Dr. Brown talks with four special guests about today’s landmark rulings, shares his own response on the court’s decisions, and then talks about the battle being fought for the future of our children. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: I am mildly concerned that human beings have made poor choices today. God is God, Jesus is Lord; the question is, how will we respond?
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Frail human beings in black robes have spoken. The only thing that matters to me is the glorious robed One and what He has to say, let’s act on His Word.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week, receive one of Dr. Brown’s most powerful audio messages, “Politicians, Professionals, or Prophets” on CD along with 10 Commitments of a Jesus Revolutionary (on a 5 X 7 card). All Orders Are Postage Paid!
Call 1-800-278-9978 to order for your gift of ANY Size or
Order Online for your donation of $10 or more!
Jeffrey, I don’t diminish the tears you have shed, but the Bible is 100% opposed to homosexual practice of any kind, and a fair reading of the Jonathan-David accounts does NOT point to anything homosexual between them — and the best scholarship confirms that. Please, please don’t make the terrible mistake of conforming the Bible to our contemporary culture. It won’t work.
Could I get references on that? Especially from the ancient times on that? Maybe you can answer this for me: Marriage is said to be between one man and woman. So, why were Israelites allowed to practice polygamy, then? Why were Abraham and Sarah allowed to marry despite being half-siblings? Amram and Jochebed? What did David mean by Jonathan’s love surpassing that of women? I’m open but these answers haven’t been answered a drop. Again, thanks for the dialogue, but I don’t think it’s an individual mandate to be straight and have kids for a small portion of people.
Yes Jeffrey that’s an interesting question: ” So, why were Israelites allowed to practice polygamy, then? ”
it seems that the saintly, righteous king David, – the man who was truly after the heart of the LORD – had multiple wives, (including Uriah’s wife). how can an unrepetant polygamist be declared righteous? if someone took two wives today, post-Jesus, under this supposed fuller revlelation (which didn’t exist back then) then he has committed adultery and his worthy of the hell fire. but David oh nooooo he is feasting in heaven – he will have kings from his loins and his son shall sit on the right hand side of God and have an everlasting dominion. fuller revelation? What a joke.
the same for Jacob – scoundrel of a man he was. first he deceived his brother Esau and cheated him. then he married Leah, and took her sister too. giving grief to both. not to mention concubines. and his children weren’t much better. Judah sleeping with a “shrine prostitute”. and he has the nerve to burn to death one of his sisters who has done the same? and what of judah’s children? shamelss just like their dad: refusing to sire a son with their own brother’s widom, but not shirking from sleeping with her. reuben slept with his father’s concubine. the sons of jacob banded together to kill one of their own – joseph. and putting their own father through grief for many years. Not to mention their bloody rampage through a town when the citizens were recovering from circumcision.
Scoundrels. Men of blood. Sexually immoral, knaves and peverse depraved men they were: the partriachs. David, Jacob, Solomon etc etc EVERY ONE OF THEM (with the exception of Joseph).
…………….hey guys. we have a full revelation. we have the holy ghost. pfffffffft yeah right.
But, they repented of their sins and God never condemns their polygamy in Scripture.
So, why are polyamorous and incestuous marriages permissible in Scripture, right before Leviticus 18? It would seem that God all of a sudden declares it immoral after thousands of years of the practices going on and being blessed. Also, only deacons are specifically commanded to have only one wife. Every man his own wife and vice versa seems like a generality, especially considering celibacy, unlike sexuality, is actually a choice that could destroy humanity. Just thinking for myself.
Not to mention, Jeremiah was told to never have a family, and Paul was celibate.
Besides, trust me, after what I’ve seen, I want the BIBLE to change the CULTURE. I don’t ever wish to make the mistake in vice versa.
I do not mean to belittle anyone that has emotional ties to another person. I am strictly discussing right and wrong action in regards to what the scripture says.
Sometimes we want food too much. It is a lust…maybe and emotional tie too. We can deal with the lust by confessing and forsaking our wrong desire, or we can give in to sin and commit the sin of gluttony. We can go further down the wrong road by living a lifestyle of gluttony. A single sin that is truly confessed and forsaken is forgiven. A lifestyle that continues unrepentant in those single sins is what prevents us from inheriting the kingdom of heaven.
These wrong desires need to be dealt with so that we do not sin and especially so that we do not continue in a lifestyle of sin. Sometimes we need to stop being in the company of a person so that we will not be overcome by our passions that may lead to sin. Fleeing fornication and youthful lusts entail exactly this.
“Abusers of themselves with mankind” is an old English way of being kind to young and genteel readers, but it is quite accurate. It definitely means men having sex with men, in the Greek as well as English, with no context of temple prostitution anywhere in sight.
To answer one of your points:
“Philo the Special Laws III, VII, 40-2, Dr. Gordon Fee (conservative heterosexual Greek scholar says arsenokoites is used rarely in Greek lit. “especially when describing homosexual activity.”
Philo did not address “arsenokoites”. He didn’t use the word. It has been commonly reported that he did, but the Greek text to which you and others point does not contain the word in question. Below is the passage in question with the relevant Greek words in parenthesis:
“And I imagine that the cause of this is that among many nations there are actually rewards given for intemperance and effeminacy (malakia). At all events one may see men-women (androgynia) continually strutting through the market place at midday, and leading the processions in festivals; and, impious men as they are, having received by lot the charge of the temple, and beginning the sacred and initiating rites, and concerned even in the holy mysteries of Ceres. (41) And some of these persons have even carried their admiration of these delicate pleasures of youth so far that they have desired wholly to change their condition for that of women, and have castrated themselves and have clothed themselves in purple robes, like those who, having been the cause of great blessings to their native land, walk about attended by body-guards, pushing down every one whom they meet. (42) But if there was a general indignation against those who venture to do such things, such as was felt by our lawgiver, and if such men were destroyed without any chance of escape as the common curse and pollution of their country, then many other persons would be warned and corrected by their example. For the punishments of those persons who have been already condemned cannot be averted by entreaty, and therefore cause no slight check to those persons who are ambitious of distinguishing themselves by the same pursuits.”
You have been hoodwinked by those that claim something exists that does not. The wool has been pulled over your eyes by ignorant or probably deceptive wolves that have disguised themselves in a sheep’s clothing.
I could direct you to a one sided article with no counter argument to prove my statements, but I offer you one that is a fair discussion that is better and more knowledgeable than ours. It is a blog that has eloquent writers for both sides. I stumbled upon it this very day while searching for the quote form Philo. Please read it thoroughly. It gave me a broader perspective of both sides of this issue.
That should have read: “It is a lust…maybe an emotional tie too.”
Your mocking does not produce any light for us, but only adds to the darkness in you heart. The things that you brought up are examples to us of what does not work out well. Kind of nice to have real life stories that tell us of the failings of our ancestors instead of only idolizing them. It gives us hope that YHWH uses real people with real problems and real sins that they need to repent of. If I remember correctly, David did repent but he and his family suffered greatly because of his actions. All the more reason to learn from their mistakes instead of making worse ones, don’t you think?
The idea that the homosexuality that is forbidden in the Bible is only temple prostitution does not hold water. Do not lie with a man the way you do with a woman…pretty self explanatory…No?
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
Is the only bestiality that is wrong the kind that is done in a pagan temple?
“Any of these things” also includes incestuous relationships, as per the verses preceding. Is this only wrong if it is done in idol worship? It includes adultery and marrying sisters. Is this only wrong in the case of the sisters being temple prostitutes or the case that other man’s wife is practicing witchcraft at the time of being defiled with her?
The beginning of the context is:
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
From this we should get that our country’s or culture’s ordinances are not what we should live by, but that we should be totally submitted to YHWH’s commandments and statutes and judgements and ordinances. The Bible nowhere speaks of there being any such thing as homosexual marriage. Our country now does. Which should we give heed to?
We know that Seth had to marry a close relative because of circumstances beyond his control. There is nothing wrong with marrying a close relative until the command is given not to. Abraham came before this command. We know that the command to not marry sisters is a good law partly because we see the bad effects it had on Jacob’s family.
12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Where in the context of the verses above do you see that it is only wrong to do such things if it is attached to idolatry? The list is simply about forbidden types of sex. That is what fornication is…forbidden types of sex. Homosexuality and bestiality and incest and adultery are all forbidden whether or not we are in a pagan temple when we do such sins. All these sins are the results of acting on covetousness and covetousness is idolatry. So we are idolaters if we commit such acts as homosexuality…whether or not we are doing so for pagan religious reasons. What is covetousness but to desire something that we are not allowed? Sometimes we are not allowed to have something because it belongs to another. Sometimes we are not allowed something because YHWH has placed a restriction on it.
5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
Basically, the whole list above is idolatry whether or not there are any graven images present at the time of our doing them.
Just because you always had affections for the same sex does not mean that it is not a wrong desire. We are born in sin. The only way to know if our desires are appropriate is to look into the scripture to see if we wrong to desire something.
Your human nature is flawed. Even the first man an woman acted on a wrong desire. We simply cannot trust our emotions and passions. Both must be regulated by the perfect word of YHWH…the Scripture. We need to renew our minds with what the scriptures teach so that we can adjust our actions to be in line with YHWH’s revealed will to be holy and acceptable living sacrifices.
I think that you can be set free form inordinate affection and evil concupiscence. Even if you struggle from time to time with these, it does not mean that you have to give into such strong cravings. The truth can only set you free if you love it and obey it. Any supposed “truth” that tells you that your human sexual impulses and passions are all fine is deception.
I hope you will read the link that I provided in post #58. May YHWH enlighten your understanding and free you from sinful desires.
Well, once again, I thank you for your prayers and your blessings at the end. I agree with everything on putting the LORD first and His Truth, and seeking it first. But, when I read from Philo and other Jews from Jesus’ time that these words and verses are connected to cult prostitution, it kinda leaves me in a corner. Besides, why are men and women told not to rape animals in temples, but men alone are told to not have sex in temples? But, whatever happened to “God’s intent?” You’re saying what I’m saying? “CIRCUMSTANCES make it necessary…?” Besides, we don’t need the adultery in Leviticus 18 to prohibit adultery because of the Seventh Commandment. Besides, incest is not a sin because it’s not condemned before the Torah was given to Moses. So? Well, God kinda punishes Cain for murdering Abel, therefore breaking the Sixth Commandment in both heart and deed. Over and over again, we see this sin being punished, especially with King David committing adultery with Bathsheba and premeditatively having Uriah the Hittite murdered. Beastiality doesn’t hang on Leviticus 18:23 alone because, Adam doesn’t get an animal mate, but a human mate (Eve). 1 Corinthians 15:40 tells us of different “fleshes” between humans, birds, animals, reptiles, etc. aluded to in Jude 7, therefore going to Sodom and Gomorrah as going after different “flesh” (angels). I love putting all these together and making sense of the Hebrew/New Covenant Scriptures.
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
There are some that argue that the homosexuality that is condemned is forced instead of consensual. I am sure that those same people would not think that the innocent party should be put to death. The above passage is therefore not speaking of forced homosexuality as both men are deserving of the death penalty. We have already proven in posts above that this passage is not speaking of shrine prostitution, so it would seem that the there is no argument left for your side.
Did you read the quote form Philo in post 58? He did not use the the Greek word “arsenokoites”. You and the site you quote are mistaken about what Philo wrote. The evidence is in my post. Did you read the blog that I posted a link to?
“Besides, why are men and women told not to rape animals in temples, but men alone are told to not have sex in temples?”
Where does it say that men and women are not to rape animals in temples? The Leviticus passages say nothing about temples but only about sex with animals. Do you think that it is not sin to have sex with animals if it is not in a temple?
“Beastiality doesn’t hang on Leviticus 18:23 alone because, Adam doesn’t get an animal mate, but a human mate (Eve).”
Keep going with your reasoning. Homosexuality does not hang on Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 alone because, Adam doesn’t get a male for a mate, but a female mate (Eve).
Have you at least read Robert Gagnon’s comprehensive book The Bible and Homosexual Practice? It would answer so many questions you have, in depth, with fine scholarship. This lecture of mine will help you as well: http://coalitionofconscience.askdrbrown.org/resources/2007_lecture_monday.html
I appreciate your real desire to know the truth!
At the link that Dr. Brown provided above, the video does not work.
Check this out:
I’ve read the pg. especially the objections to the agruments. Thanks for showing me this and I’ll get back, soon. Shalom!
Oh, and also, I forgot to mention that beastiality doesn’t hang on Adam haing a human mate (Eve), but also that, again, humans have the same flesh, while animals are different. Jude 7 condemns “strange/different flesh” in Sodom, yet obviously men-on-men sex wasn’t the crime per se, but attempted gang-rape of the angels that were a “different flesh” as they would have had, in my opinion. But again, thanks for the challenge!
Thanks for letting me know. We’ll check on the video ASAP.
“Beastiality doesn’t hang on Leviticus 18:23 alone because, Adam doesn’t get an animal mate, but a human mate (Eve).”
Then you wrote:
“Oh, and also, I forgot to mention that beastiality doesn’t hang on Adam haing a human mate (Eve)…”
One thing is for sure…Adam did not get a male mate.
“Jude 7 condemns “strange/different flesh” in Sodom, yet obviously men-on-men sex wasn’t the crime per se…”
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
This statement is not specifically referring to the incident with the angels in Lot’s house. “Giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh” is why they were judged. Their sins were FORNICATION AND going after strange flesh…not just going after strange flesh. The Bible definitely calls homosexuality fornication. Sex with animals is going after strange flesh as much as sex with angels is. The sentiment that Jude relates was an ongoing problem not a single incident. The persistent cry of this problem came before YHWH. This cry happened before the angels ever got there. There sin was already “very grievous.”
20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
Also the men of Sodom asked for “men,” not angels. These angels evidently looked just like men and the fornicators of Sodom wanted these “men.” There does not appear to be any reason to believe that the men of Sodom knew these were angels. It does not appear that Lot knew that they were angels either. Lot “presses them greatly” that they should not stay outside all night. He knows what the men of the city will do. If Lot knew that they were mighty angels of YHWH, he would have no reason to protect them.
The fornicators of Sodom wanted “men” instead of Lot’s virgin daughters. This is another proof that homosexuality is fornication. Jude says that they had given “themselves over to fornication.” In other words, they did not have natural desires for women anymore, but had left the “natural use of the woman” as Paul says.
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
As we see the power of the angels, it would be impossible that the men of Sodom would be able to accomplish what they had desired without the volition of the angels. There is no account of even the fallen angels desiring men but only women. (There is no account of female angels either.) The angels that did sin in this way are bound and are not out and about trying to procreate…or even just trying to have sex.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
When we take all that the scripture has to say into account, we do not come away with your idea that the only problem with Sodom was going after strange flesh. Jude condemns fornication too. One thing that we do know about the fornication of the men of Sodom is that they wanted men instead of women…young virgin women at that.
I would think that whether it’s “men” (Genesis 19) or women (Judges 19), rape is immoral, coercive and evil. One of the many sins attributed to Sodom and Gommorah throughout Scripture.
Jude does not mention rape. Yes it would have been considered rape, but they were judged for ongoing fornication. Homosexuality is fornication according to Leviticus 18 and 20, and it was men that they were choosing over women. Leaving the natural use of women and burning in lust for other men.
Ro 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Consensual sex outside of Biblical heterosexual marriage is fornication and if it is continued in, the kingdom of heaven will be forfeited by those that practice such things.
It would be better for you to concede the points that have been made than to justify your sinful desires for men. If you cannot forsake homosex and or heterosexual fornication, you are not loving Messiah, but simply having emotions and sentimentality for Him.
You were desiring/lusting after men before you supposedly came to Messiah. According to the gospel we must forsake those lusts when we come to YHWH. We must have fruits that prove our changed hearts. Lusting after/desiring men must be confessed as sin and forsaken to inherit the kingdom of heaven.
I’ve believed in Jesus long before I really knew what I was. But, again, in the Latin “fornication” meant “arch” as a euphemism for the brothels for the Roman prositutes.
For Sodom, Dr. Haas says: “The context demonstrates that the demand of the men of S@dom was to have intercourse with the angels. This is evident in Lot’s attempt to appease their desire to “know” the angels by offering them his two daughters who have never “known” (yada’) a man (Gen. 19:8)…
Similarly, in Judges 19:23, when the men of Gibeah demand to “know” (yada’) the stranger, his host offers them his own virgin daughter and the visitor’s concubine. The concubine is given over to the men who “know” (yada’) her all night. The clear meaning here is rape. Thus, the obvious conclusion is that yada’ is used consistently in both instances to refer to sexual intercourse…
Thus, the sin of the two groups of men in Sodom and Gibeah is, in both instances, the desire to engage in homosexual rape. But there is validity in connecting this sin to the violation of the norm of hospitality. There is weight to the suggestion that the desire to rape the visitors is less the expression of homosexual desire and activity per se, and more the use of forcible homosexual rape to express dominance over the strangers. This practice occurred in the Ancient Middle East when armies were defeated, and it occurs today in certain all-male settings, such as prisons.
This is supported by the fact that in both instances, when women were offered to the men, both groups of men initially rejected the offer. The conclusion, more clearly for Sodom than for Gibeah, is that the goal of homosexual rape is the male inhabitants’ desire to express their dominance over the strangers.”
– Dr. Gene Haas, D. Th., Professor of Religion and Theology, Redeemer University College, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada.
So, we don’t deny that there was sexual intercourse in these instances of Genesis and Judges.
To respond to arsenokoitai, for the first 6 centuries of church history, the word was related to shrine prositution. These men would have pagan-inspired sex rituals. 1 Kings 14: 24 “There were male temple prositutes in the land. They committed all the abominations which the LORD drove out before the people of Israel.” In the Torah, Leviticus 18 mentions what those abominations are, and that they were done to worship pagan gods. Since incest relations weren’t immoral before Leviticus 18 and polygamy reinforced in Deuteronomy 21:15-7. Albeit heterosexual, but more partners in a marriage aren’t immoral. Let me know about the extra-biblical uses of arsenokoitai, and if not, then I’ll provide it, happily. Remember that qadesh (male) and qadesha (female) mean temple prostitute, while cedom (Sodom) means “incinerate” (the biblical city). However, I do find it odd, that Gagnon, Wright, and Haas admit temple prostitution was involved in the clobber verses:
Dr. Gagnon: “I do not doubt that the circles out of which Lev 18:22 was produced had in view homosexual cult prostitution, at least partly. Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel.” The Bible And Homosexual Practice, p. 130.
“The description of a male homosexual act as an ‘abomination’ (Lev. 20:13) does not necessarily mean that the activity is more cultically associated with idolatry than any other sexual perversion. Lev. 18:24-30 and 20:22-24 indicate that this activity, along with the other mentioned, was characteristic of the Canaanite inhabitants about to be driven out, and probably had as an idolatrous base. But this does not warrant the conclusion that homosexual acts were condemned purely because of their cultic association.”
Dr. Gene Haas’ Evaluation for Leviticus 18/20
But, they still tend to lump loving, committed, non-cultic partnerships into the same pool as temple prostitution. Again, when we find rare words like arsenokoitai (“male” “bed”) and malakoi (“weak”) have to be put in context by looking at how the words were used outside the New Testament in it’s own world. The afforementioned “Social Horizon” doesn’t appeal to me or any serious student of Scripture as I believe God doesn’t have His creations limited to Truth no matter where they are (including statements from Romans 1:20). I’m just trying to add these all up and seeing how many conservative Christians were reading these passages a certain way, then they do this research and think differently.
Where did you get the Gagnon quote from? Did you read the book itself? Or are you simply following other gay authors who misleadingly cited him? What a terrible shame that, in your sincere quest for truth, you are leaning on so many faulty supports rather than allowing God’s Word to speak truth to your heart. Gagnon actually had to write this article, “An Open Letter to Justin Lee, Author of Torn: I Do Not Believe Lev 18:22 and 20:13 Indict Only Idolatrous Forms of Homosexual Practice,” which you need to read (he also rebutted Justin Lee’s very poor response): http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2013/03/28/bible-condemn-idolatrous-homosexual-practice-gangnon-lee-torn/
May God help you to embrace His truth rather than run from it. It will be the beginning of true freedom for you.
Jeffrey, one more note (although I wish I had time to demolish every false argument you’re making — out of love and concern for your soul): Your claim that “arsenokoitai, for the first 6 centuries of church history, the word was related to shrine prositution” is a complete and total myth. How truly sad to read this! Again, just reading Gagnon or consulting the top lexicons and commentaries would have destroyed this faulty notion as well. Don’t believe it for a second!
How is it a myth? It’s a recent Greek compound word! Ladykiller doesn’t literally mean a killer of ladies, right? Unless you have Ted Bundy, hence, context must, must, must come first, sir, with all due respect. And I read the article. But he doesn’t cite any ancient historic commentary on the verses in question. He does cite Josephus, but I’ll need to read the full quotation to understand. How do incest and polygamy become immoral after Leviticus 18? What were the Egyptians, Canaanites, Jebuzites, Hittites, etc. doing with Molech in sexual contexts if not cult prostitution? I can’tjust throw this logic out the window. God has always answered my prayers from time to time when I ask Him. I have a desire to please our Heavenly Father, which Scripture says only true believers can experience. I mean no ill will. I don’t’t believe in shutting any of you precious brothers and sisters up. I always have had second thoughts and I k we the risk for providing the answers I gave. I always check again and again and again and again and again on these minute words, phrases which just goes to show I-do-take-this-seriously. Not that I’m suicidal, but sometimes I wonder why God had to make me in the first place because of all this back and forth nonsense. Not suicidal, just philosophical. I don’t want any trouble, I’m just trying to find the truth. I’ve Googled full quotations, I get help in putting A, B, and C together, and I’m told it’s illegitimate. It’s just mind-boggling, that’s all.
“How is it a myth? It’s a recent Greek compound word! Ladykiller doesn’t literally mean a killer of ladies, right?”
Well…Bed wetter would mean the same thing whether it was a compound word or two separate words used in conjunction. The fact that arsenokoitai was not used in Greek literature before Paul used it means that it is probably to be taken literally. This is especially the case since Paul and his contemporary Jewish and Christian audiences were knowledgeable of the LXX and its translation of Leviticus 18 and 20 where the two Greek words that make up arsenokoitai are used to translate the idea of male with male sex…a male bedder or male sleeper.
What about other Greek words that use the word koitai? Are they to be understood literally?
consorting with slaves,
incestuous person, i.e. with mother,
seeking illicit sex,
having intercourse with a man,
sleeping by day,
sleeping on the ground,
with ears large enough to sleep in,
to have a bedfellow,
sleeping with many men or women,
incest of brother or sister…
The fact that the ARSENOKOITHS is already a rare term, euphemistic, and apparently coined within a small Christian community to allude to a Levitical prohibition readily explains why other Christian writers would use words that were either more current or provocative.”- Stephen Carlson: Boswell’s Analysis of ARSENOKOITHS in 1Co6:19 and 1Tm1:10
So it appears that to try to come up with a definition that goes away from the literal meaning is grasping at straws to support a prejudice for homosexuality not being a sin.
The fact that there were many different Greek terms for specific homosexual acts and relationships that Paul did not use, but that he uses one, probably of his own making, strengthens the probability that arsenokoitai is meant to be a general term that encompasses all types of man on man sex.
So in Biblical context, arsenokoitai means homosexuality. In Greek language context, arsenokoitai means homosexuality. In Paul’s cultural context, arsenokoitai means homosexuality. Literally, arsenokoitai means homosexuality.
Paul calls it a sin that if continued in will preclude one from inheriting the kingdom of heaven. Do you really want to hang on to a very flimsy handhold/excuse that Paul is not condemning homosexuality, but only homosex in a temple or male protitution? The stakes are quite high. You are gambling with eternal life.
I encourage you to read the link above. Here is part of the conclusion:
“Often the evidence about a word’s meaning in a certain context is not conclusive but merely indicative. When the best and strongest evidence consistently points to the same conclusion, however, we can become more confident. In this case, the immediate context of the word ARSENOKOITHS, all throughout the New Testament, its Septuagint parallels, and its usage among the Apostolic Fathers, like Polycarp, all point to a meaning of a homosexual and not a male prostitute. Boswell’s general argument, apart from a facile consideration of the context, relies too much on the argument from silence and an egregious etymological analysis.”- Stephen Carlson: Boswell’s Analysis of ARSENOKOITHS in 1Co6:19 and 1Tm1:10
At least we agree there’s a relation between Leviticus 18 and 1 Corinthians 6. The arsenokoit stem does refer to sexual intercourse, but the definition varies from one context to another. Since we go back to the Torah, what were the Egyptians (from where they came) and the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, and Jebusites (to where they were going) doing? Where they not committing the “abominations for which Yahweh drove out before the people of Israel (1 Kings 14:24).” I guess, for now, I need a break. I love dialoguing, and with someone as admirable and Spriit-filled as you Dr. Brown, and Bo, too 🙂 I’ll let you know when I find an LGBT apologist, even if they’re Messianic Jewish, and have him/her come on your program! I admire what you and your teachings have done and I pray for the Jewish people as well as the many Gentile unbelievers. All in all, you and I cry out to God asking for Truth and for His Son to be glorified, and for us to understand each other. Like you said, if someone wanted to harm ANYONE, even if they’re gay, they’d have to get through you. Likewise, I say if any wants to silence you, they’ll have to get through me, too. May God bless you and lead us all to Truth someday!
My last comment (and thanks for your kind words). PLEASE, PLEASE take the time to read Gagnon’s book. It remains the best treatment to date on the subject.
May you have the courage to follow God’s truth!
Comments are closed.