the word refers to reasoning by instinct, as an animal would reason.
To reframe the argument, the question is, does Scripture, specifically Paul, advocate that "by nature" or "what is natural" we can determine ethical principles, or alternatively, does Scripture here advocate precepts or principles in a straightforward manner with the claim that "this is right and you can see by nature that it is right." This very limited collection of Scripture really does not give us any reliable basis to interpret the ethical principles in question, in the absence of other Scripture, less opaque in meaning, and more well attested by clear biblical principles.
In different passages and contexts, Paul comments upon a wide range of behaviors which we do not at present regard as binding doctrines or precepts...With a different Greek word (aischros / αισχρος) but similar in theological reasoning, in 1 Corinthians 11:6, Paul states that it is improper or disgraceful or shameful (depending on translation) for women to cut their hair, and in 1 Corinthians 14:35 Paul states that it is improper for a woman to speak in church. In different passages and contexts, Paul comments upon a wide range of behaviors which we do not at present regard as binding doctrines or precepts, recognizing (a) the unique characteristics of the cultural and religious context which Paul was addressing, which included cultic and religious forms of public sexual behavior and prostitution, and (b) the different cultural context that we operate in presently. These circumstances qualify our interpretation of Paul’s teaching on such topics as (1) proper attire in worship (2) hair grooming (long, short, covered, uncovered) (3) who can speak in church (women generally prohibited from speaking or teaching in various passages) (4) who can teach, prophesy, or interpret what is said in church, and (5) qualifications for church leadership, as a partial list.
And it cannot be that we simply pick and choose the ethical principles within Paul's admittedly erratic and culturally specific behavioral admonitions in a random or arbitrary manner.Any thoughtful reader or interpreter must admit that we do not take these Scripture at face value. They require sensitive and in-depth interpretation. And it cannot be that we simply pick and choose the ethical principles within Paul's admittedly erratic and culturally specific behavioral admonitions in a random or arbitrary manner. Clearly, for some of these passages, we have to set them aside as culturally specific in a way that may forever be elusive to us. And as a whole, we have to support any prospective ethical or doctrinal prescription with other Scripture that is clearer in meaning and well attested by a reliable quantity of references.
In sum, Paul in Romans 1 speaks of natural and unnatural sexual lusts and behaviors but the specific type of behavior is not clear. Certainly a wide range of behaviors could qualify as unnatural or shameful, but additional Scriptural support or ethical direction is required in order to fill in the gaps of meaning.
In this light, the curious and confusing thing about the Romans 1 passage is that, whereas some of Paul's argument within the passage stands as an example of reasoning by that which is "natural" (or what we could call natural ethics or natural theology), namely, his apparent rejection of some types of sexual behavior by use of the logic of appeal to natural versus unnatural behavior, the overall impact of the passage is to disqualify or debunk the human tendency toward natural theology or what we might see as "self-evident" theology.
In many historical instances, when we as humans rely on our own “natural” reasoning, particularly in the area of morality, we tend toward the selfish outcome of empowering that which serves our interests and demonizing that which is different or with which we disagree. Unchecked, this tendency can corrupt the institutional expression of religious norms. This truth is borne out by Scripture; it is borne out by experience and by history. Humans and human institutions are self-serving, and overconfident, and require continuous correction.
The second half of Romans 1 serves as a set up for Romans 2 in which Paul elevates the kindness, tolerance, patience, and ultimately, the gospel of God over and above the righteousness by law of the Jews and the righteousness by wisdom of the Greeks (treated similarly in 1 Corinthians 1: 18-31). Further, Paul’s argument in Romans 2, as the extension of the set-up in Romans 1, is that those who pass judgment are self-condemning, “for you who judge practice the same things.” So, here in Romans 1, Paul addresses a wide range of sinful behaviors including reference to sexual behavior in some form, without an explanation, and without reference to the Old Testament law, nor with reference to Jesus, but with a reference to "that which is natural." Paul then proceeds disparage the significance of human affirmations of natural theology in developing the larger story of the gospel in the flow of the argument in Romans 1 through 3. (Note 7)
As such, this Romans passage is hardly more substantial in support of a solid doctrine of sexual orientation than the passages above in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, even less so when we realize that these three references constitute the entirety of the New Testament discussion of the issue.
 |
| Image: Nico Kaiser (wikipedia) |
Herein continues our analysis of biblical passages said to be relevant to the issue of homosexuality. My overall conclusion is that close analysis reveals that the Bible is not clear on the issue, and that the few passages cited in reference to the issue (6 passages) are insufficient to establish a reliable doctrine on such a significant issue. Parts 1 and 2 examined the three New Testament texts, and here I examine the three Old Testament texts.
Passage (4): Genesis 19:1-9. Genesis 18:16 through 19:29 provides an account of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, described in general with as places of “exceedingly great” sin. Due for destruction by God, Abraham pleads for the cities, if there may be even ten righteous people found there. The cities apparently fail the test and are soon destroyed by the fire of God. In the interim time, two angels are sent there and they encounter Abraham’s relative, Lot, who brings the angels into his home. During the night, Lot’s home is surrounded by a great number of men of the city, who request that the angels be sent out for the purpose that the men “may have relations with them.” This has become a key passage used against homosexual behavior, as an example of the unrighteousness of the inhabitants of Sodom.
There is no doubt that this incident describes behavior that demonstrates the unrighteous character of the inhabitants of the city. But consider what is actually described. Two visitors enter the town and are hosted by a resident. A large number of men surround the home and (1) demand that the guests be sent out (2) for sexual relations (3) presumably by force, and in public, and in mass and, not to be overlooked, (4) the guests are not men, but angels (and it is not clear if the men of Sodom are aware of this or not, nor do we have any basis in our own experience for considering the nature of a public encounter with angels). There are several prohibited behaviors exhibited in this scenario (whether they be prohibited by the Bible or by general moral standards) including adultery, rape or sex by force or violence, and general promiscuity possibly of the nature of sex for exhibitionism, given that this is essentially a mob. Beyond this, we must consider that guests which were the target of this group sexual exploitation were not actually people but angels.
As is often the case, what appears to be an argument is actually a logical non-sequitur. It simply does not follow from this passage that the Bible is indicating a general prohibition against homosexuality or a specific blanket prohibition against any homosexual sexual relations. Should we be any less mortified by the behavior of the men of Sodom if Lot’s guests were women, or if Lot’s house were surrounded by women demanding that the angels be sent out to have forced sexual relations with them? The elements of promiscuity and/or violence listed above still apply. Above all, this is a mob outside of the residence demanding access to Lot’s guests for the purpose of forcible gang sexual activity. As such, in the absence of other more specific biblical directives, this passage is not properly taken as informative of a sexual ethic over and above other passages that are less obscure, such as the Ten Commandments.
Passages (5) and (6): Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is interpreted by some as a straightforward prohibition against homosexual sexual relations, although the meaning of the Hebrew verb (as with many Hebrew verbs) is subject to variation and interpretation. The verb sakab can refer to lying down, resting, sleeping, death, or having sexual relations, usually improper sexual relations including rape and incest, but not generally used for the proper sexual relations within marriage. The word used for marital sexual relations is generally yada (to know). Many prohibitions found in Leviticus have to do with separating the Hebrew people from practices of surrounding cultures, and in that light, the word could be a reference to forcible sex such as might follow the conquest of battle, as was a practice in relation to military conquest of one people over another, at this time in history.
The larger context of Leviticus contains a wide range of prohibitions that require to be evaluated in the light of other instruction in the guidelines of religious cult presented there, in light of the Mosaic law, of the immediate context and history, and in the light of the New Testament witness. Here we find instructions, prohibitions, and penalties related to dietary laws, clean and unclean animals, how to gain purification from various illnesses, diseases, bodily functions and environmental conditions. Seven chapters are devoted to laws of blood sacrifice and other sacrifice, including an incident where two members of the priestly family were killed for offering the wrong sacrifice. There are laws related to nakedness, various sexual relations, various family relations, bestiality and prostitution.
There are prohibitions against mingling different kinds or breeds of livestock, different kinds of seeds in the field, different kinds of fabric in weaving cloth, various practices of hair and beard grooming, wearing of clothing, cutting flesh and wearing tattoos, against seeking spiritualists or wizards, against child sacrifice.Here are found the rules of vengeance including the ever famous “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.” A wide range of violations lead to a penalty of death, including blasphemy. The high priest had many special prohibitions, such as not to be in the presence of a dead person, even his own parents. Those with injuries or physical disabilities could not offer sacrifices.
Instructions are given for the incense, the candles, the sacrifices, the feasts, the festivals, the holidays, leading up to a full blown system for valuing, borrowing, buying and selling of property, debt, servitude, to be observed in a fifty year period of seven cycles of seven years. This economic model appears to have had the purpose of safeguarding the perpetual family ownership of the land while simultaneously liberating people from various forms of debt and imprisonment which would occur in the routine up and down flow of the economy. Interpreters generally agree that the economic system incorporating the fifty year “Jubilee” was likely never fully observed, although the Jubilee principle has been among the more frequently cited Old Testament teachings.
In the Levitical code there are also many reminders of ordinary moral guidelines and standards of fairness in judgment, business dealings, appealing to such moral principles as honesty, integrity, respect of personal property, respect of personal safety.
Another possible path of clarification would be (b) support for a specific interpretation based on reference to the Ten Commandments, or other parts of the Mosaic law outside of the presentation of guidelines for the cult (system of sacrifices and temple worship) or clear moral guidelines presented, for example, in the prophetic writings.
The argument here against taking a definitive Scriptural position against homosexuality in general and the possibility of moral homosexual sexual relations is similar to the argument for the three New Testament passages. The references in question are subject to varying interpretation and in and of themselves are not clear and definitive in meaning. To arrive at a conclusive moral argument, we should require (a) clarification of linguistic meaning based on more pervasive scriptural use of the words in question. This is simply not available, leaving the linguistic question open to interpretation. Another possible path of clarification would be (b) support for a specific interpretation based on reference to the Ten Commandments, or other parts of the Mosaic law outside of the presentation of guidelines for the cult (system of sacrifices and temple worship) or clear moral guidelines presented, for example, in the prophetic writings. Relevant here would also be (c) the teachings and moral directives given by Jesus along with the moral principles demonstrated in Jesus’ interactions with others throughout his ministry. The honest interpreter of Scripture must admit that these additional clarifying Scripture or scriptural moral principles are not available on this issue. They are not available in the Ten Commandments, not available in the teachings of the prophets, not available in the teachings or ministerial activities of Jesus.
We continue analysis of the traditional Christian views on homosexuality, having thus far examined the six biblical passages that many have used as direct textual evidence on the issue. It remains to analyze the theological argument against moral approval of homosexual love and relationships.
In listening to the Christian teachers who advocate for the exclusive normative status of heterosexual relationships and cisgender identity, for many the primary argument is not an explicitly scriptural one but a theological one. I will refer to the argument as arche or archetype argument, given that it stems primarily from Jesus' reference to the Genesis account of male and female as the archetype of the human family in his response to the religious teachers' questions about divorce in Matthew, chapter 16.
Taken in and of itself, this argument may seem convincing when combined with strong forms of discipleship teaching which admonish the believer that there is no ethical challenge or sacrifice that is too demanding for the follower of Jesus. (The implication is that even if one has a sexual orientation or identity outside of the heterosexual model, Christian discipleship requires one to sacrifice this identity.) In the Genesis account of the beginning, God created a man, and from the side of the man, created a woman, and the two, being two sides of a whole and perfectly complementary, are designed to become one in marriage and thereby ideally designed for the biological task of procreation and the spiritual / relational / moral task of making a family.
In responding to the questions of the religious teachers about the permissibility of divorce in Mosaic law, Jesus did not affirm the practice but rather makes reference to the Genesis account of marriage, "in the beginning" (thus arche, or archetype). Jesus holds up the unbreakable union of the first marriage as an ideal and explained that Moses permitted deviations within his law because of human limitations, those deviations having to do with permissible forms of or reasons for divorce. The archetype argument goes further to point out that the male / female marriage mirrors the model of Christ (the male) and his bride, the church (the female) which is presented in several parts of the New Testament as an eschatological picture of the eternal relationship between Christ and church.
Thus, the argument implies, given the essential role of the male / female distinction and union in both the Genesis model of the original family and in the New Testament marriage analogy of Christ and the church, it follows that the male / female union of marriage must be the normative, prescriptive and exclusive model of human romantic love and ultimately, of marriage commitment.
First and most fundamentally, it must be said that this is a logical non-sequitur. It simply does not follow that the model of a thing, be it a marriage or any other entity or relationship, necessarily prescribes the exclusive acceptable form of that entity or relationship.
Second and more broadly, it is not the case that we invariably follow Scriptural archetypes as presenting ethically prescriptive and inviolable principles and doctrines. In support of this claim, I present, for comparison, the Levitical Year of Jubilee. I hold that the economic principles of the fifty year cycle presented in the book of Leviticus and which culminated in the fiftieth "Year of Jubilee" present an ideal form of economic and property relations which was never fully implemented in the economic life of the people to whom it was given. But if any Old Testament teaching is held forth as having been affirmed by Jesus, the Year of Jubilee would be such a teaching, for Jesus made reference to the Jubilee in his first appearance, what we would refer to as his "first sermon," in the temple, at the initiation of his ministry.
As found in Luke 4: 16-22:
As found in Luke 4: 16-22:
Jesus entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.' And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
By reading from the Prophet Isaiah, the scroll we refer to as Chapter 61, Jesus proclaimed that his ministry was intended to bring to reality principles of the Levitical Year of Jubilee. What were the principles of economic life and property ownership of the Jubilee cycle? It was a period of seven "sevens," with the year of Jubilee following the forty-nine years of the seven x seven-year periods. The Jubilee system involved a complex set of procedures apparently designed to preserve the ownership of land among all of the tribes and families through seasons of fortune and misfortune, to prevent the accumulation of extreme debt and the complete loss of one's livelihood and property, and also to provide for the periodic liberation of individuals from debt, servitude, or even slavery.
If we insist that the archetypal form of the human family is the prescriptive and exclusive form of marriage and family (and by extension, all human romantic relations), then by what interpretive or ethical principle do we cast aside the archetypal form of economic relations demonstrated in the Levitical Year of Jubilee in which debts are cancelled, economic inequities are nullified, and everyone gets a new start?
What financial principles were at work in the year of Jubilee? One, land ownership was not permanent but temporary, for the land belongs to God. Secondly, debts are to be forgiven periodically for those who suffer hardship. Jubilee prohibits unlimited accumulation of wealth and property, and restores those who fall on hard times. As such, Jubilee promotes economic redistribution and nullifies uncontrolled or unlimited accumulation. The point of my argument here is that the church does not advocate for these principles, either within or outside of the church, aside from a generalized sentiment toward very limited forms of generosity or charity. These principles are not taken to be normative or prescriptive. They are not taken to exemplify the exclusive form of financial practices for church members, or for the community.
...the church does not advocate for the economic principles of the Jubilee year, either within or outside of the church...These principles are not taken to be normative or prescriptive. They are not taken to exemplify the exclusive form of financial practices for church members, or for the community.I do not anticipate that there is a lot of support for bringing into contemporary economics (or even financial relations between members of the Christian faith community) any extensive application of the fifty-year Levitical cycle, although many of the principles certainly find some form of general New Testament and modern application. But Jesus focused on money in many of his teachings leaving no doubt that the topic warrants more serious attention.
We may reasonably assert that the specific economic model of Jubilee in its strict application is not generalizable outside of the specific time and place in which it was given. Nevertheless, Jesus invoked the Jubilee principle. Should we hold that he did not intend application of economic principles derived from Jubilee, and if so, on what basis? Or should we hold that these principles represent beautiful ideals toward which we should strive in the best possible world? The position that no one seems to hold, despite the elevated status of this biblical model in Jesus teaching, is that the Jubilee principles are strictly prescriptive of economic relations for all time.
It is much easier to take a biblical model as an ethical prescription if it has a negative impact only on individuals who are in a significant minority, who have often been considered outside the norm, who have been denied a place and a voice speak against their excluded status. But it is the way of Jesus and of the entire prophetic tradition to recognize and defend the outsider, and to challenge and confront injustice perpetrated against those not in positions of power.
...It is the way of Jesus and of the entire prophetic tradition to recognize and defend the outsider...Of the Jubilee model, one could interpret that Jesus used the model to point the hearer to new spiritual realities that he would inaugurate. Specifically, he said … -preach the gospel to the poor, -proclaim release to the captives, -recovery of sight to the blind, -to set free those who are downtrodden, -to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. Jesus proclaims good news, breaking of bonds, increasing spiritual sight, spiritual liberty, spiritual restoration. We have to assume in this largely spiritual application that the gospel of Jesus, in contrast to a religious model of legal righteousness, will break bondage and create freedom wherever it is applied. This primarily spiritual application certainly holds, but it points out all the more that a literal and prescriptive application has not been chosen by the church’s teaching on this model, presented in the Old Testament and affirmed explicitly and very intentionally by Jesus.
A spiritual interpretation of the principles of Jubilee holds, but points out all the more that a literal and prescriptive application has not been chosen by the church's teaching on this model, presented throughout the Old Testament and affirmed explicitly and intentionally by Jesus.
So, in Luke 4 we find Jesus’ first public sermon, presumably to serve as informative of the essence of Jesus’ ministry, referencing a model of economic kingdom life which apparently has very limited practical import for any essential evangelical doctrine in the present expression of the church. In the church, we do not specifically direct anyone to forgive debts as expression of a New Testament doctrine. We (and here by “we,” I mean the accepted doctrine or orthodoxy of any major Christian denomination - Note 8) do not question unlimited accumulation of wealth and property or the existence of dramatic economic disparities in which a significant proportion of the people, even within church communities, essentially operate at a poverty level with no significant ownership of property, and much of this is intergenerational, not systematically based on merit, skill, or ability. By and large, we take Jesus’ economic teachings as either spiritual in nature or suggestive of general moral principles such as honesty, fairness, kindness and generosity. If one takes the Luke 4 passage as essentially spiritual in meaning, then we derive principles of healing, release from brokenness, release from bondage, spiritual freedom, and, taking lead from Jesus first statement, an outcome that the gospel in application to the life of church, and by extension, society, should be good news for the poor.
In contrast to the rather loose and spiritualized interpretation of Luke 4, the interpretation of Jesus’ comments about circumstances of divorce (the primary teaching of Matthew 16) and affirmation of the Genesis model of marriage as a model or archetype of family and of sexual relations is taken as a normative, prescriptive and exclusive requirement for family, for marriage and even for romantic relationships.
These prescriptive limitations stand in the absence of clear biblical teaching in support, whereas the Bible is clear and consistent on principles of sexual morality, apart from the issue of sexual orientation, these being, namely, a focus on sexual activity as properly expressed within committed monogamy and entailing fidelity, prohibitions against adultery, prostitution or sexual servitude, against any form of sexual violence, and admonition against promiscuity in general. Why, I ask, cannot we focus on the clear biblical – Old and New Testament - teachings on sexual morality which are very straightforward and attested by a plethora of Old and New Testament Scripture? (Please see my previous article on the New Testament prohibitions for sexual behavior, March 12, 2020.)
Specifically, we should question the application of the biblical archetype of the creation model of family life as constituting a prescriptive and exclusive system of sexual morality over and above the other clear and pervasive biblical teachings on moral sexual practices. Further, note that for much of the evangelical church in recent decades, the application of this doctrine has not been limited to the life of individual congregations and denominations, but the effort has been to extend the reach of prohibitions and restrictions of freedom related to homosexuality into the public and legal sphere to the maximum extent. Homosexuals have been severely oppressed and suffered a great deal of violence.
As such, advocates of general human identity and liberty for homosexuals have had to fight in the realm of civil rights, employment rights, legal rights in society at large...As such, advocates of general human identity and liberty for homosexuals have had to fight in the realm of civil rights, employment rights, legal rights in society at large, while also making their argument for full personhood within their faith communities. This is a travesty and a tragedy which I fear will forever be a blight on the twentieth century church.
 |
| Shana Reis - agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br. |
Here I conclude my argument that the church’s traditional position on homosexuality is not only unwarranted and not supported by Scripture and theology, but is oppressive, not only within the church but by extension, in society at large, contributing to all manner of rejection, discrimination, and violence. In what follows, I argue that the interconnected web of our beliefs, supported as it were by core teachings and principles which must hold up the rest, requires us to reevaluate our oppressive stance against individuals thus excluded.
Ultimately, religious commitment is faith based, a special kind of choice which is all encompassing. In fact, the commitment of faith is an unending series of choices, temporally (in the succession of our days). Within the content of our belief, likewise, there is an interconnected web of choices and commitments that hold together, some more central, some more peripheral, some more rigid, some more flexible.
As a basis for our beliefs we find scriptural support, support from the teaching and tradition of the church, and support from our own experience, usually in that order (at least in the received model of Christian orthodoxy). For the scriptural component, we must employ an interpretive heuristic to determine the order of priority of the various individual Scriptures and parts of Scripture to make sense of the whole.
For the scriptural component of our beliefs, we must employ an interpretive heuristic to determine the order of priority of the various Scripture to make sense of the whole.For those parts that are more well attested and more central to our web of beliefs due to their proximity, for example, to the life and teaching of Jesus, there is more commitment, more investment, and less willingness to deviate. Along with these core beliefs, there are areas that are less well attested and more debatable, to use a term of art in theological discussion.
We hold essential truths and doctrines, such as the God the Creator who is holy and righteous, God as Trinity – Father, Son, Holy Spirit; placing our faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as our divine/human savior offering forgiveness, redemption and restoration and a life of divine purpose, serving as a model of righteousness, mercy, and compassion that should define human relationships, and affirming the centrality of agape love, honesty, integrity, faithfulness, generosity and going on from there.
There are debatable issues and related beliefs such as the content and style of liturgy and worship, forms of baptism, ecclesiastical structure, questions of calendars and schedules and strategies of ministry and mission. There is a spectrum from essential to debatable. As long as religion has had intellectual content, there has been disagreement. It is the nature of the thing. Certainly, theological debate was one of the main plot lines of the entire New Testament, even within Jesus’ ministry. The religious authorities were constantly challenging Jesus on his teaching and theology, and in fact, he was constantly challenging them.
When evaluating the relative placement of an issue on this spectrum, we must consider the relation to the most fundamental principles (righteousness, justice, love, mercy, faithfulness), the most core biblical teachings (Ten Commandments, teachings and actions of Jesus, the preaching of the prophets, and the teaching of the apostles - that which is clear and timeless, not obscure and culturally specific).
In our interpretation and application of these beliefs, we must consider the impact on individual lives. Do we offer hope or despair? Do we bind (create bondage) or release (create freedom)? Do we heal or do we traumatize? Do we affirm the person or deny the person, and in either case, based on what do we affirm the person, based on what do we deny the person? Do we create light around the truth or do we obscure by our own wisdom, our own preferences, our own traditions?
In our interpretation and application of these beliefs, we must consider the impact on individual lives. Do we offer hope or despair? Do we bind (create bondage) or release (create freedom)? Do we heal or do we traumatize? Do we affirm the person or deny the person, and in either case, based on what do we affirm the person, based on what do we deny the person? Do we create light around the truth or do we obscure by our own wisdom, our own preferences, our own traditions?
Do we want to make ourselves the personal gatekeepers whereby we would say to Jesus, “I am compelled to hold this door of the church closed because of my personal theological convictions.”
I submit to you that the general theme of Jesus' resolution of theological debate was to favor the affirmation and redemption of the person over the technicalities of theological correctness. Note that I did not say Jesus affirmed people in their sin or self-destruction, but he consistently refused to resolve theological debates at the expense of people, unless it was at the expense of the religious leaders in their tendency either to condemn people, leave them in their state of ill-health at the expense of doctrine, or in their attempt to push Jesus himself into a theological corner.
For what sake or whose sake are you willing to be wrong on a point of debatable doctrine?
Given our need to grapple with debatable issues, at some point we must ask the question: For what sake or whose sake are you willing to be wrong on a point of debatable doctrine? When we “meet our Maker,” as the saying goes, what doctrines will you be willing to post on the church house door to the exclusion of one whom God loves, or in sacrifice of what doctrine will you be willing to say to God ... "I chose to open that door at the risk of possibly being wrong."
To grapple with this necessary question, we must come to terms with our approach to the Bible. In technical theological terms, we must determine our “canon within the canon.” We must determine where be begin in the task of interpreting the Bible. Some attempt to hold that all of Scripture is equally authoritative. Logically, as well as practically, such cannot be the case. All of the Bible is not equally authoritative. For me, I begin with Jesus’ teachings and actions (basically the gospels) including, of course the two great commandments, above all, to love God and to love others, then the New Testament in general, interpreted in historical context, and from there, the Ten Commandments, the moral / spiritual admonitions of the prophets, taken in historical context, and the narrative import of the rest of the Old Testament, and the wisdom of the “writings” (wisdom literature). This priority of Scriptural interpretation, along with the required component of historical context, significantly conditions a great deal of the biblical content.
This complex interpretive task requires of each of us that we make faith choices in our spiritual affirmations, doctrines, ethical principles and systems that we apply in our communities and social relationships.
We must bear in mind that insofar as our beliefs and commitments affect others in increasing circles of relationship extending beyond our own families and faith congregations, that love, grace, and humility should prevail, and we should be very circumspect in our human tendency to judge and exclude others under the auspices of a Christian ethic.
I offer the words of Jesus in Matthew, chapter 22 and 23 for your consideration. There Jesus silenced the leading religious teachers who repeatedly tried to trap him in contradictions of the religious law. The debates and challenges were brought to an end as Jesus emphasized the priority of the two great commandments which, in his words, “On these two commandments depend the whole of the Law and the Prophets.” Thereafter Jesus offered a warning to the religious leaders in the form of seven “woes” (note that in a 7 line poem, the middle verse usually most important)
“(1) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor to you allow those who are entering to go in…(2) You travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves… (3) You say ‘whoever swears by the temple that is nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated’ … (4) You tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law; justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others… (5) You clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of robbery and self-indulgence… (6) You are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness… (7) You build the tombs of the prophets an adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in scheduling the blood of the prophets.’ Consequently, you bear witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.”
I say again, in the case of rejecting and excluding others from full participation in the community and in the church, for the sake of love, are you willing to consider that you may be wrong? Or alternatively, for whose sake are you willing to be wrong?
Notes
(1) New American Standard Version is considered the most literal modern translation, completed in the 1960s, revised from the ASV which was completed in 1900/1901.
(5) For my analysis of the frequency and specific passages dealing with sexual behavior, see What is Right, 8: Sexual Immorality, 3/12/2020. Article includes a list of Greek words, the frequency of use, and the accompanying NT references.
(6) Romans 1:26-27 “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”
(7) A discussion of natural theology in the logic of Paul’s argument in Romans 1 and 2 is found in my blog post Moltmann: How We Misuse Natural Theology, of August 22, 2019, in review of Jurgen Moltmann’s The Crucified God, chapter 6. There he discusses Martin Luther’s treatment of natural theology in Theses 19 and 20 of 95 Theses. According to Moltmann, Luther’s interpretation was that Paul was putting natural theology in its place, so to speak, in recognizing the limits of human reasoning according to “what is evident to them” in contrast to the primary role of the theology of the cross in revealing the nature of God and of the gospel. Luther’s Thesis 19: ‘He is not rightly called a theologian who perceives and understands God’s invisible being through his works. That is clear from those who were such ‘theologians’ and yet were called fools by the apostle in Romans 1:22. The invisible being of God in his power, Godhead, wisdom, righteousness, goodness, and so on. Knowledge of all these things does not make a man wise and worthy.’ It is difficult to argue with this interpretation of Paul’s line of thought, and as such, it is curious that within Paul’s larger argument about the gospel, he mentions these human behaviors which are apparently deemed sinful by virtue of “nature.” But, as I stated above, Paul does not specify what he means by unnatural sexual behavior, nor does this connect with other Scripture, either Old Testament or New Testament that may be used to enlighten the meaning.
(8) In "arguing" against a prescriptive application of the principles of Jubilee, as in the form of church orthodoxy, by no means do I wish to diminish the importance of the biblical teachings, foremost in the Old Testament prophets but also in the New Testament, against economic oppression and exploitation and in favor of taking care of the suffering and vulnerable members of the community. In fact the latter principles should get a lot more airplay from our pulpits. Many pastors seem to have a reluctance to be outspoken on issues that may be deemed political in nature, thus, in many cases, the message of the contemporary church on economic issues is "dumbed-down" or truncated in relation to the voice of the biblical prophets on these issues.
(1) New American Standard Version is considered the most literal modern translation, completed in the 1960s, revised from the ASV which was completed in 1900/1901.
(2) 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor malakos, nor arsenokoitai, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor loidoros, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
(3) 1 Timothy 1:8-10: “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that the law is not made for righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and arsenokoitais and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever is contrary to sound teaching.”
(4) Arsenokoites is a dis legomena, having two occurrences in the Greek New Testament. There are many hapex legomena and dis legomena in the New Testament. We should take a very guarded approach to the meaning of these words, unless the issue or doctrine in question is well attested by other Scripture. It is well known in New Testament Greek text analysis and language analysis in general that the meaning of words is not reliably determined by analysis of the component parts. The linguistic construction of arsenokoites includes arsen which means “male,” and koites, another word of extremely rare New Testament use, with only 4 uses, with the general meaning "bed," or, by context, possibly marriage bed, or sexual intercourse, or sexual excess, or variously by translation, debauchery, licentiousness, or sexual promiscuity (see Romans 13:13).
(5) For my analysis of the frequency and specific passages dealing with sexual behavior, see What is Right, 8: Sexual Immorality, 3/12/2020. Article includes a list of Greek words, the frequency of use, and the accompanying NT references.
(6) Romans 1:26-27 “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”
(7) A discussion of natural theology in the logic of Paul’s argument in Romans 1 and 2 is found in my blog post Moltmann: How We Misuse Natural Theology, of August 22, 2019, in review of Jurgen Moltmann’s The Crucified God, chapter 6. There he discusses Martin Luther’s treatment of natural theology in Theses 19 and 20 of 95 Theses. According to Moltmann, Luther’s interpretation was that Paul was putting natural theology in its place, so to speak, in recognizing the limits of human reasoning according to “what is evident to them” in contrast to the primary role of the theology of the cross in revealing the nature of God and of the gospel. Luther’s Thesis 19: ‘He is not rightly called a theologian who perceives and understands God’s invisible being through his works. That is clear from those who were such ‘theologians’ and yet were called fools by the apostle in Romans 1:22. The invisible being of God in his power, Godhead, wisdom, righteousness, goodness, and so on. Knowledge of all these things does not make a man wise and worthy.’ It is difficult to argue with this interpretation of Paul’s line of thought, and as such, it is curious that within Paul’s larger argument about the gospel, he mentions these human behaviors which are apparently deemed sinful by virtue of “nature.” But, as I stated above, Paul does not specify what he means by unnatural sexual behavior, nor does this connect with other Scripture, either Old Testament or New Testament that may be used to enlighten the meaning.
Image Credit:
(1) Statue of Christ the Redeemer, Rio de
Janiero, Barzil. Andy Caulfield / Getty Images
(3) By
Gustavo Facci from Argentina- Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18572850ion
(5) Riodejanerio.com
(6) - http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/internacional/foto/2015-11/monumentos-de-varios-paises-se-iluminam-com-cores-da-franca,
lit in colors of the French Flag after the November 2015 Paris attacks.
Bibliography
Bauer, W. (1979). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Second Edition ed.). (W. F. Gingrich, Trans.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Friedrich, G. K. (Ed.). (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume. (G. W. Bromiley, Trans.) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans / Paternoster Press.
Hall, M. (2018, Volume 3 Number 1). A Historical and Hermeneutical Approach to the Vice-Lists: A Pauline Perspective. Retrieved from Spiritus: ORU Journal of Theology: https://digitalshowcase.oru.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=spiritus
Jurgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. 1974. Harper & Rowe, Publishers. (First Fortress Press edition published in 1993.)
Hall, M. (2018, Volume 3 Number 1). A Historical and Hermeneutical Approach to the Vice-Lists: A Pauline Perspective. Retrieved from Spiritus: ORU Journal of Theology: https://digitalshowcase.oru.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=spiritus
Jurgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. 1974. Harper & Rowe, Publishers. (First Fortress Press edition published in 1993.)
NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English. (1987). (A. Marshall, Trans.) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
NCBC - North Clackamas Bible Community. (2010, October 25). Vice and Virtue Lists from the New Testament. Retrieved from Bible Study Resources from NCBC: https://bcresources.net/2200000-nts-frg12-lit-frm-vv-lists-nt-art-bcrx/
Renn, S. D. (Ed.). (2005). Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words. Peabody, Massachusetts, USA: Hendrickson Publishers.
Strong, J. L. (1984). Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Thomas, R. L. (Ed.). (1981). New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.