Introduction To Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Michael Wood
Tubi Publishing, LLC
Pauline Paradoxes Decoded Copyright 2013 by Michael Wood All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Scripture quotations marked (NASB) are taken from the New American Standard Bible, Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org) Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version, NIV. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, 2010 by Biblica, Inc. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com
ISBN: 978-1-936565-15-3 (hrc) ISBN: 978-1-936565-16-0 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-936565-17-7 (ebk)
Printed in the United States of America
Section Overview
Section I Section II Section III Section IV Section V Section VI A Problem of Law Solution to the Problem of Law Law and Risnen Law and Protestant Reformation Law and Sanders Law and Judaism
Section VII Law and Righteousness Section VIII Law and Heterosexuality Section IX Section X Section XI Section XII Law and Pederasty Law and Homosexuality Law and Idolatry Law and Faith
Section XIII Law and Atonement
Contents
Section IA Problem of Law............................................................1 Chapter One : The Enigma of Paul............................................... 3 Section IISolution to the Problem of Law..................................25 Chapter Two: The Plot Thickens................................................ 27 Chapter Three: Putting the Pieces Together............................. 40 Chapter Four: How Presumptuous............................................ 49 Chapter Five: The Missing Key................................................... 54 Section IIILaw and Risnen.......................................................61 Chapter Six: Faulty Foundation.................................................. 63 Section IVLaw and Protestant Reformation...............................71 Chapter Seven: Terms of Enslavement...................................... 73 Chapter Eight: The Faith............................................................. 80 Chapter Nine: Stoicism................................................................ 90 Chapter Ten: Translation Trap.................................................... 95 Chapter Eleven: Mindset...........................................................102 Section VLaw and Sanders........................................................109 Chapter Twelve: Thrown Under the Bus.................................111 Chapter Thirteen: Emphasis Laid............................................116 Chapter Fourteen: Nonreligious...............................................120 Section VILaw and Judaism......................................................127 Chapter Fifteen: Maasim Tovim............................................. 129 Chapter Sixteen: Sea Change....................................................136 Chapter Seventeen: Rabbinic Ruckus......................................147 Chapter Eighteen: Gezera Shava............................................ 155 Section VIILaw and Righteousness...........................................161 Chapter Nineteen: Poor Randy................................................163 Chapter Twenty: Great Expectation........................................168 Chapter Twenty-One: Benevolence.........................................172 Chapter Twenty-Two: The Benevolent....................................181 Chapter Twenty-Three: Loving-Kindness...............................185
Chapter Twenty-Four: Two Witnesses....................................194 Chapter Twenty-Five: Lexical Lapse........................................195 Chapter Twenty-Six: MIA.........................................................200 Chapter Twenty-Seven: Falling out of Favor..........................202 Section VIIILaw and Heterosexuality.......................................211 Chapter Twenty-Eight: Ho Zanah...........................................213 Chapter Twenty-Nine: Truth be Damned...............................222 Chapter Thirty: Two to Tango..................................................226 Chapter Thirty-One: Hiphilitis.................................................231 Chapter Thirty-Two: Holy Cow...............................................236 Chapter Thirty-Three: Love Connection................................242 Chapter Thirty-Four: Devoid of Altruism..............................249 Chapter Thirty-Five: The Standard..........................................252 Chapter Thirty-Six: Misbehavior.............................................257 Chapter Thirty-Seven: Smoking Gun......................................263 Chapter Thirty-Eight: Biblical Morality..................................269 Chapter Thirty-Nine: Overview...............................................271 Section IXLaw and Pederasty....................................................273 Chapter Forty: In The Beginning.............................................275 Chapter Forty-One: Same Issues..............................................278 Chapter Forty-Two: Everyones Doing It.................................281 Chapter Forty-Three: A Rape by any other Name.................289 Chapter Forty-Four: Whats Love got to do with It?..............293 Chapter Forty-Five: Decalogue Distinction ..........................296 Chapter Forty-Six: Triple Prohibition.....................................301 Chapter Forty-Seven: External Evidence................................305 Chapter Forty-Eight: Reframe..................................................310 Chapter Forty-Nine: Chaos Theory.........................................321 Chapter Fifty: Indulge Me.........................................................328 Chapter Fifty-One: Running in Circles...................................336 Chapter Fifty-Two: Wheeler of Fortune..................................338 Section XLaw and Homosexuality............................................341 Chapter Fifty-Three: Target.......................................................343 Chapter Fifty-Four: Thematic...................................................345 Chapter Fifty-Five: Reputation.................................................350
Chapter Fifty-Six: Two-Tiered..................................................352 Chapter Fifty-Seven: Jews vs. Stoics.........................................355 Chapter Fifty-Eight: Second Class...........................................362 Chapter Fifty-Nine: Separation Anxiety.................................367 Chapter Sixty: Mortal Sin..........................................................375 Chapter Sixty-One: Rhetorical.................................................381 Chapter Sixty-Two: Nothing to Brag About...........................390 Chapter Sixty-Three: Detested by God....................................398 Section XILaw and Idolatry.......................................................407 Chapter Sixty-Four: Youre not my Type.................................409 Chapter Sixty-Five: Source of Cruelty.....................................411 Chapter Sixty-Six: Greedy Bastards.........................................415 Chapter Sixty-Seven: Rejects....................................................417 Chapter Sixty-Eight: Let Them Eat Meat................................421 Chapter Sixty-Nine: Me, Myself and I.....................................426 Chapter Seventy: The Whole Shebang....................................431 Section XIILaw and Faith..........................................................435 Chapter Seventy-One: For the Pun of It..................................437 Chapter Seventy-Two: Indivisible............................................444 Chapter Seventy-Three: First-Century Christians.................449 Chapter Seventy-Four: Doers of the Law................................452 Chapter Seventy-Five: Triple Play............................................455 Chapter Seventy-Six: Old School.............................................460 Chapter Seventy-Seven: Pauls Exegesis..................................464 Chapter Seventy-Eight: Living in Messiahs Faith..................467 Chapter Seventy-Nine: Clincher..............................................471 Chapter Eighty: Patriarchal Faith.............................................475 Section XIIILaw and Atonement..............................................483 Chapter Eighty-One: Caveat.....................................................485 Chapter Eighty-Two: Forgiveness............................................489 Chapter Eighty-Three: Crucifixion..........................................492 Chapter Eighty-Four: Are You Serious?..................................497 Appendices....................................................................................503 Appendix A: Baba Batras Benevolence...................................505 Appendix B: Romans Primary Target.....................................508
viii
Appendix C: Akatharsia.......................................................... 516 Appendix D: Aselgeia.............................................................. 523
Section I A Problem of Law
Chapter One The Enigma of Paul

The apostle Paul wrote more New Testament books than any other author. Many modern denominations base their theology on his writings.1 Meanwhile, biblical scholars such as Pamela Eisembaum view Pauls teachings as a still unsolved mystery. Ms. Eisenbaum teaches Biblical studies and Christian origins at Denvers Ilif School of Theology. She speaks frankly when awakening her students to the enigma of Paul:
Some Pauline scholars have become so frustrated with Paul that they have concluded the apostles letters are riddled with such stark theological inconsistencies that to try to reconcile them would amount to little more than theological nonsense.2Pamela Eisenbaum
Naturally, many students are initially thrown by this statement. Eisenbaum expects the resistance, and shes fully prepared for it. The moment she senses resistance, she immediately plays her ace card Romans 2.13:
When teaching introductory courses on Paul, I sometimes poll students with regard to their view of Pauls view of Jewish lawdoes Pauls theology affirm or negate the law? Without fail, the majority of students say Paul negates or devalues Jewish law. When I offer students a third optionnamely, does Paul think Jewish law had some, perhaps temporary, positive value but has been superseded by Christ?the vast majority will select that option. When I ask them to justify this response, they usually offer some version of the following explanation: One is justified (or saved) by faith, rather than law, 1 Martin Luther, the Father of the Protestant Reformation, promoted the idea that Pauls epistles far surpass the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Many modern denominations have been established on this view. [T]he epistles of St. Paul far surpass the other three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.Martin Luther (Selected Writings of Martin Luther, Volume 1, by Martin Luther, edited by Theodore Gerhardt Tappert, p. 398, Fortress Press, Aug 1, 2007) 2 Eisenbaum, Pamela (2009-11-19). Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (p. 30). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition. 3
Pauline Paradoxes Decoded therefore Paul obviously devalues law. At that point I usually highlight a text where Paul says something unambiguously positive about law. My favorite is Romans 2:13, For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in Gods sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Not the hearers but the doers of the law will be justified. Students are typically dumbfounded by this statement.3Pamela Eisenbaum
Most pupils are deeply familiar with Pauls negative statements about lawRomans 3:28 in particular:
by the works of the law no one will be justified
However, beginning students rarely have given serious consideration to Pauls positive statements about lawstatements such as Romans 2.13:
only the doers of the law will be justified
Paul wrote many negative statements about law, and he also wrote many positive statements about law. These seemingly negative/positive flip-flops are the basic problem in interpreting Pauls Christian view of the Jewish law:
The basic problem in interpreting Pauls Christian view of the Jewish law is that he seems to say both positive and negative things about it. For example, apparently negative statements include the following Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law (Gal 3:13). But on the other hand, consider the positive statements: through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Gal 5.13-14).4An Introduction to the Study of Paul
Because of these negative/positive statements, few would want to argue that Paul was rigorously consistent or systematic in all that he wrote:
How then are we to make sense of these contrasting, even contradictory statements? Some scholars, notably Heikki Risnen, have argued that Pauls various statements about the law cannot be harmonized into a coherent or systematic scheme: Paul is simply inconsistent. Others suggest that Pauls thought developed between his different letters, notably between Galatians 3 Eisenbaum, Pamela (2009-11-19). Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (pp. 28-29). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition. 4 An Introduction to the Study of Paul by David G. Horrell, p. 91, Continuum International Publishing Group, Aug 30, 2006
Michael Wood
and Romans; but since both positive and negative statements occur within the same letters (e.g. Galatians; see above) such an answer seems less than complete. As for Pauls consistency, few would want to argue that Paul was rigorously consistent or systematic in all that he wrote5
Awakening students to Pauls positive statements about law is often difficult. Many students have been taught to mentally ignore them:
Although most experienced readers of Pauls letters acknowledge the challenge posed by such divergent statements, more facile interpreters too often read Paul with simplistic Reformation filters, by which I mean that they take note only of Pauls negative remarks on Jewish law, virtually ignoring the positive ones. As a result, some readers of Pauls letters do not experience any cognitive dissonance in their encounters with Paul.6Pamela Eisenbaum
Romans 2.13 is Eisenbaums favorite verse to awaken students for good reason. Why? Paul pulls a decisive one-two punch. First, he declares that only the doers of the law will be vindicated before God. Then Paul gives an example of people who are vindicated by doing the law:
For it is not the hearers of the law who will be vindicated before God. Rather the doers of the law will be vindicated. For example, when Gentiles who dont have the law do naturally what the law requires, those gentiles without the law are the law unto themselves. They are demonstrating the performance of the law written in their hearts7
According to Paul, some Gentiles not only keep the law but they are vindicated before God for doing so. The law appears to be the source of their vindication. Some suppose that the Gentiles in Pauls passage were Christian converts, which explains why they kept the law, and thats why they were vindicated before God. However, the passage excludes the possibility that these Gentiles were Christian converts. As New Testament scholar Heikki Risnen points out:
5 An Introduction to the Study of Paul by David G. Horrell, p. 91, Continuum International Publishing Group, Aug 30, 2006 6 Eisenbaum, Pamela (2009-11-19). Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (p. 28). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition. 7 Romans 2:13-14
During Pauls day, Christianity was a branch of Judaism. First century converts were familiar with Jewish law, at least the basics of it. Yet the Gentiles in Pauls passage do not have the law.8 The law is unknown to them. Thus, they are not Christian converts.9 Paul considered Christians as enslaved to Jesus.10 They are required to fulfill his law.11 Yet the Gentiles in Pauls passage are a law unto themselves.12 Paul wouldnt describe converts as being their own law. Thus, they are not Christian converts.13 Moreover, Pauls converts learned to obey Jesus teachings by religious instruction (via the Gospel). The Gentiles in Pauls passage were keeping the law instinctively by nature, not by religious instruction. Thus, they are not Christian converts.14 Risnens last point deserves great attention. The backdrop of the larger passage is a contrast between: Gentiles who know Gods ethical code by nature.15 Jews who know Gods ethical code by religious instruction.16
8 Romans 2.14 9 Paul and the Law by Heikki Risnen, p. 104, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010 10 Cf. Romans 1.1 11 Galatians 6.2 12 Romans 2.14 13 Paul and the Law by Heikki Risnen, pp. 104-105, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010 14 Paul and the Law by Heikki Risnen, p. 104, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010 15 Paul establishes that the Gentiles in Romans 1.16-3.31 know Gods requirements by nature. that which is known about God is plainly seen by them because God made it plainly seen to them being understood by [Gods] creation they know Gods ethical code (Romans 1.19-20, 32) 16 Paul establishes that the Jews in Romans 1.16-3.31 know Gods requirements by religious instruction. you bear the name Jew being instructed out of the law and are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light to those in darkness, an instructor of the ignorant, a teacher of children, having the embodiment of knowledge and truth in the law (Romans 2.18-20). This religious training is
Michael Wood
The Gentiles lack of religious instruction is the very basis of the contrast. Paul painstakingly depicts these Gentiles as devoid of all religious trainingincluding the Gospel. The Christian-convert presumption, therefore, doesnt qualify as a solution.17 (A solution is an explanation which accounts for every detail without adding any tensions in the process. The Christian-covert hypothesis introduces tensions, and therefore isnt a solution.) A solution must account for all the details: Paul wrote about Gentiles who were vindicated before God without any knowledge of Jesus. Protestant Reformer John Calvin fully acknowledged that the Gentiles in Pauls passage were saved without any knowledge of Jesus. However, Calvin concluded that the passage must be referring to fictitious Gentiles. Calvin believed that no one can keep the law. Therefore he concluded that Paul must be referring to a hypothetical, non-real-world group.18 Calvins explanation is disqualified as well. The passage chastises a group of Jews.19 And Paul wrote that the law-abiding Gentiles are going to condemn these Jews:
And he who is physically uncircumcised and fulfills the law, wont he condemn you who violates the law though you have its letter and your circumcision?20
How can hypothetical, fictitious Gentiles condemn real-world Jews? They cant.
contrasted against Gentiles who learn Gods attributes entirely by nature. 17 N.T. Wright hypothesizes that the Gentiles in Romans 2 are Christian converts. Yet, he freely admits that Romans 2 is the Achilles heel of all explanations of Paul and the lawincluding his own. Wright fully acknowledges that the Christian-convert hypothesis doesnt fully account for all the details of Romans 2 and therefore isnt a solution. In fact, Wright also wrote that he anticipates an actual solution to Romans 2 to be forthcoming. 18 Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans by John Calvin, p. 96, Kessinger Publishing, 2006 19 For a discussion on Romans target audience, see Appendix B, Romans Primary Target. 20 Romans 2.27
Pauline Paradoxes Decoded Another suggestion is that Paul is speaking only hypothetically of a case which cannot occur in reality at all. It is hard to see, however, what point there would have been in taking up such a fictitious matter at all. Above all, such an imaginary Gentile would be of no use for Pauls polemic against the Jew. How could a non-existent Gentile condemn him?21Heikki Risnen
This isnt Calvins only problem. In the passage, Paul chastises the Jews for breaking the law:
Youre preaching not to steal, and youre stealing!... You boast of law, but you bring dishonor on God by breaking the law!22
The passage disallows Calvins notion that Paul considered the law to be unkeepable. (Do the Jews dishonor God by breaking an unkeepable law?) The passage isnt even referring to parts of the law that are difficult to keep. Rather, it is speaking about stealing and the like. Is do not steal a supposedly unkeepable part of the law? Paul isnt excusing the Jews stealing because the law is unkeepable. On the contrary! Hes telling them they must stop stealing because of the law. The situation is the opposite of Calvins premise. Calvins explanation even adds tension beyond the passage itself. His premise literally opposes the entire chapter. Romans 2 was written to promote salvation by good deeds:
God will render to every man according to his deeds: to those who are seeking glory and honor and immortality by persevering in good deeds, he will give immortality; but to those who through selfish ambition have not followed the truth, but instead have followed injusticethere will be wrath and anger23
Calvins theological motivation was to preach faith apart from law. Yet, Romans 2 portrays law as the sole determinant of salvation, independent of belief in Jesus:
The question throughout chapter 2 is whether or not one does the Jewish law, not as a result of being in Christ, but as the sole determinant of salvation.24 EP Sanders 21 Paul and the Law by Heikki Risnen, p. 103-104, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010 22 Romans 2.21, 23 23 Romans 2.6-8 24 Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People by E. P. Sanders, p. 129, Fortress Press, 1985
Michael Wood
Calvins proposal fails on a number of levels: It has non-existent Gentiles condemning real-world Jews. It has Paul condemning the Jews for breaking a law that is supposedly unkeepable anyway. The theological motivation behind it is literally the opposite of the chapters message from beginning to end. Calvins proposal doesnt qualify as a solution. Any solution must account for the following details: Paul wrote about real-world Gentiles, who were vindicated before God, without any knowledge of Jesus, because they kept the law. Every detail must be accounted for without adding any tensions in the process. The leading Protestant Reformer, John Calvin, failed to do this. So does that mean the Catholic Church has the answer? Catholicism teaches that salvation cannot be found outside the Catholic Church.25 Yet Paul wrote about real-world Gentiles who were vindicated without any knowledge of Jesus. In other words, Paul wrote about real-world people who are saved outside the Church. Neither the Protestant nor Catholic explanation resolves Romans 2. Neither offers a solution to what Paul actually wrote. N.T. Wright refers to Romans 2 as the Achilles heel of schemes on Paul and the law.26 Wright characterizes Romans 2 in this manner because its a historically accurate descriptionnot hyperbole. Romans 2 has, quite literally, been the Achilles heel of all explanations both Protestant and Catholic. Dr. Wright is one of the most recognized Biblical scholars today. In addition to his doctorate from Oxford University, he also has been awarded honorary doctoral degrees from eight prestigious institutions. Wright acknowledges that Romans 2 has been the Achilles heel of all explanations of Paul including his own. Thats the type of scholarly
25 Catholicism teaches extra ecclesia nulla salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation). [What Is Catholicism?: Hard Questions-Straight Answers by Rev. John Redford and Avery Dulles, p. 41, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, Sep 1, 1999.] 26 The Law in Romans 2 by N.T. Wright as reprinted in Paul and the Mosaic Law: The Third Durham-Tbingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism (Durham, September, 1994), p. 132, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Jan 1, 2001
10
honesty that has earned Wright the praise of his peers. It should be noted that Wright uses the word scheme in the European sense of the word. In Europe, this word refers to systematic explanations. The European use of the word doesnt convey any inherently negative connotations as it does here in the States. Wright is simply saying that all systematic explanations of Paul and the law have met their ruination in Romans 2the Achilles heel of Pauline Studies. After all, Romans 2 praises law from beginning to end, in sharp contrast to the many times Paul denigrated the law. Most biblical scholars openly acknowledge the difficulties posed by Pauls negative/positive statements about law. In fact, a majority of scholars have concluded that these statements cannot be systematically reconciled. However, evangelicals firmly believe in the perfect inerrancy (and therefore consistency) of Paul. They take great offense at the notion of unsolved Pauline issues. Evangelicals believe that Paul consistently taught one thing: Man is vindicated by faith apart from law. Their doctrine is based on Pauls negative statements about law. So what do they do with Pauls positive statements? Galatians 6.2 is a perfect example:
Bear one anothers burdens and in this manner fulfill the Law of Christ.
Evangelical Christianity is based on the presumption that Christians are freed from all law. Meanwhile, Paul commanded his converts to fulfill a lawthe Law of Christ. How do evangelical commentators respond to this? Todd A. Wilson surveyed the various responses to this phrase:
Nearly three centuries ago J. A. Bengel referred to the Law of Christ as a rara appellatio. Recent interpreters, however, have been less discreet. They now refer to the Law of Christ as most remarkable, arresting, strange, muy curiosa, striking, extremely baffling, doubly astonishing, a breathtaking paradox, a much-puzzled-over-term, and oxymoron tonnant, indeed a phrase more likely to mislead than instruct.27
Evangelical scholars generally respond with bewilderment regarding the Law of Christ. It bears great emphasis that leading scholars refer to this phrase as:
27 The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia: Reassessing the Purpose of Galatians by Todd A. Wilson, pp. 100-101, Mohr Siebeck, Jun 30, 2007
Michael Wood
11
Most remarkable Arresting Strange Muy curiosa (very puzzling) Striking Extremely baffling Doubly astonishing A breathtaking paradox A much-puzzled-over-term Oxymoron tonnant A phrase more likely to mislead than instruct
Evangelicals take Pauls negative statements at face value. But Pauls positive statements are muy curiosa! Naturally, this is not a solution. Romans 2.13 exemplifies the evangelical quandary. As a reminder, this verse says that only the doers of the law will be vindicated before Goddirectly opposing evangelical doctrine. How do modern evangelicals deal with this? Many teach that this verse was written from Pre-Saved Pauls perspective. (It was a description of what Paul believed before he embraced the teachings of Jesus.)28 This explanation adds insurmountable tension to Romans 2. Romans 2 warns certain Jews that they will be judged according to their deeds. In other words, the Jews admonished by Post-Saved Paul will be judged according to their deeds. The Pre-Saved Paul notion stands in tension with this. Paul warned the Jews that they will be judged in the same way as the rest of humanityaccording to their deeds. Most readers gloss over the role that Romans 2.13 plays in all of this: Everyone will be judged according to their deeds Because only the doers of the law will be vindicated before God.
28 This popular explanation was offered by one of the evangelical scholars interviewed for this work.
12
Romans 2.13 was Pauls explanation on why everyone will be judged according to their deeds. Everyone will be judged according to their deeds because only the doers of the law will be vindicated before God. This is Post-Saved Pauls explanation of salvation and judgment. At least the Post-Saved Paul of Romans 2. When it comes to Romans 2, theres no way around it: Post-Saved Paul considered real-world Gentiles to be vindicated before God without any knowledge of Jesus simply because they kept the law. Solving Romans 2 requires a full accounting of all these details. Most biblical scholars now acknowledge theres no wiggle room around this. However, their acknowledgement has fostered a troubling new development in biblical scholarship. Scholars are now beginning to distance Romans 2 from Paul himself. EP Sanders is the thought leader behind this. Sanders is one of the most highly influential Pauline scholars. (His research is referenced in more than 88,000 published works.)29 Sanders believes that Romans 2 was originally a Jewish synagogue sermon. Paul incorporated this sermon into Romans without making any edits. Therefore, Romans 2 shouldnt be considered a legitimate part of Pauls argument.
I think that the best way to read 1.18-2.29 is as a synagogue sermon I find, in short, no distinctively Pauline imprint in 1.18-2.29, apart from the tag in 2.16. Christians are not in mind, the Christian viewpoint plays no role, and the entire chapter is written from a Jewish perspective. The question throughout chapter 2 is whether or not one does the Jewish law, not as a result of being in Christ, but as the sole determinant of salvation.30EP Sanders
Sanders hit the nail on the head: In Romans 2, Paul presents the law as the sole determinant of salvation. This (supposedly) presents a problem. Therefore, Sanders proposes that Romans 2 be completely ignored when we seek to understand the historical Paul. N.T. Wright suspects that a lot of scholars privately concur with Sanders:
29 Based on Google books search: EP Sanders OR Ed Parish Sanders OR Ed P Sanders 30 Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People by E. P. Sanders, p. 129, Fortress Press, 1985
Michael Wood
13
Notoriously, Sanders in Paul, the Law and the Jewish People declared that Romans 2 was not a legitimate part of Pauls argument; it was an old synagogue sermon, with minimal Christian updating. I suspect that Sanders here said out loud what a lot of exegetes have thought privately, but it still comes as something of a shock to be told that the second chapter in a major theological letter must be put in brackets.31N.T. Wright
Wright travels in the innermost circles of the scholarly community. And his interaction with top scholars leads him to conclude: a lot of exegetes have thought privately that Romans 2 was not a legitimate part of Pauls argument. Romans is Pauls quintessential theological masterpiece. Yet, a lot of exegetes think that an entire chapter of Romans is not a legitimate part of Pauls message! This statement should make the headlines in every Christian periodical. Yet, how many laymen are aware of this? Certainly Eisenbaums beginning students are rarely (if ever) aware of it. There is a great disconnect between the scholarly community and the laity. Modern scholarship fully concedes that Romans 2 promotes salvation by keeping the law. Therefore the current scholarly inclination is to throw the whole chapter out. Scholarship isnt seeking to toss out a sentence here and there. Its not even seeking to throw out an odd paragraph or two. Rather, the current trend in scholarship is to discard the entirety of Romans 2. Why? The entire chapter teaches judgment by good deeds and salvation by keeping the law: The chapter begins by stating that all humanity, Christian and non-Christian alike, will be judged solely based on their good deeds.32 Then, only the doers of the law will be vindicated before God.33 Then, Paul gives an example of Gentiles who are a law unto themselves.34
31 The Law in Romans 2 by N.T. Wright, as printed in Paul and the Mosaic Law by James D. G. Dunn, p. 131, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Jan 1, 2001 32 Romans 2.1-12 33 Romans 2.13 34 Romans 2.14-16
14
Then, Roman Jews are chastised for breaking the law.35 Then, Paul says that the Gentiles who keep the law will condemn the Jews who break the law.36 Then, Paul says that Gentiles who keep the law are true members of the Faith.37 Gentiles who keep the law are vindicated before God. Jews who break the law are condemned. The entire chapter promotes the necessity of keeping the law in order to survive Gods impartial judgmenta judgment based solely on good deeds.38 From start to finish, the chapter explains how non-converts can be vindicated before God. The chapter is anathema to Protestants and Catholics alike. And the problem goes even deeper. The entirety of Romans 2 appears to contradict the entirety of Romans 3, the very next chapter! (At least according to the way scholarship views these two chapters.) Scholarship has tended to view these chapters as follows: Romans 2 teaches that only the doers of the law will be vindicated and that all humanity will be judged solely by their deeds. Romans 3 teaches that vindication is by faith apart from the law and humanity will be judged by its trust in Jesus. Romans 2 seems to applaud the law. Romans 3 seems to denigrate the law. On the surface, discarding Romans 2 seems to solve the problem (hence Sanders proposal). But, is discarding the entirety of Romans 2 a solution? If Romans 2 was Pauls only positive reference to law, then perhaps those who seek to discard it would have a stronger case. The problem is that Paul wrote positively about law many times. Paul also wrote negatively about law many times. While Romans 2 and 3 form a particularly stark contrast given their length and proximity to one another, the positive/negative flip-flops are found throughout Pauls letters:
35 36 37 38 Romans 2.17-24 Romans 2.25-27 Romans 2.28-29 Romans 2.1-12
Michael Wood
15
As Brice L. Martins recent study highlights, the most striking feature about the data concerning the role of the Law in Pauls writings is that the apostle speaks about it in both negative and positive ways. From a negative perspective, the Law brings a curse (Gal. 3:13), wrath (Rom. 4:15), sin (rom. 7:7-13), and death (Rom. 7:9-11; 2 Cor. 3:6-9); produces transgressions (Rom. 4:15; Gal. 3:19); enslaves (Rom. 6:14; 7:4-6, 23-25; Gal. 3:23; 4:5, 21-31); and is fatal (Rom. 3:20; 6:14; Gal 3:11; 5:4). From a positive point of view, the Law is of divine origin (Rom. 7:22, 25; 8:7, 9:4); contains the will of God (Rom. 2:17-18); is holy (Rom. 7:12, 14, 16) and loving (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14); is established by faith (Rom. 3:31; 9:30-10:4); and is obeyed by the power of the Spirit (Rom. 8:4). This sense of ambivalence about the role of the Law extends to Christians themselves, who on the one hand are no longer obligated to keep the Law (Rom. 6:14; 7:4, 6; Gal. 2:19; 3:13), but on the other hand are expected to fulfill its ideals (Rom. 2:12-16; 5:14; 6:2; 8:4; 13:8-10).39
Pauls positive statements about law are interspersed with his negative statements. He seems to flip-flop back and forth without any warning or hesitation. And he flip-flops back and forth many times. Therefore, discarding Romans 2 doesnt even begin to solve the problem. In fact, it only introduces more problems. If an entire chapter can be discarded, what other parts can we disregard as well? What does this say about the integrity of every other part of the New Testament? Discarding an entire chapter is radical.40 (Its a radical step that doesnt even begin to address the other numerous negative/positive statements. Thus, it solves nothing.) The scholarly community is now facing a daunting reality: Few of the basic problems have actually been solved.
Few of the basic problems that have arisen in the course of history of interpretation have really been solved41 Heikki Risnen
Risnen reached this conclusion after conducting an exhaustive research initiative.

39 The End of the Age has Come: The Theology of Paul by C. Marvin Pate, pp. 125126, Zondervan, Feb 15, 1995 40 Wright considers Sanders proposal notorious and somewhat of a shock. (The Law in Romans 2 by NT Wright, as printed in Paul and the Mosaic Law by James D. G. Dunn, p. 131, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Jan 1, 2001) 41 Challenges to Biblical Interpretation: Collected Essays, 1991-2000 by Heikki Risnen, p. 96, BRILL, 2001
16
Risnen pored through published Pauline scholarship looking for solutions. He catalogued all of the Pauline flip-flops and assessed the published explanations of them. He found that virtually none of the proposals developed over two millennia met the criteria necessary to be regarded as a solution. (Each proposal introduced a new tension, rather than simply resolving the one at hand.) Calvins proposal (discussed above) is a perfect example. He sought to resolve the tension of Gentiles who are a law unto themselves. He proposed that Paul was referring to fictitious, non-existent Gentiles. Yet his proposal that they were hypothetical simply introduced a new tension. How could hypothetical Gentiles condemn the real-world target of Pauls admonition? Calvin merely exchanged one tension for another. And this is precisely what Risnen discovered for virtually all the Pauline contradictions. Scholarship wasnt filled with solutions. On the contrary! Scholars have been merely swapping tensions that bother them for tensions they could live with. By consistently applying this tension-swapping strategy, even the most basic issues have never actually been solved. Risnen eventually published the full catalogue of Pauline flip-flops along with the tensions introduced by all the published explanations. He exposed the emperors lack of clothes in his classic Paul and the Law; a 300-page compendium of unsolved Pauline paradoxes. Scholarship at large acknowledges the problem of the Pauline paradoxes. James A. Sanders is a seminary professor, one of the editors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and founder of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center. This scholarly heavyweight characterizes Pauls view of law as one of the most seemingly insolvable in biblical study:
Pauls attitude toward the law has been one of the most puzzling and seemingly insolvable in biblical study.42James A. Sanders
Scholarships largest open issue has been its inability to systematically reconcile Pauls positive and negative statements about law. Risnens publication of Paul and the Law heightened this crisis:
42 Torah and Paul by James A. Sanders as printed in Gods Christ and His People: Studies in Honor of Nils Alstrup Dahl, p. 132, edited by Jacob Jerrell and Wayne A. Meeks, Oslo: Universitesforlaget, 1977.
Michael Wood
17
Risnens Paul and the Law heightened the crisis by postulating a Paul whose several treatments of the law in his writing, including passages within the same letter, cannot adequately be reconciled and must be left in uncomfortable juxtaposition.43James Dunn
Dunn is another scholarly heavyweight. He wasnt using hyperbole when he described the situation as a crisis. While the laity sits comfortably in the pew, the scholarly community has become increasingly uncomfortable over its lack of genuine solutions to Pauls positive/negative statements about law. Dunn wrote the above when discussing the motivations for a recent symposium on Paul and the Law. Risnens scholarship had heightened the crisis, and holding the symposium was, it was thought, a way to address that crisis. But, at the end of the symposium, nothing had changed. After the conference was over, the same major questions remained:
Major questions therefore remain. For example, does the phrase works of the law express Jewish self-understanding (and if so what?), or simply Pauls own (possibly idiosyncratic) experience of the law? What is the focus of Pauls critique of the law? How to correlate the seemingly positive assertions he also makes (about believers fulfilling the law) with his more negative comments? Can all his statements about the law be synthesized into a single coherent view?44James Dunn, commenting on the outcome of the international, multidenominational symposium on Paul and the Law
At the conclusion of this recent symposium, scholarships two largest issues remained unresolved: How can we correlate Pauls many positive statements about the law with his many negative statements about it? Will we ever be able to synthesize all of Pauls statements about the law into a single coherent view? The current trend to discard Romans 2 is quite unfortunate. After all, this chapter contains the key to resolving all of Pauls negative/positive statements. This very notion was already intuited by Dr. Wright:
43 Paul and the Mosaic Law by James D. G. Dunn, p 2, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001 44 Paul and the Mosaic Law by James D. G. Dunn, pp. 2-3, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001
18
Pauline Paradoxes Decoded Romans 2, for so long the Achilles heel of schemes on Paul and the Law, may make a vital contribution to some eventual solutions, both to the theological questions which surround Pauls writings and, of course, to the exegesis of Romans itself.45Dr. N.T. Wright
Wright turned out to be right. Romans 2 is the key both to the theological questions which surround Pauls writings and, of course, to the exegesis of Romans itself. Theres a good reason why this is so: Romans 2 is Pauls lengthiest positive explanation of law. This comprehensive explanation ties judgment, vindication, and law all together. Therefore, its a natural place to look to understand Pauls other positive statements about law scattered throughout his works. Romans 2 is the (elusively) obvious place to find an actual solution. But how is a person to know when he has actually solved the issues? Thanks to Risnens work we already have a full catalogue of unresolved tensions. If a proposed solution resolves Risnens catalogue without introducing any new tensions, then it is indeed a genuine solution.
Risnens work remains a standing caution to all who seek for easy syntheses, and an unavoidable challenge to all who claim to have found such a synthesis, as to whether they have given enough weight to the awkward elements and passages in Pauls letters.46James Dunn
At the end of the multi-denominational symposium, Dunn wrote that Risnens catalogue was the standing measurement against which any systematic synthesis should be assessed. Now we come to the purpose of this work: Finding a systematic reconciliation to Risnens catalogue is no longer an open issue. In fact, Im going to make an admittedly audacious statement: Risnens contradictions in Paul and the Law can be resolved in a single sentence. Ill repeat: Risnens contradictions in Paul and the Law can be resolved in a single sentence.
45 The Law in Romans 2 by N.T. Wright, as printed in Paul and the Mosaic Law by James D. G. Dunn, p. 131, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Jan 1, 2001 46 Paul and the Mosaic Law by James D. G. Dunn, pp. 2-3, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001.
Michael Wood
19
I do not make that statement lightly. The resolution of the contradictions in Risnens catalogue is the result of an intensive, ten-year, full-time effort (often 16 hours per day). Finally, in preparation for this current work, I conducted five three-hour interviews. Each interview was with a leading Biblical scholar. The purpose of each interview was to see if the respective scholar could identify any part of Risnens catalogue that isnt addressed by one simple sentence. The result: none of them could identify any of Risnens issues that are not resolved by one simple sentence. That is not to say that these scholars read every Biblical passage in the same way as Risnen. The interview didnt focus on their individual readings of the Bible, but centered on whether or not this one single sentence resolves the issues in Risnens classic. For example, Douglas Campbell naturally prefers his own reading of Pauls letters. Nevertheless, he kindly acknowledged that resolving Risnens catalogue in a single sentence is quite an achievement in and of itself. He further stated, I was impressed by the explanatory power of your thesis. Again, the interview with Campbell focused on Risnens cataloguenot Campbells model. Perhaps a specific example would be best. Campbells model causes him to read 1 Corinthians 6 differently than Risnen does. Therefore, the interview was not conducted from the standpoint of Campbells approach to 1 Corinthians 6. Rather, the question was whether or not my single sentence addressed all of the issues regarding 1 Corinthians 6 detailed in Risnens catalogue. The same goes for all the scholars listed below: Douglas CampbellAssociate Professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity School. Dale MartinWoolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale. Bart EhrmanGray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (Ehrman also authored four New York Times best sellers on early Christian history.)
20
Jason StaplesPhD Candidate. (Ehrman describes Staples as one of his most exceptional grad students.) Paul MillerIndiana University Professor and Founding Director of GRAMCORD Institute. (Co-creator of the GRAMCORD Greek New Testament Grammatical Concordance System, a linguistic and exegetical tool for Biblical research.) I chose these scholars in search of diversity. Dale Martin is a seasoned scholar. Jason Staples is a PhD candidate. Paul Miller is a conservative Christian scholar. Bart Ehrman is a secular one. All of them, however, were familiar with Risnens scholarship (as virtually every New Testament scholar is). I was both nervous and excited about running the sentence by themexcited at the privilege of interviewing them, nervous that ten years of research had finally reached its moment of truth. Now, after discussing the matter with all of them, I can finally announce: Risnens contradictions in Paul and the Law are resolved in a single sentenceincluding the minutest details of Romans 2. The most fascinating reaction came from Paul Miller. Miller is a conservative evangelical scholar. He quickly concurred that the sentence resolves the issues raised by Risnen. He also said, It resolves all the issues that have been swirling around in my head for the last ten years. Over the next few days, I received many glowing emails, including one in which he told me he stays awake at night thinking about new implications. However, it wasnt long before the full implications of the sentence hit him. He was now faced with making a choice: Accept the theological implications of the one sentence that fully resolves Risnens catalogue, or Cling to the theology that created the 300 pages of contradictions in the first place (not to mention the numerous other issues swirling around in his head for the last decade). He eventually chose the latter.
Michael Wood
21
This work is going to be very challenging for millions of Christians. Yes, Risnens catalogue is effortlessly resolved in a single sentence. However, this single sentence reveals that Paul taught something very different from what millions of people currently believe. Traditional theology is the very reason that Pauls positive/negative statements remained unresolved for such a long time. Pauls positive/negative statements cannot be resolved under the rubric of traditional Christian doctrine. Hence, traditional Christian doctrine has been wrong about Paulas the solution to Pauls statements documents. This brings us to another question: Is it possible for any other sentence to resolve Risnens catalogue? The answer is No. There is only one possible way to systematically resolve Risnens issues in Paul and the Law. The rest of this work explains why this is so
22
Summary Risnens catalogue demonstrates that every published explanation of Romans 2 introduced tension. No solution had yet been found. The law is impossible to keep and therefore no one can be vindicated by it. Paul wrote that some Gentiles are vindicated before God by keeping the law. They are his example of the doers of the law mentioned in Romans 2.13. Thus, Paul wrote that the necessary part of the law can be kept and some folks are vindicated for doing so. Also, Paul told the Jews that they dishonor God by breaking the law. Did the Jews dishonor God by breaking a law that is unkeepable anyway? Furthermore, the passage isnt even discussing parts of the law that are difficult to keep. The passage discusses do not steal and the like. Paul wasnt excusing the Jews stealing because of an unkeepable law. On the contrary! Paul sought to get the Jews to stop stealing because of the law. The situation is the literal opposite of the unkeepable law notion. Moreover, the chapter says that God will grant immortality to everyone who seeks immortality through good deeds. The necessity of keeping the law is Pauls explanation as to why this is so. As Sanders succinctly states, The question throughout chapter 2 is whether or not one does the Jewish law, not as a result of being in Christ, but as the sole determinant of salvation. The unkeepable law notion opposes the chapters message from beginning to end. The vindicated non-converts were hypothetical. Paul wasnt referring to a real-world group. Paul wrote that these non-converts will condemn the real-world Jews chastised by the letter. Fictitious Gentiles cant condemn the real-world targets of Pauls letter. Moreover, the hypothetical Gentile premise is predicated on the impossible law notion; a notion which adds many tensions in and of itself. (See above.)
Michael Wood
23
The vindicated Gentiles in Romans 2 were Christians. Paul wrote that the Gentiles were a law unto themselves. To call these Gentiles Christians is to introduce tensions in verses which consider converts under Jesus Law (Romans 13.8-9; Galatians 5.14, 6.2; 1 Corinthians 9.21). Moreover, Paul wrote that these Gentiles were keeping the law instinctively by nature. He contrasted them to Jews who had religious instruction. The Gentiles in Romans 2 were keeping the law independent of any religious instructionChristian or otherwise. The Christian Gentile theory adds tensions. Paul wrote Romans 2 from the perspective of Pre-Saved Paul. It represented Pauls view before his conversion. Paul wrote that those admonished by the letter will be judged according to their deeds. This was Post-Saved Pauls message to the currently unsaved group targeted in his letter. The Pre-Saved Paul notion stands in tension with the target audience of the entire chapter Jewish contemporaries who Post-Saved Paul is trying to help. Most importantly, Paul wrote positive things about law elsewhere in Romans and all throughout his other letters. Thus, Post-Saved Paul wrote positively about law many times. Romans 2 is fully consistent with all of his other positive statements about law. Thus, the Pre-Saved Paul notion stands in tension with all of Post-Saved Pauls other positive statements about law. Romans 2 can be discarded because its not a legitimate part of Pauls argument. As stated above, Romans 2 isnt Pauls only positive reference to law. Paul interspersed positive statements about law and judgment by deeds throughout his letters. Romans 2 is fully consistent with these numerous statements, and therefore is an integral part of Pauls argument. The illegitimate part of Pauls argument notion stands in tension with all of Pauls other positive statements regarding law and judgment by deeds.
Section II Solution to the Problem of Law
Chapter Two The Plot Thickens

Those unfamiliar with church history will likely find it preposterous that Christianity could fundamentally misunderstand Paul for so many centuries. Its essential for them to understand what happened many centuries ago: Gentile Christians insisted on interpreting Pauls writings apart from all Jewish input. In fact, they rejected Jewish input. Therefore, misinterpretation was inevitable:
When Pauls letters came to be read by Gentiles who little understood Judaism, the misinterpretation became almost inevitable.47W. D. Davies
I must concur with John Gager who stated, My only quibble with Davies is that his almost seems unnecessary.48 Christianity originally began as a branch of Judaism. The apostle Paul originally converted Gentiles into Jews.49 However, relatively soon into the Faith, Pauls letters came to be read by Gentiles who little understood Judaism, and misinterpretation of the Jew named Paul was inevitable. What Jewish misunderstanding could possibly account for centuries of Pauline pandemonium? The vast majority of the interpretative problems with Paul can be traced to one historical error. Second-century Gentiles didnt know, or didnt care about, the traditional division of Jewish law.
47 Jewish and Pauline Studies by William David Davies, p. 138, SPCK, 1984. Note: Davies conducted research at the University of Cambridge under the dean of British New Testament scholars, C.H. Dodd, and David Daube, a Jewish scholar who wrote extensively on the New Testament from the perspective of rabbinic sources. Davies served as Professor of New Testament Studies at Yorkshire United College in Bradford, Yorkshire, and was the first recipient of the D.D. degree at the University of Wales. 48 Reinventing Paul by John G. Gager, pp. 74-75, Oxford University Press, May 16, 2002 49 Romans 2.28-29 (Cf. Acts 24.14, 28.22 in which Christianity is considered a sect within Judaism) 27
28
Jews divided the commandments of their law into two categories: Commandments between man and God Commandments between man and neighbor This was the traditional division of Jewish law.50 Naturally, all ritual requirements (such as circumcision) were commandments between man and God.51 Yet, surprisingly, sexual purity requirements also were commandments between man and God.
forbidden sexual acts are classified as transgressions between man and God.52Maimonides
This is a most critical distinction for resolving Risnens catalogue: Sexual purity requirements were commandments between man and God. Because of this, the prohibition on homosexuality was a commandment between man and God:
homosexual activity falls under the category of sins between man and God rather than that of sins between man and his fellow.53
The commandments between man and God included:

50 Jewish tradition makes a distinction between mitzvot bein adam la-Mokom commandments between a person and Godand mitzvot bein adam la-chavero commandments between one person and another.Central Conference of American Rabbis. (Gates of Mitzvah: A Guide to the Jewish Life Cycle by Simeon J. Maslin and Central Conference of American Rabbis, p. 97, CCAR Press, 1979) The traditional division of laws is bein adam le-havero, between man and his fellow man, and bein adam la-makom, between man and God.Joseph Dov Soloveitchik (acclaimed Talmudic scholar). (The Emergence of Ethical Man by Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, Michael S. Berger, p. 198, KTAV Publishing House, Inc.) 51 The Dynamics of Judaism: A Study in Jewish Law by Robert Gordis, p. 63, Indiana University Press, 1990. Note: Robert Gordis is President of the Rabbinical Assembly and the Synagogue Council of America and prior professor at Jewish Theological Seminary of America. 52 Maimonides Ethics: The Encounter of Philosophic and Religious Morality by Raymond L. Weiss, p. 75, University of Chicago Press, Oct 25, 1991) For further documentation see also Judaism and Homosexuality: An Authentic Orthodox View by Rabbi Chaim Rapoport, p. 159 n. 68, Vallentine Mitchell, 2004. 53 Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality: Volume 1; Volume 1, p 42. Cahners Pub. Co., 1967
Michael Wood
29
Ritual puritycircumcise your sons on the eighth day after birth,54 dont eat lobster,55 dont wear garments made of two cloths,56 and so on. Sexual puritydont have sex with your wife during her menstrual period,57 men cant engage in homosexual penetration,58 dont allow men with injured testicles into the congregation,59 and so on. So what, then, were the commandments between man and neighbor? The commandments between man and neighbor were all the ethical preceptsall the precepts based on Love your neighbor as yourself :
all of the commandments between man and man are included in this precept of loving ones neighbor.60Pinchas
The commandments between man and neighbor were all the precepts based on Leviticus 19:18Love your neighbor as yourself. In other words, the commandments between man and neighbor included everything related to brotherly love: Justicedont murder,61 dont steal,62 dont commit adultery,63 and so on. Philanthropyfeed the hungry,64 clothe the naked,65 shelter the homeless,66 and so on.
54 Leviticus 12.3 55 Leviticus 11.9-10 56 Leviticus 19.19 57 Leviticus 20.18 58 Leviticus 18.22 59 Leviticus 21.16-20 60 Pinchas as quoted in Judaism and Global Survival by Richard H. Schwartz, p. 14, Lantern Books, 2002. Note: Pinchas was one of the most renowned Talmudists (scholars of ancient Jewish law). 61 Exodus 20.13 62 Exodus 20.15 63 Exodus 20.14 64 Isaiah 58.7 65 Isaiah 58.7 66 Isaiah 58.7
30
Philo Judaeus documents the existence of this division during Pauls day.67 Moreover, his writings indicate that this was the dominant division in Judaism at the time.68 During Pauls day, a variety of Jewish denominations appear to have used this division.69 In the Jewish division: some sexual prohibitions were commandments between man and neighbor, others were commandments between man and God. Consider the prohibitions against adultery and homosexuality: Commandments between man and neighborProhibits adultery. Commandments between man and GodProhibits homosexuality. Sexual ethics and sexual purity belonged to different categories.
67 Philo documents that the commandments between man and God included all the piety and purity regulations; whereas the commandments between man and man included ethics and justice (Special Laws 2.63). Philo further explained that the commands between man and God are encapsulated in love of God and the commands between man and man are encapsulated in love of neighbor (Decalogue 108-110). 68 Philo presents this dual division of the law based on the two love commandments as though obvious or well-known. (Resurrecting Jesus: the earliest Christian tradition and its interpreters by Dale C. Allison, p. 154, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005) 69 The founder of the Pharisaic School of Hillel appealed to this division a century before Pauls day (Shabbat 31a). Rabbi Akiva, a prominent leader of the School of Hillel also appealed to this division (Nedarim 30b). Philo (who appears to have had an affinity for the Pharisaic School of Shammai) specified this division (Special Laws 2.63, Decalogue 108-110). Philo even referred to the commandments based on brotherly love as the dikaiomata (Decalogue 108-109); whereas the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the Essenes using works of the law in reference to the ritual and sexual purity requirementsthe commandments between man and God (4QMMT). These two terms are identical to Pauls (Ro. 2.26; 3.20). Combined, the schools of Hillel and Shammai with the Essenes accounted for the vast majority of the Jewish population during Pauls day. This would explain why Philo referenced this division as if it was widely known and well established. Thus, the division appears to have been dominant in a variety of popular first-century Jewish denominations. (For additional documentation see footnote 84.)
Michael Wood
31
Sexual purity involves sexual acts that dont abuse another person, but are more in the nature of taboos.70 However, sexual ethics always involve an abused party. For example, adultery violates sexual ethics; whereas homosexuality solely violated sexual purity requirements. Commandments between man and neighborDictates sexual ethics. Commandments between man and GodDictates sexual purity. The reason for this separation is simple and straightforward. Sex simply wasnt the deciding factor. In no way! Love your neighbor as yourself was the sole determinant. Any precept based on Leviticus 19.18 was a commandment between man and neighborwhether sexual or not. All the rest of the precepts were commandments between man and Godwhether sexual or not. Heres an easy rule to remember: Any sexual prohibition that doesnt involve abuse was a commandment between man and God:
It is noteworthy that most of the commandments specified in Jubilees are those which the Rabbis categorized as commandments between man and God. We include in the man and God category sexual sins prohibited by the author, since those specifiedcertain forms of incest and nakednessdo not involve the abuse of another person, but are more in the nature of taboos.71 EP Sanders
So what does any of this have to do with Paul? This is where the plot thickens. Philo Judaeus was a Jewish contemporary of Paul. He cherished the commandments between man and God. He had a strong distaste for violations of the sexual purity requirements. In fact, Philo considered prostitution worthy of death because it violated Moses institution:
Again, the commonwealth of Moses institution does not admit a harlot. A pest, a scourge, a plague-spot to the public, let her be stoned to death.72 70 Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion by E. P. Sanders, p. 364, Fortress Press, June 1, 1977 71 Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion by E. P. Sanders, p. 364, Fortress Press, June 1, 1977 72 The Special Laws by Philo Judaeus, book 3, section 51 (Philo VII translated by
32
Philo was fully committed to the commandments between man and God. He was angered by Jewish contemporaries who solely followed the commandments between man and neighbor:
Now then, some have attached themselves to one part [of the Jewish law] Those who have no inkling that there is anything good outside dikaiomata towards their fellowman, espouse communion with humans exclusively, offering the use of their goods to all on an equal basis, because they yearn for company; and they think it right to lighten peoples heavy burdens as much as possible.73Philo Judaeus
Philo was enraged over Jews who solely follow the laws dikaiomatathe commandments between man and neighbor. (Philo used dikaiomata in reference to the commandments based on brotherly love. This makes perfect sense given that a lesser known meaning for dikaiomata was code of ethics.74 The dikaiomata were the laws code of ethics.75)
F. H. Colson, p. 507, Harvard University Press, 1937.) 73 On the Decalogue by Philo Judaeus, section 108a, 109 74 Dikaiomata as code of ethics is seen, among other places, in the writing of Origen, a third century Church Father: For Job was also rich, but did not pass his life in selfish luxury; his house was open with loving kindness toward everyone in need. He treated no one unjustly, instead helping the victims of injustice, arranging the provision of sustenance to widows and orphansfor that is the code of ethics (dikaiomata) of wealthy people who are just.Origens commentary on Luke (fragment 222, line 20ff.) 75 Photius also documents that the laws dikaiomata were not the whole Torah, but rather were a subset of the Torahthe subset that didnt contain the requirement of circumcision. See Photius Commentary on Romans 2:26: So if the uncircumcised observes the Torahs code of ethics [dikaiomata]: he doesnt say observes the Torah, lest the Jew say, And how is it possible for an uncircumcised person to observe the Torah when hes transgressing the Torah on that very issue, the fact of being uncircumcised? Therefore, so as not to give those people a handle on that issue, he doesnt put it that way. Instead, he says the Torahs code of ethics. For the Jews, he talks about the Torah; for the uncircumcised, he talks about the Torahs code of ethics. He is saying, I didnt speak of the whole law, but only of the justicerelated parts Photius (as translated by Dr. William Berg). See also Origens commentary on Luke (fragment 222, line 20ff) in which dikaiomata is used to refer to a code of ethics based on brotherly love. For a plethora of additional documentation, see Section VII: Law and Righteousness.
Michael Wood
33
Philo railed against Jewish contemporaries who believed only the dikaiomata mattered. These Jews believed that anyone who loves others fulfills the entire law. Such Jews believed only the dikaiomata (the commands based on brotherly love) were the law. According to Romans 13, we know the name of one Jewish contemporary who belonged to the dikaiomata-only group. His name was Paul. Paul wrote that only the dikaiomata (the commands based on brotherly love) are the law:
He who loves others has fulfilled the Law because dont commit adultery, dont murder, dont steal, dont covet, and if there is any other commandment it is summed up in this utterance: Love your neighbor as yourself.76Paul
Notice Pauls logic: Everyone who loves others has fulfilled the law because only the commandments based on brotherly love are the law. In other words: Everyone who loves others fulfills the entire law because only the dikaiomata are the law. Paul typified the very Jews that Philo was writing about. Paul didnt write that the entire Torah should be interpreted through brotherly love. Some first-century sects taught this. They upheld all the Torahs precepts but interpreted them through brotherly love. Paul, however, taught something else. Pauls teaching fell into Philos category of derision. Paul taught that only the commandments based on brotherly love were the law. (All the other commandments werent the law.) Thats a very different proposition altogether.
Pauls view became decisive, the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Gal 5.14). Here Leviticus 19.18 replaces the rest of the law and the term neighbor has been redefined to include Gentiles whereas for Paul, or at least certainly Pauls later Christian interpreters, the golden rule and the love command came to replace the rest of the Torah, in Judaism the concern for love remained the guiding principle by which Torah was to be interpreted.77
When Paul talked about fulfilling Jewish law, he was referring solely to the dikaiomatathe commandments based on brotherly love. Paul believed the advent of Christ meant these were now the sole requirements.
76 Romans 13:8-9 77 The Jewish Annotated New Testament edited by Amy-Jill Levine, Marc Z. Brettler, p. 543, Oxford University Press, Nov 15, 2011
34
Thus the plot of Romans 2 thickens. In Romans 2, Paul wrote about Gentiles who were vindicated before God without any knowledge of Jesus. He wrote that they were vindicated because they kept the law instinctively by nature. Now heres the rub: Paul specified which commandments they were keeping. These Gentiles were keeping the dikaiomata:
If the uncircumcised keeps the laws dikaiomata wont his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?Romans 2:26
Paul considered these Gentiles vindicated before God because they kept the dikaiomata! This makes perfect sense. After all, Paul considered the dikaiomata to be the entire law. Its only natural that Paul considered the Gentiles to be vindicated for keeping the dikaiomata. In Pauls theology, by loving others these Gentiles were keeping the entire law. Now some will protest that the dikaiomata were all the Torahs requirements, not just the ethical ones. Certainly conventional translations say so:
if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?78
Jewish law requires circumcision. How can an uncircumcised man be keeping the requirements of a law that requires circumcision? He cant. Its a ludicrous translationconventional, but ludicrous. Fortunately, the function of dikaiomata in Romans 2.26 was explained by PhotiusByzantiums greatest intellect. Photius explained that Paul used dikaiomata to carve out a group of commandments:
Commentary on Romans 2:26: So if the uncircumcised observes the Torahs dikaiomata: he doesnt say observes the Torah, lest the Jew say, And how is it possible for an uncircumcised person to observe the Torah when hes transgressing the Torah on that very issue, the fact of being uncircumcised? Therefore, so as not to give those people a handle on that issue, he doesnt put it that way. Instead, he says the Torahs dikaiomata. For the Jews, he talks about the Torah; for the uncircumcised, he talks about the Torahs dikaiomata. He is saying, I didnt speak of the whole law, but only of the ethics-related parts Photius (as translated by Dr. William Berg) 78 New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (Ro 2:26). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
Michael Wood
35
Paul used dikaiomata to reference a group of requirements, not the whole law. Moreover, dikaiomata had an ethical (if not altruistic) sense in the Koine Greek period, as the following passage from Origen attests:
For Job was also rich, but did not pass his life in selfish luxury; his house was open with loving kindness toward everyone in need. He treated no one unjustly, instead helping the victims of injustice, arranging the provision of sustenance to widows and orphansfor that is the code of ethics (dikaiomata) of wealthy people who are just.Origens commentary on Luke (fragment 222, line 20ff) as translated by Dr. William Berg
Philo and Paul both used dikaiomata in this ethical sense. Both Philo and Paul used this word in reference to the commandments based on brotherly love. However, Paul wrote that only the dikaiomata were the law, and Philo detested this very idea. Paul considered only the dikaiomata to be Gods commandments. Therefore, ritual purity (such as circumcision) wasnt a commandment of God:
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God791 Corinthians 7.19
In Romans 13.8-9, Paul wrote that only the commandments based on brotherly love are the Law. In 1 Corinthians 7.19, Paul wrote that circumcision wasnt a commandment of God. As Wolfgang Haase recognized, there is only one way to harmonize Romans 13 and 1 Corinthians 7Paul considered only the dikaiomata to be Gods commandments:
Pauls understanding of commandments of God may be primarily those designated by the Rabbis as the commandments between man and man, i.e. the ethical commandments. This interpretation would harmonize 1 Cor. 7.19 with Rom. 13.8-10, where all the commandments are summarized by love your neighbor. The only commandments between man and God which Paul concretely insists on is that against idolatry, and he can work even this one in to the love of neighbor scheme (1 Cor. 8). Thus by commandments of God Paul may have meant the ethical commandments (summarized by love your neighbor) and not the commandments between man and God, such as circumcision and the dietary laws.80Wolfgang Haase 79 1 Corinthians 7.19 NASB 80 Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung by Wolfgang Haase, p. 439, Walter de Gruyter, Sep
36
For Paul, only the dikaiomata were commandments of God. In other words, ritual and sexual purity requirements werent commandments of God. Weve already seen this in regards to ritual requirements (such as circumcision). The following is an example in regards to sexual purity (in regards to prostitution no less). According to Paul, all things are lawful in the context of sex with prostitutes:
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her?81
Notice the stark contrast between Paul and Philo. Philo appeals to the Mosaic institution (the law) in requiring the prostitute to be stoned to death. But Paul asserts the legality of the act. Philo and Paul are operating off of two different legal codes. Only the dikaiomata comprised Pauls legal code. For this reason, he had to begin by conceding the legality of prostitute sex, and then proceed to condemn it on nonlegal grounds. This passage has baffled theologians for many centuries. Consider Erasmus of Rotterdam, a famous Catholic priest and theologian in the 15th century. He continued to beat his brains about a long time over this very passage, never coming to a satisfactory explanation:
It is St. Pauls Epistles, that I always carry about me, as my beloved Entertainment, which I take out now upon the Occasion of something you said, which minds me of a Place that I have beat my brains about a long Time, and I am not come to a full Satisfaction in yet. It is in the 6th Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient It is not lawful to whore, or get drunk, how then are all Things lawful? But if Paul speaks of some particular Things only, which he would have to be lawful, I cant guess by the Tenor of the Place, which those particular Things are.82
Erasmus didnt know that Jewish law was divided based on brotherly love. Therefore he couldnt guess by the tenor of the passage, which particular things were lawful and which ones werent. He couldnt figure out which legal code Paul was applying.
1, 1982 81 1 Corinthians 6.12, 16 82 The Whole Familiar Colloquies of Desiderius Erasmus, of Rotterdam by Desiderius Erasmus, p. 94, Hardpress Publishing, 2012
Michael Wood
37
This very same thing has continued to stump scholars, Heikki Risnen included. Risnen was baffled by the following: when Paul wrote about sex with prostitutes, he didnt have a legal code to appeal to:
The Corinthian slogan all things are lawful, cited twice by Paul (10.23 and 6.12), is used in 6.12 in connection with a moral issue (fornication). The Corinthians seem to have appealed to this slogan in favour of sexual licence, and Paul does nothing to refute the principle as such! He knows that fornication is incompatible with the life in Christ, but he has no code to which he could appeal to persuade the Corinthians about this83Heikki Risnen (Note: Italicized emphasis is in the original text.)
Risnen saw this as a Pauline contradiction. But it wasnt. Paul was perfectly consistent. The dikaiomata were his entire legal code. This reconciles everything Paul wrote: Why was circumcision not a commandment of God? Because the dikaiomata were Pauls entire legal code. Why did Paul concede all things are lawful in the context of sex with prostitutes?Because the dikaiomata were Pauls entire legal code. Ritual (such as circumcision) and sexual purity (such as sex with prostitutes) werent part of the dikaiomata. Therefore, Paul didnt consider violations of them to be unlawful. There arent any contradictions in Pauls writings the moment we realize that the dikaiomata were his entire legal code. Its just that simple. But if we refuse to accept the simplicity of Pauls message, we can beat our heads a long time and never arrive at a satisfactory answer (like Erasmus). Or we end up believing that Paul contradicted himself (like Risnen and most other biblical scholars). But how did something so easy confuse them? The answer is both simple and profound. Erasmus and Risnen were both taught that Paul divided the law differently than he actually did. They were both taught that Paul divided the law into two categories: ritual and morality. In this division, sexual purity and ethics belong to the same category: RitualDoesnt dictate any sex-related acts. MoralityDictates both sexual purity and sexual ethics.
83 Paul and the Law by Heikki Risnen, p. 48, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010
38
But Paul didnt divide the law this way. In fact, the ancient Jews as a whole didnt divide the law this way. Paul and his fellow countrymen divided the law based on Leviticus 19:18Love your neighbor as yourself.84
84 The Jewish nation divided their commandments into two groups: commandments between man and God (mitzvot bein adam lamakom) and commandments between man and man (mitzvot bein adam lachaveiro). (mishna Yoma 8:9) Philo documents that the commandments between man and God included all the piety and purity regulations; whereas the commandments between man and man included ethics and justice (Special Laws 2.63). Philo further explained that the commands between man and God are encapsulated in love of God and the commands between man and man are encapsulated in love of neighbor (Decalogue 108-110). Philo presents this dual division of the law based on the two love commandments as though obvious or well-known. (Resurrecting Jesus: the earliest Christian tradition and its interpreters by Dale C. Allison, p. 154, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005) The notion that the two love commands (love God and love neighbor ) encompass all of Gods commandments is presumed throughout the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (t. Issachar 5:2, 7:6-7; t. Dan 5:1-3; t. Gad 4:1-2; t. Jos 11:1; t. Benj. 3:-1-3; t. Reub. 6:8-9). Of particular note is t. Dan 5:1-3, Observe, therefore, my children, the commandments of the Lord, and keep His law Love the Lord through all your life, and one another with a true heart. The New Testament further documents that the ancient Jewish nation considered the two love commands (love God and love neighbor ) to encompass all of Gods commandments. Luke 10:26-27, And Jesus asked the expert in the law, What is written in the law? How do you read it? And the legal expert answered, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself. That the commands based on Leviticus 19:18 (Love your neighbor as yourself ) were an independent group of commands is further documented in multiple sources. For example Hillel, the head of one of the greatest Pharisaic schools, stated that the Golden Rule (which was interchangeable with Leviticus 19:18 during his day) contained within it all the commands that a Gentile convert must follow (t. Shabbos 31a). Jesus referenced the commands based on Leviticus 19:18 as an independent group (Matthew 19:16-20). Paul referenced the commands based on Leviticus 19:18 as an independent group (Romans 13:9). James declared Leviticus 19:18 to be the Kings Law and then proceeded to give examples of Old Testament commandments based upon itcommands such as Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, and Dont show favoritism (James 2:8-10). Murder and adultery were forbidden in the Decalogue and showing favoritism was forbidden in Leviticus 19:15. Moreover, James entire letter deals exclusively with Old Testament commands based on Leviticus 19:18 and is structured around this very concept.
Michael Wood
39
In the Jewish division, sexual purity and ethics belonged to different categories. Commandments between man and GodDictates sexual purity Commandments between man and neighborDictates sexual ethics The commandments between man and neighbor were the dikaiomata. And only these commandments were Pauls legal code. The category that contained the sexual purity requirements wasnt part of Pauls law. Erasmus and Risnen wrongly believed sexual purity and ethics were both part of Pauls legal code. This error was the source of their befuddlement. For as long as they hold onto their belief in this moral code notion, they can beat their heads all their lives and never arrive at a satisfactory explanation. Risnens seminary taught him a historically incorrect division. Once we correct this historical mistake, all of Pauls teachings on morality become instantly reconciled. In fact, the moment we realize the dikaiomata were Pauls entire legal code, Risnens entire 300-page catalogue instantly becomes reconciled. Thats why it only takes one sentence to fully explain Pauls teachings on law. So what is the sentence? The sentence contains four important terms. The first term is Ethics. The Ethics are the dikaiomata. (From this point forward, the dikaiomata will be referred to as the Ethics.) Thus, what Paul actually wrote in Romans 2.26 is:
If the uncircumcised man keeps the laws Ethics, wont his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
For Paul, the Ethics alone determine whether God views a man as circumcised or not. (The Ethics alone determine who is a true Jewa member of the Faith.) Ethics is the first of four critical terms in the single sentence that reconciles Pauls teachings on law. Now its time to unveil the next termthe term Paul used for all the commandments not based on Love your neighbor as yourself. So what term did Paul use for the ritual and sexual purity requirements? The following chapter documents Pauls term for this group.
Chapter Three Putting the Pieces Together

The Dead Sea Scrolls are among the greatest archaeological discoveries. Dead Sea Scroll 4QMMT referred to the ritual and sexual purity requirements as works of the law:
an important document specific to the Qumran community is 4QMMT, which the letters MMT abbreviating a Hebrew phrase meaning Some of the Works of the Law (miqsat maase ha-torah). The phrase works of the law apparently occurs nowhere else in ancient writings other than once in MMT (C 26-27) and eight times in Pauls Letters (in the Greek form erga nomou: Rom. 3.20, 28; Gal. 2.16 [3 times]; 3.2, 5, 10). The works of the law referred to in MMT include over twenty legal issues on which the writers disagree with the recipients of the text and which are detailed earlier in the document. The laws in dispute concern matters of sacrifice, priestly gifts, purity, forbidden marriages, and persons prohibited from entering the sanctuary.85
4QMMT used the phrase works of the law in reference to the commandments between man and God (ritual and sexual purity). Meanwhile, Philo used dikaiomata in reference to the commandments between man and neighbor. Do 4QMMT and Philo provide us the key to unlocking the Pauline paradoxes? Consider the following:
The doers of the dikaiomata will be vindicated before God.Romans 2 By the works of the law no one will be vindicated.Romans 3
According to the external evidence, Paul wrote:

The doers of the commandments between man and neighbor (dikaiomata) are vindicated.86 By the commandments between man and God (works of the law) no one will be vindicated.87 85 The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity by Peter Flint, James VanderKam, p. 351, Continuum International Publishing Group, Jul 10, 2005 86 Cf. Romans 2.13-26 87 Romans 3.20 40
Michael Wood
41
Is solving Paul as simple as that? Has Pauls message always been this straightforward? Its convention to translate the phrase in Romans and 4QMMT as works of the law. However, from this point forward, this work will translate it as Jobs of the Torah instead: The word conventionally translated as work is the Greek term ergon. This word can be used to describe work, occupation, and, in its plural (erga), tasksin other words, jobs. Paul uses the verb derived from ergon to refer to employment in Romans 4.88 Thus, he has the jobs aspect of this word in sight when he uses it in Romans 3. The word conventionally translated as law is the Greek term nomos. Paul grew up studying a Greek version of the Jewish scriptures known as the Septuagint. Much of Pauls religious vocabulary comes from this source. Torah (the Jewish law) is translated as nomos in almost all of the 270 instances in the Septuagint.89 Hence, Paul often used nomos in direct reference to Torah (the Jewish legal code). For the above reasons, Pauls term for the ritual and purity requirements will appear in this work as Jobs of the Torah. Now you know two more terms from the single sentence which resolves Risnens 300-page catalogue: Ethicscommandments based on Love your neighbor as yourself. Jobscommandments not based on Love your neighbor as yourself. TorahJewish law. Its actually quite easy to demonstrate that these were the meanings of Pauls terminology. Consider the following three concepts in Romans:
88 In Romans 4.4-5, Paul used the Greek verb ergazomai. 89 Paul and the Mosaic Law by James Dunn, p. 17, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Jan 1, 2001
42
Only the commandments based on Love your neighbor as yourself are the Christian Law.90 The doers of the Ethics are vindicated before God.91 By the Jobs no one is vindicated before God.92 There is only one way to put these three concepts together: Ethics are the commandments based on Love your neighbor as yourself. Jobs are the commandments not based on Love your neighbor as yourself. Thats the only way to put the above together. Furthermore, the definition of Ethics and Jobs is demonstrable on another level in Pauls writings. The following three concepts are also found in Romans: Only commandments belonging to the same group as dont commit adultery and dont steal are Christian Law.93 The Ethics include the commandments dont commit adultery and dont steal.94 The Jobs include the circumcision requirement.95 Theres only one way to put all these pieces together: Only the Ethics are Christian Law; the Torahs Jobs are not. Thus, the following is demonstrated twice over in Pauls letter to the Romans: Paul used Love your neighbor as yourself to divide the law. The Ethics were the commandments based on Love your neighbor as yourself.
90 Romans 13.8-9 91 Romans 2.13-26 92 Romans 3.20 93 Romans 13.8-9 94 Romans 2.21-22, 26 (Paul is chastising the Jews for violating the dikaiomata by stealing and committing adultery. Thus, the prohibitions on stealing and committing adultery were part of the dikaiomata). 95 Romans 2.26 (Paul wrote that an uncircumcised person can fulfill the dikaiomata. Therefore, the circumcision requirement isnt among the dikaiomata.)
Michael Wood
43
The Jobs were the commandments not based on Love your neighbor as yourself. Its important never to impose outside sources onto Pauls letters. All that matters are the two internal demonstrations of these terms in Pauls letter to the Romans. But its still nice that the internal demonstration is supported two times over and also happens to coincide with the external evidence toonot to mention the fact that it simultaneously resolves Risnens 300-page catalogue. Any way we slice it, we come to the same conclusion: Paul considered Torah to be divided between Ethics and Jobsand converts were solely required to fulfill the Ethics (via brotherly love). But how does the solution tally with orthodox Christianity? Since the first century, there have been three ways to divide Jewish law: Ethics/JobsThis was the dominant first-century Jewish division, and its the one specified by Paul himself. Ethics were the commandments based on brotherly love. The Jobs were all the commandments not based on brotherly love. Morality/RitualThis division overtook the Faith very early on when Gentile Christians rejected Jewish input. John Calvin, the most influential Protestant Reformer, also believed in this division. Indivisible WholeThis notion entered Christianity after the Protestant Reformation. It teaches that there was no division of Jewish law. Rather, Paul viewed the law as one indivisible whole. This view is very popular among modern evangelical scholars. Many sources attest to the original Ethics/Jobs division.96
96 The Jewish nation divided their commandments into two groups: commandments between man and God (mitzvot bein adam lamakom) and commandments between man and man (mitzvot bein adam lachaveiro). (mishna Yoma 8:9) Philo documents that the commandments between man and God included all the piety and purity regulations; whereas the commandments between man and man included ethics and justice (Special Laws 2.63). Philo further explained that the commands between man and God are encapsulated in love of God and the commands between man and man are encapsulated in love of neighbor (Decalogue 108-110). Philo presents this dual division of the law based on the two love commandments as though obvious or
44
The other two divisions were invented later:

Calvin argued that Christ is the end of the ceremonial law but not the moral law; now, however, it is the commonly held view that the law is indivisible. Brice L. Martin
Early Gentile Fathers invented the morality/ritual division, which became a staple of Catholicism. When Calvin broke from the Catholic Church, he inherited this view. Since Calvins time, most evangelical denominations adopted the view that Paul treated the law as an indivisible whole. Lets take a look at all three divisions, beginning with the newest one first.
well-known. (Resurrecting Jesus: the earliest Christian tradition and its interpreters by Dale C. Allison, p. 154, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005) The notion that the two love commands (love God and love neighbor ) encompass all of Gods commandments is presumed throughout the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (t. Issachar 5:2, 7:6-7; t. Dan 5:1-3; t. Gad 4:1-2; t. Jos 11:1; t. Benj. 3:-1-3; t. Reub. 6:8-9). Of particular note is t. Dan 5:1-3, Observe, therefore, my children, the commandments of the Lord, and keep His law Love the Lord through all your life, and one another with a true heart. The New Testament further documents that the ancient Jewish nation considered the two love commands (love God and love neighbor ) to encompass all of Gods commandments. Luke 10:26-27, And Jesus asked the expert in the law, What is written in the law? How do you read it? And the legal expert answered, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself. That the commands based on Leviticus 19:18 (Love your neighbor as yourself ) were an independent group of commands is further documented in multiple sources. For example Hillel, the head of one of the greatest Pharisaic schools, stated that the Golden Rule (which was interchangeable with Leviticus 19:18 during his day) contained within it all the commands that a Gentile convert must follow (t. Shabbos 31a). Jesus referenced the commands based on Leviticus 19:18 as an independent group (Matthew 19:16-20). Paul referenced the commands based on Leviticus 19:18 as an independent group (Romans 13:9). James declared Leviticus 19:18 to be the Kings Law and then proceeded to give examples of Old Testament commandments based upon itcommands such as Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, and Dont show favoritism (James 2:8-10). Murder and adultery were forbidden in the Decalogue and showing favoritism was forbidden in Leviticus 19:15. Moreover, James entire letter deals exclusively with Old Testament commands based on Leviticus 19:18 and is structured around this very concept.
Michael Wood
45
Paul viewed the law as an indivisible whole? This view creates insurmountable tensions in Romans 2-3. Consider the famous Romans 2.13/3.20 paradox:
The doers of the law will be vindicated. By the works of the law no one will be vindicated.
If the law was an indivisible whole, then these two statements are diametrical opposites. (The whole law vindicates and the whole law doesnt vindicate.) Welcome to the division of the law that causes scholars to want to discard Romans 2. But theres no reason to discard an entire chapter written by Paul. The two chapters are effortlessly reconciled the moment we realize they are discussing two different groups of commandments: Romans 2.13-26 discusses a specific group of commandments: the Torahs Ethics (dikaiomata).97 Romans 3.20 discusses a specific group of commandments: the Torahs Jobs (erga). The moment we recognize this, all the tension instantly disappears:
The doers of the Ethics are vindicated By the Jobs no one will be vindicated.
Theres nothing to even reconcile. In fact, the statements are two sides of the same coin. And, when it comes to the supposedly indivisible law, lets not forget: Some of Moses commands are still in force. Some of Moses commands are no longer in force. The indivisible-law notion is invalidated by this. For example, Paul wrote that stealing violates the law:
Youre preaching not to steal, and youre stealing!... You boast of law, but bring dishonor on God by breaking the law!98
Do not steal was a precept of Moses law that was still in force.99
97 Romans 2.26 states that the Torahs Ethics are in view. 98 Romans 2.21, 23 99 See also Romans 13.8-9.
46
Meanwhile, circumcision (another commandment of Moses law) was no longer in force:

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God100Paul
Stealing remains unlawful while circumcision is no longer part of the law! The indivisible law notion is simply untenable, as is seen in Pauls numerous positive/negative statements about law. If Paul treated the law as an indivisible whole, then: Paul often wrote positively about the whole law. Paul often wrote negatively about the whole law. This view adds tension to every positive/negative pair. It is the opposite of a solution. So what about the division that came before this one? Does it qualify as a solution? Paul viewed the law as being divided into ritual and morality? Weve already discussed the shortcoming of this division in relationship to prostitute sex. Paul wrote that all things are lawful in the context of prostitute sex. Risnen concluded that this means Paul didnt have a legal code to appeal to. Actually, this isnt true. Its quite the opposite! Paul did appeal to a legal code. Based on that legal code, he declared that all things are lawful in this context. The same goes for eating meat sacrificed to idols. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul declared all things are lawful in the context of eating idol meat.
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience sake; FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORDS, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you101
Paul wrote that all things are lawful in the context of food, including food sacrificed to idols.
100 1 Corinthians 7.19 NASB 101 1 Corinthians 10.23, 25-27 NASB
Michael Wood
47
It would be impossible to overstate the significance of this. Eating food sacrificed to idols was strongly considered idolatry by most Jews. From their perspective, Paul was promoting idolatry itself. Proponents of the moral/ritual division believe that Paul preserved the entire Decalogue. (The Decalogue is considered part of the moral code.) The first commandment of the Decalogue prohibited idolatry. Risnen was perplexed why Paul wrote all things are lawful regarding an issue which most Jews considered to be idolatry. He wondered why Paul didnt simply invoke the first commandment:
It is striking that he does not resort to the first commandment [of the Decalogue].102
Risnen is correct. If Paul preserved the entire moral code, then he could easily have appealed to it when discussing eating meat sacrificed to idols. Yet, Paul declared all things are lawful in this context as well. Paul applied his legal code to determine that all things are lawful. In other words, he used brotherly love to parse the moral issues of prostitute sex and idol meat. (Since neither of these violate brotherly love, all things are lawful in both contexts.) This is the code behind all Pauls teachings on morality. We saw Erasmus angst over trying to fit Pauls teachings into the moral/ritual rubric. Erasmus continued to beat his head all his life, to no avail. Risnen and other modern scholars have stopped beating their heads and simply concluded that Paul was inconsistent. Theres a good reason why Erasmus (and others) have never been able to squeeze Pauls teachings into this framework: Pauls teachings on law arent split along the traditional moral/ritual lines. This is not a legitimate solution. Meanwhile, the real solution has always been simple
102 Paul and the Law by Heikki Risnen, p. 48, Mohr Siebeck 1987
48
Paul viewed the law as being divided between Ethics and Jobs? Weve already seen two internal demonstrations which document Pauls use of the Ethics/Jobs division. Lets now add another to the list. Heres a quick rundown of Pauls legal rulings discussed so far: IllegalMurder IllegalStealing IllegalAdultery LegalProstitute sex LegalSecretly eating idol meat LegalCircumcision Theres only one solution to this combination: Paul considered the law to be divided between Ethics and Jobs. Thats the only possible way to reconcile the above combination of legal rulings found in Pauls letters. Pauls division has now been internally demonstrated three times over; his terminology matches the external evidence; this division was dominant in the Judaism of Pauls day; and the division fully reconciles Risnens catalogue. Pauls division of law has truly been solved. With this in mind, consider the four major questions that remained unsolved at the end of the recent symposium. We can already succinctly solve three out of the four. (The fourth one will be solved later on.)
Does the phrase works of the law express Jewish self-understanding (and if so what?), or simply Pauls own (possibly idiosyncratic) experience of the law? Works of the Law referred to all the commandments not based on Love your neighbor as yourself. How can we correlate the seemingly positive assertions Paul also makes (about believers fulfilling the law) with his more negative comments? Paul wrote positively about the necessity of keeping the Ethics, and he wrote negatively regarding the necessity of keeping the Jobs. Can all his statements about the law be synthesized into a single coherent view? Yes. His statements about the law can be synthesized into a single sentence.
The one sentence that synthesizes all of Pauls statements about law is unveiled in the following chapter.
Chapter Four How Presumptuous

The New Testament is a collection of books written by various authors. The New Testament collection contains three kinds of books: GospelsBooks written to explain Jesus teachings to those who are unfamiliar with them. EpistlesLetters written to people who are already familiar with Jesus teachings. Apocalyptic LiteratureHighly symbolic, figurative works (e.g. Revelation). All of Pauls writings are Epistles. Paul wrote letters to people who were already familiar with Jesus teachings. Because Pauls works are Epistles, they dont attempt to teach the fundamentals of the Faith. On the contrary! The reader is expected to already know the basics of the Faith. This is a most critical distinction. Does this mean that we cant ascertain the basics from Pauls letters? In no way! It simply means we need to look for that which Paul presumed his readers already knew. The things which Paul presumed his readers knew must have been the fundamentals of the Faith. With this in mind, lets see what Paul presumed his readers already knew. Romans: In Romans 13.8-9 Paul wrote:
He who loves others has fulfilled the Law because dont commit adultery, dont murder, dont steal, dont covet, and if there is any other commandment it is summed up in this utterance: Love your neighbor as yourself.103
He who loves others fulfills the law because only the Ethics are the Law. The latter part of this sentence is presumed.
103 Romans 13:8-9 49
50
Paul presumed the Romans already knew that Love your neighbor as yourself is the Law. Paul used this presumed knowledge to argue that everyone who loves others fulfills the entire law. Knowledge of Jesus Law of brotherly love was so basic, so fundamental to Christianity, that Paul built his argument on top of it. Many scholars gloss over this all-important fact. Paul does not teach that Love your neighbor as yourself is the Law. Rather, Paul presumes the reader already knows this. This is one of the basics of first-century Christianity! Galatians: In Galatians 5.13-14 Paul wrote:
you are enslaved to one another in love because the entire law is fulfilled in one utterance, Love your neighbor as yourself.104
In Galatians, Paul didnt teach that Love your neighbor as yourself is the entire Law. On the contrary! He presumed every reader already knew this, and he used their prior knowledge to explain why they are enslaved to love. Heres another example from Galatians:
Bear one anothers burdens and in this manner fulfill the Law of Christ.105
Paul doesnt explain the Law of Christ, nor does he introduce it. He simply refers to it presuming the reader already knows what it is. He also presumed the reader already knew the relationship between Love your neighbor as yourself and the Law of Christ.
you are enslaved to one another in love because the entire law is fulfilled in one utterance, Love your neighbor as yourself. Bear one anothers burdens and in this manner fulfill the Law of Christ.106
Any legitimate explanation of Paul must address the fact that he presumed his readers already knew that Love your neighbor as yourself is the entire Law, and he presumed they knew how this relates to the Law of Christ:
104 Galatians 5.13b-14 105 Galatians 6.2 106 Galatians 5.13b-14, 6.2
Michael Wood
51
Any attempt to do justice to Pauls ethical theory in Galatians would have to begin by recognizing that whatever theory guides his exhortation, from his use of the love commandments (Lev 19:18) to his appeal to the law of Christ (Gal 6:2), belongs for the most part to that great domain of assumptions that the apostle presumes to share with his readers. It is important to observe that Paul appeals to the love commandment and the law of Christ without any explanation or justification. This makes sense only if the apostle had already, presumably during his visit, taught the Galatians how ones ethical obligation in Christ relates materially to the teachings of the Torah.107Dr. Charles Crosgrove
1 Corinthians: In 1 Corinthians Paul wrote:

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping Gods commandments. I was not under Torah not being without Gods law but under the Law of Christ108Paul
Paul presumed the Corinthians understood why circumcision is not a commandment of God. He also presumed they knew the difference between the Torah and the Law of Christ. He further presumed they already knew: What the commandments of God were. What the Law of Christ was. What Torah was. How all three of them relate to one another. 1 Thessalonians: Pauls earliest surviving letter is 1 Thessalonians. Even in this very early work we find:
you have known the commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus 1 Thessalonians 4.2 107 The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians by Charles H. Cosgrove, p. 162, Mercer University Press, 1988. Note: Dr. Cosgrove currently serves as Professor of Early Christian Literature at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. He was formerly the Professor of New Testament Studies and Christian Ethics at Northern Seminary, Lombard, Ill. 108 1 Corinthians 7.19, 9.21-22 NASB
52
Paul didnt reteach Jesus commandments to the Thessalonians. Rather, he referred to the commandments that they already knew. And so it was with all the letters he wrote. Conclusion The Pauline corpus reveals something startling about first-century Christianity: Knowledge of Jesus Law was so fundamental to the Faith that it is presumed in Pauls letters. (Knowledge of Jesus Law is presumed in Romans, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Thessalonians.) Paul expected all his readers to already know Jesus Law Love your neighbor as yourself. This most fundamental tenet of first-century Christianity is virtually unknown to modern Christians, which is why scholars have overlooked the one sentence that resolves Pauls teachings on law. The sentence has four key terms: Ethicsall the commandments based on Love your neighbor as yourself. Jobsall the commandments not based on Love your neighbor as yourself. TorahJewish law. Jesus Lawthe utterance Love your neighbor as yourself. The sentence is simple: Only the Ethics are Jesus Law; the Torahs Jobs are not. Thats it. Thats the entire organizing principle for Pauls teachings on law. Thats the sentence that resolves Risnens catalogue. And theres good reason why it does: Paul wrote his letters presuming that every reader already knew that Jesus Law is Leviticus 19:18Love your neighbor as yourself. In other words, Paul wrote his letters presuming that every reader already knew: Only the Ethics are Jesus Law; the Torahs Jobs are not. I have simply codified Pauls presumption into a single sentence. Its critical to note that Jesus Law is the utterance Love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus Law is not the collection of individual Ethics. This was central to Pauls view of law. Allow me to explain.
Michael Wood
53
Paul often distinguished between the Jewish legal code and the prophetic utterances of God. Romans 13.9 is consistent with this. Paul distinguished between each ethical commandment (entol) and the Leviticus 19.18 utterance (logos):
dont commit adultery, dont murder, dont steal, dont covet, and if there is any other commandment (entol) it is summed up in this utterance (log): You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Paul didnt consider Leviticus 19.18 to be a precept of the Jewish legal code.
Furthermore, Paul evidently does not regard Leviticus 19.18 as a commandment of the Mosaic code, nor then as the essence of this code. He refers to Leviticus 19.18 as a word (logos), as he will again in Romans 13.9. it is probably no accident that Paul avoids the word commandment (entol) in this context109 Martinus C. De Boer
Paul saw Leviticus 19.18 as an utterance of Godan utterance which prophetically anticipated the replacement of the written commandments. This is how Paul could write that he was not under Torah but under the Law of Christ. He was no longer under the written commandments, but under the utterance Love your neighbor as yourself the utterance that fulfills all the Ethics. The most basic presumption in Pauls letters is the following: One law (the written Torah) was replaced with another (Jesus spiritual Law). Everything he wrote was to be read from this perspective. And when it is read from this perspective, everything he wrote is seamless, fluid, without even the slightest hint of contradiction. Risnens catalogue of contradictions vanishes into thin air.
109 Galatians: A Commentary by Martinus C. De Boer, p. 349, Westminster John Knox Press, Aug 8, 2011
Chapter Five The Missing Key

When I was a child, I was enthralled by an oxymoronic rhyme:
One bright day in the middle of the night, Two dead men got up to fight. Back to back they faced each other. They drew their swords and shot each other. A deaf policeman heard the noise. He came and shot those two dead boys. If you dont believe this lie is true, Ask the blind man, he saw it too.
Conventional Bibles portray Paul just as ridiculously (at least when it comes to his teachings on law). Galatians 5.4-6.2 is a perfect example. In this short section, Paul seemingly denigrates the law, then upholds the law, then denigrates the law again, then upholds the law again! In this short section, Paul supposedly taught: Converts who keep the law will fall from grace. Converts must enslave themselves to the law. Converts are not under law. Converts must fulfill the law. Conventional Bibles portray Paul as the ultimate flip-flopper:
you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Bear one anothers burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.110
According to modern translations, Paul flip-flops back and forth, much like the oxymoronic rhyme.
110 Excerpted from Galatians 5.4-6.2 NASB 54
Michael Wood
55
Conventional Bibles make a mockery out of Pauls legal teachings. Yet Pauls message was so simple that a child can understand it. Paul was simply referring to two different laws. Paul denigrated Torah and extolled Jesus Lawparadox averted! When translating Pauls writings, the translator should let the reader know which law is being referenced: Torah or Jesus Law. Many of Pauls supposed paradoxes effortlessly resolve themselves the moment we adopt the following notation: Use the word Torah whenever Paul is writing about the Jewish legal code. Use the word Law (with a capital L) whenever Paul is writing about Jesus Law. Notice how the paradoxes resolve themselves: Converts who keep the Torah will fall from grace. Converts must enslave themselves to the Law. Converts are not under Torah. Converts must fulfill the Law. Most Pauline Paradoxes could be avoided at the translation level. Galatians 5.4-6.2 is a case in point:
you have fallen from grace, you who are seeking to be vindicated by Torah. enslave yourselves to one another through love because the entire Law is fulfilled in one utteranceLove your neighbor as yourself. if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under Torah. Bear one anothers burdens and in this way fulfill the Law of Christ.
In Galatians 5.4-6.2, Paul effortlessly alternates between two laws: Torah and Jesus Law. But what happens if someone doesnt know that Paul alternates between them? This would lead to utter confusion. This isnt hyperbole. On the contrary! The greatest difficulty in resolving Pauls letters stems from an unawareness of the presence of two well-defined laws. Consider the following example from a textbook on Pauline studies:
56
Pauline Paradoxes Decoded The basic problem in interpreting Pauls Christian view of the Jewish law is that he seems to say both positive and negative things about it. For example, apparently negative statements include the following Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law (Gal 3:13). But on the other hand, consider the positive statements: through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Gal 5.13-14). How then are we to make sense of these contrasting, even contradictory statements? Some scholars, notably Heikki Risnen, have argued that Pauls various statements about the law cannot be harmonized into a coherent or systematic scheme: Paul is simply inconsistent. Others suggest that Pauls thought developed between his different letters, notably between Galatians and Romans; but since both positive and negative statements occur within the same letters (e.g. Galatians; see above) such an answer seems less than complete. As for Pauls consistency, few would want to argue that Paul was rigorously consistent or systematic in all that he wrote111An Introduction to the Study of Paul
The textbook offers various alternative explanations of Pauls treatment of law, only to conclude that few would want to argue that Paul was rigorously consistent or systematic in all he wrote. Yet, the textbook doesnt even list the notion of two laws as an explanation even though this explanation shows that Paul was rigorously consistent and systematic in all that he wrote. The textbook assumes that Galatians says positive and negative things about the same lawthe lawit. Galatians 3.13 supposedly denigrates the very same law that Galatians 5.14 extols. Of course Paul was inconsistent if he denigrated and extolled the same law. The textbook correctly notes that the positive/negative oscillation is the basic problem in interpreting Pauls view of law. And look! There is no problem! Galatians simply teaches that humanity is free from the curse of the Torah (3.13) in order to be enslaved to loving one another in accordance with Jesus Law (5.14-15). There is zero tension the moment we acknowledge the presence of two lawsthe two laws that Paul presumed every reader already knew. The textbook basic problem is self-invented by imposing a one-law mentality onto a letter which speaks about two laws.
111 An Introduction to the Study of Paul by David G. Horrell, p. 91, Continuum International Publishing Group, Aug 30, 2006.
Michael Wood
57
This one-law mentality is pervasive in Pauline scholarship. Below is another scholarly work that assumes Paul wrote positively and negatively about the law:
As Brice L. Martins recent study highlights, the most striking feature about the data concerning the role of the Law in Pauls writings is that the apostle speaks about it in both negative and positive ways. From a negative perspective, the Law brings a curse (Gal. 3:13), wrath (Rom. 4:15), sin (rom. 7:7-13), and death (Rom. 7:9-11; 2 Cor. 3:6-9); produces transgressions (Rom. 4:15; Gal. 3:19); enslaves (Rom. 6:14; 7:4-6, 23-25; Gal. 3:23; 4:5, 21-31); and is fatal (Rom. 3:20; 6:14; Gal 3:11; 5:4). From a positive point of view, the Law is of divine origin (Rom. 7:22, 25; 8:7, 9:4); contains the will of God (Rom. 2:17-18); is holy (Rom. 7:12, 14, 16) and loving (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14); is established by faith (Rom. 3:31; 9:30-10:4); and is obeyed by the power of the Spirit (Rom. 8:4). This sense of ambivalence about the role of the Law extends to Christians themselves, who on the one hand are no longer obligated to keep the Law (Rom. 6:14; 7:4, 6; Gal. 2:19; 3:13), but on the other hand are expected to fulfill its ideals (Rom. 2:12-16; 5:14; 6:2; 8:4; 13:8-10).112
The above scholarly work assumes that there is one lawthe law it. Numerous scholars believe that Paul wrote positively and negatively about the same law. Even Heikki Risnens book title assumes there is only one lawPaul and the Law. The scholars who believe that Paul denigrated and extolled the same law are the same scholars who translate conventional Bibles. They produce translations as ridiculous as the oxymoronic rhyme above (e.g. Galatians 5.4-6.2). This one-law mentality also results in blatant mistranslations. The following isnt merely poorly wordedit is a blatant mistranslation:
you are not under law, but under grace.113
According to the translation, converts arent under any law whatsoever. But Paul did consider his converts under law. He considered them under the Law of Christ. The translation is patently wrong. Pauls original message was:
you are not under Torah, but under grace114 112 The End of the Age has Come: The Theology of Paul by C. Marvin Pate, pp. 125-126, Zondervan, Feb 15, 1995 113 Romans 6.15 114 Romans 6.14
58
The one-law mentality results in paradoxical translations:

you are not under law. fulfill the law of Christ.115
Christians arent under law yet are commanded to fulfill the Law of Christ? Muy curiosa! While this is patently ridiculous, it is very common nonetheless. As previously documented:
Nearly three centuries ago J. A. Bengel referred to the Law of Christ as a rara appellatio. Recent interpreters, however, have been less discreet. They now refer to the Law of Christ as most remarkable, arresting, strange, muy curiosa, striking, extremely baffling, doubly astonishing, a breathtaking paradox, a much-puzzled-over-term, and oxymoron tonnant, indeed a phrase more likely to mislead than instruct.116
Recognizing Pauls two laws instantly resolves the confusion. Theres nothing strange, striking, or baffling left. All the passages tensions disappear:
you are not under Torah. fulfill the Law of Christ.
Remarkably, the above is Pauls fundamental teaching in a nutshell: You are not under Torah, fulfill the Law of Christ. The interpretors confusion, therefore, isnt over some stray concept. On the contrary! This confusion is over a fundamental tenet of Christianity (at least from Pauls perspective). Paul presumed every reader already knew this.117 Hence, to know Christianity was to know Jesus Law; to know Jesus Law was to know Christianity. If knowledge of Jesus Law was so basic that it was presumed in Pauls letters, what does this say about commentators who cry Muy curiosa! over it? The irony is breathtaking. So is that it? Is understanding Paul as simple as recognizing that he alternated between two laws? Resolving Pauls letter to the Galatians is indeed that easy. However, resolving Pauls entire corpus isnt quite that simple. Theres good reason why Paul seemed paradoxical for so many centuries. What is this reason? Paul effortlessly alternates on two different levels:
115 Galatians 5.18, 6.2 116 The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia: Reassessing the Purpose of Galatians by Todd A. Wilson, pp. 100-101, Mohr Siebeck, Jun 30, 2007 117 See chapter four, How Presumptuous.
Michael Wood
59
Sometimes Paul alternates between Torah and Jesus Law. Sometimes Paul alternates between the two parts of Torah: Jobs and Ethics. Jesus Law fulfills the Torahs Ethics. Theres a one-to-one relationship between Jesus Law and the Torahs Ethics. Therefore, Paul has two different ways to express the same thing. He can either contrast Jesus Law to the Torah. Or he can contrast the Torahs Ethics to the Torahs Jobs. Galatians 5.4-6.2 (above) is an example where Paul oscillated between Torah and Jesus Law. Romans 2.13-3.20 (below) is an example where Paul oscillated between the two parts of the Torah:
the doers of the Torahs Ethics will be vindicated no one will be vindicated by the Torahs Jobs
Sometimes Paul oscillated between two parts of the Torah: Ethics and Jobs. Other times he oscillated between Torah and Jesus Law. This dual-level oscillation is what has caused Paul to seem paradoxical for the last 1,900 years. And theres one more twist: In some passages, Paul oscillates on both levels at the same time. (He oscillates between Torah/Law and he oscillates between Jobs/Ethics in the same passage. An example will be provided later.) On the surface this seems very confusing. But thats why I developed a very simple statement which expresses the dual-level oscillation in one simple sentence: Only the Ethics are Jesus Law; the Torahs Jobs are not. The sentence is deceptively simple. Yet it holds the key to unlocking Pauls message because: The sentence expresses the oscillation between Jesus Law and Torah. The sentence also expresses the oscillation between the two parts of the Torah: Ethics and Jobs. Moreover, the sentence fully expresses the interrelationship between Jesus Law, Torah, Ethics, and Jobs.
60
Yes, the sentence is simple. However, this simple sentence fully expresses the complex interrelationships that have caused scholars to stumble for the last 1,900 years. That is why it works where so many other explanations have failed. The missing key to unlocking Pauls teachings has finally been found: Only the Ethics are Jesus Law; the Torahs Jobs are not. This was the foundation of Pauls theology. Everything else he taught was built upon this.
Upcoming Sections
All of Pauls positive/negative statements are fully explained in a single sentence: Only the Ethics are Jesus Law; the Torahs Jobs are not. In other words, everyone who loves others fulfills the entire Law, and therefore is vindicated before God. Thus, Only the doers of the law will be vindicated (Romans 2.13). Moreover, thats why Gentiles who love others are vindicated before God without any knowledge of Jesus because they kept the law. Theres only one way to reconcile Pauls positive/negative statements. Yet, the only possible solution has certainly opened Pandoras Box. Paul was a very different man than Christianity has believed for the last 1,900 years. Of course the solution is going to be challenged (as well it should be). Therefore, Section III: Law and Risnen documents that the solution does indeed resolve Risnens catalogue. This leaves Christians with the following choice: Accept the theological implications of the one sentence that fully resolves Risnens catalogue, or Cling to the theology that created the 300 pages of contradictions in the first place. Pauls legal statements cannot be reconciled under the rubric of Christian orthodoxy. After all, traditional Christian doctrine is the very reason why Pauls statements remained unresolved throughout the centuries. Section IV: Law and Protestant Reformation documents how Christian doctrine created the paradoxes in the first place. (The paradoxes simply dont exist in Pauls original letters.) Many have asked how Sanders New Perspective deals with Pauls positive/negative statements. Section V: Law and Sanders documents that Sanders movement denies the integrity of Pauls teachings on lawovertly discarding more than just Romans 1-2.
61
It is only natural, at first, to consider it preposterous that Christianity could have a backwards understanding of Paul. Yet, there is a very straightforward (and documentable) answer as to why this is so. Section VI: Law and Judaism documents that Christianity literally has a backwards understanding of the Judaism that existed during Pauls day. This backwards understanding of first-century Judaism necessitates that Christianity have a backwards understanding of the first-century Jew named Paul. The apostle Paul explicitly wrote that everyone who loves others fulfills the entire Law. So why dont theologians accept the simplicity of his message? EP Sanders explains why Pauls legal teachings on brotherly love cannot be accepted as written:
There is nothing self-evident, on the basis of the principle love your neighbor, about saying that homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6.9-11). Similarly the principle does not, abstractly considered, ban fornication. Paul apparently felt the standard Jewish repugnance for Gentile sexual practices. Paul did not work out a full legal system, his rulings seem ad hoc, and many of them may have come as a surprise to his converts, since they do not necessarily follow from the admonitions to love the neighbor and walk by the Spirit.1EP Sanders
Most theologians believe that Paul excluded fornicators and homosexuals from Gods Kingdom. Therefore, they conclude that Paul did not work out a full legal system, his rulings seem ad hoc. This is a polite way of saying: Paul contradicted his own teaching that brotherly love fulfills the entire Law. Ive encountered five main objections to Pauls teaching on brotherly love fulfilling the Law: The belief that Paul excluded fornicators from Gods Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 6.9. The belief that Paul excluded homosexuals from Gods Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 6.9.
1 The English word legal has been substituted for the word halakic. (As Sanders states in a corresponding footnote: Halakah is detailed and applied law.) Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People by EP Sanders, p. 95, Fortress Press, 1985 62
The belief that Paul excluded homosexuals from Gods Kingdom in Romans 1.24-27. The fact that Paul excluded idolators from Gods Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 6.9. The fact that Paul emphasized faith over the written Torah. While scholars concurred that the one-sentence solution resolves Pauls positive/negative flip-flops, they also believed the one-sentence solution stood in tension with the above. Thus, addressing Risnens catalogue was only one-half of the necessary research to assess the one-sentence solution. The second-half involved examining all five issues. In the end, the one-sentence solution was bolstered by the additional analysis, as the following sections document: Section VIII: Law and HeterosexualityAssesses the belief that Paul excluded fornicators from Gods Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 6.9. Section IX: Law and PederastyAssesses the belief that Paul excluded homosexuals from Gods Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 6.9. Section X: Law and HomosexualityAssesses the belief that Paul excluded homosexuals from Gods Kingdom in Romans 1.24-27. Section XI: Law and IdolatryAssesses the fact that Paul excluded idolators from Gods Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 6.9. Section XII: Law and FaithAssesses the fact that Paul emphasized faith over the written Torah. As will be demonstrated by the end of this work, the one-sentence solution ties together everything Paul wrote. The enigma of Paul has truly been solved. Yet, the solution raises one burning question, If salvation is by brotherly love alone, why then did Jesus die on the cross? Paul addressed this very question! And Pauls surprising answer to this question is documented in Section XIII: Law and Atonement. Pauline Paradoxes Decoded unveils the historical Paul; the Paul known to the original first-century converts.
63
Pauline Paradoxes Decoded doesnt present a new understanding of Christianity. Rather, it sheds light on how Christianity was originally viewed during the first couple centuries of the Faith. It explains why first-century works such as the Epistle of Barnabas referred to Jesus new Law, as if this Law was already widely known to his readership. It also explains why the Didache, another first-century Christian work, emphasizes ethics through and through. Pauline Paradoxes Decoded even shows that Philo Judaeus, a Jewish contemporary of Paul, directly referred to Jesus followers. For centuries, critics of Christianity have claimed that there is no historical evidence outside the New Testament documenting the existence of Christianity during Pauls lifetime. The reason scholars missed the historical evidence is due to their looking for a version of Christianity that didnt exist during Pauls lifetime. However, the historical first-century Jesus Movement is easily seen in Philos writingsin Philos vehement attack on those converting to the Faith. Michael Wood has identified the first external reference to Christianity concurrent with Pauls lifetime. This, in and of itself, is a historical finding of immense significance. Yet the book unveils numerous surprises regarding Paul, first-century Christianity, and first-century Judaism. Pauline Paradoxes Decoded places Pauls letters back within their first-century environment. When they are read from this perspective, the letters read seamlessly and fluidly from beginning to end revealing the long-lost views of the apostle Paul in the process. One of the more significant surprises has been the recovery of Pauls original view of homosexuality. Christians know that Paul taught brotherly love as the entirety of the Law. Yet, they also believe that Paul wrote that no homosexual shall enter Gods Kingdom. Most Christians, therefore, embrace the latter at the full expense of the former. If theres one single issue that causes people to reject the Ethics as Pauls entire Law, it is the issue of homosexuality. Therefore, this introduction includes all of Section IX. (Section IX assesses the belief that 1 Corinthians 6.9 originally excluded homosexuals from Gods Kingdom.)
64
Section IX Law and Pederasty
Chapter Forty In The Beginning

Most scholars cite 1 Corinthians 6.9 as if it inherently excludes homosexuals from Gods Kingdom. The Greek of 1 Corinthians 6.9 is as follows:
Dont you know that those lacking altruism cannot inherit Gods Kingdom? Dont be deceived... Neither... arsenokoitai.
Paul excluded the arsenokoitai from Gods Kingdom. So who were the arsenokoitai? History offers two very different translations: Older TranslationRapists of young boys Newer TranslationHomosexuals The first translation is found in Luthers German version of the New Testament. Luther translated arsenokoitai as knabenschander which meant: rapists of young boys.437 The understanding of arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys is also seen in James Donaldsons translation of Theophilus to Autolycus (translated in the late 1800s).438 Arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys persisted at least until 1914, as seen in Papes highly respected Greek-German dictionary.439
437 Das Problem kirchlicher Amtshandlungen an gleichgeschlechtlichen Paaren: Sozialwissenschaftliche, theologische, ethische, poimenische und liturgiewissenschaftliche Perspektiven by Wiebke Krohn, p. 124, V&R unipress GmbH, Aug 15, 2011 438 In Theophilus to Autolycus 1.1.2, Donaldson translates arsenokoitai as corruptors of young boysnot homosexuals. 439 - , mit Knaben Unzucht treiben, Orac. Sibyll. (Wrterbucheintrag Griechisch-Deutsch zu -. Wilhelm Pape: Handwrterbuch der griechischen Sprache. Braunschweig 1914, Band 1, S. 359.) Also, - , , Knabenschnder, Ep. ad . 361 (IX, 686) u. Sp. (Wrterbucheintrag Griechisch-Deutsch zu -. Wilhelm Pape: Handwrterbuch der griechischen Sprache. Braunschweig 1914, Band 1, S. 359.) 275
276
The second translation is found in modern Bibles. They translate arsenokoitai as homosexuals. This translation is a recent development, and a perplexing one at that. After all, why have Bibles replaced a grotesque violation of Jesus Law (i.e. raping young boys) with a nonviolation of Jesus Law (homosexuality)? And why do scholars cite the verse as if it inherently condemns a nonviolation of Jesus Law? This is perplexing indeed. I strongly believe in correcting past translation errors in favor of preserving Jesus Law. But why are modern translators consistently doing the reverse? The Hebrew word which always meant loving-kindness is now being translated as covenant loyalty instead. Enslavement to loving-kindness is now being translated as enslavement to righteousness. Condemnation of child molesters is now being translated as condemnation of homosexuals instead. And so on. There is a discernible movement away from brotherly love as the totality of Pauls Law. In a previous work, The Hidden Bible, I used Bible translations from different time periods to demonstrate Christianitys continual drift away from Jesus Law. As time progressed, Bible translations have consistently gotten farther away from promoting brotherly love as the total fulfillment of the Law. After two thousand years of drift, scholars now mock the idea of reducing essential theology to brotherly love. Yet this was the very foundation of the original Jesus Movement. Scholars originally translated arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys, but then inexplicably changed its meaning independent of any research finding. The change solely corresponded with a theological agenda. The hallmark of this theological agenda is a shift away from brotherly love as the fulfillment of Jesus Law. In the name of promoting the inerrancy of the Bible, many are making Paul appear increasingly selfcontradictory. The irony is astounding.
Michael Wood
277
* * * Did 1 Corinthians 6.9 use arsenokoitai to exclude homosexuals? Consideration 1: Scholars originally translated arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys, but then inexplicably changed its meaning independent of any research finding. The change solely corresponded with a theological agenda.
Chapter Forty-One Same Issues

1 Corinthians 6.9 originally excluded those lacking altruism from Gods Kingdom. It excluded unkind folks such as the pornoi and arsenokoitai:
Dont you know that those lacking altruism cannot inherit Gods Kingdom? Dont be deceived. Neither pornoi... nor arsenokoitai.
Although Paul originally excluded those lacking altruism from Gods Kingdom, conventional Bibles now say that Paul excluded unrighteous people instead. Consequently they translate pornoi as fornicators and arsenokoitai as homosexuals:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor homosexuals440
In the previous section, we identified numerous problems with translating pornoi as fornicators. Translating arsenokoitai as homosexuals has many of the same problems: Chapter thirty-three documents that lack of brotherly love is the issue at hand in 1 Corinthians 6.7-9.Raping young boys inherently violates brotherly love, whereas homosexuality does not. Chapter thirty-four documents that 1 Corinthians 6.910 was a list of those who Paul perceived as lacking altruism. (Its not a list based on religious piety or even general morality for that matter.)Raping young boys is a lack of altruism, whereas homosexuality is not. Chapter thirty-five documents that Paul repeatedly taught: Law is the Judgment Day standard; benevolence alone determines who inherits the kingdom and who doesnt.Raping young boys inherently violates Pauls standard of benevolence, whereas homosexuality does not.
440 1 Corinthians 6.9 NASB 278
Michael Wood
279
Chapter thirty-six documents that Paul used the brotherly love to delineate between sex that excludes people from Gods kingdom and legal misbehavior. Paul so strongly adhered to Jesus Law that he openly conceded that sex with prostitutes was lawful.Raping young boys would be unlawful just as adultery and seducing other mens women. Homosexuality would be lawful misbehavior (at worst) or perfectly permitted (at best). (Well explore Pauls view of homosexuality in the next section: Law and Homosexuality.) Translating arsenokoitai as homosexuals has many of the same issues as translating pornoi as fornicatorsnot to mention the fact that Luthers and Donaldsons translations document a prior awareness of rapists of young boys as the original meaning. Thus, we can start this sections running tally with five established facts. * * * Did 1 Corinthians 6.9 use arsenokoitai to exclude homosexuals? Consideration 1: Scholars originally translated arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys, but then inexplicably changed its meaning independent of any research finding. The change solely corresponded with a theological agenda. Consideration 2: Lack of brotherly love is the issue at hand in 1 Corinthians 6.7-9. Raping young boys inherently violates brotherly love, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 3: 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 was a list of those who Paul perceived as lacking altruism. Raping young boys inherently lacks altruism, whereas homosexuality is not.
280
Consideration 4: Paul repeatedly taught: Since law determines the Judgment Day standard, benevolence alone determines who inherits the kingdom and who doesnt. Raping young boys inherently violates Pauls Judgment Day standard, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 5: Paul used the brotherly love to delineate between sex that excludes people from Gods kingdom and legal misbehavior. Paul so strongly adhered to Jesus Law that he openly conceded that sex with prostitutes was lawful. Raping young boys was unlawful just as adultery and seducing other mens women. Homosexuality was lawful misbehavior (at worst) or perfectly permitted (at best). (Well explore Pauls view of homosexuality in the next section.)
Chapter Forty-Two Everyones Doing It

Pauls mission focused on the benevolent treatment of others. In his society, cruelty was rampant. But perhaps no mistreatment of others was on more visible display than the grotesque injustice committed against young boys. During Pauls day, young boys were raped routinely and regularly. This sad historical fact is documented in numerous ancient sources. For example, in an ancient theatrical play, a man is in bed with a female prostitute and says that hes looking for some land to plow. The female prostitute responds, If its plowing youre after, better go to those who usually get plowedthe boys!441 For many men, sex with young boys was often more desirable than sex with women. This is illustrated in a play written by Quintus Novius, a near contemporary of Paul. One character nonchalantly proclaims, Everyone knows that a boy is superior to a woman.442 The character then proceeds to explain the attributes of boys that turn everyone on. What age were these boys? The upper age was determined by body hair. The moment hair formed on the buttocks or face, the boy was too old to be desired for sex. As one first-century writer casually declared, boys were only desired as long as they will be able to be submissive, before their butts become hairy.443 The moment hair grew on the buttocks or face, the boy was no longer desirable for being raped as a sex toy:
441 Craig A. Williams. Roman Homosexuality: Second Edition (Kindle Locations 458-459). Kindle Edition. 442 Craig A. Williams. Roman Homosexuality: Second Edition (Kindle Locations 480-483). Kindle Edition. 443 Craig A. Williams. Roman Homosexuality: Second Edition (Kindle Locations 488-490). Kindle Edition. 281
282
Pauline Paradoxes Decoded There is no getting away from it, Roman men were attracted to young boys up to a certain agethat age may be defined as the point after puberty that the body developed hair on the buttocks and on the face.444Ray Laurence
What was the lower age limit? There wasnt one:

As Niall McKeown has pointed out, there was no lower age limit.445Ray Laurence
The youngest boys were open to be raped. And raped they were en masse. In many cases, men preferred the youngest boys. They took pleasure in the screaming and wailing produced by the destruction of their virgin innocence.446 It was only legal to rape slave boys. Each citizen boy wore a bracelet called a bulla to signify that they were off-limits for sexual rape.
The bulla (the amulet of childhood) was a distinctive mark of the sexual integrity of Roman boys: it set them apart from the sexually available slave children. 447 Plutarch
Whether Plutarchs conception of the bulla was correct or not, he got the idea after witnessing the nonstop, mass sexual abuse of slave boys (and the fact that the use of citizen boys was illegal). Thats what led him to draw his conclusion. Thats how common sex with young boys was. The less wealthy were forced to use their slave boys for both sex and chores. The wealthy had slave boys set aside exclusively for the purpose of sexual pleasure. And the super-wealthy not only had slave boys reserved for sexual pleasure, but they also had other slaves whose sole function was to keep the boys pretty for their master. Funerary inscriptions mention multiple job titles designating that function.448
444 Roman Passions: A History of Pleasure in Imperial Rome by Ray Laurence, p. 80, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. Note: Professor Ray Laurence serves as Head of the Classical and Archaeological Studies Section. 445 Roman Passions: A History of Pleasure in Imperial Rome by Ray Laurence, p. 80, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. Note: Professor Ray Laurence serves as Head of the Classical and Archaeological Studies Section. 446 Roman Passions: A History of Pleasure in Imperial Rome by Ray Laurence, p. 80, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. Note: Professor Ray Laurence serves as Head of the Classical and Archaeological Studies Section. 447 Children in the Roman Empire: Outsiders Within By Christian Laes p. 243 448 Craig A. Williams. Roman Homosexuality: Second Edition (Kindle Locations
Michael Wood
283
For wealthy men, owning a stock of slave boytoys was one of the most common status symbols of the day. The sons of the family greatly desired their fathers stock of slave boys. The satirist Martial, another near contemporary of Paul, wrote that sons so desired to rape their fathers slave boys that they got busy doing so the very night of their fathers death.449 Before the corpse was even cold, the sons went straight for the slave boysthats how common it was to rape young boys. Even the non-wealthy raped slave boys. Non-wealthy men raped slave boys prostituted by their owners. In fact, Roman calendars marked April 25th as a holiday on which men celebrated the availability of the prostituted slave boys.450 When it came to raping slave boys, everybody was doing it. I could go on and on and on about the extreme commonness of forced, nonconsensual sex with slave boys. In fact, much evidence suggests that sex with slave boys was even more popular than sex with women. It was part and parcel of everyday life. Roman citizens grew up in this environment. Paul preached Christianity in this environment. In this environment, Paul preached about the benevolent treatment of others. So heres the overriding question: Did Paul condemn the most common form of sex of his daythe rape of young boys? Did Paul condemn a far less common form of sex of his dayconsensual adult homosexuality? Historically we are forced to make a choice because the two groups were very different people. Boy rapers preferred sex with women and young boys. The moment hair was formed or the voice matured, the boy went from desirable to detestable. The opposite was true for homosexuals who desired men. The same holds true for today:
665-668). Kindle Edition 449 Craig A. Williams. Roman Homosexuality: Second Edition (Kindle Locations 620-622). Kindle Edition. 450 Craig A. Williams. Roman Homosexuality: Second Edition (Kindle Locations 967-969). Kindle Edition.
284
Pauline Paradoxes Decoded Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as fixated; 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males...451
Men who prefer adult male sex partners were responsible for none of the pederastic acts in the study. And 175 pederastic acts is a significant sample size. Another study used a much less stringent criteria for categorizing a person as gay or lesbian. Yet, even applying this less strict definition to 352 cases of child molestation gays accounted for less than 1% of the child molestation cases:
Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver childrens hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identifiedonly 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).452
We tend to split people into two sexual categories: homosexuals and heterosexuals. However, pederasty defies our modern genderbased terms. Pederasts are almost exclusively nonhomosexuals (in that almost every pederast has a preference for adult female sex partners, not adult male sex partners). Those who prefer adult male sex partners are almost never pederasts. Given the severe limitations of our modern gender-based terms, Ive divided sexuality into three categories: PederastySex as it relates to adult male rape of young boys. HeterosexualitySex as it relates to two adults of the opposite sex.
451 http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html 452 http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Michael Wood
285
HomosexualitySex as it relates to two adults of the same sex. I shall be using these terms in this way. I shall define a persons sexuality based on the preferred adult partner. If a person prefers an adult partner of the opposite sex, he is a heterosexual. If a person prefers an adult partner of the same sex, he is a homosexual. Thus, pederasts are almost exclusively a subclass of heterosexuals. This was true of Pauls day. And it is true of our modern society as well. Pederasty was likely the most common form of sex in the Roman Empire during Pauls day. Most grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, male cousins, adult male children, adult male friends and adult male coworkers were proud pederasts. Homosexuality, on the other hand, was a different matter altogether. Pederasty was extremely public in Pauls culture. This openness caused Pauls culture to be very familiar with the distinction between homosexuals and pederasts. However, given the fortunate rarity of pederasty in modern society, our culture has lost touch with the distinction. This disconnect between Hellenistic realities and our modern culture can be seen in numerous New Testament scholars conflation of homosexuality and pederasty:
The church fathers universally condemned male homosexual behavior. In a standard triad of sexual sins that includes adultery and fornication, arsenokoitia (same root as Pauls term) appears interchangeably with paidophthoria (perversion of boys).453Marion L. Soards
With all due respect to Dr. Soards, if we classify sexuality in terms of preferred adult gender, then the church fathers universally condemned heterosexuality. Of course its ridiculous to extend the condemnation of pederasty to the entire heterosexual community (just as it was equally ridiculous for Soards to extend the condemnation of pederasty to the entire homosexual community under the false assumption that a subset of homosexuals were the pederasts). Dr. Soards statement fails on three levels:
453 Scripture and Homosexuality: Biblical Authority and the Church Today by Marion L. Soards, p. 37, Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Note: Marion Soards serves as Professor of New Testament Studies at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.
286
Its illegitimate to condemn an entire group for the consistent proscribed behavior of a subset of the group. Dr. Soards even got the wrong group! If he wants to extend the condemnation to the appropriate group, it should be men who prefer female adult sex partners because they are almost entirely the pederastsboth in Pauls culture and even today. Dr. Soards assumes that porneia is fornication in the Triple Prohibition. As the previous section documents, the preponderance of the evidence indicates otherwise. Soards is another seminary professor disseminating untruths. His statement is disconnected from both Hellenistic and modern realities. Pauls converts were intimately familiar with the reality that pederasts and homosexuals were two mutually exclusive groups. In fact, the very concept of classifying sex based on gender is less than two centuries old. This gender based distinction was introduced to the modern world in 1869 by a Hungarian physician, Karoly M. Benkert:
In an earlier publication I have shown how erroneous it is to take this modern word, homosexuals, scarcely a century old, and place it on the lips and pens of first-century writers. Benkerts word [homosexual] described a new concept, affectional preference, which was totally at odds with the antique view, where sexual acts were what defined you sexually. In antiquity, a man could be a husband (aner), a frequenter of (female) prostitutes (pornokopos), and also a love of a young man (erastes). Where would such an individual fit in Benkerts neat separation of humanity into heterosexuals and homosexuals on the basis of orientation or preference?454
In reality (which is always a good place to look) pederasts and homosexuals are almost entirely mutually exclusive groups. Meanwhile, pederasty was exceedingly common while homosexuality was relatively uncommon. So who was Paul condemning in 1 Corinthians 6.9: The most common form of sex which also violated Jesus Law? The relatively uncommon form of sex which didnt violate Jesus Law?
454 Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen edited by Jan Krans, Joseph Verheyden, p. 110, BRILL, Dec 9, 2011
Michael Wood
287
Many who argue that 1 Corinthians 6.9 excluded homosexuals from Gods Kingdom wrongly conflate homosexuality and pederasty. They are two separate issues, committed by two different groups of people. And, in the Roman Empire, most adult males were pederasts. Did Paul really turn a blind eye to the rampant rape of young boys only to exclude homosexuals instead? * * * Did 1 Corinthians 6.9 use arsenokoitai to exclude homosexuals? Consideration 1: Scholars originally translated arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys, but then inexplicably changed its meaning independent of any research finding. The change solely corresponded with a theological agenda. Consideration 2: Lack of brotherly love is the issue at hand in 1 Corinthians 6.7-9. Raping young boys inherently violates brotherly love, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 3: 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 was a list of those who Paul perceived as lacking altruism. Raping young boys inherently lacks altruism, whereas homosexuality is not. Consideration 4: Paul repeatedly taught: Since law determines the Judgment Day standard, benevolence alone determines who inherits the kingdom and who doesnt. Raping young boys inherently violates Pauls Judgment Day standard, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 5: Paul used the brotherly love to delineate between sex that excludes people from Gods kingdom and legal misbehavior. Paul so strongly adhered to Jesus Law that he openly conceded that sex with prostitutes was lawful. Raping young boys was unlawful just as adultery and seducing other mens women. Homosexuality was lawful misbehavior (at worst) or perfectly permitted (at best). (Well explore Pauls view of homosexuality in the next section.)
288
Consideration 6: Most grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, male cousins, adult male children, adult male friends and adult male coworkers were proud pederasts. In the Roman Empire, pederasty was extremely common while consensual adult homosexuality was relatively uncommon. From this historical vantage point, it seems evident that 1 Corinthians 6.9 proscribed the exceedingly common sex act and not the relatively uncommon one.
Chapter Forty-Three A Rape by any other Name

During the interviews, one scholar strongly defended the notion that Paul didnt consider pederasty to be rape. Ive since realized that a number of scholars are unaware that Hellenistic Jews considered pederasty as rape. Consider Philos poignant words:
If you are guilty of pederasty, or adultery or rape of a young person, even of a female, for I need not mention the case of a male455
For Philo, pederasty was rape. His comment that he doesnt need to even mention the rape of the male young person is a reflection back on pederasty, which was so common that this form of rape didnt need mention. The author of Pseudo-Lucian also portrayed pederasty as rape (pain and tears):
But why do we not pursue those pleasures that are mutual and bring equal delight to the passive and to the active partners? . . . Now mens intercourse with women involves giving like enjoyment in return. For the two sexes part with pleasure only if they have had an equal effect on each other-unless we ought rather to heed the verdict of Tiresias that the womans enjoyment is twice as great as the mans. And I think it honourable for men not to wish for a selfish pleasure or to seek to gain some private benefit by receiving from anyone the sum total of enjoyment, but to share what they obtain and to requite like with like. But no one could be so mad as to say this in the case of boys. No, the active lover, according to his view of the matter, departs after having obtained an exquisite pleasure, but the one outraged suffers pain and tears at first ... but of pleasure he has none at all.456
Pederasty in the Roman Empire involved slaves. This wasnt a consensual arrangement in any sense.
455 Philo, Hypothetic; 7.1, as cited in Robin Scroggs. New Testament and Homosexuality (p. 90). Kindle Edition. 456 Pseudo-Lucian, Ertes 27, as cited in Robin Scroggs. New Testament and Homosexuality (p. 56). Kindle Edition. 289
290
The slave boys desires werent a consideration. The sex was nonconsensual rape, and the detractors of pederasty saw it as such. Plutarch, a Roman contemporary of Paul, wrote about the psychological damage inflicted on young men who were forced into pederasty:
[Young men] not naturally vicious, who have been lured or forced into yielding and letting themselves be abused, forever after mistrust and hate no one on earth more than the men who so served them and, if opportunity offers, they take a terrible revenge.457
The detractors of pederasty called it for what it was rape. Thats simply a historical fact. Interestingly, Jews saw rape of adult women differently than they saw rape of children. While raping unbetrothed women was a civil matter, Philo wrote that raping a child warranted death.458 The acts of pederasty and homosexuality simply couldnt be more different. They were different in frequency of occurrence, participants, and ethics: Frequency of occurrencePederasty was exceedingly more common than homosexuality. ParticipantsPederasts and homosexuals were two different groups of people. EthicsPederasty involved the ethical violation of child rape whereas homosexuality didnt result in any ethical violation. Paul, a Hellenistic Jew, viewed pederasty as rape. Did Paul really overlook the ethical violation of child rape only to condemn an act that didnt result in any ethical violations?
457 Robin Scroggs. New Testament and Homosexuality (p. 38). Kindle Edition. 458 Philo, Hypothetic; 7.1
Michael Wood
291
* * * Did 1 Corinthians 6.9 use arsenokoitai to exclude homosexuals? Consideration 1: Scholars originally translated arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys, but then inexplicably changed its meaning independent of any research finding. The change solely corresponded with a theological agenda. Consideration 2: Lack of brotherly love is the issue at hand in 1 Corinthians 6.7-9. Raping young boys inherently violates brotherly love, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 3: 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 was a list of those who Paul perceived as lacking altruism. Raping young boys inherently lacks altruism, whereas homosexuality is not. Consideration 4: Paul repeatedly taught: Since law determines the Judgment Day standard, benevolence alone determines who inherits the kingdom and who doesnt. Raping young boys inherently violates Pauls Judgment Day standard, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 5: Paul used the brotherly love to delineate between sex that excludes people from Gods kingdom and legal misbehavior. Paul so strongly adhered to Jesus Law that he openly conceded that sex with prostitutes was lawful. Raping young boys was unlawful just as adultery and seducing other mens women. Homosexuality was lawful misbehavior (at worst) or perfectly permitted (at best). (Well explore Pauls view of homosexuality in the next section.) Consideration 6: Most grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, male cousins, adult male children, adult male friends and adult male coworkers were proud pederasts. In the Roman Empire, pederasty was extremely common while consensual adult homosexuality was relatively uncommon. From this historical vantage point, it seems evident that 1 Corinthians 6.9 proscribed the exceedingly common sex
292
act and not the relatively uncommon one. Consideration 7: Hellenistic Jews saw pederasty as vicious rape. They saw it as an extreme ethical violation. Did Paul really overlook this extreme ethical violation only to condemn an act that didnt result in even the slightest ethical violation?
Chapter Forty-Four Whats Love got to do with It?

In 1 Timothy, Paul chastised converts who were using Torah to teach useless ideas (such genealogies and the like). He wrote that the ultimate goal of his instruction was loving-kindness, and that Torahs proper use was in the instruction of altruism:
The ultimate goal of our instruction is loving-kindness from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith; some have missed that point, and have been diverted into pointless ruminations, meaning to be teachers of the Torah, but not understanding either what they are saying or what they are making their assertions about However, we know that the Torah is a fine thing if you use it lawfully, with the knowledge that Torah doesnt apply to the altruistic459
Paul wrote that Torah has value, if it is used to promote lovingkindness. (The ultimate goal of our instruction is loving-kindness. some have missed that point.) Paul then gives some examples of unloving people who need the Torahs teachings. Included in this list of unloving people are the arsenokoitai:
The ultimate goal of our instruction is loving-kindness some have missed that point not understanding either what they are saying or what they are making their assertions about However, we know that Torah doesnt apply to the altruistic, but only to arsenokoitai460
Here is tremendous irony: Paul derides those who use the Torah for anything other than promoting brotherly love, and his condemnation of arsenokoitai is an integral part of his message.
459 1 Timothy 1.5-9a 460 1 Timothy 1:5-10 293
294
Commentators promote a bipolar Paul. Paul supposedly states that the ultimate goal of our instruction is loving-kindness because Torah doesnt apply to the altruistic, and then he supposedly uses the Torah to condemn homosexuals at the same time, in the same passage. Translators seem numb to the blatant inconsistencies that they introduce into Pauls writings by their complete disregard for passage context. Boy rapers were grotesque violators of brotherly lovenot homosexuals. The topic of 1 Timothy solely supports the translation of boy rapers for arsenokoitai:
The ultimate goal of our instruction is loving-kindness from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith; some have missed that point, and have been diverted into pointless ruminations, meaning to be teachers of the Torah, but not understanding either what they are saying or what they are making their assertions about However, we know that the Torah is a fine thing if you use it lawfully, with the knowledge that Torah doesnt apply to the altruistic, but only to boy rapers461
1 Timothy depicts the arsenokoitai as unkind, unloving people. The boy rapists inherently fit this category whereas homosexuals do not. It is illegitimate to translate arsenokoitai as homosexuals in this passage, given the context. * * * Did 1 Corinthians 6.9 use arsenokoitai to exclude homosexuals? Consideration 1: Scholars originally translated arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys, but then inexplicably changed its meaning independent of any research finding. The change solely corresponded with a theological agenda. Consideration 2: Lack of brotherly love is the issue at hand in 1 Corinthians 6.7-9. Raping young boys inherently violates brotherly love, whereas homosexuality does not.
461 1 Timothy 1:5-10
Michael Wood
295
Consideration 3: 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 was a list of those who Paul perceived as lacking altruism. Raping young boys inherently lacks altruism, whereas homosexuality is not. Consideration 4: Paul repeatedly taught: Since law determines the Judgment Day standard, benevolence alone determines who inherits the kingdom and who doesnt. Raping young boys inherently violates Pauls Judgment Day standard, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 5: Paul used the brotherly love to delineate between sex that excludes people from Gods kingdom and legal misbehavior. Paul so strongly adhered to Jesus Law that he openly conceded that sex with prostitutes was lawful. Raping young boys was unlawful just as adultery and seducing other mens women. Homosexuality was lawful misbehavior (at worst) or perfectly permitted (at best). (Well explore Pauls view of homosexuality in the next section.) Consideration 6: Most grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, male cousins, adult male children, adult male friends and adult male coworkers were proud pederasts. In the Roman Empire, pederasty was extremely common while consensual adult homosexuality was relatively uncommon. From this historical vantage point, it seems evident that 1 Corinthians 6.9 proscribed the exceedingly common sex act and not the relatively uncommon one. Consideration 7: Hellenistic Jews saw pederasty as vicious rape. They saw it as an extreme ethical violation. Did Paul really overlook this extreme ethical violation only to condemn an act that didnt result in even the slightest ethical violation? Consideration 8: The context of 1 Timothy shows that arsenokoitai were unkind, unloving people. The boy rapists inherently fit this category whereas homosexuals do not.
Chapter Forty-Five Decalogue Distinction

Moses famous Ten Commandments (called the Decalogue) contained six ethical requirements. The ethical requirements were contained in commandments five through ten:
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Honor your father and mother You shall not murder You shall not commit adultery You shall not steal You shall not tell falsehoods You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor
It was very common to use this particular set of commands to develop broader sin lists. The Didache was a first century Jewish Christian work. It used commandments six through eight to build the following sin list:
You shall not murder, you shall not commit moicheia, you shall not corrupt boys, you shall not commit porneia, you shall not steal
Notice that the list makes use of the Decalogue order: Decalogue You shall not murder You shall not commit adultery Didache You shall not murder You shall not commit moicheia You shall not corrupt boys You shall not commit porneia You shall not steal
You shall not steal
The Didache associates the proscription against pederasty with the Decalogues commandment against adultery. This association appears to be a well-established tradition among the Jews of Pauls day.
296
Michael Wood
297
Even Philo Judaeus associates the proscription against pederasty with the Decalogues commandment against adultery:
Of the second table, the first commandment is that against adulterers, under which many other precepts are conveyed, such as that against seducers and pederasts462
Some versions of the Decalogue list the commandment against adultery as the sixth commandment. Others list it as the seventh commandment. Nonetheless, Philo also associates the proscription against pederasty with the Decalogues commandment against adultery. Moreover, he refers to other Mosaic precepts, one of which is the proscription against pederasty. This Mosaic commandment against pederasty is associated with the Decalogues proscription against adultery. This association was so firmly established in Judaism, that early Christians adopted it as a scriptural association. Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in the writings of Clement of Alexandria:
If you enroll yourself as one of Gods people, heaven is your country, God is your lawgiver. And what are the laws? You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not corrupt boys; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness463
Notice that Clement associates the proscription against pederasty with the commandment against adultery: Decalogue You shall not kill You shall not commit adultery You shall not steal You shall not tell falsehoods Clement of Alexandria You shall not kill You shall not commit adultery You shall not corrupt boys You shall not steal You shall not bear false witness
Also, notice that Clement presents the proscription against pederasty as a Mosaic precept. (The full signficance of this shall be addressed later.)
462 Decalogue 168 463 Exhortation to the Greeks by Clement of Alexandria, Chapter 10
298
Based on the Jewish tradition, Clement perceived the proscription against pederasty as inherent in the Decalogues proscription against adultery. In another manuscript, The Instructor, Clement wrote the proscription against pederasty was part of the Decalogue itself!
We have the Decalogue given by Moses, which, indicating by an elementary principle, simple and of one kind, defines the designation of sins in a way conducive to salvation: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not worship idols. Thou shalt not corrupt boys. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honor thy father and thy mother.464
There was a firmly established tradition of equating the Decalogues proscription of adultery with a proscription against raping boys. So why is this important? There is another early Christian work which conflates the Decalogue proscription against adultery with pederasty. This Christian work was 1 Timothy, a New Testament book written by Paul or another person from the Pauline tradition. (Well just use Paul as the author for simplicitys sake, with the understanding that this is currently in dispute. The actual author makes no difference regarding the outcome of the following analysis.) In the first chapter of 1 Timothy, Paul creates a sin list describing the unkind and unloving people who the Torah condemns. The latter part of his list is built around the Decalogue:
The ultimate goal of our instruction is loving-kindness from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith; some have missed that point, and have been diverted into pointless ruminations, meaning to be teachers of the Torah, but not understanding either what they are saying or what they are making their assertions about However, we know that the Torah is a fine thing if you use it lawfully, with the knowledge that Torah doesnt apply to the altruistic, but only to those who kill their fathers and mothers, pornoi, arsenokoitai, men-stealers, liars and perjurers465
Notice that this part of the sin list was constructed around the Decalogue:
464 The Instructor by Clement of Alexandria, Book III, Chapter 12. 465 1 Timothy 1:5-10
Michael Wood
299
Decalogue Do not murder Do not commit adultery Do not steal Do not tell falsehoods
1 Timothy Those who kill their fathers and mothers pornoi arsenokoitai Men-stealers Liars and perjurers
The firmly established tradition conflated the Decalogue proscription against adultery with pederasty. 1 Timothy conflated the Decalogue proscription against adultery with arsenokoitai. Hence, the arsenokoitai in this passage were, quite specifically, the rapists of young boys. The Pauline school used arsenokoitai to condemn boy rapers not homosexuals. * * * Did 1 Corinthians 6.9 use arsenokoitai to exclude homosexuals? Consideration 1: Scholars originally translated arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys, but then inexplicably changed its meaning independent of any research finding. The change solely corresponded with a theological agenda. Consideration 2: Lack of brotherly love is the issue at hand in 1 Corinthians 6.7-9. Raping young boys inherently violates brotherly love, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 3: 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 was a list of those who Paul perceived as lacking altruism. Raping young boys inherently lacks altruism, whereas homosexuality is not. Consideration 4: Paul repeatedly taught: Since law determines the Judgment Day standard, benevolence alone determines who inherits the kingdom and who doesnt. Raping young boys inherently violates
300
Pauls Judgment Day standard, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 5: Paul used the brotherly love to delineate between sex that excludes people from Gods kingdom and legal misbehavior. Paul so strongly adhered to Jesus Law that he openly conceded that sex with prostitutes was lawful. Raping young boys was unlawful just as adultery and seducing other mens women. Homosexuality was lawful misbehavior (at worst) or perfectly permitted (at best). (Well explore Pauls view of homosexuality in the next section.) Consideration 6: Most grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, male cousins, adult male children, adult male friends and adult male coworkers were proud pederasts. In the Roman Empire, pederasty was extremely common while consensual adult homosexuality was relatively uncommon. From this historical vantage point, it seems evident that 1 Corinthians 6.9 proscribed the exceedingly common sex act and not the relatively uncommon one. Consideration 7: Hellenistic Jews saw pederasty as vicious rape. They saw it as an extreme ethical violation. Did Paul really overlook this extreme ethical violation only to condemn an act that didnt result in even the slightest ethical violation? Consideration 8: The context of 1 Timothy shows that arsenokoitai were unkind, unloving people. The boy rapists inherently fit this category whereas homosexuals do not. Consideration 9: The first chapter of 1 Timothy conflates the Decalogue proscription against adultery with arsenokoitai. There was a well-established tradition of conflating the Decalogue proscription against adultery with pederasty. Hence, the arsenokoitai in this passage were, quite specifically, the rapists of young boys. The Pauline school used arsenokoitai to condemn boy rapersnot homosexuals.
Chapter Forty-Six Triple Prohibition
The New Testament only mentions the arsenokoitai twice: 1 Timothy 1.9 and 1 Corinthians 6.9. Regarding 1 Timothy we saw: The overall issue was a strict focus on brotherly love. Arsenokoitai was used in accordance with a well-established tradition; one that quite specifically condemned boy rapers. Regarding 1 Corinthians 6.9, weve already seen that the overall issue was also a matter of brotherly love.466 But are there additional contextual markers in 1 Corinthians, just as there is in 1 Timothy? Fortunately, the answer is a resounding yes. Allow me to explain. There was another well-established tradition, one that I term: the Triple Prohibition. The Triple Prohibition is a proscription against three concepts: moicheia, porneia and raping boys. The Triple Prohibition developed due to the association of these three things with Decalogue proscription against adultery. This well-established tradition birthed the Triple Prohibition tradition. Moicheia, porneia and raping boys became a standardized proscribed unit. The Didache is a perfect example of this: Decalogue You shall not murder You shall not commit adultery Didache You shall not murder You shall not commit moicheia You shall not corrupt boys You shall not commit porneia You shall not steal
You shall not steal
Notice that the Didache uses the Triple Prohibition relative to the Decalogue proscription against adultery.
466 See chapter thirty-four, Devoid of Altruism. 301
302
There was a well-established, well-known tradition of equating the Decalogues prohibition of adultery with: adulterers, seducers, and boy rapers. This specific tradition cemented the three as a standardized proscribed unitthe Triple Prohibition. In addition to the Didache, Philo equated the Triple Prohibition with the Decalogue proscription against adultery,467 and Clement did as well.468 Thus, we know the historical source of the Triple Prohibition. This Triple Prohibition was exceedingly common during the formative years of the Faith. It is found throughout Christian writings such as Clement and the Didache (above) and the Epistle of Barnabas and Apostolic Constitutions (below). Consider the Epistle of Barnabas:
You shall not commit moicheia, you shall not commit porneia, you shall not corrupt boys.469
Consider also Apostolic Constitutions:

You shall not kill You shall not commit moicheia You shall not corrupt boys You shall not commit porneia You shall not steal.470
Notice that the Apostolic Constitutions not only has the Triple Prohibition, but it too equates it with the Decalogues proscription against adultery:
Decalogue You shall not murder You shall not commit adultery You shall not steal Apostolic Constitutions You shall not kill You shall not commit moicheia You shall not corrupt boys You shall not commit porneia You shall not steal
The Triple Prohibition was a standard part of the formation of the Jesus Movement. This sheds a lot of light on 1 Corinthians 6.9:
Dont you know that the those lacking altruism cannot inherit Gods Kingdom? Dont be deceived. Neither pornoi... nor moichoi nor arsenokoitai. 467 Decalogue 168 468 Exhortation to the Greeks by Clement of Alexandria, Chapter 10 469 Barnabas 19:4 470 The Apostolic Constitutions, Book VII, Chapter II
Michael Wood
303
Pauls original readers understood this terminology from the perspective of the well-established Triple Prohibition. Hence, his original readers understood arsenokoitai as a direct and specific reference to boy rapers. * * * Did 1 Corinthians 6.9 use arsenokoitai to exclude homosexuals? Consideration 1: Scholars originally translated arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys, but then inexplicably changed its meaning independent of any research finding. The change solely corresponded with a theological agenda. Consideration 2: Lack of brotherly love is the issue at hand in 1 Corinthians 6.7-9. Raping young boys inherently violates brotherly love, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 3: 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 was a list of those who Paul perceived as lacking altruism. Raping young boys inherently lacks altruism, whereas homosexuality is not. Consideration 4: Paul repeatedly taught: Since law determines the Judgment Day standard, benevolence alone determines who inherits the kingdom and who doesnt. Raping young boys inherently violates Pauls Judgment Day standard, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 5: Paul used the brotherly love to delineate between sex that excludes people from Gods kingdom and legal misbehavior. Paul so strongly adhered to Jesus Law that he openly conceded that sex with prostitutes was lawful. Raping young boys was unlawful just as adultery and seducing other mens women. Homosexuality was lawful misbehavior (at worst) or perfectly permitted (at best). (Well explore Pauls view of homosexuality in the next section.)
304
Consideration 6: Most grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, male cousins, adult male children, adult male friends and adult male coworkers were proud pederasts. In the Roman Empire, pederasty was extremely common while consensual adult homosexuality was relatively uncommon. From this historical vantage point, it seems evident that 1 Corinthians 6.9 proscribed the exceedingly common sex act and not the relatively uncommon one. Consideration 7: Hellenistic Jews saw pederasty as vicious rape. They saw it as an extreme ethical violation. Did Paul really overlook this extreme ethical violation only to condemn an act that didnt result in even the slightest ethical violation? Consideration 8: The context of 1 Timothy shows that arsenokoitai were unkind, unloving people. The boy rapists inherently fit this category whereas homosexuals do not. Consideration 9: The first chapter of 1 Timothy conflates the Decalogue proscription against adultery with arsenokoitai. There was a wellestablished tradition of conflating the Decalogue proscription against adultery with pederasty. Hence, the arsenokoitai in this passage were, quite specifically, the rapists of young boys. The Pauline school used arsenokoitai to condemn boy rapersnot homosexuals. Consideration 10: 1 Corinthians 6.9 condemns pornoi, moichoi, and arsenokoitai. Pauls original readers understood this terminology from the perspective of the well-established Triple Prohibition seducers, adulterers, and boy rapers. Hence, his original readers understood arsenokoitai as a direct and specific reference to boy rapers.
Chapter Forty-Seven External Evidence

When assessing the meaning of a word, there are two things to consider: How the word is used in the document itself. How the word is used outside the document, by authors of the same time period. Weve already explored the first criteria: how arsenokoitai was used in the New Testament text. The New Testament only used this word in two passages. And weve seen how the word was used in both. In 1 Timothy: The word is found in a passage strictly focusing on brotherly love. The word was associated with the Decalogue proscription against adultery; a well-established tradition which specifically proscribes pederasty. In 1 Corinthians: The word is found in a passage discussing violations of brotherly love. The word is found in concert with porneia and moicheia, in conformity with the Triple Prohibition; a well-established tradition which specifically proscribed pederasty. Moreover, the references to arsenokoitai were written by an author who specified that only the Torahs commandments based on brotherly love were the Law. Thus, the internal evidence unanimously attests to arsenokoitai as the rapists of young boysnot homosexuals. But what about the external evidence? Do other authors from the same time period provide any grounds for translating arsenokoitai as homosexuals? Actually, the reverse is true. The external evidence overwhelmingly documents that arsenokoitai specified boy rapers.
305
306
Paul wrote his letters during the Hellenistic Greek period (also known as the Koine Greek period). There are four context-defined instances of arsenokoitai in the literature of this time period. All of them were written by Christians as well. Therefore, we have sufficient external documentation of the Hellenistic Christian understanding of arsenokoitai. One context-defined use of arsenokoitai is found with Aristides Apology. In this work, the Greek god Zeus (an old man) rapes Ganymede (a young boy). This man-on-boy rape is Aristides example of the arsenokoitai:
In Aristides, chapter 9 chronicles the sexual adventures of Zeus: with the numerous divine and mortal women, and with the handsome young shepherd, Ganymede. It is in chapter 13 that reference is made back to these acts as proof that the Greek gods acted paranomoi: they committed moicheia (adultery) and arsenokoitia.471
Aristides documents arsenokoitai as the rapists of young boys. Hippolytus Refutatio documents the very same thing:
In Hippolytus Refutatio, chapter 5 states that the evil angel Naas committed adultery with Eve, and had Adam as a favourite boy (hos paidika). This is how adultery and arsenokoitai came into the world. Some 65 lines later, in the same chapter, Hippolytus states that the eagle which came upon Ganymede was Naas, and that Ganymede was Adam. 472
The paidika (literally boy toys) were the young boys who were raped during the pederastic act. Hence, Hippolytus Refutatio documents that the arsenokoitai were, quite specifically, the rapists of these young boys. In the Acts of John, the arsenokoites is found in a list of perpetrators of vicious acts, sandwiched between the swindler (aposteretes) and the thief (kleptes).473 There isnt a single sex-only act in the list. Arsenokoitai is strictly presented as an unethical act that one commits against another. Boy-rapers fit the depiction while homosexuals do not.
471 Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen edited by Jan Krans, Joseph Verheyden, p. 111, BRILL, Dec 9, 2011 472 Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen edited by Jan Krans, Joseph Verheyden, p. 111, BRILL, Dec 9, 2011 473 Acts of John, 36.6-7
Michael Wood
307
In the Sibylline Oracles we also find the same thing. The verb arsenokoitein is found within a list of unethical acts that one commits against anothernot within the sections dealing with sex only acts:
among the Christian interpolations in Sibylline Oracles Book Two we find the word arsenokoitein (2.73) in a context which lists prohibitions of cheating, perjury, theft, betrayal of information, murder, withholding wages or oppressing the poor man (2.68-74), not in the list of sexual wrongdoing in 2.279-282, where one might have expected it.474
The Acts of John and Sibylline Oracles reveal something remarkable: The cruelty of the arsenokoitai was front and center in the minds of Christians who applied this word. This was so much so, that the word is found in lists of vicious acts that one commits against another. The authors clearly had rape in mind. The preponderance of the external evidence overwhelmingly attests to arsenokoitai as being involved in exploitative, unethical, cruel acts.475 The external evidence overwhelmingly attests to arsenokoitai as the rapists of young boys. * * * Did 1 Corinthians 6.9 use arsenokoitai to exclude homosexuals? Consideration 1: Scholars originally translated arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys, but then inexplicably changed its meaning independent of any research finding. The change solely corresponded with a theological agenda. Consideration 2: Lack of brotherly love is the issue at hand in 1 Corinthians 6.7-9. Raping young boys inherently violates brotherly love, whereas homosexuality does not.
474 The New Testament on Sexuality by William R. G. Loader, p. 330-331, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Sep 13, 2012 475 The New Testament on Sexuality by William R. G. Loader, p. 330-331, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Sep 13, 2012
308
Consideration 3: 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 was a list of those who Paul perceived as lacking altruism. Raping young boys inherently lacks altruism, whereas homosexuality is not. Consideration 4: Paul repeatedly taught: Since law determines the Judgment Day standard, benevolence alone determines who inherits the kingdom and who doesnt. Raping young boys inherently violates Pauls Judgment Day standard, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 5: Paul used the brotherly love to delineate between sex that excludes people from Gods kingdom and legal misbehavior. Paul so strongly adhered to Jesus Law that he openly conceded that sex with prostitutes was lawful. Raping young boys was unlawful just as adultery and seducing other mens women. Homosexuality was lawful misbehavior (at worst) or perfectly permitted (at best). (Well explore Pauls view of homosexuality in the next section.) Consideration 6: Most grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, male cousins, adult male children, adult male friends and adult male coworkers were proud pederasts. In the Roman Empire, pederasty was extremely common while consensual adult homosexuality was relatively uncommon. From this historical vantage point, it seems evident that 1 Corinthians 6.9 proscribed the exceedingly common sex act and not the relatively uncommon one. Consideration 7: Hellenistic Jews saw pederasty as vicious rape. They saw it as an extreme ethical violation. Did Paul really overlook this extreme ethical violation only to condemn an act that didnt result in even the slightest ethical violation? Consideration 8: The context of 1 Timothy shows that arsenokoitai were unkind, unloving people. The boy rapists inherently fit this category whereas homosexuals do not. Consideration 9: The first chapter of 1 Timothy conflates the Decalogue proscription against adultery with arsenokoitai. There was a well-
Michael Wood
309
established tradition of conflating the Decalogue proscription against adultery with pederasty. Hence, the arsenokoitai in this passage were, quite specifically, the rapists of young boys. The Pauline school used arsenokoitai to condemn boy rapersnot homosexuals. Consideration 10: 1 Corinthians 6.9 condemns pornoi, moichoi, and arsenokoitai. Pauls original readers understood this terminology from the perspective of the well-established Triple Prohibitionseducers, adulterers, and boy rapers. Hence, his original readers understood arsenokoitai as a direct and specific reference to boy rapers. Consideration 11: The preponderance of the external evidence overwhelmingly attests to arsenokoitai as being involved in exploitative, unethical, cruel acts. The external evidence overwhelmingly attests to arsenokoitai as the rapists of young boys not homosexuals.
Chapter Forty-Eight Reframe

Compound words are actually funny when we think about them. Butterflies arent flies made of butter, and fireflies arent flies made of fire. Ladykillers dont murder women, and when I understand you Im not standing under you. Wed certainly end up with some very wrong understandings of many new words if we solely relied on their etymology! This is so basic that even a child can understand it. Yet, when it comes to the Bible and homosexuality, somehow this most basic concept is abandoned. Somehow, someway, certain scholars convince themselves (and others) that the etymology of arsenokoitai is more important than how the word was used in the New Testament (the internal evidence) and how the word was used outside the New Testament (the external evidence). Given the dubiousness of this, it almost shouldnt be dignified by a response. The approach itself is wrong in the presence of substantial internal and external evidence. Etymology is the approach of last resort. Scholars resort to etymology when there is no internal or external evidence. In such cases, etymology is the only thing left, and it is often approached with cautionwith an understanding of the potential for completely erroneous results. But what can theologians do when the internal and external evidence dont support their agenda? In that case, they resort to etymology as if it somehow trumps the only evidence that really counts. No matter what etymology might indicate, it doesnt supersede internal context nor external word usage. Period. Its not even on the same level as either of them. Both the internal and external evidence attest to arsenokoitai as a specific reference to boy rapers. This has left theologians with retreating to etymology in an effort to deflect attention away from genuine documentation of what the word really means.
310
Michael Wood
311
Even though the approach itself is illegitimate, we shall examine it nonetheless due to its popularity. But please let there be no doubt about it: This is not a concession that etymology somehow undoes all the documentation presented to this point. Nor does this even mean that etymology carries even close to the amount of weight as the documentation presented thus far. Even if etymology somehow implies arsenokoitai meant homosexuals, that would be as meaningful as butterflies implying that the flies are made out of butter. In the end, reality is what counts. And we already know that Hellenistic Greek authors used the word in reference to pederasts. When you already have the facts, etymology should never be used as an excuse to ignore them! What is the basic etymological argument? It goes like this:
Pauls list of vices now includes, for the first time, a judgment against homosexuals (Greek, arsenokoitai, literally = those men who sleep with males). The practice of homosexuality was condemned in the Greek translation (LXX) of Lev. 18.22 and 20.13 where also the Greek words arsenos (Greek for male) and koiten (Greek for bed) are used in the same sentence, and likely were conflated by the Jews, the likely source of Pauls use of arsenokoitai.476Craig A. Evans
Did the Jews likely develop arsenokoitai from the Greek translation of Leviticus 18.22 and/or 20.13? Thats very probable. Did the creators of the English language develop butterflies from the words butter and flies? Yes! Of course! But what does that inherently tell us about the meaning of the word? Absolutely nothing. But lets pretend that this somehow has meaning, solely out of deference for its popularity. If we want to play the etymology game, we need to answer three questions: What issue was Paul addressing? Why would the Jews create a new word in the first place? What did Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 mean to the creator(s) of the word?
476 The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Acts-Philemon by Craig A. Evans, p. 288, David C Cook, Mar 1, 2004. Note: Craig A. Evans serves as the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College of Acadia University, in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada.
312
For all the reasons weve discussed so far, Paul was addressing boy rapersnot homosexuals. But that raises an important question: Why use a new word instead of the standard one? (Many scholars raise this as an issue.) Actually, the invention of a new word in itself points to the rapists of young boysnot homosexuals. Allow me to explain. During Pauls day, there were plenty of derogatory words for adult homosexuals. However, there werent any derogatory words for pederasts.477 The Greek word pedophilia literally meant love of boys. The Jews likely detested this word, as it portrayed the rape of boys as an act of love. There was no need for any new derogatory words for homosexuals, but there was desperate need for one related to child rape. The Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures was a natural place to look to create such a word. Its very unlikely that the Jews added yet one more derogatory word for homosexuals, when they already had a full menu of options to choose from. But the frequent use of praiseworthy terms for pederasty demanded a verbal response. Pederasty wasnt an act of love. In no way! Pederasty violated the Torahs Ethics. And in this way, arsenokoitai was born. Now the question is: What did Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 mean to the creator of the word arsenokoitai? The question isnt: What does that verse mean to us today? What matters is the view of the man (or men) who got this word started in the first place. Thats a different issue altogether.
477 During Pauls day, the Greek word paidophthoria (corruption of boys) wasnt invented yet. The earliest known appearances of this and related words are found in the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and the writings of Justin Martyr. (Source: Dr. William Berg) All of the manuscripts in which this word is found were written after Pauls death. It appears that the Christian community turned Pauls highly Judeocentric word (arsenokoitia) into a word which the general Gentile public could relate to (paidophthoria). Pauls word required intimate knowledge of the Torah. However, the newly minted word (paidophthoria) didnt require any knowledge of Torah. It communicated a loud and clear condemnation of pederasty to the Gentile world at large. It was repeatedly used in the Triple Prohibition, in the same manner in which Paul used arsenokoitia. Thanks to the numerous instances of paidophthoria in the Triple Prohibition, it is abundantly clear that arsenokoitia was its synonym; hence both terms quite specifically condemned pederasty.
Michael Wood
313
Our society tends to read Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 as if they inherently make a gender based distinction (because thats our societal frame of reference). From our modern frame of reference, it seems obvious that each verse excludes pederasty and homosexuality both. But the creator(s) of arsenokoitai didnt come from a society that divided sex identification by gender. Therefore, its much more likely that they viewed each verse as condemning pederasts or homosexuals but not both. Jews who condemned pederasts and homosexuals likely saw one of the verses as condemning homosexuals and the other verse condemning pederasts. That being said, theres strong evidence that many Jews saw both verses as solely condemning pederasts.478 Thus, if arsenokoitai was created from a verse which the author considered related to pederasty, then arsenokoitai was coined to condemn pederasts. Who created the word? No one knows. From which verse did he create it (Leviticus 18.22 or 20.13)? No one knows. Did he even create it from one of these two verses? No one knows. If he created it from one of these verses, did he see the verse as proscribing homosexuality or pederasty? No one knows. Even if the creator based his compound word on one of these verses, was his intention to even make the compound word a direct proscription against his own strict interpretation of the verse? No one knows. Was the word originally created for one reason, but popularly took off with a different meaning? No one knows. And this is why etymology isnt evidence of the same nature as the documentation provided thus far. It is irrational to use that which we cannot possibly know to somehow disregard that which we do know. We do know: Hellenistic Greek authors used arsenokoitai as a reference to the rapists of young boys. Hellenistic Greek authors often had the cruelty of the arsenokoitai front and center in their minds when they used the word. In 1 Timothy, Paul used arsenokoitai relative to the Decalogues proscription against adulteryin the same
478 This is central to Robin Scroggs premise, and is amply documented throughout his work The New Testament and Homosexuality.
314
manner as pederasty was traditionally used. In 1 Corinthians, Pauls inclusion of arsenokoitai in a list of sinners containing pornoi and moichoi is consistent with the exceedingly well-established Triple Prohibitiona prohibition against pederasty. In 1 Timothy, arsenokoitia is used as an antithesis to brotherly love. In 1 Corinthians, arsenokoitai is used within a discussion regarding the unjust treatment of others. (The Corinthians were launching fraudulent lawsuits against one another, and this prompted Paul to bring up the sin list.) In 1 Corinthians, every item on the list is seen by Paul as representative of people devoid of altruism (adikoi). This is very consistent with the way that arsenokoitai was used outside the Bible (in lists of those who mistreat others).
Not to mention the exceedingly high incidence of pederasty compared to the relatively uncommon practice of homosexuality. Please forgive the detailed summary of the data collected thus far. But I fear that not doing so could play into the hand of the etymology promoters. Etymology is often used to distract from the known facts. And I refuse to let facts be disregarded over mental gamesmanship. In a word, all etymology is speculation. Speculation isnt evidence. Nonetheless, lets keep playing the etymology game anyway. After all, it is continually presented as if its actually meaningful:
David F. Wright has persuasively argued, arsenokoites was probably coined by Hellenistic Jews from a conflation of two Greek words appearing in the Septuagints rendering of Lev 18:22 and 20:13: meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gynaikeian (18:22); hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos (20:13). The Greek word for male is arsen and the word for bed or lying is koite (related to the verb keisthai, to lie), to which has been attached a masculine personal suffix -(t)es denoting the agent or doer of the action ( a man / one who . . .).479Dr. Robert Gagnon 479 Gagnon, Robert A (2010-10-01). The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 5769-5774). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.
Michael Wood
315
Dr. Robert Gagnon points out that arsenokoitai might have come from the Greek translation of Leviticus 18.22, or 20.13, or both. (No one knows.) Dr. Robin Scroggs agrees that arsenokoitai likely came from Leviticus 18.22, or 20.13, or both. However, Dr. Scroggs agreement causes him to conclude that arsenokoitai referred to pederasts and not homosexuals! Scroggs has written a compelling work entitled New Testament and Homosexuality. This work is a 158 page etymological argument that arsenokoitai referred to the rapists of young boysnot homosexuals. How do scholars argue against Robin Scroggs? David E. Garland gives the standard response:
Scroggs (1983: 106-8) links the two nouns together and claims that Paul condemns only pederasty (homosexual intercourse with a boy). But this interpretation collapses on itself. Had he wished to limit his critique to pederasty, he could have used the term pederast (paiderastes).480David E. Garland
Despite Garlands bravado, theres simply no inherent collapse. On the contrary! Paul likely hated the word paiderasteslover of boys:
The Greek word paiderastes means lover of boys and is derived from pais, boy, and erastes, lover.481
No, Dr. Garland, Paul probably couldnt force himself to reach for a word which praised the very act that he detested. And for this reason, a derogatory word derived from the Jewish scriptures was in order. (While paiderastes described sexual love of boys, it was seen as a positive, even praiseworthy word.482 There was a tremendous need for a new worda derogatory word at that.)
480 1 Corinthians by David E. Garland, p. 213, Baker Academic, Nov 1, 2003. Note: David E. Garland currently serves at the Dean of George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University, in Waco, Texas. 481 A History of Medicine: Greek medicine: 1996 by Plinio Prioreschi, p. 30, Omaha, 1996 482 When the Roman moralist Cato praised two young men leaving a brothel, there is an equal likelihood that the two men had sex with women, boys, or both. The praise was due to the fact that the men werent committing adultery with other Roman citizens women. Pederasty was considered a praiseworthy act by the Roman moralists.
316
More importantly, notice the level of argument raised against Scroggs 158 page, highly documented, very nuanced work. Garland gives a one-sentence statement claiming that all 158 pages inherently collapse over his own logically fallacious notion. Yet, Garland is the Dean of a Theological Seminary. And this is the best argument he could levya shadow argument completely devoid of substance. Garland is far from alone. This is the standard response to Scroggs scholarship. This argument seems to have originally been proposed by D. F. Wright. And the argument rapidly gained cult status ever since:
as already noted in D.F. Wrights response to Boswells explanation of the Greek term, it is much more likely that this compound term developed under the direct influence of the two parts of the compound used in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. Wright repeats this point in his review of Scroggs book. The significance of this is that Pauls usage of arsenokoites is informed by the two passages of Leviticus, which are certainly not confined to pederasty. Wright drives the point home with two pointed questions: If Paul had wanted to condemn (a kind) of pederasty, why did he not use one of the several Greek words or phrases for it current in Hellenistic Jewish writings [e.g., paidophthoreseis]? Why did he (create or) adopt a (relatively) new, certainly unusual term inspired by a Levitical prohibition and therefore one which prima facie has a broader meaning than pederasty? The obvious answer is that Pauls indictment of pederasty is embraced in a more comprehensive condemnation of all homosexual behavior, male and female.483 Dr. Gene Haas
There are multiple issues with the above argument: The derogatory term paidophthoros (corrupter of boys) was created by the Christian community after Pauls death.484 There is no indication that the word was current
483 HERMENEUTICAL ISSUES IN THE USE OF THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE by Guenther (Gene) Haas (Redeemer College), as cited in http://www.phc.edu/gj_haas_hermen.php, January 3, 2013. 484 The earliest known appearances of this and related words are found in the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and the writings of Justin Martyr. (Source: Dr. William Berg) All of the manuscripts in which this word is found were written after Pauls death. It appears that the Christian community turned Pauls highly Judeocentric word (arsenokoitai) into a word which the general Gentile public could relate to
Michael Wood
317
during Pauls lifetime. Rather, the evidence shows that paidophthoroi was the Christian communitys synonym for arsenokoitai! In other words, the very word invoked by Wright strongly attests to arsenokoitai as a strict reference to pederasty. Its the mirror opposite of his portrayal. The Levitical prohibitions couldnt have prima facie had a broader meaning in a society that didnt divide sex based solely on gender. Perhaps there might have been a minority view against the societal grain. But certainly one cannot claim such an understanding was prima facie! Wrights notion is completely disconnected from Hellenistic reality. The arguments against Scroggs scholarship are dubious at best. Does this mean that Scroggs is inherently correct? Absolutely not. In other words: There are etymological arguments for arsenokoitai as a reference to homosexuals. There are etymological arguments for arsenokoitai as a reference to boy rapers. There are etymological arguments for arsenokoitai to mean other things as well! (Some argue that it referred to male prostitutes, for example.) So what does etymology really teach us? It teaches us nothing, nor should we expect otherwise. Etymology is speculation. There is nothing known about the original etymology of the word. In this particular instance, etymology is speculation used to distract away from that which is known and documented. Its improper to invoke that which we do not know as a relevant counterexample to that which we do know. Period.
(paidophthoroi). Pauls word required intimate knowledge of the Torah. However, the newly minted word (paidophthoria) didnt require any knowledge of Torah. It communicated a loud and clear condemnation of pederasty to the Gentile world at large. It was repeatedly used in the Triple Prohibition, in the same manner in which Paul used arsenokoitai. Thanks to the numerous instances of paidophthoria in the Triple Prohibition, it is abundantly clear that arsenokoitia was its synonym; hence both terms quite specifically condemned pederasts.
318
* * * Did 1 Corinthians 6.9 use arsenokoitai to exclude homosexuals? Consideration 1: Scholars originally translated arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys, but then inexplicably changed its meaning independent of any research finding. The change solely corresponded with a theological agenda. Consideration 2: Lack of brotherly love is the issue at hand in 1 Corinthians 6.7-9. Raping young boys inherently violates brotherly love, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 3: 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 was a list of those who Paul perceived as lacking altruism. Raping young boys inherently lacks altruism, whereas homosexuality is not. Consideration 4: Paul repeatedly taught: Since law determines the Judgment Day standard, benevolence alone determines who inherits the kingdom and who doesnt. Raping young boys inherently violates Pauls Judgment Day standard, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 5: Paul used the brotherly love to delineate between sex that excludes people from Gods kingdom and legal misbehavior. Paul so strongly adhered to Jesus Law that he openly conceded that sex with prostitutes was lawful. Raping young boys was unlawful just as adultery and seducing other mens women. Homosexuality was lawful misbehavior (at worst) or perfectly permitted (at best). (Well explore Pauls view of homosexuality in the next section.) Consideration 6: Most grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, male cousins, adult male children, adult male friends and adult male coworkers were proud pederasts. In the Roman Empire, pederasty was extremely common while consensual adult homosexuality was relatively uncommon. From this historical vantage point, it seems evident that 1 Corinthians 6.9 proscribed the exceedingly common sex
Michael Wood
319
act and not the relatively uncommon one. Consideration 7: Hellenistic Jews saw pederasty as vicious rape. They saw it as an extreme ethical violation. Did Paul really overlook this extreme ethical violation only to condemn an act that didnt result in even the slightest ethical violation? Consideration 8: The context of 1 Timothy shows that arsenokoitai were unkind, unloving people. The boy rapists inherently fit this category whereas homosexuals do not. Consideration 9: The first chapter of 1 Timothy conflates the Decalogue proscription against adultery with arsenokoitai. There was a wellestablished tradition of conflating the Decalogue proscription against adultery with pederasty. Hence, the arsenokoitai in this passage were, quite specifically, the rapists of young boys. The Pauline school used arsenokoitai to condemn boy rapersnot homosexuals. Consideration 10: 1 Corinthians 6.9 condemns pornoi, moichoi, and arsenokoitai. Pauls original readers understood this terminology from the perspective of the well-established Triple Prohibitionseducers, adulterers, and boy rapers. Hence, his original readers understood arsenokoitai as a direct and specific reference to boy rapers. Consideration 11: The preponderance of the external evidence overwhelmingly attests to arsenokoitai as being involved in exploitative, unethical, cruel acts. The external evidence overwhelmingly attests to arsenokoitai as the rapists of young boysnot homosexuals. Consideration 12: Many conservative scholars point out that arsenokoitai likely derived from the Greek translation of Leviticus 18.22 or 20.13 or both. Who created the word? No one knows. From which verse did he create it (Leviticus 18.22 or 20.13)? No one knows. Did he even create it from one of these two verses? No one knows. If he created it from one of these verses, did he see the verse as proscribing homosexuality or pederasty? No one knows.
320
Even if the creator based his compound word on one of these verses, did he intend to even make the compound word as a proscription against the literal interpretation of the verse? No one knows. Was the word originally created for one purpose, but popularly took off with a different meaning? No one knows. Meanwhile, convincing etymological arguments can be made for arsenokoitai as specifying the rapists of young boys (Scroggs). What does etymology really teach us? It teaches us nothing, nor should we expect otherwise. Etymology is speculation. Its improper to invoke that which we do not know as a relevant counterexample to that which we know.
Chapter Forty-Nine Chaos Theory

The Greek word arsenokoitai appears in two sin lists: 1 Timothy 1.9-10 and 1 Corinthians 6.9-10. However, there is a big difference between these two lists: 1 Timothy 1.9-10 orders the sins in the same sequence as the Decalogue (at least in terms of the latter part of the list). 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 is a completely unordered list. Weve already seen that 1 Timothy 1.9-10 is at least partly (if not totally) organized around the Decalogue. However, 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 has no specific order. Consider the infamous pair of pornoi and moichoi which almost always travel side-by-side (unless pederasty is sandwiched in between). Yet, in 1 Corinthians 6.9, these two words arent in their usual spots:
Dont you know that the unkind cannot inherit Gods Kingdom? Dont be deceived. Neither pornoi, nor idolators, nor moichoi
Whats idolatry doing between pornoi and moichoi? Its not doing anything. Its simply an unordered list, and therefore the order means nothing. Also, notice how thieves and robbers are separated by unrelated terms:
Dont you know that the unkind cannot inherit Gods Kingdom? Dont be deceived. Neither thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor abusive people, nor robbers
Whats the meaning of their separation? There isnt one. Its simply an unordered list, and therefore the order means nothing. So whats the point? The point is this: Many scholars treat malakoi and arsenokoitai as a related pair because they appear side-by-side in 1 Corinthians 6.9:
321
322
Pauline Paradoxes Decoded Dont you know that the unkind cannot inherit Gods Kingdom? Dont be deceived. Neither malakoi, nor arsenokoitai
Many scholars appeal to the word order of 1 Corinthians 6.9, as if it somehow lends weight that the following pair is being talked about: MalakoiEffeminate recipients of homosexual sex. ArsenokoitaiActive participants in homosexual sex. Most scholars claim that Paul treated the two words as a pair:
Since Paul here presents the malakoi as sinful persons, most scholars guess that the person he calls malakoi were willfully engaged in such sexual relations and were not simply weaklings or victims of exploitation. Most scholars think that Paul uses the word as a counterpart to arsenokoitai, referring to the effeminate males who allow other men to have sex with them.485James M. Childs
Dr. Childs is perfectly correct: Scholars guess Pauls meaning of malakoi (since the word was extremely ambiguous). Their guess is based on the logically fallacious assumption that it is a counterpart to arsenokoitai. (Its logically fallacious to appeal to the word order of an unordered list!) What does it mean that they are side-by-side? It doesnt mean anything. Its simply an unordered list therefore the order means nothing. Malakoi has an equal chance of being related to drunkenness as it does for being related to arsenokoitai. Thats simply a fact in an unordered list. Yet this fact doesnt get in the way of the theological community:
In 1 Cor 6:9 malakoi are sandwiched in between adulterers (people who commit an act of immoral sexual intercourse) and arsenokoitai (people who have something to do with an immoral act of same-sex intercourse). Immoral sexual intercourse, then, would appear to be an identifying mark of the malakoi.486Dr. Robert Gagnon
485 Faithful Conversation: Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality edited by James M. Childs, p.25, Fortress Press, 2003. Note: James M. Childs serves as Senior Research Professor at Trinity Lutheran Seminary. 486 Gagnon, Robert A (2010-10-01). The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 5696-5698). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.
Michael Wood
323
With all due respect to Gagnon, one cannot legitimately make meaning out of the word order of an unordered list! Allow me to demonstrate using Gagnons logic:
In 1 Cor 6.9 idolators are sandwiched in between pornoi and moichoi. Illicit sex, then, would appear to be an identifying mark of idolators.
Does that make any sense? No, it doesnt. Yet its Gagnons logic 100%. And Gagnon isnt alone. Somehow, someway, scholars insist on appealing to word order in an unordered list. This is yet another (illegitimate) diversionary tactic to distract attention away from both the internal and external documentation which unanimously attests to arsenokoitai as the rapists of young boys. One can legitimately use the content of the list (as we did regarding the Triple Prohibition) but you cannot use the order of the content in an unordered list. Using the order of an unordered list is a recipe for error. During the scholar interviews, one scholar kept insisting that the appearance of malakoi next to arsenokoitai somehow caused arsenokoitai to become a reference to homosexuals instead of boy rapers. The idea that these two are a pair was deeply ingrained in his educationto the point that he couldnt see that he was appealing to order in an unordered list. The very approach was wrong. Nonetheless, the content of the list is very important. There is a compelling reason why moichoi, pornoi, arsenokoitai, and malakoi all appear in the list. Philos depiction of the Decalogues proscription against adultery had four conceptual categories: Adulterers Seducers Pederasts Lechers (those involved in unrestrained or excessive indulgence of sexual desire) Thats how Philo described the Decalogues proscription against adultery.487
487 Decalogue 168
324
Philos first three concepts perfectly correspond to moichoi, pornoi, and arsenokoitai. The latter concept perfectly corresponds to malakoi.488 Thus, it is possible that Paul was appealing to an established tradition, in which case: Moichoiadultery Pornoiseducers Arsenokoitaiboy rapers Malakoilechers, overly self-indulgent The Triple Prohibition (seducers, adulterers, pederasts) was exceedingly well-established. It is widely attested. A tradition regarding the four terms is somewhat implied by the relationship between Philo and Paul, but certainly cant be considered nearly as concrete as the Triple Prohibition. Nonetheless, for scholars who seek to translate the words relative to a pre-established tradition, it does provide some legitimacy for considering malakoi as a reference to the sexually overindulgent. However, the internal evidence of 1 Corinthians indicates that malakoi was used more broadly than mere sexual overindulgence (as discussed in the following chapter). Nonetheless, sexual overindulgence is based on living selfishly to the neglect of others needs, and therefore would be an appropriate translation of malakia, as it would be a violation of Jesus Law. (Jesus Law didnt simply call for not harming others; it called for making the needs of others equal to our own. Living for food, sex, alcohol, or even video games fails to meet Jesus altruistic requirement.) Therefore, lechers would preserve Pauls consistency, and therefore be legitimate from that particular perspective.
488 Philo used a word derived from the Greek word lagnos which meant: lecherous. Lechery is: unrestrained or excessive indulgence of sexual desire (Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2012.)
Michael Wood
325
Conclusion For arsenokoitai, scholars resort to speculative etymology against the internal and external evidence. For malakoi, scholars illegitimately appeal to word order in an unordered list, which is fallacious in and of itself; not to mention that their appeal also opposes the internal evidence of 1 Corinthiansas the following chapter documents. * * * Did 1 Corinthians 6.9 use arsenokoitai to exclude homosexuals? Consideration 1: Scholars originally translated arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys, but then inexplicably changed its meaning independent of any research finding. The change solely corresponded with a theological agenda. Consideration 2: Lack of brotherly love is the issue at hand in 1 Corinthians 6.7-9. Raping young boys inherently violates brotherly love, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 3: 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 was a list of those whom Paul perceived as lacking altruism. Raping young boys inherently lacks altruism, whereas homosexuality is not. Consideration 4: Paul repeatedly taught: Since law determines the Judgment Day standard, benevolence alone determines who inherits the kingdom and who doesnt. Raping young boys inherently violates Pauls Judgment Day standard, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 5: Paul used brotherly love to delineate between sex that excludes people from Gods kingdom and legal misbehavior. Paul so strongly adhered to Jesus Law that he openly conceded that sex with prostitutes was lawful. Raping young boys was unlawful just as adultery and seducing other mens women. Homosexuality was lawful misbehavior (at worst) or perfectly permitted (at best). (Well explore
326
Pauls view of homosexuality in the next section.) Consideration 6: Most grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, male cousins, adult male children, adult male friends and adult male coworkers were proud pederasts. In the Roman Empire, pederasty was extremely common while consensual adult homosexuality was relatively uncommon. From this historical vantage point, it seems evident that 1 Corinthians 6.9 proscribed the exceedingly common sex act and not the relatively uncommon one. Consideration 7: Hellenistic Jews saw pederasty as vicious rape. They saw it as an extreme ethical violation. Did Paul really overlook this extreme ethical violation only to condemn an act that didnt result in even the slightest ethical violation? Consideration 8: The context of 1 Timothy shows that arsenokoitai were unkind, unloving people. The boy rapists inherently fit this category whereas homosexuals do not. Consideration 9: The first chapter of 1 Timothy conflates the Decalogue proscription against adultery with arsenokoitai. There was a wellestablished tradition of conflating the Decalogue proscription against adultery with pederasty. Hence, the arsenokoitai in this passage were, quite specifically, the rapists of young boys. The Pauline school used arsenokoitai to condemn boy rapersnot homosexuals. Consideration 10: 1 Corinthians 6.9 condemns pornoi, moichoi, and arsenokoitai. Pauls original readers understood this terminology from the perspective of the well-established Triple Prohibitionseducers, adulterers, and boy rapers. Hence, his original readers understood arsenokoitai as a direct and specific reference to boy rapers. Consideration 11: The preponderance of the external evidence overwhelmingly attests to arsenokoitai as being involved in exploitative, unethical, cruel acts. The external evidence overwhelmingly attests to arsenokoitai as the rapists of young boysnot homosexuals.
Michael Wood
327
Consideration 12: Many conservative scholars point out that arsenokoitai likely derived from the Greek translation of Leviticus 18.22 or 20.13 or both. Who created the word? No one knows. From which verse did he create it (Leviticus 18.22 or 20.13)? No one knows. Did he even create it from one of these two verses? No one knows. If he created it from one of these verses, did he see the verse as proscribing homosexuality or pederasty? No one knows. Even if the creator based his compound word on one of these verses, did he intend to even make the compound word as a proscription against the literal interpretation of the verse? No one knows. Was the word originally created for one purpose, but popularly took off with a different meaning? No one knows. Meanwhile, convincing etymological arguments can be made for arsenokoitai as specifying the rapists of young boys (Scroggs). What does etymology really teach us? It teaches us nothing, nor should we expect otherwise. Etymology is speculation. Its improper to invoke that which we do not know as a relevant counterexample to that which we know. Consideration 13: It doesnt make a great deal of sense to use malakois proximity to arsenokoitai as an indication of arsenokoitais meaning. One cannot legitimately appeal to word order in an unordered list! If malakoi bears any direct relationship to arsenokoitai, it more likely corresponds to a possible tradition which would connect pornoi, moichoi, arsenokoitai and malakoi togetherwith the conceptual meanings seducers, adulterers, pederasts and lechers respectively.
Chapter Fifty Indulge Me

The actual writings of Paul and conventional Bibles are often two different things. 1 Corinthians 6:9 is a prime example. In this verse, the historical Paul wrote:
Dont you know that those lacking altruism will not inherit the kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves: not those who are malakoi1 Corinthians 6:9
Paul warned the Corinthians that those who are malakoi cannot enter the kingdom of God. So what did it mean to be malakoi?
The word malakos [singular of malakoi] literally means those who have become soft, those who live for the luxuries of subtle pleasures. It describes what we can only call a kind of wallowing in luxury in which people have lost all resistance to pleasure.489William Barclay Aristotle yokes malakos with akolasia and truph (licentiousness and luxury) and defines it as a failure to resist or be strong in the face of things that most men are able to resist (Nic. Eth. 1150b1-2); its opposite is karteria, fortitude (Nic. Eth. 1116a14, 1150a31-b19; cf. Eur. Suppl. 882-85)490Victoria Wohl
The malakoi were self-indulgent people who were unable to resist pleasures of any kind. Professor Wohl referenced some of Aristotles writings to document the historical meaning. Aristotle also wrote that the malakoi cannot resist pleasures or pains:
It is surprising if a man is defeated by and cannot resist pleasures or pains which most men can hold out against, when this is not due to heredity or disease, like the malakia that is hereditary with the kings of Scythians491Aristotle 489 The Letters to the Corinthians by William Barclay, p. 62, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Note: William Barclay was prior Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow. 490 Love among the Ruins: the erotics of democracy in classical Athens by Victoria Wohl, p. 175, Princeton University Press, 2002. Note: Victoria Wohl serves as a Professor, Department of Classics, at the University of Toronto. 491 Nic. Eth. 7.7.1150b16 328
Michael Wood
329
Aristotle wrote that the Scythian kings were malakoi. How did the Scythian Kings earn that reputation? The Scythians were well-known for their self-indulgent intoxication.
Scythyians drank wine immoderately and noisily. The poet Anacreon wrote: Come once more, let us no longer practice Scythian drinking of wine with clashing and shouting, but drink moderately with beautiful songs.492 The overindulgence of the Scythians was observed by peripatetic authors, the successors of Platos student Aristotle. Hieronymus of Rhodes in his work On Intoxication wrote that to do the Scythian is to become intoxicated, since the Scythians were known for their overindulgence493Max Nelson
In ancient times, the malakoi were those who were overly selfindulgent in anything, be it food, wine, or sex. In fact, in Pauls day, even those who were self-indulgent in knowledge were called malakoi:
If you spend time gaining knowledge you will be called simple-minded and malakos.494Dio Chrysostum (a contemporary of Paul)
Pauls converts in Corinth struggled with self-indulgence in all of these things. They were self-indulgent in food,495 sex,496 drinking,497 and knowledge. How were the Corinthians self-indulgent in knowledge?
In your display of knowledge, the unsteady one has been lost, the brother or sister for whom the Messianic King died. By sinning against your brothers and sisters and assaulting their unsteady feelings, you are sinning against the Messianic King.498
The knowledgeable Corinthians knew that eating meat sacrificed to idols was okay. So they ate meat sacrificed to idols, even when it upset their weaker brothers and sisters. In this way, they were selfindulgent in knowledge. Pauls antidote to their self-indulgence in knowledge was brotherly love:
492 Fragment 356(b) (Denys Page, Poetae Melici Graeci) 493 The Barbarians Beverage: a history of beer in ancient Europe by Max Nelson, p. 42, Psychology Press, 2005. Note: Max Nelson serves as assistant professor of Classics at the University of Windsor. 494 The Sixty Sixth Discourse by Dio Chrysostom, section 25. 495 1 Corinthians 6:12-13 496 1 Corinthians 6:12-13 497 1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:10 498 1 Corinthians 8:10-12
330
Pauline Paradoxes Decoded Knowledge puffs up, while love builds up.499Paul to the Corinthians
Self-indulgence is the opposite of brotherly love, which is why it prevents a person from entering the kingdom of God. The Corinthians abounded in self-indulgence and were at risk of missing the kingdom because of it. Pauls famous love chapter, often quoted at weddings, was originally written to instruct the self-indulgent Corinthians on proper Christian behavior.
Within a span of a few decades, love of neighbor, now tagged as the Law of Christ, became within Pauline circles and no doubt far beyond the ultimate and only guide for a believers conduct. To his Corinthian converts, who were always giving him hives, Paul sent his most eloquent exposition of the life of a true believer, hoping that with such a detailed description they would finally get things straight. This is Pauls Hymn to Love, a Himalayan peak of world literature: And now will I show you the best Way of all. If I speak all the tongues of men and angels, but speak without love, I am no more than a booming gong or clanging cymbal. If I can prophesy and fathom all mysteries and knowledge, and if I have so much faith that I can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all my possessions to the poorand even my body that I may boastbut have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient. Love is kind. It does not envy or boast or think highly of itself. It is not rude. It does not insist on its own way. It does not take offense, nor does it keep any record of wrongs. Love does not enjoy evildoing but enjoys the truth. It bears all things, trusts all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. Prophecy will cease. Tongues will be stilled. Knowledge will fail. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the Fulfillment comes, the partial will be done away with. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I saw as a child, I thought as a child. When I became a man, I put away the things of a child. Now we see as in the distorted reflection of a glass, but then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part, then I shall know as fully as I am known. For now, faith, hope, and love abide, these three. But the greatest of all is love.
499 1 Corinthians 8:1c-3
Michael Wood
331
Could the Corinthians miss the point of this large and humble essay, in which Paul, admitting what he does not know, sets out so clearly that the life of the believer is to beat least ideallya series of acts of generosity toward others without regard to self-indulgence or self-seeking? Well, the Corinthians were a difficult bunch. They required additional visits and several letters (not all of which have come down to us). Even in this letter you can read between the lines Pauls anguish at how many things they have bollixed up. 500Thomas Cahill
Out of all of Pauls converts, the Corinthians took the self-indulgent prize hands down. None of his other converts were even a close second in this regard. This is not surprising given that the historical city of Corinth was well known for its self-indulgent living.501 From both a Biblical and historical perspective, it is no wonder that Paul reminded the Corinthians that those who are malakoi cannot enter the kingdom of God. In other words, it is no wonder why he reminded them:
Dont you know that those lacking altruism will not inherit the kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves: not the self-indulgent1 Corinthians 6:9
Once again we come to a really big problem. For once again, conventional translators have taken a free hand with the Biblical text. In this case theyve written an appalling sentence.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived not the effeminate502
The NASB Bible has the audacity to claim that no effeminate man shall enter the kingdom of God. This translation is deplorable on three levels: Pauls letter doesnt give any indication that the Corinthians were effeminate. However, Pauls letter repeatedly attests that the Corinthians were overly self-indulgent. Only the translation self-indulgent matches the internal evidence.
500 Desire of the Everlasting Hills: the world before and after Jesus by Thomas Cahill, Random House Digital, Inc., 2001 501 After Paul Left Corinth: the influence of secular ethics and social change by Bruce W. Winter, p. 88, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001 502 1 Corinthians 6:9 NASB
332
Pauls letter to the Corinthians contains a highly nuanced presentation of lawful misbehavior when discussing sex with prostitutes. This internal evidence shows that Paul was careful to use loving-kindness to distinguish between legal and illegal sex acts. Translating malakoi as effeminate betrays this internal evidence. The external evidence (evidence outside the letter itself) shows that 1 Corinthians was written by a man who believed that brotherly love completely fulfills Jesus Law. Being effeminate (or even a macho receiver in homosexual intercourse) doesnt violate Jesus Lawnot even in the slightest. But self-indulgence (whether sexual or more broadly) does violate Jesus Law. Moreover, Paul chastised those lacking altruism (adikoi) in his sin list. The adikoi were those who either harmed others or simply lived selfishly to the neglect of others needs. The self-indulgent were guilty of the latter, as were the drunkards in the same list. Previously, it was pointed out that malakoi has a statistically equal chance of being related to drunkards as it did to arsenokoitai. And in Pauls list, the internal and external evidence indicate that it actually was more related to drunkenness. This shouldnt really be surprising: Thieves and robbers are conceptually related, even though they were separated by many unrelated words in the list. Pornoi, moichoi, and arsenokoitai are all conceptually related by the Triple Prohibitiona very well-established, well-attested tradition. Yet, none of the words were next to each other on the list. The self-indulgent (malakoi) and drunkards are both conceptually related. (They are both groups of selfish people who are absorbed by self pleasure to the neglect of altruism.) Their separation on the list is actually more expected than not! It is disturbing that the translators own prejudices against effeminate men are now cited as Gods own prejudices. The God discussed in modern translations is, in many ways, the opposite of the
Michael Wood
333
God discussed in the original Biblethe only Bible. Only through an increase in Biblical literacy can we finally move beyond this troubling situation. * * * Did 1 Corinthians 6.9 use arsenokoitai to exclude homosexuals? Consideration 1: Scholars originally translated arsenokoitai as rapists of young boys, but then inexplicably changed its meaning independent of any research finding. The change solely corresponded with a theological agenda. Consideration 2: Lack of brotherly love is the issue at hand in 1 Corinthians 6.7-9. Raping young boys inherently violates brotherly love, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 3: 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 was a list of those who Paul perceived as lacking altruism. Raping young boys inherently lacks altruism, whereas homosexuality is not. Consideration 4: Paul repeatedly taught: Since law determines the Judgment Day standard, benevolence alone determines who inherits the kingdom and who doesnt. Raping young boys inherently violates Pauls Judgment Day standard, whereas homosexuality does not. Consideration 5: Paul used the brotherly love to delineate between sex that excludes people from Gods kingdom and legal misbehavior. Paul so strongly adhered to Jesus Law that he openly conceded that sex with prostitutes was lawful. Raping young boys was unlawful just as adultery and seducing other mens women. Homosexuality was lawful misbehavior (at worst) or perfectly permitted (at best). (Well explore Pauls view of homosexuality in the next section.) Consideration 6: Most grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, male cousins, adult male children, adult male friends and adult male coworkers were proud pederasts. In the Roman Empire, pederasty
334
was extremely common while consensual adult homosexuality was relatively uncommon. From this historical vantage point, it seems evident that 1 Corinthians 6.9 proscribed the exceedingly common sex act and not the relatively uncommon one. Consideration 7: Hellenistic Jews saw pederasty as vicious rape. They saw it as an extreme ethical violation. Did Paul really overlook this extreme ethical violation only to condemn an act that didnt result in even the slightest ethical violation? Consideration 8: The context of 1 Timothy shows that arsenokoitai were unkind, unloving people. The boy rapists inherently fit this category whereas homosexuals do not. Consideration 9: The first chapter of 1 Timothy conflates the Decalogue proscription against adultery with arsenokoitai. There was a wellestablished tradition of conflating the Decalogue proscription against adultery with pederasty. Hence, the arsenokoitai in this passage were, quite specifically, the rapists of young boys. The Pauline school used arsenokoitai to condemn boy rapersnot homosexuals. Consideration 10: 1 Corinthians 6.9 condemns pornoi, moichoi, and arsenokoitai. Pauls original readers understood this terminology from the perspective of the well-established Triple Prohibitionseducers, adulterers, and boy rapers. Hence, his original readers understood arsenokoitai as a direct and specific reference to boy rapers. Consideration 11: The preponderance of the external evidence overwhelmingly attests to arsenokoitai as being involved in exploitative, unethical, cruel acts. The external evidence overwhelmingly attests to arsenokoitai as the rapists of young boysnot homosexuals. Consideration 12: Many conservative scholars point out that arsenokoitai likely derived from the Greek translation of Leviticus 18.22 or 20.13 or both. Who created the word? No one knows. From which verse did he create it (Leviticus 18.22 or 20.13)? No one knows.
Michael Wood
335
Did he even create it from one of these two verses? No one knows. If he created it from one of these verses, did he see the verse as proscribing homosexuality or pederasty? No one knows. Even if the creator based his compound word on one of these verses, did he intend to even make the compound word as a proscription against the literal interpretation of the verse? No one knows. Was the word originally created for one purpose, but popularly took off with a different meaning? No one knows. Meanwhile, convincing etymological arguments can be made for arsenokoitai as specifying the rapists of young boys (Scroggs). What does etymology really teach us? It teaches us nothing, nor should we expect otherwise. Etymology is speculation. Its improper to invoke that which we do not know as a relevant counterexample to that which we know. Consideration 13: It is dubious to use malakois proximity to arsenokoitai as an indication of arsenokoitais meaning. One cannot legitimately appeal to word order in an unordered list! If malakoi bears any direct relationship to arsenokoitai, it more likely corresponds to a possible tradition which would connect pornoi, moichoi, arsenokoitai and malakoi togetherwith the conceptual meanings seducers, adulterers, pederasts and lechers respectively. Consideration 14: A lack of altruism is not only the local issue of 1 Corinthians 6.9, but it is also the overarching issue of the entire letter. The Corinthians primary issue was self-indulgence to the point of neglecting the needs of others. They were overindulgent in food, wine, sex, and even knowledge! Pauls sin list was tailored to the needs of his letters recipients. Their shortcomings have direct bearing on the meaning of malakoi itself.
Chapter Fifty-One Running in Circles

Scholars such as EP Sanders take an unequivocal stand: Paul did not consider brotherly love to be the entire law. Considering Pauls direct statements to the contrary, one would think that Sanders must have immense evidence to support his view. Yet, when all is said and done, Sanders entire argument is as follows:
There is nothing self-evident, on the basis of the principle love your neighbor, about saying that homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6.9-11). Similarly the principle does not, abstractly considered, ban fornication. Paul apparently felt the standard Jewish repugnance for Gentile sexual practices. Paul did not work out a full legal system, his rulings seem ad hoc, and many of them may have come as a surprise to his converts, since they do not necessarily follow from the admonitions to love the neighbor and walk by the Spirit.503 EP Sanders
Sanders argument assumes that 1 Corinthians 6.9 excluded homosexuals from Gods kingdom. Yet, we have seen that both the internal and external evidence attest that Paul excluded boy rapers instead:
dont you know that those lacking altruism will not inherit Gods Kingdom? Dont fool yourselves: not boy rapers1 Corinthians 6.9
1 Corinthians 6.9 excluded boy rapers (arsenokoitai) from Gods Kingdom. However, Sanders considers the arsenokoitai to be homosexuals, and then uses this as a pretense to argue against Pauls consistency. But this is circular logic: Sanders translates 1 Corinthians 6.9 as if it condemns homosexuality.
503 The English word legal has been substituted for the word halakic. (As Sanders states in a corresponding footnote: Halakah is detailed and applied law.) Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, p. 95 336
Michael Wood
337
Then he uses his own translation choice as evidence that Paul didnt stay true to his own teachings on brotherly love fulfilling the law! Sanders chose to translate the Greek word arsenokoitai as homosexuals. This is fine (to a point). Yet, one cannot use a translation choice as evidence of someones inconsistency when an even more valid choice preserves the authors consistency! This is where the argument becomes mind-numbing. Once again, Sanders must go against the most common meaning of a word only to make Paul appear to contradict his own teachings as a result. Even if homosexuality was an equally valid translation as boy rapers, Sanders argument would remain baseless just on the grounds of circular logic alone. Its becomes incomprehensible when the chosen translation is against both the internal and external evidence. Sanders simply cannot use his own translation choice as evidence that Paul contradicted himself! Thats logically fallacious.
Chapter Fifty-Two Wheeler of Fortune

Given the intensity of the gay marriage debate, one would think the New Testament must unequivocally portray homosexuality as mortal sin. Yet, when it comes to homosexuality, conservative theologians most often invoke Paul. So were Pauls letters overflowing with unequivocal condemnations of homosexuality as mortal sin? Reverend Wheeler explains the conservative perspective on Paul:
St. Paul makes an explicit statement condemning homosexual practice in his letter to the Romans: God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.Romans 1:24-27 There are lists of disobedient types of people, including homosexuals, that are condemned in St. Pauls other letters, specifically I Corinthians and I Timothy: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals (also trans.: sexual perverts), nor thieves, nor {the} covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.1 Corinthians 6:9-10 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 murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites [homosexuals], kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.1 Timothy 1:9-10
338
Michael Wood
339
There is no scriptural reference that can be found to support the purported morality of homosexuality. So, the testimony of Scripture is irrefutable in its prohibition of homosexuality and emphatic in its condemnation of those who practice it. There is no honest way around this issue, as inconvenient as it may be to people of the present day who revel in the dark pleasures of homosexual intercourse, and enable others to do the same.504Reverend Wheeler
Reverend Wheeler and many other scholars believe there is no honest way around the issue of Pauls blatant exclusion of homosexuals from Gods Kingdom. Yet, the internal and external evidence begs otherwise. From Wheelers chosen perspective of honesty, it seems dishonest to invoke 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy as evidence against homosexuality. The translation of homosexuals is a new idea, derived from a gender-based view of sex that didnt exist during Pauls day, against the exceedingly more common sex act of pederasty, against Pauls own stated scope of Jesus Law, against the context of both 1 Corinthians 6.9 and 1 Timothy 1.9, against the external evidence on how the word arsenokoitai was actually used (as a reference to boy rapersnot homosexuals). It seems that Wheelers invocation of honesty is ill advised. 1 Corinthians 6.9 originally taught:
dont you know that those lacking altruism will not inherit Gods Kingdom? Dont fool yourselves: not seducers of other mens women nor adulterers, nor the self-indulgent, nor those who rape young boys
1 Timothy 1.9 originally taught:

The ultimate goal of our instruction is loving-kindness from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith; some have missed that point, and have been diverted into pointless ruminations, meaning to be teachers of the Torah, but not understanding either what they are saying or what they are making their assertions about However, we know that the Torah is a fine thing if you use it Lawfully, with the knowledge that Torah doesnt apply to the altruistic but for those who rape young boys.
Both 1 Corinthians 6.9 and 1 Timothy 1.9 excluded pederasts from Gods Kingdomnot homosexuals.
504 The Abomination of Homosexuality in the Episcopal Church by Fr. Lawrence B. Chip Wheeler, January 9, 2010. Note: Reverend Wheeler serves as the Pastor of Holy Cross Church.
340
This work separates Law and Pederasty from Law and Homosexuality because they are two different issues, largely perpetrated by two different groups of people. 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals (men who prefer sex with other men). In the entire New Testament, there is only one reference to men who desire sex with other adult men. Thats it. The New Testaments only reference to homosexuality is found in Romans 1.24-27. Therefore, if we want to know how Paul truly felt about consensual adult homosexual acts, Romans 1.24-27 is relevant to the discussion whereas 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy are not. So what did Paul write about homosexuality? Without a doubt, Pauls stance is going to surprise you. For Paul actually defended homosexuals against the prevailing Jewish view. This was the very point of his only reference to homosexuality. As we have already seen, many of Pauls other teachings are currently portrayed opposite of what he originally wrote. Now, as you will soon see, Pauls view of homosexuality is also being portrayed opposite of what he actually wrote. Allow me to demonstrate...

Introduction To Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Introduction To Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Tubi Publishing, LLC

ISBN: 978-1-936565-15-3 (hrc) ISBN: 978-1-936565-16-0 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-936565-17-7 (ebk)

Printed in the United States of America

Section XIII Law and Atonement

Appendix C: Akatharsia.......................................................... 516 Appendix D: Aselgeia.............................................................. 523

Section I A Problem of Law

Chapter One The Enigma of Paul

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Risnen reached this conclusion after conducting an exhaustive research initiative.

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Section II Solution to the Problem of Law

Chapter Two The Plot Thickens

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

The commandments between man and God included:

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Chapter Three Putting the Pieces Together

According to the external evidence, Paul wrote:

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

The other two divisions were invented later:

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Meanwhile, circumcision (another commandment of Moses law) was no longer in force:

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Chapter Four How Presumptuous

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

1 Corinthians: In 1 Corinthians Paul wrote:

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Chapter Five The Missing Key

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

The one-law mentality results in paradoxical translations:

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Section IX Law and Pederasty

Chapter Forty In The Beginning

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Chapter Forty-One Same Issues

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Chapter Forty-Two Everyones Doing It

What was the lower age limit? There wasnt one:

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Chapter Forty-Three A Rape by any other Name

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Chapter Forty-Four Whats Love got to do with It?

459 1 Timothy 1.5-9a 460 1 Timothy 1:5-10 293

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Chapter Forty-Five Decalogue Distinction

You shall not steal

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Pauline Paradoxes Decoded

Chapter Forty-Six Triple Prohibition

You shall not steal