Has homosexuality always been seen as sinful to Christians?

“I hope to take steps towards correcting the peculiar view, which has become almost universal among Christians in recent decades…”

The case that Payton and B.A. Robinson make is that post-KJV Bible translations like the NIV, ESV, and NASB have mistranslated 1 Timothy 1:9-10.  From that Payton concludes that the verse in question has never been seen as condemning homosexuality prior to the first time arsenokoites was translated as pertaining to homosexuality specifically.  While homosexuality isn’t the only sin that the Apostle Paul is listing in the verse, it most certainly does refer to homosexuality, thereby showing that it has always been seen as a sin.  Rather, the movement that Payton is supporting has proposed interpretations of scripture that are only about 50 years old (generous estimate) if he can provide any older ones, I’ll give him that point.  While I will agree with him that neither Calvin nor Luther saw this verse as pertaining to homosexuality in particular, they did both see that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin.

Is it right to argue that translator’s prejudice guide their textual reasoning?

“Such a position cannot be taken on any logical basis, but must instead be the result of a kind of prejudice born from a misguided attempt at intuitivist morality.”

Unfortunately in Payton’s article there are no references to New Testament scholars who support the translation of arsenokoites meaning homosexuality.   This would have been very helpful to the reader as to seeing the rationale behind the translation, and then critiquing that. Instead what we are given is an assertion that the translation was guided by prejudice rather than textual reasons. That is a serious charge and even slanderous.  At best the assertion that prejudice rather than textual reasoning guided the translation is wholly an assumption that cannot be proven unless the translators admit such a prejudice.  Therefore it isn’t a wise remark in this debate, as it is an attack on the translator’s character rather than their reasoning of the issue.

What is the rationale for translating arsenokoites as pertaining to homosexuality?

“It is a compound word, formed from two well-known and well-precedented words; “arsen“, meaning “male”, and “koitai“, meaning “beds”. We might suspect, then, that Paul is not writing about “them that defile themselves with mankind”.”

We must first look at the word arsenokoites and it’s origins.  As Payton rightly pointed out the word is a compound word, and Paul is attributed to it’s first occurrences in Greek literature.  Payton neglects to mention the theories behind Paul’s reasoning for making this word, most notably that Paul derived this word from two Old Testament passages from the Septuagint Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  I will refer to a brief description of the view by Brian J. Dodd (LXX):

Robin Scroggs has plausibly suggested that Paul created this new word by combining the two terms found in the Greek version of Lev 18:23 (LXX 18:22) and 20:13: arsen = “male,” and koite = “bed,” which translate the Hebrew for “lying with a male” (mishkav zakur; The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate [Fortress, 1983] 106-8). With the likelihood that these Levitical prohibitions are echoed in 1 Cor 6:9, the NRSV is justified in translating the term as a reference to homoerotic intercourse, even if the English “sodomites” is somewhat archaic.

To be specific, the textual argument that arsenokoites refers explicitly to homosexuality, and that understanding was Paul’s intention in creating the word goes as follows:

1. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”- Leviticus 18:21
2. “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” -Leviticus 20:13

The above two verses communicate the same message which is explicitly forbidding homosexual practice.  The italicized portions are very important with the formulation ofarsenokoites in Paul’s understanding.  Let us now walk through the Septuagint from which Paul pulled arsenos and koites, again, the key terms are italicized:

1. “meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gyniakos” – Leviticus 18:22 (LXX)
2. “hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gyniakos” – Leviticus 20:13 (LXX)

Arsenoskoites (males combined with bed or couch) is a Greek counterpart to the Hebrew phrase “mishkab zakur” which is used in the above verses in the original Hebrew form.

1. Mishkab is Hebrew for arsenos, which is Greek for bed or couch.
2. Zakur is Hebrew for koiten, which is Greek for male or males.
3. Mishkab zakur is used where sex between men is expressly forbidden.
4. Therefore, mishkab zakur is translated into Greek as arsenokoite, and used by Paul to reflect Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. Paul did this in order to call to the attention of the Greek readers that homosexuality is a sin, just as Leviticus says.

Paul condemns what Leviticus condemns.  This is also why Paul didn’t use words that already existed for the term homosexual. So it is not “abundantly clear that Paul is not referring to homosexuality here.” This also makes Justin Cannon’s study start off on the wrong foot, as he doesn’t make the connection between arsenokoites and the verses in Leviticus, which left Justin thinking the word must mean prostitutes.  Which is an unneeded substitute for a reference to the Old Testament law forbidding homosexuality.  I’m also very surprised that Cannon didn’t address the only two times that koite is used in the New Testament.  As both usages have a sexual connotation.

1. “Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality [koite] and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy.” -Romans 13:13
2. “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed [koite] be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” -Hebrews 13:4

As you can see, it isn’t unusual for koite to be used as referring to sexual intercourse, leading the argument to stand that arsenos (male/males) and koite (bed or couch with a sexual connotation) combined explicitly means men having intercourse together.

This makes Justin’s conclusion that arsenokoites can only refer to prostitutes nearly laughable.  Arsenokoites being a combination of male and bed has no room to imply trade, buying, or selling.  Homosexuality in all forms is condemned as a sin.

With all of that said, I think the biggest issue in Payton’s work is that it begins by assuming bad motives in the work of the translators of the newer versions.  The picture that he painted is that Christian history has had it all wrong.  This conflict would not happen if the arguments for the translation of arsenokoites were actually reviewed prior to writing a confident bashing of the modern translators/translations.

In conclusion, we can see that the recent inventions of pro-gay theologians are exactly that, recent inventions.  It is also odd that the verse in question was argued against as a linchpin of the entire debate that rages between pro-gay theologians and orthodox theologians.  While this verse is extremely important (as all verses are) the Bible is abundantly clear that homosexuality is in fact unnatural, and sinful.  To pick the verses that make this clear and crunch them and ignore the history of translation is an abuse of the scriptures that no apologist should allow.  No Greek Lexicon disagrees with the translations we have today, but even such a well-known resource is completely ignored.  The Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon defines arsenokoite as “a male who practices homosexuality, pedarist, sodomite” and quotes Romans 1:27 as an example.  Strong’s Concordance translates arsenokoites as “a sodomite:–abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.” in obvious reference to Sodom.  This makes the case that pro-gay theologians try to make seem to be nothing more than conspiracy theories making allegations of discrimination and prejudice about those who have translated our Bible versions.

A brief statement on how Christians should see, and treat homosexuals

Christians are to treat homosexuals the exact same way they treat everybody else.  Homosexuality isn’t a worse sin than any other, but it is much harder to overcome than any other as far as sin patterns and lifestyles go.  Paul’s message in this passage is very clear, and convicting to every Christian.  Certainly there are men and women who have homosexual leanings that have come to Christ and began to repent.  There are ministries out there who can provide the testimonies.  One in particular I will reference is that of Joe Dallas, as he has a truly incredible story of his battle with homosexuality.

The Big Issue

Finally, the big issue is who is handling the text rightly?  It is one thing to just reject Christianity because of it’s views on homosexuality (as many homosexual advocates do.)  It is an entirely different issue to try to squeeze the Bible into promoting homosexuality bad interpretations/exegesis of the Bible.  There is a tremendous amount of work on this issue, and below I will link some that I find to be most trustworthy.  Perhaps you will find it refreshing that not all of the following links are in agreement with each other on all theological issues.

• A New Testament Perspective on Homosexuality

• But God Made Me This Way!

• Is the Bible ambiguous about homosexuality?

• Homosexuality: A Biblical Perspective

• Responding to Pro-Gay Theology

The Argument

(1) God is (by definition) a being than which no greater being can be thought

(2) Greatness includes greatness of virtue

(3) Therefore, God is a being than which no being could be more virtuous

(4) Virtue involves overcoming pains and danger

(5) A being can only be properly said to be virtuous if it can suffer pain or be destroyed

(6) A God that can suffer pain or is destructible is not one than which no greater being can be thought (for you can think of an indestructible and non-suffering being)

(7) Therefore, God does not exist

Now, contextually, the usage of the term virtue denoted the cardinal virtues. As such, virtue in the argument may be treated as a variable to be replaced by some cardinal virtue: wisdom, temperance, justice or courage. In particular, it seems that the argument is best exemplified where virtue is to mean courage, where courage is the quality by which one undertakes dangerous tasks and endures hardships.

The premise which seems most likely to be called into question is (4). Is it true that courage involves overcoming pains and danger? It seems to me that courage can be exemplified only in situations wherein one faces some hurdle, or hardship that they might not overcome. Walton states:

… courage is doing the right thing in a situation where it is markedly dangerous or difficult to do that thing.

If courage is indeed a virtue, then a being who is virtuous must be courageous. But how can God be courageous in this manner?

A Christian Objection?

One possible Christian objection is that God does exemplify courage in Jesus’ crucifixion where Jesus must endure difficult hardship to accomplish his goal. In Luke 22:42, Jesus states:

“Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.” (NASB)

Might one then say that in God’s incarnation into man he gains all virtue that man may have previously claimed their own, due to their imperfect natures and as such exemplifies the virtue of courage? I am not sure that this notion is coherent with God’s proposed divine immutability.

The Doctrine of Divine Immutability (DDI) states that God cannot undergo intrinsic change. This would entail that if Jesus exemplifies courage at time t and Jesus is fully God, that God exemplifies courage at time t and that if DDI holds there can be no prior t or later t in which God does not exemplify courage. This clearly means that temporally prior to the biblical events leading to Christ’s crucifixion, he exemplified courage. This is not immediately troubling given that God could surely have knowledge of the impending events, but this would entail that God knows he will succeed at the task. That is to say, it would be true at any t prior to the biblical account of Christ’s crucifixion that Christ both exemplifies courage regarding his crucifixion, and knows that he will succeed in his task. Clearly, courage cannot be exemplified by Christ if courage is taken to mean facing a challenge that they might not overcome. Not only does God’s omnipotence ensure that Christ will succeed, God’s omniscience ensures that Christ knows he will succeed. As such, any exemplification of courage in this manner seems incoherent.

But might it be said that Christ’s task was still difficult? Surely, difficulty entails some hardship. In any given situation where there are two tasks, the more difficult of the two tasks is the harder to do. How can one make sense of this in light of God’s omnipotence? It seems that for God, no tasks are harder than others and further, no tasks are hard. With respect to God, is it possible that the creation of the universe was a more difficult task than the resurrection of Christ? It’s unclear as to how this distinction could be made unless one brings in an idea of effort, or expenditure of energy. But, again, how might one apply these concepts to an omnipotent being?

What of the hypostatic union, wherein we are to understand that Jesus is both fully man and fully God (and has both divine and human natures)? Perhaps it is indeed possible that Christ’s human nature experienced difficulty, fear and saw his upcoming crucifixion as a hardship. But, it seems incoherent to state that the divine nature somehow learns from, absorbs, extracts or even shares the hardship and pain which Jesus’ human nature may have exemplified in the time before his death. Surely, DDI entails that the divine nature of Jesus, being fully God, cannot change at all. As such, either God’s divine nature has never exemplified hardship and pain or it has always. But again, though there be hardship and pain for Jesus the man, what hardship or pain can there be for God? In this regard it seems there is no contradiction between the two propositions, “Jesus the man exemplified courage” and “God cannot exemplify courage.”

Conclusion

Christianity has the unique feature of having a triune God, who has taken the form of a human being. Most times, arguments of this variety will apply to a wide variety of Gods and not to the Christian God for this very reason. In this circumstance, though, it does not seem that God’s proposed triunity saves it from the criticism of the argument. That is to say, if the argument is sound, it will apply to the Christian God insofar as I am correct in that there is no unique feature of the Christian God which renders it exempt from any of the premises. With that said, it is always true that no argument of this type can encompass all concepts of God. Such that if one remarks that their God does not have to be all-virtuous, this argument does not apply. It strictly attempts to show the incoherence of an all-virtuous Divine being. It might be proposed that there exists a God who is not all-virtuous, but an exploration of what it means for God to be devoid of virtue is required, perhaps there are severe implications. Lastly, one should note that further argumentation would be required to suggest that any Divine being must be necessarily all-virtuous.