Truncated Love

Truncated Love:
A Response to Andrew Marin’s Love Is an Orientation
Part 1
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
gagnon@pts.edu
August 31, 2010
Andrew Marin’s book, Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the
Gay Community (2009), has been gaining some traction in evangelical circles. Having
just finished reading the book I am stunned that an evangelical press like InterVarsity
would publish such a fatally flawed work—and that persons such as Scot McKnight (a
New Testament professor at an evangelical university, North Park) and a certain Michelle
Strombeck of Moody Broadcasting Network (a conservative evangelical organization)
would provide endorsements for it. (A foreword by Brian McLaren is not surprising since
McLaren had already surrendered to a homosexualist view. The same applies to Tony
Campolo, whose enthusiastic video endorsement is posted on Marin’s site.)
Although I had read some interviews of Marin and got reports back from
acquaintances about Marin’s claims, I’ve ignored his book until now because, frankly, I
didn’t think his book would have much of an impact on evangelical Christianity.
However, a recent puff piece on Marin by Heather Sells for the conservative Christian
Broadcast Network has convinced me that it is time to respond (“Christian’s Outreach to
Gays: I'm Sorry,” 8/20/10). 1 Sells applauds Marin for allegedly encouraging Christians to
remain true to their theology (he doesn’t) while reaching out in friendship to gays. There
is not a critically constructive response to Marin presented anywhere in the article.
I. Problems with Marin’s Ch. 7:
“The Big 5: Principles for a More Constructive Conversation”
I began reading Marin’s book with his chapter 7: “The Big 5: Principles for a More
Constructive Conversation” (pp. 114-39). I began here because the truth question would
decide the shape of love to those engaged in homosexual behavior. How love is to be
expressed will be different in significant ways depending on whether homosexual
practice is an instance of moral adiaphora (a Greek word used by Stoics for “matters of
indifference”) like food and calendar issues or behavior serious enough to get one
excluded from the kingdom of God. If the former, then the policy put forward by Paul in
Rom 14:1-15:13 would apply: Mind your own business because it is a matter between the
believer and the Lord Jesus Christ who died for him. However, if the latter, then it is the
responsibility of the church to correct the offender in the hope of reclaiming this one for
God’s kingdom, much as Paul did in the case of the incestuous man in 1 Corinthians 5.
1
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/August/Missionarys-Message-to-Gays-Im-Sorry-/

A. What Marin Ignores: How Homosexual Practice Is a Comparable Wrong to Incest
In 1 Cor 5 Paul is appalled that the Corinthian believers were willing to tolerate an
instance of adult-consensual incest between a man and his stepmother (in effect, an affine
substitute for his mother). Rather than say that the whole matter is God’s business and not
that of the church, Paul exhorted the Corinthians to “judge those inside” the church who
were engaged in immoral behavior (5:12-13). He insisted that the Corinthians should be
in a state of mourning for “the one who calls himself a brother” (5:2). “In the name of our
Lord Jesus” they should remove the offender temporarily from their community life (“not
even to eat with such a one”) as a last-ditch remedial measure (not primarily punitive
action) to save “his spirit on the Day of the Lord” and to safeguard the community
against laxity in sexual purity (5:4-11).
Marin does not appear to consider whether in Paul’s view an adult-committed
homosexual union might be comparable in severity to an adult-committed incestuous
union. The evidence indicates that the two would have been comparable for him. He
connects incestuous offenders in the vice list in 1 Cor 6:9-10 with the sexual offenders
“adulterers,” “soft men” (i.e. men who feminize themselves to attract male sex partners),
and “men who lie with a male” as among those who shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Leviticus 20 lists in the first tier of sexual offenses (vv. 10-16) the prohibition of men
lying with a male alongside prohibitions of adultery, the worst forms of incest
(intercourse with one’s parent, child, or affine substitute), and bestiality.
Incest is rejected in Scripture on grounds that are analogically related to its rejection
of homosexual practice: both constitute intercourse with someone who is too much of a
same or like in terms of formal structures of embodied existence, one on the level of too
much gender identity, the other on the level of too much kinship identity (compare Lev
18:6: “no man shall approach any flesh [šəēr] of his flesh [bĕśārô] to uncover
nakedness”). Indeed, the principle of complementary gender otherness in sexual
relationships is grounded in creation in a male-female prerequisite, well before the issue
of kinship otherness is addressed. Developing incest law in Deuteronomy and Leviticus
outlaw some relations that the patriarchs engaged in: Abraham’s marriage to his half
sister, Sarah (Gen 20:12), Jacob’s marriage to two sisters (Gen 29), and Amram’s
marriage to his aunt Jochebed (Exod 6:20). By contrast there is never any later retraction
in Scripture of earlier permissions with regard to homosexual practice because from the
very beginning of creation it is understood that God designed human sexual relations for
“male and female” (Gen 1:27).
The principle of otherness-within-sameness is affirmed in Gen 2:18, 20 when the
effort begins to find for the adam or human a helper “as his counterpart [or:
complement]” (kĕnegdô). The preposition neged can mean both similarity corresponding
to (i.e. similarity as humans) and difference opposite (i.e. difference as regards a distinct
sex extracted from him). This principle of otherness-within-sameness is later applied
from gender differentiation to kinship otherness. So not only are the prohibitions of
homosexual practice and incest related but also the prohibition of homosexual practice
(or, positively stated, a male-female requirement) is more foundational than, and provides
the basis for, a prohibition of incest. Adult homosexual practice is thus a more severe
violation of God’s sexual norms than is adult incest, not less so.

B. Two Initial Negatives about Marin’s Chapter on the Bible: Poor Research and a
Constricted Textual Base
Poor research. The first thing to note about Marin’s chapter dealing with Scripture’s
opposition to homosexual practice is how badly researched his presentation is. This
chapter would not pass muster as a paper submitted in a Bible course taken at a reputable
seminary, let alone be of a quality that would justify publication by a non-vanity press.
He cites only two works specifically dealing with the issue of Scripture and homosexual
practice, only one time each; and both works are on the homosexualist side and by now
quite dated (Robin Scroggs’s The New Testament and Homosexuality [1983] and John
Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality [1980]). That’s it. If he
read anything else, one sees little evidence of such in what Marin wrote. Marin would
undoubtedly counter that his purpose was not to look at the details but the “big picture.”
The problem with that reasoning is that one can’t understand accurately the big picture
until one does his or her homework with respect to the details—a point that I aim to
demonstrate throughout this review. Marin shows no awareness whatsoever of the
mountain of evidence and arguments that I or others have put forward against
homosexualist attempts to neutralize these texts. In fact, he gives every indication that he
does not want to know.
A constricted textual base: No Genesis and Jesus. The second thing to note is the
constricted selection of texts that Marin chooses to discuss. He singles out what he calls
“the big 5” Bible passages on homosexual practice: Sodom, the Levitical prohibitions,
Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Not only does he leave out texts
that speak directly to the issue of homosexual practice (the Levite at Gibeah in Judges
19:22-25, the qedeshim texts [referring to homosexual cult personnel] texts in the
Deuteronomy 23:17-18; and various OT and NT texts that identify the sin of Sodom with
sexual immorality: Ezek 16:49-50; 18:12; Jude 7; 2 Pet 2:6-7, 10) 2 but, more importantly,
he leaves out completely texts that speak directly to a male-female prerequisite for sexual
relations such as the Genesis creation texts (1:27 and 2:24) and Jesus’ use of these texts
in Mark 10:2-12 (par. Matt 19:3-9). Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation,
poetry, and metaphor in the pages of Scripture that has anything to do with sexual
relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite for sexual relations and marriage.
Genesis 1:27b (“male and female he made them”) in its historical and literary context
states God’s intended design that sexual relations be between the two (and only two)
complementary sexes. Genesis 2:21-24 pictures man and woman as the two parts of a
sexual whole, each other’s missing sexual “counterpart” or “complement” whose union in
marriage reconstitutes that wholeness. Jesus cited the self-contained twoness of the
complementary sexes, “male and female” (Gen 1:27) or “man” becoming joined to
“woman” (Gen 2:24), as the foundation for limiting the number of persons in a sexual
union to two. Jesus forbade a revolving door of divorce-and-remarriage and, implicitly,
concurrent polygyny (multiple wives) on the basis of a male-female prerequisite for
sexual relations and marriage. The Essenes made a similar use of Gen 1:27 to condemn
polygyny in Israel (Damascus Covenant 4.20-5.1). The twoness of the sexes establishes
the twoness of the sexual bond. Jesus thus presumed a male-female requisite as the
2
He mentions in passing the Levite at Gibeah and Ezekiel texts but seems not to know their relevance for
establishing Scripture’s absolute indictment against homosexual practice.

logical foundation upon which other sexual commands are predicated. A homosexual
relationship would be for him a violation of a foundational, creation-based command in
sexual ethics, more severe than multiple-partner sexual unions since the foundation is
always more important than any principle based on the foundation. There are at least nine
other arguments that one can make from the literary and historical context that provide
additional confirmation for the conclusion that Jesus subscribed to a male-female
perquisite:
• Jesus’ retention of the Law of Moses generally, even on relatively minor matters
like tithing spices
• Jesus’ intensification of the Law’s sex ethic regarding not only divorce-and-
remarriage (compare Matt 5:31-32) but also “adultery of the heart” (Matt 5:27-28)
and the connected warning about cutting off offending members (Matt 5:29-30)
• John the Baptist’s willingness to risk his own life by criticizing Herod Antipas for
violating Levitical incest law
• Early Judaism’s united and vigorous opposition to all homosexual practice, an
opposition superseded only by bestiality and matched (if at all) only by the worse
forms of incest
• The early church’s equally united and vigorous opposition to all homosexual
practice, which, in connection with Jesus’ Scripture (our OT), the context of early
Judaism, and the stance on sexual ethics by the man who baptized him, shows the
historical absurdity of any claim that Jesus was somehow open to committed
homosexual unions
• Jesus’ saying about the holistic, body-defiling effect of desires for porneiai
(“sexual immoralities,” Mark 7:21-23), a word that everywhere in Second Temple
Judaism would have included a prohibition of homosexual practice at the top of
the list and a remark that underscores how seriously Jesus took sexual sin
• Jesus’ embrace of the Decalogue (Mark 10:17-22), a body of law that presumes a
male-female prerequisite in its commands to honor father and mother, not commit
adultery, and not covet one’s neighbor’s wife
• Jesus’ saying about Sodom (Matt 10:14-15; Luke 10:10-12; we’ll come back to
this)
• The “born eunuchs” statement in Matt 19:10-12, in which Jesus may have
presupposed that men with sexual attractions for other males are not having any
sex (like those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of advancing God’s
kingdom).
Given the 10 pieces of evidence cited above, the finding that Jesus was opposed to
homosexual practice, and strongly so, is an historical no-brainer. To claim otherwise is
akin to claiming that your local evangelical pastor must be in favor of adult-committed
incest and polyamory or at least think them no big deal, because the pastor has never
delivered a sermon or given a teaching against such behavior. Jesus didn’t need to speak
directly against homosexual practice because there was no need to say anything to a
Jewish culture in which no one was advocating, let alone engaging in, homosexual
practice and in which such behavior was strongly prohibited in Scripture and regarded
throughout early Judaism as among the most serious of sexual offenses.

C. Marin’s “Eternal Principles” for “Bridging the GLBT and Christian Communities”
Marin largely sidesteps any engagement with the question of whether the authors of
Scripture treat homosexual practice as a first-order and intrinsic sexual offense. Instead,
he claims to have found “eternal principles” from “the big 5” that “bridge” the “GLBT
and Christian communities,” “stop the fight,” and enable the two sides to “understand
[their] differences” (138). Even though the church has never before in its history
abandoned the field of biblical exegesis and interpretation when facing heretical
challenges, Marin recommends that the church do precisely that over the issue of
homosexual practice. He lumps defenders of a male-female requirement for sexual unions
(those espousing the correct and moral position) with its attackers (those espousing the
incorrect and immoral position) and likens their engagement over the use of Scripture to a
back-alley “street brawl” in West Side Story. Marin shirks his responsibility for making a
careful study of Scripture on the issue, apart from occasionally parroting the
homosexualist line. He ignores the fact that the mere existence of more than one
interpretation for a given text is not, in itself, proof that all the interpretations are equally
valid readings. One first has to do one’s homework in carefully evaluating the respective
arguments—which is something that Marin has clearly not done.
When the Church Fathers were engaged in their centuries-long struggle with
Gnosticism (2nd to 5th centuries A.D.)—an earlier “street brawl”—they didn’t abandon the
scriptural case just because they knew that they would not be able to change the minds of
many Gnostics, certainly not the leadership. When Paul encountered the case of the
incestuous man at Corinth he did not say, “Let’s stop the fighting over what Scripture
says about incest and try to find eternal principles that will help us bridge our
differences.” That may have been the position of the Corinthian “strong” who prided
themselves (were “puffed up” or “inflated”) in their ability to tolerate such behavior in
their midst (1 Cor 5:2); but it was not Paul’s position. Essentially Marin adopts the
Corinthian position rather than Paul’s on how to handle sexual immorality.
Some of Marin’s “eternal principles” that he allegedly derives from the broader
context “the big 5” are in direct contradiction to the actual context. And none of the
“eternal principles” are utilized by the Scripture author to undermine the teaching of a
male-female prerequisite for sexual relations.
D. Marin’s Fourth “Eternal Principle,” Falsely Derived from the Context of 1 Cor 6:9:
“Know when to release control of someone’s life”(a.k.a. “the Great Christian Debate
Principle”)
The most egregious mishandling of Scripture comes in his fourth principle that he
allegedly extrapolates from the context of 1 Cor 6:9: “to know when to release control of
someone’s life” (130-34). This principle is the exact opposite of the one that Paul
formulated in context.
Marin seems not to realize that the overarching context for the offender list in 1 Cor
6:9-10 is the case of the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5. The offender list in 6:9-10 is nearly
the same as the offender lists formulated by Paul in 5:10-11—the major difference being
the addition in 6:9 of three sexual offenders (“adulterers,” “soft men,” men who lie with a
male) to fill out the meaning of the general term pornoi, “sexually immoral persons,” that

Paul has already applied to the incestuous man in 5:9-11 (cf. porneia, “sexual
immorality,” in 5:1). To these sexual offenses he will add sex with a prostitute (a pornē)
in 6:15-17 and fornication (sex outside of marriage) in 7:2. The offender lists in 5:10-11
and 6:9-10 are connected in another way as well: Paul’s practical conclusion in 5:9-13 is
that believers are “not to get mixed up with [i.e. associate with] sexually immoral
persons” (mē sunanamignusthai pornois) like the incestuous man at Corinth “who calls
himself a brother” (i.e. believer), “not even to eat together with such a person.” Paul
derives this practical conclusion from the theological conviction expressed in 6:9-10 that
“sexually immoral persons” (including those engaged in incest, adultery, same-sex
intercourse, sex with a prostitute, and fornication in a serial, unrepentant manner) “will
not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Precisely because everything is at stake for these sexual offenders—nothing less than
the high risk of permanent exclusion from eternal life with God—the church cannot sit
idly by and do nothing when self-professed believers are engaged in such conduct.
Rather, Paul argued, put the person temporarily outside the sphere of the community’s
safety, as a remedial (not punitive) action, (1) for the sake of the offender (who, apart
from such a wake-up call, would probably end up not inheriting the kingdom), (2) for the
sake of the community as a whole (which, as the leaven analogy in 5:6-7 indicates, would
otherwise be infected with indifference and laxness toward gross sexual immorality), and
(3) ultimately for the sake of the God and Christ (who redeemed them from the power of
sin and whose judgment the community may now incur for tolerating such immorality in
their midst; compare 10:5-12). 3 In a letter that nearly everywhere else emphasizes unity
(chs. 1-4 on divisions, in part chs. 8-10 on idol meat, chs. 12-14 on spiritual gifts), Paul
stresses in a case of sexual immorality the necessity of disciplining a self-professed
believer who, showing no prospect of repenting on his own, continues to engage in sexual
immorality. 4
In other words, the context of 1 Cor 6:9 is the exact antithesis of Marin’s formulation,
“to know when to release control of someone’s life.” Paul asks rhetorically, “Is it not
those inside (the church) that you yourselves are to judge?” (5:12). The obvious answer
in context is “Yes” (note that Paul introduces the question with an interrogative and
emphatic ouchi, which expects a “yes” answer). But somehow Marin gets a “No” answer.
Now it is true that Paul infers that we are not to judge those outside the church (5:9-10,
12-13). Yet context indicates that Paul means by this only that believers cannot avoid all
association with immoral believers because all unbelievers are at root immoral and strict
disassociation from all unbelievers is a metaphysical impossibility this side of the
eschaton. He does not mean that believers should not evaluate the behaviors of
unbelievers as immoral. Indeed, the whole premise for his observation is that unbelievers
are inherently immoral. Nor does he mean that there should be no entry expectations
regarding moral conduct for those who want to confess “Christ is Lord.” Indeed, if it
were otherwise, a person who professed Christ while continuing in grossly immoral
conduct (e.g., engaging in adultery, incest, homosexual practice, sex with prostitutes,
murdering, stealing, extortion, kidnapping) and was accepted as a member of a church
3
Paul’s remarks in 10:5-12 cite God’s destruction of the wilderness generation for their idolatry and sexual
immorality as a warning to the Corinthian believers.
4
Paul will also indicate in ch. 10 that no accommodation can be made to idolatry; and in ch. 15 that no
accommodation can be made to the gospel message about resurrection of the body.


would have to be on church discipline soon, if not immediately. That is why the
Apostolic Decree required abstinence from sexual immorality as a prerequisite for
membership in the church (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) and why Paul made instruction on the
necessity of sexual purity (no to sexual immorality) second only to the necessity of
worship of the one God of Jesus Christ (no to idolatry) in his exhortations to new
converts (so 1 Thess 4:1-9; Gal 5:19, 21; 1 Cor 6:18-20; Eph 4:19; 5:3-13). The twin
injunctions in 1 Cor to “flee sexual immorality” (6:18) and “flee from idolatry” (10:14)
are not accidental. These were the two greatest concerns that Paul had for Gentile
converts as regards their disassociation from a sinful life.
So how does Marin wring out of a context for 1 Cor 6:9 that emphasizes the necessity
of church discipline for unrepentant sexual sinners an “eternal principle” of “know when
to release control of someone’s life”? The process is a wonder to behold. Marin deduces
from 1 Cor 6:11—“and these things some were but you washed yourselves off, but you
were sanctified [i.e. made holy], but were justified [i.e. declared righteous] in the name of
the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God”—that “potential inheritance of the
kingdom of God is birthed out of belief, first and foremost” (132). Well, yes, it does start
with God’s grace and our initial faith but the special point of 6:11 is that sexually
immoral behavior is incompatible with that initial faith and must be repented of, else the
offender faces destruction—confession of faith or no confession of faith.
Then Marin adds:
But with all of the Corinthian church’s problems ... Paul knew he couldn’t keep going
back to fix everything.... Paul was conscious of the harsh realization in play: at what
point do the Corinthians take what he taught and wrote, and stand on their own two feet?
... When it comes to Christians’ relationship with gays and lesbians, the Great Christian
Debate encourages us to ... recogni[ze] that at some point GLBT people have to stand on
their own in faith, with God.... You can’t make anyone do anything they are not
themselves convinced about. When do gays and lesbians have the right to be their own
person in Christ, regardless of whether a Christian agrees with their conclusion—whether
that conclusion is to be a gay-Christian or nonbeliever? (133-34)
According to Marin, Christians who disagree with homosexual practice should
“release responsibility” for a “gay Christian” and trust “in God’s ultimate power to
continue to shape their journey of faith—just as Paul did with the Corinthian church”
(134; emphasis added). However, the problem for Marin is that, in the case of the
incestuous man, Paul did not “release responsibility” for the offender’s fate, nor did he
encourage the Corinthian believers to do so. His trust in God’s ultimate power did not
cause him to let a case of incest at Corinth play itself out without intervention, nor did he
encourage the Corinthian believers to take such an approach. On the contrary, Paul
insisted “in the name of our Lord Jesus” that the Corinthian believers take action by
removing the offender from their midst—a point made no less than six times in thirteen
verses:
And have you become puffed up [or: inflated with pride, arrogant] and (should you) not
rather (have) mourned in order that the one who committed this deed might be removed
from your midst? (5:2)
... hand over such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh in order that the spirit
may be saved on the Day of the Lord? (5:5)


Clean out [i.e. get rid of] the old leaven in order that you may be a new batch (of dough),
just as you are unleavened. (5:7)
I wrote to you in (my previous) letter not to get mixed together [i.e. associate] with
sexually immoral persons. (5:9)
But as it is I wrote to you not to get mixed up together [i.e. associate] if any person who
calls himself a brother is a sexually immoral person ..., not even to eat with such a one.
(5:11)
“Remove the evil one from yourselves” (5:13, citing Deut 17:7).
To do less would be unloving because it would leave the offender in his sin and thus
destined for destruction. The same course of action would have applied to self-professed
Christians who were engaged in active and habitual adultery, same-sex intercourse, sex
with prostitutes, idolatry, theft, extortion, and drunkenness. Sexual offenses, Paul argued,
were particularly pernicious. They affected the body holistically, not superficially, which
is problematic for the person whose body is a temple of the Spirit of Christ in them (6:18-
19). And they are given to extraordinary amount of self-justification because of their
intensely pleasurable character (6:12-15).
Imagine the Corinthian church writing something like Marin’s position back to Paul:
Paul, what we hear you saying is this: The man having sexual relations
with his stepmother has the right to be his own person in Christ,
regardless of whether we agree with his conclusion. You want us to
release control of the incestuous man’s life and trust in God’s ultimate
power to continue to shape his journey of faith. You want us to recognize
that we can’t make him do anything that he himself is not convinced
about. We agree with you that faith has started him on his journey to
inherit God’s kingdom and God alone can change his ways. In
accordance with your wishes we will leave the matter in God’s hands and
take no action to discipline the man who has perpetrated these actions.
Paul would probably have responded with something like this:
What is wrong with you Corinthians? Why are you deceiving yourselves
so? I wrote to you clearly that you should put the sexually immoral man
who calls himself a brother outside your assembly and stop associating
with him until he repents. Why do you read what I wrote as, “We will take
no action against the man who perpetrated these actions”? Are you so
inflated with pride in your own tolerance of immorality that you cannot
see that I commanded the exact opposite? Do you not care enough for this
man to mourn for his fate of exclusion from the kingdom of God that will
occur if he does not turn away from his sin? Do you not have any concern
for the effect that your inaction will have on communicating to the rest of
your assembly that sexual immorality is no great cause for concern in the
believer’s life? Do you think you are stronger than the God who redeemed


ou from such behaviors? That you can provoke his wrath against you and
survive his judgment? Come to your senses: I say this to your shame.
This is exactly what one has to say to Marin with respect to his views on homosexual
practice. Someone who really loves those engaged in homosexual practice and trusts in
God’s power will not allow such gross immoral sexual behavior to continue among
brothers and sisters in the faith without ever offering an active rebuke of such behavior.
Such sexual offenders cannot be given carte blanche to continue in full fellowship while
at the same time living in active violation of foundational sexual standards. Of course,
unbelievers have to be given some opportunity of being exposed to the proclamation of
the word in the church (see 1 Cor 14:23). And believers too, even when engaged in
grossly immoral behavior, have to be given adequate opportunity to see the error of their
ways and repent. But, no, the church cannot ever in such matters “release responsibility”
with respect to its obligation to speak out against immorality and correct in love members
who engage impenitently and repetitively in it.
The church can never give up its obligation to rebuke offenders (in an appropriately
loving way, of course) and require repentance. Jesus made this clear: “If your brother
sins, rebuke him, and if he repents forgive him” (Luke 17:3-4). Similarly, Matt 18:15-17
lays out a program for communal discipline, as does 2 Thess 3:14-15. But Marin thinks
that, as regards serial and unrepentant homosexual practice by self-professed Christians,
the church should forego not only temporary removal from the life of the church but any
ongoing rebuke whatsoever. To top it all off, Marin uses the context of 1 Cor 6:9, which
commands the use of church discipline against sexual offenders, as the scriptural basis for
an “eternal principle” of “releasing control” of an offender! Hermeneutically, this is
nothing short of stunning. The misrepresentation of the text of Scripture at this point is so
monumental and so key to Marin’s whole program as to discredit the whole of it and call
shame upon any who help to further it.
The goal of church discipline is not to punish but to reclaim someone for the kingdom
by stimulating repentance. This is clear enough in Paul’s discussion of the change of
heart of an offender in 2 Cor 2:5-11; 7:8-13. There is at least a 50-50 chance that this
offender is none other than the incestuous man of 1 Cor 5, as a number of commentators
have noted. Whether it is or isn’t, the incestuous man would have been handled in the
same way if the discipline that Paul mandated in 1 Cor 5 had its intended effect of
prompting repentance. Paul urged the Corinthians to quickly forgive, comfort, and
reaffirm their love for the penitent ex-offender, lest Satan take advantage of his
“excessive sorrow” for having committed the wrong. The community’s initial support for
the offender before he repented, apparently manifested in not disciplining the offender
and siding with him over against Paul, had led to Paul’s tearful letter (which is no longer
extant to us). Paul was not happy that the Corinthians were grieved by the letter but he
did rejoice that the grieving led to repentance. “Now I rejoice, not because you were
grieved but because you were grieved into repentance [i.e. a change of mind].... For grief
that accords with God produces repentance that leads to an unrepentant salvation [i.e. a
salvation that one will never regret]” (2 Cor 7:9-10). It is precisely this kind of action on
Paul’s part—rebuke and discipline to stimulate repentance—that Marin rules out of
bounds as an unloving and unfaithful church response to homosexual offenders that
impedes the offender’s salvation.

E. Excursus on the Meaning of Malakoi and Arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9
As regards dealing with the meanings of malakoi (“soft men”) and arsenokoitai (“men
who lie with a male”) Marin does little, though he appears to lean readers in the direction
of homosexualist readings by stating a homosexualist position that pederasty is in view
and referring to “the temple prostitution, street prostitution and promiscuous sex” at
Corinth (130-31). Also unhelpful is his use of the inaccurate NIV translation “male
prostitutes” (the term malakoi is not limited to prostitutes) and “homosexual offenders”
(which translation does not make clear the specific allusion of arsenokoitai back to the
Levitical prohibitions).
Marin’s claim that the word arsenokoitēs appears “only in the Bible” and “nowhere
else in ancient literature” is wrong (131). True, it appears first in extant literature in 1 Cor
6:9; but it and related words appear subsequently in Christian literature from the second
century on; by the sixth century we see it cropping up in non-Christian Greek literature.
The Talmudic rabbis used a related Hebrew expression mishkav zakar, “lying with a
male,” drawn from the Hebrew text of the Levitical prohibitions. Although the textual
evidence is much later than the use in 1 Cor 6:9, it is unlikely that the rabbis developed
the Hebrew expression from the Christian Greek term; more likely it was a case of the
former and it is simply an accident of history that the Hebrew expression does not appear
in earlier extant texts. The point to be made is that the Greek term is a distinctly Jewish
and Christian term formulated from the Levitical prohibitions of man-male intercourse
(18:20; 20:13 LXX), extrapolated from the words koitē “lying” and arsēn “male” where
the first element of the compound arsen- represents the object of the verbal idea implicit
in the stem koit-. The subject “men” is derived from the masculine suffix –tēs. Hence,
“men who lie with a male” is by far the best translation, calling to mind (as it would have
for Paul and his readers) the Levitical prohibitions of man-male intercourse. The use of
the term in 1 Tim 1:10 alongside pornoi confirms the derivation of the term from the
Levitical prohibitions since the author speaks of the vices in the list being derived from
“the law” and formulates the list to correspond to the subject headings of the Decalogue
(where under the seventh commandment against adultery the Levitical prohibitions of
man-male intercourse are sometimes subsumed in early Jewish and Christian
discussions).
Although Marin doesn’t tell readers the following, the evidence is quite strong that
Paul intended by these two terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, an intrinsic indictment of all
man-male intercourse. There are uses of malakoi or related words in Greek and Latin
(molles) for males who actively feminize their appearance in order to attract male sex
partners and without limitation to acts of prostitution. Indeed, the Roman satirist Juvenal
(Satire 2) refers to an aristocrat named Gracchus who willingly became the “bride” to a
common cornet-player and signed semi-official marriage documents. Orientation theories
crystallize around “soft men,” where it is not uncommon to claim that this behavior arises
from biological disposition and/or early childhood socialization. The fact that
arsenokoitēs and related words were formed deliberately from the Levitical prohibitions
suggests an inclusive sense since Jews in the ancient world consistently interpreted these
prohibitions as inclusive of all same-sex male sexual relationships (see, for example,
© 2010 Robert A. J. Gagnon 10