Cohabitation and the Crisis of Commitment

[Tom Eckstein]

Brian, the Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon shows the meaning of "porneia" is not restricted  to “prostitution” but instead refers to “sexual sin of a general kind, that includes many different behaviors.”   Also, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition  defines porneia as “unlawful sexual intercourse, prostitution, unchastity, fornication.”

Where did you get that definition for Louw & Nida? I ask because my hard copy of the Lexicon has the following (boldface added):porneuo, ekporneuo, porneia: to engage in sexual immorality of any kind, often with the implication of prostitution – to engage in illicit sex, to commit fornication, sexual immorality, fornication, prostitution 88.271

In addition, various Jewish and pagan authors used "porneia" to refer to all same-sex behavior.  For example, Demosthenes used "porneia" to refer to homosexual behavior centuries before Christ.

I looked up Demosthenes. It is just as likely, if not more so, that its use in that writing refers to male prostitution. Timarchus is brought to court for porneia.

On top of that, various Jewish writings (e.g., the Testament of Benjamin, Testament of Levi, Testament of Naphtali, and Jubilees) during the period between the Testaments (from 400 BC to the time of Christ) also used "porneia" to refer to the sin of sodomy - even when it was between consenting adults!

I found the references through TDNT in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1. The translations there do not support your claim.
T. Reuben 3:3 First, the spirit of promiscuity resides in the nature and the senses.
T. Reuben 4:6 and do not sin, for the sin of promiscuity is the pitfall of life,
T. Reuben 5:3 Indeed, the angel of the Lord told me and instructed me that women are more easily overcome by the spirit of promiscuity
          then are men.
T. Reuben 5:5 Accordingly, my children, flee from sexual promiscuity
T. Reuben 6:1 So guard yourself against sexual promiscuity,
T. Simeon 5:3 Guard yourselves from sexual promiscuity because fornication is the mother of all wicked deeds,
T. Levi 9:9 Be on guard against the spirit of promiscuity,
T. Issachar 9:2 I have not had intercourse with any woman other than my wife, nor was I promiscuous by lustful looks.
T. Judah 18:2 Guard yourselves, my children, against sexual promiscuity and love of money.
There may be others, but these were the only texts listed in TDNT. It seems consistent that porneia = promiscuity. TDNT said nothing about it referring to Sodomy.

However, it mentions that Philo talked about death for homosexuals. Here is the section from Spec. Leg. III.
(37) Moreover, another evil, much greater than that which we have already mentioned, has made its way among and been let loose upon cities, namely, the love of boys, which formerly was accounted a great infamy even to be spoken of, but which sin is a subject of boasting not only to those who practise it, but even to those who suffer it, and who, being accustomed to bearing the affliction of being treated like women, waste away as to both their souls and bodies, not bearing about them a single spark of a manly character to be kindled into a flame, but having even the hair of their heads conspicuously curled and adorned, and having their faces smeared with vermilion, and paint, and things of that kind, and having their eyes pencilled beneath, and having their skins anointed with fragrant perfumes (for in such persons as these a sweet smell is a most seductive quality), and being well appointed in everything that tends to beauty or elegance, are not ashamed to devote their constant study and endeavours to the task of changing their manly character into an effeminate one. (38) And it is natural for those who obey the law to consider such persons worthy of death, since the law commands that the man-woman who adulterates the precious coinage of his nature shall die without redemption, not allowing him to live a single day, or even a single hour, as he is a disgrace to himself, and to his family, and to his country, and to the whole race of mankind.

The Book of Jude uses the verb form of "porneia" when he writes:   “...[J]ust as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire."  Granted, the type of same-sex behavior against Lot's visitors was "gang rape" - but that doesn't change the fact that ALL Jews also viewed consensual same-sex behavior as "porneia".

First of all, that is a poor translation. The ESV offers a more literal one in a footnote. "Unnatural desire" is literally, "other (hetero) flesh." I find it a bit ironic that a text used against homosexual relationships, really talks about hetero-sarkos relationships.

The only "other flesh" that was present in Sodom was the flesh of the angels. This is a reversal of what we see in Genesis 6 where "sons of God" come to earth to have sex with human women.

Therefore, when Jesus condemned "porneia" He was using a term that the Jews understood as condemning all the sexual sins listed in Leviticus chapers 18 and 20 - and that included consensual same-sex behavior.  The notion that Jesus would have affirmed same-sex behavior as long as the persons were "married" is nonsense because Jesus clearly teaches in Matthew 19:1ff that marriage is for ONE man and ONE woman and the only other option to this is CELIBACY!

And when you condemn everyone who has married after a divorce, your words might have some meaning. What is a common practice in our society is ONE woman at a time or ONE man at a time. We take Jesus' words about marrying after a divorce about as seriously as we do about length of hair and head coverings.

As Philo indicates, and what I believe is the prohibition in Leviticus 18 & 20 was "the love of boys." It was about boys acting less than manly. It was about men treating boys as if they were women. They aren't verses that speak against same-sex marriage.

One last thing.  ALL Christians from the time of the apostles up to recent decades understood "porneia" in the Scriptures to be condemning all forms of same-sex behavior.  Brian, you simply can't get past this unless  you ignore all the evidence and ignore the witness of the Church catholic for the past 2000 years!

As I've shown from the quotes from the Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs, porneia was understood as promiscuity.

Brian, the fact remains that all the evidence shows that "porneia" changes in meaning with the result that in Jesus' day it was understood broadly to include all forms of sexual sins - and for the Jews of Jesus' day, that includes ALL forms of same-sex behavior.

Also, if you're actually suggesting the Jesus and the Jews of His day would have been OK with same-sex marriage, then you are totally ignorant of history!  Same-sex marriage was NOT an option because such a false "marriage" would not make same-sex behavior any less sinful anymore than false "marriage" between a brother/sister or adult father/daughter would make incest any less sinful.

In addition, as for church history from the time of the apostles, if you actually think that Christians throughout the ages (with the exception of a minority of liberal people in the last few decades!) would have been open to same-sex "marriage," then you are engaging in historical anachronism at its best!  If you think that same-sex marriage or behavior (even between consenting adults) would have been tolerated in the early church, then you are willfully ingnorant on this issue and need not be taken seriously.

Finally, all this talk about "porneia" aside, in Romans 1 and 1st Corinthians 6 the apostle Paul is clear that ALL forms of same-sex behavior (el'ven between consenting adults!) is condemned by God along with fornication, adultery and incest.  Paul's condemnation of same-behavior cannot be limited to pederasty because 1) he could have used a specific Greek word for that and DIDN'T, and 2) the word Paul coined is based on the LXX of Leviticus chapters 18 & 20 which clearly teach that even CONSENSUAL same-sex behavior is condemned by God - and that is how the Jews of Jesus day understood the clear teaching of Scripture as well as all Christians from the time of the apostles - except for a few like you in the last decades who think they know better than all who have gone before them!

[Tom Eckstein]

Brian, the Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon shows the meaning of "porneia" is not restricted  to “prostitution” but instead refers to “sexual sin of a general kind, that includes many different behaviors.”   Also, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition  defines porneia as “unlawful sexual intercourse, prostitution, unchastity, fornication.”

Where did you get that definition for Louw & Nida? I ask because my hard copy of the Lexicon has the following (boldface added):porneuo, ekporneuo, porneia: to engage in sexual immorality of any kind, often with the implication of prostitution – to engage in illicit sex, to commit fornication, sexual immorality, fornication, prostitution 88.271

In addition, various Jewish and pagan authors used "porneia" to refer to all same-sex behavior.  For example, Demosthenes used "porneia" to refer to homosexual behavior centuries before Christ.

I looked up Demosthenes. It is just as likely, if not more so, that its use in that writing refers to male prostitution. Timarchus is brought to court for porneia.

On top of that, various Jewish writings (e.g., the Testament of Benjamin, Testament of Levi, Testament of Naphtali, and Jubilees) during the period between the Testaments (from 400 BC to the time of Christ) also used "porneia" to refer to the sin of sodomy - even when it was between consenting adults!

I found the references through TDNT in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1. The translations there do not support your claim.
T. Reuben 3:3 First, the spirit of promiscuity resides in the nature and the senses.
T. Reuben 4:6 and do not sin, for the sin of promiscuity is the pitfall of life,
T. Reuben 5:3 Indeed, the angel of the Lord told me and instructed me that women are more easily overcome by the spirit of promiscuity
          then are men.
T. Reuben 5:5 Accordingly, my children, flee from sexual promiscuity
T. Reuben 6:1 So guard yourself against sexual promiscuity,
T. Simeon 5:3 Guard yourselves from sexual promiscuity because fornication is the mother of all wicked deeds,
T. Levi 9:9 Be on guard against the spirit of promiscuity,
T. Issachar 9:2 I have not had intercourse with any woman other than my wife, nor was I promiscuous by lustful looks.
T. Judah 18:2 Guard yourselves, my children, against sexual promiscuity and love of money.
There may be others, but these were the only texts listed in TDNT. It seems consistent that porneia = promiscuity. TDNT said nothing about it referring to Sodomy.

However, it mentions that Philo talked about death for homosexuals. Here is the section from Spec. Leg. III.
(37) Moreover, another evil, much greater than that which we have already mentioned, has made its way among and been let loose upon cities, namely, the love of boys, which formerly was accounted a great infamy even to be spoken of, but which sin is a subject of boasting not only to those who practise it, but even to those who suffer it, and who, being accustomed to bearing the affliction of being treated like women, waste away as to both their souls and bodies, not bearing about them a single spark of a manly character to be kindled into a flame, but having even the hair of their heads conspicuously curled and adorned, and having their faces smeared with vermilion, and paint, and things of that kind, and having their eyes pencilled beneath, and having their skins anointed with fragrant perfumes (for in such persons as these a sweet smell is a most seductive quality), and being well appointed in everything that tends to beauty or elegance, are not ashamed to devote their constant study and endeavours to the task of changing their manly character into an effeminate one. (38) And it is natural for those who obey the law to consider such persons worthy of death, since the law commands that the man-woman who adulterates the precious coinage of his nature shall die without redemption, not allowing him to live a single day, or even a single hour, as he is a disgrace to himself, and to his family, and to his country, and to the whole race of mankind.

The Book of Jude uses the verb form of "porneia" when he writes:   “...[J]ust as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire."  Granted, the type of same-sex behavior against Lot's visitors was "gang rape" - but that doesn't change the fact that ALL Jews also viewed consensual same-sex behavior as "porneia".

First of all, that is a poor translation. The ESV offers a more literal one in a footnote. "Unnatural desire" is literally, "other (hetero) flesh." I find it a bit ironic that a text used against homosexual relationships, really talks about hetero-sarkos relationships.

The only "other flesh" that was present in Sodom was the flesh of the angels. This is a reversal of what we see in Genesis 6 where "sons of God" come to earth to have sex with human women.

Therefore, when Jesus condemned "porneia" He was using a term that the Jews understood as condemning all the sexual sins listed in Leviticus chapers 18 and 20 - and that included consensual same-sex behavior.  The notion that Jesus would have affirmed same-sex behavior as long as the persons were "married" is nonsense because Jesus clearly teaches in Matthew 19:1ff that marriage is for ONE man and ONE woman and the only other option to this is CELIBACY!

And when you condemn everyone who has married after a divorce, your words might have some meaning. What is a common practice in our society is ONE woman at a time or ONE man at a time. We take Jesus' words about marrying after a divorce about as seriously as we do about length of hair and head coverings.

As Philo indicates, and what I believe is the prohibition in Leviticus 18 & 20 was "the love of boys." It was about boys acting less than manly. It was about men treating boys as if they were women. They aren't verses that speak against same-sex marriage.

One last thing.  ALL Christians from the time of the apostles up to recent decades understood "porneia" in the Scriptures to be condemning all forms of same-sex behavior.  Brian, you simply can't get past this unless  you ignore all the evidence and ignore the witness of the Church catholic for the past 2000 years!

As I've shown from the quotes from the Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs, porneia was understood as promiscuity.

Brian, as to your words about Jesus' comments on marriage/divorce in Matthew 19:1ff (highlighted above), you can't get away from the fact that Jesus limits marriage to ONE man and ONE woman and the only other option is CELIBACY - and since this fact destroys your sinful notion that same-sex "marriage" can be a thing, you then deflect and accuse us of being inconsistent because we don't rebuke those who've been married after a divorce.  How do I respond?

First, we've already covered the complexity of the divorce/remarriage issue, but the fact is that is SOME cases divorce/remarriage is allowed without it be "adulterous" when a person was the innocent party in a divorce.  As for those who divorce their spouses for sinful reasons and then later remarried, such people need to be rebuked.  If they repent, then they are absolved and admonished not to get divorced and remarried again.  But you are wrong if you think Jesus means that even after repentance/absolution their marriage is an ongoing adulterous union.  That's NOT JESUS' point!  Jesus is speaking to one who divorces his spouse precisely because he then wants to be with someone else.  Jesus point is that the certificate of divorce in that situation does not take away the guilt of the adulterous intent of the person.  But if that person would later repent and receive absolution, God can give a new beginning - with the understanding that the person will avoid getting divorced/remarried again.

So, in the case of a person who engages in same-sex behavior:  If that person repents of that sin then he/she must be absolved but also admonished to NOT engage in that sinful behavior again.  This is totally different than the evil you promote where people AFFIRM their sinful same-sex behavior, see no need to be forgiven for it and intend to keep on doing it.  This is what Scripture clearly condemns!  (Romans 1:32)

[Tom Eckstein]

For Brian and also everyone else, below is some information from Dr. Robert Gagnon where he quotes from PRO-gay bible scholars who admit that Scripture condemns all forms of same-sex behavior in every situation.  Sadly, they then go on to reject the authority of Scripture in this issue.  In any case, read the following:

Those Gentile moralists opposing homosexual practice absolutely were a minority of the elite in Greece and Rome but the fact that they existed at all indicates the absurdity of arguing that any Jew at this time, including Jesus and Paul, might have been open to committed same-sex sexual bonds. The culture of ancient Israel, continuing on in early Judaism, is one that can only be characterized as the most implacably opposed to homosexual practice of any known culture in the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman Mediterranean basin.

Louis Crompton in the massive Homosexuality and Civilization (Harvard University Press, 2003) has written: 
According to [one] interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian. (p. 114)

Similarly, Bernadette Brooten (Harvard, Brandeis), a self-acknowledged lesbian who has written the most important book on lesbianism in antiquity and its relation to early Christianity (especially Rom 1:26), at least from a pro-homosex perspective, criticized both John Boswell and Robin Scroggs for their use of an exploitation argument:   Boswell . . . argued that . . . “The early Christian church does not appear to have opposed homosexual behavior per se.” The sources on female homoeroticism that I present in this book run absolutely counter to [this conclusion]. (p. 11)
If . . . the dehumanizing aspects of pederasty motivated Paul to condemn sexual relations between males, then why did he condemn relations between females in the same sentence? . . . Rom 1:27, like Lev 18:22 and 20:13, condemns all males in male-male relationships regardless of age, making it unlikely that lack of mutuality or concern for the passive boy were Paul’s central concerns. . . . The ancient sources, which rarely speak of sexual relations between women and girls, undermine Robin Scroggs’s theory that Paul opposed homosexuality as pederasty. (Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996], 253 n. 106, 257, 361)

She also criticized the use of an orientation argument:  "Paul could have believed that tribades [the active female partners in a female homosexual bond], the ancient kinaidoi [the passive male partners in a male homosexual bond], and other sexually unorthodox persons were born that way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and shameful. . . . I believe that Paul used the word “exchanged” to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God." (p. 244)

Martti Nissinen, a Finnish Bible scholar who has written the best book on the Bible and homosexuality from a pro-homosex perspective and whose work I heavily critique in The Bible and Homosexual Practice (precisely because it is the best on the other side), acknowledges in one of his more candid moments:  "Paul does not mention tribades or kinaidoi, that is, female and male persons who were habitually involved in homoerotic relationships, but if he knew about them (and there is every reason to believe that he did), it is difficult to think that, because of their apparent ‘orientation,’ he would not have included them in Romans 1:24-27. . . . For him, there is no individual inversion or inclination that would make this conduct less culpable. . . . Presumably nothing would have made Paul approve homoerotic behavior." (Homoeroticism in the Biblical World [Fortress, 1998], 109-12)

The scholars above are the best on the side of those supporting homosexualist ideology.

[Charles Austin]

I can imagine that huge numbers of Jews in post resurrection days rejected the teachings of the apostles because the interpretation of scripture at the time was that the Messiah would be a political figure who would again lead them out of oppression into the promised land. “This Jesus can’t be the messiah,” they said, adding “do you think you know better than all those who have gone before you?”

[Charles Austin]

Robert Gagnon has been cited here many times. I do not think that he swayed any of us on “the other side.” I wonder, perhaps if he has been captive to the evangelical culture in which he lives after apparently fleeing “liberal” academia.

[Dan Fienen]

Robert Gagnon has been cited here many times. I do not think that he swayed any of us on “the other side.” I wonder, perhaps if he has been captive to the evangelical culture in which he lives after apparently fleeing “liberal” academia.

What everyone in these discussions passionately desires is a knockout, clincher argument that convinces everyone. Sorry, doesn't work that way. The topics we discuss are not the sort of things that can be proven to everyone's satisfaction. In the end, we look at the evidence, Scripture, experience, the observations and reasonings of those we respect (living and dead), the promptings of what we perceive is the Holy Spirit, and other influences and make up our minds the best we can. Ideally we will be open to having faulty reasoning corrected, evidence we haven't seen considered, and new ideas contemplated. But I cannot prove toyou that I'm correct and you cannot prove to me that you are. The most that we can be is convincing. We are also all subject to intellectual inertia - we do not change beliefs quickly or easily, as well as intellectual hubris - I simply cannot be wrong. As Kuhn observed, paradigms do not shift easily.


Brian repeated reminds us that whenever we deal with Scripture we deal with texts that are not the originals (and so are human reconstructions assembled from existing manuscripts), translations (and so are reconstructions based on scholarly reconstructions of the ancient languages and every translation is itself an interpretation of what the original meant), and then interpretations of the translated text. He is correct. Making a point based on what Scripture says is not the same as assemblying a geometric proof. It may be convincing or not, but not proof in a technical sense. I note that for all his emphasis on everything being interpretations, that does not stop Brian from asserting that his interpretation is correct and others wrong.


Charles here reminds us that we all are subject to influences from the culture and society we inhabit. He is correct. There is no way that I can prove to you that my cultural influences are correct while yours are misleading. Or that my thinking is less influenced by cultural factors than you.  The best that we can do is to carefully observe those factors and do the best we can to check if they are misleading or not. We do not need to be cultural determinists, that our thought is totally determined by culture.


So does that leave us adrift on a sea of unproveable assertions, personal interpretations, and cultural imperatives? No, we can, to an extent, allow for the various biases that affect us and think critically. We also pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, pray that we continue to be guided by Him, do the best that we can and continue on. We dare not, like Hamlet, be paralysed by indecision. In the end, we trust God to make it right.

[Brian Stoffregen]

You can start with the altered Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed, which both contain the filioque.

I regret that the Western Church added the word in the Nicene Creed. I question if it was added to the Athanasian Creed. That word doesn't occur in the Latin version I have, but there is a phrase translated the same: Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens. I also read that it is not commonly used in the Eastern Church.

But the problem, of course, is you can call that your "Catholic confession" all you wish.  We all know, and you know, that your church body teaches things that go well beyond all of that.  And I am not a reductionist as you are, so it is not good enough to say "if we can agree on this, then we can agree on everything else."  As I mentioned, the Orthodox Church has dogmatized a certain set of things.  As one example, you leave out the Ecumenical Councils, which we consider to be dogmatic in their doctrinal proclamations.  I understand why, as Lutherans, you leave them out.  But that is a nonstarter for us.

More accurately, I believe that we say: "If we can agree on these, then we can disagree about other matters." Or, as an old quote, source is debated whether a Lutheran or Catholic first said it, and some revisions have occurred: "In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things charity." (In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis (or, dubiis) libertas, in utrisque (or, omnibus) caritas.)

Do you believe dogma = faith?

[Brian Stoffregen]

I agree the sense of porne is stable over time.

Porneia changes.  It first means prostitution when Greek culture was very promiscuous. Influences like the Stoics begin to restrict sexual behavior, assigning more to immorality. Then Greek culture meets Judaism, which is even more strict. I think that is why Tom cites the Testaments literature. Add to that Philo, who comments on both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors. The term now means sexual relationships outside of approved marriage relationships. And that is where the Apostle Paul continues in his teaching. Porneia is sex outside of marriage. As Christians we would rely on this New Testament sense of the term rather than the limited early Greek sense.

1. Consider the English verb, prostitute. I has a non-sexual definition: "put (oneself or one's talents) to an unworthy or corrupt use or purpose for the sake of personal or financial gain." However, I don't think most people can hear that word, and not also think of the sexual behaviors that are its original and primary meaning.

2. If the word group refers to "sex outside of marriage," then it would not apply to married same-sex couples.

3. "Marriage," in biblical times, was quite different than our practices. It was generally a contract between parents, with the groom's family paying a bride-price, a big reception (with lots of drinking,) and the couple sleep together, and they are married. There were no vows, no license, no officiant. As such, I don't see the word applying to couples who live as though they were married - publicly affirming that they are living together, being faithful to each other, and expect the relationship to last a lifetime. That was "marriage" in biblical times.

[Brian Stoffregen]

For Brian and also everyone else, below is some information from Dr. Robert Gagnon where he quotes from PRO-gay bible scholars who admit that Scripture condemns all forms of same-sex behavior in every situation.  Sadly, they then go on to reject the authority of Scripture in this issue.  In any case, read the following:

I own and have read Gagnon's book. I was even involved in an online discussion with him. I disagree with his conclusions. He also doesn't approach scriptures with our Lutheran Law/Gospel distinction.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Brian repeated reminds us that whenever we deal with Scripture we deal with texts that are not the originals (and so are human reconstructions assembled from existing manuscripts), translations (and so are reconstructions based on scholarly reconstructions of the ancient languages and every translation is itself an interpretation of what the original meant), and then interpretations of the translated text. He is correct. Making a point based on what Scripture says is not the same as assemblying a geometric proof. It may be convincing or not, but not proof in a technical sense. I note that for all his emphasis on everything being interpretations, that does not stop Brian from asserting that his interpretation is correct and others wrong.

It's not so black and white. In many cases I believe my interpretations fit the text and their historical settings better than other interpretations. In other cases, I think that there are optional interpretations that are possible, but perhaps not as likely. We don't know, e.g., did David and Jonathan have a homosexual relationship? Was the centurion's "boy" a sexual partner? It's like creating columns with lists of what supports an interpretation and what goes against it. The weight can fall on one side or the other.

Charles here reminds us that we all are subject to influences from the culture and society we inhabit. He is correct. There is no way that I can prove to you that my cultural influences are correct while yours are misleading. Or that my thinking is less influenced by cultural factors than you.  The best that we can do is to carefully observe those factors and do the best we can to check if they are misleading or not. We do not need to be cultural determinists, that our thought is totally determined by culture.

The fact that same-sex marriages are legal (whether or not people approve of them,) changes the arguments. If porneia referred to sex outside of marriage, it no longer applies to our present situation.

[Tom Eckstein]

I can imagine that huge numbers of Jews in post resurrection days rejected the teachings of the apostles because the interpretation of scripture at the time was that the Messiah would be a political figure who would again lead them out of oppression into the promised land. “This Jesus can’t be the messiah,” they said, adding “do you think you know better than all those who have gone before you?”

Charles, what you fail to note is that Jesus and His apostles AGREED with the views of the Jews of their day on sexual issues because, on that point (and others), they were in agreement with the Scriptures!  Just because most Jews of Jesus day were guilty of selective reading of the OT when it came to who the Messiah would be and what He would do does NOT mean that they were wrong on everything.

In addition, it wasn't just the Jews of Jesus' day that agreed with Scripture's clear teaching that all forms of same-sex behavior are evil under any condition.  The fact is that ALL Christians from the time of the apostles for the next 1900+ years held this view.  The only exception are a small minority of people in the last few decades who, indeed, think they know better than all who have gone before.

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

I agree the sense of porne is stable over time.

Porneia changes.  It first means prostitution when Greek culture was very promiscuous. Influences like the Stoics begin to restrict sexual behavior, assigning more to immorality. Then Greek culture meets Judaism, which is even more strict. I think that is why Tom cites the Testaments literature. Add to that Philo, who comments on both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors. The term now means sexual relationships outside of approved marriage relationships. And that is where the Apostle Paul continues in his teaching. Porneia is sex outside of marriage. As Christians we would rely on this New Testament sense of the term rather than the limited early Greek sense.

1. Consider the English verb, prostitute. I has a non-sexual definition: "put (oneself or one's talents) to an unworthy or corrupt use or purpose for the sake of personal or financial gain." However, I don't think most people can hear that word, and not also think of the sexual behaviors that are its original and primary meaning.

2. If the word group refers to "sex outside of marriage," then it would not apply to married same-sex couples.

3. "Marriage," in biblical times, was quite different than our practices. It was generally a contract between parents, with the groom's family paying a bride-price, a big reception (with lots of drinking,) and the couple sleep together, and they are married. There were no vows, no license, no officiant. As such, I don't see the word applying to couples who live as though they were married - publicly affirming that they are living together, being faithful to each other, and expect the relationship to last a lifetime. That was "marriage" in biblical times.

The history of pornos is interesting.  It starts out in earlier Greek meaning "male prostitute," even "catamite" (Aristophanes, Xenophon). Like porneia, it broadens in meaning to include further sexual behavior. In New Testament usage, it is "sexually immoral persons" (Liddell, Scott, Jones and BAGD). Both these terms, one from female prostitution and the other from male prostitution/pederasty, are used by New Testament writers for rejected sexual behaviors. Unlike Greek civilization all of these behaviors outside of marriage are put together as unacceptable.

[Tom Eckstein]

For Brian and also everyone else, below is some information from Dr. Robert Gagnon where he quotes from PRO-gay bible scholars who admit that Scripture condemns all forms of same-sex behavior in every situation.  Sadly, they then go on to reject the authority of Scripture in this issue.  In any case, read the following:

I own and have read Gagnon's book. I was even involved in an online discussion with him. I disagree with his conclusions. He also doesn't approach scriptures with our Lutheran Law/Gospel distinction.

Brian, it's not just Robert Gagnon who agrees with Scripture that all forms of same-sex behavior are condemned by God, but many highly respected PRO-gay scholars agree with him that this is the case - along with ALL Christians from the apostles for the next 1900+ years until recent decades!  At least the PRO-gay bible scholars who agree that Scripture condemns all forms of same-sex behavior are honest enough to admit that they REJECT Scripture's authority on this issue.  You just pretend the Scripture's aren't clear on this issue (even though they ARE!) and that ALL Christians for the first 1900+ years were not as enlightened as you are.

As I've said before, if the incestuous man in Corinth had said to Paul  "I read the Scripture's differently than the majority on the issue of incest.  I think God AFFIRMS incestuous behavior!" I DON'T think Paul would have said "You're right!  How arrogant of me to think the Scripture's are clear on this issue.  Go ahead and continue to have sex with your father's wife, and welcome to the Lord's Supper!"