Was Paul unclear in his teaching on sexuality?
I take been engaging on and off in the debates about sexuality and Christian discipleship since around 1978, when Fizz magazine (which somewhen morphed into Christianity magazine) produced a slightly risky exploration of the problems at stake. Since then, I accept noticed that the discussion has shifted footing, both in wider society and within the church building. In wider society, it is quite surprising that we have concluded upward with same-sex marriage, since that had not really been the main demand in the recognition of gay rights, but it has afforded gay relationships with a respectability and status that was desired. Inside the church in the UK, much of the debate has been whether the writers of the New Testament either encountered the kinds of relationships that nosotros know, whether they understood the psychology of sexuality in the way we now do—and whether their negative assessment of same-sexual activity sexual relationships in the very few references that we accept is correct.
Just more recently, another response has come to the fore, and it is one I encounter almost every fourth dimension I speak on this consequence. 'The question of what the texts say is all and so complicated—and can we really be sure of what Paul actually meant?' The reason for this is the explosion of literature (in texts like Matthew Vines'God and the Gay Christian) which popularise the questioning of what has been a strong consensus that the texts are fairly clear, consistent with one another, and offer a uniformly negative assessment of aforementioned-sex sex activity. Vines' text is written in an accessible style, and comes with supporting YouTube footage, so has sold well and been very influential—but I find it a very hard read, since there are pretty excruciating and basic errors on just about every page, for anyone who knows well-nigh how to read ancient texts. Merely of grade most of Vines' readers don't, and Vines himself does not even take a offset degree in theology. In relation to the New Testament, he oft draws on the work of John Boswell'sChristianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexualityfirst published in 1980. Boswell's work did not at the fourth dimension accept much affect on the scholarly consensus of the pregnant of the biblical texts, since his methodology was and so poor, picking sources that suited his argument and ignoring those that didn't support his view. But times modify, and nearly forty years on much of the church has forgotten some of the basic disciplines of how to make sense of texts.
I have been thinking well-nigh two recent examples of this kind of argument—that the texts in Paul are either unclear or do not mean what nosotros thought—one popular and one more than scholarly. The popular ane can be found in an interview with someone chosen Ed Oxford, which serves to trail a forthcoming book. It is accessible, and is written in a 'whodunnit?' style in which we are led through Oxford'southward amazing discoveries near the history of translation of the fundamental terms in Paul. But the methodology is pretty shocking; Oxford seems to think that nosotros understand what terms in the Greek text mean by means of looking at the history of translation, rather than by looking at the prehistory, context and approved identify of these terms. (A similarly poor approach is taking by the substantial Love Lost in Translation which I bought and read and apace realised why it had been cocky-published.)
The more scholarly approach is that of Jonathan Tallon, who teaches at Northern Baptist College. Tallon has fix a website with a series of articles on the different texts and issues that arise from them; hither I am but considering his article on 1 Cor half dozen.ix.
For me, the problems outset with the opening sentences. Tallon poses the issues in these terms: 'What does Paul say about homosexuality in 1 Corinthians?' This assumes that at that place is such a thing as 'homosexuality', that we are agreed on what information technology is, and that Paul thought in such terms. I remember each of these assumptions are highly questionable. The next sentence goes on: 'Is he saying that those who are gay or lesbian won't enter God'southward kingdom?' He seems immediately to be bold that, if Paul is expressing a negative assessment of aforementioned-sex sex (SSS), then he is also then expressing a negative assessment of same-sex atrtacted people, every bit if our identity and our patterns of desire and action are fused and can never be separated. As with much word on this subject area, the assumptions hither are implicit rather than explicit, and and then might not be noticed by many readers—but they make a massive difference to the shape of the argument and to what is seen to be at stake.
He and then points united states of america to Paul's 'vice listing' in 1 Cor 6.ix–ten, which includes the contested terms malakoi and arsenokoitai, merely he makes no comment about how such vice lists office in Paul's writing, how they relate to the immediate context in 1 Corinthians, how they connect with Paul'south pastoral strategy in the letter, or more broadly how they relate to vice lists in either first century Judaism or wider civilisation (vice lists were mutual in Stoic literature of the period). Locating the texts in their wider context in the NT and Paul, and locating Paul inside his world are actually vital aspects of the task of making sense of texts; I realise that Tallon's piece is aimed at a popular audience, only this exploration would all the same be possible in a pop format.
Tallon then discusses the termmalakos , the least contentious of the ii, and I think I would broadly agree with his conclusions; I am not persuaded by the mutual decision of Tom Wright and others that this is a reference to the passive, 'receptive', partner in anal intercourse, with arsenokoites referring to the active, penetrating, partner. This is a possible meaning grammatically, but Tallon is right to point out that it also had a wider moral sense—and the two terms are not grammatically paired with ane another, since all the terms in the list are merely separated with 'neither…neither…neither…' (oute), a feature which gives the list a particularly high rhetorical impact. Merely the wording of Tallon's conclusion is interesting:
My view? I think Paul was referring generally to the morally weak, those who choose to allow their lusts atomic number 82 their actions.
That doesn't await too far away from a critique of people who let their patterns of desire form their identity.
Tallons' word of the second key term, arsenokoites, is much more than problematic. The strong consensus, following the detailed and technical argument of David Wright in in 1984 (in which he comprehensively responds to the arguments of John Boswell) is that Paul has coined the term from the Greek (Septuagint, 70) of Lev twenty.13 in guild to describe in the most general terms all forms of SSS. Even if y'all are not a reader of Greek, you can probably see the very close parallel:
Lev xx.13: καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι
1 Cor half-dozen.9: …οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται…
Paul is using a plural form here; the singular arsenokoites is even closer to the text of Leviticus, differing in only one alphabetic character from the bodily text. To coin a contemporary example, if I exclaimed 'Y'all are just a to-be-or-not-to-be kind of person', it is likely that you would recognise a citation from Shakespeare'southward Hamlet, Act 3 Scene ane, even if you could not give the reference. It is an unusual phrase; information technology stands out from my usual terminology; and it refers to a very well-known expression. All these things apply in the same way to Paul's language here.
Tallon notes that words do not in later use derive their meaning from their constituent parts:
But working out meaning this way is dangerous – a cupboard doesn't necessarily have cups inside; the chairman of the board doesn't necessarily refer to an particular of furniture. And as for butterflies…
The problem here is that, whilstlater use is non determined by the elements of a word, the original coining of the term obviously did. As Wikipedia helpfully points out:
The term cupboard was originally used to describe an open-shelved side tabular array for displaying dishware, more than specifically plates, cups and saucers. These open cupboards typically had between one and three display tiers, and at the time, a drawer or multiple drawers fitted to them. The word cupboard gradually came to mean a airtight slice of piece of furniture.
Given that there are simply no examples of the word arsenokoites before Paul, or after him except where Christian authors appear dependent on him, it is the original sense of the word nosotros are interested in—and Tallon's argument here actually undermines his subsequent discussion of after utilize!
Tallon mentions David Wright's argument that it comes from Leviticus, simply dismisses it chop-chop, commenting:
Just looking at the structure of the word, and its possible source from Leviticus, suggests that it is referring to those who bed males. But those who bed males, not men.
The reason for that, as Robert Gagnon has pointed out, is that the Leviticus text itself is referring dorsum to the creation text, where God made humanity in his image, 'male person and female he created them' (not, in Gen one.27, 'human and woman'). In other words, Paul is citing Leviticus citing Genesis, so the rejection of SSS is rooted in the sex dimorphic creation of humanity, something that Paul refers to explicitly in Romans one.18f.
Tallon then suggests that arsenokoitesis often associated with economic exploitation (this is the statement of gay scholar Dale Martin, whose article he lists at the end) but this language is actually absent-minded from the text in Paul. (Martin, in a 2008 biographical article, argues that all sex activity is upstanding equally long as the mode you have sex activity reflects the nature of your relationship, be that committed, casual or a one-night stand up. I remember that would be quite difficult to justify from reading Paul.) Tallon besides points to the afterward Christian concern about paidophthorēseis ,translated as 'corrupting children', merely actually referring to what was thought of every bit the usual practice in Greek and Roman culture, of older men have penetrative anal sex with younger, receptive males. What is nearly hit here is that Paul himselfdoes notuse this term, nor does he utilize the usual pair of terms for aforementioned-sex lovers,erastus anderamenos. Paul appears to have coined a general term, on the basis of Lev twenty.13, to refer in the most general style to SSS. (Information technology is likewise worth noting that we, like subsequently Christian writers, think that SSS between age-unequal partners the to the lowest degree acceptable, considering of our focus on questions of consent and equality. But in the aboriginal earth, this was seen as the virtually acceptable, and the idea of anal sex activity between adult males was shocking and unacceptable, since the passive partner was the inferior, and this offended against the idea of the free adult male.)
David Wright's rather technical article reaches this conclusion:
[I]t is probably pregnant that the word itself and comparable phrases used past Philo, Josephus and Ps-Phocylides spoke generically of male action with males rather than specifically categorized male sexual engagement with paides. It is hard to believe that arsenokoitiawas intended to indict only the commonest Greek relationship involving an adult and a teenager. The interchangeability demonstrated above betwixt arsenokoitiaand paidophthoriaargues that the latter was encompassed within the former. A broader study of early Christian attitudes to homosexuality would confirm this.
Robert Gagnon, well-known commentator in this area, offered a substantial statement on the significant of these terms in response to the interview with Ed Oxford I mentioned earlier:
As for whether *Paul* intended to limit the give-and-take arsenokoitai to men who have sex with adolescent boys, consider the following:
(1) Clear connections to the Levitical prohibitions of male-male person intercourse. The chemical compound Greek word arsenokoitai (arsen-o-koi-tai; plural of singular arsenokoitēs) is formed from the Greek words for "lying" (verb keimai; stalk kei- adjusted to koi- before the "t" or letter of the alphabet tau) and "male" (arsēn). The word is a neologism created from terms used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions of men "lying with a male" (18:22; 20:thirteen). (Note that the word for "lying" in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions is the substantive koitē, also meaning "bed," which is formed from the verb keimai. The masculine –tēs suffix of the sg. noun arsenokoitēs denotes continuing bureau or occupation, roughly equivalent to English -er attached to a substantive; hence, "(male) liers with a male.")
That the connection to the accented Levitical prohibitions against male person-male person intercourse is self-axiomatic from the following points: (a) The rabbis used the respective Hebrew abstract expression mishkav zākûr, "lying of/with a male person," fatigued from the Hebrew texts of Lev xviii:22 and 20:13, to announce male-male intercourse in the broadest sense. (b) The term or its cognates does not appear in whatever not-Jewish, non-Christian text prior to the sixth century A.D. This mode of talking nigh male homosexuality is a distinctly Jewish and Christian formulation. It was undoubtedly used as a way of distinguishing their absolute opposition to homosexual practice, rooted in the Torah of Moses, from more than accepting views in the Greco-Roman milieu. (c) The advent of arsenokoitai in 1 Tim 1:10 makes the link to the Mosaic police force explicit, since the list of vices of which arsenokoitai is a part are said to be derived from "the law" (1:9). While information technology is truthful that the pregnant of a chemical compound word does not necessarily add together up to the sum of its parts, in this example it clearly does.
(2) The implications of the context in early Judaism. That Jews of the period construed the Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse absolutely and confronting a backdrop of a male-female requirement is beyond dispute. For example, Josephus explained to Gentile readers that "the law [of Moses] recognizes just sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman. . . . Only it abhors the intercourse of males with males" (Against Apion ii.199). There are no limitations placed on the prohibition as regards historic period, slave condition, idolatrous context, or substitution of coin. The but limitation is the sex of the participants. According to b. Sanh. 54a (viz., tractate Sanhedrin from the Babylonian Talmud), the male with whom a man lies in Lev 18:22 and twenty:13 may be "an adult or minor," significant that the prohibition of male person-male unions is not limited to pederasty. Indeed, there is no evidence in ancient Israel, Second Temple Judaism, or rabbinic Judaism that any limitation was placed on the prohibition of male person-male intercourse.
(three) The selection of word. Had a more limited significant been intended—for example, pederasts—the terms paiderastai ("lover of boys"), paidomanai ("men mad for boys"), or paidophthoroi ("corrupters of boys") could take been chosen.
(iv) The meaning of arsenokoitai and cognates in extant usage. The term arsenokoitēs and cognates after Paul (the term appears first in Paul) are applied solely to male-male intercourse merely, consistent with the meaning of the partner term malakoi, not limited to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes (see specifics in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 317-23). For example, the 4th century church building historian Eusebius quoted from a 2nd-3rd century Christian, Bardesanes ("From the Euphrates River [eastward] … a man who … is derided as an arsenokoitēs … will defend himself to the betoken of murder"), and then added that "among the Greeks, wise men who have male lovers are not condemned" (Preparation for the Gospel 6.10.25). Elsewhere Eusebius alluded to the prohibition of man-male person intercourse in Leviticus as a prohibition non to arsenokoitein (lie with a male person) and characterized it as a "pleasure contrary to nature," "males mad for males," and intercourse "of men with men" (Sit-in of the Gospel one.6.33, 67; 4.ten.6). Translations of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic also ascertain the term generally as "men lying with males."
…
(8) Implications of 1 Tim 1:9-10 corresponding to the Decalogue. At least the terminal half of the vice list in 1 Tim 1:8-ten (and mayhap the whole of it) corresponds to the Decalogue. Why is that of import? In early Judaism and Christianity, the 10 Commandments often served as summary headings for the total range of laws in the Former Testament. The seventh commandment confronting infidelity, which was aimed at guarding the institution of marriage, served as a summary of all biblical sex laws, including the prohibition of male-male intercourse. The vice of kidnapping, which follows arsenokoitai in 1 Tim ane:10, is typically classified under the 8th commandment against stealing (then Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides, the rabbis, and the Didache; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 335-36). This makes highly improbable the attempt past some to pair arsenokoitai with the following term andrapodistai (kidnappers, men-stealers), as a manner of limiting its reference to exploitative acts of male-male person intercourse (so Robin Scroggs), rather than with the inclusive sexual term pornoi (the sexually immoral) that precedes it….
Information technology is worth reading the whole comment for a comprehensive argument.
I know Robert Gagnon a little; I have attended seminars at which he has spoken, and we once visited the British Museum together. I don't agree with all of his arguments, and we accept very different political outlooks. But what is interesting near his statement here is the number of mainstream, theologically liberal, scholars who cite him. William Loader's inquiry on sexuality in the New Testament cites Gagnon several times on each page when addressing the issues they both written report. Loader recognises the quality of Gagnon'southward research and the force of his statement about what Paul actually meant—though Loader takes the diametrically opposite view to Gagnon on the ethical issue of same-sex activity relationships. He simply thinks that Paul, and therefore Gagnon, is wrong.
Similarly, it is worth noting the approach of the Pauline scholar E P Sanders, in his 850-foliomagnum opus on Paul from 2015. Sanders had a huge bear upon on Pauline scholarship with his argument most the nature of first-century Judaism, giving rising to the so-called 'New perspective on Paul'. This latest volume summarises and draws together his thinking on Paul, rather than engaging with recent arguments—but he has added in (for some reason) a 60-page assessment of Paul and SSS.
Sanders makes some very interesting comments near the part and role of Paul's vice lists, noting their connections with both Jewish and Stoic lists, though also noting the characteristic emphasis on idolatry and sexual immorality that was a consequent feature of Diaspora Judaism in the period. He also notes the function of the vice lists as a rhetorical device; Paul's bodily pastoral handling of private cases of sin was quite unlike—which seems to me to be highly pertinent in the current context. But his conclusion is in line with David Wright, Robert Gagnon and William Loader: Paul is rejecting every form of SSS, cartoon on the text of Lev 20.13, and in doing and so he sits squarely within the tradition of Diaspora Judaism which took a very similar view. This is hitting, Sanders notes, since in many other means, Christianity adopted many other aspects of pagan culture; this effect was the i where there was sharpest disagreement betwixt Christianity'southward two 'parents' of Judaism and Graeco-Roman culture, and on the question of SSS, information technology came downward unequivocally on the side of Judaism. He concludes:
Diaspora Jews had made sexual immorality and peculiarly homosexual activity a major distinction between themselves and gentiles, and Paul repeated Diaspora Jewish vice lists. I see no reason to focus on homosexual acts as the one point of Paul'due south vice lists that must be maintained today.
Every bit we read the determination of the chapter, I should remind readers of Paul'southward own view of homosexual activities in Romans 1, where both males and females who have homosexual intercourse are condemned: 'those who do such things' (the long list of vices, but the accent is on idolatry and homosexual comport) 'deserve to die' (i.31). his passage does not depend on the term 'soft', just is completely in agreement with Philo and other Diaspora Jews. (p 373)
This determination is in line with other commentators who have looked carefully at the issue:
It is very possible that Paul knew of views which claimed some people had what we would call a homosexual orientation, though nosotros cannot know for sure and certainly should non read our modernistic theories dorsum into his globe. If he did, it is more likely that, similar other Jews, he would have rejected them out of manus….He would take stood more than strongly nether the influence of Jewish creation tradition which declares homo beings male and female, to which may well fifty-fifty exist alluding in one.26-27, and and then seen same-sex sexual acts by people (all of whom he deemed heterosexual in our terms) every bit flouting divine order. (William Loader, The New Testament and Sexuality, p 323-four)
Where the Bible mentions homosexual beliefs at all, information technology clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. (Walter Wink, "Homosexuality and the Bible")
I remember the texts in Paul are much clearer than current discussion would accept us believe.
To close this longer-than-usual postal service, I want to offering four final pastoral observations.
The first relates to Bible translation. It is articulate that translators have wrestled with the translation of these two terms in Paul, even in different languages, and come up with some very different answers. Ed Oxford talks about how he discovered the history of German translation of fundamental texts in the Former and New Testaments:
And so we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he'south translating information technology for me discussion for word. In the English language where information technology says "Human shall non lie with man, for it is an abomination," the German version says "Man shall non prevarication with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an anathema." I said, "What?! Are y'all certain?" He said, "Yes!" Then we went to Leviticus 20:thirteen— same thing, "Immature boys." So we went to 1 Corinthians to come across how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek give-and-take) and instead of homosexuals it said, "Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God."
I then grabbed my facsimile copy of Martin Luther'southward original German translation from 1534. My friend is reading through information technology for me and he says, "Ed, this says the same thing!" They apply the word knabenschander. Knaben is boy, schander is molester. This discussion "male child molesters" for the almost role carried through the next several centuries of German Bible translations. Knabenschander is also in 1 Timothy i:10. And then the interesting thing is, I asked if they e'er changed the give-and-take arsenokoitai to homosexual in modern translations. And then my friend institute it and told me, "The first time homosexual appears in a German translation is 1983."
If this is all truthful, then information technology is boggling. There is simply no reason to interpret the Hebrewzakar in Lev 18.22 and 20.xiii with the term 'young boys' and I know of no English translation that does so. What is happening hither is that the translators have conflated the term arsenokoitesthat Paul does use with the afterwards term paidophthorēseisthat Paul doesn't use—and, seeing the connexion with Leviticus, take then read that business dorsum into the Old Testament! Information technology is a bizarre approach to translation.
Sanders makes a very interesting observation, which I have not come across before, just which explains why in that location has been such difficulty in translation in the past.
Homosexual activity was a subject on which there was a severe clash between Greco-Roman and Jewish views. Christianity, which accustomed many aspects of Greco-Roman culture, in the example accepted the Jewish view so completely that the ways in which most of the people in the Roman Empire regarded homosexuality were obliterated, though at present take been recovered by ancient historians. (p 344)
It is ane of the many ways in which nosotros at present know a lot more about the first century than due east.one thousand. Christians in the fourth century, non as a thing of mod hubris but equally a result of a 2 centuries of interest in the classical world. (If you want to explore the literature on Roman attitudes to sex, read this remarkable post by my friend John Pike.) Prior to the modern era, translators were, on these two words, somewhat flight blind.
Many English translations, using language like 'homosexual abusers' do capture the rhetorical force of Paul'southward language—simply they add a whole lot of contemporary cultural baggage at the same time. Perhaps the best fashion to translate the terms might exist to utilize 'softies' for the start, capturing the meanings ofmalakos as both 'effeminate' and 'morally weak', and 'men who have sex with men' for arsenokoites,reflecting both its etymology and its shut connection with Lev 20.13.
The second result is thedefoliation that has been created in the debate. It suits those who desire to see the Church building change its teaching for nearly members of the Church to say 'It is all so complicated, and the Bible is not really as clear every bit I thought'. That climate is created by popularised arguments that ignore the whole range of evidence—and requite no indication to their readers (who mostly won't know how to assess this) that there are other issues that need to be considered. For example, I don't suppose anyone reading Tallon's article or watching his video volition think to ask 'But what is the cultural context of Paul? And how does his view connect with other Jewish critiques of pagan culture?' since there is no hint that this might be an of import issue. Tallon is right to offer a bibliography—but how many of his readers volition actually look up the manufactures he cites, non least because David Wright'due south is published in a specialist journal for which you take to have an expensive subscription? Atomising the debate—isolating 1 text from some other, and isolating the texts from their context—is a common feature of such arguments, and they pb to confusion.
The 3rd upshot is ourdecision in the light of what Paul says. East P Sanders is very interesting in this regard; similar many other scholars, whilst he is articulate about what Paul means, he does not run into Paul's view equally in any sense binding on his own views equally a Christian.
Paul's vice lists are generally ignored in church building polity and administration. Christian churches contain people who drink too much, who are greedy, who are mendacious, who quarrel, who gossip, who boast, who one time rebelled against their parents, and who are foolish. However Paul'south vice lists condemn themall, simply equally much every bit they condemn people who appoint in homosexual acts (p 372).
Sanders is spot on here: y'all cannot pick and choose, and if you accept Paul seriously on one issue, you must surely take him seriously (or not) on all issues. Sanders' conclusion is to treat them all as not-binding—merely of form there is an alternative response available.
The 4th then is the question of ourreception of gay people in terms of our pastoral response. Sanders makes some very interesting observations near the nature and use of Paul's vice lists.
Homiletically, vice lists gain rhetorical force partly by length and partly past the equation of relatively minor sins with relatively major ones. It might be quite useful for a preacher to proceeds the audience'south support past condemning major sins (such as adultery and greed), but so to add together that there are lots of sins…which are skilful by some of the people in the pews, and that these count as sins too…This has a healthily purgative result. (p 338).
He also notes that Paul's own pastoral strategy is not effected by the vice lists, since he handles actual examples of sin in a different way. Besides, the clear supposition is that the things he lists are now in the past: 'suchwere some of y'all. But…' (1 Cor half-dozen.eleven). Sanders sums upward:
The accusations in his vice lists are not actually directed at the sins of his converts at all (p 339).
Sanders goes further, noting the significance of Paul saying so little near SSS:
[H]omosexual practices are not very of import in Paul's letters. They figures in his vice lists, equally do deceit and malice, but he does non elaborate on them; they are only items in a list. We must assume that he did not actually face a case in one of his congregations; if he had, we would hear a lot more nearly it. (p 345)
Paul'southward language on this issue does not offer u.s. a pastoral strategy for relating to gay people, inside the church or outside. What it does exercise, though, is tell u.s.a. conspicuously Paul's agreement of the moral condition of SSS, and with him the view both of Judaism and the early church, and post-obit that most of Christian understanding downward the centuries. The heated and (in my view unnecessary) debates almost these clear texts not only sows confusion, it also makes gay people feel as though they are the subjects of these debates, which I retrieve is unhelpful all round.
So let's stop constantly debating the meaning of these texts—amongst all exegetical problems in the NT, these are relatively clear. When we do that, we tin movement on to the more of import pastoral issue of how we engage with each other in relationship.
If you enjoyed this, exercise share it on social media, possibly using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance basis. If y'all have valued this post, would you considerdonating £1.twenty a calendar month to support the production of this web log?
If you enjoyed this, exercise share information technology on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my folio on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this postal service, you tin can make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek commencement to understand, and so to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view fence as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/was-paul-unclear-in-his-teaching-on-sexuality/
Posting Komentar untuk "Was Paul unclear in his teaching on sexuality?"