Scripture, Tradition, and Truth: A Confessional Lutheran Response
A Personal Reflection from an LCMS Perspective
Having journeyed through theological studies within an ELCA-affiliated program, I have encountered firsthand the diverse interpretations and teachings that distinguish our Lutheran traditions. This experience has deepened my appreciation for the LCMS’s unwavering commitment to the authority of Scripture and the confessional standards that have guided our faith for generations.
The Authority of Scripture
The LCMS holds that the Holy Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God, serving as the sole rule and norm for faith and life. This conviction stands in contrast to the ELCA’s adoption of the historical-critical method, which often views biblical texts through the lens of cultural and historical context, sometimes leading to interpretations that diverge from traditional teachings. The 1974 Seminex controversy highlighted these differences, resulting in a significant schism within American Lutheranism.
Human Sexuality and Church Teaching
In 2009, the ELCA adopted the social statement “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” which opened the door for the recognition of same-gender relationships and the ordination of individuals in such relationships . The LCMS responded by reaffirming its position that homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful, emphasizing the need for repentance and the transformative power of the Gospel.
Upholding Confessional Integrity
While acknowledging the complexities of human experience, the LCMS remains steadfast in its commitment to the teachings of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. This includes a pastoral approach that speaks the truth in love, offering care and guidance rooted in God’s Word.
Further Reading
- LCMS Response to ELCA’s 2009 Decisions (auto .pdf download)
- Seminex and the Sovereignty of Scripture
“This reflection aims to elucidate the theological distinctions between the LCMS and ELCA, upholding the confessional integrity that defines our faith tradition.”
There are no explicitly recorded Pharisees contemporary with Paul who left direct written condemnations of homosexuality in the context of romantic domestic relationships. However, we can infer their likely views based on Jewish legal traditions and Second Temple period literature.
- Rabban Gamaliel I – A leading Pharisee and a teacher of Paul (Acts 5:34, Acts 22:3). While he is not recorded as making statements about homosexuality, as a prominent Pharisee, he would have upheld the Torah’s prohibitions against same-sex relations (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), which were generally interpreted strictly in Jewish law.
- Rabbi Shammai – Leader of one of the two main Pharisaic schools (the School of Shammai). His interpretations of Jewish law were known to be stricter than those of Hillel, meaning he would have held a rigid stance against any behaviors perceived as violating Torah law, including homosexuality.
- Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai – A Pharisee who later became a key figure in the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE). While no explicit statements on homosexuality from him exist, his contemporaries in the developing Rabbinic tradition maintained strong opposition to it based on Torah law.
- The Qumran Community (Essenes) – Though not Pharisees, the Qumran sect (which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls) was a contemporaneous Jewish group with strict legalistic interpretations. The Damascus Document (CD 4:14-19) condemns “sodomy” alongside other forms of perceived sexual immorality, reflecting a broader Jewish aversion to homosexual acts.
Pharisaic Views on Homosexuality
Pharisaic Judaism strictly adhered to the Torah, particularly Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which were interpreted as absolute prohibitions against male homosexual acts. Later Rabbinic literature (e.g., Talmudic discussions) continued to reflect this stance. Although the concept of romantic domestic same-sex relationships as understood today was not common in the ancient world, any sexual relations between men would have been condemned under Pharisaic legal interpretations.
The ELCA says that pederasty and bacchanals are what the apostle Paul was condemning and not domestic same-sex relationships, and that what he called abomination was not included, but it shows me more proof that Jewish culture did not approve of domestic relationships between the same-sex as well as pederasty and bacchanals.
Jewish culture during the Second Temple period and the early Rabbinic era strongly condemned same-sex relations in any form, including pederasty, ritual sexual practices (such as those associated with Bacchanalia), and romantic domestic same-sex relationships. Below are key sources and evidence demonstrating this stance.
1. Biblical Law (Torah)
The primary foundation for Jewish views on same-sex relations is found in the Torah:
- Leviticus 18:22 – “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (תּוֹעֵבָה, to’evah).”
- Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
These verses were not interpreted as prohibiting only specific types of homosexual acts (such as pederasty or cultic practices) but as a general ban on male same-sex relations.
2. Intertestamental Literature & Second Temple Jewish Thought
Jewish writings from the period between the Old and New Testaments reinforce the prohibition of all forms of male-male sexual relationships, not just exploitative or ritualized forms.
- The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (2nd century BCE – 1st century CE)
- Testament of Naphtali 3:3-5 condemns the “Sodomite” sin and connects it with general lawlessness.
- Testament of Benjamin 9:1 warns against sexual impurity, emphasizing that certain sins corrupt the soul.
- Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE), a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher
- In On Abraham (135-136) and Special Laws (3:37-42), Philo condemns both pederasty and same-sex relationships broadly, describing them as contrary to nature and the law of Moses.
- He criticizes both passive and active partners in same-sex acts, showing that his critique is not limited to pederasty or temple prostitution.
- Josephus (37-100 CE), a Jewish historian
- In Against Apion (2.199-202), Josephus asserts that the Jewish law forbids same-sex relations entirely, contrasting Jewish morality with Greco-Roman acceptance of homosexuality, including consensual relationships.
3. Rabbinic Literature (Post-Temple Period)
- Sifra (commentary on Leviticus, 3rd century CE) confirms that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 apply broadly.
- Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:6 lists homosexual acts among sins punishable by divine judgment.
- Babylonian Talmud (Nedarim 51a, Sanhedrin 54a-55a) interprets Levitical prohibitions in ways that reinforce their absolute nature.
- Rabbinic tradition does not distinguish between exploitative, ritualized, or consensual same-sex relationships; all are considered violations of Jewish law.
4. Cultural and Historical Context
Unlike Greco-Roman society, where consensual adult same-sex relationships (particularly between men of equal status) were sometimes accepted, Jewish culture was distinct in its absolute prohibition of male-male sexual relations.
- Jewish communities rejected Greco-Roman norms.
- In contrast to Greek pederasty, where older men engaged in relationships with younger boys, Jewish law and culture did not tolerate such relationships. Hellenization efforts in the Seleucid and early Roman periods often met strong Jewish resistance, particularly in matters of morality.
- No evidence of tolerated romantic domestic same-sex unions exists in Jewish culture.
- Unlike the Romans, who sometimes recognized male-male unions, Jewish sources show no acceptance of such relationships.
- Marriage and sexual ethics were defined by male-female unions, with procreation being a fundamental expectation.
5. Summary
- Jewish law categorically forbade same-sex relations, regardless of whether they were in a domestic partnership or in exploitative settings.
- Second Temple Jewish literature confirms that prohibitions extended beyond temple prostitution or pederasty.
- Philo and Josephus, two major Jewish figures contemporary with Paul, condemned same-sex relationships broadly.
- Rabbinic literature after Paul’s time upheld these prohibitions without distinction between different types of same-sex relationships.
- Jewish culture resisted Greco-Roman norms, maintaining strict boundaries against male-male relationships.
Thus, the claim that Paul was only condemning pederasty and Bacchic orgies is not supported by Jewish sources. Rather, Paul’s condemnation in Romans 1:26-27 aligns with the broader Jewish rejection of all same-sex relations, not just exploitative ones.