On the Ethics of
By James M. West. Copyright © August 3, 2008. All Rights Reserved.
E-mail:
ogdood@yahoo.com
“Sober
up to righteousness and stop sinning, for not all have the knowledge of God
(agnosian). I speak this to your shame.” (1 Cor.
The passage above is an example of a
peculiar duality that is found throughout Paul’s doctrine and ethic. This is
summed up in the basic concepts of “faith” and “knowledge” (gnosis) that appear
in Paul’s letters. Faith refers to the concept of justification by faith
(Gal.
“Know
ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
Paul’s message here seems to be clear
enough. But the problem is that he does not stop here. Instead he goes on to
qualify himself:
“All
things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” (1
Cor. 6:12)
Why does Paul qualify himself here? What
is the point? Inevitably we must conclude that Paul does not regard the sexual
act itself as “unlawful.” What Paul considers to be unlawful, or evil, is when
someone becomes a slave to sexual desire, but not because of the sexual act
itself. Certainly Paul has created a loophole in the moral code of the early
church, and this controversy is reflected in his letters, and in the later
Christian/Gnostic movement [1]. The problem here is that Paul does not actually
make plain that “fornication” and “homosexuality” are evil in and of
themselves. His words are open to interpretation.
Paul’s concept of knowledge and liberation
is described most clearly in 1 Corinthians 8. Here Paul informs his readers
that Christians who have “gnosis” are free to eat meat that has been sacrificed
to idols (1 Cor. 8:9–10). Paul’s only concern is that this is not done in front
of those brothers who are “weak” and who lack “gnosis” (1 Cor. 8:7). Partaking
of idol meats is forbidden in the Law of Moses, and in Acts
The implications of this liberation can
be seen in the passage below from Galatians 3:28. In this passage Paul informs
the Christians of Galatia that salvation is achieved through grace alone,
and they must not observe the Mosaic Law, or else they will inherit the curse
(Gal. 3:10–13). In this context Paul informed the Galatians that a new age was
beginning in Christ, and that for Christians the Law of Moses was no longer
binding. Paul therefore informed his readers that in Christ:
“There
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither
male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28)
Paul is not simply referring here to a
state equality among Christians. Paul refers to the passing away of the old
testament and the old social order that was established under the Law of
Moses, where Hebrews were divided from gentiles, and men separated from women,
and women subservient to men bound in marriage, and also the biblical laws
distinguishing free men and slaves (Dt. 7:6, Gen. 2:24, 3:16, Lev. 25:39ff.).
For Paul, the Christian church is the harbinger of a new spiritual order that Christians
will inherit in the resurrection. Christians have already been liberated from “bondage”
and are free from the Law.
Paul’s concept of liberation from the Law
is an idea that is traceable to Jewish tradition. Among Jews, or certain Jews
as the case may be, there was this idea that once the Messianic Age arrived,
that the Law of Moses would no longer be in force. The scholar Hans-Joachim
Schoeps documents the history of this idea in Judaism (Paul: The Theology of
the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, pg. 171f.). The
reason that Paul fell out with his fellow Jews is that he introduced the idea,
unique to his version of the gospel, that the Law of Moses ceased with the
resurrection of Jesus, and that all Christians were released from the Law. On
this point Paul was in conflict with both Jews and Christians alike (see
below).
This concept of liberation is also found
in other New Testament books aside from Paul. In the Gospel of Matthew this
concept is mentioned in two notable passages. In Matthew 22 Jesus cites this
doctrine in his answer to the Sadducees regarding a wife with multiple deceased
husbands: hence which man will she be married to in the kingdom? Jesus answers
that “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,
but are as the angels of God in heaven.” (Mt. 22:30)
And in Matthew 5 the following warning is
attributed to Jesus–probably against the followers of Paul–regarding those who
teach that the Law will pass before the kingdom arrives:
“Think
not that I am come to destroy the Law… For truly I say unto you, Till heaven
and earth pass, not the smallest letter or stroke will pass from the Law, till
all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great…”
(Mt. 5:17–19)
In comparison to the above passage let’s
now note the proclamations of Paul on the same issue:
“Therefore
by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified…” (Rom.
And also, regarding circumcision:
“For
I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the
whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are
justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace.” (Gal. 5:3–4)
And again, regarding the Sabbath:
“One
man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let
every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” (
Indeed this concept of liberation from
the Law is alluded to both in Paul’s letters and in Matthew. Most interesting
however is that Paul and “Matthew” actually oppose each other on the issue. The
“Jesus” of Matthew commands his followers to observe all of the law, not
withstanding the smallest “letter” or “stroke”; whereas Paul teaches the
opposite. In Matthew 19:16–17 Jesus tells the young aristocrat that in order to
have “eternal life” that he must “keep the commandments.” But again Paul taught
the opposite, as documented above; and in 2 Corinthians 3:6–7 Paul refers to
the Law of Moses as the “ministry of death.” In these conflicting passages we
can see that the earliest Christians were deeply divided, and that the “Jesus”
of Paul and the “Jesus” of Matthew are irreconcilable in terms of the concept
of redemption. Thus in Paul’s letters “Jesus” saves man from the Law;
whereas in Matthew “Jesus” saves man through the Law. These two
concepts of redemption are irreconcilable–and represent the teachings of
two opposing Christian factions.
My point overall is that Paul is not
referring to some abstract or mystical concept of unity and equality in
Galatians
But again there remains the question as
to what type of ethic that Paul and his followers were to live by. Some of my
readers will point out to me that “Paul” specifically instructed his followers
to adhere to the institution of marriage rather than indulge in fornication (1
Cor. 7:2). But I raise the question of the context of Paul’s statements. Did
Paul prescribe marriage as the ideal arrangement? Or did Paul prescribe
marriage for those who could not gain mastery over their desires? Because,
repeatedly, in Paul’s instruction, and in his warnings on fornication and
homosexuality, he qualifies himself: “All things are lawful for me. But I
will not be brought under the power of any.” (1 Cor.
I documented in my article Was Paul a
misogynist? that the letter of 1 Corinthians alone is comprised of more
than one letter. For example, in 1 Corinthians Paul can be shown have both
allowed and prohibited women from prophesying in the church (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:5
&
The best reason I can advance for Paul
not speaking in clear terms on the issue of gay sex or fornication is this: The
aim of Paul’s ministry was to convert Jews along with Gentiles (Rom. 11). Paul
knew that, typically, Jews were offended by homosexuality, and for this reason
Paul had to present the gospel to them in a form that they would accept (1 Cor.
I believe that Paul’s words “All things
are lawful” points to his expectation of a time in the future when more
enlightened views would prevail. In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul warned his fellow
Christians, who had “gnosis”, about flaunting their “liberty” in front of those
who lacked knowledge. And once again there is that strange admonition: “Sober
up to righteousness and stop sinning, for not all have the knowledge of
God. I speak this to your shame.” (1 Cor. 15:34) In these words Paul
admits his belief that a sin is a sin only when it is committed in front of
someone who lacks gnosis (agnosian). Hence All things are
lawful, and gay sex is only a sin when it is displayed in front of someone
who believes homosexuality is a sin.
Now some people will find my reasoning impossible
to accept. But this passage in 1 Corinthians 6:9–12 is not the only place in
the New Testament where there is a loophole on homosexuality and fornication. In
the Gospel of John there is a conspicuous theme in which Jesus has a male
lover, who is referred to repeatedly as the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” And
let us note the fact that nowhere in John is it said that Jesus and Mary
Magdalene were lovers. The disciple whom Jesus loved is a male figure.
Moreover, the author of this Gospel informs us that this male figure is
actually a subject of controversy for the other disciples. Thus at the end of
this Gospel, as Jesus prepares to depart, Peter asks him in reference to the
disciple:
“Then
Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved… Peter, seeing him,
asked Jesus, ‘Lord, what shall this man do?’ Jesus answered unto him, ‘If I
will that he remain until I return, what is that to you? You follow me’.” (Jn.
21:20–22)
Note the details in this exchange. Peter
has a question about the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” The language indicates
that Jesus loved this disciple in a special way that was different from his
relationship with all other men. Jesus loved this particular man. This
relationship is so peculiar that Peter asks of Jesus as to what this guy will
do when Jesus is gone. Jesus’s answer is practically a rebuke: “If I will
that he remain until I return, what is that to you? You follow me!” Here
Jesus puts Peter in his place. Why the controversy if there is not something
unusual and unconventional about this relationship?
Personally I suspect that the author of
the Gospel of John was a homosexual, and this was how he portrayed Jesus.
Hence, Jesus’s love transcended the traditional conventions mandated by the Law
of Moses. Because Jesus was divine and pure, he was able to engage in any form
of love. The underlying theme here is that in the resurrection there will be no
traditional conventions regarding love. Jesus and the disciple demonstrate
this. Hence they are portrayed as being gay. Indeed this coincides with Paul’s
admonition that “All things are lawful.”
I would also like to point out that this
homosexual theme actually represents another fulfillment from Old Testament
scripture, which also mentions a homosexual affair: between young David and his
beloved friend, Jonathan. Indeed in the Old Testament David’s love confession
is stated in plain language:
“Your
love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:26)
Wow! For David, loving Jonathan is better
than loving a woman! The underlying message here is that David and Jonathan
were lovers. And for the Gnostic reader this passage is based on a very
important theme. The conventional rational thinker would say that this passage
is a contradiction because the Law of Moses condemns homosexuality. But for the
Gnostic reader there is no contradiction here. In this case the love affair
between David and Jonathan is an image of a higher paradigm. I refer to the
first creation account in Genesis 1:27, where man is created in the image of
God “male and female.” The Gnostic understands that David and Jonathan were
loving each other in the image of a higher order, and not the order that was
established by the lesser god, Jehovah, in Genesis 2, where Adam was created
alone and male, and Eve was derived later from his rib, being female. For the
Gnostic this is why David and Jonathan do not incur the wrath of the Lawgiver
(the blind god), because they reflect the image of a higher God and have found
grace. I propose that this concept I describe is also the underlying theme of
Jesus’s affair with one of his male disciples.
Another latent homosexual theme, in the
Gospel of John, may also be seen in the account of the Passover meal that is
unique to this one Gospel, in John 13. Here Jesus is portrayed as behaving in a
way that is atypical of Jewish culture and piety, and is more consistent with
Greek culture. (Again, I think the author of this Gospel was definitely Greek,
and he was probably gay–or at the very least, condoned homosexuality.) In John’s
version of the Passover, Jesus is portrayed as standing up in the midst of the
meal. He undresses himself and is completely naked. Such nudity on this
occasion is certainly not consistent with Jewish culture and piety. Traditional
Jewish culture rejects nudity whereas Greek culture celebrates it. In John’s
Gospel, Jesus is walking around naked at the Passover meal. He then ties
a towel around his waist, and proceeds to “wash the disciple’s feet.” Peter is
portrayed as being very disturbed by these events, just as he was disturbed at
the presence of the “disciple whom Jesus loved” as mentioned above.
Personally, I suspect that the imagery in
this Passover account is meant to be symbolism which conceals a sacred rite, an
initiation, that Jesus administered to his disciples. The towel around the
waist represents the ceremonial apron that was worn by the high priests in the
Mystery religions. And the “washing the disciple’s feet” conceals the rite that
Jesus administered.
Epiphanius’s malicious account of the
Gnostics is probably based on a misunderstanding of the account in John. He
actually accused the Gnostics of quoting John as a sanction for literally
eating semen as a sacrament (i.e. Jn.
Coming back around now to the ethics of
Now again, some of my readers will object
to my statements, and they will point to Paul’s ‘wrath of God’ speech, in
Romans 1:18ff., as absolute proof that Paul condemned homosexual sex (Romans
“For
this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change
the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men,
leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another;
men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompence of their error which was due.” (
The typical “orthodox” Christian will
point to this passage as evidence that Paul condemned the act of homosexuality
itself. But I would like to raise the question of whether this passage is being
interpreted in its correct context. The passages I have already presented above
suggest that Paul was not condemning homosexuality in and of itself, hence “All
things are lawful.” Furthermore, Paul spoke of a social order where traditional
structures no longer existed; hence: in Christ “There is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for
ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal.
As for the “wrath of God” speech, I would
like to advance the question of whether this is not what “orthodox” Christians
claim, and that what we really have here is a polemic by Paul against other
Jewish Christians who have misrepresented his ministry and doctrine? At this
point I must inform my readers that Paul’s letter to the Romans is a letter of
introduction (A. Schweitzer, Mysticism of Paul., pg. 44f. W. Kummel, Introduction
to the NT, pg. 312). Paul has never been to
“For
if the truth of God has abounded more through my lie unto his glory; why yet am
I judged as a sinner? And not rather–as we be slanderously reported, and as
some affirm that we say–let us do evil, that good may come?” (
I would like to suggest that Paul’s
“wrath of God” speech is in fact a polemic against Jewish Christians who have
slandered him, and that Paul’s speech represents the list of accusations that
his Jewish/Christian adversaries made against him and his followers.
In “orthodox” tradition Paul’s speech is
represented as an attack on pagans who are immoral and have a wrong view of
God. This is supposedly represented in Paul’s words: “Because when they knew
God, they glorified him not as God…And changed the glory of God into an image
made like to corruptible man, and birds and fourfooted beasts and creeping
things… And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God
gave them over to a reprobate mind… Being filled with all unrighteousness…
Backbiters, haters of God…covenant breakers…” (Rom. 1:21, 23, 28, 30)
Supposedly this speech is an indictment
against the pagans; but there are problems, and there remains the question of
whether Paul was in fact referring to pagans in this speech–or was he referring
to someone else? First of all, I would like to point out a number of details in
this passage which are inconsistent with a proper description of pagan
religion. For one thing, Paul never actually mentions the issue of polytheism
or idolatry. Paul’s entire speech is coached in the context of monotheism. Paul
writes that the “wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (
Paul also asserts that the sinners in
question are “backbiters” and “haters of God…without understanding, covenant
breakers…” (
Again, I think Paul’s speech is a
characterization of an attack made by his Jewish Christian adversaries.
According to them, Paul is a backbiter (read: betrayer), a covenant breaker
(Paul teaches against the Law) and a God hater (Paul disparages the Law of
God).
There is also the accusation that the
truth of God is “suppressed in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18b). Of note is that
Paul actually accuses Moses of this very offense in a polemic in 2 Corinthians
4:1–2, “Therefore seeing that we have this ministry…we do not fail; but have
renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking around in craftiness, nor
handling the word of God deceitfully…” These words follow Paul’s statement that
“Moses” has blinded the eyes of the Israelites to the death oriented nature of
the Law: “Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech:
and not as Moses, who placed a veil over his face, so that the children of Israel
could not steadily behold that which was fading away. But their minds were
blinded: for unto this day the same veil remaineth in the reading of the old
testament…even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart”
(2 Cor. 3:12–15).
Paul wrote the words above in reference
to Jewish Christians who denounced his teaching on the Law. We should also note
that this passage actually begins with the problem in that the Church
leadership, presumably the Apostles at
In Paul’s letters the “truth
suppressed in unrighteousness” is a theme that has context and reflects an
accusation that he made against Jews, and which Paul and his adversaries probably
traded back and forth. In Galatians Paul argued that the Law of Moses was not
from the supreme Being, but was given by lesser powers which were described as
“angels”, “guardians” and “stewards” (Gal. 3:19, 4:1–2). Paul actually
believed, and taught his followers, that observance of the Law had nothing to
do with worshipping God: “But now, after ye have known God…why turn again to the
weak and beggarly elements, whereunto you desire again to be in bondage?” (Gal.
4:9) This was Paul’s warning to the Galatians against Jewish Christians who
were attacking Paul, and were demanding that the Galatian Christians observe
the Law of Moses. Paul’s warning is as follows: “Christ is become of no effect
unto you: whosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace.”
(Gal. 5:4) In these words it is obvious that Paul did not believe that the Law
represented the righteous commands or worship of God. This theological position
is reflected further in 1 Corinthians 10:18–19, “Behold
In the preceding passage Paul denounces temple
rites at
Paul’s speech also reflects the
accusation that there is homosexuality among his followers, because they do not
retain a proper concept of God, as Lawgiver, in their minds (Rom.
Thus what Paul’s speech actually
describes is the lawless doctrine and lifestyle that Paul’s accusers claim that
he leads (along with his followers). Paul repeats these accusations in their
exaggerated and libelous context. Paul is not out to openly attack respected
Apostolic leaders; his purpose is to answer the charges against himself and his
followers. For this reason he sets forth his speech like a riddle. Paul doesn’t
make clear who the accusers and the accused are: he leaves it for his readers
to make the connection. (Note: Paul’s historic conflict with the Jewish
Christians, including the Apostles at
Another clue that Paul’s speech doesn’t
refer to pagans can be seen in Romans 2:1. Here, Paul’s speech, supposedly
against pagans, all of a sudden refers to Jews without a break or change in
theme. In Romans 2 Paul warns Jews against judging other people when they sin
against the Law themselves (Rom. 2:1ff, 17–23). In Romans 3 Paul admits to
being a liar–in the same breath that he refers to God as the Lawgiver–but he
denies teaching that Christians should practice “evil” so that “good” may come
(Rom. 3:8). The balance of Romans is a diplomatic treatise in which Paul
defends his teaching against the Law.
My main point is that in the ‘wrath of
God’ speech, Paul is not condemning homosexuality, he is defending himself
against the charge that he and his followers are homosexuals who embrace a
wrong theology. If the reader follows the train of Paul’s ideas from Romans
1:18 to 2:29, it becomes obvious that Paul’s speech is actually a polemic
against Jewish Christian prudes who judge others by the Law, but can’t keep the
Law themselves–and will not acknowledge the grace (that Paul says) comes
through Christ. Paul insists throughout Romans that the grace of Christ has
supplanted the Law, and that this is the truth that all Jews should accept.
It is an elementary point for me to mention,
once again, that “orthodox” tradition has recreated the Apostle Paul in its own
image. But undoubtedly Paul’s letters, even in their present form, retain a lot
of material that reflects on who Paul really was. Paul’s letters reflect that
ancient world of early, Hellenistic Christianity that has been subsequently
associated with the later Gnostics, such as the Naassenes and the Carpocratians
[1]. In Paul’s teaching there is a gap between the notion of absolute morality
and the concept of liberty, and the notion that “All things are lawful.” Paul
dispensed with the Jewish foundation of Christian morality in favor of the
notion that a Christian’s nature and morality would be guided by the Spirit,
and not by the letter of the Law (1 Cor. 3:6–7). This lead to a certain level
of chaos among Paul’s followers. And the later Catholic Fathers report that some
Gnostic sects defined their radical ethics on the basis of such passages as 1
Corinthians
Paul believed that a true moral ethic
would be established when people put God first in their lives. Paul did not
believe that this true morality could be reached by simply abstaining from and
condemning homosexuality, or fornication. Paul understood that the acts of
homosexuality and fornication were not at the root of the real problem in human
nature. He recognized that the real problem was rooted in a lack of priorities:
in a fundamental lack of understanding of what God’s nature really is, and in a
lack of understanding the proper place of pleasure in human existence. Simply abstaining
from and/or condemning homosexuality does not in itself make one a Godly
person. Whereas a truly Godly person might be caught in a homosexual tryst–just
as Jesus was portrayed in the Gospel of John, or as David and Jonathan in the
books of Samuel.
The truth behind all of this is that
true, divine Love transcends all conventions. All true Gnostics understand this
without becoming slaves to vice. The shocking truth is that when two men love one
another with a pure heart–the two become an image of the Divine. The problem
however is that this divine love cannot be revealed before the eyes of those
who are uninitiated, who lack gnosis. Aspiring gay Christians today
would do well to heed Paul’s wisdom. According to Paul, gay Christians aren’t
condemned because of gay sex which is lawful. They condemn themselves
because they flaunt the liberty of the Gospel before the eyes of the
uninitiated, by which they turn the liberty of gnosis into a stumbling
block. –jw
Note
1.
Clement
of
Readers
can e-mail their comments, etc., to me at ogdood@yahoo.com