The ex-gay movement’s favorite verses of the Bible are 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 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.
And there it is, right there in easily understood English. Some of the church members in Corinth were homosexual offenders who were washed and sanctified and have “overcome the homosexual lifestyle”.
In an article written by Joe Dallas, borrowed from Exodus International, and on the Focus on the Family’s website (add in NARTH and you’d have a whole Love Won Out conference) we see this claim about 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:
Sexual orientation simply cannot be changed,” a gay psychiatrist says confidently, warning “there may be severe emotional and social consequences in the attempt to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality.” This argument draws heavily from the social sciences, as it must; the Bible supports no such claim. Indeed, St. Paul makes the opposite remark, clearly stating homosexuals can change
But is that what the letter to the Corinthians really says? Did Paul pull out his quill and jot down a letter to “homosexual offenders” that had become heterosexual?
The short answer is “no”. Paul (along with Sosthenes) used another word: arsenokoites.
OK. No problem, right? You just translate arsenokoites from Greek into English and you’re done.
Well, not so easy. Even in the best of circumstances, translations between languages are difficult. The flow, the cadence, cultural references or even puns all get mangled. The best translators of novels tend not to use word-by-word translations. But assuming that you did use word-by-word methodology, this still won’t work for arsenokoites.
Because Paul, bless his heart, didn’t use Greek. In fact, he didn’t use a word. Arsenokoites doesn’t appear in any pre-existing literature. Either he used slang or he just made it up.
Arsenokoites shows up twice in the Bible, both times by Paul. It’s also in Titus 1:10 in a list of sinners that also includes liars, whoremongers, and slaver traders (clearly NARTH only read part of this verse). But what was he saying?
The words seem to be some combination of “man” and “bed”. Some translators have looked at this and said “Oh, yes. See here. This ‘man-bed’ clearly means those ‘homosexuals’ (or ‘homosexual offenders’ – whatever that means)”. Other historians or researchers are not at all convinced of this. So who is right?
The truth is we just don’t know.
It is always difficult to determine the meaning of compound words, especially in this case because usage doesn’t give us much of a clue. Arsenokoites appears only three times in only two documents over a period of three centuries! Two of these are in the New Testament and one is in the Sibylline Oracles. In all three cases, the word appears in a list and so the meaning of the word cannot be readily derived from the context.
In the Sibylline Oracles, it does not seem to appear in a sexual context.
Oh but perhaps, some might think, Paul had to use slang because there were no other words to use. Perhaps homosexuality was such a vile sin that no one ever spoke of it.
No. That’s not it.
In Greek culture, romantic or sexual relationships between males were so common as to be a dominant theme in what Greek literature remains. Paul had half a dozen words or more to pick from.
So what do we make of arsenokoites? How do we translate slang?
The problem with slang should be obvious to all. While translations may be phat and require mad hot skills, it isn’t representin’ if it’s all for the bling. Or something like that.
I don’t know what the word selected in 1 Corinthians 6:9 means. Perhaps Paul was talking about same-sex activity, or alternately he meant those who bullied same-sex attracted persons. Perhaps he meant rapists, or maybe men who spent the day lounging in bed, or men with too many female slaves. Or maybe there was some cultural refernce that ironically had nothing more to do with men or beds than a lounge-lizard has to either lounging or lizards. I don’t know. And neither does Joe Dallas, James Dobson, or Alan Chambers.
But I do know that building a doctrine and claiming that “sexual orientation can be changed” based on nothing more than one slang word that is confusing at best seems to me to be grasping and tortured.
You might even say it’s not good strategerie.
Nice post, Timothy. I wonder if you have any thoughts on some of the other big gay verses…
Also, it’s interesting to note…King James Version is totally different than the modern versions being used…back in the king james version wasn’t it…effiminate? So if you’re effiminate, even if you’re straight, you’re going to hell?
(Sorry, Dad preached from the King James so the first time I saw the word ‘homosexual’ in a newer version of the bible, it struck me as odd. Does anyone know which version of the bible was first converted to say homosexual anyway?)
Actually, read on to Chapter 7, Verse 7 where the Apostle indicates a preference that all men were even as he was (being celibate). Imagine if that had happened, that all men went celibate like Paul…would any of us be here?
Actually, read on to Chapter 7, Verse 7 where the Apostle indicates a preference that all men were even as he was (being celibate).
Good example of “proof texting” if one were to try to make a case for not ever getting married from that verse.
Even still, what the hell has Paul got to do with it? Its not the word of god, is it? Because some apostle is writing so many years in a letter after the event, saying all this crap, it means Christians have to take down his words as if they were from the horses mouth?
Ya know what, Jesus never said jack shit about ‘homosexuals’ and i bet if he was here now, it would be us, the persecuted, and the AIDS victims and all the rest of society that these so called ‘christains’ think wont inherit the earth, who would be the focus of his attention.
The bible can be a dangerous thing when some people who are just to stupid and ignorant are let loose with it.
First to Nick, everything in the canon of the Bible is considered the inspired word of god, and thus is to be taken as if the god had spoken but through a man.
____________________________________
I think you can figure out what Paul had in mind if you compare 1 Corinthians 6:9 to 1 Timothy 1:10. In the later, Paul starts off with whoremongers (pornos) and then arsenokoites. In that context he is talking of those who seek out a whore, and then I believe he is speaking of those who would be male prostitutes. I think Paul might have had male prostitutes in mind for arsenokoites. What would have been the temple Qadesh in Old Testament times.
Now if you go back to 1 Corinthians 6:9 and plug in male prostitute for arsenokoites then you have to adjust some other words. I don’t know at all how your translation above got male prostitute out of what can only be malakos. The word, malakos, is often (as in the KJV) translated as effeminate. But a review of Perseus shows that the only use of effeminate as a translation concerns music. The root meaning of malakos is soft; and in terms of morality it would connote weak morals, nothing more. So that particualar word should not directly connote anything akin to homosexuality.
Paul was not likely speaking about the state of being homosexual in that or any other passage, but an act. Homosexuality was not a recognized state of being at that time. And for that reason the fundamentalist Chrisitians do not seek to acknowledge the homosexual orientation now, bowing to the gnosis of the Bible. However, in the Roman Catholic Catechism, the state of homosexuality is not a sin, only the act is considered the sin (though perhaps not traditionally). The Catholic interpretation of the Pauline passages is that only the act is being described.
And my determination has always been that the act being described is more often prostitution rather than that of a sharing of a sexual act between two loving persons of the same sex.
Lij,
From Wikipedia, emphasis is mine — the wiki has links to the official documents):
The Catholic position
In other words, according to official Church belief, the Sacred Scriptures are inspired — but subjective. God-breathed, perhaps, but not spoken as if directly and letter-for-letter by God.
See also Biblical inspiration for additional disagreements and nuances regarding the nature and outcome of inspiration.
Ahhh…the liberation of being able to say, “I don’t know.”
There isn’t a Christian alive that applies every command in the Bible (or even the New Testament) literally. All Christians pick and choose. The only difference between liberal and conservative Christians is which they pick and choose.
“Arseno” and “koiten” both appear in the Septuagint translation of Leviticus (20:13 – “hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos”). Some Christians attempt to link the two (though this attempt to link is fairly modern.) The problem is that even the Leviticus prohibitions are found in lists of practises the Canaanites did and modern Jews are divided on what they condemn (“homosexuality”, pagan cult prostitution or specifically male-to-male anal sex.)
Also, Jewish law needed 4 male witnesses in order to convict, which suggests that the command was against a public act rather than a private one.
Anonymous asked
Does anyone know which version of the bible was first converted to say homosexual anyway?
I believe it was the Revised Standard Version released in 1946.
This is earlier than suggested by the list collated by Jeramy Townsley of the various translations through the ages.
The word homosexual was coined in a German publication in the latter half of the nineteenth century, being a conjunction of a greek and a latin word.
I would read Lev 18:22 in the Masoretic Hebrew and then the Septuagint. Once you’ve done that it’s blindingly obvious what the etymology of arsenokoites is.
Helpful link.
Skemono, that is TOO cool… Thanks
It still doesn’t give us insight on context. The Leviticus passage is found in a list of pagan practices that followers of the Mosaic covenant were not supposed to do. (It’s interesting that every form of incest except the most common – father/daughter – is listed.)
That the verse uses the plural of “mankind” rather than the singular suggests multiple partners and it being called a to’evah – ritually unclean – suggests pagan ritual.
It is well documented that Molech priests dressed in women’s garb and men had sex with them in fertility rituals. Likewise Corinth had temples to Aphrodite where people engages in similar practise. IF there is a connection (and there is no consensus amongst Biblical scholars that there is), Paul may have invoked the Leviticus passage in an effort to warn them from turning back to their pagan ways.
to’evah isn’t “ritually unclean” – it’s “abomination” – a much harsher meaning. Somewhere a year ago or so I wrote on the fascinating link between to’evah and Rabbinic practice around the time of Paul. Let me see if I can dig it out.
Here we go. This is what I wrote in an Oxford Essay a year or so back
That the Old Testament Levitical texts condemn homosexual activity seems to be almost beyond doubt. The only debate that still exists seems to be what category the condemnation is, or to put it another way, what the words “to’evah hi”* mean. Gagnon makes the fascinating point that “to’evah hi” is only ever applied to male-male sex in the Mosaic Law (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13) though it is used extensively outside**. The words for male are “unqualified and absolute”*** “zakar” is used, the same word as in Genesis 1:27 for the phrase “male and female he made them”) and show the universality of the condemnation, evidenced by the almost lack of debate on what “zakar” means in the context.
* Leviticus 18:22
** E.g. Gen 43:32, Deut 7:26, Jer 6:15, Eze 16:50
*** Gagnon, R J; The Bible and Homosexual Practice; p115
—
I need to pop out now, but if you want me to post a copy of the full essay online (including the bit about Paul and C1 Rabbinic use of “to’evah”) then let me know.
So eating shellfish, cheeseburgers and having sex with your wife during her period (both labelled to’evah) fall into that harsher “abomination” category?
I have read Gagnon and the critiques of Gagnon. Most of the critiques of Gagnon I read note that his Hebrew translation is a bit off. (Being a non-Jew, non-torah scholar, it makes sense.) I have also read what Jews have written about their own book.
Leviticus 18:26, 27, and 29 refers to all of the sins in the chapter (incest, relations when the woman is menstruating, adultery, sacrificing children to Molech, sex between two men, and bestiality) as “toevot”. Deuteronomy 14:3 refers to forbidden foods (animals that don’t chew their cud and have split hooves, aquatic animals that don’t have fins and scales, certain birds, animals that die of themselves, and cooking a kid in it’s mother’s milk) as “toevah”. Deuteronomy 17:1 terms as “toevah” bringing an animal sacrifice that isn’t physically perfect. Deuteronomy 24:4 describes as “toevah” a situation where a man divorces his wife, she marries another and is again divorced or widowed, and he remarries her. Deuteronomy 25:16 calls dishonest business practices “toevah”.
https://www.orshalom.ca/dolgin.toevah.htm
Ah yes, Peter, it is tempting to take the words Leviticus 20:13 (not 18:22) in the Septuagint (Hebrew scriptures translated into Greek) because they do appear similar: kai os an koimhqh meta arsenos koithn gunaikos bdelugma epoihsan amfoteroi qanatousqwsan enocoi eisin.
However, that runs into greater problems than it solves. To make that assumption, we have to make several leaps of faith:
1. that the Septuagint was written before Paul, that Paul was familiar with the Septuagint, and that he accepted the Septuagint as authoritative. Though this is generally assumed, some scholars date the Septuagint after Paul’s death. For that matter, the date of the Masoretic is also uncertain.
2. that the Septuagint is a translation of the Masoretic text. This seems to also be uncertain.
3. that the writers of the Septuagint translated Leviticus 20:13 with the cultural understanding of this as a prohibition on homosexuality and used the words arsenos koithn to mean homosexual. This makes the assumption that culture plays no roll in translation, an assumption that I think is very naïve (compare the NIV to the KJV some time).
4. that Paul understood the words arsenos koithn to mean “homosexual”. Here we have Paul’s understanding or the Septuagint’s translation of a thousands of years old text in Hebrew.
5. that Paul chose to conflate arsenos koithn from Lev 20:13 to be arsenokoites. We have no reason to beleive that he got this from the Septuagint at all other than a desire to proof text a prohibition on homosexuality.
6. that although Paul did not use the words in the Septuagint, the word he created instead actually meant the same as the words he chose not to use. In other words, that he meant what he did not say.
7. that a comparison with the Masoretic text will give you the meaning of the Septuagint text. This is by far the greatest leap of faith.
Now let’s try your logic using an exact comparison:
Suppose you wanted to know the meaning of the English word “self-abuse”. You could find a similar phrase in the KJV Bible: “abusers of themselves with mankind” in our text under discussion, 1 Corinthians 6:9. Yes, our friend arsenokoites was translated thus by King James’ scholars.
Well, obviously self-abuse is a conflation of “abusers of themselves” and therefore, using your logic, it’s clear that self-abuse is the same as arsenokoites. And because this all is the same as Lev 18:22, we now know the meaning of the word “self-abuse”:
“self-abuse” means homosexuality.
While that might be a meaning that is accepted by Paul Cameron, the rest of the world dismisses this sort of “research”.
Proof texting and backing into meanings by using assumptions can be fun and make you feel smarter (or more holy) than others but it’s not a very wise way to establish doctrine.
6. that although Paul did not use the words in the Septuagint, the word he created instead actually meant the same as the words he chose not to use. In other words, that he meant what he did not say.
I agree that this is the biggest problem with this approach.
It would have been far easier and clearer, given Paul’s audience, to actually quote the Leviticus law than to make up a word.
You have a word that doesn’t match the verse in question and ignores the reality that compound words have have meanings that are very different than their singular components and whose meanings can vary greatly depending on their order (“under”, “stand” vs. “stand under” vs. “understand”).
And this is why many mainstream Biblical and linguistic scholars haven’t gravitated towards this link.
toujoursdan is correct on the meaning and usage of to’evah.
In the Talmud, it’s interpreted as “a mistake” within the culture of a particular society.
It is also used in Genesis 43:32
32 And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, that did eat with him, by themselves; because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination (to’evah) unto the Egyptians.
If you’re adventurous enough to pick out the Hebrew letters, you can find them here by scrolling down to the correct verse:
https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0143.htm
and 46:34
34 that ye shall say: Thy servants have been keepers of cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and our fathers; that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.’
https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0146.htm
The argument seems to be like this:
I don’t know what the word “understand” means in this sentence:
“I don’t think he understands you.”
Oh wait! There is another sentence in the same book that says:
“Don’t stand under a tree during a thunderstorm”.
Sentence #2 has the same root words, “under” and “stand”, as sentence #1 so we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they must be connected and addressing similar things. Furthermore, it is obvious that if I know that “stand under” in sentence #2 means to be spatially below, “understand” in sentence #1 must mean the same thing, even if the order of the words is reversed.
Therefore, sentence #1 obviously means:
“I don’t think he stands beneath you.”
I would really like to hear how Gagnon addreses this. I would also like to know why the definition of one must lead to the definition of the other. It’s pretty easy to think of many examples where these rules doesn’t work.
If this just boils down two the existance of the same root words, my response is “What else do ya got?”
Tim K,
Let me tackle your comments one by one:
1) LXX – only a tiny minority of scholars believe that the LXX was later than 1st cent BCE. You’re also ignoring the fact that Paul was schooled in a Hellenistic City (Tarsus), was a Roman Citizen and wrote all of his letters in koine. To suggest he was unaware of LXX is stretching credulity.
2) I’m quite happy to concede this point as it doesn’t damage the argument. I don’t know of any scholars who dispute the current Hebrew reading of Lev 18 and 22, so the argument isn’t whether the text originally said what we think it now says (in Hebrew) but rather what that Hebrew means.
3) The common Rabbinic referral to homosexual activity during C1 BCE and C1 CE was “moshcav tz’car” (sorry, my Hebrew is slightly rusty so I’m transliterating the best I can). Translate that into Greek and you get “arsenos koithn”. The interesting thing is that this was a generic Rabbinic expression to cover ALL forms of homosexual practive, whether consensual or not.
4) I suggest that give he was one of the leading Rabbis of the time, the answer given (3) is “yes”
5) That then leads us with the question, why did he create this compound noun that looks SO like the LXX prohibition AND the contemporary Rabbinic prohibition, but meant something totally different? I genuinely can’t see an alternative etymology in the Rabbinic OR greek texts.
6) See (5)
7) I’m just not sure what you mean here
One more thing. “To’evah” is used in many places in the OT to mean something far more prohibitive than simply cultic symbolism. Eg, Prov 28:9, Isa 41:24, Eze 18:12. In particular Prov 6:16 before the list of vices in verses 17-19 is much more than simply cultic no-noes.
is much more than simply cultic no-noes.
I would suggest that these “cultic no-noes” as you put them were much more serious themselves in another time and place. That does not mean they are so now.
I’ve heard more convincing arguments on the nature of arsenos–koites. Most of the time I find that a study which comes to a concrete conclusion, one way or the other, is solidly in line with the ideology of the arguer. The honest conclusion it seems is that we can’t be entirely certain what Paul was saying with that one word. The more important point which Timothy Kincaid made concerns the folly of establishing doctrine on something like this. It clearly falls under what Southern Baptists would consider the “priesthood of the believer” or more simply put, between the believer and God. Until God persuades me otherwise, that is where it is for me.
Peter,
The difference between our positions is that mine is “I don’t know” and yours is “I’m absolutely certain”.
The point of the debate is this:
Regardless of your assumptions, we simply don’t know that Paul had Leviticus in mind when he coined a new word. Similarities with other words are not an indication that that is their etiology. Guesswork does not make for good theology.
Further, we don’t know what Leviticus was understood to mean to Paul. You think that Paul condemned “all homosexual practice” because that is what you condemn.
Yet you know full well that the early church fought over the application of The Law to Christainity and Paul was not a proponent of legalism. Yet you assume that in this instance he was. You assume that the same Paul who argued against circumcision as a requirement also said “I want to condemn homosexuality so I think I’ll create a new word… let’s see, I’ll go to the Law, that’ll give my new word credibility”. This would be a most unlikely approach.
Finally (and this I simply don’t know) your assumption is that the Church at Corinth was a Jewish church rather than a Greek church. You assume that the Corinthians would see Paul’s new word and say “hey, that looks like a couple words in Leviticus and we all follow the Law. That must mean all homosexual acts”.
I don’t claim that this was NOT what Paul intended. I just submit that this is a huge jump and one that at this time requires blind belief.
In order for you to insist that you understand what Corinthians means you have to be absolutely certain that Paul thought the same as you about Leviticus (“all forms of homosexual practice”), that the audience he was writing to also shared your understanding, that he based his new word on your understanding, and that it was this shared understanding that he was condemning in Corinthians.
With all due respect, Peter, this is the height of arrogance.
Not only is it extremely unlikely that Paul’s understanding of sexuality was remotely similar to yours but to then jump to the conclusion that because you condemn homosexuality therefore so must have Paul (which is the only way you get from Lev to Cor) is results-based logic.
As I’ve said before, Peter, we don’t know. And that “we” includes you.
The more I read the thoughts of those who champion ex-gay theology, the more clear it becomes that this way of thinking requires an absolute certainty in that which isn’t certain. And a desire to argue for argument’s sake.
Please don’t take this as a personal attack, Peter, but that does seem to be a pattern of yours.
I don’t think TK it’s a huge assumptive jump to make. We know that the contemporary Rabbinic practice was to lump together all homosexual practice (consensual, paid for or otherwise) and to treat it as abhorent. Paul was a Rabbi well schooled in the contemporary Jewish theology of the day. In other places (Romans 2-3 for eg) where he disagrees with the Rabbis (on salvation in this instance) he shows absolutely that he disagrees. In the case of homosexual practice he makes no indication whatsoever that he disagrees with the Rabbis. In fact, to maintain such a condemnation would not be a restating of the Law (in opposition to his “grace” tendencies) or to undermine the mission to the Gentiles, but rather to simply accord with the ruling of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
“an absolute certainty in that which isn’t certain. And a desire to argue for argument’s sake.”
This could go on forever and we would end up right back here. Agree to disagree?
We know that the contemporary Rabbinic practice was to lump together all homosexual practice (consensual, paid for or otherwise) and to treat it as abhorent.
Whether this is true or not (and I know of no Rabbinic commentary that parced these as consentual, loving, prostitution or rape and then individually condemned them so this is essentially an argument by silence), it doesn’t answer the question of whether the condemnation was based on its association with pagan practise, a desire to increase the size of the tribe or other factors.