men who have sex with men?

Happy New Year! I've been corresponding with Colin Smith, founder of an Australian website, GaysAndSlaves.com

Colin is encouraging the NIV Committee, when they revise the NIV, to translate the Greek word, arsenokoitai, in 1 Cor 6:9 as "men who have sex with men."

Here is Colin's most recent email to me on the topic.

"Hi Rick

Thank you for your email earlier this month about my suggestion for the revision of the NIV.

It appears to me that although we both have a similar objective, we are using different tactics to achieve the objective. “GayChristian101” seems to aim at showing that any biblical condemnation of homosexuality (same-sex activity) is actually condemning only specific activity such as shrine prostitution, and not sex between faithful, committed, same-sex equals.

Conversely, the “Gay and Christian” site (www.gaysandslaves.com) accepts that the Bible does prohibit and criticize all penetrative sex between men (homosexuality). But the site also shows that the prohibition and criticism do not apply today when the sexual activity causes no harm. Also, the prohibition and criticism do not apply today because they applied only to the ancient Israelite and Greco-Roman cultures. The Bible criticizes, but does not prohibit, sex between women. The site gives detailed reasons for all these conclusions.

In answer to your first, third and fourth points, it does not really matter what arsenokoitai meant during the first 600 years of church history since words change meaning over decades and centuries. It only matters what arsenokoitai meant during Paul’s time.

The fact that Paul does not define arsenokoitai is, strange as it may seem, an indication that it means “men who have sex with men”. We can assume that Paul intended the Corinthian Christians and Timothy to understand what he meant by the newly-coined word arsenokoitai (without defining it). They would therefore have had to work out its meaning. And the only way they could do this would be to break the word into its constituent parts (arseno – male and koitai – beds or sexual-lying) and recombine it as male-bedders (men who take men to bed for sex). This is a special instance where one can only find the meaning of a word from its constituent parts.

You also stated that arsenokoitai may have indicated shrine prostitution, based on Philo's assertion that Moses intended to prohibit shrine prostitution in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. However a careful study of the full passage you refer to (The Special Laws, III, VII, 37-42) shows that if Philo is referring to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, he is primarily referring to men acting like women and men having sex with other men. He refers only incidentally to shrine prostitution. Therefore arsenokoitai does not really indicate shrine prostitution at all.

In answer to your second point, I don’t think that using “men who have sex with men” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 will make the present situation any worse for gay men. It seems probable that the NIV translators will at least change the NIV words to those in the TNIV, i.e. “nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals” (Corinthians) and “those practicing homosexuality” (Timothy). Therefore men having sex in faithful same-sex partnerships would be criticized in the new NIV whether “practicing homosexuals” or “men who have sex with men” is used. Using the latter has the advantage of avoiding any stigma attached to the word “homosexuals”.

And “men who have sex with men” also has the advantage of being a more accurate translation. These suggested words would reflect Paul’s apparent intention of not covering same-sex women (lesbians) while covering straight men who have sex with men (his letters uphold the sexual conduct parts of the Torah, including Leviticus 18:22, in line with Acts 15:28-29).

It might be noted that both malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 are included in my suggested translation of “men who have sex with men”. Malakoi probably means either “effeminate men” or “men who have passive sex with other men”. It would appear that the case for malakoi meaning “men who have passive sex with other men” is the stronger, particularly because Paul implicitly condemns such men elsewhere in his letters (Romans 1:27) but does not similarly condemn effeminate men. A detailed examination of the possible meanings of malakoi can be seen onhttp://www.gaysandslaves.com/mal_discuss.html.

Finally, I would emphasise again that although I consider the Bible does prohibit and criticize all penetrative sex between men, I also consider that the prohibition and criticism do NOT apply to men today for the reasons given on the “Gay and Christian” site (www.gaysandslaves.com). Sex between men is therefore okay provided no one is harmed.

As you sent substantially the same email to Mary Pearson of ChristianGays.com, I am sending a copy of this reply to her also.

Regards.

Colin Smith"

And here is my reply to Colin.

"Hi Colin-

How nice to hear from you again. I hope you are enjoying the beautiful Australian summer. Its chilly here (even in north Florida where I live, it is expected to be 25 degrees tonight) and I long for the warmth of summer.

I believe we have a basic disagreement over what the Bible says about homosexual relationships. You are of the opinion that the Bible prohibits and criticizes all penetrative sex between men, essentially the Robert Gagnon position.

A careful reading of Dr. Gagnon's book indicates that he believes the Levitical prohibitions are linked to shrine prostitution (see pages 100-110, 130-136) but he segues from that truth to conclude, against the evidence, that Moses and God intended nonetheless, to prohibit all lesbian and gay sexual activity.

Your views about 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 are inextricably linked to your incorrect view of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Starting from an incorrect understanding of Leviticus leads inexorably to a false conclusion about Paul's use of the arsenokoit stem.

I believe it is vitally important to know what the arsenokoit stem meant in the early centuries of church history.

You wrote: "We can assume that Paul intended the Corinthian Christians and Timothy to understand what he meant by the newly-coined word arsenokoitai (without defining it)."

I believe we need not "assume" your conclusion, that arsenokoitai means "men who have sex with men" or that Paul intended his readers to arrive at that conclusion based on the etymology of arsenokoitai.

Philo's views were widely known in the first half of the first century. Jews and intelligent Gentiles knew that arsenos koiten (from the Greek Septuagint version of Lev 20:13) was understood as a reference to forbidden male incest (from the Talmud) and shrine prostitution (from Philo's writings). Either one of those meanings is far more plausible than "men who have sex with men."

Over the next six centuries the arsenokoit stem also came to mean rape or anal sex (usually with one's wife) or masturbation.

If arsenokoitai meant "men who have sex with men," as you believe, we would expect to find arsenokoitai used that way during the first 600 years of church history. Yet arsenokoitai is NEVER used to mean "men who have sex with men," not even one time.

46 of the first 56 historical uses of the arsenokoit stem simply quote 1 Cor 6:9 or 1 Tim 1:10, without defining arsenokoitai.

I am unable to see the logic in your assertion that "men who have sex with men" has the advantage of being a more accurate translation of arsenokoitai.

If your opinion is true (that arsenokoitai means "men who have sex with men"), one would expect someone in the early centuries of the church to use arsenokoitai with the meaning you imagine it had yet they never did.

I believe you have given too much weight to Rob Gagnon's opinon that Romans 1:27 condemns men who have passive sex with men. Again, the historical context of first century Rome and the personal context of Paul (who got converted after hearing Stephen preach against shrine prostitution in Acts 7:43) points to the Romans 1:26-27 prohibition being aimed at shrine prostitution.

The almost universal testimony of early Christians for 250 years after Paul wrote Romans is that 1:26-27 refers to shrine prostitution. Even anti-gay commentators down the centuries linked Romans 1:26-27 to shrine prostitution, not homosexuality in general or committed gay relationships in particular.

You are arguing for a translation of 1 Cor 6:9 which has no historical substantiation - no one ever used arsenokoitai with the meaning you give it - in the first six centuries of church history.

However, shrine prostitution as the meaning of arsenokoitai fits historically since that was the Jewish understanding of arsenos koiten, from Leviticus 20:13, in the first century when Paul penned arsenokoitai in his original letter to Corinth.

I wish you God's best as you walk the path of His purpose for your life. I admire your intelligence and look forward to meeting you in person eventually.

I remain, your loving brother in Christ,

Rick Brentlinger
"