Paul the apostle must have met some Lesbians when his ship stopped briefly at Mitylene, Acts 20:14. For Mitylene was and still is the main town of the island of Lesbos, whose inhabitants have been known since ancient times as Lesbians (Λέσβιος, Lesbios). And these islanders are not amused that their name has been hijacked by the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece as a description of homosexual women. Indeed they are so incensed that, as the BBC reports, they are taking legal action against that community to stop them using the word “lesbian”. Their spokesman

claims that international dominance of the word in its sexual context violates the human rights of the islanders, and disgraces them around the world.

The problem with their claim is that this same word, at least in its feminine form (λεσβιάς, lesbias), has very probably (I’m sure some of my readers can confirm this) also been used since ancient times in this sexual sense, referring originally to the allegedly lesbian poetess Sappho. So I can’t see the islanders’ lawsuit being successful, at least outside their native Greece.

The apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

Now to the unmarried [footnote: Or widowers] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. ⁹ But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 (TNIV)

Does this passage have anything to say to us about the issues of remarriage and homosexual practice which I have been discussing? I think it does.

Now I am sure that you will say to me that these verses are not about remarriage or homosexual “marriage”. And no doubt you would be right about the latter. As for the former, I would not be so sure, especially because in verse 15 Paul writes that a brother or sister deserted by their unbelieving spouse is “not bound”, more literally “not enslaved” (ou dedoulotai), presumably meaning that they are free to marry again, as they would be if the spouse had died (verse 39). So Paul would have held that a deserted partner like that should remarry rather than “burn with passion”. Nevertheless, Paul teaches that the best thing for them, as for all unmarried people, is “to stay unmarried, as I do”.

Paul would not of course accept that a Christian person could simply choose to divorce and remarry. He makes this clear in verses 10 to 13. So this is a serious restriction on divorce and remarriage among Christians, one which should continue to be respected. He does not deal explicitly with the issue of those who are divorced, or divorced and remarried, before they become Christians. But the principle of 6:11 suggests that in such cases Paul would let bygones be bygones.

So let’s look back to 6:11 in context:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practising homosexuals ¹⁰ nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (TNIV)

So, some of the Corinthian believers were “adulterers [or] male prostitutes [or] practising homosexuals” before they became Christians. (Yes, there is some dispute about the exact meanings of the words for “male prostitutes” and “practising homosexuals” here, but the latter word certainly included in its meaning practising homosexuals even if its full sense was wider.) Among these people were surely some who were remarried after divorce and so living in technically adulterous relationships. It may well also have included some people living in stable long term gay or lesbian partnerships, even if these were not the commonest forms of homosexuality in Corinth.

Let’s look next at Paul’s instructions to new Christians in Corinth. Here there is a bit of a surprise. These people were living in a city notorious for its sinful ways. So one might expect Paul to tell new believers to flee from their old evil entanglements and as far as possible cut themselves off from the world. No, he writes this to them:

Each of you should remain in the situation you were in when God called you.

1 Corinthians 7:20 (TNIV)

As examples of this principle he mentions not only circumcision (verses 18-19) and slavery (verses 21-22), but also engagement to be married (verse 27), and, apparently from the broader context, marriage itself (verses 10-13). He makes no exception for technically adulterous second marriages, nor for homosexual partnerships. So one can easily argue from this chapter that Paul expected gay and lesbian couples who became Christians, as well as divorced and remarried couples, to continue their relationships. He could, of course, have insisted that they split up. But if he had done, they would very likely have been in the position he outlined in verse 9.

On this basis I would suggest that Paul, while not approving of homosexual relationships or of remarriage after divorce, would have considered that, for couples who “cannot control themselves” and remain single as he himself did, either of these is better “than to burn with passion”.

I wish people would read my posts properly before commenting on them.

Mark Olson linked to one of my posts on his Stones Cry Out blog, post dated Tuesday, April 29th, 2008 at 8:30 am:

Homosexual practice and divorce compared. One problem, not confronted in that essay is that the contention “Divorce and remarriage has become generally acceptable even in socially conservative circles in western countries” is itself not by any means good or to be applauded but instead vehemently countered (if true).

In response I commented, at 9:37 am in the same time zone:

But I did confront that problem. I thought I had made it very clear that I did not consider this contention “by any means good or to be applauded”. Surely my intention was clear enough from my words “to meet their congregations’ expectations”. But, if not, I explicitly proposed “a less permissive attitude to remarriage”, and commended the Church of England position that “remarriage requires a bishop’s special permission”.

Mark has so far made no response to my comment. But I discovered another post linking to my post, also dated Tuesday, April 29th, 2008 at 8:30 am, with the following:

Homosexual practice and divorce compared. One problem, not confronted in that essay, is that the contention “Divorce and remarriage has become generally acceptable even in socially conservative circles in western countries” is itself not by any means good or to be applauded but instead should be vehemently countered (if true).

Well, he has corrected his grammar by adding “should be”, but still has not read my post properly.

Let me reiterate my point. I do NOT applaud divorce and remarriage. I do not consider it good. And I made that point very clear in the original post. I was simply reporting, in by no means positive terms, a regrettable social trend. I should clarify that I was comparing the present position with that of perhaps 50 years ago; the most recent changes may not be in the same direction.

As for how this trend should be countered: I’m not sure that vehemence is the right approach, but I think that churches should make it very clear that this, like homosexual activity, is not generally acceptable behaviour.