Theology in the Raw - 746: #746 - Has 'Homosexual' Always Been in the Bible?

Episode Date: July 1, 2019

On episode #746 of Theology in the Raw Preston addresses a recent blog post that's gained a lot of attention across the internet. The post goes by the same title as this podcast: "Has 'Homosexual" always been in the Bible?". Preston shows that while the blog post is correct that "homosexual" is a poor translation of 1 Cor 6:9, it makes several logical, historical, and theological mistakes. Preston recently preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9, which you can listen to here: Click here Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Check out his website prestonsprinkle.com If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

Has the word homosexual always been in the Bible? The answer is no. There is no Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek word that should be rightly translated as homosexual. I'm Preston Sprinkle. This of Theology in the Raw. I have been out of town for over a month, or almost a month at least, and have recently returned and am still battling a bit of jet lag. But I wanted to talk about an article in this podcast that's been kind of tossed around the internet over the last few months. In fact, when I was out of town, I was actually out of the country, and I got quite a few emails from people wanting me to respond to an article,

a blog that was written on March 21st, 2019. And it might be a bit dated now. You know how things go. There's an article that's written and, you know, causes a lot of stir across the internet. And then you wait a couple weeks and then nobody really remembers it. So I hope this response to this article is not too dated, but I'm still getting a trickle of emails coming in asking for my thoughts on this article. So I do want to take some time in this podcast and address this article. The title of the article is, Has Homosexual Always Been in the Bible? is, has homosexual always been in the Bible? And it's an interview of a guy by the name of Ed Oxford. Ed Oxford is a gay Christian who is, for lack of better terms, affirming. And he was

interviewed about the translation of 1 Corinthians 6, 9, in particular, the Greek word arsenakotes. And I originally recorded an entire podcast responding to several questions that were sent in from my Patreon supporters. And I recorded an entire podcast responding to those questions. And one of the questions that was sent in had to do with this article. And I ended up taking a long time addressing that last question about this article. And I wasn't really thrilled with how I responded to the other questions. And the whole podcast just got kind of convoluted. So I actually threw it away, put it in a garbage can. That podcast does not no longer exist. So I decided to redo that podcast and only focus on my response to this article again, because I have received

quite a few questions about it. And it seems that people are looking for some guidance on how they should think through this article. So that's what I want to do on this podcast. So I know I do talk a lot about sexuality and gender on this podcast. It is kind of my full-time job at the moment. So for those of you who might be a little bit tired of hearing about sexuality and gender, you can, I don't know, skip this podcast or go back to maybe an older one that's not about sexuality and gender. But for those of you who are interested in how to translate 1 Corinthians 6, 9, and for those of you who may be aware of this article, you might be interested in my thoughts on it. Okay. So what I want to do is spot read this article. It's not a very long article. So if you

Google, has homosexual always been in the Bible, I would highly recommend reading the article in its entirety. And how do I even begin? You know, there's things about this article that I appreciate. In fact, as I said in the introduction, the article is correct that homosexual is not an accurate translation of arsenakote, the Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 6.9. So I guess the main gist of the article is absolutely correct. And this is something that I've been harping on for a while now, that homosexual is a bad translation of this verse. In fact, it's a bad translation of any verse in the Bible. There is no single verse in the Bible that should be translated with the

English word homosexual or homosexuality. There are verses in the Bible that prohibit men from having sex with men, from women having sex with women. There are verses in the Bible that say that marriage is between a man and a woman. So that much is true. And that's where we get our sexual ethic from in as much as it concerns same-sex sexual relationships versus opposite-sex sexual relationships. But the word homosexual, which is a modern word, a fairly modern word that was invented in the late or mid to late 19th century. The word homosexual refers to a person who has a same-sex orientation. And the Bible does not use any sort of Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic word that would be equivalent

to our modern English term homosexual. Not much is true. I appreciate that from the article. However, the implications that are drawn from that observation in this article are, I mean, they're just wrong. And there's several logical leaps in this article. And so I do want to address those. And again, as I always try to do imperfectly, I want to respect the author. I don't know Ed Oxford. I don't know who he is. I think he went to Talbot Seminary. I think I read that somewhere. And that's a great seminary. And maybe he's a wonderful guy. I don't know him and I don't mean any ill will against him. And I hope I honor his humanity while I disagree with several things that are stated in this article. So let's jump in.

This article is an interview of Ed Oxford, who is trying to offer a more correct translation of 1 Corinthians 6, 9. So I'm going to spot read this article. I'm going to jump in halfway through the first paragraph. Ed says that I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18,22, and he's translating it for me word for word. And in the English where it says, man shall not lie with man for it is an abomination. The German version says, man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman for it is an

abomination. And I said, what, are you sure? And he said, yes. Then we went to Leviticus 2013, same thing, young boys. So we went to first Corinthians to see how they translated arsenakwete. That's the original Greek word used there that is sometimes translated as homosexual. And instead of homosexuals, it said, boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God. Going down, he ends up checking a few other, oh no, before I get there, he says that the first time homosexual appears in a German translation is 1983. And then he goes into some historical background to how that translation came about, which is interesting, how the company Biblica, who owned the NIV version, also paid for the 1983 German version. And so he suggests that there's, you know, something going

on behind the scenes in terms of this American company sort of influencing the newer German translation to change it, change arsenakote from boy molester to homosexual. And then he looked up a 1674 Swedish translation and an 1830 Norwegian translation. And he asked one of his friends who understands both Swedish and Norwegian, and they look up the verses and both Swedish and Norwegian translations say boy molesters or boy abusers, not homosexual in the Swedish and Norwegian translations. He makes an observation. Well, yeah, he makes an observation here. He says, it turns out that the ancient world condoned, encouraged a system whereby young boys, eight to 12 years old were coupled by older men. That's, that's inaccurate. Um, it was actually 13 to 17 year old, uh, boys or teenagers who were coupled with older men. It was not 8 to 12 years old.

It was more or less young men or older boys, teenage boys, who were not little children. That's a mistake that's often made when we're talking about pederasty, the ancient practice of teenage boys being coupled with older men. Some people refer to it as like child molestation. Now, both pederasty and child molestation are horrific sins, but they are a little bit different. We can't just map modern day child molestation onto the ancient practice of pederasty. Both again, are wrong and abusive and horrible and terrible. But it wasn't eight to 12 year old children. It was 13 to 17 year old young teenage boys typically that might've been involved in the ancient practice of pederasty. He makes the conclusion that for most of history, for most of history, most translations thought that these verses,

when he says these verses, he's referring to Leviticus 18, 22, Leviticus 20, 13, and first Corinthians six, nine, and first Timothy, uh, one, nine to 10. That also uses the Greek word arsenakwete. For most history, most translations thought these verses were obviously referring to pederasty, not homosexuality. Ed goes on to say, so then I started thinking that four of the six clobber passages, that four of this, that of four of the six clobber passages, all these nations, when he says all these nations, I guess he's referring to Germany, Norway, and Sweden, because those are the three translations that he referred to. All these nations and translations

were referring to pederasty and not what we would call homosexuality today. So let me just summarize, this is like halfway through the article now, I want to summarize the points he's making and the logic he's drawing from those points. By the way, the reference to clobber passages, when he says four of the six clobber passages, there are six passages in the Bible that prohibit same-sex sexual relationships. And some people refer to those as the clobber passages. You can probably guess why. I mean, because, you know, some Christians throughout the ages have used these prohibition passages to clobber people with. And I don't particularly love the phrase clobber passages. It's sort of is just highlighting the various people who have abused these passages. But the passages in and of themselves aren't clobber passages. I mean,

people can use those passages to clobber the people and people can use all kinds of passages to clobber all kinds of people. But I don't, I don't know. I think that's just a little bit, um, disrespectful of, of, uh, the scriptures, but I, I get it. I, and I mourn the, uh, abuse that has been done from any passage of scripture towards other person, other people when they're interpreted incorrectly. So to summarize the logic of this article, number one, homosexual is a very recent English translation of the Greek word arsenakuites. That's an observation. And he is very accurate in that. That is a recent English translation. And I would agree with Ed and say that that's a bad translation of arsenakuites.

Number two, second observation is that the German, Swedish, and Norwegian translations have boy molester for arsenakuites. And therefore, if I can insert the word therefore, without looking at the actual meaning of arsenakuites, the author, Ed, or the person who's being interviewed, Ed, apparently believes that the German, Swedish, and Norwegian translations are right, while the English, the recent English translations are wrong. I just want to point out that in the article, there is zero examination of the actual meaning of the Greek word arsenakwites. The Ed, the person being interviewed, simply assumes with no evidence or justification that the German, Swedish, and Norwegian translations are more accurate than the English translations. And I did find it a little bit odd that he put the English translations through a

lot of scrutiny while he didn't do the same with the German, Swedish, and Norwegian translations. I think the article would have been much more compelling if he had actually gone into the actual meaning of arsenakwetes and the actual meaning of Leviticus 18, 22 and 2013, rather than simply assuming that the German, Swedish and Norwegian translations are correct. So let me respond so far to some things in this article so far. Number one, it is true. Homosexual is a bad translation of arsenakwites. Arsenakwites is a compound Greek word. It's

first used in its compound form in 1 Corinthians 6, 9. That's the first time in all of Greek literature that this word occurs, leading many people to believe that Paul, the apostle Paul, coined or created or invented this word. Now we do have, um, we do have a Hebrew equivalent that might've been sort of around in the air of the day. And we see it in some rabbinic literature, um, that is referring back to the first century. So there could have been in the air, you understand in the air, in the culture, a Hebrew, uh, word that was, um, being, that was, that was more common. And Paul writing as a Jew to a Greek speaking audience might have created a English compound, or sorry, a Greek compound word, to reflect that original Hebrew phrase. Again, this is speculation based on some historical

evidence. Either way, this is the based on some historical evidence. Either way, this is the first time this Greek word occurs, arsenakwites. Now, it is a compound word that's based on two well-known Greek words. So while arsenakwites as a single word is rare, it hasn't been used yet until the first century, the two words that make up the compound word,son and coite are very common words. Arson means male, coite means bed. And if you look at parallel compound words that combined a word with coite, we know that compound words with coite were often used in a sexual to convey something sexual. So bed is sort of a euphemism that could be rendered to go to bed with, to bed somebody, to sleep with,

to have sexual relationships with. So arsinoquites, and this is not really disputed among most scholars affirming and not affirming, that ar arson aquites in its essential meaning has to do with sleeping with a male, going to bed with a male. And again, arson means male, not man. As an adult man, it could include younger boys. It can include older men. It doesn't convey anything that is non-consensual or abusive in the word itself. It simply means to sleep with a male. This is why I think homosexual is a bad translation. The word homosexual, and by the way, just a little parenthetical comment, I don't like the word

homosexual. I never use it. People that I know that are oriented towards the same sex prefer the term gay or lesbian if they're female. So, or some people prefer queer, especially younger people today. And rarely do I meet people who are same sex oriented that prefer the term homosexual to describe themselves. So I don't, I don't use the term, but because that's the title of this article, because that's the translation that's in question, I will, I'll continue to use homosexual, even though, again, I don't, I don't love the term. Um, but homosexual refers to somebody who is oriented toward the same sex, regardless of whether they are actually having sex, just because you are, and again, I hate even

saying this, but homosexual or gay, that does not mean you are acting on that orientation or attraction. There are many gay people in the world who are not having gay sex. There are many gay people in the world who believe that gay sex is actually sinful. And so they maybe will engage in opposite sexual relations in the context of marriage or they commit the celibacy or whatever. This is why 1 Corinthians 6, 9, it should not be translated with the word homosexual. It does not condemn homosexuals. I'm using quotes here. It condemns people who are engaging in same-sex sexual relationships. people who are engaging in same-sex sexual relationships. Okay. It is not, again, again, and again, and again, it is not condemning homosexuals. The Bible does not condemn

homosexuals any more than it condemns heterosexuals. The Bible does prohibit unlawful heterosexual sexual unions, just as much as it condemns homosexual sexual unions. But it doesn't condemn somebody for simply possessing, if you will, a particular sexual, what we now call today as a sexual orientation, basically some kind of pattern of sexual desire. Okay, so homosexual is a bad translation. The best translation of arsenakuites is a man who sleeps with, is sleeping with males. A man who sleeps with or is sleeping with males. And in the ancient world, there were bisexual people who were sleeping with males. There were heterosexual people that were sleeping with males. There were, quote unquote, homosexual people who were sleeping with males. Now back then, they didn't classify people or

identify people based on their sexual orientation. So the concepts or the words, you know, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual would have been foreign to the ancient mindset, not because such people did not exist. Certainly they did. But because it wasn't common for people to identify as or identify to have an identity based on their sexual desires. to have an identity based on their sexual desires. The ancient world typically classified people based on their masculinity or femininity, their manliness or womanliness. They didn't identify based on their pattern of sexual desires,

even though they did have concepts of sexual desires. And there is even some evidence that they had some ancient form, conceptual form of what we now call today a sexual orientation. There's literature from the first, second centuries AD that talks about people who are born with innate desires for the same sex. Now, again, they didn't call that sexual orientation, but the concept was a similar concept to our modern day concept of sexual orientation. It can be found in some ancient literature. So, yes, it's true. Homosexual is a bad translation of Ars Inacuites. Now, I also want to point out that the German, Swedish, and Norwegian translations where they translate Ars Inacuites as boy molester, those are also bad translations. I don't know Swedish. I don't know Norwegian. I'm depending on Ed

and his friends that he consulted that do know Norwegian and Swedish. I'm just going to assume that the Swedish and Norwegian translations that he referred to do translate Arsene Aquitas as boy molester. I did check the German. I used to know German. I still know it a little bit. I used to know German. I still know it a little bit. And I do know that Nabenchander does mean boy molester in German, which is a translation that Martin Luther gave in 1 Corinthians 6, 9. And it also occurs in Leviticus 18, 22 and 2013. It does, the German translation does refer to boy molesters. And unlike Ed's discussion here in this article, I'm going to put that translation to the, I'm going to scrutinize that translation. And when I compare it with the meaning of the Hebrew and the Greek of Leviticus 18 and 20, and the Greek of 1 Corinthians 6, 9, boy molester is a

terrible translation of arsenakotes. I would say boy molester is just as bad as homosexual. translation of arsenakites. I would say boy molester is just as bad as homosexual. Arsenakites does not mean boy molester. Arson means male, not boy. And there are at least three different Greek words that do refer to boy molesters, or that's actually not the best phrase. There are at least three Greek words that do refer to pederasty, older men having sexual relationships with teenage boys. And those Greek words don't even occur inerasty, older men having sexual relationships with teenage boys. And those Greek words don't even occur in the New Testament. We see them in early Christian literature quite frequently, but that is not the word arsenakuites. Arsenakuites is a compound Greek word that simply means to go to bed with a male. Now, I said earlier that arson and coite, well, I said earlier that arsonakuites

never occurs in all Greek literature prior to 1 Corinthians 6, 9. That's true. However, arson and coite are very common Greek words. In fact, arson and coite both occur in Leviticus 18.22 and Leviticus 20.13. Especially, well, they both occur in both those, Arson and Coite occur in both those verses, but they also occur side by side in Leviticus 20.13. And by the way, I'm going to write out everything I'm saying here. I'm going to summarize in a blog that I'm going to send to my Patreon supporters. So you can have a lot of this written down. I should have told you that ahead of time. So if you're a Patreon supporter and you receive my monthly blogs, you can put your pen down or stop typing because I'm going to write all this out for you.

And when I do that, I'll show you from the Greek. Even if you don't know Greek, you'll be able to see it, that arson and coite occur side by side in Leviticus 20, 13, one of the Old Testament prohibition passages of same-sex sexual relationships. So it seems rather clear that Leviticus, or that Paul, when he coins the term arsenakuites, that he is taking the two Greek words from Leviticus 18, 22, and especially 2013. And he's taking those two Greek words and he's slamming them together to create a single word that basically conveys what Leviticus 18 and 20 are trying to say. Now, Leviticus 18 and 20, clearly without debate, I know that's provocative. And some people say, you can't say that everything's debated and it's

only clear to you, not clear to others, but I'll justify that point in a second. Leviticus 18 and 20 do not refer to pederasty or boy molesting. Now, they would include that, of course. It says a man should not sleep with a man as he does with a woman. It's an abomination. They do, you know, a man sleeping with a man or a man sleeping with a male that would include pederasty would prohibit that, but it can't be limited to that. And this, again, this isn't really much of a debate. In fact, there's a very recent article published, where's this published? Oh, the Bulletin for Biblical Research. The Bulletin for Biblical Research is, in my opinion, the most prestigious or most, it's like the highest level of evangelical biblical scholarship. There are higher journals, peer-reviewed journals that are more prestigious

that wouldn't be considered necessarily evangelical. Um, the like new Testament studies is a extremely prestigious new Testament journal, probably the highest, um, uh, um, gosh, I'm blanking on other ones. Uh, JTS, the journal for theological studies is another very prestigious one. Um, the journal for the study of the new Testament is another prestigious one, but these are not like it's biblical scholarship in general. It's not just evangelical scholarship. In my opinion, when it comes to people who are committed to the Bible as an authoritative text and yet still producing high level scholarship, I think the Bulletin for Biblical Research is, in my opinion, scholarship, I think the Bulletin for Biblical Research is, in my opinion, the top evangelical.

And by evangelical, I'm using evangelical really broadly, but just people who are committed to the biblical text as an authoritative document. BBR, as it's abbreviated, is one of the top journals. In a recent article in 2018, Jay Sklar, who is a Old Testament scholar from Covenant Seminary, he wrote a peer reviewed article titled, uh, the prohibitions against homosexual sex in Leviticus 18, 22, and 2013. Subtitle is, are they relevant today? Jay Sklar is a professor at Covenant Theological Seminary. And, uh, I met him once. Uh, he's a great guy. Had, have had several dialogues with him. He's, he's done some great scholarship. He's a great guy. I've had several dialogues with him. He's done some great scholarship. He's published a commentary on the book of Leviticus. In the introductory statements of this article, he says this, there is no real debate that Leviticus 18.22 and Leviticus 20, 13 are prohibiting sexual relationships, sexual relations between two men.

He goes on to say, this is agreed to by the commentators, whether they are conservative or liberal and by those writing more specifically about the Bible's view of homosexual sex, whether they think these prohibitions apply today or not. It is equally clear that consensual relations are being described since the same penalty for breaking these laws is applied to both men. Leviticus 20, 13, something that does not happen in the case of rape. Cross-reference Deuteronomy 22 verses 23 to 27. Okay. So that's a bold statement saying there is no real debate. These verses are talking about sexual relations between two men, not, they can't be limited to simply an older man and a younger boy. In the footnote, footnote number two, he says in a

survey of more than 25 major commentaries, both conservative and liberal, I found no exceptions. Exceptions might exist, but the consensus is overwhelming. So again, going back to my statement, that's why I said there is no real debate that Leviticus 18 and 20 cannot be limited to pederasty, or as some people say, you know, molesting boys. So this is why I'm going to say very confidently that the German translation is wrong. I'm sorry, Martin Luther fans. Look, I like Martin Luther too. I owe a lot of my religious tradition to Martin Luther, but he butchered the translation of Leviticus 1822, 2013, and I would also argue 1 Corinthians 6, 9. Again, these three verses should not rightly be

translated as boy molester. They should be rightly translated as men who have sex with males. and who have sex with males. And while we're on articles, David Wright, David Wright was a professor of ecclesiastical history at New College in Edinburgh for almost half a century. He was a well-known historian and a professor of early church history at Edinburgh, prestigious scholar, published many, many books and articles. And in the 1980s, he published two significant, I would say the most significant articles on the translation of Ars Inacuites. The title of those articles are, the first one is Homosexuals or Prostitutes,

The Meaning of Ars Inacuites. And the second article, both of these published in 19... Are they both published in 1984? Oh, no. The first one is 1984. And then he published another article titled Translating Ars Inacquitas in another journal in 1987. David Wright. No relation to NT that I'm aware of.

seven, David Wright. No, no relation to NT that I'm aware of. And these two articles, hands down, are the definitive, most thorough articles on the meaning of arsenoquites. And in my scholarly opinion, nobody has actually refuted the meaning of, or these two articles, David Wright's arguments. Nobody. The closest was Dale Martin in his book, Sex and the Single Savior. He's got a chapter in that book from pages 37 to 50 that tries to argue that arsenakwites is referring to something more abusive, that it's intrinsically referring to, that it's referring to a relationship that is intrinsically abusive. In, again, in my scholarly opinion, and I would encourage you to read David Wright's two articles and Dale Martin's attempt at overturning Wright's argument, I felt that Dale Martin fell very short of that. But again, don't believe me. Go read all three

articles and make your own opinion. I think David Wright just did. I mean, his research is so incredibly thorough. He spent several pages just looking at the morphology of arsenoquites, looking at parallel literature. It is the most thorough treatment of this word. In fact, one way that I, whenever I want to know, because look, a lot of people have opinions about Arsinoquites. If this is the first time you're hearing about this,

and you're like, dude, I never heard this conversation before, just know that this has been an ongoing conversation for 35 years in scholarship, the meaning of Arsinoquites, and even in popular blogs like this one. I mean, people like to chime in and say, this is what Ars Inacuitas means. In fact, I know I've read stuff by people that don't even know Greek that are trying to tell me what Ars Inacuitas means, which that's, yeah, no, that just should never happen. But that's just should never happen, but that that's, that's a common thing. And on the worldwide web, you see people that don't know Greek telling people what the actual meaning of arsenakotes is.

Um, and that's just, it's funny, but, um, my test to see has, so, you know, if somebody gives a strong opinion about the meaning of arsenakotes, my first thing I do is I go and check, have they read, understood, and refuted David Wright's two articles? These are definitive articles. If I don't see David Wright cited in their blog and their chapter and their book, then I just, it's almost like a tune out, like, okay, go do your homework and then come back and give an argument. And then I might consider it. These two articles are not inerrant, but they are incredibly thorough and well argued and well researched. So all that to say, yes, I think that the German, Swedish, and Norwegian translations are bad. I also think that the NIV, the 1984 NIV translation is also bad. The NIV has been updated actually,

because they went through a massive lawsuit. Some guy tried to sue the NIV for millions of dollars and ended up losing, but I mean, they ended up redoing the translation. Now I want to point out though, because Ed does make the statement that, well, he's, again, he's assuming that the German, Norwegian, Swedish translations are correct. And then he starts drawing some kind of global conclusions. Like when he said, for most of history, most translations thought these verses were obviously

referring to pederasty, not homosexuality. And then he started, you know, then I started to think that the four of the six clobber passages and somehow there he kind of slipped in Leviticus 18 and 20. Um, and all these nations are in translations. We're referring to pederasty and not what we would call homosexuality today. He's, he makes these kinds of global conclusions based on three European translations. But I want to point out, um, that there are many translations throughout church history that didn't translate Arsenaic or Leviticus 18 or 20 as boy molesters or pederasty. For instance, the early Coptic and Syriac translations do not translate it as boy molesters or pederasty. In fact,

the Coptic and Syriac translations translated just like, um, it should be translated as men who sleep with males. Um, and I don't know if you know, but the Coptic and Syriac translations were incredibly influential in the early church as the, as, um, the gospel spread to the East and spread South and Coptic and Syriac. These were some, two of the most important early church translations. These were some, two of the most important early church translations. The Latin Vulgate, which was the authoritative text for over a thousand years, um, translates it as one who lies with the male, just like it should be translated.

The Latin Vulgate, again, the authoritative biblical text for a thousand years, uh, does not translate Leviticus 18, 20 or first Corinthians six as boy molester. Leviticus 18, 20, or 1 Corinthians 6 as boy molester. The Wycliffe translation of the late 14th century translates Leviticus 20, 13 as, if a man sleepeth with a man by lechery of a woman, either ever, either hath wrought an leaveful thing. I mean, this is old English. That's why it's, you know, really hard to understand. Die they by death, their blood beyond them. First Corinthians 6, 9 says, neither they that do lechery with men. Okay. So again, it is not

the early, one of the first, is it the first English translation? The Wycliffe translation? I don't know if it's the first, maybe there were other ones, but I know it's one of the earliest English translations. It does not translate this as boy molester. Now I don't, I don't know if it's the first, maybe there were other ones, but I know it's one of the earliest English translations, uh, does not translate this as boy molester. Now I don't, I didn't check the Russian. I didn't check the Spanish. I didn't check. I mean, I don't know these languages or, you know, Mandarin, whatever. So I'm just giving you a sample of some very influential translations that do translate these verses as men who sleep with males and not men who have sex with young teenage boys. But again, I don't even, to me, I'm just, I just want to point out that translations have been diverse, but again, I'm just not really that interested in how translations have rendered this verse, I want to look at what the original Hebrew and Greek

of these verses mean. And that's something that this article never attempts to do. It simply relies on a few European translations and makes global conclusions, which I just felt like was a tremendous leap. So the article goes on to say, so there is historical tradition to show that these verses aren't relating to homosexuality. This is the interviewer asking this question. And Ed says, absolutely. Sometimes I'm frustrated when I speak with pastors who say, well, I believe the historical tradition surrounding these verses and then proceed with a condemnation of LGBTQ individuals. I want to stop there for a second because I think that's where this article and where a lot of people begin on the wrong foundation. Some people think that the Bible has been,

the Bible condemns LGBTQ individuals, or some people would say that the Bible has wrongly been interpreted to condemn LGBTQ individuals. I mean, I would say categorically and passionately that as somebody who believes in a traditional view of marriage, that the Bible does not condemn LGBTQ individuals any more than the Bible condemns straight individuals. I mean, on one hand, you can say that the Bible condemns all individuals or puts us all in the need of God's grace. We're all at the foot of the cross, begging God for forgiveness and grace, which he dishes out freely. The Bible does not pick on any one type of person. The Bible condemns opposite sex, sexual immorality,

the same as the Bible condemns same sex, sexual immorality. The people who have some sort of internal disposition toward those acts of sexual immorality, which would include straight and gay and bisexual and queer and transgender people, all people have desires for sexual immorality on some level. So either you can say that we are all equally condemned or you can say that the Bible is not particularly focused on condemning individuals. I mean, however you want to, you know, look at it. The Bible does say that marriage, look at it. The Bible does say that marriage, that sex difference is part of what marriage is. The Bible does put proscriptions or, you know, boundaries upon sexual expression and sexual relationships. And the Bible includes, holds out open arms to all humanity and includes all humanity into a covenant relationship with God who did give a sexual ethic. All people are invited to participate in the covenant community of Yahweh and that

covenant community, like any covenant community, like any religion, like any society is going to have some sexual ethic. And the Bible, Judaism and Christianity happens to have a sexual ethic that says that sex difference is part of what marriage is and same-sex sexual relationships outside that covenant bond are sin or just same-sex sexual relationships are sin. So I just, if you begin with the assumption that the Bible has been misinterpreted to condemn LGBTQ individuals, like the Bible's, you know, picking on LGBTQ people in a different way than it picks on straight people, as homosexual and see that that's not a good translation, then it can be tempting to make the leap that therefore the Bible doesn't condemn same-sex sexual relationships. But that is a leap and that's not an accurate way to render the verses at hand. So, Ed goes on to say, I challenged them to see what was actually

traditionally taught for most of history. And that's just wrong. Most European Bibles, well, three, taught the tradition that these four verses were dealing with pederasty, not homosexuality. Okay, so I hope you see the logical leaps there. He looked at three European translations and rightly showed that they, or no, sorry, looked at three European translations and didn't put them through any sort of scrutiny against the Greek and Hebrew words at hand, assumed that those three European translations are more accurate than the Coptic, Syriac, early English, and Latin Vulgate translations, let alone the original Greek and Hebrew, and then concludes that for most of history, most European Bibles, I mean, three is not most, right? I am saddened when I

see pastors and theologians cast aside the previous 2000 years of history. Now we're talking about 2000 years of history. Wait a minute. I thought that the Swedish and Norwegian and German translations were in the last three, four, 500 years. Again, he didn't even look at the Vulgate, the Coptic or Syriac, let alone the Septuagint, Masoretic text, the Greek text in the New Testament. This is why I collect very old Bibles, lexicons, theological books and commentaries. Most modern biblical commentaries adjusted to accommodate this mistranslation. It's time for the truth to come out.

So again, I'm going to say that this is a massive global leap. You move from looking at some European, I would say, mistranslations, varsinaquites, to all of a sudden make global sweeping statements about church history as a whole. And then the interviewer of this article says, yes, my brother, who's a pastor, also told me the same thing, that every sector of the church has seen same-sex relationships as sinful for 2000 years. But the more I read and study through, the more I just don't see this being true. That's just simply an inaccurate statement. It is true that whenever same-sex sexual relationships, regardless of the German, Norwegian, and Swedish translations in the last few hundred years, it is true that whenever same-sex sexual relationships are mentioned in the last 2,000 years of church

history, they are always categorically unambiguously condemned. If you want a couple resources on that, let me give you one liberal and one conservative. The conservative would be the book by Donald, S. Donald Fortson and Roland Grams called The Unchanging Witness, The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition. I don't actually love this book, by the way. I wouldn't really recommend it. I mean, I read it because I have to read kind of everything on the topic. But what is good about this book is they do spend several pages, not just talking about church tradition and church history and its teaching on homosexuality, but they actually give you the references. That's what, that's why I'm recommending this book is because they actually

quote in full many, many references from early church to middle ages to reformation period. I'm just kind of scanning it right now. And, um, so they give you the actual references. That's what I like about it. I don't like when people just tell me, this is what tradition says. I'm going to see what tradition actually says. So this book does document, um, all those passages, um, so that you don't have to like have a whole bookshelf of early church books on your shelf. I would still recommend going back and checking the original context, but, um, uh, so that's a, it's, and these guys are really conservative. So that's a conservative reference. Also, I would highly recommend Lewis Crompton's book, homosexuality and civilization. Uh, Lewis Crompton is gay. Uh, the late Lewis Crompton, he's, he's passed away, but he was a English professor at University of Nebraska.

And this book is beefy. I mean, it's over 500 pages. And he looks at the history of homosexuality in all civilizations. And he spends several chapters on Western civilization and especially Christianity. And he shows, I mean, that the church has consistently condemned same-sex sexual relationships. So all of a sudden now the article is making these just logical leaps based on three European translations, which I would say have not accurately translated the Greek and Hebrew of the text. translated the Greek and Hebrew of the text. So again, one thing that they never even bring up too is Romans 1. I mean, even if our Sinaquites didn't refer to same-sex sexual relationships, and even if Leviticus 18 and 20 were referring to child molestation, again, none of that's true, but let's just grant that. We still have a couple

things to deal with. Number one, the definition of marriage. Genesis 2, or Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Matthew 19, and other passages define marriage as a one flesh union between two sexually different persons. And to me, again, in this debate, that is the most important topic to discuss when you're discussing whether or not the Bible condemns or condones or celebrates same-sex sexual unions or what we would call today same-sex marriage. We have to ask a question. Well, we shouldn't just leap to the question, does the Bible allow same-sex marriage? We have to back up and ask the question, what is marriage? How does the Bible define the meaning of marriage? When it talks about a one flesh union in Genesis 2, Matthew 19 and others,

what do they mean by one flesh union? And according to Genesis 2, 23 and 24, according to Matthew 19, verses three to five, marriage is not simply the one flesh union between two consensual adults. It is precisely the union between two sexually different persons, two different people coming together as one. And by difference, I mean sexual difference. So we still have the definition of marriage. We also have Romans 1. I mean sexual difference.

So we still have the definition of marriage. We also have Romans 1. This article is making these leaps now to make global statements about church history as a whole, the last 2,000 years as a whole, and the Bible and homosexuality as a whole, without even dealing with Romans 1. So even if we grant that four of the six prohibition passages have been mistranslated, misunderstood, which again isn't true, but even if we grant that, we still six prohibition passages have been mistranslated, misunderstood, which again, isn't true, but even if we grant that, um, we still need to deal with Romans one. And of course we need to deal with marriage. And of course we should also deal with how church history has not just translated our sonaquites, but how church history has addressed the broader

question of same-sex sexual relationships, which again, unambiguously throughout 2000 years of church history is, um, um, has always prohibited same-sex sexual relationships. Okay. Almost done here. Uh, later on that article, almost done now. Um, uh, Ed says, in my opinion, if the revised standard version did not, that's the first English translation they looked at. If the revised standard version did not use the word homosexual in 1 Corinthians 6, 9, and instead would have spent years in proper research to understand homosexuality and to really dig into the historical contextualization, I think what he meant there is context. I think translators would have ended up with a more accurate translation of the abusive nature intended by this word. That argument, um, that the prohibition passages were only talking about abusive same-sex relationships,

that was popular back in the 1980s, um, and I guess early nineties, but has really gone by the wayside because, well, because of the massive amount of evidence that the biblical prohibition passages cannot be limited to simply abusive relationships. Again, as I said earlier, I mean, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, and Romans 1 all say that both partners in the same-sex sexual act are condemned, are doing something wrong. If one person was simply raping or abusing somebody else, the abuser would not be condemned. That's what, oh, who was that? Jay Sklar pointed that out in the bits of his article that I read earlier. And that's really clear. And we also see in the historical context,

a diverse array of same-sex sexual relationships, especially, or what's interesting and a little bit ironic is that oftentimes when people talk about the abusive nature of same-sex sex relationships in the ancient world, they are only talking about male same-sex relationships. Which, haven't we learned in 2019 to not be so male-centered? I mean, shouldn't we consider, equally consider females? consider, equally consider females? And in this conversation, I think, shouldn't we consider equally female same-sex relationships and not just read the entire conversation about homosexuality through the lens of men and males? So when you look at the ancient world and when you see evidence of same-sex sexual relationships between females, all the way from the Greek poet Sappho, all the way in through the second and third centuries AD, we see lots of evidence of adult consensual same-sex relationships among

or between females. And we also see evidence of male, adult male, same-sex sexual relationships that were consensual. Yes, it is true. Pederasty was widespread in the Greco-Roman world. We don't have a lot of evidence of it in the ancient Near East world. We do see some evidence of it. So to assume that Leviticus is actually talking about Pederasty would be kind of historically anachronistic, kind of reading Greco-Roman stuff back into the ancient Near East. Again, I'm not saying it didn't exist in the ancient Near East, but it wasn't nearly as

widespread as it was in the Greco-Roman world. But in any case, yes, pederasty was widespread in the Greco-Roman world, but it wasn't the exclusive form of same-sex sexual relationships. And it didn't really exist among females. There might be some debated examples of it among females, but clearly it was a male thing that was popular. But when we talk about female same-sex relationships, we're talking about adult consensual relationships. Let me end on a positive note. I really actually like at least two of the three final points that this article makes. They do challenge LGBTQ Christians today. And I think when they say LGBTQ Christians, I think they mean affirming LGBTQ Christians,

which I guess I won't get into that. We're already going long here. But the advice given to LGBTQ Christians is, number one, have patience and grace with the church. I really appreciate that. I really appreciated that plea at the end that pastors are well-intentioned, well-intended. They might not have done the extensive research that maybe they should have on this conversation. So we extend them grace and patience. I really appreciate that. Number two, seek out, a second piece of advice is seek out LGBTQ Christians who have done their due diligence on this topic and reached a point of peace between their sexuality and God.

I would say, well, I guess I don't really love, yeah, sure. I'm a huge fan of talking to people who are actually LGBTQ and have wrestled with their sexuality. But I would add to this, seek out LGBTQ Christians who have done their due diligence. Maybe some have reached peace with their sexuality in God, meaning they're affirming, but also maybe some that have not come to the conclusion that God affirms same-sex sexual relationships. So don't just seek out one ideological camp, seek out a broad range of LGBTQ Christians. And number three, Ed concludes by saying, often remind yourself that this mess is not caused by God, but instead is a result of people who have been entrusted with free will.

I can affirm some of that, that many Christians, not God, have used the Bible in really horrendous ways to condemn LGBTQ people and have done so in a really abusive way. And that's terrible. That's absolutely horrible. way. And that's terrible. That's absolutely horrible. Um, but I think what Ed means here is that God has not actually, um, said that marriage is between two sexually different people, that God has not prohibited a man from lying with a man, that God has not prohibited women from lying with women. But that, so that, of course I would disagree with that. I think you can honor and love and cherish and extend grace toward gay people just as long, just as much as you can honor and extend grace towards and show kindness towards straight people, because we are all at the foot of the cross committing sin before God and in

need of God's gracious redemption and free forgiveness. When we ask for forgiveness, submit to God's will and repent from our sins and pursue him in an imperfect struggle towards holiness and righteousness. And part of holiness and righteousness, I would argue, and much of church history would argue, includes sexual faithfulness, celibacy and singleness, or sexual faithfulness toward your opposite sex partner in the one flesh union we now call marriage. Thanks for listening to this very long episode on one single verse, where I guess we talked about a few different verses here. But again, I can't emphasize enough.

I would highly recommend you not just believing me, but going and doing your own homework and reading this article. Again, the article is titled, Has Homosexual Always Been in the Bible? Highly recommend you reading it and thinking for yourself. Make sure you do your own due diligence and to the best of your ability, try to understand the Bible in its original context. I'm Preston Sprinkle, and you've been listening to Theology in the World. Thank you.