Is homosexuality condemned in the Scriptures?
Question:
This was received in response to the answer "What kinds of homosexuality does the Bible mention?"
Malokos just meant soft as in weak in faith and arsen is male or man and homosexual means male and female gay people, so arsenokotie only meant a gay male temple prostitute.
Levitical law is now dead so I don't think it matters now what it says.
In Romans, Paul says these people were inflamed in lust and passions and so not a word is spoken against same-sex love in these passages, so where are these texts against same-sex love?
The Old Law does not condemn lesbians, does it? In fact, the Old Testament makes no laws or comments against gay women. Therefore, it was not a sin in the Old Testament times. Jesus makes no comment against sexuality and yet he does make comments of all sexual sin of his day. The Ten Commandments are all silent on all things gay, as are the main law books of the Bible, but Levitical law does say if a man lies with another man it is to'evah and this word does not mean abomination, but idolatry, so the sin here must be gay sex in idolatry cult rites as the word says!
Answer:
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (II Timothy 4:3-4).
The original question was whether the Bible said that gay love (homosexuality) was called a sin. I sent you a previous, related answer, but rather than deal with the information presented, you look for ways to justify to yourself that you can safely ignore the facts. I'm not surprised. Paul warned, "But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted" (I Timothy 1:5-11).
Your main attempt is to change the definition of the words used within the Scriptures. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but the facts remain as presented. Your definitions are imaginary. The definitions I gave came from actual dictionaries. The definitions are not solely based on scriptural usage. Homosexuality was practiced in Greek society. There are documents where these words are used.
Allow me to quote from The Complete Biblical Library Greek - English Dictionary under the entry for malakos: "Classical Greek: This is the word for "soft" or "soft to the touch." Throughout classical Greek, malakos is used (1) of this, such as clothes, and (2) of persons, especially to denote catamites, those who allow themselves passively to be used homosexually. New Testament Usage: Both classical senses are employed in the New Testament. Matthew 11:8 (twice) and Luke 7:25 use malakos when speaking of clothing. The Baptist's clothes were not of a soft texture like the raiment of the rich. In I Corinthians 6:9 malakos is used in the metaphoric sense. Here it refers to persons who are "soft." The rendering "effeminate" (malakos) designates the passive partner of a homosexual relationship, and "abusers of themselves with mankind" (malakos and arsenokoites) denotes both the passive and active homosexual partners." Hence, your claim that malakos meant "weak in faith" is without substance.
In addition, Greek literature doesn't use malakos to mean "weak in faith." For one example, Dionysius Halicarnassus Book VII, 2, 4: "At that time, the tyrant of Cumae was Aristodemos, the son of Aristocrates, a man, not of the common men in birth, who was called Malakos (effeminate) by his townsmen. In time, he held a nickname more notable than his original name. He was called Malakos either because as a child, he was effeminate and suffered that which is fitting for women, as some narrate, or because he was tame by nature and was soft in temperament, as others write."
Arsenokoites is a compound Greek word. It doesn't appear often in Greek literature, but it is meaning is quite clear. Arsen is the Greek word for "male" and koites is the Greek word for "bed". The latter is where English gets its word "cot." Koites is a euphemism in Greek for sexual intercourse, sexual excesses, and seminal emission. (English also gets its word "coitus" from this Greek word.) Examples of this can be found in Hebrews 13:4; Romans 9:10; and Romans 13:13. It doesn't take a depth of scholarship to understand what arsenokoiths is referring.
Nor does it match the context of the passage in I Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." People understand that fornication, adultery, stealing, drunkenness, etc. are condemned, not just in idol worship, but in all contexts. You artificially try to limit the application of the two words for homosexual acts to only idol worship and then claim that it cannot cover homosexual "love". But do not those who commit adultery or fornication justify their sins by claiming that they are "in love?" It is the action that is condemned. Sex outside the covenant of marriage is wrong, period, no matter how it is foolishly justified. Homosexual acts are wrong, period, no matter how it is foolishly justified.
You then try to dismiss Old Testament commands against homosexuality. You are correct that we do not live under these laws, but it doesn't mean that we cannot learn from them. "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope" (Romans 15:4). I find it amusing that though you dismissed the clear definition of homosexuality: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). Yet, you contradict yourself by trying to build a case that lesbian relationships were not mentioned in the Old Testament. Which will it be? Again, you attempt to create an artificial distinction by claiming that it only applies to idol worship. If such were so, then does that mean the verse two prior also is only talking about idolatry? The one that says, "Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, to defile yourself with her" (Leviticus 18:20). Or are you going to claim as you did before that if they did it because they were "in love" then it doesn't apply?
The imaginary definition of to'evah is also wrong. It appears over 115 times in the Old Testament and is consistently translated as an abomination. Citing The Complete Biblical Library: Hebrew - English Dictionary: "The word is primarily used of things, persons, or practices that are either ritually or morally offensive to the Lord."
You also try to play games with God's word by creating artificial boundaries. "The Ten Commandments don't mention homosexuality" and "the main law books of the Old Testament don't mention homosexuality." The fact is that Leviticus is a major law book and it does mention homosexuality; so does Genesis, Deuteronomy, Judges, I Kings, II Kings, and Job. The Ten Commandments were an introduction to God's laws. They are not the complete set. There are many sins not mentioned, such lying or the eating of blood, but it doesn't mean that these things were not sins under that law.
You also try to play a shell game. While claiming that the Old Testament doesn't mention lesbians, you gloss right over the fact that they are mentioned in the New Testament.
Finally, you wish to dismiss the clear condemnation in Romans: "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due" (Romans 1:26-27), because Paul mentions that the motivation is passion and not love. The reason that the Bible doesn't mention "gay love" is because such a thing does not exist. In defining love, Paul said, love "thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth" (I Corinthians 13:5-6). People cannot be involved in sin and claim to be in love at the same time. Having sex outside of marriage is not love. Cheating on a spouse is not love. And having sex with someone of the same gender is not love.
