p. 369— “On the basis of first-century evidence, then, there is no reason to regard the soft as male prostitutes or abused young slaves.” He suspects, rightly I think, that the reason for favoring the ‘male prostitute’ translation is so modern Christians can say Paul is condemning male prostitution by the term, not homosexuality in general.
p. 370 today we know some people are born this way, and Sanders is opposed to defrocking the gay or limiting their activities in church etc. But it is not Paul’s view. So, instead Sanders condemns Biblicism, the notion that modern Christians should do exactly what the Biblical authors said and did—
p. 371— He then cites obsolete examples from the OT of things left behind, and then says Paul believed in baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15.29). But nothing suggests he does, it is the Corinthians who do. Paul thought men should not have long hair but women should, but we don’t require that [and Paul does not use imperative there]. Then he says churches ignore the vice lists today not condemning people who drink too much or the greed or the deceitful— to which I say— we should condemn such things.
p. 372— While I agree that church is bad in its lack of insistence on no adultery, a condemnation of hypocrisy and selective Bible quoting is not an argue in favor of not trying to follow what it teaches us.
p. 373— He repeats the claim without evidence that Palestinian Jews were less rigid on sexual ethics than Diaspora Jews. Paul was completely in agreement with Philo on condemning all homosexual practice. But note that 1 Cor. 5 suggests that a serious sexual offender might be saved at the judgment when Christ returned.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In