Common pro-gay theological arguments:Ross A Taylor Lev 19:17-18 ESV "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. (18) You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. "Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others." 2 Cor 5:11 Contents:
General preface: This article is not intended to be an exercise in gay bashing, on the contrary it is based on the scriptures that indicate that God loves gays and calls them to repentance (a change of mind7), based on 1 Cor 6:9, which demonstrates that the church of Corinth had formerly active homosexuals, who were now washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ...
This scripture indicates that there were former practising homosexuals in the church of Corinth, who were now forgiven, and frankly, if this scripture did not exist I would not bother writing this article. Also the language of Romans 67 seems to me to indicate that Paul also ministered to former practising homosexuals, the same people who were condemned in Rom 154 . This article is also written because the quality of pro-gay theology (at least at a popular level) is very poor indeed, it is full of half-truths and distortion and it deceives God's people into sexual immorality (Rev 2:20). I still believe that truth is important. What we do with our bodies is a salvation matter and the pro-gay theology endangers the souls of God's people who experience same-sex attraction. There are at least three fundamental issues at stake:
Needless to say, the pro-gay theologians and teachers have to attack all of these biblical teachings and find a loop-hole, but in fact the bible is water-tight. The very best that they can do is to either lie or to twist and distort scripture. I then go on to show that the popular pro-gay theological arguments are simply wrong (they also have to either lie or twist scripture and thus deceive people). Common pro-gay theological argumentsThere is a common theme in many of the pro-gay theological
arguments, basically they argue that none of these things has anything to do
with a loving, committed, homosexual relationship. They do not involve rape as
in Sodom, they do not involve prostitution, exploitation, idolatry, pederasty,
perverts (as in heterosexuals indulging in same-sex
intercourse). But this begs the question, the scripture does not
seem to address any of these issues (except maybe the attempted rape at
Sodom). It regards same-sex intercourse wrong per se, in fact Paul
seems to go out of his way in Rom 1 to avoid these issues, because he goes
right back to the Creator (and as an apostle he should do this). Why, because
it defaces God's image in us as male and female (Gen 1:27), we can see this
best in Paul's argument in Rom 1. The OT sexual moral laws are taught even more in the NT than in the OT, especially by Paul. The Levitical law against same-sex intercourse is given in Lev 18:22 (You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (to'evah ) and the penalty is given in Lev 20:13 (they shall surely be put to death). In Lev 20 the death penalty was also invoked on adultery, incest and bestiality. The NT also condemns adultery and incest, as well as same-sex intercourse (bestiality is not directly mentioned). It seems that Paul clearly thought that these Levitical prohibitions also applied in his day. a) The moral law is still binding on the Christian. It is still wrong to steal, to commit adultery etc. The ritual or ceremonial laws are abolished. b) The NT reiterates these same sex laws (adultery, incest, same-sex intercourse, any illicit sex (porneia), which would also cover bestiality, which is not specifically mentioned in the NT). In fact it is impossible to escape the fact that the NT regards sexual purity as very important, the word porneia occurs 26 times in the NT, porneuo 8 times, porne 12 times, pornos 10 times, akatharsia 10 times.
c) Paul's use of the word arsenokoites (arsen male, koite bed) in 1 Cor 6:9 is based on the Septuagint1 translation of the Levitical prohibitions on male-male intercourse and clearly shows that Paul endorses the Levitical prohibitions against male-male intercourse. That is the clincher for me, in using the word arsenokoites, which Paul coined, he was showing that he endorsed the Levitical prohibitions against same-sex intercourse, and that Paul thought that they still applied in his day, along with the Levitical prohibitions on adultery, incest and bestiality (e.g. Lev 20:10, 11-12, 15-16) . He is also indicting bisexuals as well. For a fuller explanation go here. d) Interestingly Robin Scroggs notes51 (regarding Lev 18:22, 20:13)
that the "Rabbinic scholars picked up part of that phrase, "lies with
a male," made it virtually into a noun, and gave it nearly the status of a
technical term. The term that thus emerged and that is used frequently in this
literature is mishkav zakur (lying of a male) or mishkav bzakur
(lying with a male). Later I will argue that this Hebrew expression lies behind
the rare Greek word, arsenokoites (lit. lying of, with a male) in 1 Cor
6:9." Later he says "Arsenokoites is an almost exact Greek
parallel to the Hebrew and is equally derived from Leviticus. More than ever
the evidence suggests that arsenokoites is a Hellenistic Jewish coinage,
perhaps influenced by awareness of rabbinic terminology". f) The usual tactic employed by gay apologists is to throw a red herring such as "Lev 11:7 says that we should not eat pork, but we do that today" or "Lev 19:19 you shall not wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material" or "Lev 18:19 not having sex with a menstruating woman". In the council of Jerusalem the Pharisees argued that the Gentiles who became believers should be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses (Act 15:5). After much debate Peter said concerning the Gentile disciples:
Then James gave his decision:
The book of Galatians is written to show that we cannot be saved by keeping the law of Moses, but only by faith in Jesus Christ. Paul also said "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal 5:14). In Gal 5:18 Paul says "... if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." Then Paul also gives us one of his vice lists:
Akatharsia (impurity) is the same Greek word used in Rom 1:24
Akatharsia is used ten times63 in the NT, in each case it refers
to moral impurity, of which same-sex intercourse is the most well
defined example of akatharsia in the NT (Rom 1:24). The death penalty is not enforced in the NT.
Robert Gagnon, on the death penalty (the adulterous woman). Jesus did not
enforce it because: "Dead people do not repent" To'ebah only means ritually unclean. The two Levitical prohibitions on male-male intercourse both contain the Hebrew word to'ebah which is usually translated as abomination. Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (to'ebah). Therefore the tactic employed by revisionists is to show that to'evah qualifies the Levitical prohibitions on male-male intercourse so that the prohibitions only apply in some circumstances, such as, idolatry or cult prostitution, or that it means ritually unclean, not morally unclean.The same approach is taken with the NT texts.The argument being that modern homosexuals do not do these things, therefore these scriptures do not apply to us. On closer scrutiny the revisionists arguments do not stand up. John Boswell offers the standard rebuttal to what appears to be an obvious biblical prohibition of homosexuality55 :
Daniel Helminiak also uses this argument57. (see discussion below) The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew definition of to'evah 56 include both a ritual sense or an ethical sense. The fact that it is included in a list which includes sacrificing children to Molech, incest, adultery and bestiality (all of which are moral issues). Then the use of to'evah in Lev 18:26-30, where it refers to all of these abominations (incest, adultery, child-sacrifice, male-male intercourse and bestiality). Plus the death penalty is given for these things in Lev 20, would suggest a moral view of same-sex intercourse. In the NT we have Paul's reference to the Levitical law using the word arsenokoitai 3 (in 1 Cor 6:9) which is a sin sufficiently severe to prevent us from inheriting the kingdom of heaven, for Paul it was a serious moral issue. Jesus himself contrasts the ceremonial law (washing the hands Mat 15:20), with the moral law (that which comes out of the heart and defiles a man) and he includes adultery and sexual immorality (porneia) in his vice list of those things that defile a man (Mat 15:19). Mark's list includes sensuality (aselgeia). The word porneiarefers to any illicit sex (sex outside of marriage) and would include the Levitical prohibitions on incest, adultery, bestiality and male-male intercourse. The pro-gay theologian has to show either that the Levitical laws do not apply or that the word to'ebah sufficiently qualifies Lev 18:22 and 20:13, such that it does not apply to homosexuals today, either because to'ebah refers to idolatry or to the ceremonial law. The bible only condemns same-sex intercourse involving idolatry? OT a) This is based on the word abomination (to'ebah6) which is used in both of the Levitical prohibitions on male-male intercourse in Lev 18:22, 20:13, which could involve idolatry. However to'ebah is not restricted to justidolatry see Prov 6:16, Gen 46:34, Deu 22:5, Deu 24:4 etc. to'ebah occurs 126 times in the OT. b) Also Lev 18:21 and Lev 20:2-5 warn against sacrificing children to Molech, an extreme form of idolatry. But there is no connection between this and the other sex laws in Lev 18 and 20 (incest, adultery, bestiality and male-male sex). c) Lev 20:13 is sandwiched between other sex laws in Lev 20:10-21 and is distinct from idolatry in Lev 20:2-5. d) Does this mean that adultery, incest and bestiality are lawful if not done in an idolatrous setting? The argument is absurd. As always the pro-gay apologists have to make a special case for gays, but the scripture does not. NT a) This is based on Paul's mention of same-sex intercourse and idolatry in Rom 1. Paul also gives a long vice list in Rom 1:29-31 which is a continuation of his argument in Rom 1:18-27, does he mean to say that these are OK if not done in association with idolatry? Of course not. The pro-gay theologians always have to make some kind of special pleading when it comes to same-sex intercourse. b) In 1 Cor 6:9 idolatry is a separate offence to malakos and arsenokoites, it is not linked to malakos and arsenokoites. The bible only condemns exploitative forms of same-sex intercourse? The obvious example is pederasty which was common in Paul's time in the Hellenistic world. This is the argument given by Robin Scroggs in "New Testament and Homosexuality". a) Lev 20:13 condemns both parties to death, it would only condemn one if exploitation was involved b) Rom 1:24 talks of "dishonoring of their bodies among themselves" c) Rom 1:25 talks of the men being "consumed with passion for one another", and "and receiving in themselvesthe due penalty for their error" clearly Paul is not just thinking of only exploitative forms of sex, like an older man with an adolescent teenager, which did occur in the Roman world. d) Rom 1:27 talks about "men committing shameless acts with men" not a man committing a shameless act with a boy. If Paul is thinking of pederasty, why does he mention this just after talking about female-female sex in Rom 1:26? Also Paul could have easily used the Greek words paiderastai (“lover of boys”), or paidophthoria (male homosexuality with teenagers)50 which he does not, the word arsenokoitai will cover that anyway, Paul is not being so specific, even though male sex with boys was common in Roman times. e) As far as we know Lesbianism was never exploitative in the ancient world. What both Leviticus and Paul object to is a person having sex with someone of the same sex per se . f) Much has been made of the social argument, i.e. male-male prostitution, pederasty or cult-prostitution (involving idolatry) was very common in Paul's day in the Hellenistic world (e.g. Boswell, Scroggs, Helminiak). Yet in Paul's argument in Rom 1, he refers to the the creation and the Creator as his reference, as we would expect from an apostle. He does not qualify his argument that same-sex intercourse is only wrong in these common social circumstances. He is talking about Hellenistic Greeks (Rom 1:16) because they were practicing same-sex intercourse. The bible only condemns same-sex intercourse in the context of cult-prostitution. This argument was popularised by John Boswell in "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality". He argued that arsenokoitai means a male prostitute (p 107). This is far more likely to apply to malakos, i.e. a catamite rather than arsenokoitai. The fact that some bibles translate malakos as male prostitute reflects this. The cult-prostitution context is probably because people think that the Corinth of Paul's day was full of temple cult prostitution. If there was temple prostitution in Corinth it was in Greek Corinth several centuries earlier and these were female (heterosexual) prostitutes. There is no evidence of homosexual temple prostitution in the Roman Corinth of Paul's day8. a) The female-female intercourse mentioned by Paul in Rom 1:26 did not take the form of temple prostitution in the ancient world.8 b) This is another version of the exploitative argument (see above). There is no evidence that Paul was thinking about cult-prostitution. When Paul talks about prostitution in 1Cor 6:15 he is thinking about heterosexual sex because he refers to "The two will become one flesh" in 1Cor 6:16. c) Paul could have used the words tribades46 and kinaidoi2 12to make this clearer, but he did not. That Paul uses the word arsenokoite3 in 1 Cor 6:9 means that Paul was against male-male intercourse per se. In the OT we have the qadesh (male cult prostitute) a) In the Levitical prohibitions if they wanted to condemn only cultic same-sex intercourse they could have used the Hebrew word for a male cult prostitute qadesh, but it does not.
The Levitical prohibitions simply say "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination". b) There are six OT references to the qadesh18, all negative. In the KJV the word sodomite or sodomites specifically refers to the qadesh, sodomite(s) is only used of the qadesh. Note: qadesh is not translated as arsenokoitai in the Septuagint as has been reported48, its first use is by Paul.. The Hebrew toevah and zimah, and the Greek bdelygma. This is an argument put forward by Daniel Helminiak (What the Bible Really says about Homosexuality, p 64-65 (2000 ed). The following are paraphrases of his argument: Short version:
Long version
So the argument depends on whether toevah means "culturally or ritually forbidden", as stated by Helminiak, rather than morally unclean. According to Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew definitions it can mean either6.
Then we come to the Greek translation of toevah in the Septuagint bdelygma. According to Helminiak bdelygma means "ritual offense". Thayer's definition gives:
When it comes to zimah in Lev 19:29, I could only find zanah or zimmah. According to Helminiak zimah means "an injustice, a sin". BDB definition gives:
Interestingly the word zimmah is used in Lev 18:17, 20:14 of incest. It is also used in Jdg 20:6 for the men of Gibeah who tried to rape the Levite and killed his concubine. Both zimmah and toevah are used together in Prov 21:27, 24:9, Eze 16:43, 16:58, 22:11 (referring to adultery and incest). The argument sounds like a good one, and it would be if Helminiak was correct, but on closer examination, it simply does not hold up because the actual word definitions are not specific enough. Further Helminiak offers no footnotes to check his word definitions, we just have to take his word for it. Scripture itself disproves that the word toevah only applies to ceremonial or ritual impurity. The nations that the Hebrews were about to inhabit, were judged and driven out of the due to the abominations (toevah) they had committed, Lev 18:24-30, Deu 18:9, 20:18, 2 King 16:3, 21:2. They did not have the ceremonial or ritual law that the Hebrews had. Also stealing, murder, adultery, swearing falsely, idolatry and hypocrisy are also described as toevah (Jer 7:9-10). This is discussed in The Same Sex Controversy61. Lev 18:26 says
What were these abominations (toevah)? It is quite simple: adultery, child sacrifice, male-male intercourse, and bestiality (Lev 18:20-23). Perhaps we should also consider adultery or child sacrifice as ceremonial or ritual impurity. In Lev 18:26-30 the word toevah is translated as bdelygma in the LXX and here it is clearly referring to moral issues. Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges give a detailed refutation62 of Helminiak's book What the Bible Really says about Homosexuality, here they discuss zimah then bdelygma.
Paul also refers to the same-sex intercourse in Rom 1:24 as impurity (akatharsia), in all nine times63 that Paul refers to this, it is morally wrong. Finally, Paul's use of the word arsenokoites in 1 Cor 6:9 (quoting the Septuagint translation of Lev 18:22) shows that Paul thought that it was a moral issue, not just a ritual issue, because it can lead to exclusion from the kingdom of God. Paul was not aware of people with a homosexual orientation. a) The world of Paul's time did have Greek words for people with a homosexual disposition the tribades and kinaidoi2 which Paul could have used. Note, that Paul was acquainted with the Greek poets (Act 17:28), and he came from Tarsus a centre of Greek learning, so it is likely that he knew of tribades and kinaidoi. In using the word arsenokoitai Paul also condemns bisexual men. It is doubtful that "having a natural attraction to the same sex" would have made any difference to Paul, he would have called it the "sinful nature" or "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). . This is what two pro-gay scholars have to say.
b) Paul in his use of the word arsenokoitai does not leave a loop-hole for loving same-sex intercourse. Paul clearly believes in the Levitical law as the word arsenokoitai is derived from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT). Both the Levitical prohibitions and Paul's prohibitions on male-male sex are unqualified, they are wrong, period. c) Having a loving committed incestuous relationship does not make it lawful. Neither does a loving committed same-sex relationship make it lawful before God. Love is not the issue; it does not meet the prerequisites for a lawful sexual relationship in the first place. The word "homosexual" is a modern term, it did not exist in Paul's day`. This is a variant of the argument above. Modern bibles use the term "homosexual" for arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10) but that word only came into the English language in 186945. In Paul's day there was no term for homosexual, and he was probably unaware of people with a natural inclination to same-sex attraction.. It is our modern translations that have misled us. To some extent they are right, Paul is condemning same-sex intercourse per se (both perverts (bisexual) and inverts), and the ALT gets it right by referring to male-male sex. The point that is being made is that the modern term "homosexual" refers to people who naturally have same-sex attraction. Paul did not know about this, and if he knew about it then he would not condemn homosexuals. The modern bibles are wrong to use the term "homosexual", because they are condemning people for whom same-sex intercourse is natural. In other words Paul is only condemning perverts not inverts. I do not think that Paul makes that distinction, he is condemning actions per se because they are not compatible with God's created intent. I have already dealt with whether Paul was acquainted with people who might have a homosexual disposition above, see also footnote12. See also the section on "Paul is only talking about heterosexuals who exchanged what is natural for them and indulged in homosexual sex" i.e. perverts as opposed to inverts. This is how various bibles translate the Greek words malakos and arsenokoites in 1Cor 6:9
I think that the ALT is the best translation. I go into the meaning of the Greek below: Paul is only talking about heterosexuals who exchanged what is natural for them and indulged in homosexual sex. This argument was popularised by John Boswell in "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality". The Rev. Elder Don Eastman of MCC makes a similar point to Boswell:
This argument is based on Rom 1:26 "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature (para physin)" and Rom 1:27 "the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another" This sounds like a good argument, and it is one of the better ones. a) It assumes that therefore Paul would approve of homosexual sex in the case of those for whom homosexual sex is natural. But given Paul's condemnation of malakos and arsenokoites in 1 Cor 6:9 this is hardly likely. It also ignores Paul's many mentions of the word porneia (i.e. any illicit sex, that is sex outside of marriage), and Paul's teaching on marriage in 1 Cor 7. b) The argument also ignores Paul's context of what is natural (phusikosi.e. physical) which is that of creation (Rom 1:20 "ever since the creation of the world"). Paul's mention of "mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" in Rom 1:23 which also echoes Gen 1:26. Paul mentions the Creator again in Rom 1:25. c) Paul uses the word thelus (i.e. female) for woman in Rom 1:26 thus emphasising biology, and the word arsen (i.e.) male for the men in Rom 1:27 also emphasising biology. Plus the word natural phusikos means physical. Thus they exchanged what is physically natural for them females and males for something physically unnatural for them. Note: The Greek words arsen (male) and thelus (female) are rare in scripture (9 and 5 times), both Mat 19:4 and Mark 10:6 use the same Greek words for male and female, which is further evidence that Paul is going back to creation for what is natural. Paul is probably referring to the LXX version of Gen 1:271 11 here.
The usual Greek word for "man" in scripture is anthropos and occurs 560 times and the Greek word for "woman" gune occurs 221 times. Thus Paul (in his use of "male" and "female") is going back to the Creator's intent for males and females for what is natural biologically rather than simply heterosexuals who left that to indulge in same-sex intercourse. The fact that the men were "consumed with passion for one another", hardly sounds like heterosexuals experimenting with same-sex intercourse. Even the Levitical prohibitions formulates the problem as that of a man lying with a male as with a woman.
Compare with:
In Rom 1:26 the problem is that females exchanged natural relations with males and in 1:27 males gave up natural relations with females. The fundamental problem in both Leviticus and Romans is that they departed from the created order. d). Much has been made of the words para physin (against nature) occurring at the end of Rom 1:26. It was John Boswell who said that para physin meant in "excess of nature" and referred to heterosexuals (perverts) rather than homosexuals (inverts). This is what Alex D. Montoya says about Boswell's thesis:
So the argument centres on whether Paul is talking about "against nature" as in the created order (determining what is natural) or whether he is talking about people going against their own nature (which is the pro-gay interpretation). It seems clear from the context of the passage, Rom 1:18-28, that Paul is appealing to the created order of things, due to his mention of creation, the Creator and his use of the words male and female (which echo Gen 1:27 again)49. The appeal of the pro-gay teachers is to what feels natural for a person, the implication is that if it feels natural then it must be OK. I would suggest that this is unbiblical as we often have to deny our feelings in order to follow Jesus Christ, (If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. Luke 9:23). The key question is whether the bible is to rule over our feelings (what feels natural) or our feeling are to rule over the bible. e) In Rom 1:26 the women "exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural" and in Rom 1:27 "the men abandoned the natural function of the woman" (NASB). In both cases the Greek is phusikos chresis, Paul's emphasis is on physical function not desire. Here is the argument given by Greg Koukl36
Jesus said the same thing when he quoted Gen 1:27 (God made them male and female) Mark 10:6. f) What is it that Paul is objecting to? It is that they dishonored (atimazo¯ - verb) their bodies (v24) and the example is given of female-female sex in v26 "dishonorable (atimia - noun) passions".
It is what they did with their bodies that matters, whether it is perversion or inversion is not the point. As Paul points out in 1 Cor 6:18 "the sexually immoral person sins against his own body." The “misogyny" argument. Misogyny - woman hating
This view is made by the pro-gay scholars Martti Nissinen ( Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective), 2004, and Bernadette Brooten ( Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism), 1998.
This is a relatively new view having overtaken the exploitative argument. The misogyny argument works for the social structure of the time, but the biblical evidence with regard to Paul suggests otherwise. The only biblical evidence for this is indirect, based on Gen 3:16 (he shall rule over you), Eph 5:23 (For the husband is the head of the wife), 1Cor 11:3 the head of a wife is her husband), Col 3:18 (Wives, submit to your husbands), 1Tim 2:12 (I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man). Here, Paul is emphasising authority within marriage, but when it comes to sex within marriage Paul emphasises equality.
In the light of this, I think that the misogyny argument is a non-starter (as far as Paul is concerned). We just don't know what malakos and arsenokoites mean. This argument is adopted by Daniel Helminiak in What the Bible Really Says about Homosexually (p 105-115 millennium ed). For a longer article see here21 This is a clear case of not wanting to know, and misleading people by saying that we do not know. I can point to at least three scholars who all argue that arsenokoites is based on the Levitical prohibitions from the Septuagint (Manfred Brauch25, Robin Scroggs26 and Robert Gagnon27) but this is highly inconvenient for the pro-gay lobby because it means that Paul thought that the Levitical prohibitions on male-male intercourse still applied in his day, hence they argue that we do not know what it means. These two Greek words malakos and arsenokoites appear in 1 Cor 6:9, arsenokoites is also used in 1 Tim 1:10.
The ALT19 gives the most accurate translation:
It is true that malakosis used twice elsewhere in scripture in a non-sexual sense where it means "soft", (Mat 11:8, Luk 7:25), as in "soft raiment". The pro-gay theologian Dale Martin says "The meaning of the word is clear, even if too broad to be taken to refer to a single act or role. malakos means "effeminate." 20 The term does have a wide range of meaning from the passive partner in same-sex intercourse to a man with effeminate behaviour, context will determine which24. However, Paul is not just referring to a man with a limp wrist, because the offence is serious enough to prevent a person from inheriting the kingdom of heaven. It follows after adultery and it is paired with arsenokoites which are both sexual sins therefore the passive partner in male-male intercourse makes much more sense.22 23 The etymology of the word arsenokoites is a good deal simpler21. Paul uses the Greek word arsenokoite which he gets from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX). It is made from two words arsen (male) and koite (bed). Compare this with the Levitical prohibitions in the LXX. meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gyniakos (Lev 18:22) hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos (Lev 20:13) Paul was from Tarsus a centre of Greek learning and the people he was writing to would use Greek as their first language, and would be familiar with the Septuagint (LXX). It seems clear to me that Paul is affirming that the Levitical prohibitions on same-sex intercourse still applied in his day (just as the Levitical prohibitions on adultery (Lev 20:10) and incest (Lev 20:11-12) still apply). The argument that we just do not know what these words mean sounds rather disingenuous to me. David F Wright also surveys the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic translations of 1 Tim 1:10 and 1 Cor 6:9. All three render arsenokoitai with words that reflect the meaning "homosexual,". Wright also says that "arsenokoitai" was clearly constructed from the Greek of the Septuagint of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 the latter has the two roots in the same order (hos an koimthe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos). 50 The Hebrew term mishkav zakur. Interestingly Robin Scroggs notes51 (regarding Lev 18:22, 20:13) that the "Rabbinic scholars picked up part of that phrase, "lies with a male," made it virtually into a noun, and gave it nearly the status of a technical term. The term that thus emerged and that is used frequently in this literature is mishkav zakur (lying of a male) or mishkav bzakur (lying with a male). Later I will argue that this Hebrew expression lies behind the rare Greek word, arsenokoites (lit. lying of, with a male) in 1 Cor 6:9." Later he says "Asenokoites is an almost exact Greek parallel to the Hebrew and is equally derived from Leviticus. More than ever the evidence suggests that arsenokoites is a Hellenistic Jewish coinage, perhaps influenced by awareness of rabbinic terminology". I would add that Paul was formerly a Pharisee educated under the feet of the Rabbi Gamaliel (Act 22:3) and that Paul would therefore have known the meaning of mishkav zakur. The counter argument to the Levitical origin of arsenokoites is, of course, that the Levitical prohibitions only refer to what is ritually unclean or idolatry or cult-prostitution58. Jesus was silent about same-sex intercourse a) Jesus ministry was to the Jews who already had the law which prohibited same-sex intercourse, and they were not doing that. Jesus speaks about divorce and adultery because they were doing that. b) Jesus presumes the man-woman prerequisite for marriage based on the Genesis (1:27 and 2:24) narrative which he quotes (see Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-8).
Jesus goes on to say that God has joined together the two to become one flesh (God brought the woman to Adam (Gen 2:22)). Can we say that God has joined a homosexual couple together to become one flesh? c) Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles who were involved in same-sex intercourse and therefore he does mention same-sex intercourse (Romans, Corinth, and Ephesus (1Tim1:3)). d) When did you last hear a sermon against incest? You did not because most people do not do that. Homosexuality has become an issue because people around us are doing that. Hence, we have Paul speaking about this in the NT in his ministry to the Gentiles. e) Not everything that Jesus did was recorded (John 21:25). f) Jesus taught against sexual immorality (porneia)4 which is a word that means illicit sexual intercourse and which would include same-sex intercourse (Mat 15:19, Mar 7:21). In the Jewish culture of Jesus day, same-sex intercourse was seen as a Gentile thing. We have little or no evidence that it was practiced by Jews53. The "new knowledge" argument, God has changed his mind on sexual ethics? The argument goes that we now know much more than Paul did about homosexuality, we now know that some people are born homosexuals and that therefore Paul would not condemn those people (provided that it was in a loving committed relationship). In other words God has changed his mind on the sexual ethics of the bible. a) The argument is based on the false premise that people are born gay, the underlying assumption is that being born gay means that God cannot judge me for acting on what is natural to me. Also another false premise is that homosexuals cannot change their orientation and it is unfair of God that I live a celibate loveless and sexless life. b) It also assumes that Paul was unaware of people for whom same-sex intercourse was natural. However, Paul came from Tarsus a centre of Greek learning and there werepeople in Paul's day with a natural attraction to the same sex, the tribades or kinaidoi.2, 12 c) Since both the OT and NT are counter-culturally against same-sex intercourse, is it likely that God has changed his mind on sexual ethics over the last 2,000 years? It also implies that Jesus got it wrong when he applied Gen 1:27 and 2:24 to his day. It also implies that God got it wrong at Creation. Same-sex intercourse is seldom mentioned in scripture. a) Neither is incest or bestiality, does that mean that it is of little consequence? Incest is only mentioned twice in the NT (Herod had married his brother's wife (Mar 6:17) and the incestuous man in 1 Cor 6). Bestiality is not mentioned at all in the NT. Female-female sex is only mentioned one time in the bible (Rom 1:26). b) When same-sex intercourse is clearly mentioned it is serious enough to incur the death penalty in the OT and serious enough to prevent a person entering the kingdom of God in the NT. c) The argument ignores the plain scriptural teaching about marriage. Jesus see Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-8, and Paul 1 Cor 7:2. d) The NT word porneia)4, which means illicit sexual intercourse, is mentioned 26 times (5 times metaphorically). Pornos (noun) is mentioned 10 times. I have never heard a sermon on either incest or bestiality because most people are not doing that. God blessed Concubinage, Polygamy, Levirate marriage and Incestuous marriage. a) This is partially true. It would be more accurate to say that in the OT God tolerated these marriages, (provision was made for polygamous (Deu 21:15-17) and Levirate marriage in the law (Deu 25:5-6)) but note that they are all heterosexual marriages, none of them actually help the homosexual cause at all.. b) Jesus in his teaching goes back to the Creator's intent of one man and one woman in marriage. Paul teaches the same. As Christians the NT revelation supersedes the OT, because God's revelation is progressive. 1. Polygamy means that the bible endorses more than one model for marriage. a) Polygamy was tolerated in the OT, but it still involved male-female intercourse. Examples that pro-gays love to cite are Abraham and Sarah plus Hagar, Jacob and his four wives. The Genesis narratives make clear that these are hardly model marriages. The marriage of Jacob and his wives is hardly a model of perfection, this is made quite clear in the Genesis narrative as the wives bartered over who will sleep with them that night (Gen 30;15). This also points out that Jacob only slept with one wife at a time, not two. Sarai gave Hagar as a wife to Abraham so that she could get children from her (Gen 16), but again this is hardly a model for marriage, it was ANE custom. In the case of Jacob, his wives also gave their maidservants to him to bear more children (Gen 30). b) These marriages were before the law was given, and the pro-gay apologists conveniently ignore the fact that Jesus in his teaching goes back to the Creator's intent of one man and one woman in marriage (Mat 19:4-6, Mar 10:6-8). c) The Mosaic law also made a provision for polygamy (Deu 21:15-17, Exo 21:10-11), but this is hardly a NT Christian doctrine. The NT goes back to the Genesis 2 model of a husband and one wife. Both Jesus and Paul teach a "one-man" and "one-woman" model for marriage in the NT, as in the Creator's intent (Mat 19:4-6, Mar 10:6-8, 1 Cor 7:2). d) These polygamist marriages were all heterosexual. Marriage requires a man and a woman to be reunited to become one flesh (Gen 2:24), gay or lesbian marriage cannot fulfil this prerequisite for marriage. e) Polygamy is not taught in the NT or in the church today. The pro-gay apologists seem to ignore the progressive nature of scripture. f) In the NT if a man had more than one wife he could not hold a church office, he had to be "the husband of but one wife" (1 Tim 3:2, 1 Tim 3:12, Tit 1:6). Examples of polygamy39 2. Incestuous marriages that God blessed. The pro-gay apologists love to tout the following incestuous heterosexual marriages that God blessed.40 Abraham and Sarah, who was his half sister (not his biological sister) Gen 20:12 Amram and Jochebed, the parents of Moses and Aaron (Amram married his paternal aunt, his father’s sister, Jochebed) Exo 6:20. Both these examples were before the law (on incest) was given:
These are never the less heterosexual marriages not homosexual marriages. They hardly help the homosexual cause at all. These examples also ignore the progressive revelation of scripture. No doubt had this happened in Paul's day he would have judged them just as he judged the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5 (so that his spirit could be saved). To make the leap that because God blessed these marriages, he must bless gay marriage is a non-sequitur (mainly because they were still heterosexual marriages). 3. Concubines. Concubine - one having a recognized social status in a household below that of a wife. Concubinage is really a subclass to polygamy. The list is impressive: Nahor had a concubine called Reumah (Gen 22:24), Bilhah is described as Jacob's concubine (Gen 35:22), Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, Esau's son (Gen 36:12), Gideon not only had many wives (and 70 sons) but also a concubine (Jdg 8:30-1). The Levite of Gibeah (Jdg 19), Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah (2Sam 3:7), Keturah was Abraham's concubine (1Ch 1:32), Abraham had more concubines (Gen 25:6) Caleb had a concubines called Ephah and Maacah (1Ch 2:46), Manasseh had an Aramean concubine (1Ch 7:14). King David had concubines as well as wives (2Sam 5:13). King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1Ki 11:3), Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines (2Ch 11:21), King Ahasuerus had concubines (Est 2:14), King Belshazzar had concubines (Dan 5:2). In the case of Bilhah, she was originally Rachel's maidservant but Rachel gave her to Jacob to be his wife so that Rachel could get children through her (Gen 30:3). This is similar to Abraham and Hagar (Gen 16:1). Keturah is called Abraham's wife in Gen 25:1. 4. Levirate marriage This mandated in Deu 25:5-10
The most famous cases are Onan who refused to fulfil his duty, and spilled his seed on the ground. (Gen 38:8-9). Then there is Boaz and Ruth (Ruth 3:12 - 4:12). The Sadducees used the Levirate law to trap Jesus in Mat 22:23-32 (also Mar 12:18-27, Luk 20:27-40). What is clear is that none of these types of marriage (Concubinage, Polygamy, Levirate marriage and Incestuous marriage) is held up in the NT as the model for marriage, they are all heterosexual marriages, and do not actually help the pro-gay apologists. Jesus goes back to the Creator's intent of one man and one woman in marriage (Mat 19:4-6, Mar 10:6), which is also Paul's teaching (1Cor 7:2). We are not given a (single) definition of marriage in the bible. The only reason that I mention this is because someone seriously raised this as a question to me; clearly he had not read and understood Gen 2:24. The bible is not a book of systematic theology, but it does teach us what marriage is. By far the most important scripture on marriage is Gen 2:18-24 especially the "therefore" in Gen 2:24 which both Jesus and Paul quote (twice each).
The sequence goes as follows:
The "therefore" in verse 24 is there because the woman was made out of the man and within marriage they are reunited to become one flesh. This is descriptive, but in Jesus teaching on divorce it is prescriptive. Jesus goes back to Genesis in his teaching on marriage and divorce and quotes Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:24.
We need to follow the logic of Jesus carefully in his teaching on divorce (Mat 19:3-12, Mar 19:4-9). Firstly, the creation account says that the woman was taken out of the man (by God). Further, it was God who brought the woman to the man (Gen 2:22). Secondly, the Genesis narrator says that "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast (i.e. be joined) to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen 2:24) Then Jesus introduces another "therefore" by saying "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." In other words the whole idea of marriage was God's idea in the first place because God joined them (Adam and Eve) together, divorce is a human idea (i.e. un-joining them, which is painful). God not only created the woman out of the man, but he brought them back together to become reunited as one flesh (so they are joined together by God). Paul also has the idea of a husband and wife being joined (bound) together as in Rom 7:2, 1Cor 7:27, 7:39. Incidentally, divorce is never mentioned as a sin that can bar a person from the kingdom of God, adultery is more serious, and is mentioned many times in scripture (the phrase used is to "commit adultery"). In Paul's teaching on marriage in 1 Cor 7, this is the most detailed teaching on marriage in all the bible.
I would suggest that the definition of marriage in Gen 2.24 takes precedent over the other descriptions of marriage we have in the OT (Concubinage, Polygamy, Levirate marriage and Incestuous marriage). Gay marriage is a non-starter because it is not heterosexual; there can be no reuniting of male and female physically to become one flesh. Other scriptures: 1: Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19) and its parallel the Levite at Gibeah (Jdg 19) . For a longer article see here28 The popular pro-gay argument is that Sodom was destroyed because of its inhospitality to visitors, not because of homosexuality. This argument was popularised by John Boswell in "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" (p93), but was suggested by Derrick Sherwin Bailey in 195555. This is a rather ingenious reason, and it even has some truth about it. It is even claimed that this is what Jesus taught about Sodom's sin32. The men of Sodom were very inhospitable to the male visitors as they wanted to have sex with the male visitors, not only that, they wanted to rape them and, unknowingly, they wanted to have sex with angels. Needless to say, this extreme form of sin shows us that God was justified in destroying the city. Both the Sodom and Gibeah accounts are parallel and involve the attempted male rape of a visitor. The Sodom account is compounded because the men without knowing it attempted to rape angels. This surely justified God in destroying the cities. The men of the city wanted to know the visitors.
They did not want to shake hands and say hello, they wanted sex with the visitors. Sex is clearly the purpose of the men in Gen 19 because Lot offered his daughters to the men instead (Gen 19:8)33. It is not just the rape element that is offensive; it is the male-male intercourse that is offensive. It is sin piled upon sin, male-male intercourse, plus attempted rape, plus attempted rape (unknowingly) with angels. Even when struck blind by the angels, the men wore themselves out trying to find the door (Gen 19:8), such was the depravity of these people. The inhospitality argument offered by the pro-gay apologists also conveniently ignores what the other NT authors have to say about Sodom and Gomorrah, who talk about sensual conduct, lawless deeds (Peter), sexual immorality, unnatural desire (Jude).
The unnatural desire in Jude 1:7 is literally "strange flesh" (heteros sarx) and could either refer to the fact that they wanted to have sex with the male visitors or (more likely34) that they (unknowingly) wanted to have sex with angels. The inhospitality argument is entirely unconvincing, but it is so frequently parroted in popular sources that it will, no doubt, deceive the gullible or those having itching ears35. Ezekiel 16:49 is also quite popular with the pro-gay apologists because it does not mention male-male intercourse, (they had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy), but what is usually omitted, in Eze 16:50, is that they "did an abomination (to'ebah) before me". to'ebah is the same word used when describing male-male intercourse in the Levitical prohibitions, it is an abomination (to'ebah).
This description of Sodom does rather well describe the West today. 2.Jonathan and David. For a longer article on Jonathan and David see here29 This is often cited as an example of a homosexual relationship; but is no more than a very close (covenant) friendship (1Sam 18:3). Jonathan was married (2 Sam 4:4) and David went on to be married (he had wives and concubines 2Sa 5:13), and he committed adultery with Bathsheba (2Sa 11:4). If David was gay, then he is also the best example of an ex-gay in the bible. No sexual intercourse is mentioned in the text and at worst it could indicate that David was bisexual. It certainly does not provide any support for gay marriage. Only Jonathan took his clothes off, David did not (1 Sam 18:3). In bible times and today in the Middle East men still kiss each other and hug each other. The phrase "your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women" (2Sam 1:26) occurs during the public eulogy after Saul and Jonathan had died and is simply Middle Eastern hyperbole, read 2Sam 1:19-27, to see this. For a more detailed analysis see here29 It should be noted that men kissing men was a norm in ANE culture and it still is today. Just do a search of your bible for the word "kiss". See Jacob and Isaac, Jacob and Laban, Esau and Jacob, Joseph and Jacob, for example. In the NT a holy kiss is encouraged (Rom 16:16, 1Cor 16:20, 2Cor 13:12, 1Thess 5:26). Brotherly love is also encouraged in the NT (Rom 12:10, 1Thess 4:9, Heb 13:1 etc.) Martin Nissinen (Homoeroticism in the Biblical World) does not see this relationship as homoerotic but as homosociability (p56). 3. Ruth and Naomi. Again this is a very close friendship and no sexual activity was involved and Ruth went on to marry Boaz. She was hardly a lesbian. The story of Ruth and Boaz is also an example of Levirate marriage. Citing Jonathan and David and Naomi and Ruth just shows how far the GLBT organisation will go to distort scripture for their own purposes. What is ignored is that brotherly loveis commended in scripture (Rom 12:10, 1Thess 4:9, Heb 13:1 etc.), but the pro-gay teachers pervert this into same-sex sexual love. False analogies used by pro-gay theologians: The Church has changed its mind on slavery, woman priests, divorce etc. Slavery: being a slave was not a moral issue (in so far as salvation was concerned). Christians who owned slaves were commanded to treat them well (Eph 6:9). Paul taught that slaves should avail their freedom (1Cor 7:21). Women in the church; Being a woman with authority in the church is not a salvation issue. Plus there are plenty of examples of women serving God in scripture. 9 Divorce is not held up as the standard, fidelity is. Jesus permits divorce in the case of sexual immorality of the other partner (Jesus used the word porneiain Mat 19:9 referring to sexual immorality of any kind not just adultery, so if your husband is gay and has sex with another man you can divorce him). As with most cases of adultery a woman can forgive her husband for straying once, but when it comes to serial adultery it is time to call it quits. He no longer loves you. Remarriage after a divorce, it is still marriage and it involves a male and a female. Being black, this is not a moral issue. Neither is left-handedness a moral issue. The GLBT are being less than truthful in comparing homosexuality to left-handedness. The science is against them, because there are disproportionately more homosexuals in urban areas than rural areas (below the age of 16).10 When we come to gay and lesbian relationships, this is a moral issue (and a salvation issue) and it does affect society, because the gay agenda is to want public approval of private actions. Anyone who disagrees is homophobic (but this is an ad hominem argument and is meaningless). The church marries (blesses) people who have lived together before marriage. Again there is no moral issue involved, it is about time they got married and stopped living in sin. Marriage is ordained of God and it is to help men and woman to avoid sexual immorality. There is simply no scriptural warrant for blessing gay marriage in the first place, because it does not meet the prerequisite for marriage that they be male and female. Even if we compare this to polygamy, which God tolerated in the OT (it was still heterosexual), there is no scriptural warrant to bless same sex unions. David and Jonathan were both married; Ruth and Naomi were both married during their lifetime. A closer analogy would be the incestuous man in 1 Cor 6, but this is a little too close to home for the pro-gay theologians and teachers. Why Gay Marriage is wrong. Just as "gay pride" is an oxymoron so is gay marriage52. a) It is an oxymoron; because the two cannot become one flesh. Marriage is a reuniting of the male and female to become one flesh (Gen 2:24). b) It is a coming together with another person of ones own sexual self. c) There is no natural way of physically to become one as a man with a man and a woman with a woman. Because of this, deviant sexual practises occur which result in medical problems, leading to a lower life-span. d) Despite promises to be faithful men will still have more outside sex partners than in heterosexual marriage. e) Gay marriage just regularises the sin f) If the Church blesses gay marriage then we are affirming
something that God does not affirm. And it will lead to the exclusion from
heaven for those who we bless. The church cannot bless what God does not bless,
to do so only makes people comfortable in their sin. Church and state and gay marriage. a) The state can bless same sex unions for social justice reasons. The state deals with life on this earth. But the church has to deal with eternal issues. Even Jesus knew about the separation of church and state (Mat 22:21). b) For the Church to bless gay marriage, is to bless what God does not and it imperils the eternal destiny of those who it blesses. c) It is God who gives us (Christians) the rules about this life and the next life. The state deals with all people (atheists and Christians) about this life only. The state can grant civil marriage to gays but the church should not also bless these marriages. d) If the church gives in to cultural pressure to accept and bless same-sex intercourse, then it ceases to be the church and instead it becomes just another worldly society, which only concerns itself with this world not the world to come. Jesus and the exception clause in Mat 19:11-12 (those who cannot marry) The disciples are astounded at Jesus teaching on marriage, because he teaches that divorce is unlawful except for sexual immorality:
Then Jesus goes on to talk about three classes of people for whom his teaching on marriage does not apply.
The nature argument is used by pro-gay theologians. Even if a homosexual was born "that way" (similar to eunuchs), he is still incapable of marriage (in the biblical sense of one man and one woman). In the important passage above, Jesus assumes celibacy as the only option (he does not leave a loop-hole for gays, there is no third way indicated, the only two options are heterosexual marriage or celibacy). There is no doubt that there should be a lot of debate about this important scripture. It has to be read in context (Mat 19:1-12). Note: God does not create people homosexual. Even Jesus does not accuse God because a person is born incapable of marriage from his mother's womb. Neither does the bible say that God created us sinners even though we are born sinners38. If a married man goes and has sex with another man, that would be sexual immorality (porneia) i.e. illicit sex and would be grounds for divorce. 1 The Septuagint is the Greek
translation of the OT (also abbreviated as LXX) translated 300 to 200 BC. It
was translated for the Hellenistic Jews who spoke Greek. Perhaps the most
famous quote from the LXX is Stephens speech in Acts 7. Luke himself usually
cites the LXX. 2 It is improbable that Paul was unaware of the existence of men whose sexual desire was oriented exclusively toward other males. For example, there existed in the first-century Roman world people called cinaedi (Latin plural; singular cinaedus; derived from Greek kinaidos, pl. kinaidoi, "butt-shaker"). These were adult males who perpetuated an effeminate appearance in order to attract male sex partners. Moreover, they were exclusively attracted to other males. Philo, a first-century Jew, was quite aware of their existence. Since the cinaedi appear frequently in the literature of the period, it is highly unlikely that Paul was unaware of their existence. (The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Theology, Analogies, and Genes By Robert A. J. Gagnon (web article)) 3 arsenokoitês compound of arsên (male) and koitê (bed) this is derived directly from the Septuagint (LXX) translation of the OT and the Levitical prohibitions.
This demonstrates that Paul thought that the Levitical prohibitions applied in his day. The rabbis used the corresponding Hebrew abstract expression mishkav zakur, “lying of/with a male,” drawn from the Hebrew texts of Lev 18:22; 20:13 (Robert Gagnon, Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture) 4 Porneia - (usually translated as "sexual immorality" or "fornication") Thayer Definition:
5. Homosexuality and the Truth: The Tide May be Turning by Alan P. Medinger. See also chapter 7 of Christian Sexuality: Normative and Pastoral Principles. Ed Russell E. Saltzman. 6. to'ebah Strongs: Feminine
active participle of H8581; properly something disgusting (morally), that is,
(as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol: -
abominable (custom, thing), abomination. 7. A prime example of people who have repented is in Rom 6, some of these will be the Rom 1 people including homosexuals. Once they freely gave themselves to satisfy their passions, now they are ashamed of their former actions and they now serve God with their bodies, they have changed their mind (repented) about their former life-style. The word akatharsia (impurity) links both passages.
See also 1Pet 4:3, Rom 13:13, Tit 3:3, Eph 4:22, 1Thes 4:1-8. 8. Bad Reasons for Changing One’s Mind. Jack Rogers’s Temple Prostitution Argument and Other False Starts. Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. 9. Phil 4:2-3, Rome 16:1-2, Rom 16:3, 1 Cor 16:19, Acts 18:2-28, Rom 16:7. 10. The number of men reporting same-sex partners at the age of 14 and 16 was 3.3 to 7 times higher in urban areas compared to rural areas . Residency at age of 14 to 16 is unlikely to be based on the choice of the respondent. (Edward O Laumann, John H Gagnon, Robert T Michael, and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organisation of Sexuality: Sexual Practises in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994) See also Gagnon, Bible and Homosexual Practise, page 416-17) 11. Septuagint version of Gen 1:27 see http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/romans_malick.pdf Gen 1:27 (Septuagint) kai epoiesen o theos ton anthropon kat' eikona theou epoiesen auton arsen kai thelu epoiesen autous. (http://scripturetext.com/genesis/1-27.htm) 12. This is what two pro-gay scholars have to say. “Paul does not mention tribades or kinaidoi, that is, female and male persons who were habitually involved in homoerotic relationships, but if he knew about them (and there is every reason to believe that he did), it is difficult to think that, because of their apparent ‘orientation,’ he would not have included them in Romans 1:24-27. . . . For him, there is no individual inversion or inclination that would make this conduct less culpable. . . . Presumably nothing would have made Paul approve homoerotic behavior” (Martti Nissinen , Homoeroticism in the Biblical World [Fortress, 1998], 109-12). "Paul could have believed that tribades, the ancient kinaidoi, and other sexually unorthodox persons were born that way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and shameful. . . . I believe that Paul used the word “exchanged” to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God." (Bernadette Brooten, p. 244, (Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [University of Chicago Press, 1996]) 13. This is precisely the argument of the MCC in Rev. Elder Don Eastman's, Homosexuality: Not a Sin, Not a Sickness. "A growing number of biblical and theological scholars now recognize that Scripture does not condemn loving, responsible homosexual relationships. Therefore, gay men and lesbians should be accepted - just as they are-in Christian churches, and homosexual relationships should be celebrated and affirmed!" 14. It may come as a great shock to a new Christian to find out that God does tell us what to do with our bodies sexually. e.g. 1Cor 6:18-20 ESV Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. (19) Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, (20) for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 15. Same-sex intercourse is hardly benign to those who practise it especially for men. There is a 25 to 30 year decrease in life expectancy. Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease - infectious hepatitis, which increases the risk of liver cancer. Frequently fatal rectal cancer. Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases. A much higher than usual incidence of suicide. (Homosexuality and the politics of truth, Jeffrey Satinover, p51.) In a study of nearly 7,000 homosexuals and heterosexuals, they found that gay life span, even apart from AIDS, and with a long term partner, is significantly shorter than that of married men in general by more than 30 years. AIDS further shortens the life span of homosexual men by more than 7 percent. (ibid p69) 16 See for example Straight and Narrow by Thomas E Schmidt p 102- 105. 17. ibid p105-108. Also Jeffrey Satinover p 52. Robert Gagnon says "While male homosexual unions have a greater likelihood of longevity than female homosexual unions, they also have a much greater likelihood of “open” relationships. A 1994 Dutch study of “close coupled” male homosexuals showed that by the sixth year of the relationship the number of outside sex partners averaged eleven. A 1997 Australian study showed that only 13% of homosexually active males aged 50 or over had had as “few” as 1-10 sex partners “lifetime”; three-quarters had over 20 sex partners and half had over 100 (for these two studies and others, see my The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 452-60). J. Michael Bailey, chair of the psychology department at Northwestern and one of the foremost researchers of homosexuality (and prohomosex in outlook), contends that “because of fundamental differences between men and women” and “regardless of marital laws and policies,” “gay men will always have many more sex partners than straight people do. Those who are attached will be less sexually monogamous” (The Man Who Would Be Queen [Joseph Henry Press, 2003], 101)." 18. The qadesh (cult male prostitutes) are mentioned six times in the OT (Deu 23:17, 1Ki 14:24, 1Ki 15:12, 1Ki 22:46, 2Ki 23:7, Job 36:14). It is only the qadesh that the KJV calls a sodomite or sodomites. Robert Gagnon again "Moreover, the attitude of the narrator of the Gibeah story toward an act of consensual receptive male-male intercourse is known. (Note: Scholars refer to the narrator as the Deuteronomistic Historian because he uses the Deuteronomic law code as a basis for evaluating Israel’s past as recorded in the books from Joshua through 2 Kings.) His attitude is clear from his caustic description of the qedeshim, cult figures who sometimes served as the receptive partner in male-male intercourse. Even Phyllis Bird, a prominent Old Testament scholar who wants the church to endorse committed homosexual unions and has written significant articles on the qedeshim and on homosexuality in the Old Testament, has acknowledged that what the Deuteronomistic Historian found most offensive about the qedeshim was “their repugnant associations with male homosexual activity” (“The End of the Male Cult Prostitute,” Congress Volume Cambridge 1995 [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 75). This is apparent from the description of the qadesh in Deut 23:18 as a “dog,” an epithet that parallel Mesopotamian texts apply to male “men-women” precisely because they allowed themselves to be penetrated by other males (Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 48-49, 100-110; Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 28-34). If the Deuteronomistic Historian was repulsed by the idea of men willingly consenting to be penetrated by other men (here too the term “abomination” [to’evah] is employed), then it is apparent that the same narrator of the story of Gibeah in Judges 19 would have found the attempt of the men of Gibeah to have sex with a man repulsive per se, and not just because it was coerced. Given the strong literary agreements between the story of Sodom and the story of Gibeah, evidence for how the Deuteronomistic Historian would have interpreted any act of male-male intercourse, consensual or coerced, provides strong evidence for how the Yahwist would have viewed the same; namely, as inherently or structurally offensive" (A Response to Peterson and Hedlund’s “Heterosexism, Homosexual Health, and the Church” Part III Scripture) 19. ALT - Analytical-Literal Translation (http://www.dtl.org/alt/index.html) "Homosexuals" in 1Corinthians 6:9 20. Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences by Dale B. Martin 21. See my article Malakos and arsenokoites 22. Aurelianus’s “translation” of Soranus’s work On Chronic Diseases (early 2nd century A.D.) the section on men who desired to be penetrated (4.9.131-37) is entitled “On the molles or subacti (subjugated or penetrated partners, pathics) whom the Greeks call malthakoi.” The Suda, a lexicon dating to medieval times but incorporating older material, defines malthakos as synonymous with kinaidos and malakos (cf. Schrijvers, cited below). An earlier Aristotelian text similarly refers to those who are anatomically inclined toward the receptive role as malakoi (Pseudo-Aristotle, Problems 4.26). Astrological texts that speak of males desirous of playing the penetrated female role also use the term malakoi (Ptolemy, Four Books 3.14 §172; Vettius Valens, Anthologies 2.37.54; 2.38.82; cf. Brooten, 126 n. 41, 260 n. 132). Paul likewise did not mean by malakoi all merely effeminate males but rather the feminized/receptive male sex-partners of the arsenokoitai—the receptive male partners indicted in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. Cf. also Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 116-20. (Notes to Gagnon’s Essay in the Gagnon-Via Two Views Book ) 23. Philo of Alexandria’s use of cognate words. Philo (a first-century Jewish philosophy) uses cognate terms to malakos to refer to men who actively feminize themselves for the purpose of attracting other men: malakia and malakotes, “softness”; also: anandria, “unmanliness,” hoi paschontes, “those who are ‘done’” [as opposed to the “doers,” hoi drontes], and androgynoi, “men-women” (cf. Special Laws 3.37-42; On Abraham 135-36; Contemplative Life 59-61; translated in Gagnon 2001a, 172-75). Does Jack Rogers's New Book "Explode the Myths" about the Bible and Homosexuality and "Heal the Church"? (Installment 3: June 10, 2006) 24. There is no reputable biblical scholar, on either side of the issue, who believes that malakoi has no relationship to homosexual behavior—none. Instead, people like David Fredrickson and Dale Martin will argue that the term, though including homosexual practice, is a broader concept that takes in any effeminate behavior of men (like a limp wrist or a heterosexual man giving too much attention to his personal appearance) and is motivated largely by misogyny. The term in the ancient world can be used in both senses: as a more or less direct reference to passive partners in homosexual unions and the broader reference to all effeminate males. Literary context is decisive. I argue that the context of 1 Cor 6:9 decisively points in the direction of the restrictive sense. Answers to Emails on the Bible and Homosexuality I, Robert Gagnon 25. Manfred Brauch The Exclusiveness of the Gospel I Corinthians 6:2-11; I Timothy 1:10 26. The New Testament and Homosexuality, Robin Scroggs (p 85-86) 27. Robert Gagnon. Does Jack Rogers's New Book "Explode the Myths" about the Bible and Homosexuality and "Heal the Church"? (Installment 3: June 10, 2006 28. For more detail see Sodom and Gomorrah 29. For more detail see Jonathan and David's romantic love? 30. HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH Alex D. Montoya Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries, based on John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: University Press, l980) 31 Homosexuality; Not A Sin, Not A Sickness by Rev. Elder Don Eastman. May be downloaded on www.mccchurch.org. MCC (Metropolitan Community Churches) was founded in 1968 by Rev. Elder Troy Perry. It is "the world's largest church group offering positive, affirming ministry to gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender persons". 32. See for example "The Church and the Homosexual", John J. McNeill. Who quotes Luke 10:10 to prove that the sin of Sodom was its inhospitality to strangers (the other synoptic parallel is Mat 10:15). The idea is that those towns that did not welcome (give hospitality to) the disciples will receive a more severe judgement than Sodom. John Boswell was one of the people who helped to popularise the inhospitality argument (John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), ). 33. And the Levite offered them his concubine (Jdg 19:24) in the parallel Gibeah narrative. 34 Richard J Bauckham in his commentary on Jude and 2 Peter (Word Biblical Commentary), thinks that "strange flesh" refers to having sex with angels rather than same-sex intercourse. 35. 2Ti 4:3-4 ESV For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, (4) and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 36. Paul, Romans and Homosexuality Written by Greg Koukl 37. Homosexual Theology Written by Kerby Anderson 38. God created Adam without sin, Paul traces the sin that we are born with back to Adam (Rom 5:12-14). In a similar way Jesus does not put the blame on God because a eunuch was so from birth (Mat 19:12). Many homosexuals will cry out to God why me? Gen 4:7 says "sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it". Surely it is so that God's grace can be displayed in our life. 39. Examples of polygamy. Abraham and Jacob Other examples are Lamech in Gen 4;19-23, Esau in Gen 36;2-6, Gideon in Judges 8;30, Samuel's father in 1 Sam 1;2, Moses Num 12:1, Caleb 1Ch 2:46-8, Assur in 1 Chr. 4:3, Shaharaim in 1 Chr. 8:8, David 1Ch 14:3, Rehoboam in 2 Chr. 11:21 (the king had 18 wives and 60 concubines) and Abijah in 2 Chr. 13:21 (a king who had 14 wives), Saul 1 Samuel 14:50, 2 Samuel 3:7 40. For example: Gay Christian 101, Rick Brentlinger. 41. The idea that marriage is a
covenant is given explicitly in Mal 2:14. Mal 2:14-15 ESV But you say,
"Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the
wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your
companion and your wife by covenant. (15) Did he not make them one, with
a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly
offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless
to the wife of your youth. 42. GLBT - Gay Lesbian Bisexual
Transgender/Transsexual. The aims are equal rights (such as marriage,
adoption), no discrimination against people who are GLBT, fighting
homophobia... 45. 1869: Kertbeny Coins "Homosexual". The writer Karl Maria Kertbeny coined the word "homosexual" as part of a broader system for the classification of sexual types. He called men who are attracted to women heterosexual, masturbators monosexualists, and devotees of anal intercourse pygists, and coined a variety of other words to describe every imaginable variation in sexual taste. In retrospect, his classificatory zeal seems peculiar, but he had good intentions. He believed that each of his sexual categories is rooted in heredity, and used that argument as a basis for opposition to Paragraph 175 and other laws against consensual sex between men. In spite of Kertbeny's arguments, the term homosexual was quickly adopted by doctors like Richard von Krafft-Ebing who used it as a diagnosis for mental illness. Homosexuality. People who find their sexual pleasures with members of the same sex. The homosexual, Kertbeny believed, is not necessarily effeminate, and may be uniquely masculine. Several types of homosexual exist: Tribades. Female homosexuals may be either active or passive. Mutuals. These male homosexuals find sexual satisfaction in mutual masturbation and constitute the vast majority of homosexuals. Pygists. Pygists may be active, passive or supervirile in their pursuit of anal sex. The supervirile are hypermasculine men who attract even normal sexuals. source 46. Note: in Greek tribades
is the plural of tribas. Other Greek nouns for women who have sex with
another woman are hetairistria, dihetaristria, and
Lesbia; and Latin tribas,
frictrix/fricatrix, and virago (Brooton p. 4-5).
47. This is refuted by Stephen
Carlson . Boswell's
Analysis of ArsenokoithV He lists plenty of compound words
with koites or arrhen in them (doulokoitês)
consorting with slaves, (mêtrokoitês) incestuous person,
i.e. with mother, (androkoitês) having intercourse with
a man, (arrhenogameô) to marry men,
(arrhenogoneô) to bear male children, arrhenomiktês /
arsenomiktês) sodomite. Boswell never mentioned the most obvious
source for compound word (arsenokoitês) in the first place: Lev
20:13 in the Septuagint (LXX) version (kai hos an koimêthê meta
arsenos koitên gynaikos, bdelygma
epoiêsan hampêoteroi thanatousôsthan enoikoi eisin).
Even the word order is the same. 57. Daniel Helminiak. What the bible really says about homosexuality. p56, p64-65. 58. Steve Schuh. Challenging Conventional Wisdom: How a conservative reading of the biblical references to homosexuality fails to support their traditional interpretation "If arsenokoites is derived from Leviticus then he argues: "If true, these New Testament verses share the same cultural backdrop as the Levitical prohibitions, that is, Israel’s history of idolatry and cult prostitution.25 Supporting this view, both Corinth and Ephesus (where Timothy lived) were primary centers of fertility religion, of Aphrodite and Artemis, respectively. Whether cult prostitution was practiced in these locations at the time of Paul's writing or merely lingered as part of the cities' storied past, the gender-bending mania they celebrated remained part of many Greco-Roman cults for centuries." 59. Study Of Leviticus 18-20 "Abomination" 60. Homosexuality In The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) Leviticus 18:22 61. James R White & Jeffrey D Niell, The Same Sex Controversy, p 239-242 62. A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology by Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges 63. Akatharsia (impurity) see Jesus Mat 23:27, and Paul Rom 1:24, 6:19, 2 Cor 12:21, Gal 5:19, Eph 4:19, 5:3, Col 3:5, 1 Thess 2:3, 4:7.Books refuting pro-gay theology The Gay Gospel?: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible (2007). Joe Dallas. This is an updated edition of "A Strong Delusion" (1996). It is a very readable starter refuting pro-gay theology written by someone who was once in the Christian gay movement himself. See also web version here The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Robert A J Gagnon. A 570 page scholarly tome that leaves no stone unturned (2002). His web-site has some interesting articles, http://www.robgagnon.net/. Christian Sexuality: Normative and Pastoral Principles. Ed Russell E. Saltzman. Includes a readable 50 page essay by Robert Gagnon. "Does the bible regard same-sex intercourse as intrinsically sinful?" Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Paperback) by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Dan O. Via. 125 pages. This contains the best summary of Gagnon's main book in print. Other essays can be found at his web-site. The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bibles Message About Homosexuality by James White, Jeffrey Niell (2002). The Truth About Same Sex Marriage by Erwin W. Lutzer Homosexuality:
Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature
and Law by James B. De Young (2000). Good on the Hebrew and Greek. For those who desire change and struggle with homosexuality Joe Dallas has written "Desires in Conflict" Some Pro-gay books cited (more here):Derrick Sherwin Bailey Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (1955). Longmans. Early book that gives the "inhospitality" argument for Sodom. John Boswell Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (1980). Chicago. Now considered a classic pro-gay book. Also endorses the inhospitality argument for Sodom. He looks at the meaning of toevah and bdelygma, as well as malakoi and arsenokoitai. Argues that Paul thought the activities were beyond nature rather than against nature. Paul condemns homosexual acts by apparently heterosexual persons (i.e. perverts not inverts). Robin Scroggs New Testament and Homosexuality (1983) Fortress. Proposes the expoitative argument, i.e. pederasty. Daniel A. Helminiak What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Paperback 1994) this ed 2000. Alamo Square. Popular treatment of pro-gay theology (no footnotes). Bernadette J. Brooten Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (The Chicago Series on Sexuality, History, and Society) (Paperback, 1996). Scholarly treatment. Brooton gives a very useful annotated bibliography on Rom 1:26f and NT and homosexuality generally. Also has a detailed commentary on Rom 1:18-32 (p 215-302). Martti Nissinen Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective (Paperback) (1998). Augsburg. Scholarly treatment. Other articles dealing with pro-gay theology.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||