Thinking Out Loud with Alan Shlemon - If Pro-Gay Theology Advocates Could Change the Past, Would that Change the Future Like They Want?

Episode Date: February 13, 2024

Alan explains what would happen if someone was to go back in time to 1946 and stop the RSV Bible translation team from using the word “homosexuals.” He unpacks whether this would change the Bible���s teaching on marriage, homosexuality, and sexual ethics today.

If someone were to commandeer the Avengers time machine and go back to 1946 and stop the RSV translation team from using the word homosexuals in the Bible, well, what kind of new timeline would that create? What would the Bible's teaching on homosexuality and sexual ethics look like today? Well, I want to answer that question in this episode of my podcast, Thinking Out Loud with Alan Schliemann. Multiverse movies are all the rage these days. I'm sure you've seen a number of them. There's like Spider-Man, The Avengers, The Flash, and it seems like everybody wants to go back in time, correct a mistake in the past, and then sort of live in this new corrected timeline that is free

of their perceived defect. Well, I want to ask a question here. Well, what if the pro-gay theology advocates of the film 1946, The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture, what if those filmmakers were able to harness that same power? I mean, if they can go back in time, what changes would they make? And what kind of ripple effect would that have on the new universe that they create? what kind of ripple effect would that have on the new universe that they create? And specifically, I'm wondering, how would their timeline's changes affect the Bible's teaching on marriage, homosexuality, and sexual ethics? Now, the film 1946 claims that the translation team of the 1946 RSV Bible wrongly translated the Greek word arsenokoitai as homosexuals in the Bible. And specifically here, they're talking about 1 Corinthians 6.9 and 1 Timothy 1.10. Now, as a result, they claim that the mistaken translation inappropriately influenced future English versions of the Bible to also include

the word homosexuals. And they claim then that this has led to homophobia and other kinds of persecution of the LGBT community. Now, imagine then, okay, that the filmmakers of 1946, they contact Tony Stark, okay? They get a hold of the Marvel Avengers. Right. They talk to them and they end up succeeding in convincing the Avengers to let them borrow their time machine. And so these filmmakers assemble their own intrepid team. We'll call them, like, say, the pro-gay theology Avengers. And they travel back in time and they show up at the RSV translation team's meeting in 1946 to prevent the committee from translating arsenokoitai as homosexuals. Now, if they were able to do that and if they were able to succeed, what would the new timeline of history look like? Specifically, if the word homosexuals never occurred in any Bible verse,

what changes would result in this sort of new future, right? What would the Bible's teaching on marriage, homosexuality, and sexual ethics look like today? Well, here's the answer. Here's what would change. Nothing. Absolutely nothing would change. There would be no difference in the Bible's teaching on marriage, homosexuality, or biblical sexual ethics. Now, of course, I mean, don't get me wrong. Yes, some things in the universe would be different, right? Obviously, because if you make even a tiny change in the past, right, in history, that of course cause a ripple effect in the future. But when it comes to biblical sexual ethics, they would not change. There

would be no new permissions in the Bible and no new prohibitions either. In fact, the pro-gay theology Avengers would probably return back to the present moment and be disappointed because their position would remain hermeneutically unjustifiable even after removing the word homosexuals from the Bible. And here's how I know. Even if you erased 1 Corinthians 6.9 and 1 Timothy 1.10, which are the two verses that contain this Greek word arsenokoitai, which has been translated as homosexuals. So even if you were to erase those two verses from the Bible,

two biblical teachings would remain unchanged. Number one is that Scripture's teaching on sex and marriage would remain unchanged. And number two, the Old and New Testament teaching that homosexual sex is sin would still remain also unchanged. So let me unpack each of these. All right. So first is the Bible would still end up teaching what sex and marriage should look like. Right. So remember, you know, if you read Genesis, shortly after the creation event, God made humanity as, quote, male and female, end quote. This is Genesis 1.26. And not only did God create male and female, he outlined his blueprint for sex and marriage, explaining that a man shall leave his father and his mother, be words, not two men, not two women, or any other grouping,

only a man and a woman are described in Scripture as being able to create a one-flesh union. And so God blesses them and says to them, be fruitful and multiply. Again, this is Genesis 1, verses 27 through 28. Now, this is not only some Old Testament teaching, like that's the old stuff. It's no longer valid. Rather, Jesus also endorsed this view in the New Testament when he quotes both of those passages. And listen to what Jesus says. Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. Okay, that's Matthew 19 verses four through six. And so notice Jesus cites the Genesis account of creation about sex and marriage because he believes it's still authoritative. And so you could summarize Jesus's view about sex and marriage as one man with one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime. And so notice then, this is a key

point, the Bible and Jesus's teaching, okay, the Bible and Jesus's teaching on sex and marriage alone disqualifies homosexual sex as an option. In other words, if we only had the Bible's teaching and Jesus' teaching on sex and marriage, that alone would disqualify homosexual sex as an option. Even if there was not a single passage referring to homosexuality elsewhere in Scripture, passage referring to homosexuality elsewhere in scripture, it would still be evident that homosexual sex is sin simply because it deviates from the Bible's positive teaching on sex and marriage. Now, it also turns out, though, that scripture also addresses prohibited sex acts. One of them is homosexual sex. And so this brings us to the second point that I'd make with regards to what would not change even if the pro-gay theology Avengers went back in time and changed things up at the RSV translation team's meeting. Here's what else would not change.

The Bible would still teach that homosexual sex is sin in both Old and New Testaments. All right. So both Leviticus 18.22 and Leviticus 20.13 are similar verses, and they're very simple in their formulation. All right. So you got, you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. Or you also have, if there is a man who lies with a male as one lies with a female. Or you also have, if there is a man who lies with a male as one lies with a female, I'm sorry, with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act. Okay. So those are the two verses. And notice how straightforward the prohibition is.

It just says, if you're a man, you can't lie with a man as you would with a woman. Okay. It's very simple. Now, pro-gay theology advocates claim that these verses only refer to coercive, exploitive, or abusive forms of homosexuality. Like for example, you know, master-slave sodomy or men who have sex with boys. And they say that since modern gay and lesbian interactions are characterized by loving, consensual relationships, well, therefore, the Levitical prohibitions here do not apply. But the problem with this objection is that it's such an extrapolation that goes beyond the words in the verse, right? extrapolation that goes beyond the words in the verse, right? Not only does Leviticus 18.22 not say that, but you couldn't deduce that conclusion from the context, right? Because the verse before this passage is a prohibition against sacrificing your children to Molech. And the verse after

that text is a prohibition against sex with animals. So nothing even in the context then indicates that this verse is limited to abusive or coercive or exploitive homosexual sex acts. Nor is there any kind of exception made for loving consensual relationships. In fact, notice in Leviticus 2013, it implicates both individuals. Remember, it says, quote, both of them have committed a detestable act, end quote. So in other words, in Leviticus 2013, it indicates that the act was consensual. And so therefore, the Levitical verses categorically reject any type of homosexual sex and do not limit their condemnation just to abusive, coercive, or exploitive, you know, homosexual sex acts. Now, the other way that pro-gay theology advocates attempt to dismiss the two Levitical texts is by arguing that Leviticus does not apply to New Testament believers. And they'll say Christ, right, fulfilled the Mosaic law's requirements,

which of course includes Leviticus, and Christ established a new covenant. Now, while I agree that the Levitical prohibitions of the Mosaic covenant aren't part of the new covenant, I agree that the Levitical prohibitions of the Mosaic covenant aren't part of the new covenant, there are three things that are worth mentioning about this particular objection. First, is that the objection acknowledges that these two Levitical texts prohibited homosexual sex during the Mosaic covenant. So in other words, even if the prohibition only applied to then, it's worth noting that God deemed homosexual sex a sin during that time. But second of all, the prohibited acts in Leviticus 18 were not only sinful for Jews under the theocracy of Israel, but they also applied to non-Jews and other nations. And here's how I know.

to non-Jews and other nations. And here's how I know. Notice that after listing the various sins in chapter 18, God required the, and here's a quotation, the alien who sojourns among you, end quote, okay, to not violate these prohibitions. This is Leviticus 18, 26. And God also held non-Israeli nations responsible for committing these sins and cast them out of the land as punishment. This is Leviticus 1824. So therefore, the homosexual

prohibition had a broader application to more than just the Jews under the theocracy. And then here's my third response to this objection against Leviticus. Some Levitical prohibitions represent universal moral principles that go beyond the Mosaic era. So murder, for example, is prohibited in Leviticus. But obviously, we don't claim that such a prohibition is no longer relevant, right? And that's because it's a universal truth that human lives are valuable. And such a principle is expressed not only in the Mosaic law, but also in the New Covenant era. And the same is true with homosexual sex. It's prohibited in Leviticus, but it's also prohibited in the New Testament, for example, in Romans 1, verses 26 through 27.

And that's because the Bible upholds the universal truth that sex should only occur between a married man and woman. So, going back to the pro-gay theology Avengers, right? Even if they were to successfully alter the past by removing the word homosexuals from the Bible, right, from 1 Corinthians 6, 9 and 1 Timothy 1, 10, Romans 1, 20, 60, 27 would still exist and would still teach that homosexual sex is sin. And this is what that particular text says. Remember, it's written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So Romans 1, 20, 60, 27 says this. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions.

For their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural. And in the same way, also, the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another. Men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. So there you have those two verses from Romans 1, okay? Now, when you heard me say the word function in English, this is translated from the Greek word krisis, which according to the standard Greek lexicon means use, relations, especially of sexual intercourse.

So Paul then, really, he's making a design argument. He's saying men are designed to sexually function with women, and women are designed to sexually function with men. And the men he refers to in this passage abandoned the natural sexual function of the woman and engaged in a men-with-men kind of act that Paul describes as unnatural and indecent. Now, it's important to recognize, even though the word homosexuals doesn't appear, and by the way, has never appeared, in any English translation of this Romans 1 passage, there's very little uncertainty as to what Paul is condemning. And that's because Paul clearly describes the behavior that is prohibited.

What behavior? Well, the behavior when a man abandons the natural sexual function of a woman and has sex with another man. And I'll also point out that it's worth noting that the context of this passage, Romans 1, is a creation narrative which further strengthens this interpretation. If you begin at the beginning of Romans 1, you see Paul explains how the evidence of God's handiwork in creation is so obvious that Paul says, man is without excuse for not believing that there's a God who made what we see. This is Romans 1.20. And some people, Paul continues, reject the obvious evidence of God's hand in creation, and they end up worshiping the creation rather than the creator.

This is Romans 1.25. And these rebellious people reject the truth of God. And it is within the context of these rebellious people who are exchanging the truth of God for a lie that men exchange the natural function and design of a woman for a man. Therefore, even if the pro-gay theology Avengers were to succeed in traveling back in time to prevent the word homosexuals from entering the Bible, it wouldn't change the Bible's teaching on marriage, homosexuality, and sexual ethics, right? Because scripture would still tell us that Jesus' design for marriage requires a man and a woman for the creation of

a one-flesh union. And we would still know from scripture that both Old and New Testaments teach that homosexual sex is sin. And that's why I've argued in my online articles that the film's claims are irrelevant. They're attacking a straw man. Our view, which I would argue is the biblical view, right, is not that the Bible labels a person, a homosexual, as a sinner. Our view is that the Bible condemns a behavior, homosexual sex, regardless of who engages in it. In fact, the Greek word arsenokoitai, which the film claims is mistranslated as homosexuals,

is a compound word that literally means men who lie with males. So in one sense, I agree with the film. Yeah, homosexuals probably isn't the best translation. I kind of actually prefer how the NIV translates it, which is men who have sex with men. Because the claim is that the Bible condemns a behavior. Either way, no matter the pro-gay theology Avengers success or failure, pro-gay theology remains mistaken and homosexual sex remains sinful, both in our universe and in the multiverse. Well, that's all I have for you today. If you've enjoyed listening to this episode, I encourage you to share it with a friend.

And also, don't forget to subscribe to my podcast so you don't miss any episodes. And thank you for listening. I look forward to thinking out loud with you next time.