Thinking Out Loud with Alan Shlemon - How the Film 1946 Fails to Advance Pro-Gay Theology

Episode Date: November 5, 2024

Alan wrote two critical articles about the film, 1946: The Mistranslation that Shifted Culture, prior to ever watching the film. Now that he's seen it, Alan evaluates whether his assessment was correct.

I wrote two articles about the film 1946, The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture, and I wrote these two articles before I ever saw the film. Well, now that I've watched it, was my assessment correct? Well, that's what I want to talk about in this episode of my podcast, Thinking Out Loud with Alan Schliemann. Now, towards the beginning of the film 1946, The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture, which is a film that attempts to advance pro-gay theology. One of the film's co-stars, or one of the film's stars, actually, his name is Ed Oxford. He says, quote, the only way I was going to be okay with being gay was if God could convince me through scripture, end quote. Now, I agree with Oxford. I think whether something is permissible or not should be determined through Scripture. But unfortunately for Oxford and for other pro-gay theology advocates, the Bible doesn't teach that homosexual sex is permissible or that God is, quote, okay with being gay.

Even Kathy Baldock, who is the other researcher in the film, she admits that scripture doesn't contain any positive reference to homosexuality. Okay, well then, what case then does the film 1946 make to suggest that homosexual sex or that same-sex marriage is biblically permissible? Well, now that I've watched the film, I can confirm that my previous two articles that I wrote about it are actually accurate. In fact, in my first article, I claimed that the entire movie is a non sequitur. And by non sequitur, I mean that nothing follows from the fact that in the film 1946, where they have this 21-year-old seminary student call out the RSV translation team. Like, nothing follows from the fact that this seminary student called out the RSV translation team when they decided to render this Greek word arsenokoitai as homosexuals.

And then in my second article, I claimed that even if we were to use a time travel machine to, you know, go back in time and prevent the word homosexual from ever appearing anywhere in 1 Corinthians 6, 9, that it would actually make no difference in the Bible's teaching. And therefore, it wouldn't make any difference in the church's teaching on sex, marriage, and homosexuality. Okay, well, so now that I've seen the film, the question is, is are there any compelling arguments that deliver on Ed Oxford's wish that God could convince him through scripture that being gay is okay? Now, in short, the answer is no. The film's core argument is based on the

same argument that pro-gay theology advocates have advanced in the past. And remember, here's the pro-gay theology claim. The claim is that the Bible does condemn homosexual sex, but get this, only abusive or exploitive forms of homosexual sex. In other words, what they want to say is, okay, the Greek word arsenokoitai, which is this word that's translated as homosexuals in a lot of Bible translations in 1 Corinthians 6, 9, they say this word arsenokoitai contemns pederasty, which is men who have sex with boys. And the implication is that since men and women who identify as gay today do not engage in such exploitive homosexual sex, right, where they're having sex with boys, therefore the biblical prohibition does not apply to them. Okay, so that's the pro-gay theology argument. Okay.

Now, the arguments that are made in the film are not convincing for several reasons. And I just want to address three of those reasons right here. So first of all, the method the film 1946 follows to arrive at its interpretation is a flawed method, right? So there's been a tremendous amount of time spent that it's tracing the history of how 1 Corinthians 6-9 has been interpreted, right? And in the film, they take a bunch of time doing this. And at one point in the film, Ed Oxford pulls out a 1581 Greek-Latin lexicon and points

out that the word arsenokoitai in this nearly 500-year-old lexicon, that the word arsenokoitai in this, you know, nearly, you know, 500-year-old lexicon, that the word arson and koitai was translated as pedico, which he claims means boy molester. And then in another instance in the film, Ed Oxford points out that Martin Luther's translation used the German word, and I'm not going to be able to pronounce this word correctly. I think it's like Knabenschwander or something like that. It doesn't matter. But Martin Luther's translation uses German word, which means violator of boys. Now, also one of the heroes of the film

is this guy named David Fearon, who at the time, not of the film's making, but back in 1946, he was a 21-year-old seminary student, and he challenged the 1946 RSV translations team decision to interpret the Greek word arsenokoitai as homosexuals. Okay? So you have all these ways that this film tries to say, hey, here's why the interpretation of the word arsenikoitai as homosexuals is invalid, okay? Now, all of these methods and stories are interesting, but they're not relevant, all right? Because certainly a 16th century Latin and German translation can be considered, but, you know, modern scholarship today is not beholden

to a 16th century conclusion, right? It's also probably safe to say that biblical scholars don't turn to 21-year-old seminary students for insights into the Greek prior to publishing a major Bible translation, right? I mean, modern Bible translation teams combine the best modern scholarship with the most current manuscript evidence, right? And that's because they're aware of pro-gay theology claims, but still dismiss them as unjustified. Now, their reasoning as to why they dismiss pro-gay theology claims is not difficult to understand. You see, the word arsenokoitai, which is this Greek word, is formed by the combination of two Greek words, arsen, which means male, and koite, or koitin, which means lying. Okay. And so the word arsenokoitai, when you combine those two words, literally means men who lie with a male.

men who lie with a male. So it's not surprising that the most prominent English translation today, which is the NIV, I think 2011 update edition, it's not surprising that that NIV translation translates the Greek word as men who have sex with men. Okay. That's seems pretty consistent. The word literally means that. And since such behavior, men who have sex with men, is consistent with what male homosexuals do today, it's not difficult to understand why many translation teams, not just the 1946 RSV translation team, chose to render the Greek word as homosexuals. Right. Now, personally, I don't particularly care for the translation as homosexuals right now personally i don't particularly care for the translation as homosexuals i think i prefer a more literal translation or a literal rendering which says men who lie with a male or men who bed a male okay now it's also worth noting that the greek words arson and coite appear together in two Greek Old Testament

Septuagint verses. So the Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which is, of course, originally written in Hebrew, mostly. So the words arson and koite, which together form the word arson and koite, those two words appear in two verses in the Old Testament Septuagint. And they happen to be Leviticus 18.22, which says, you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. And Leviticus 20.13, which says, if there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, it is an abomination, so on and so forth, right? So in other words, these two words, arsenokoitai, which are the composite words that were used to form the word arsenokoitai, appear in the Mosaic Law in these two verses that condemn homosexual behavior.

So get this. The word arsenokoitai literally means men who lie with a male. And the two component words that were used to create this new word are found together in the two Mosaic prohibitions of homosexuality, right? So the connection then of arsenokoitai to the homosexual prohibition of Leviticus further strengthens the argument that this word arsenokoitai is condemning man-to-man sexual acts. And so it's for these reasons that some Bible translation teams have chosen to use the word homosexuals in 1 Corinthians 6.9. Now, even if you concede that's not the most accurate rendering, the more word-for-word translation, which is men who lie with a male, doesn't fare any better for pro-gay theology advocates. Okay, so that's the first reason why I think the arguments in the film 1946 are not convincing.

The second reason is that Paul wasn't trying to condemn pederasty. Now, remember, according to the film 1946, the Apostle Paul was trying to condemn men who sexually exploit boys. Now, if that was true, why didn't Paul use a word that communicated men trying to exploit boys or men trying to have sex with little boys? Why did he not use a word that communicated pederasty? Right. Think about this. Paul was a very highly educated man. And it turns out there are multiple Greek words available to him to condemn such exploitive behavior of boys.

For example, he could have used the word pederasti, which means lover of boys. He could have used the word pedomane, which means men mad for boys. Or he could have used the word pedothoroi, which means corruptor of boys. Or he could have used the word pedothoroi, which means corruptor of boys. So Paul could have chosen any of those words that contained the root word pedo, which refers to boy, but he didn't. He purposely avoided that word, thereby notokoitai, which contains the word arson, which means male, which intentionally broadens the scope of the word's condemnation. So, either Paul and the Holy Spirit, who inspired Paul's writing, either Paul and the Holy Spirit are the most incompetent communicators on the earth, or, which is more likely, Paul purposely chose not to limit the condemnation to exploitive homosexual sex of boys. Rather, Paul wrote in such a way as to condemn all male-to-male

sexual contact. And the third reason the arguments in the film 1946 are not convincing is because the film doesn't succeed in making a positive case for homosexual sex and same-sex marriage. Rather, the film merely attempts to undermine the case against homosexual sex. Now recall, Ed Oxford wants God to convince him through scripture that being gay is okay. But is the pro-gay theology movement content with merely substantiating the claim that being gay is okay? Because notice, for pro-gay theology to succeed, advocates need to provide evidence that Scripture affirms both homosexual sex and same-sex marriage. Because think about it. If Scripture permits homosexual sex, but then prohibits same-sex marriage, well, of course, their case will crumble, right?

Scripture reserves sexual activity for marriage. So therefore, if Scripture does not affirm two men or two women becoming a one-flesh union in the covenant of marriage, well, then they can't engage in homosexual sex. homosexual sex. Alternately, if scripture permits same-sex marriage, but then prohibits homosexual sex, well, then the two men or two women can marry, but sexual intimacy in their marriage is prohibited. So, progate theology needs a positive biblical case, right, a positive biblical case for homosexual sex and same-sex marriage in order for it to succeed. But the thing is, is that the film, 1946, doesn't even attempt to deliver on that very lofty goal. It merely tries to tear down the case against homosexual sex. And, of course, it fails, as I've argued.

But even if we were to grant that it succeeds for making a case against homosexual sex, then the positive case for homosexual sex in same-sex marriage is still completely absent. Now, you might say, Alan, well, think the film does include some interesting interactions with the director, Sharon's father. Her father is named Sal Raggio. I may be mispronouncing it. I apologize. But the director, Sharon's father, is a pastor who disagrees with pro-gay theology. And consequently, he's at odds with his daughter's lesbianism and, of course, her advocacy via this film. So Sharon is to be really commended for including her father in the film and poignantly kind of capturing the tension between her and her father. In fact, she gives him very generous screen time where he's allowed to explain his views, acknowledges the significant divide between him and his daughter, and then he expresses his genuine love for his lesbian daughter.

And I think it's actually a touching narrative that runs through the film and captures, I think, a very real world example of what happens in many families who disagree on this subject. happens in many families who disagree on this subject. But in terms of the case for progate theology, 1946 basically just repeats the same, the Bible doesn't condemn that kind of homosexuality type of argument, but it just does it in a film form. And so there's no new arguments that I haven't responded to before. So just to kind of conclude my thoughts here, it's been now 2,000 years that the church has held that scripture teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman and teaches that sex can only occur within the covenant of marriage and teaches that any sexual activity, including homosexual sex, outside of a man and woman marriage is sin. And so that's what God has said in his word, right? And pro-gay theology advocates are simply repeating the serpent's lie,

did God really say, right? They question God's word, they instill doubt in a lot of believers' minds, and they lead many people astray. And it's, you know, interesting that when Jesus was confronted with the devil's half-truths, notice how he responded with scripture, right? I think we too should remember Paul's charge to his protege Timothy. And this is what Paul writes in 2 Timothy 1, 13 through 14. He says, retain the standard of sound words, which you've heard from me in the faith and love, which are in Christ Jesus. Guard through the Holy Spirit who dwells He says, My prayer is that the Holy Spirit grant us the discernment, the courage, and the wisdom to fulfill such a significant task. Well, that's all I have for you today. If you've enjoyed this episode, I encourage you to share it with a friend. And then also don't forget to subscribe to my podcast so you don't miss any future episodes.

And thank you for listening. I look forward to thinking out loud with you next time.