Was the Apostle Paul Gay?

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by Eugene

I would have to disagree with this. There is a definite bias against homosexuals and against women in Paul's writings. I recognize the necessity to discount it, if the traditional view of infallibility is to be maintained. But it seems to me that it really can't be discounted. And recognizing it requires throwing out the traditional view of infallibilty or accepting that God condemns homosexuality. I have opted for the former (without throwing out my faith in Christ).

Sure it can be discounted, because the bias was put there by other people many years after Paul wrote his letters. There are only two sentences in the NT that have been cited as being specific in their anti-gay language, and in both the translation is questionable at best. All the others are blanket condemnations of sexual sins that refer back to the Leviticus, which has its own translation problems, which. And if we argue the meaning of that verse (which I do), those NT verses don't speak to homosexuality at all.

The Bible's fallibility isn't at question; the fallibility of the translators is.

My opinion is that Paul was a self-loathing, celibate homosexual. (The idea that he was widowed is, in my opinion, a ridiculous invention by married fundamentalists who wish to justify their neglect of his teaching on celibacy.)

Was there even reason for a homosexual person (as we would define it) to be self-loathing in the first century? I've always heard that man-man and woman-woman sex was not entirely uncommon.

Regardless, I just don't see the need to push the issue. We don't have enough evidence to prove the claim, so the only thing arguing it would do is throw up new walls. David and Jonathan is much easier an example, in my opinion.

[wmanion]

Was Paul's writing about women really different than what the overall view of women and their place in society for that time period in history? I always thought Paul was very anti-women, but was he really? Could Paul have been just reinforcing what the females place in culture was at the time, just as he did slavery? Paul had also been a Roman soldier and I am sure after becoming a believer he rebelled against many of the Roman acceptabilities. We know little of how he lived as a Roman soldier but when in Rome...we will never really know for sure but we do need to look at the culture at that time period and how much of it found its way into Paul's writings.

Bill

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by wmanion

Was Paul's writing about women really different than what the overall view of women and their place in society for that time period in history? I always thought Paul was very anti-women, but was he really? Could Paul have been just reinforcing what the females place in culture was at the time, just as he did slavery? Paul had also been a Roman soldier and I am sure after becoming a believer he rebelled against many of the Roman acceptabilities. We know little of how he lived as a Roman soldier but when in Rome...we will never really know for sure but we do need to look at the culture at that time period and how much of it found its way into Paul's writings.
Bill

Bill,
What's the evidence that Paul was a Roman soldier? I never heard that before.

I believe there is evidence that Jesus and Paul both were less into traditional gender roles than folks were at the time. There is archeological evidence that women were leaders (even Bishops) in the early church. As the church became more "respectable" in the culture of the time, it started to conform more to the sexist standards of the times.

I do not believe the passage in I Corinthians that says that women should be silent in church is really from Paul. For one thing, it contradicts something else Paul says elsewhere in the same book.

Paul is famous for saying "in Christ there is no male and female." The Gospel of Jesus that Paul preached was one of equality of all persons whether Jew/Gentile, male/female or slave/free. (The passage about "slaves obeying masters" is also from a letter of questionable Pauline authorship. In Philemon, an undisputed letter of Paul, Paul seems to call for the freeing of a slave).

Here's a Wikipedia article on the question of Pauline authorship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...uline_epistles

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's another interesting link on the question of the status of women in the New Testament:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nfe_bibl.htm

This article makes some of the same points I've made about sorting out what is really from the historical Paul and what is later additions by other writers writing in Paul's name.

The passage about women being required to remain silent in church in I Corinthians may have been added by a scribe who was merely writing his own opinion in the margins of the book he was copying. Later scribes then copied this note into the body of the letter. This is a practice that is known to have happened.

The Bible is not "infallible," if by "infallible" you mean it was dictated by God to the human writers.

Steven Webster

[wmanion]

Steven,
It could be just my old fundamental teachings about Paul. I was taught that Paul was Saul before his conversion and was a Roman soldier who hunted and killed Christians. I will research some of my old documents and find out for sure. I also think Paul wrote some pretty amazing things but I cannot help but believe that culture played a role in some of his writings. Now, you are going to have me studying again...lol, but that is why I love this site, it challenges me and renews my spirit.

Bill

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by wmanion

Steven,
I was taught that Paul was Saul before his conversion and was a Roman soldier who hunted and killed Christians. I will research some of my old documents and find out for sure. I also think Paul wrote some pretty amazing things but I cannot help but believe that culture played a role in some of his writings. Now, you are going to have me studying again...lol, but that is why I love this site, it challenges me and renews my spirit.
Bill

Bill,
I agree that Paul was originally named Saul and that he was involved in arresting Christians, and that he was present at the stoning of Stephen, but I never saw any indication that he was a Roman soldier. He was, I believe, "deputized" by Jerusalem Jewish authorities (not directly by Rome) to go after Christians.

Of course, everything Paul wrote was influenced by culture--how could it not be. But given that the culture was sexist, it is all the more remarkable if we find expressions of gender egalitarianism in Paul and Jesus. There is evidence that women played leading roles in the early church. Jesus relied on the support of a group of women who traveled with him. Paul's ministry was also supported by women.

Please note that I am not claiming that Paul or Jesus were feminists in the modern sense.

Steven Webster

[kara speltz]

I have a rabbi friend, who knows more about the New Testament than most Christians do. He talks about how you can tell how Jewish Jesus was just from how he speaks. He also said that he doesn't believe that Paul was Jewish. He says Paul doesn't speak like a Jew.

When I pointed out that Paul was a Roman citizen, he said - the Romans would never allow a Jew to be a Roman citizen. I found all of this very interesting and tend to suspect my rabbi friend may well be right.

As for Paul being gay, Spong makes a very strong case for it, and I tend to think he's right.

Kara

[Eugene]

Sure it can be discounted, because the bias was put there by other people many years after Paul wrote his letters. There are only two sentences in the NT that have been cited as being specific in their anti-gay language, and in both the translation is questionable at best. All the others are blanket condemnations of sexual sins that refer back to the Leviticus, which has its own translation problems, which. And if we argue the meaning of that verse (which I do), those NT verses don't speak to homosexuality at all.

At the great risk of sounding theologically conservative (which I suppose I am, more or less) on a gay forum, I will note that your view of the Bible is such that it isn't necessary to even care one way or another whether it includes a bias against homosexuality or anything else.

I don't have a problem trusting that the English text is reliable. Neither do most other English-speaking Christians. And I daresay that most English-speaking Christians, putting the Bible side-by-side with the argument above will come out solidly on the side of the Bible. For which reason I don't see your argument as beneficial in dissuading any heterosexual Christian away from his bias against homosexuals.

The Bible's fallibility isn't at question

The Bible's fallibility is precisely the question. Whether the authors were speaking as fallible, biased humans or infallible instruments of divine revelation is the question.

Pretending that they didn't say what they obviously did say is no help at all.

Was there even reason for a homosexual person (as we would define it) to be self-loathing in the first century?

Well you noted the text of Leviticus. Given that Saul of Tarsus was so much of a Pharisee as to kill Christians, I assume that he derived his view of homosexuality from the Jewish scriptures. The same OT scriptures which lead modern, conservative, religious gay men to be self-loathing would have led him (the ancient, ultra-conservative Pharisee) to be self-loathing.

David and Jonathan is much easier an example, in my opinion.

While I agree that this was a homosexual relationship, the text isn't as explicit as the condemnations in Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Corinthians. It is easier -- and less certain.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Eugene

At the great risk of sounding theologically conservative (which I suppose I am, more or less) on a gay forum, I will note that your view of the Bible is such that it isn't necessary to even care one way or another whether it includes a bias against homosexuality or anything else.

I don't have a problem trusting that the English text is reliable. Neither do most other English-speaking Christians. And I daresay that most English-speaking Christians, putting the Bible side-by-side with the argument above will come out solidly on the side of the Bible. For which reason I don't see your argument as beneficial in dissuading any heterosexual Christian away from his bias against homosexuals.

The Bible's fallibility is precisely the question. Whether the authors were speaking as fallible, biased humans or infallible instruments of divine revelation is the question.

Pretending that they didn't say what they obviously did say is no help at all.

Well you noted the text of Leviticus. Given that Saul of Tarsus was so much of a Pharisee as to kill Christians, I assume that he derived his view of homosexuality from the Jewish scriptures. The same OT scriptures which lead modern, conservative, religious gay men to be self-loathing would have led him (the ancient, ultra-conservative Pharisee) to be self-loathing.

I'm a progressive Christian who feels no need to defend the Bible as infallible. Paul could very well be everything (e.g. a self-loathing gay) that folks may be suggesting here, and that doesn't matter much to my religious faith. But personally, I don't see the "self-loathing gay" hypothesis as either convincing or helpful to my understanding and appreciation of the New Testament.

I'd also like to point out that there are gay Fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is infallible and accept the classic "five fundamentals" of the Fundamentalist faith, but who simply do not interpret Scripture as being anti-LGBT. I certainly don't agree with their faith-system, but I wouldn't completely discount that point of view.

Despite what Leviticus and Romans seem to say to alot of folks, it is really difficult to say for sure what Jesus and Paul would have thought of the subject because of our cultural differences. John Boswell points to same-gender pairs of saints in the early church and the early practice of blessing same-sex unions. I think it entirely possible that Paul could have written Romans 1:18 etc. and at the same time not have had in mind Christians in committed, non-exploitative same-gender unions. (As long as there was nothing "scandalous" or disruptive about such a union, he may not even have noticed much.) Such unions may not have been at all what Paul had in mind when he wrote Romans 1.

Steven Webster

[wmanion]

Steven,
I went back and did some reading on the Apostle Paul and you are correct he was not a Roman Soldier. His father was a tent maker by trade which Paul also learned. One of the speculations was that his father made tents for the Roman Military which earned him Roman citizenship that was also given to Paul. However, another theory states that he could have bought his citizenship for his family. I have not explored another theory that I was taught which I plan to but I am going to throw it out here. Some believed that Paul was deeply in love with Timothy and they had a falling out at some point. Paul became depressed over losing Timothy and Timothy going his own way. Some have said the Paul and Timothy's relationship was just as strong as David and Johnathon's. However, I do not believe there was a sexual relationship between the two. In fact, I have wondered many times if Paul's thorn in the flesh was impotence. However, I have nothing to back this assumption up.

Bill

[Eugene]

I'd also like to point out that there are gay Fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is infallible and accept the classic "five fundamentals" of the Fundamentalist faith, but who simply do not interpret Scripture as being anti-LGBT.

I am aware of that. I believe that such a position is inconsistent, or I might have become one of them.

it is really difficult to say for sure what Jesus and Paul would have thought of the subject because of our cultural differences

As for what Jesus would have thought of the subject, that is an entirely different matter.

As for what Paul thought, the cultural difference that mattered was between Graeco-Roman culture and the beliefs/practices of the Pharisees.

So the Pharisees had no problem with same-sex relationships? I doubt that.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Eugene

So the Pharisees had no problem with same-sex relationships? I doubt that.

In another thread we were discussing the Roman Centurian and his male slave who was "dear" to him. (The story is found in early in Luke and Matthew.) The setting is Capernaum, a village on the shore of Lake Galilee. We have been speculating, with good reason, I believe, that there was a homosexual relationship between this Centurian and his slave.

We also have the information from the Gospels that this Centurian financially supported the local synagogue. Very likely the leaders of the synagogue who came to Jesus to plead for this Centurian's slave were Pharisees. They may have respected the Centurian and appreciated his love for his slave without giving much thought to what was going on at night behind closed doors. They just knew that this Centurian and his household were good folks who supported the synagogue.

Could Paul have simultaneously denounced the "nasty things" the Gentiles do in their wild parties and temple orgies while at the same time silently tolerating "discrete," committed, same-sex relationship within the Christian movement? Sure--why not!

We just don't know. We have too little information to make any judgements for certain.

Also, I detect in your comments, Eugene, a certain stereotyping of Pharisees as "bad" and as universally intolerant, legalists. This is an unjustified and limited view of a group of people who were very varied in their views and approaches. Modern Jews all see themselves as descended from the Pharisees--Rabbinic Judaism is the creation of Pharisees, and as you pointed out one Pharisee, Paul, helped to found Christianity.

Jesus, himself, was closer to the party of the Pharisees than he was to the other Jewish sects of the time. The fact that he and the Pharisees debated one another, and that some Pharisees acknowledged that he bested them in debate is more evidence that Jesus was close to this party.

One of Paul's teachers, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, is noted in the Book of Acts as expressing very "liberal" and "tolerant" views towards Christians. Gamaliel counseled against persecution.

The Pharisees, as a group, were much more tolerant of disagreement, debate and varied viewpoints than are our own Fundamentalists. What Leviticus says doesn't tell us everything we might like to know about what the Pharisees really thought and did, no more than it tells us what the position of modern day Jews is on the matter of homosexuality. All modern Jewish sects are descended from the Pharisees and many of them are quite tolerant of LGBT people.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

This Wikipedia article presents a balanced and scholarly view of the Pharisees. It supports my claim that all modern, Rabbinic Judaism is descended from the Pharisees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

We need to be careful not to read the New Testament as though the word "Pharisee" is a dirty word. Not all the Pharisees in the New Testament are presented as bad people. (Although alot of anti-Semitism finds justification in a certain reading of the New Testament.) Alot of Rabbinic Judaism is now more tolerant of LGBT people than most of our mainstream Christian churches.

What I appreciate about Rabbinic Judaism is the tolerance for continual debate and the allowance made for many points of view about the scriptures. Alot of Christians are far more narrow.

Steven Webster

[Eugene]

Also, I detect in your comments, Eugene, a certain stereotyping of Pharisees as "bad" and as universally intolerant, legalists.

Well, closing comments and I'm finished.

The words above are yours, not mine. They are nowhere implied in my post.

My view is that the Pharisees were the religious conservatives/fundamentalists of 1st century Judaism. As such, and as is obvious in the NT texts, they held to a literal interpretation of scripture that had much in common with the view of modern fundamentalist Christians. The assumption that they derived the same view of same-sex relationships (as modern fundamentalists) is one that I will own.

I am not aware of the relations between modern Judaism and the Pharisees, nor is it cogent to the point I was making.

We need to be careful not to read the New Testament as though the word "Pharisee" is a dirty word. Not all the Pharisees in the New Testament are presented as bad people.

Certainly, you are correct. Best to view the Pharisees as they are portrayed in the gospels. I can think of a few individual Pharisees who were portrayed well in John's gospel. But on the whole, the Pharisees were condemned as intolerant, religious hypocrites. And I think the portrayal could be extended without error to modern, American fundamentalists.

Jesus, himself, was closer to the party of the Pharisees than he was to the other Jewish sects of the time.

I would prefer to say that Jesus shared the Pharisees' high regard for scripture. I would not class Jesus with any of the religious sects in Judaism at the time, because the gospels make it plain that He found them all wanting.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Eugene

My view is that the Pharisees were the religious conservatives/fundamentalists of 1st century Judaism. As such, and as is obvious in the NT texts, they held to a literal interpretation of scripture that had much in common with the view of modern fundamentalist Christians. The assumption that they derived the same view of same-sex relationships (as modern fundamentalists) is one that I will own.

I am not aware of the relations between modern Judaism and the Pharisees, nor is it cogent to the point I was making.

Eugene--these words of yours above are exactly what I'm disagreeing with. I see you as incorrectly stereotyping the pharisees and incorrectly equating them with modern Fundamentalists. If the ONLY information we had about the Pharisees was from the New Testament, your conclusions might seem reasonable. The trouble is, we have more information about the Pharisees than that--for one thing, they wrote alot and left behind things like the Talmud. They also left behind a living movement--Rabbinic Judaism (including Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox and Restorationist Judaism). Again, the wikipedia article above on the Pharisees is important to read if all one knows about the Pharisees is the New Testament.

Why is this important? You were drawing certain conclusions about what Paul must have thought based upon his background as a Pharisee. You equate being a Pharisee with being something like a modern Fundamentalist, and therefore Paul must be viewed as something like a modern Fundamentalist on the topic of homosexuality---I'm just saying that it ain't necessarily so.

Just to lay it all out there. I don't believe that I, as a liberal, progressive, gay Christian need to reject Paul as a homophobe, a misogynist, a Fundamentalist or any of the negative stereotypes sometime attributed to Paul. I don't think Paul was any of those things. (Though, of course, I could be wrong.)

I apologize if any of my remarks come across as a personal attack, Eugene. I certainly don't intend that, but maybe I'm clumsy or unintentionally rude in expressing myself. I certainly don't want to discourage your participation here.

Steven Webster

[Matt Algren]

I've read that the Pharisees were a generally conservative faction of Judaism, and Sadducees were a generally liberal faction of Judaism.

Which makes the fact that they teamed up against Jesus even more amazing and relevant to what we're dealing with today.

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Why is this important? You were drawing certain conclusions about what Paul must have thought based upon his background as a Pharisee. You equate being a Pharisee with being something like a modern Fundamentalist, and therefore Paul must be viewed as something like a modern Fundamentalist on the topic of homosexuality---I'm just saying that it ain't necessarily so.

Just to lay it all out there. I don't believe that I, as a liberal, progressive, gay Christian need to reject Paul as a homophobe, a misogynist, a Fundamentalist or any of the negative stereotypes sometime attributed to Paul. I don't think Paul was any of those things. (Though, of course, I could be wrong.)


Steven Webster

Steve: I agree with you. My parish is run by the Paulist Priests who have helped me understand a great deal more about Paul. I took a short class on Pauline theology and one of the things that helped me get over my biases against Paul was hearing him described as probably the most passionate of the apostles. As someone who has often overstepped her bounds because of her passion, I came to see Paul in a whole different light.

In addition, what I came to understand is that Paul was really pretty radical in the way he approached the issue of women and marriage. We have to understand the context of the times in which this was written, and Pauls calling husbands to love their wives just as Jesus loved the church was a radical statement.

So I now don't cringe when I hear Paul's letters, I understand his passion, and I understand that he was trying to move people along in their understanding of more equal relationships. He was a man of his times.

Kara

[andrewlittle]

A good work on the Sadducees:
http://www.livius.org/saa-san/sadducees/sadducees.html

Another on Pharisees:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pharisee.htm

Since Fundamentalism emerged in the 19th century as a reaction to Modernism, I agree with Steven et al. that comparing anything in the time of Jesus to Christian Fundamentalism is seriously flawed.

As for the Sadducees and Pharisees, we can only know what we have from scripture and historical writings. To say there is only one kind of Pharisee, or one kind of Sadducee, is as ludicrous as saying there is one kind of Christian or Buddhist or whatever.

Also, when it comes to hypocrisy, no one group has the lock and key to that epithet. There are people running the gamut from very liberal to fundamentalist who truly believe what they profess, and there are those who do not and just use professed "beliefs" for expedience and power. Just because we don't believe just like someone else doesn't mean that they are hypocrites.

[Eugene]

There are people running the gamut from very liberal to fundamentalist who truly believe what they profess

(Well, as usual, I rest a few days after saying I'm done, and I'm not done. I have a love/hate relationship with discussion forums.)

I don't think the issue of the Pharisees being "hypocrites" is entirely bound with their not truly believing what they professed to believe.

Continuing with the fundamentalist analogy, if I may ...

There are a great many fundamentalists who truly believe what they preach. That is irrelevant. They are, as Jesus described the Pharisees, "the blind leading the blind" (which, of itself, qualifies them as hypocrites). They place demands on themselves and others that are impossible to meet, and their religion is quite devoid of compassion for others different from themselves. That renders them as much "hypocrites" -- however sincere -- as the Ted Haggards among them.

Since Fundamentalism emerged in the 19th century as a reaction to Modernism, I agree with Steven et al. that comparing anything in the time of Jesus to Christian Fundamentalism is seriously flawed.

Well, perhaps it isn't obvious, but it seems obvious to me. Fundamentalism isn't an American phenomenon nor is it a uniquely Protestant phenomenon. I would call ultra-orthodox Jews fundamentalists. There are, as you know, Islamic fundamentalists. And I remain convinced that the Pharisees were the fundamentalists of 1st century Judaism.

In any event, no matter how favorably you view the Pharisees, Jesus did not view them favorably. Which is what matters, in my opinion.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Eugene

And I remain convinced that the Pharisees were the fundamentalists of 1st century Judaism.

In any event, no matter how favorably you view the Pharisees, Jesus did not view them favorably. Which is what matters, in my opinion.

Eugene,
I guess my only problem with this is that it over-generalizes. SOME Pharisees might have been something like "fundamentalists of 1st century Judaism," but not ALL. Jesus did not view ALL Pharisees unfavorably, and not ALL Pharisees viewed Jesus unfavorably

Also, I would caution against limiting all your evidence to the New Testament. There are other sources of information about the Pharisees, and it actually helps clear up what is written in the New Testament.

As some of the references which I and especially Andrew posted here suggest, it was the Sadducees who seemed to be the party of narrow textualism and preservation of social privilege. The Pharisees were known for a developing "oral tradition" that did much to update, modify and make practical some of the provisions of the Law. Thus, one of the articles Andrew posted suggests that the Sadducees were the "conservatives" and the Pharisees were the "liberals."

It is also a mistake to write-off Judaism as being all about "Law" and to hold up Christianity, by contrast, as being all about "grace." There is grace and law in both religions.

The fact that these Soulforce forums are interfaith and not merely Christian make me especially concerned not to allow anything to pass which may be either intentionally or unintentionally anti-semitic. I think that unqualified denunciations of the Pharisees can be seen as intentional or unintentional anti-semitism. I'm sure no one here is intentionally anti-semitic.

I once shared your view of the Pharisees--I now consider my former views as uninformed.

I'm not trying embarrass or prove you wrong, Eugene, I'm just suggesting that you not over-generalize about a whole group of persons like the Pharisees, most of whom we know very little about, other than that their living descendants, modern day Jews, include some very fine folks, some of whom are our fellow Soulforce supporters.

Even in the New Testament, Pharisees included a very wide range of individuals. Paul's teacher, the Pharisee Gamaliel preached against the persecution of Christians, for instance, and counseled tolerance--this according to the New Testament Book of Acts. I suspect that it took a while for Paul to fully appreciate Gamaliel's teachings--probably not until after he became a Christian.

Steven Webster