Gay revisionists try to reinterpret the Bible prohibitions on homosexuality

Objection Stated

Arsenokoites should be defined in a narrow fashion to refer to “male prostitutes.”

Biblical Response

We have already noted this primary objection of revisionist authors5 or merely to pederasty.6 But these sources ignore the role of the LXX in the formation of Paul’s vocabulary and cannot be taken seriously outside of this consideration. What is more, many revisionists, upon asserting the term is basically beyond our meaningful definition, are forced to fall back on the assertion that the modern view of homosexuality, involving “orientation” and “loving monogamous relationships,” was unknown to Paul, and hence what he meant in using arsenokoites is for all intents and purposes irrelevant to the modern situation. Revisionist arguments all lead to this singular conclusion: that the biblical text cannot speak to the modern expression of homosexuality. How they support that conclusion may differ, but the goal is always the same.
Even if it could be established that the apostle Paul did not have homosexuality—in act and orientation—in view through his use of the word arsenokoites, the clear teaching of the rest of the Bible remains, showing that homosexuality is unacceptable and receives God’s judgment.


Objection Stated

Paul is concerned with abuses of excess and is not condemning the proper use of the stated behavior.

For example, the revisionists claim, Paul mentions fornication; this does not mean that sexual relations between members of the opposite sex is wrong—it is the abuse of sexual relations that Paul has in mind. Similarly, Paul mentions idolatry; this does not mean that religious expression or devotion is necessarily wrong. Additionally, Paul mentions adultery; this does not mean that sexual relations within marriage is wrong, it is only the abuse of that relationship that is being condemned as unrighteous. Simply stated, Paul is only dealing with the abuses of homosexual expression and not the proper use or expression of homosexuality.7


Biblical Response

Initially we must note that this objection assumes that which it is attempting to prove. This revisionist approach assumes some form of acceptable homosexual expression and that this passage is only dealing with an abuse of that which is acceptable. A reminder is in order: the Bible nowhere approves of homosexual deeds or desires. Nor is there a single example of God’s approval of homosexuality.

Additionally, we must observe that this revision of the text, while blind to its invalid circularity, also misses the fact that the apostle Paul is listing the sinful, and homosexuality is included in the list. We must, however, more fully consider this idea of excesses and abuse. If Paul is merely listing excesses of that which is acceptable, we should be able to see this with the other deeds listed in the text of 1 Corinthians.

Is there a certain level of fornication—devoid of “excess”—that meets with God’s approval? How about idolatry … does the God who will not give His glory to another tolerate some amount of idolatry? What about the person who asserts that a certain expression of adultery is acceptable just as long as it not abusive? Or how about the person who claims that he has an orientation toward adultery; should this be approved? Is there an acceptable level of theft? Some appropriate drunkenness? Is it okay to extort on the second Tuesday of every month? Perhaps an orientation toward reviling is divinely mandated? Such a drawn out explanation exposes this revision, based upon abuse, to be absurd.

The apostle Paul, consistent with the entirety of the rest of Scripture, clearly shows the sinfulness of homosexuality. The only opacity that surfaces with regard to the terms employed by the apostle is due solely to bias and sexual preference. Paul is not homophobic because he categorizes homosexuality as sinful—this must be honestly considered. Paul is no more homophobic than he is idolo-phobic, wino-phobic, or adultero-phobic. Let us imitate the apostle Paul, as he is an imitator of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). Paul properly responded to that which was condemned by the Lord as well as pointed to the only remedy for sinners—Jesus Christ. First Corinthians, chapter six, is clear, and Paul is thinking God’s thoughts: homosexuality is sinful and there is hope for the homosexual … “for such were some of you.”


White, J. R., & Niell, J. D. (2002). The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality (pp. 155–158). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.