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.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

Kings “rule the country”. Obozo isn’t a king, he said so himself. Anyway, this is not a political issue - the God who made us says that it’s wrong for a man to stick his weenie up another man’s bum - therefore it’s wrong and that’s that. Ohomo can get all the laws passed he wants, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a sin and those who practice it and don’t repent will spend eternity in hell. I will not support it politically.

Can someone who has previously accepted Christ become a homo? I guess so, just as they can commit adultery or any other sin. If they do not repent and turn away from it eventually, I suspect that they were never saved in the first place.

The fact that those who favor this unhealthy lifestyle politically want to make it illegal to leave it once you are trapped in it tells me all I need to know about who’s behind it. Only Satan would have to pass laws to keep you from leaving his clutches once he has you.....sort of like Islam, come to think of it.

[hecticskeptic]

And that’s the point... God only approves of a marriage between one man and one woman. What is created when a person has sex with more than one person of the opposite sex is sin and confusion....where the only exception is when one the two parties dies and the other remarries. And if a sexual act is with a member of the same sex, it’s an abomination.... Leviticus 20:13.

[TArcher]

Rom 1:27
and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
NIV

What does that mean?

[James C. Bennett]

Nonsense.

If your argument had any validity, premarital sex wouldn’t have been the capital offense it once was, per the Old Testament.

[USS Alaska]

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

What did God do that is worrying you, right now?

[RobbyS]

His ministers. Are they serving Him as they ought? The politicians, as usual, serve themselves.

[RobbyS]

Calling evil good and good evil has served us well as a long term strategy.

[Springfield Reformer]

Honesty is the conservatives biggest liability.

No such thing as conservatism without honesty. That's the whole point, and if you've missed that, you've kinda missed what it means to be conservative.

Look at it this way. If I tell my kids,

* be truthful about the limits of money,

* be truthful about the child-producing nature of natural marriage,

* be truthful about what it means to kill an innocent child in the womb,

* be truthful about the ugly force it sometimes takes to defend innocent lives from criminals, crazies, and tyrants,

* be truthful about the relative normalcy of the climate, the stability of nature, the smallness of man's role,

* be truthful about why Chicago has such a high murder rate,

* be truthful about the hard work it takes to succeed in most anything and what bad things can happen when you fail.

... and then I say ...

"But to do all that, you gotta lie like the Devil, who is the Father of lies, you gotta be better at lying and dirty tricks than the most sickening, perverted democrats you know"

... do you think just maybe I'd be sending my children some pretty mixed up messages? You raise kids to be conservative by exampling truth to them. Preach truth and live a lie and you will lose them to the dark side. I've seen it happen. Dems, libs, and leftists are so accustomed to lies they can't even hear truth. I know. I've got extended family members who are de facto communists and they just become unreachable after too much time living in the Lie.

So if we followed your advice, maybe we'd do ok for a few elections cycles, beating the dems at their own game. But then one morning we'd wake up and discover we had become them, just as controlling, just as capable of lies and murder. So even if "we" won, it wouldn't be worth it to win on those terms. "we" wouldn't be "us" anymore.

So thanks, but no thanks.

[Berlin_Freeper]

That is all good and proper, but where I grew up we didn’t need to look at the Bible to know homosexuals are sick in the head.

[Natufian]

and divorce.

[Future Snake Eater]

Yeah, I know, that’s why I called it “revisionism.”

[hecticskeptic]

Nonsense. If your argument had any validity, premarital sex wouldn’t have been the capital offense it once was, per the Old Testament.

Not sure what part you consider ‘nonsense’ but as I said, I didn’t expect everyone to agree with me. What verse(s) in the Old Testament would you like to use to support your position? Are you sure that your references don’t relate to something where the act of adultery, rape or incest is involved? My understanding of Jewish customs was that the preparation for a marriage, the wedding ceremony, the follow up feast and so forth was a big deal that demonstrated with clarity the seriousness and sanctity that the approaching marriage was to be held in… but it wasn’t actually essential for the marriage itself to be recognized as a marriage per se. Here’s a verse that essentially describes the case where two virgins who were not betrothed (a word that means something akin to what we would call engagement but by Jewish custom it actually meant something more than that) engaged in sex…. Exodus 22:16 “And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.” They were not put to death… this verse was simply recognition that this was a couple who bypassed the entire process of the wedding ceremony etc and went straight to the state of marriage. Although it would be speculation, it almost seems like this was a couple who simply got caught up in the heat of the moment but it doesn’t matter…. once the sex act was engaged in, they were in fact married. How do we know that this verse refers to unmarried virgins? It’s because other verses which involve unmarried participants in the sexual act who are not virgins are put to death so by inference, this verse refers to a couple who are virgins. There are a few exceptions to all this such as the allowance that was granted for husbands to have more than one wife…but that is a separate issue.

Regardless, I'm very interested in hearing your view on this including the Biblical support for it) if you simply believe that capital punishment was administered across the board for what you refer to as 'premarital sex'.

[MEGoody]

“I have studied the whole Bible and nowhere does it teach that homosexuality is a sin.”

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[MEGoody]

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

I heard this argument from someone once, and I just started laughing. Couldn't help it.

[Zionist Conspirator]

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.”

His "bible" must be missing a verse in Leviticus.

[Zionist Conspirator]

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.

It's not revisionism. This is the traditional Jewish understanding of why Sodom was destroyed. One way the Sodomites discouraged strangers was with homosexual rape.

This has nothing to do with the fact that male homosexuality is absolutely forbidden for every human being. The Torah verse that forbids homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22, and it is explicated further in the Oral Torah, including the Noachide Laws.

[caww]

.....”where I grew up we didn’t need to look at the Bible to know homosexuals are sick in the head.”........

Yep, me too. .....the world has dumbdowned the natural senses with individuals so far that they can only “hear” the drumbeat now...or the piper pipe.

[Dave W]

Read Later.