Homosexuality: A Scriptural Analysis Using a Conservative Hermeneutic
by Jeramy Townsley

	Homosexuality is a contentious issue in churches today, and will continue to be an issue into the next millennium.  Because of the serious nature of the issue, a comprehensive analysis of the relevant Biblical texts is necessary for us to understand what our position should be towards homosexuality.  There are seven primary texts that are important in this issue: Gen 1-2, Gen 19, Lev 18:22/Lev 20:13, Rom 1:18-32, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 9:10.  This paper will examine these seven passages and will attempt to integrate these and other relevant passages into a theology regarding homosexuality that is faithful to the texts, and at the same time somewhat contrary to traditional Evangelical theology.  
	One must remember that all theology needs to be based on a rigorous analysis of Scripture.  As Evangelicals, our cry is Sola Scriptura, and our calling is to be faithful to God and His written revelation.  In following that calling, we are required to examine theologies that confront our traditional ways of thinking, and if they follow Scripture more closely than our own theology, then we are similarly required to conform our thinking to this new way of thinking.  We have seen this type of change occur in church history. There have been several instances where new a Scriptural analysis has caused a revolution in theological thinking and church practice: indulgences, slavery, women in ministry, etc.  Homosexuality is an issue that has become as prominent and divisive as any of these issues, which alone should merit the thorough examination of Scripture that is necessary for a comprehensive theology regarding homosexuality.

1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:9-10: arsenokoitai and malakoi

1 Cor 6:9 (NIV)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes (arsenokoitai) nor homosexual offenders (malakoi)

1 Tim 1:9-10 (NIV)
We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts (arsenokoitai), for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

	There are several important issues that must be addressed when trying to
understand Greek/Roman homosexuality and how it influenced the New Testament writers. First, until recently, many people believed that the only type of homosexuality Paul knew about as he wrote his letters is pederasty.  This, however, has been shown to be incorrect. Several authors, such as Dover, Boswell (1994) and Smith clearly show that pederasty was not the only form of homosexuality known in Greek and Roman culture in the first century CE. Smith and Boswell especially give numerous historical examples of homosexual relationships that are not age-structured and that are based on mutual consent. 
	Moreover, we find that both Roman and Greek cultures accepted homosexuality, and at times instituted it in non-pederastic forms. For example, Polybius (2nd century BCE, Rome) reports that "most young men had male lovers" (Greenberg, p. 154). Further, "many of the Roman emperors had homosexual tastes," and "in Greece, sexual preferences were frequently not exclusive," to the inclusion of Julius Caesar (Cato: who states that he was "every woman's husband, and every man's wife"; pg. 155-56).  At any rate, it has been argued by some that Paul's use of arsenokoitai and malakoi is due to the lack of a better expression for homosexuality in general, and/or that it refers respectively to the active and passive partners in the homosexual act. The argument is that Paul wanted to condemn not only pederasty, but also all forms of homosexuality, so he could not have used erastes/eromanos because that would have apparently limited his condemnation to pederasty. However, current scholarship indicates that the terms erastes and eromanos were not used exclusively for the boy-man, subordinate-dominant relationship typically associated with pederasty. On the contrary, these terms can refer to a relationship of long-lasting duration and equality between partners (Smith, p. 232).
	This brings us to our second point, which is that Paul's intentional meaning for the word arsenokoites is far from clear. Paul had many different words at his disposal that referred to homosexuality in general, not just pederastic relationships, as was once thought.  One complication to our understanding of this word is that it is found in no extant Greek literature prior to Paul's usage here.  One line of reasoning claims that Paul coined the term himself (possibly from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13). However, one wonders why, if Paul was going to go to the trouble of creating a novel word to prohibit male homosexual behavior, why didn’t he in the same verse, create a complementary word prohibiting female homosexual behavior, since female homosexual behavior was also known in Paul’s time, even though it was not as prominent as male homosexual behavior. 
	The conspicuous absence of such a prohibition implies one of two things: 1) If Paul is using the term to refer to homosexual behavior at all, he is not prohibiting all homosexual behavior, only some type of male homosexual behavior that produced ritual uncleanness in the mind of the first century church, or 2) he is, in fact, not referring to homosexuality at all in these passages.  A third option is that Paul was intentionally prohibiting only male homosexual behavior, and was allowing female homosexual behavior, but that does not seem like a consistent theology of sexuality, and is highly improbable.  The only other option is that Paul assumed that by prohibiting male homosexual behavior there was an implied prohibition of female homosexual behavior, but that is not very consistent with Paul’s use of language.  The term arsenokoitai is specifically a male behavior, and given that Paul had other, more general terms available to him, as well as terms referring to female homosexual behavior, the usage of a specifically male-oriented term for an implied prohibition of female homosexual behavior seems highly unlikely.
	In our attempt to understand the meaning of the term arsenokoitai we must look through the Greek literature and look at the word in its various contexts.  The difficulty is that we primarily find arsenokoitai in lists, which give us little information about the meaning of the word. A search of the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae database as of 1997 shows 43 usages. All but one of these are in lists that are of the same basic pattern as that found in 1 Corinthians 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10, using mostly the same words. The one not in a list is found in Scholia in Aristophanem (Work 014, sch plut.153.5; TLG), mentioning the Athenian way of life (entautha diasurei ten twn athenaiwn diagwgen, hoti esan arsenokoitai dai phauloi), which also is of little value for this study.   
	The only other option is to try to discern some meaning from the use of arsenokoitai in the lists. Dale Martin notes that "sin lists" tend to congregate words of similar type together. For example, "first are listed, say, vices of sex, then those of violence, then others related to economics, or injustice" (Martin 1996, pg. 120). In most of the TLG listings, the order is fairly standard (but not universal): temple prostitution (pornoi), adultery (moixoi), moral weakness (malakos), arsenokoitai, thief (kleptai), greedy (pleonektai), drunkards (methusoi), foul-mouthed (loidoroi), with some substitution of slave-trader (andrapodistais), perjurer (epiorkrois) following arsenokoites.  In the TLG lists, the division is not very clear, other than the first half of the list seems to be sexual, then arsenokoitai is listed, then economic/injustice sins, sometimes followed by moral sins. If this were all we had, we would not know on which side to classify arsenokoitai--whether purely sexual, purely economic, or some mixture of the two. 
	However, there are four early usages of arsenokoitai which are not found in the TLG.   The first is from the Sibylline Oracle 2: 
Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life. Do not arsenokoitai, do not betray information, do not murder.) Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. (Martin 1996, pg. 120)   

The second text is from the Acts of John 36:
And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoitai, the thief, and all of this band... (Martin 1996, pg. 121)   

In neither of these texts do we find them in the context of purely sexual sins. In fact, we see no hint of sexuality at all in these lists. We do know, however, that arsenokoitai is some type of sexual sin.  If we put in the English translation "homosexual" in place of arsenokoitai in these lists, it makes no sense. It doesn't fit with the categories. What makes much more sense, following Martin, is if placing arsenokoitai in the TLG texts between the sexual sins and economic/injustice sins is not casual.  What makes sense is that arsenokoitai is a term referring somehow to sexual injustice. For example, when arsenokoitai is placed just before slave-trader, this seems particularly appropriate, since male homosexual slaves were normative in both Greek and Roman societies. The interpretation of arsenokoitai therefore, as one of homosexual subjugation and/or exploitation, rather than referring to all homosexual behavior, seems most appropriate as we see from these contexts.   
 	This interpretation is supported in the other two non-TLG texts.  One is from the Apology of Aristides, chapters 9 and 13. It relays the myth of Zeus, and his relationship with the mortal Ganymede. In the story, we are told that the myth is evidence that Greek gods act with moixeia (adultery) and arsenokoitai. Similarly, in Hippolytus' Refutatio chapter 5, we are told the story of the evil angel Naas, and how he committed adultery with Adam in the Garden, which is how arsenokoitai came into the world. Hippolytus relates Naas and Adam back to Zeus and Ganymede (Petersen, pg. 284).
	In neither of these instances do we find a mutually consenting, equal relationship--instead we find a powerful aggressor subjugating the weak. This human rights violation (in modern terms) gives arsenokoitai the meaning that makes sense in the few contexts/lists that we have.  It seems highly unlikely that Paul’s use of the word arsenokoitai was intended to refer to all homosexuality (especially since female homosexual behavior does not fall under that heading), given the social injustice/subjugative usages of arsenokoitai in the literature contemporary with Paul.  Between this fact, and the fact that Paul had better words at his disposal if he wanted to prohibit all male homosexual behavior, it is likely that Paul’s usage of arsenokoitai was never intended to prohibit all homosexual behavior.  
	Similarly, there is no historical reason for the term malakoi to ever have been translated as a general homosexual, or specifically a “passive” homosexual context (Martin 1995, p. 128).  While there is no doubt that malakoi had the connotation of an effeminate man, the term was commonly used to refer to a known heterosexual man, who was effeminate.  There are three problems with associating the word effeminate with homosexuality. The first is that it is an inappropriate stereotype that all effeminate men are homosexual (and similarly that all homosexual men are effeminate).  Doing so relegates Scripture to using derisive and incorrect stereotypes in its description of certain classes of people.  If this is the case, then it is the only usage of this form of rhetoric in the New Testament, and it would neither fit Paul’s form of rhetoric, nor would it fit into the context of 1 Co 6:9.  
	The second problem with this interpretation of malakoi is that it assumes that in all male homosexual acts there is always an active (arsenokoitai) and passive partner (malakoi) involved. This, however, is far from the case, and has been shown to be a false stereotype about homosexual behavior (Peplau).  This argument goes back to the false assumption that Paul knew only about pederastic sexual relationships, and similar homosexual relationships that depended on this dominant-submissive role-playing, which, as mentioned above, is incorrect.  Moreover, there were already specific juxtapositions used to refer to these two roles of homosexuality, namely drwntes and pascontes, or paiderastai and paidika (Boswell 1980, p. 341). 
	The third problem with this interpretation of malakoi is that it again ignores female homosexual behavior.  If Paul, in using the terms arsenokoitai and malakoi, is trying to form a juxtaposition, then he is going to a great deal of trouble to tease out subtle nuances of male homosexuality.  Why would Paul go to the effort of creating this image in the minds of his readers (to the extent of allegedly creating the novel word arsenokoitai) of both active and passive roles in the male homosexual act and then ignore female homosexual behavior?  Such an omission is far from logical if Paul was truly intending to condemn all homosexual behavior.  There is no precedent that allows these words to be analogically attributed to female homosexual behavior, and Paul’s lack of reference to female homosexual behavior in a passage as allegedly detailed as this in describing homosexual acts is incredibly conspicuous.
	Following other contemporary Greek translations of malakoi, the term could have been translated any number of ways in 1 Co 6:9 other than one having homosexual connotations such as malleable, coward, sickly, lacking self-control or morally weak (in a general sense), none of which have any specific homosexual connotations. It is found several other times in Scripture, being translated as soft or fine referring to clothing in Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25, and infirmity or malady in Matt 4:23, 9:35, and 10:1.  The term itself has various meanings in different contexts, and neither soft nor physically ill fit the context of 1 Cor 6:9.  However, a translation such as “morally weak” or “lacking self-control” seems to be entirely viable in this context (see Herodotus, Histories 7.153 and 13.51; Aristophanes Wasps 1455 and Plutus 488; Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 1150a:33; Plato, Republic 556c), and much more appropriate.

Romans 1:18-32--God’s Wrath on Idolaters

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 

(1) 23 and exchanged (hllaxan) the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over (paradwken) in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  

(2) 25 They exchanged (methllaxan) the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over (paradwken) to shameful lusts.       

(3) Even their women exchanged (methllaxan) natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over (paradwken) to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 

29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.    

1. A Grammatical/Literary Analysis of Romans 1:18-32

A. Romans 1:26—Heterosexual or Homosexual?
Romans 1:18-32 is one of the primary texts used from the New Testament to justify the condemnation of both male and female homosexuality.  Verse 26, is the only verse in Scripture has traditionally been interpreted to refer to female homosexual behavior, and is often used to complete the beliefs of those who claim that all homosexuality is sin.  This, however, has not always been the interpretation of this passage (Miller, 1995; Brooten, 1996). Looking back at interpreters of this verse from the first few centuries of the church, some early church leaders have not seen this passage as talking about lesbianism, but about non-procreative sex.
	Clement of Alexandria is one who apparently views this passage as referring to heterosexual anal sex (Paedagogos 2.10.86-87):
For that reason, births are infrequent among hyenas, because they sow their seed contrary to nature.  … Such godless people ‘God has given over,’ the Apostle says, ‘to shameful lusts.  For the women change their natural use to that which is against nature. …’  Yet nature has not allowed even the most sensual beasts to sexually misuse the passage made for excrement.

Similarly, another early Christian writer, Anastasios, clearly dismisses the view that Paul was referring to lesbianism in his comments on Romans 1:26 (Brooten, 1996, p. 337n): 
Clearly they (the females referred to in Romans 1:26) do not go into one another, but rather offer themselves to the men. 

Finally, none less than Augustine held the same view of this passage, that Paul was referring to non-procreative, heterosexual intercourse (Marriage and Desire, 20.35).
But if one has relations even with one's wife in a part of the body which was not made for begetting children, such relations are against nature and indecent. In fact, the same apostle earlier said the same thing about women, "For their women exchanged natural relations for those which are against nature." 

There are other early texts that lead us to conclude that the early church was not so much concerned with female homosexuality, as it was concerned with non-procreative heterosexual acts.  Two early texts, both from the apocalyptic genre, show that heterosexual non-procreative sex, not lesbianism, was typically paired with male homosexuality.  While Brooten believes both of these texts refer to lesbianism, I believe that a more parsimonious explanation arrives at the conclusion she attempts to disprove.
	The first text, from the early 2nd century CE, comes from the Apocalypse of Peter.  There are two primary received texts of this work:  the Ethiopic fragment, and the Greek fragment.  Brooten uses the Greek fragment, the reading of which seems to be clearly talking about lesbianism.  What is peculiar, however, is that Brooten admits that most scholars believe that the Ethiopic fragment is closer to the original.  It is the Ethiopic fragment which pairs male homosexuality with heterosexual non-procreative sex.  It describes the punishment that Peter sees in hell for those men who “defile themselves together as women,” and the women who are with them (Apocalypse of Paul 23, James 1924).    
And other men and women cast themselves down from an high place and return again and run, and devils drive them. [These are the worshippers of idols] and they put them to the end of their wits (drive them up to the top of the height) and they cast themselves down. And thus do they continually, and are tormented for ever. These are they which have cut their flesh as [apostles] of a man: and the women that were with them . . . and these are the men that defiled themselves together as women.  And beside them (shall be a brazier ?) . . . and beneath them shall the angel Ezrael prepare a place of much fire: and all the idols of gold and silver, all idols, the work of men's hands, and the semblances of images of cats and lions, of creeping things and wild beasts, and the men and women that have prepared the images thereof, shall be in chains of fire and shall be chastised because of their error before the idols, and this is their judgement for ever.  And beside them shall be other men and women, burning in the fire of the judgement, and their torment is everlasting. These are they that have forsaken the commandment of God and followed the (persuasions ?) of devils

The one thing that isn’t entirely clear is what the men and women were doing together.  It is clear, however, that the women were not acting sexually with each other.  But both the men and the women were cast into hell along with the men, so the women could not have simply been wives of, or friends of the men who were engaging in sexual acts with other men.  Moreover, we also see a clear connection with this text and with the Romans text, in that it pairs these sexual activities directly with the creation of idols and worship of pagan gods.
	The second apocalyptic text come from the Apocalypse of Paul, dated from the 3rd century CE, similarly describes male homosexual acts, and probably female-male non-procreative acts (Apocalypse of Paul 39, James 1924)
And I saw other men and women covered with dust, and their appearance was as blood, and they were in a pit of pitch and brimstone and borne down in a river of fire. And I asked: Who are these, Lord? And he said unto me: These are they that committed the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah, men with men, wherefore they pay the penalty without ceasing.

This text, like the last, doesn’t clearly state what the men and the women were doing together sexually, if anything at all.  However, as before, both the men and the women were in hell, even though only the specific behaviors of the men are described: “men with men.”  It can be safely assumed that if the women are in fact engaging in sexual acts with these men, it need not have been clarified by the original author that the sexual acts between the men and women were of the same type of the men together—non-procreative acts, which Clement describes elsewhere (Paedagogos 3.3.21.3; translation mine)
Blurring the natural order, men play the part of women, and women play the part of men, contrary to nature. ...  No passage is closed against evil lusts; and their sexuality is a public institution--they are roommates with indulgence.  

	B. Romans 1:26-27—Homosexuality or Pagan Sex Rituals?
One of the primary problems in trying to understand Romans 1 is that in addition to the structural complexity of the passage, there is an uncertainty in the meaning of certain phrases in the text, such as exchanging natural relations for unnatural (para fusin ) relations (v. 26b). For example, the idea could (outside of the context of this passage) refer to sex with a barren or pregnant woman, sex with a menstruating woman, pederasty, sex between animals of different species, etc., since the person was exchanging the Judaic understanding of the purpose of sex (procreation) for behaviors which could not produce children (Brooten p. 247, 1996; Ward p. 271-273).   
	Romans 1:18-32 is indeed a complex passage, and a quick reading of the English translations gives the clear impression that all forms of homosexuality are being condemned. However, the issue of whether or not homosexuality is sin should not rest on a quick reading of a translation. Digging into a passage, looking at patterns in and purposes of a passage as a whole is the only way of discovering what any text is really about. This is especially true of Romans 1, where English translations lack a dynamic quality that is found in the original language, and obscure patterns that help us clarify the meaning and purpose of the text. 
	The primary pattern in this passage is the usage of the phrases "they exchanged" (met/hllaxan; v. 23, 25, 26b) and "God gave them over" (paradwken; v. 24, 26a, 28), which enclose three parallel thoughts between verses 23-28. Parallelism is extremely common in the Hebraic and Greek literature involves repeating a thought in a different way for emphasis (Lund, 1942; Welch, 1981). Paul would have been very familiar with this common device of emphasis, and it is clear from the structure of this passage that Paul is using this technique to emphasize God's wrath against the sin of idolatry (see Moo, 1991). He begins in verses 18-20 by showing the readers that there is some part of God's character ("His eternal power and divine nature" NIV) that can be seen in creation itself, apart from the special revelation found in His Scriptures. Thus, even Greeks are without excuse
	Moreover, we are told that these Greeks knew God from creation, however "they neither glorified Him as God, nor gave thanks to Him" (NIV v. 21). These Greeks, and Paul was specifically referring to all non-Jews (see v. 16 for Paul's breakdown of people-groups for this chapter: there are Jews, and then there is everybody else (ellhni), translated as Greeks in the NASB, and Gentiles in the NIV), were engaged in human philosophies (Stoicism, etc) and religions which sought to understand and worship creation apart from the Creator. Though at one time they knew God (v. 21), they eventually ended up in the position that they "did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God" (NIV, v. 28). Paul shows us in this chapter that this progression of not glorifying God as God to abandoning the concept of God leads to any number of sinful behaviors (murder, etc), as described in the last several verses of the chapter (1:29-31). Finally, we see that while somehow these Gentiles knew the laws of God, and knew that breaking these laws deserve death, they not only practiced these behaviors, but approved of others who did the same (v. 32).   
	That is the general outline of the chapter. The primary focus of the chapter is on Gentiles who stop worshipping God, and who "exchange/substitute" (met/hllaxan) the worship of idols for the worship of God. While one could easily postulate that the substitution here could be extended metaphorically to anything that takes our focus off of God (human philosophies, busy-ness, religiosity, etc.), Paul's language here seems to limit us specifically to explicit idol worship. Both of the first two parallel passages (vs 23-24, 25-26a), which are clearly bracketed by the repeated phrases "they exchanged" (met/hllaxan--which means a substitution of one thing in place of another) and "God gave them over" (paradwken--refers to God allowing the natural course of events to occur from the behavior initiated by the Gentiles--God didn't "cause" them to have the "sinful desires" (v. 24), "shameful lusts" (v. 26a) or "depraved mind" (v. 28), but when the Gentiles abandoned God, paradwken implies that God stepped back and allowed the natural course of events to happen), very graphically describe idol worship as it would have been found in Greek and Roman cultic rituals of the time of Paul's writing.   
	The third parallel part is similarly bracketed with the Greek words methllaxan and paradwken, but does not quite follow the pattern of the first two parts. As in the first two parts, we see that God has given them over to wicked behavior (v. 28). However, in both of the first two parts we see that what they exchanged for God were clearly idolatrous behaviors, while in the third part, we see only sexual behaviors being exchanged/substituted. This is the primary difficulty with this text. If one allows that the things being exchanged in vs. 23 and 25 are metaphors for anything which draws us away from God, then one can easily say that the sexual behaviors described in vs 26b-27 describe general homosexual behavior. 	
	However, it seems like a poor handling of the texts to allow for such a metaphorical meaning, when the texts are so explicitly concrete in their descriptions of cultic idolatry ("images made to look like mortal man" and "worshipped and served created things"). In the same way, in order to preserve the symmetry of the parallel verses, one would be safest to conclude that the third parallel similarly refers to cultic idolatry. The fact that homosexual conduct is described in this regard makes sense when one realizes that homosexual “sacred sex” was a common phenomenon of cultic rituals in the culture to which Paul was writing (DeYoung, p. 166). Taking this interpretation of Romans 1:26b-27 preserves the symmetry inherent within the text.   
Some people argue against the interpretation of three parallel accounts of idolatry, saying that only the first two clauses represent parallels on idolatry. They say that it appears that Paul turns his line of reasoning away from simple idolatry to all sinful behavior, and that the homosexuality described in vs. 26-27 represent an archetype of sin--that the Jewish and Roman readers of the book would think of homosexuality and would picture one of the worst types of sin possible. The argument continues by stating that Paul finishes his thought in vs. 29-31 to list a larger list of sins (which was common in Paul and other early church writers--to use 'sin lists'), of which homosexuality is merely the first of the list, separated by v. 28, a description of what God has to do when confronted with unrepentant sinners. Interpreted this way, the third clause, vs. 26b-28, does not represent simply an issue of idolatry, but represents all sins, and thus homosexuality cannot be interpreted as limited to cultic homosexual prostitution.
 However, the grammar of the passage prevents that interpretation, for two reasons, both described by Chamberlain (Chamberlain, 1941). First, kai kaQws, found in v. 28 (translated as 'since' in the NIV; see also Kasemann, 1980; Fitzmeyer, 1993) separates the previous discussion from the discussion that follows it, making the homosexual behavior listed in vs. 26b-28 as part of a different clause than the sin list in vs. 29-32. Chamberlain explains, saying that kaQws here takes a causal meaning (Chamberlain, p. 176): 
Sometimes, it seems to shade off into the causal idea [quotes Rom 1:28 in Greek], 'because they did not approve having God in (their) knowledge God gave them up to a reprobate mind,' 

Second, Chamberlain discusses the verb translated as 'to do' in v. 28 (p. 106): 
When it explains a verb, it is called the epexegetical infinitive: poiein (Rom 1.28), 'to do' (the things that are unseemly), explains what Paul means by paredwken autous o Qeos eis adokimon noun, 'God gave them up to a reprobate mind.' The list of unseemly acts follows.

This gives the following paraphrased rendering of v. 28: 
And because of the fact that (kai kaQws) they stopped believing in God, God gave them over paradwken to a worthless mind, to do (poiein) evil things, as listed in the following verses. 

Thus, the acts listed in vs. 26b-27 (which are the cultic homosexual prostitution acts) are part of the ultimate cause of God giving them over, not the result of God giving them over. This makes them clearly separate from the acts listed in v. 29-31, which are the result of God having given them over, and clearly not the cause. Having grammatically separated what is cause and what is result in this passage, it is easy to see that the homosexual acts must be separate entities from the sin-list and therefore were intended to be interpreted in the context of the three-clause, metallaxan/paradwken system, and not as part of the sin-list. 
This gives us the following outline of the passage from v. 23-31:	
Outline	vs. 23a-24	vs. 25-26a	vs. 26b-31	
They exchanged (met/yllaxan)	God's glory (23a)	God's truth for a lie (25a)	natural relations for unnatural (26b)	
This led them to do the following	make images of animals and men to worship (23b)	worship created things (25b)	stop believing in God (28a)	
Which led God to give them over to (paradwken)	sinful desires/sexual impurity/degrading their bodies (24)	shameful lusts (26a)	a depraved mind, to do evil things (28b-31)	
	
Within the first two parallels, we see that God gave them over to evil behaviors because of certain actions they took ("exchanging the glory of God for images", and then worshipping and serving created things rather than the creator). However, God does not necessarily give them over because of the exchange itself, but because of actions taken as a result of the exchange (in the second parallel, they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, but the resulting action is that they "worshipped and served created things"). In the third parallel, they exchange natural relations (fusikhn chrhsin) for those that are against nature (para fusin) as described in verses 26b-27. However, it was not those exchanges that caused to God give them over. Those exchanges resulted in the action of verse 28, "they did not think it worthwhile to retain a knowledge of God" (NIV), which is what caused God to give them over. It was not the sexual behavior that caused God give them over, but their abandoning their belief in God that caused Him to give them over. The cultic sexual behavior was a key part of the process of them rejecting belief in God, just as making idols, and worshipping/serving idols was a key part of the process in verses 23-26a.   
Finally, the association between idolatry, pagan rituals and wicked sexual practices was far from uncommon in the Jewish mind.  As will be discussed below, the Jewish Testament has several specific references to male homosexual prostitutes in conjunction with non-Israelite worship.  In an inter-testamental Jewish work, the Wisdom of Solomon, an almost identical association is made that Paul makes in Romans 1, clarifying for us the literary and Judaic background from which Paul may have been writing (Wisdom of Solomon 14:12-31, RSV).
 For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them was the corruption of life, for neither have they existed from the beginning nor will they exist for ever.   Afterward it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but they live in great strife due to ignorance, and they call such great evils peace.  For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels with strange customs, they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure, but they either treacherously kill one another, or grieve one another by adultery, and all is a raging riot of blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury,  confusion over what is good, forgetfulness of favors, pollution of souls, sex perversion, disorder in marriage, adultery, and debauchery. 

2. para fusin and Natural Theology  
	At this point, it may be instructive to look at the phrase para fusin ("against nature"). In the cultural backdrop of Judaism, the primary reason for sex was procreation. Any sexual acts that did not work to fulfill this goal were para fusin. This is seen in other writings of the era, such as Philo, Josephus and Plato (Ward; Brooten 1996; DeYoung 1988). Philo, speaking as a Jewish writer contemporary with Paul, specifically "condemns men who knowingly marry barren women . . . thereby destroying their seeds. . . . These men are like pigs or goats, and are thus antagonists of God and enemies of nature" (Ward, p. 271). Similarly, regarding pederasty, Philo says that the active partner (the dominant, "insertive" male) is para fusin because he "does not procreate" (Ward, p. 272). Clement of Alexandria, speaking from an early Christian perspective, similarly makes the claim that in order for sex to be in accordance with nature, procreation should be the result (Brooten p. 247, 1996). Linguistically, there is no specific reason why verse 26 could not refer to men having non-vaginal sex with women (Miller), however, the context seems somewhat prohibitive of that interpretation (specifically, the usage of the word similarly/’omoiws in verse 27). 
	Regardless, the usage of para fusin is another difficult part of this passage, not only because it does not clarify the nature of the relationships that "their (the male Gentiles') women" exchanged, but it also classes Paul's entire argument into a very debated area, namely that of "natural theology."  Paul's usage of natural theology is not very helpful to us as we attempt to apply New Testament rules to Western society. In ancient Greece and Judaism, since women were little more than property, there were strict sex-roles that had to be maintained. Any show of dominance by a woman, or passivity by a man was an "exchange" that was "against nature." 
	Take, for example, Paul's clear command in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 that women must be silent and in submission to their men, which Paul relates back to the creation account with Adam and Eve (the created "natural order"). Then in 1 Corinthians 11:3-17 Paul makes a similar case, this time claiming that "the very nature (fusis) of things" (NIV, v. 14) should make it evident to us that men must have short hair, and that women must have long hair. However, this is neither evident to those in Western cultures today, nor is it currently practiced among Christians. The reason for this dismissal of Paul's commands is not a rejection of the Gospel, but an acceptance that the cultural dogmas of Paul's time which subordinated women as property are no longer in effect today, and it would be inappropriate for us to tie the Gospel to such ideologies. 
	So Paul's argument "from nature," rather than universalizing his case to all places and all times, seems to do the opposite, and limits the consequences of issues tied to natural theology to Paul's own time and culture. Similarly with the homosexual descriptions in Romans 1:26-27, even if the behaviors mentioned there didn't already seem to be limited to cultic temple prostitution by the context of the triple parallelism, Paul's linking the behavior to natural theology seems to further limit it, and calls into question its relevance for today's culture.  	
Moreover, not only does Paul tie the sexual behavior described here to his natural theology, but he also ties it to the word exekauqhsan, which describes the men as "inflamed with lust" (NIV). This word, which literally means, "utterly consumed by fire" (Hultgren), describes a behavior that has nothing to do with a normal, monogamous relationship. This kind of lust is one that grows to control all of one's thoughts and is insatiable. This is not the kind of simple longings and drives described earlier in the passage (sinful desires/epiqumiais, sexual impurity/akaqarsian, v. 24; shameful lusts/paqh atimias, v. 26, NIV), but describe an all-consuming force that takes control and destroys. While this type of phenomenon can admittedly be found in some homosexual relationships, it is by no means limited to homosexual relationships, and it is certainly not typical of homosexual relationships (despite what some factions of society would like us to believe).  This further excludes this passage from referring to all homosexual relationships.   

The Old Testament
	The Old Testament is problematic to many Christians today due to the dramatically different pictures we see of God in the Old Testament compared to the New Testament. On the one hand, the same God who wrote the New Testament also wrote the Old. If God's essential character is unchanging, then how is it that the Old and New Testament pictures of God look so much different? Jesus even tells us in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:17, NIV) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." But on the other hand, Jesus seems to counter-act the law when He lets the woman caught in adultery go free (John 8), and we are told numerous times in the New Testament that we are not saved by the law, but by faith, and that we have died to the law (Romans 7). 
	This is a difficult position for Evangelical Christians.  There is a realism that must be used when discerning what it means to a Christian, yet follow the Old Testament. While we accept that Jesus did not come to abolish the law, we seem to be given a new law in the NT (yet it is not new, it is old--1 Jn 2.7), on which is the grounding principle of all laws: 1) Love the Lord your God, 2) Love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22.36ff).  Referring to these two commands, Matthew goes on to say that  "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (NIV v. 40). With this in mind, it is easier to digest the apparent changes that were made from the First to the Second Testaments.  
	Two of the primary Old Testament passages used to condemn homosexuality are found in Leviticus 18 and 20.	There has already been an extensive analysis of the Hebrew word tow'ebah, on which much of the pro-gay argument rests (Helminiak, 1994).  The primary assumption of this word is the idea that it refers to a ritualistically uncleanness, not necessarily a moral uncleanness.  This is not to say that the word cannot ever be used to refer to moral uncleanness, but that is unlikely to be the case in these two chapters.  
	The ancient Jewish life was characterized by the constant struggle to be clean. There are chapters and chapters in Leviticus designed to make sure that God's people were clean. The pronouncements against contact with blood, with disease, with certain foods, etc., were attempts to make one clean before God.  The Law found in the OT can be classified into three categories: moral, social and ritualistic (while accepting that these distinctions aren’t clearly delineated in Scripture, there seems to be somewhat of a consensus in modern theology regarding this categorization). Moral codes and social codes seem proscriptive for most cultures, in that they tend to fulfill the law of love explicated in the New Testament. Such laws as don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't worship other Gods, etc. fall into these categories. They limit general relationship behaviors, and criminal behaviors.  Other behaviors, specifically cleanliness behaviors, seem to have been overturned in the NT, given that Jesus has taken all uncleanness onto Himself, thus our only uncleanness comes from our heart, not from external things. For example, in Lev 11:7, the Jews are prohibited from eating pork because it is unclean. However, in Peter's dream in Acts 10, God tells Peter that unclean food has now been made clean. Similarly, with lepers, who were unclean and could make another person unclean simply by touch and thus were to be kept out of the city, Jesus welcomed them and touched them. 
	In both Leviticus 18 and 20 we have reason to believe that the sex acts described made one ritually unclean, and were not meant for social and/or moral Law. In Leviticus 18:19, and 20:18 a man is prohibited from having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle, which in Leviticus 15:33 we are told specifically that both the woman and the man lying with her are ritualistically unclean (tame'). To make exceedingly clear the ritual uncleanness aspect of this act, we can look earlier in the chapter to Leviticus 15.2-5, where we are given cleanliness codes for women having undergone childbirth. Women having given birth to a son were unclean for 7 days. However, women having given birth to a daughter were unclean for 66 days. During these times, she could not participate in religious festivals or be touched by anyone.  It is clear that there are things in the OT that Evangelicals would never consider following, like the post-birth laws, and most of these fall under the laws of uncleanness (see also Lev 19:27, Ex 21:17, Num 19:13, Dt 22:9-12, Dt 22:28-29, Num 15:32-38 for examples of OT texts that Evangelicals would probably not follow, even though there is no clear reason for dismissing them).  Given the conspicuous usage of tow'ebah in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, it seems reasonable to assume that uncleanness is the intention in these passages. 
	One counter-argument that can be raised against this is that if we say that each of these behaviors are now "clean" and we can engage in them then we are supporting incest and bestiality. But this is not a correct analysis. While these particular chapters were designed to delineate ritual uncleanness, that does not mean that some of these activities could not be classified under another branch of law. For example, bestiality is mentioned in two other passages other than in Leviticus (Ex 22.19, , and Dt 27.21), as is incest.  Homosexuality, however, within the Old Testament, is never specifically mentioned outside of these passages.  	
	Additionally, one must contend with the fact that these verses deal specifically with male-male sexual relations.  It is not faithful to the Leviticus texts to apply them to female homosexual behavior. The usage here is not a Hebrew word or idiom that can refer to any sex acts between the same gender. Rather, the texts clearly say, "If a man lies with a man." There is no leeway in these texts to include females, anymore than there is leeway to switch the genders specified in the bestiality texts of 20:15-16. 
	This is important, because it does not seem consistent to condemn male homosexuality and not female homosexuality, if the point of condemning homosexuality is because it is unnatural or immoral. This condemnation of only male homosexuality in these passages leads one to look for a deeper intention behind the condemnation, other than the broad condemnation of all homosexuality. While this deeper intention may or may not be related to tow'ebah as outlined above, it certainly indicates that homosexuality in general is not what is being prohibited.  
	Finally, it is instructive to realize that this position regarding the uncleanness intention of Lev 18/20 is not a new one, but was the position of the early church. Both Eusebius of Ceasaria, and the Apostolic Constitutions state that the uncleanness that is derived from this behavior is ritual, not moral (Boswell 1980, pg. 102).

Sodom and Gomorrah
	The Sodom and Gommorah story in Genesis is one of the classical passages used to condemn homosexuality, especially when paired with Jude 7. However, neither of the two sexual words used in Jude 7 indicate nor imply homosexuality: ekporneuo and "going after sarkos ‘eteros". It is the latter phrase, literally meaning "different flesh" that has caused the connection. It has been implied, given that the male mob at Lot's door was wanting to have sex with the male angels inside Lot's house, that "going after different flesh" inherently means wanting to have gay sex. 
	However, there are many problems with this interpretation. First, the male mob at Lot's door was exactly that--a mob. They wanted to gang rape the men. This by itself should be enough to call into question the Genesis passage's relevance to loving, committed gay relationships. 
	Second, when looking at the phrase "different flesh," the implication seems to be describing promiscuous sexual relationships, not homosexual relationships. Not only does the wording in this passage not have any implication of homosexuality,  but the wording actually sounds like an anti-parallel to the marriage texts, where the two flesh become one (Gen 2:24, Mk 10:8, I Co 6:16, Eph 5:31).  The traditional reading of this text implicitly assumes that the natural order of creation requires that sex is limited to male and female relationships.  Therefore, “going after different flesh” means “desiring sex that is contrary to the order of nature,” in other words, homosexuality (as mistakenly derived from Paul’s “natural theology” from Romans 1).  On the other hand, from the perspective that Jude 7 is actually an anti-parallel to the marriage texts, the emphasis is on having sex with a person that is not “bone your bone, and flesh of your flesh,” therefore, “different flesh.”  In this reading of Jude 7, this passage is an implied support of relationships based on commitment and faithfulness, condemning only the behavior of  having sex with whomever one chooses, whenever one wants (“going after different flesh”),and has nothing to do with homosexuality.  This reading of the text is more faithful to the original Genesis 19 account, which focuses not on the homosexual aspect of the story, but on the promiscuity and aggressive nature of the mob’s demand to rape the angels.   
	As for Genesis 19, the new reading of the Jude passage clearly tells us what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was, and why God's wrath was poured out on it (Ezekiel 16:49 brings in a different emphasis on the sin of Sodom, but again clearly specifying the nature of the sin, of which homosexuality is not part of that description). One can easily imagine that the residents made a habit of roaming around engaging in orgies, gang-rape, whatever and whenever they wanted, with no ideals or attempts at the kinds of relationships God intended for humans to have, namely, relationships based on intimacy with each other, grounded in intimacy with God. There is no reason to believe that the incident mentioned in Genesis 19 was a one time event, and that the residents of the city had never engaged in such malicious, sexually aggressive behavior before.  Therefore, one can accept that God fully intended in chapter 18, as Abraham wrangled with God for the preservation of Sodom, to destroy the two cities irrespective of this one act against the angels in Lot’s house.	

The Teleological Argument: Genesis 1-2
	Another argument against homosexuality is the "teleological argument" or the argument from nature. It is alleged that since God initially made Adam and Eve, not “Adam and Steve”, that God's only intent for human marriage relationships/sexuality was heterosexual. However, this is an assumption based on silence, since the language used to describe marriage/sex as male and female can be archetypal in nature, and is not necessarily a precise definition. As an example of archetypal interpretations of Scripture, we are clearly told that for the communion ritual, the early church broke bread and drank wine. However, modern churches take this as an archetype and represent this symbol in different ways (wafers, grape juice, etc). Similarly, there is no reason to think that the singular representation of male-female unions could not be archetypal.  
	One of the key issues in the discussion of sex and marriage is the question of what the primary components of the marriage relationship are. Traditionally, procreation has been one of the most important aspects of marriage/sex.  However, procreation is only a minor component of the marriage relationship, and much more important are the components of intimacy, security, exclusivity, fidelity, mutual commitment and faithfulness. Moreover, even if procreation is at some level an integral component of the intention for marriage, the metaphor for that function can be satisfied by other ways other than just biological reproduction, i.e., community service, foster parenting/adoption, etc.  We see this metaphor for procreation exhibited in many infertile couples.  Clearly we don’t demand or even suggest to such a couple that they get divorced and the infertile person (which can often now be determined) remain celibate.  The rationale behind such a decision to allow infertile persons to marry is our acceptance that procreation is not an essential component of the marriage relationship.  
	There are several purposes for appropriate sexual behavior expressed in Scripture, beyond procreation. Song of Solomon, for example, is (from a literalist perspective) a celebration of the love between a man and a woman, with a strong emphasis on sexuality. This emphasis on sexuality is not depicted as a means to produce offspring, but as a means to solidify the couple's love for each other. The sexuality described in this book is a very sensuous type of behavior, filled with passion and desire for the other person, not as a means for having children. Even in the first few verses of the book we see a celebration of sex as an apparent end to itself, and as a means to deepened intimacy (1:2-4; NIV)      
2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth-- for your love is more delightful than wine. 3 Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder the maidens love you! 4 Take me away with you--let us hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers. We rejoice and delight in you; we will praise your love more than wine. How right they are to adore you!    

	In the Prophets we see an aspect of marriage in the metaphors that God uses to express His anger at His people. In the book of Hosea, Hosea is commanded to marry a prostitute to symbolize through his marriage the adulterous relationship Israel has shown to God (3:1; NIV):
The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes."

Similarly, many times in Jeremiah we see God calling Israel an adulterer for forsaking God for idols (3:8; NIV). 
I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery.    

And again, we see in Jeremiah the significance of devotion in the marriage relationship (2:2; NIV):   
Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem: "`I remember the devotion of your youth, how as a bride you loved me and followed me through the desert, through a land not sown.     

Creation, Procreation and Marriage:	
	We primarily see the procreative emphasis for marriage/sex in Genesis 1-3, on which we see Paul basing his "natural theology" in Romans 1 and elsewhere (1 Tim 2:11-15, where we see Paul commanding women to be silent and not teach men, because Adam was created first, and Eve was deceived first; 1 Co 11:4-16; etc.). However, while it is indisputable that God commanded Adam and Eve in Gen 1:28 to "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it," that by no means implies that the primary component of marriage/sex is childbearing. 
	There are two crucial points to understand in this regard. First, the contention that God's primary intention for marriage was procreation is not supportable from Scripture. Second, while a case can be made from the Old Testament that marriage and procreation were an assumed part of adult relationships, that assumption is overturned in the New Testament. 
	Regarding the first assumption, that God's intention for human marriage relationships was primarily procreation, the only passages that are capable of sustaining such a belief is the Gen 1:28 verse, be fruitful and multiply. However, given that this command is also spoken to the animals in Gen 1:22, it does little to support the relationship of humans to God, nor does it support the human creation as Imago Dei.  This description of sexuality colors it with a very primal feel, one that is instinctual in all animals and humans, and strongly relates humans to the rest of creation: our procreative capacities, and our gender separation. 
	However, it is by no means a reflection of our relationship to God. God is not gender separated. God is neither male nor female. While there are many texts where God describes Himself as He, and Father, and as masculine, one can also not deny the aspect of the divine feminine, such as in Proverbs 8, where Wisdom is personified as a woman, and in texts where God is nurturer and pro-creator (as in Genesis 1-2). Human male and femaleness does not reflect creation as Imago Dei, but rather, reflects our relation to other creatures.  
	What reflects the Imago Dei is, our capacity to relate to one another, and to God, just as God, in the Trinity, is self-relational, and desires relationship with us. Just as God is faithful and loving to us, human Imago Dei is characterized by our capacity to be faithful and loving back to God, as well as faithful and loving to other people. There is never a time when God calls Israel an adulterer for not producing offspring. Rather, Israel is called an adulterer for breaking relationship with God, and joining herself to other gods/nations. Neither is there a time when God condones or encourages a man to divorce his wife for not producing offspring--only for adultery. 
	What we see of the marriage/sex relationship when God first created it in Genesis 2:23-24(NIV) is the statement that "this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh . . . a man will leave his mother and father and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh."  What we see as the definition of the relationship is the joining of two people together, with no inherent significance of procreation. Again, in Gen 2:18 (NIV) we read about God's intent in creating Eve for Adam: "The LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' " God doesn't say, "I will make the man a person with whom to make children."   While one cannot deny the reproductive capacities that God inherently made in the female, God's verbal description of the marriage relationship is of someone to alleviate Adam's alone-ness, not as somebody with whom to propagate the species. 	
	The very nature of the marriage relationship seems to allow for an alternative to procreation, while the primary characteristics of marriage have no counterparts. For example, a couple that cannot produce children are capable of multiple ways of pro-creating. By engaging in community service, parenting neighborhood children when needs arise, even by adopting children the couple can produce life from their marriage that becomes the metaphor for the life produced by biological reproduction. While they may have no children of their own, their capacity to mother/father can be expressed in many other ways besides giving birth and raising their own biological offspring as they relate to, and nurture other people in their community.  On the other hand, the characteristics of marriage that we actually see as foundational have no similar parallels. For example, fidelity: if one fails to be capable of fidelity within the marriage, one has no "alternatives." One is either faithful or one isn't. The characteristic of love, while it can be expressed in many ways, cannot be substituted. There is no "proximate expression" (Matzko) of the primary characteristics of marriage as there is the secondary characteristic of procreation.  
	One might venture to ask why God created procreation at all if it is such an insignificant part of God's intention for the marriage relationship. The answer, of course, is to propagate the species. For the solution to the practical problem of where to get more people (just as God did for the animals), God created the capacity for the species to self-propagate. However, the question of whether or not the initial creation of male-female was for the purpose of demonstrating the only normative unions between humans, or whether it was simply a utilitarian act to have a method of producing the human race may well be a misinformed question. 
	On one hand, the latter proposal is clearly true: God did create them male and female to fill the earth. If God had made Adam and Steve rather than Adam and Eve, then there would be no human race, because biological reproduction would have been impossible. However, the first proposal may not similarly be true--whether the male-female sexual union is the only sexual union intended by God is a question that we cannot answer definitively. One clue is that while we have been given the capacity for self-propagation, this by no means obligates every creature to self-propagate. If it did, then Paul would be sinning in 1 Co 7:1 when he encourages us not to marry (therefore denying us the capacity to propagate the species). Somewhere between Genesis 1-2, when God commands Adam and Eve to be fruitful and fill the earth, and 1 Corinthians 7:1 where Paul discourages marriage, either God changed His mind about wanting more humans filling the earth, or the Genesis 1-2 passage has been mis-applied when it is used to support the idea that humans "should" have children, and that God's intention for marriage is to produce children.   
	The second common assumption, which is that traditional theology has assumed that marrying and having children is the obvious directive of nature. While in the Old Testament, we see little discussion of singleness (other than the mention of eunuchs, like Daniel and his cohorts), we have singleness mentioned and encouraged several times in the New Testament.  In Old Testament times, marriage and procreation may have been normative and encouraged, but they are certainly neither normative, nor encouraged in the New Testament. 
Matthew 19:10-12 (NIV) 10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."       
 
1 Corinthians 7:1-9 (NIV) 1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.   

	Here we see both Jesus and Paul discouraging marriage. Paul goes on to express his acceptance of marriage, but not joyfully--he merely tolerates it, as Moses merely tolerated divorce in the Old Testament. Moreover, in Paul's acceptance of marriage, we see absolutely no mention of the procreative aspect of marriage. We see clearly that Paul views marriage as a means for sexual release. As the chapter progresses, as well as in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 we see other aspects of Paul's view of marriage (concern, respect, love, etc), but in these immediate verses we see primarily Paul's acceptance that marriage is a means to an end: "it is better to marry than to burn with passion." All of Paul's language in this passage points to a very physical, sexual nature of the marriage relationship: the reciprocal fulfilling of "marital duties" by each spouse (v. 3), which is clarified in the following verses, discussing that a wife's body is her husband's, and vice-versa, and that they should not deprive each other, except during brief periods set aside for prayer. 
	There is no hint that Paul's view of marriage is one of producing children. One certainly cannot presume that Paul condemned procreation, but he apparently didn't believe that humans still retain the duty to "be fruitful and fill the earth," otherwise he could not have discouraged marriage. What Paul does command within the marriage relationship is love (Eph 5:28 and Col 3:19), and similarly Peter commands love and respect within the marriage (1 Peter 3:7).   

Marriage:
	One problem that some people have with homosexuality, while they may be able to accept the positive linguistic arguments above, is the fact that there are no Biblical "models" of a gay marriage.  They believe that since, there are no gay married people mentioned in Scripture,  but we have many examples of heterosexual marriages, gay marriages have no Biblical support.  The argument progresses that since all sexuality outside of marriage is sin, then all homosexuality must be sin.  
	The counter-argument, however, is that marriage is never well-defined in Scripture. In fact, even in the early church there was no good way to proclaim a marriage. Marriage as a sacrament was not canonized until 1215 in the 4th Lateran Council (Boswell 1994, pg. 178). Marriage in the Greek and Roman sense was primarily a selling of the bride to the husband for the dowry. Since women had few rights, marriage was, in essence, a transfer of ownership of the daughter from the father to the husband (pg. 40). This was primarily the case in the upper social classes, and was a contractual affair. The lower classes did not have the contractual basis for marriages, and they were not recognized by the legal system (pg. 35). But no doubt some sort of communal acceptance of a couple's "union" occurred in the Greco-Roman system, even though it had no legal basis. In later Roman law marriage was recognized universally, and the rule was that "It was not cohabitation, but consent that makes marriage," and " Not coitus, but marital affection constitutes matrimony" (pg. 51). 
	To say that the Bible excludes gay marriages from lack of Biblical models of gay marriages is weak evidence. There is no Biblical model for using crackers, grape juice, or disposable plastic cups for communion, but many churches do so. There is no New Testament model for a children’s ministry or music ministry, for denominations, creeds, full-time paid ministry staff, etc., but they exist as an accepted manner of practice in today’s churches. There is no Biblical model for using sound systems, slide projectors, church vans, crosses, holy water, hymnals, etc. for worship, but many churches use them anyway. What we see churches doing, is taking the symbols that are found in Scripture, and modifying them to be relevant to contemporary society. As long as the core of the Gospel message is left unaltered, and the truths and commands found in Scripture remain intact, most Christians would have little problem with contextualization. Further, we tend to object when our churches don’t contextualize.
	Moreover, we have several models of marriage in Scripture. In the Old Testament, we have modeled both monogamy, and bigamy. There is no hint that either form of marriage is condemned in Scripture. They both seem to be on equal footing, and the prevalence of Biblical references seems to parallel the prevalence of the type of marriage in the culture of the time. We also find examples of arranged marriages--those arranged directly by God (Adam and Eve), those arranged by the ruler of the land (Gen 41:45), and those arranged by the families of the persons involved. We see marriages that are based on exchange for battle (Josh 15:16-17), and slave marriages (Ex 21:4-6). We see examples of women who are married primarily to bear children (Jacob and his two concubines), women who are married out of love (Jacob and Rachel), and the assumption that a widow should marry the closest male relative of her dead husband (Deut 25:5-10). There is no good evidence that any of these forms of marriage are denounced in Scripture.  
	The conclusion drawn from this is that the Biblical definition of marriage is reliant on cultural factors. There is no "Biblical norm" for marriage, other than behavioral norms "within" marriage. Even St. Augustine, representing ascetical early church orthodoxy "was willing to designate as a 'wife' any woman who intended to be permanently faithful to the man she lived with" (Boswell 1980, pg. 26). Despite his endless commands to avoid lust, and prohibitions of sexuality, he seems to admit by proxy the inability to tie Scripture down to rules of who can marry and how to marry. 
	We do, however, see many Biblical rules regarding the conduct of those who are already married. Behaviors such as love, fidelity, commitment and respect are all essential components to a marriage. Homosexual marriages can have these equally as well as heterosexual marriages. There are no Biblical references that prohibit, or even imply a prohibition on gay marriages. 
	The lack of gay marriage models in the Old Testament can be attributed to the lack of acceptance in the culture of the time; therefore there would be few gay married people, thus little probability that they would be modeled in the Old Testament writings. In the New Testament, there are very few stories about married couples, compared to the Old Testament, so again limiting the possibility that a gay marriage would be mentioned. Homosexuality, however, was an accepted part of Greek culture. So it cannot be said that the reason gay marriages weren't specifically prohibited in the New Testament is because they weren't known about at that time. They were known, and they were not uncommon.  Nero (ruled 54-68 CE) had a very public marriage ceremony to another man, and at least by Juvenal's time a couple of decades later, gay marriages were commonplace (Boswell 1994, pg. 80-81). Gay marriages did exist in the common forum, yet we see no Biblical prohibitions of them. Rather, what we do see, if we take Scripture as a whole, are various models of marriage, defined only by the community who recognizes the relationship as a marriage, and by the behavioral motifs (love, respect, mutuality, etc.) that characterize a godly marriage.  
	
Conclusion
	There are three primary reasons to believe that homosexuality is not sin. First, there is the linguistic, literary and cultural evidence, which allows one to accept the proposition that homosexuality is not condemned in Scripture.  The linguistic evidence, primarily focusing on arsenokoitai and malakoi, shows us that the words historically used to condemn homosexuality do not refer to loving, monogamous homosexual relationships at all.  The literary and cultural evidence shows us that other passages, such as Romans 1, Genesis 19, and Leviticus 18 and 20 similarly don’t refer to loving monogamous homosexual relationships.
	Second, if God intended to condemn all homosexuality, He conspicuously failed to do so for the first 4000 years of writen history considering that there is not the slightest hint of condemnation for female homosexual behavior (only for male homosexual behavior) even though female homosexual behavior existed at the time of the writing of the Old Testament.  In verses contiguous with the prohibitions on male homosexuality, there are specific female sexual behaviors that are similarly prohibited, which counters the argument that the OT ignores female morality, and thus would not address female homosexual behavior. The conclusion from this, is that God's intent was not to condemn all homosexuality, only some form of male homosexuality that, for reasons that are somewhat obscure to us today, makes those individuals ritually unclean not morally unclean.  
	Finally, Jesus makes it exceedingly clear that all of the Law and the Prophets are summarized in two commands: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and Love your neighbor as yourself (Matt 22:36-40). Neither of these two commands is violated by homosexual marriages, anymore than they are in heterosexual marriages. Homosexual Christians are no less apt to engage in behaviors that clearly exhibit the characteristics of these two commands, or of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) than are heterosexual Christians. Therefore, there is no Scriptural or phenomenological evidence for the traditional Evangelical belief that homosexuality is sin.  

Bibliography of Sources Cited
Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. 

Boswell, John. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Vintage Books, 1994.

Brooten, Bernadette. "Patristic Interpretations of Romans 1:26." Studia Patristica 18: 287-291. Ed. Elizabeth Livingstone, Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publishing, 1985.

Brooten, Bernadette. Love Between Women. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

DeYoung, James. The contributions of the Septuagint to Biblical sanctions against homosexuality. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991) 157-77.

Eliade, Mircea. Homosexuality. The Encyclopedia of Religion volume 6. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Greenberg, David. The Construction of Homosexuality. London: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Helminiak, Daniel.  What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality.  San Francisco: Alamo Square Press, 1994.

Hultgren, Arland. Being faithful to the Scriptures: Romans 1:26-27. Word and World 14 (1994) 315-25.

Martin, Dale. Arsenokoites and malakos: Meanings and Consequences. Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality, RobertBrawley. Louisville: Westminster Press, 1996. 

Martin, Dale. Heterosexism and the interpretation of Romans 1:18-32. Biblical Interpretation 3 (1995) 332-55. 

Matzko, David. Homosexuality and the practices of marriage. Modern Theology 13 (1997) 371-397.

Miller, James. The practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or heterosexual. Novum Testamentum 37 (1995) 1-11.

Peplau, Letitia. Gay and Lesbian Relationships.  In Gonsiorek, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. Newbury Park: Sage Publishing, 1991.

Petersen, William. On the study of homosexuality in Patristic sources. Studia Patristica 20 (1989) 283-88

Smith, Mark. Ancient Bisexuality and the interpretation of Romans 1:26-27. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 64(1996) 223-256

Ward, Roy. Why unnatural? The tradition behind Romans 1:26-27. Harvard Theological Review 90 (1997) 263-284.