First Timothy 1:10’s Reference to Homosexuality

What is the significance of 1 Timothy 1:8-11’s reference to the Decalogue in the present discussion of homosexuality and the Church?  The passage reads as follows:

1 Timothy 1:8-11 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully,  ⁹ understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,  ¹⁰ the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,  ¹¹ in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Note, firstly, that this list of sins picks up with the fifth commandment and runs through the ninth commandment in order: a table of comparison can make this clear.

Decalogue (Exodus 20)	1 Timothy 9-10
5th Command: Exodus 20:12 Honor your father and your mother	those who strike their fathers and mothers
6th Command: Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder.	Murderers
7th Command: Exodus 20:14 You shall not commit adultery.	the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality
8th Command: Exodus 20:15 You shall not steal.	Enslavers
9th Command: Exodus 20:16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.	liars, perjurers

Note, secondly, that the list is not exhaustive but indicative.  This is clear in part because the Ten Commandments are not listed exhaustively, and it stops before the final commandment.  Also, Paul says at the end of the list, ‘whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.’  In Romans 13:8, Paul lists four of the Ten Commandments.

Note, thirdly, that Paul chooses to interpret the commandments—the 5^th, 7^th, 8^th, and 9^th commandments.  Proper use of the law (v. 8) allows treating the commandments as ‘topics’ that can be and need to be expanded further.  Thus, e.g., the 9^th commandment’s saying not to bear false witness is interpreted as forbidding lying and perjuring.  The 5^th commandment’s positive command to honour one’s father and mother is interpreted negatively as a law against striking (ESV) or murdering (NRSV, NIV) one’s father and mother.  The 8^th commandment not to steal is given a very particular interpretation: not to steal means, among other things, not to be involved in the slave trade (stealing persons).  The 7^th commandment against committing adultery is both broadened (sexual immorality) and given specific application (homosexuality).

In regard to the specific application of the 7^th commandment to homosexuality, we can note a further point.  The word translated ‘homosexuality’ by the ESV (‘sodomy’ by the NRSV) is ‘arsenokoitais’ in Greek.  It is a compound word that was apparently coined by Paul (first in 1 Corinthians 6.9).  The word is made up of the word for ‘male’ and the word for ‘bed’, and so it refers to a man lying with another man for sex.  The two words appear together in the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13, which reads:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male [Greek: arsenos koitēn] as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Greek could allow one to coin words, the two words in question do appear side by side in Leviticus, and any Greek text of Leviticus that Paul would have seen—or anyone in the first century—would not have had spaces between words.  The main point, though, is that Paul chose his word arsenokoitais from Leviticus 20:13 when he was referencing the 7^th Commandment.  This is significant for two reasons.  First, it shows that Paul understood the 7^th Commandment to forbid homosexuality.  Thus, when Paul, and probably others, refer to adultery elsewhere, they may intend various sexual sins other than adultery per se, including homosexuality.  Second, it shows that Paul used the Leviticus passage to help explain the wider application of the 7^th Commandment.  Clearly, Paul continues to use the Law for Christian ethics, and he sees homosexuality as a sin.

One might note that Paul’s choice of word for homosexual is specifically about (1) a practice or act and (2) males.  The point made above about the list being open and indicative should also lead us to recognise that a reference to males performing homosexual acts would also apply to lesbians.  If anyone should doubt this, we have Paul’s explicit mention of both sins in Romans 1:26-27.

The connection between Exodus 20’s 7^th commandment of the Decalogue and Leviticus 20:13 also shows that Paul does not find some particular circumstance for homosexual acts to be acceptable and some other circumstance to make it unacceptable.  Just as one does not search around for situations in which adultery might be acceptable, one does not do so for homosexuality.  A variety of wild suggestions are often bandied about for limiting Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality: pederasty (an adult male with a teenage boy) and temple prostitution being the more popular two.  Moreover, Paul is not understanding homosexuality to be a form of adultery in a limited sense, as though it is only wrong when one commits it as a married man.  This is clear because he first broadens the meaning of adultery to ‘sexual immorality’ (porneia) in general.  

This sort of attempt to play with the meaning of the Law may be what Paul actually had in mind when he said, ‘the law is good, if one uses it lawfully’ (1 Timothy 1:8).  The false teachers that Timothy was up against in Ephesus were certainly misusing the Law, not ignoring it.  In fact, it may even be possible that the reason Paul expands the 7^th Commandment to include homosexuals is precisely that some false teachers were excluding this from its prohibition.  If one were to insist on limiting the 7^th commandment only to adultery, then one would, indeed, be arguing that the law did not apply to a sexual behaviour such as homosexuality.  Paul debunks this by linking the 7^th Commandment to Lev. 20:13 (and Lev. 18:22), and the same is true for any other limitation of the Law, such as trying to exclude those involved in the slave trade from the 8^th commandment not to steal.

Another importance of 1 Timothy 1:10 for the issue of homosexuality is that Paul used the word he made up here and in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (we have no indication of the word being used in Greek literature before Paul, and it is not used by non-Christians after him).  These two letters, if both written by Paul (as I believe), were probably written some ten years apart.  Paul’s making up the word ‘arsenokoitēs’ was not a once-off coining of a term; it was a term he apparently used enough to have it in operation over such a lengthy period of time.  There is every reason to believe that Paul regularly talked on this issue: we are simply lucky to have two texts from his writings that caught this.

Also, 1 Timothy 1:10 is important for the present day discussion of homosexuality because it forbids both homosexuality and the slave trade side by side.  One of the more naïve arguments some have put forward in our day is that we should dismiss Paul’s references to homosexuality as a sin because he approves of slavery.  Paul’s writings are fairly significant for arguing against the slave trade, but 1 Timothy 1:10 is definitely relevant on this matter.  This text, then, should put to rest attempts to ‘divide’ Paul himself: Paul is opposing both homosexuality and the slave trade.  If he is opposed to the trade, he is clearly on the side of bringing the entire practice to an end.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 is further important because it pits these sins, including homosexuality, against Paul’s Gospel: ‘… and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted’ (1 Tim. 1.10-11).  And, finally, the larger context of 1 Timothy 1:8-11 is important because Paul’s Gospel is about how people move beyond a life of sin.  In the following verses, Paul recounts how he, too, had been a sinner: ‘formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent’ (1 Tim. 1.13).  He then says, ‘But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus’ (1 Tim. 1:13-14).  God’s grace not only brought forgiveness but transformation to Paul.  He was not stuck in his sin.  The appropriate use of the Law is to point out what is sin: ‘the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane’ (1 Timothy 1:9).  But God’s mercy and grace offer change.  In our day, people regularly pervert grace into licentiousness (cf. Jude 4), as though grace is a matter of being loving and kind rather than bringing the Gospel of God’s merciful transformation to the sinner.  But Paul’s own story is a story of transformation.  Having mentioned homosexuality—and other sins from the Decalogue—as sins, he holds out hope in his Gospel for other sinners.

For these reasons, then, 1 Timothy 1:8-11 is a significant passage for the present confusion in the West’s mainline denominations over homosexuality—and over the nature of grace, for that matter.

The Similes of Light and Sight

[continuing modern parables for the Anglican Communion--and others facing similar issues]

As the master and his disciples entered Cardiff, they made their way to the university area.  They found some students sitting on the grass, discussing the authority of Scripture.  

One student, wearing a Druid gown, said that Scripture was ancient revelation, not in the sense of the lifting of a veil but in the sense of being important, foundational documents of the Church that still enlighten and inspire discussions of faith and practice in Christian communities today.  

A second student, from Germany, claimed that Scripture had little value for Christian theology and ethics as its many authors did not always agree.  

A third student, studying practical theology, agreed but suggested that the problem was rather that many interpreters offered different interpretations and, therefore, there was no single interpretation.  

A fourth student, who had fashioned for herself a mitre from paper and had coloured it in with bright colours but no Christian symbols, said that Scripture needed to be revised in light of the greater understandings of science and psychology and other religions.  

A fifth student, from South Africa, claimed that the only way to read anything was in a way that supported the fight for liberation and activist causes.  

A sixth student, from America, said that Scripture said too many things that made him uncomfortable and that we should not read it to understand and obey it but read against it if we read it at all.

The disciples were troubled.  One of them asked their master, ‘Which of the students is right, as each puts forward a strong argument?’  

The master said, ‘None of them.  They have been breathing the magical smoke of doubt for too long, and paying good money for it too!  Do not mistake the clear articulation of a thesis for an argument.  These students have learned to state their views fairly clearly, but that is all.  

'Now, the first student is like a person who carries a flickering candle to light the trail on a long hike in the mountains at night.  

'The second student is like a person who has no depth perception and remains confused by what he sees even in broad daylight—he will fall.  

'The third student is like someone visiting different campfires at a campsite: things in the shadows look different from every angle.  

'The fourth student is like someone who prefers ultra-violet light or a heat lamp to a torch for the trail.  

'The fifth student is like someone who puts on blinders, like a horse, and runs through the hills at night on windy and rocky paths.  

'The sixth student is like someone who refuses to turn on the light in a room lest it reveal things that must be minded.  

'But what does Scripture say? ‘Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.’’

‘But,’ said one of the disciples, ‘How can Scripture testify to itself?’  

The master replied, ‘Truly, its many authors testify to one another, and their unity is because all Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  But know this: if an authority is to be an authority, there is no better testimony other than its own—else whatever testifies would be more authoritative.  The highest authority must testify to itself.

'Each of these students wishes to find something more authoritative than Scripture.  While they have different reasons for what they believe, they are all trying to find a reason not to believe and obey what they read.  But I tell you, ‘all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.’’

Interpretation of Scripture 2: Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals—13 Criteria for Distinguishing Transcultural, Normative Authority from Cultural Relativity

Introduction

The previous post suggested a list of thirteen criteria to consider when discussing the interpretation of Biblical texts and weighing whether they should be accepted as transculturally normative or culturally relative.  This concern arises for orthodox Christians, who take the Bible as God’s Word and seek to live under its authority.  Yet Scripture was given within cultural contexts and must be interpreted within cultural contexts, and these simple facts raise the present issue for interpreters of Scripture.

The present post offers some discussion for each of the thirteen criteria around the issues of slavery, women, and homosexuality.  There are still interpreters today who try to brush aside Scripture on the issue of homosexuality simply because of what Scripture says—or what they think it says—about slavery and women.  This all seems very logical to someone who reads Scripture with the lens of ‘liberation’ or the lens of ‘love’, but the logic does fall apart rather quickly.

My hope is that the following discussion of the proposed criteria—meant as discussion points to add depth to the conversation as well as guidelines for interpretation—will be helpful to many.

Discussion of the Criteria

1. Criterion of Exegesis.  A clear understanding of what the text was saying to the original audience may well indicate whether it is culturally relative or transculturally normative.  Ask questions such as: Who is saying What to Whom?  Why?  When?  Where?  How?  What was the broader context?  What was the specific context?  Etc.

*Slavery: The Old Testament bears witness to Israel’s practice of slavery as with its surrounding nations.  One must ask, therefore, ‘in what ways was Israelite slavery different or the same?’  (And it was different in important ways.)  Regarding the New Testament period, many slaves in Roman times were enemy captives (political or governance issues bear on the discussion); there were Roman laws governing the freeing of slaves; freedmen often continued in employment with the former household (economic concerns must be considered).  Yet, according to the New Testament, Christians radically reshaped the relationships of masters and slaves, encouraged obtaining freedom if possible, and condemned the slave trade.

*Women: In all cultures of Biblical times, women were generally considered subordinate to their husbands’ authority; modesty for married women included covering the head and being quiet in public gatherings; women were very rarely educated and therefore almost never authors or teachers.  In New Testament times, the Emperor Augustus tried to stop a new cultural practice of women dropping conventional restrictions and becoming sexually promiscuous.  Contextual issues abound for careful exegesis of texts regarding women.  For some interpreters, the use of the creation narrative in 1 Tim. 2.9-15 means a closed case: the text is transcultural.  Yet there are good exegetical arguments to consider against this (the issues are complex, and my view is, in part, that Paul is using a chiastic argument such that not teaching is paired with the example of being deceived, whereas not domineering over a man is paired with the example of being created after the man--not teaching is not a part of the creation but the fall narrative).

*Homosexuality: Various forms of homosexual practice were known in Greek and Roman antiquity, including pederasty (an adult male with a teenager/young man), living together/marital relationship, bisexuality, lesbianism, transsexuality/gender dysphoria, cross-dressing, priests of the goddess Cybele emasculating themselves and becoming women, homosexuals living openly or ‘in the closet,’ etc.  Also, there was considerable discussion about whether homosexual orientation was natural or a result of nurture.  [Not knowing these things has led to misinterpretations of Biblical texts in order to revise the Church’s 2,000 years of teaching on the subject.]

  

     2.  Criterion of Contextual Dissimilarity and Traditional Consistency.  A Biblical norm that is dissimilar to its cultural context and consistent with its own tradition will more likely be transcultural than a norm that complies with the culture of the day.

*Slavery: In a world where every culture practiced slavery and where it was an integral part of the political and economic realities, Christian households also continued the practice.  The challenge was to reform the practice.

*Women: In a world where women were uneducated and where modesty included quietness in public, Christian teachers nevertheless included women in the teaching they gave, allowed women to explain the Gospel to others, allowed women to prophesy, and probably had women serve as deaconesses.  Brief directives regarding women teaching and speaking pretty much follow the cultural context.

*Homosexuality: All Jewish literature from the time of Moses to the time of the Talmud (5^th/6^th c. AD) that mentions homosexuality condemns it, whereas there was considerable discussion about, say, divorce and remarriage.  Naturally, then, we find Jesus interacting with questions about the latter but not the former.  The situation changes as the Christian mission encounters cultures that did practice homosexuality.  In a Greek and Roman world that saw every sort of homosexual practice, that did not associate sexuality with religion (except the gods’ dislike of incest—despite their own behaviours!), and that permitted most forms of any sexual indulgence, including homosexuality (except that free-born Roman youth were not to submit themselves to homosexual acts of others), Christians held firm with their Biblical tradition in opposing homosexual practice.

      3. Criterion of Available Alternatives.  Where no choice really exists for actions or perspectives in a culture or context, the point may be situational and not transcultural.

     

*Slavery: The release of slaves could be difficult, unlawful, and unhelpful for the slaves. In some cities, as many as 1/3 of the population might be slaves.  The alternative more easily open to the first Christians was to reform the relationship within the slave system, as they did.

     

*Women: Very few women were educated, and they could well be susceptible to false teaching and the propagation of heresy if allowed to teach.  There also seems to be some concern in the early Church about gender confusion and promiscuity (1 Cor. 11.2-16; 1 and 2 Timothy).

     

*Homosexuality: People did have a choice about their sexual activity.  Sex was associated with the ‘one flesh’ act of marriage between a male and a female, and therefore all other sexual activity was declared sinful.  Beyond a focus simply on sexual acts, the early Church believed that passions of the flesh also could be transformed through the power of the cross of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit: people could not claim that they were simply a certain way either by nature or nurture and simply had to be true to who they were (e.g., ‘soft men’ were transformed, and persons thinking lesbianism and homosexuality were normal for them were able to be transformed by the renewing of their minds).

     4. Criterion of Repeatability. If something can be or was repeated in the same way under different circumstances, its authority may well be transcultural.

     

*Slavery: While slavery is found in both the Old and New Testaments, there is a considerable amount of change, as noted above, effected in New Testament writings that do not allow interpreters simply to say that the practice is transculturally normative.

     

*Women: If the focus is on gender distinctions, the Bible is consistently clear that there are distinctions.  Yet the expression of those distinctions may be culturally relative: a woman having long hair or an unmarried woman having no head covering may mean different things in different cultures.  In many cultures, teaching is not considered a criterion that distinguishes genders (although, in the West, affirmative action has, at times, made this a gender issue).  If the focus is on whether women should be allowed to teach, one needs to reckon with the fact that most societies today now have women educated just as the men (unlike in the 1^st century).

     

*Homosexuality: Homosexuality was condemned in the Old Testament over against Canaanite, Hittite, Egyptian, and Babylonian cultures and in the New Testament over against Greek and Roman cultures.  It was condemned over hundreds of years by God’s people, as it was by the Church as Christianity spread from culture to culture for two thousand years.

      5. Criterion of Multiple Attestation (‘Cloud of Witnesses’).  The case for transcultural normativity is stronger the more we can demonstrate that there are multiple witnesses or proofs (different authors, different time periods, different types of literature [see next criterion]). 

     

*Slavery: References to slavery by different authors, in different time periods, and in different types of literature naturally raises the question whether it is transcultural.  Yet other criteria push against this, and the New Testament’s strong qualifications of slavery raise serious challenges for treating this as transcultural.  Moreover, there are significant differences to note between slavery in either the Old Testament or New Testament and what most people today have in mind about slavery: one has to ask to what extent the same thing is in mind even if the label is the same.

     

*Women: Biblical material, while patriarchal, also gives us an interesting variety of perspectives on the role and status of women.  If a woman is told to be silent and not teach in one text, we nevertheless find a woman (Priscilla) who knew the author (Paul) well and who engaged in teaching.  Whatever one makes of the evidence in the end, there is not a unified testimony from multiple witnesses on the role and status of women—except that there are clear gender distinctions that the church affirms as part of the way God made the world.

     

*Homosexuality: Different authors (‘Moses’—Genesis, Leviticus; ‘Joshua’; Paul; Jude) state outright that homosexual acts are sinful.  The Scriptures are consistent on this.  The consistent witness remains through hundreds of years.

      6. Criterion of Different Genre: The authority of a text is related to the genre, type of literature (e.g., narrative, laws, poetry, proverbs, history, prophecy, visions, apocalypses, letters, parables, etc.).  A point made in different genre may also be transculturally normative, and some genre are more likely transcultural than others (e.g., a narrative may simply describe a situation, whereas a law is meant to fit different contexts).

     

*Slavery: While statements about slavery are made in different genre, the texts are assuming rather than advocating or affirming slavery.  A cursory reading of Scripture—one lacking serious interpretation—may lead one to affirm slavery, as people have at various times.  (This has been a serious error.)

*Women: What is said about the role and status of women is not wide enough in the Biblical literature to be relevant to this criterion.  They key statements that people discuss are in Biblical letters.

*Homosexuality: The point that homosexuality is a sin is made in narrative, legal, and epistolary texts (in sin lists and in discussion).

 

      7. Criterion of Uses of Scripture: There are different levels of appeal to Scripture.  The more levels of appeal that are evident in Scripture, the more likely the matter should be taken as transculturally normative.  (I would suggest four levels: specifying use (norms, rules), warranting (virtues, values, principles), witnessing (stories, examples, characters), and worldview (basic understanding of God, humanity, and the world).)

     

*Slavery: At the specifying level, norms regulate slavery but do not insist on it.  At the warranting level, slavery is not treated as a virtue, principle, or value except insofar as it is a metaphor for Christian service.  Nor is it seen as a value for Christian community, although slaves are seen as equally valuable within the Church as everyone else.  At the witnessing level, Paul gives an example of the treatment of slaves in Philemon.  At the worldview level, there is no creational view on slavery (as in the Babylonian creation myth); rather, human beings are said to have been created in the image of God.

     

*Women: At the specifying level, women are specifically told to be ‘quiet’—likely meaning not to be ‘disruptive’ in the meeting or to society.  They are told not to lord it over a man and not to teach, with the disastrous example of Eve in view.  Yet, at the warranting level, they are valued as equal members with men in the community, and husbands are to love their wives sacrificially.  At the witnessing level, there are stories of female heroes of the faith.  The husband/wife and male/female relationship is governed by an understanding of creation, while cultural distinctions may come into play as these understandings are practiced.  At the worldview level, both males and females are created in the image of God.

     

*Homosexuality: At the specifying level, clear texts state outright that homosexual practice is a serious sin.  At the warranting level, homosexual acts are considered ‘against nature’—not someone’s orientation but the way God made the world.  One’s orientation is, fundamentally, sinful, and most humans struggle with sinful sexual orientations of one sort or another that attest to the power of sin that Christ alone overcomes.  Much of the attempt to revise Christian teaching on homosexuality has stemmed from arguments at the warranting level.  One argument sees ‘liberation’ as a Biblical warrant to be used to challenge various social matters.  Apart from being reductionistic, there are many problems with so simplistic an approach to interpreting Scripture and doing Christian theology and ethics.  Most notably here, such a reading requires reading against the Scriptures and the Church’s teaching.  Another argument at this level attempts to redefine the matter around the value of ‘love’: relationships that are loving should be affirmed.  Again, this reads against Scripture.  Both of these values could be used to affirm incestuous marriage.  Vague values, like ‘liberation’ or ‘love,’ are always given clarity from sources other than the values themselves.  At the witnessing level, the stories of Sodom and Gibeah attest to God’s view of homosexual sin (and Jude 7 clarifies any confusion among interpreters as to whether the sin of Sodom was sexual).  At the worldview level, the story of creation establishes that sex is to be within marriage between a man and a woman.

    8. Criterion of Theological and Ethical Coherence.  An argument is more likely transcultural if it coheres with other theological and ethical ideas and practices and can be shown to cohere with both theology and ethics.

*Slavery: Slavery actually coheres with no theological or ethical system—it is not ‘needed’ but is actually made irrelevant to the Christian life.  It is describes Israel’s life in Egypt and captivity in Babylon, and it describes a person’s control by sin versus obedience to God.  Its only value for theology and ethics is as a metaphor.

*Women: The distinction of genders, the affirmation of marriage, and the equal participation of men and women ‘in Christ’ means that there is a Biblical view of women that is important to understand.  Yet this can play out differently in different cultural contexts.

*Homosexuality: The Biblical view on homosexuality fits into a more comprehensive view of sexuality.  It is one example of a sin against nature (cf. bestiality).  God created male and female—two genders—as part of his plan for his creation to be fruitful and multiply.  As idolatry is a turning away from the creator, so homosexuality is a turning away from the way the Creator made the world.

    9. Criterion of Rhetorical Exigence or Contingency.  A response to a specific situation might be a culturally relative or situational response.

    

*Slavery: This criterion is not particularly useful in this case.

    

*Women: When Paul addresses women’s silence in Corinth, he is addressing a host of other issues that divide this particular church.  When he address the issue of women’s silence, not teaching, and not domineering over men, he is addressing a situation of false teaching in Ephesus (1 and 2 Timothy) that is complicated: women are being told not to marry, and they have proven to be susceptible to the false teachers.  The rhetorical exigence in these churches weighs into our interpretation of the texts.

    

*Homosexuality: Despite attempts to find some contingency in texts speaking against homosexuality, those advocating this do not agree among themselves (offering conflicting suggestions of temple prostitution, pederasty, unloving and impermanent relations, and so forth).  Yet these are contemporary attempts to overturn the consistent view held by God’s people in Biblical times and the Church’s 2,000 year history.  The texts are quite clear that homosexual practice is a sin.  Paul is not trying to address a situation peculiar to this or that church but correct a cultural practice that opposes God’s purposes for sex.

   10. Criterion of the Author's Emphasis.  The more the point is emphasised by argument, authority, and emotion, the more likely the conviction is crucial and therefore transcultural.

*Slavery: There is no Biblical advocacy for slavery.  There are texts pressing in the opposite direction (note the emotion in Paul’s appeal for a runaway slave in Philemon).

*Women: Why is Paul emphatic in 1 Timothy 2 about women not domineering over a man, not teaching, and being ‘silent’ (not troublesome) in the church?  He is dealing with a heresy affecting women and attacking marriage.

*Homosexuality: Genesis (Sodom) and Joshua (Gibeah—also involving rape and murder) see homosexual practice as worthy of God’s destruction.  Jude appeals to the story of Genesis to warn of deserved punishment.  The Mosaic Law declares homosexual practice as worthy of the death sentence.  Paul declares that those who continue to practice this will be excluded from the Kingdom of God.

    11. Criterion of Church History.  The Bible is foundational for the Church and the supreme authority for Christian faith and practice.  The history of the Church’s interpretation of Scripture should be studied to see how the Church has understood the text in different ages and cultures as a way to check present understandings and to hear the Biblical text clearly.

    

*Slavery: The history of the Church offers a rich variety of views on this issue, addressing different aspects of it.  There are terribly bad examples of Christian practice and interpretation of Scripture, and there are inspiring examples of how various forms were opposed.  There are also lessons to be learned about the Church itself on this issue: where the Church as an institution compromised on Christian values and practices so as to relate to the State and its economic structures.  Significantly, the insistence in the 19^th century that slavery is ‘Biblical’ is an example of cultural interpretation: reading the text in order to affirm the present practices of a culture.

    

*Women: There are diverse witnesses in Church history regarding women, wives, and their roles in the Church.  Again, the history of the Church gives both good and bad examples.  Confusing the discussion today is the fact that reconsideration of the role and status of women has largely been associated with a variety of other social changes in Western society.

    

*Homosexuality: The Christian Church has maintained a consistent witness throughout its history that homosexual practice is a sin.  Only in the past few decades have some mainline, liberal denominations in the West begun to question this witness.  All of them have been declining in numbers since the 1960s and maintain other views that the Church has rejected through the millennia—such as their denial of Scripture as God’s authoritative word in matters of faith and practice.

   12. Criterion of Meaning, Implications, Significance, and Applications.  The greater the interpreter can establish a relationship between the meaning of Scriptural texts, their theological and ethical implications, and the significance they bear on a given situation, the greater one can argue that the application has transculturally normative authority.

    

*Slavery: Biblical texts that explore the meaning of slavery further primarily do so in terms of its implication for Christian ministry.  While the social evils of slavery are opposed, the devotion and service of a slave becomes an example of the work of Christ and the character of a minister (over against, e.g., discussing ministry in terms of ‘leadership’ or ‘servant leadership’).

    

*Women: Paul’s discussion of women in the church, as noted, is part of a concern for implications in the church—its unity and heterodoxy—and part of a concern for gender distinctions (there is still a role for marriage and bearing children even if the Kingdom of God has come!).

    

*Homosexuality: What Scripture says about homosexuality has theological and ethical implications regarding creation, marriage, sexuality, and gender.

   13. Criterion of Central and Peripheral.  What is arguably central in Scripture is likely transculturally authoritative.  What we think might be peripheral may or may not be.

*Slavery: Scripture has no interest in advocating slavery.  Whether one is a slave or not has no bearing on eternal salvation.  While accommodated, it was not essential for Israel or the Church; rather, in both cases, certain evils of the system were argued against (Israel is to remember they were once slaves in Egypt, and masters are to remember that they have a master; slaves are to render service to God).

*Women: As with slavery, whether one is a male or female has no bearing on being in Christ.  However, gender distinctions, sexuality, and marriage are serious issues in the Church.  The issue of women teaching in the Church is not handled as a matter of sin in itself but, in this particular case (1 Tim. 2), as a problem that could feed false teaching in the church (as noted, above).  It is not so much a matter of Christian ethics as Christian polity.

*Homosexuality: Unlike slavery or the role and status of women, homosexuality is a matter of Christian ethics; it is a matter sin.  Homosexual practice is specifically listed as a sin that will keep one from the kingdom of God, and so it is a central, not peripheral, matter.

Interpretation of Scripture 1: Is This Text Culturally Relative?

The contextual interpretation of Scripture is relevant for ministry, missions, ethics, and theology.  The present discussion particularly has in mind the use of Scripture in Christian ethics by orthodox and Evangelical Christians--those who desire to submit to Biblical authority but have to ask whether a text is transculturally normative or culturally relative.

Thirteen Criteria for Determining Transcultural Norms

Versus Culturally Relative Teaching in Scripture

The following criteria are suggested for consideration when trying to decide if a Biblical text is transculturally normative (speaks authoritatively to all cultures and people at all times) or culturally relative (speaks to a particular culture, people, and time).  This issue arises because the Church accepts Scripture as the supreme authority for faith and practice—it has not been and is not taken by orthodox Christians as an important document for a community because of its antiquity.  It is authoritative because it is ‘God-breathed’: ‘All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness’ (2 Timothy 3.16).  While stated as criteria, they really indicate the kinds of discussion we have about Biblical texts and their continuing relevance.

1.     Criterion of Exegesis.  A clear understanding of what the text was saying to the original audience may well indicate whether it is culturally relative or transculturally normative.  Ask questions such as: Who is saying What to Whom? Why? When? Where? How?

2.     Criterion of Contextual Dissimilarity and Traditional Consistency.  A Biblical norm that is dissimilar to its cultural context and consistent with its own tradition will more likely be transcultural than a norm that complies with the culture of the day.

3.     Criterion of Available Alternatives.  Where no choice really exists for actions or perspectives in a culture or context, the point may be situational and not transcultural.

4.     Criterion of Repeatability. If something can be or was repeated in the same way under different circumstances, its authority may well be transcultural.

5.   Criterion of Multiple Attestation (‘Cloud of Witnesses’).  The case for transcultural normativity is stronger the more we can demonstrate that there are multiple witnesses or proofs (different authors, different time periods, different types of literature [see next criterion]). 

6.   Criterion of Different Genre: The authority of a text is related to the genre, type of literature (e.g., narrative, laws, poetry, proverbs, history, prophecy, visions, apocalypses, letters, parables, etc.).  A point made in different genre may also be transculturally normative, and some genre are more likely transcultural than others (e.g., a narrative may simply describe a situation, whereas a law is meant to fit different contexts).

7.    Criterion of Uses of Scripture: There are different levels of appeal to Scripture.  The more levels of appeal that are evident in Scripture, the more likely the matter should be taken as transculturally normative.  (I would suggest four levels: specifying genre/use (norms, rules), warranting (virtues, values, principles), witnessing (stories, examples, characters), and worldview (basic understanding of the God, humanity, and the world).)

8. Criterion of Theological and Ethical Coherence.  An argument is more likely transcultural if it coheres with other theological and ethical ideas and practices and can be shown to cohere with both theology and ethics.

9. Criterion of Rhetorical Exigence or Contingency.  A response to a specific situation might be a culturally relative or situational response. 

10. Criterion of the Author's Emphasis.  The more the point is emphasised by argument, authority,       and emotion, the more likely the conviction is crucial and therefore transcultural.

11. Criterion of Church History.  The Bible is foundational for the Church and the supreme authority for Christian faith and practice.  The history of the Church’s interpretation of Scripture should be studied to see how the Church has understood the text in different ages and cultures as a way to check present understandings and to hear the Biblical text clearly.

12. Criterion of Meaning, Implications, Significance, and Applications.  The greater the interpreter can establish a relationship between the meaning of Scriptural texts, their theological and ethical implications, and the significance they bear on a given situation, the greater one can argue that the application has transculturally normative authority.

13. Criterion of Central and Peripheral.  What is arguably central in Scripture is likely transculturally authoritative.  What we think might be peripheral may or may not be.