Board index ‹ LGBT: Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, Transgender, and Homosexuality

[Vigilante]

Why is homosexuality condemned? I heard there was a mistranslation from the original texts that condemned pedophiles, which was accidentally carried over as homosexuality instead.

[jimwalton]

It just is simply not true that there was a mistranslation from the original texts that condemned pedophiles. There is no such evidence of a mistranslation. If anyone has such a thing, I'd be pleased to examine it.

Why is it condemned? The Bible consistently says it’s wrong, in a number of different situations and in both Old and New Testaments. But it never tells us why; it just unequivocally says it’s sin. But why is it sin? What makes it sin? In our era, many people (you included) consider it just another form of a legitimate relationship, and they want to know what makes it so "condemnable".

Some Christians would argue that the sin of homosexuality is one of complementarity: men and women’s bodies were made for each other. While there is a certain and unavoidable truth to that, it’s not an argument the Bible makes when it talks about homosexuality. It never identifies a lack of complementarity as the reason it is condemned. The text most often cited in that regard is Genesis 2.24, but even that text, when hard pressed, is not about complementarity, and it certainly is not discussing the issue of homosexuality.

Other people would argue that it’s “unnatural.” That’s a variation of the complementarity argument, and while Paul, in Romans 1, seems to allude to the unnaturalness of homosexuality, his argument is ultimately connected with idolatry: godlessness played out in our lives—a trading of dependence on God for dependence on other things. But some may wonder why homosexuality is a “dependence” on other things when it is just considered a love relationship. In the case of idolatry, though, and Romans 1, homosexuality is portrayed as a symptom of a spiritual problem of wayward desires that are not founded and grounded in the glory of God.

Still others contend that the sin of homosexuality lies in that it is ultimately not procreative and cannot be, but you don't want to hear that part. While the argument is inevitably true, it’s again not an argument that the Bible makes.

Sin in the Bible is a nuanced word, rather than a monolithic one. Sometimes it’s defined by its causes, sometimes by its character, and other times by its consequences. It can be open rebellion against God as well as quietly avoiding doing what is right. It can be ignorance, inattention, irreligion, iniquity, perversion, or evil. It can be talking about non-conformity to the law of God, a breach of the covenant, or an expression of unbelief. Which of these applies to homosexuality?

In Genesis 19 and Judges 19, the case at hand clearly involves violent sexual abuse, something we all recognize as wrong in all of its many contexts and expressions. In Romans 1, Paul talks about homosexuality as being physically degrading, a moral breach, and an unnatural expression of lustful desires. The context of Paul’s thoughts is the abusive pederastic culture of the Greco-Roman world—again, something we all recognize as wrong in all its many contexts and expressions. The text makes it quite clear that the homosexual world of Paul is a violation of cultural understandings of honor and shame, the expression of ungodly desires, and the unnatural degrading of others.

In Leviticus 18 and 20, homosexuality is listed in the chapters enumerating unlawful sexual relations, couched in a context of incestuous relations and idolatry. Some think it refers to cult prostitution, others to pederasty, and others to casual same-sex relationships. Without particular explanation, we are best to regard it as a general prohibition of homosexual relations, regardless of their source or expression.

In the later epistles of Paul, the terms of homosexuality in the lists of forbidden and sinful activities relate to prostitution and child sexual abuse, again—common in the Roman world.

While it is not clear in the Bible why homosexuality is sin, it is overwhelmingly and uncompromisingly clear that it is. And while some people argue (quite convincingly) that the homosexuality of our culture is a very different thing from what it was in the ancient world, the argument ultimately fails in that the Bible never entertains a nuanced understanding of the sin of homosexuality. In the Bible, it’s always and unavoidably considered sin, no matter what form it takes.

The distinction between sexual orientation and sexual expression—another argument on the table—is a modern one that would make little sense in the ancient world, where the notion of sexual orientation was absent. Most scholars agree that the ancient world thought simply of sexual drives that manifested themselves either heterosexually or homosexually. Paul’s argument in Romans 1 shows no interest in orientation, but addresses homosexuality unambiguously as “excessive lust” and “contrary to nature.” Brownson says, “So here is our paradox: In the ancient world, if a man ceased engaging in prostitution or another sexual vice, he was no longer a malakos (the active partner in a male homosexual act) or arsenokoites (the passive partner in the same act). But in our [modern cultural] context, a person is still gay or lesbian regardless of their behavior.” So a person “being” gay is not something the Bible addresses, only acting out homosexual activity. So is being gay a sin, or just acting out? In a parallel sense, is it a sin to be a thief, or is it only sin when one steals something?

Brownson continues: “It’s also a problem to say that it’s OK to be gay as long as they don’t act out, for the Bible decries impulses to sin as manifestations of a sin nature (James 1.12-15), and not at all neutral (Mt. 5.21-22, 28). If same-sex acts are always morally wrong, then the impulse to engage in those acts is also a manifestation of a sinful inner state. Certainly we must always distinguish between inclination and action, and we are all accountable for our thoughts as well as our actions. Yet we know that impulse and action do not carry the same guilt before God, who searches the heart. At the same time, if an action is wrong, the inward impulse toward that action is also culpable to some extent. Lines get easily blurred.”

The conclusion is necessary: the Bible regards homosexuality as a sin, but doesn't specifically tell us why. The “why” seems to have many dimensions and subtle understandings. While philosophically and theologically the arguments of complementarity, conception, and “unnaturalness” ultimately all fail in their biblical explanations, we must continue to study and consider what the Bible is teaching us and why.

[Scape211]

In Leviticus 18 and 20, homosexuality is listed in the chapters enumerating unlawful sexual relations, couched in a context of incestuous relations and idolatry. Some think it refers to cult prostitution, others to pederasty, and others to casual same-sex relationships. Without particular explanation, we are best to regard it as a general prohibition of homosexual relations, regardless of their source or expression.

This is currently what I hear and read about when it comes to the discussion of mistranslation (just discussed it with someone last night actually). From the 1500s to the 1800s, bibles at that time referred to the verses in Leviticus (and maybe other areas of the bible) as molestation; typically of young boys. However, in the late 1800s, the word homosexual was created (I believe by the Germans). It wasn't until the 1980s that German bibles were translated to English and the phrasing then became related to homosexuality rather than relating to pedophilia. I assume the German versions that used the new word of homosexuality are the culprit here, but it could be how the translators that converted to English handled the text.

In any case, the OT laws surrounding this topic seemed mainly focused on calling these acts to be against the natural order of things and not even outrightly calling it sin. The NT deals more with it being a stronger indication of being against God or sinful.

I am curious though - has research been done to show how before the 1500s that Leviticus was still related to all homosexual acts? Or do the earlier manuscripts we have still show it as molestation? I was under the impression that the original Hebrew was more so addressing all same-sex behavior, but I have not been able to confirm.

[jimwalton]

The argument of "mistranslation" comes up over and over. People are DRIVEN to make it so that the Bible approves of homosexuality, or at least doesn't condemn it. They figure if they tell a lie long enough and loud enough, it will become "truth."

The argument from "old Bibles" is a misleading one. Just because the term "homosexuality" didn't exist in earlier language, it was clearly understood—by whatever terms they used—to condemn same-sex relationships. Whether they used "perversion" or something else, they all knew and admitted that the Bible was forbidding man-with-man and woman-with-woman. The term of the era doesn't change the meaning that has been from the beginning. A rose by any other name...is still a rose.

The terms employed in Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Timothy have NEVER been restricted to idolatry or pedophilia. By the way, even though there are a few verses in the Leviticus text about idolatry, it is a travesty of interpretation to say that the sex acts mentioned (by the dozens) have only to do with idolatry, or that, oh, the particular verse about homosexuality is really about pedophilia. It's an argument that doesn't have enough evidence to give it credibility.

> In any case, the OT laws surrounding this topic seemed mainly focused on calling these acts to be against the natural order of things and not even outrightly calling it sin.

The ancients (Old Testament) had a different view of sin than we do (after Christ). Leviticus calls it "abomination/detestable." We don't need the word "sin" to catch the drift. "Abomination" pertains to doing something that violates the covenant and brings about God's wrath.

John Walton, the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Vol. 1 p. 311) writes, "This verse and 20.13 categorically and unambiguously condemn male homosexuality as an abomination to God, punishable by death in 20.13. There is plenty of evidence of homosexuality and bestiality in the ancient Near East. A Mesopotamian omen (concerned with results rather than morality) prognosticates: 'If a man has anal sex with a man of equal status—that man will be foremost among his brothers and colleagues.' The Middle Assyrian laws have a different attitude, however, which is closer to that of Leviticus: 'If a man sodomizes his comrade and they prove the charges against him and find him guilty, they shall sodomize him and they shall turn him into a eunuch.' "

What makes people think this is only about pederasty or idolatry? Only because they are working too hard to disarm the Bible.

Jacob Milgrom, in the Anchor Bible Commentary on Leviticus (Vol. 3A pp. 1565-1567) writes, "Sodomy is attested in all periods and is most often reviled, if not proscribed. ... the Bible allows for no exceptions; all acts of sodomy are prohibited, whether performed by rich or poor, higher or lower status, citizen or alien."

Richard Hays ( The Moral Vision of the New Testament p. 391): "The biblical strictures against homosexual behavior are concerned not just for the private morality of individuals but for the health, wholeness, and purity of the elect community. This perspective is certainly evident in the holiness code of Leviticus. Almost immediately following the prohibition of homosexual conduct here, we find the general warning of vv. 24-26, which refers to all the foregoing rules about sexual practices (Lev. 18.6-23). Israel, as a holy nation, is called upon, for the sake of the whole people’s welfare, to keep God’s commandments. Those who transgress the commandments defile not merely themselves but the whole land, jeopardizing the community as a whole. That is why “whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people” (Lev. 18.29)."

The attempt to claim "it's been changed" is pure rubbish, but it's being believed by MILLIONS of people who just want to believe it's so, and who don't grant authority to the Bible anyway. People are being led astray.

[Scape211]

A Mesopotamian omen (concerned with results rather than morality) prognosticates: 'If a man has anal sex with a man of equal status—that man will be foremost among his brothers and colleagues.' The Middle Assyrian laws have a different attitude, however, which is closer to that of Leviticus: 'If a man sodomizes his comrade and they prove the charges against him and find him guilty, they shall sodomize him and they shall turn him into a eunuch.' "

This is quite interesting. Ill be honest in saying my focus has been more on the biblical representation rather than other ancient cultures. To find they also had problems with it is telling as well. This doesn't necessarily make it moral or immoral on its own, but clearly shows how this isn't an issue directly related to the bible alone.

The attempt to claim "it's been changed" is pure rubbish, but it's being believed by MILLIONS of people who just want to believe it's so, and who don't grant authority to the Bible anyway. People are being led astray.

Hugely agree. I have people in my church who have been struggling with the arguments for homosexuality and how it isn't sin or that the bible/God somehow approves of it. I have found a little research related to how the NT addressed it with paul in romans. He uses the word Arsenokoitai to describe homosexuals. Many see this and origins from the OT and think it also relates to pedestry. However, Arsenokoitai is a compound word that simply means man (arsen) and bed (koite/koitas) that Paul is in this sense coining a new phrase. And in doing so, it doesn't address boys or youth men. So I don't see how it could be pedestry. At least this is the research I have heard on the subject specifically related to the NT and pushing back to the OT.

[jimwalton]

About arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6.9): From J.I. Packer: "The first, arsenokoitai, means literally 'male-bedders,' which seems clear enough." You see, it's trying to make a false case that the word "homosexuality" wasn't used until a few centuries ago. So what? They used the term "male-bedders"—male on male intercourse. Uh, same thing. It's a compound word, as you said. The first half of the word (arsenikos) denotes "male," and the second half of the world denotes "coitus" — relates to male coitus with a male. In ancient Greece and Rome, same sex coitus was often pederastic (though not always), often a display of power (a right and privilege of the wealthy and powerful, or the head of the household), but sometimes just sexual engagement. Therefore the word does include pederasty and homosexual rape, but that's not its only meaning.

Here's some more information for you.'

The root word of what we find in 1 Corinthians consists of three elements: ἄρσην, "male," a generic connecting omicron (the Gk letter "o"), and then κοίτης, a deverbal noun from κοιτέω. An apparent neologism, the compound is all but identical in form to the εἰδωλολάτρης (idolatry) that we find just words prior in the same verse: a worshiper, λάτρης, of an idol. So by the same principle, ἀρσενοκοίτης is a sleeper with, or bedder of a male.

This fits in with a number of other compounds that also have κοίτης as the second element of the compound, and various persons or things as the first. In these compounds the person or thing is all but invariably the object, not the subject. This is demonstrated exhaustively in studies like David Wright's important 1984 article "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ἀρσενοκοῑται (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10)" in the journal Vigiliae Christianae, and in posts like these ([url]https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/sztc4q/1_corinthians_69_ἀρσενοκοῖται_and_the_forthcoming/[/url]).

Technically, κοίτης is masculine, so it could be argued that we know grammatically that the compound only signifies a man who sleeps with another male, instead of potentially a woman who sleeps with a male, too. But the androcentric perspective of Paul assumes a male audience anyways; so it's probably best to say we infer contextually that the masculine form means to denote men who sleep with males. Incidentally, in the papyri and other texts, we find the very similar compound ἀνδροκοιτέω, which means "to sleep with a man," but they're applied exclusively to women who would do so.

Outdated English translations which just used "homosexual" alone were also done from an androcentric perspective where this implicitly denoted male "homosexuals."

So the answer is that the compound only proscribes male/male homoeroticism.

[Scape211]

Very good stuff Jim. Thanks for this!