Homosexuality in the bible

[K. R. Alyea]

Concerning arsenokoitai.

Here is a quote from Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology about arsenokoitai.

Paul's Epistles: Two brief references in Paul's letters, where same-gender sex is mentioned in lists of prohibited activities, are important especially for their link to the Old Testament. In 1st Corinthians 6:9 and 1st Timothy 1:10 arsenokoitai are condemned. The word, a compound of "male" and "coitus" or "intercourse, " does not occur prior to the New Testament. Some modern writers have attempted to narrow its meaning from homosexual acts in general to male prostitution, solicitation of male prostitutes, or (coupled in 1 Cor 6:9; with malakoi, another obscure word possibly meaning "the effeminate" ) the active partners in homosexual relationships. These suggestions, however, ignore the Greek Old Testament (LXX) versions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which use both arsenos and koiten, the latter passage placing them side-by-side; literally, "whoever lies with a male, having intercourse (as with) a female." This is the obvious source of the compound word. Perhaps Paul himself, who knew and used the Septuagint extensively, or some other Hellenistic Jew not long before Paul's time, derived from the passages in Leviticus a compound word that described homosexual acts in general. This drawing in of Leviticus to Paul's letters is also significant in that it provides further demonstration that he perceived a moral and not merely purity-based prohibition of homosexual acts in the Old Testament.

 

[py3ak]

py3ak - well I didn't mean that eunuch always meant homosexual. But it's undeniable really from ancient sources that a lot of the time it did mean that. Also we see that I wasn't talking about single people, you will see that Jesus I think mentions 3 groups of "eunuchs". Some castrated, some "born that way". Which again according to ancient literature and the 1st century meaning could be taken as homosexuals. I don't know why people see it perhaps as dangerous or heresy or unspeakable to go into ancient history and 1st century context.

As for me associating with liberals, I practically have no real contact with liberals. Do I read materials? Do I listen to what they have to say? Sure I do. I'm not nervous that the truth of God can stand up against liberalism.
So far I see nothing in scholarship or their bad ancient history that would make me fear in the slightest I'm wrong.

As for your idea of it being "blasphemous", "dangerous" and "filthy" to look into these issues which I've raised. Well I don't know, I mean would you feel the same way if we were talking about another doctrine? if not then maybe you need to question if your homophobic or not. It seems people have no problem looking into other scriptural issues on this board.

Lee, perhaps everyone needs a breather on this thread: a quick suggestion is that telling people to calm down isn't usually much of a technique for getting them to calm down.

It is undeniable that some eunuchs were used for purposes of homosexuality, and that not merely in ancient times but into the Middle Ages. The peculiar misery of the lifestyle of castrati not on the level of Farinelli is rather heart-wrenching to think about.

A few months ago (enough that I don't remember the exact number) I saw a study which indicated that a surprisingly high percentage of Americans indicated having zero sexual desire. No doubt some of them were lying; but no doubt some of them were not. That is a more logical and a more charitable reference to the concept of being born a eunuch. You see, Christ says that there are three categories that can be covered by the concept of eunuch: those who are properly so called, the castrated; those who are born without the functioning of sexual desire; and those who have overcome sexual desire for the kingdom of God. Whatever references can be found in literature contemporaneous with the NT that refers to a homosexual as being a born eunuch, I would suspect that, like with Juvenal's references, it is despective and derogatory. Used as an insult, it makes sense: used as a literal description, it's incoherent, because homosexual does not equal celibate. So that Christ's words, in the nature of the case, can't be saying that "some people are just born gay". Even if that's true, it would be an irrelevant remark at that point. The context is about divorce, and the disciples are impressed with how marriage is not always convenient: Christ admits that point, but remarks further that not everyone is fit to be unmarried. Saying that some people are naturally homosexuals is not at all to the point, but saying that some people naturally have no difficulty with celibacy fits right in.

I don't think you can have read me very carefully if you think I said that it was filthy, blasphemous and dangerous to look into these issues: I said that the arguments used in support of the church sanctioning homosexuality are blasphemous (arguing that Christ approved sin), filthy and dangerous. Homophobia is a topic for another time, but if you search my posts I think you'll see that I'm probably more frightened of materialists and gluttons.

Lee, the question is not whether the truth of God can stand firm; God's word has been forever settled in heaven. The question is whether we, faltering recipients of God's word, need to be careful. If I read Paul correctly, we do:
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf; but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil." (Romans 16:17-18).

Our Lord has taught us to look back to God's design in creation to answers about sexual relationships: and there we see that the woman was created as the complement to the man. In that broader context, which I think was Todd's point, when you see "unnatural desires" and "sexual immorality" there is no reason to limit it to homosexual gang rape: it would include heterosexual gang rape; it would include sex outside the bounds of a marriage covenant; it would include long-term, committed relationships of one man to another. It is also in that context that you can understand the use of the word perversion. God created man and woman to have a sexual interest in one another; if someone responds sexually only to someone of the same sex, that aspect of them is not functioning properly, it has been perverted from its original purpose. They are not more depraved than others (we believe in total depravity, after all), though it is possible in any given case that there has been less restraining grace in that situation (which is what Paul describes in Romans 1).

And just in general, about the biblical condemnations of homosexuality, it is fairly standard procedure in dodging the applicability of something to say, "Well, that was a peculiar circumstance". With the same line of reasoning, we could say that Paul doesn't argue for church discipline for all fornicators, only for incestuous fornicators. Usually, there is an agenda lurking behind such restrictions of the Biblical text - the agenda being to throw up enough dust that it isn't clear to everyone that the Bible condemns something that someone wants to do. But the time is too short to spend it all watering down the dust cloud of everyone who wants to obscure the clear law of God: so to me it seems wiser to leave them with the words of John, "Every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved" (John 3:20).

 

[ReformedTarheel]

ReformedTalheel- "It is definitely telling of the times in which we live that there are people, supposedly even Reformed Protestants, who not only refuse to follow the Bible, but also actively go against absolute and clear prohibitions outlined in the Bible."

I hope you aren't talking about me there because that would be assuming I refuse to follow the bible and that I support homosexuality. I don't support homosexuality but I think it's an issue that should be discussed and an issue i'm still trying to work my way through.

I was basing my response on what you had already said. There is a minute minority of sodomites, but they are seeking to dictate to us. This is pervasive throughout society, and unfortunately a big problem in churches that are no longer true churches (like the ECLA, the PCUSA, and others). This is not the time to waffle on such an important issue, particularly when the Marxists are trying to indoctrinate even young children into this perverse lifestyle. When you make statements that question that sodomy is even a sin, that is questioning what the Bible has to say on the issue.

Blindly accepting the majority view on the issue...

That is the problem. Too many people today are too afraid to take a stand on this issue, because of the influence of the liberal media and the education establishment, which pushes the sodomite agenda. To suggest that they are a "persecuted" people is not only erroneous, but also dangerous. In today's times, we cannot afford to accept what anti-Christian groups (like the media and various other liberal groups) want us to believe. We must take a firm stand on Biblical issues, especially when the world is against us.

...or blindly accepting a reformed view is also absolutely wrong.

Of course, this isn't a problem when the reformed view is the correct one, and is in accordance with the Bible. I personally don't "blindly accept" anything said by man, and there are reformers who I may disagree with on certain issues. However, when the Bible speaks, we should listen, and not make excuses for not listening.

You really shouldn't get so angry over discussing and questioning of your interpretations.

I'm not angry. I'm just making my position on this issue clear.

Our interpretations really are not infallible. Not everyone who disagree's with the reformers, or the majority is a heretic.

Again, what man says is not the issue. It is when the Bible speaks on an issue, and it is a clear prohibition against a specific kind of behavior. Going against the clear wording of the Bible is heretical. It's not an issue of agreeing with or disagreeing with any specific reformer. I didn't get into agreeing with any specific reformer. However, when the Bible speaks on an issue, how can we ignore it? Just because we don't want to "offend" anyone? That's what the world tells us to do. And we're not to be conformed to the world.

I mean the bible was used for a long while even by true born again Christians to support slavery, am I to blindly accept that interpretation?

The Bible does not condemn slavery in and of itself. The slave trade would certainly be condemned, as would mistreatment of slaves. However, the Bible is clear on the issue of sodomy. It's not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of reading the Bible and following its clear commands. Sodomy is condemned numerous times in the Bible, in both the OT and NT. This is simply a fact.

As to the issue of not being charitable to sodomites, I think it is far worse to pretend that they are not committing sins, and let them continue to live in a sinful state just because we don't want to offend them. That's not loving. That would be analogous to telling a drug addict that what they are doing is okay, just because you don't want to offend them, and watching them destroy their life, or eventually die of a drug overdose. It is much more kind to identify sin where we see it, and not enable bad behavior.

 

[Sonoftheday]

Well I didn't mean that the ONLY sin was homosexual rape, obviously the environment probably included incest too due to the fact that lots daughters ended up sleeping with him and such. Obviously sex outside of marriage is also sin and adultery, so those 2 were probably involved there as well.

Lee
You said yourself in post #28 Sex outside of marriage is sin. Jesus Christ defines marriage as one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6), therefore all homosexual intercourse is committed outside of marriage and is sin.

As far as the celibate homosexual. In Mathew 5:28 Jesus tells us to look at someone with lust is adultery of the heart. Now certainly every heterosexual man has committed this sin of lust, but we are repentant of it. If there were a man seeking to be pastor who was unrepentant of his lust he would be no more qualified than the homosexual. By defining oneself as "homosexual" they are labeling themselves with a term that is defines them as lusting after their own sexual orientation. So even if I were to grant all 6 of the arguments made in your original post (which I do not) then I would still say that homosexuality is a sin because;
1.) Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. And all sex outside of marriage is sin.
2.) Lust (sexual desire) is a sin. The term "homosexual" is used to label the person as one who sexually desires a person of their same sex. A repentant person does not label themselves by their sin, but labels themselves by their Saviour who takes away their sin.

God bless you and guide you as you study this topic.

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is an interesting sermon on this;
SermonAudio.com - Trinity Baptist Church
Our Nation’s Sexual Sins (3)

God's Word To Our Nation · 3 of 4

7/6/1983 (WED)
Proverbs 14:34; Romans 1:18-32; Leviticus 18:1-30 3 comments

ID 6290383510 Category: Special Meeting

Upload Media


Does a sodomite relationship picture Christ and the Church as given in Eph.5?


Available FREE Media © All media is copyright.
Blog-This | Help

... stream. download. podcast. all free. all the time ...


Play Audio! (Streaming) 16kbps | 70 min. [3]


Download MP3 (8.4MB) Batch downloads • How?

 

[toddpedlar]

OK well were just going in a circle now Todd so I'll leave that. Though its very worrying when you kind of seperate them out and say well they're very perverted asif they're a bit more wicked than us straight people who are born wanting to fornicate with women.

To a degree sin is sin - any sin is evil in the eyes of the Lord and punishable by eternal torment. That is not at issue.

With respect to the sin of homosexuality (which you seem to deny is a sin), there are two differences, Lee. First - the only legitimate sexual relationships are those between a man and a woman, and that only within the marriage relationship. There is NO legitimate male-male or female-female sexual relationship - ANY such relationship is porneia. Second - those of us born with a propensity toward the opposite sex understand that sexual relations outside the marriage bed are forbidden, and admit that our feelings towards others to whom we are not married are sinful. Homosexuals who claim to be Christian DENY that their sexual desires for people of the same sex are sinful, and that their relations while in such a homosexual relationship is sin. You can't compare one man who admits his sexual relationship with a woman not his wife is sinful with a man who REFUSES to admit that his sexual relationship with a man is sinful. The two are in STARK contrast.

As for you gene I did a few posts above. But anyway really it's just splitting hairs at that point, that really wasnt what I intended to have a discussion about. Sodomy can summarize many things, but a homosexual relationship between 2 people in a commited way, I dont think it can at all.

Can we get away from the word "sodomy" and get to the real issue?

How can you claim, that when the Bible clearly states that "to lie with a man as with a woman" is an abomination, that a monogamous long-term intimate homosexual relationship is not sinful?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The reason people are not replying in detail to the arguments you've listed is that they start from wrong presuppositions, they contain blasphemous suggestions, and they are deceitful and filthy. Most people don't find enjoyment in straightening those errors out, because they are disgusting, as well as dangerous (just like working at a recycling plant or in a waste treatment plant is not the most popular job available).

I think this post sums up the thread perfectly.

It should probably not amaze me how men will pervert the Scriptures to their destruction by seeking to import etymological definitions of words from antiquity while completely ignoring the context they are used.

When Mindy Irons started promoting the idea of homosexual civil unions, I distinctly remember a conversation with Chuck McIlhenny who was then the pastor of First Presbyterian in San Francisco and the father of the wife of my Pastor at the time.

He noted that her view of homosexual sin was terribly naive. Chuck lived among a city engrossed in acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and suffered through violent opposition to the Gospel. He wrote a book about his experiences when the Church fired its organist, who they learned was a practicing homosexual:

Amazon.com: When the Wicked Seize a City (9780595154326): Chuck McIlhenny, Donna McIlhenny, Frank York: Books

One of the members came to Chuck in repentance of homosexual sin. You see, true ministers of the Gospel do not relegate us to being defined by our sinful dispositions, even if those sinful dispositions have physiological roots from this fallen condition that has resulted from the Sin of Adam. Christ put Sin as power to death on the Cross and a Christian is not a homosexual or a liar or thief or a fornicator. A Christian is united to his Savior and He put to death the slavemaster that is Sin in our members.

This man repented and then let Chuck know that the organist was still very much a practicing homosexual. They approached the organist who refused to repent of his sin and, after a period of repeated calls for his repentance and a formal process, they terminated his employment.

A suit from the City of San Francisco ensued. The Church eventually won the legal battle but, during the whole ruckus, Chuck and his family and Church was under vicious attack. At one point, someone fire bombed the parsonage while Chuck and his wife and young children were sleeping inside.

Chuck is the nicest man you'll ever meet. He kept track of all the people who were at the fore of activism during that time. He regularly shared the Gospel with all.

The organist is now dead.

All the activists that plagued the Church are now dead.

The only one still living is the man who repented of his sin.

My former Pastor relates that when he met the man he is still a bit what we might say "less than manly". Freedom from the bondage of Sin does not mean that we never struggle but it does mean that we are Christ's and that He is our Lord and that we are His bondservants and Sin's no longer.

I chafe, at my core as a Christian, at any notion that a person is selling biological determinism to men and women in the guise of Christian theology. It is borne out of the pit of Hell in spite of anybody's sincere intentions to the contrary. This present fallen world was subjected to futility by God, Who submitted it in hope for the revealing of the sons of God. We, who are Christ's, are blessed immeasurably that we, who were once enemies, are now His friends and our glorification is as certain as our justification because God ordained, from eternity, to cast His love upon us. It is not that I find the man who sins as a homosexual to be beneath me but that I believe that, like my former walk in darkness, that he needs the light of the Gospel and not to be left in bondage to Sin.