Homosexuals or Male prostitutes: Bible?
Objection Stated
Arsenokoites should be defined narrowly 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 behaviour.
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.
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 behaviour.
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 is not abusive?
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 is 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 about the terms employed by the apostle is due solely to bias and sexual preference.
The apostle Paul, consistent with the entirety of the rest of Scripture, clearly shows the sinfulness of homosexuality. The only opacity that surfaces about the terms employed by the apostle is due solely to bias and sexual preference.
Paul is not homophobic because he categorises 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.”
5 This is the assertion of John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 106ff. He bases this on a unique reading of the term that must be rejected on many grounds, the primary being that it ignores the LXX background of Paul’s use. Likewise, Boswell buttresses his conclusion with even more errant argumentation from the writings of the early Christians. He ignores so many references to major writers that his conclusions are truly without merit. See the discussion by DeYoung, Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims, 38. See appendixes B and D of this work, as well as chapter 8. A source that contains much criticism of Boswell’s methodologies and research is Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001). See, for example, 344.
6 For example, see Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983), 101–09, 118–22.
LXX Septuagint
7 Daniel Helminiak conceded if 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy do refer to homosexuality, then “these texts condemn wanton, lewd, irresponsible male homogenital acts but not homogenital acts in general” (What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, 105). This revisionist approach can also be found in the works of Ralph Blair, An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality, and Joseph C. Weber, “Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Acts?” These works are referred to and critiqued in David E. Malick’s article “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (October–December, 1993): 479–92. It is also referred to in John J. McNeill’s book The Church and the Homosexual (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993), 52.
White, J. R., & Niell, J. D. (2002). The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality (pp. 155–163). Bethany House Publishers.
5 This is the assertion of John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 106ff. He bases this on a unique reading of the term that must be rejected on many grounds, the primary being that it ignores the LXX background of Paul’s use. Likewise, Boswell buttresses his conclusion with even more errant argumentation from the writings of the early Christians. He ignores so many references to major writers that his conclusions are truly without merit. See the discussion by DeYoung, Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims, 38. See appendixes B and D of this work, as well as chapter 8. A source that contains much criticism of Boswell’s methodologies and research is Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001). See, for example, 344.
6 For example, see Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983), 101–09, 118–22.
LXX Septuagint
7 Daniel Helminiak conceded if 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy do refer to homosexuality, then “these texts condemn wanton, lewd, irresponsible male homogenital acts but not homogenital acts in general” (What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, 105). This revisionist approach can also be found in the works of Ralph Blair, An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality, and Joseph C. Weber, “Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Acts?” These works are referred to and critiqued in David E. Malick’s article “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (October–December, 1993): 479–92. It is also referred to in John J. McNeill’s book The Church and the Homosexual (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993), 52.
White, J. R., & Niell, J. D. (2002). The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality (pp. 155–163). Bethany House Publishers.
