Homosexuality: Does the New Testament Condemn It?

Canterbury Tales ^ | April 3, 2013 | Taylor Marshall

[NYer]

St Paul speaks about homosexuality three times
Keep reading to learn what he says...

One afternoon while ministering to the homeless in downtown Fort Worth, Texas, I fell into a conversation with a stranger about religion, which eventually led to the subject of Christ. Without hesitating, he came right out and said, “I’m a gay Christian.” After he admitted to being an active homosexual, he added, “I have studied the whole Bible and nowhere does it teach that homosexuality is a sin.” 

I countered his claim, but the conversation became understandably awkward.

Since then, I’ve met others who believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts as sinful. In fact, the Apostle Paul condemned homosexuality on three separate occasions. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul describes the origin of idolatry and associates it with the origins of homosexuality, among both men and women:

Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct (Rom 1:26-28).

Paul identifies homosexuality with the following terms: unnatural, shameless acts, error, base mind, and improper conduct.

Saint Paul also explains that practicing homosexuals “will not inherit the kingdom of God”:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminates {malakoi}, nor homosexuals {arsenokoitai}, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).

The words translated as “effeminates” and “homosexuals” are often omitted in modern Bible translations and replaced with the single word “perverts,” even though two separate words appear in the Greek text of Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians.  One might understand why the man I met in Fort Worth believed that “homosexuality was not condemned in the Bible,” since many English versions actually hide the term under pretence of translation. The two Greek words used by Paul in this passage are malakoi and arsenokoitai. The word malakoi is sometimes translated effeminates and the word arsenokoitai is translated as homosexuals.

The Greek word arsenokoitai undoubtedly refers to male homosexuality. The very etymology of the word arsenokoitai reveals this. It is a compound of two words: arsen meaning “male” and koitai meaning “bed,” and specifically “marriage bed.”  Thus, arsenokoitai literally means “men in bed together.”

Lest there be any doubt about the identity of arsenokoitai with homosexuals, let us turn to the Greek Septuagint version of Leviticus 20:13, which reads, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death.”  While the Old Testament death penalty for homosexuality was abolished by Christ, this passage undoubtedly refers to homosexual practice and confirms that Paul’s use of the Greek word arsenokoitai prohibits the same behavior described in Leviticus 20:13—men having relations with men. 

The Greek Septuagint renders this passage as: kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos. We find within it the same two Greek words that compose the word arsenokoitai, which was used by Paul to condemn homosexuality. I have underlined the words above to make the connection more obvious. Here we see arsonos and koiten together describing homosexual activity in the clear language of Leviticus 20:13. Clearly, Paul’s use of the similar compound word arsenokoitai refers to homosexual men—men in bed with other men.

The word used by Saint Paul, malakoi, literally means “soft ones.” There are three interpretations as to what this term might mean. First, it may refer to those who are overly obsessed with luxury, an attribute that would have been identified with effeminacy in antiquity. 

The second interpretation is one given by the Jewish historian Josephus. Josephus identifies soft ones with men who dressed as women and sometimes even mutilated or removed their male genitals.  These men may have been the passive partners in homosexual acts in the context of pagan ritual festivals, i.e. cultic male prostitutes. However, we must grant that the term malakoi is not explicitly used in this regard. The third possible solution is the one given by Saint Thomas Aquinas, which states that the “sin of softness” is the sin of masturbation.  Incidentally, the Catholic Church considers masturbation as sin against chastity:

"Masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose."

If Paul intended to refer to masturbation in his condemnation of “soft ones,” then he stands in agreement with the Church’s condemnation of masturbation. Whatever Paul meant by soft ones, it seems to have pertained to sexual sin, since in Paul’s list it falls between adultery and homosexuality.

The third passage in which Paul condemns homosexuality is found in his First Epistle to Timothy where he identifies homosexuals as lawless and disobedient:

"The law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, fornicators, homosexuals {arsenokoitai}, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim 1:9-10).

Once again, the original Greek word used here by Paul for homosexuals is the same word that he used before: arsenokoitai. Clearly, Saint Paul was opposed to homosexual acts. The Catechism of the Catholic Church conforms to Paul in this regard:

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

Nevertheless, the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes that,

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."

Persons with homosexual inclinations are called to chastity - not matrimony. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

[NYer]

Some very interesting comments at the above link.

[Raycpa]

Peter and the entire leadership of church also spoke against it in Acts 15.

[SkyPilot]

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Matthew 5:18

____________________________________________________________________

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman: that is detestable."

Leviticus 18:22

________________________________________________________________

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Romans 1: 18-27

[hadaclueonce]

It is clear.

If the Republican party want to rule the Bedroom then Obamas will rule the country.

Sorry kids. They vote, we don’t.

Until you all figure out how to make the minority the majority, you can bay at the moon all you want.

[Vendome]

“I’m a gay Christian.” After he admitted to being an active homosexual, he added, “I have studied the whole Bible and nowhere does it teach that homosexuality is a sin.”

I think calling yourself one thing and hoping in vain it gets you out of the mess you created is delusional and self defeating. As is skipping over certain passages for self serving reasons of convenience.

I guess if you say it doesn’t say it and with enough verbosity, you’ll feel victorious if enough people don’t challenge you on such a stoopit statement.

[MNDude]

serious, if doing another guy is not a sin, then there really is not such a thing as a sexual sin.

If there’s no such thing as a sexual sin, than should we worry about pride, envy, and deceitfulness as well?

[Viennacon]

I’d say the lessons of Sodom and Gomorrah are pretty clear on this.

I am a sinner, as we all are. I approach other sinners with compassion and respect, whatever their sins are, unless they are actively harming others (rapists, murderers etc).

If people practice homosexuality in private, I pray for them. I pray they repent, and I pray they ask for forgiveness and strength as well as guidance. I do not accept what they do as ‘moral’ because it isn’t, just like drug addiction.
Now, when they start trying to teach it to kids across the country, and flaunt it in the streets, then I have a problem.

[James C. Bennett]

Yes. And also fornication (sex before marriage) just as vocally.

[fwdude]

Some very interesting comments at the above link.

Mostly sound and supportive, with one or two detractors. I wonder how many sodomites will pile on once the trolls see the link on this site?

[RetiredArmy]

He can call himself anything he wants, that does not make it so. He can describe himself as a 1985 Ford Tarsus. But that does not make him one.

[ilovesarah2012]

Yes.

[Springfield Reformer]

Who said anything about ruling the bedroom? Nobody I know has ever said that, except some leftist I knew years ago who actually thought that was a conservative belief.

However, Christians and republicans are not the same thing, and while republicans may wish to rule the country, Christians are first and foremost interested in pleasing God, and in sharing his Gospel with whoever will listen. And of course in obedience to God, we cry out like the prophets of old against sin and evil, both cultural as well as individual, because we all have an interest in a culture that is not self-destructive.

So if that doesn’t win us any points with certain demographics, too bad. It is God who sets up kings and God who takes them down. We do what we can, and some of us have sworn our very lives in defense of this wonderful country God had given us.

But we are not leftists. We do not buy the premise that the end, no matter how praiseworthy, can justify evil means. And backing away from the God-ordained institution of marriage to gain a temporary electoral advantage would be to forsake the only real advantage we have, the blessing of God.

But if you must live solely in the realm of the pragmatic, I submit to you we cannot win the long-term war against either communism or Islam if we surrender marriage to the deconstructive efforts of the left, because it is precisely marriage and family that form the last true bastion against statist absolutism.

Where marriage dies, as it is doing in the Netherlands via gay marriage, then family dies, the state grows stronger, because it is finally able to assert itself as the super-parent without significant competition. This is why Marxist regimes have always attacked the family as an enemy of the state. They are. And that is why the American left is using homosexuality; it is to clear the family out of their own path to power.

[3catsanadog]

Gay Christians go to that Universalist Church. The one that preaches the “anything goes” sermons.

[rollo tomasi]

I don’t give a hoot what kinds of paraphilia consenting adults do in their bedrooms; once they move their bedroom into the public realm and proclaim their actions sane is when the problems occur.

[Amendment10]

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived (emphasis added): neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The "Be not deceived" hilited above concerning things like same-sex sexual relationships sums it up, imo, for so-called gay "Christians."

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

To meet them with compassion and sensitivity, if they repent, is fine otherwise-”Come out from among them”-St. Paul

[Pyro7480]

Catholic ping!

[Future Snake Eater]

I’d say the lessons of Sodom and Gomorrah are pretty clear on this.

No, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed b/c the people were very inhospitable to outsiders; a grave faux pas back in those days.

Gotta get with the 21st C. revisionism.

[RobbyS]

Right now I am more worried about who rules the Church.