What did Paul mean when he used the Greek word arsenokoitai?

by Rene

Philo of Alexandria <br>helps us define arsenokoitai

Philo of Alexandria
helps us define arsenokoitai

That's a great question because Paul could have used many words if he intended to blast gays and lesbians. Yet Paul used none of those available words, choosing instead to coin an interesting new word, arsenokoitai.

Despite what some scholars allege, arsenokoitai is never used in any extant Greek literature with our modern meaning of homosexual. The best evidence available today indicates that arsenokoitai described shrine prostitutes. That is the learned opinion of Philo, a contemporary of both Jesus and the apostle Paul and one of the most widely read Jewish intellectuals in the first century.

The apostle Paul, also a brilliant intellectual, was one of the most successful authors who ever lived. He wrote 14 short books in our New Testament, each of which has sold more than one billion copies. Paul received an exceptional education through private tutors including Gamaliel, the leading Jewish teacher of the first century, Acts 22:3.

Romans 1 indicates Paul had read and was familiar with Wisdom of Solomon, a book which is not part of inspired scripture and with secular writers of his day. Paul quotes at least three heathen writers in his inspired epistles, Epimenides, Aratus and Menander. He quotes Epimenides and Aratus in Acts 17:28, Menander in 1 Cor 15:32 and Epimenides in Titus 1:14.

Because Paul, AD 4 - 67, and Philo of Alexandria, 20 BC - AD 50, were contemporaries and because Paul was well educated and widely read, it is reasonable to believe that Paul was familiar with the writings of Philo, a fellow Jew and public intellectual, although not a fellow Christian. Philo understood Moses, in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, to be condemning shrine prostitution.

Philo's understanding that arsenos koiten refers to shrine prostitution is 2000 years old. It was a Jewish belief with which the Apostle Paul was familiar because Paul coins a new word describing temple prostitution using the Septuagint Greek words of Leviticus 20:13. Believing that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 refers to shrine or temple prostitution is not a modern belief invented by gays to alibi their "sin." It is the ancient Jewish and Christian belief for thousands of years.

Leviticus 18:22 - meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos

Leviticus 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos

A Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13, arsenos koiten, is probably the source of the Greek word Paul used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Many Christians believe Paul borrowed arsenokoitai from the Septuagint translation of Lev 18:22 and 20:13. Therefore, it is vitally important to understand how ancient Jews and Christians understood these verses.

Understanding arsenokoitai as a reference to shrine prostitution was the normal first century viewpoint, when Paul used his new Greek word, arsenokoitai, in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10.

Dr. Gordon Fee, a leading conservative heterosexual Greek scholar, points out that arsenokoites is rarely used in Greek literature

"especially when describing
homosexual activity."

-The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Eerdmans, 1987, Dr. Gordon D. Fee, p. 244.

Philo on shrine prostitution.

“(40) And I imagine that the cause of this is that among many nations there are actually rewards given for intemperance and effeminacy. At all events one may see men-women (androgynes) continually strutting through the market place at midday, and leading the processions in festivals;

and, impious men as they are, having received by lot the charge of the temple, and beginning the sacred and initiating rites, and concerned even in the holy mysteries of Ceres

(Ceres is another name for Cybele, the fertility goddess first century Romans referred to as the Mater Deum or Mother of the gods. Remember, Philo probably wrote this around AD 35.)

(41) And some of these persons have even carried their admiration of these delicate pleasures of youth so far that they have desired wholly to change their condition for that of women, and have castrated themselves and have clothed themselves in purple robes...

(Philo describes castrated Galli priests who served Cybele and other fertility goddesses throughout the Roman Empire and links them to Lev 18:22, 20:13 and Deu 23:17).

(42) But if there was a general indignation against those who venture to do such things, as was felt by our lawgiver..." (Moses was the Jewish Lawgiver. Philo refers to Moses' writings in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:17).

Philo, The Special Laws, III, VII, 40-42.


When we remember that ancient Judaism did not view Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as applicable to lesbians, we must conclude that the Apostle Paul would therefore not have used words from Lev 18:22 and 20:13 to condemn lesbians in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 because there was no basis in Old Testament law or Jewish thinking to do that.

Because the Jewish view was that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 (Deu 23:17) prohibited shrine prostitution, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have used arsenokoitai with a meaning unfamiliar to most of his readers.

And because arsenokoitai is never used in any extant Greek text from AD 57 to AD 1450, to refer to two men or two women in committed partnership, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have used arsenokoitai with that meaning, which would have baffled his first century readers.

Viewing 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 as universal prohibitions of lesbianism and homosexuality and interpreting these verses to mean that lesbians and homosexuals cannot go to heaven is a relatively recent interpretation. It is certainly not the predominant view for 2000 years of church history.

Based on these historically and Biblically accurate facts, we conclude that neither God, nor Moses nor Paul intended anyone to understand that committed, faithful same sex partnerships are wrong, sinful, out of bounds, against God's will or unscriptural.

Our spiritual honest faithful to history and "faithful to scripture rightly divided" (2 Timothy 2:15) conclusion therefore is that 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 are not a negative blast against gays and lesbians.

They are instead, warnings against temple prostitution. Paul is saying, 'God saved you out of pagan religion so live in that reality and serve only the true God. Do not go back to worshiping false gods.'

What is the historical meaning of arsenokoites?

Return to Gay Christian FAQ

Return to 101 Community

Return to
Gay Christian 101 Home Page

Rene's Original Question:

"Dear Rick - May I just ask you one more question? I got in some trouble when rethinking a passage of your excellent book and I feel I really need your help.

I understand that the noun 'arsenokoites' in 1Cor 6:9 is a neologism from the apostle Paul. But I think Paul alludes most probably to the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament of his times, where we find in Lev 18:22 – dealing with male-male sex as well as 1Cor 6:9 – the two separate words 'arsen' (Strong 730) and 'koite' (Strong 2845) appearing in the contextual meaning of 'man having sex with man'. Combining these words into a new noun, the meaning Paul intended could well have been 'men who engage in male sex'. Whatever the circumstances are.

The crucial point is: If Paul makes intentionally allusion to Lev 18:22, isn't he by doing so not implicitly confirming the validity of this verse for us today? As a general rule?

But how could this be if the Holiness Code was restricted to Israelites only and not binding on us? Or has the ban on cult prostitution which seems to be the common context of both the cited OT and NT passages nothing to do with the Holiness Code but with the first commandment?

You see I am rather confused and I would appreciate very much if you could give me some hints to find out.

Thank you very much. God bless you. - Rene"

Comments for What did Paul mean when he used the Greek word arsenokoitai?

Click here to add your own comments

Feb 02, 2012
Thank you
by: Susan

Hi. Thank you for posting this information and for keeping this site going. I wish I could "Like" this page on Facebook and have the information here flowing down my page.

I appreciate the history you've given for the Greek word arsenokoitai. I was just clobbered on FB with 1 Tim 1:9-10. Reading this information helped alleviate a lot of the confusion. There are so many negative perspectives on the web, it was a relief to find this one.

God bless you.

Feb 02, 2012
There's a Facebook button at the bottom of each page
by: Rick Brentlinger

Hi Susan- Thanks for your kind comments. I'm always blessed to know this website has been a blessing to someone.

There is a Facebook button at the bottom of each page where you can share the page plus buttons for other social media if you use them. Many thanks!

Feb 17, 2012
About arsenokoitai
by: mary lillis

Always knew there was more to it than the surface. Didn't make sense to sentence a generation of people to hell "just because" especially when I believe some homosexuality and lesbianism came about because of being sexually molested.

Apr 12, 2012
Not sure this applies
by: Cary Bass

Hi Rick, As a queer Christian seminarian, I appreciate the work you're doing here. I was really curious about the link between Philo and Leviticus, and I'm not sure, even after reading this essay, that I am convinced that this completely settles the matter. Philo could very easily be speaking about general male-male intercourse in "such things" even if he's referring back to the cultic practices.

Rick's comment: What settles the matter for me is the way the Greek word arsenokoitai was used in the first six centuries of church history. It was never used as a general reference to gay people.

I see no reason to assume, as the anti-gay crowd does, that Philo intended to condemn every same sex relationship without exception. He may have felt that way but he may not have felt that way too. Philo did carefully place his disapproval in the context of the Levitical prohibitions and tied his understanding to the shrine prostitutes he personally observed.

Also, it's important to note that while Philo and Paul were contemporaries, Philo came from and was in Alexandria, where such cultic practices were widespread, while Paul's context was predominantly Jewish/Pharisees.

Rick's comment: Paul did interact with Jews and the Pharisees but he was also God's apostle to the Gentiles. 13 of his 14 epistles were written to Gentiles.

While he may have known of cultic practices, it is really his understanding of these practices would be related to his interpretation of the law? The section in the holiness code is not about temple practices, but about general sexual behavior of the Hebrews.

Rick's comment: There is no contextual reason to assume your statement is true. The context indicates just the opposite, that the Levitical prohibitions were aimed at temple prostitution. Even our most ardent anti-gay foes admit that. See my shrine prostitutes page for more information.

That being said, I'd like to find a new understanding of arsenokoitai, and of Paul's reason for using it. Given that I have evidence in my own life and of those I know that one can be a faithful Christian and be in a lifelong committed monogamous relationship. The living spirit of Christ is always fundamental to understanding the written word.

Sep 23, 2013
Cultural climate
by: Jim Johnson

One point that may help to illuminate the issue is that Paul lived in a period, when there was a LOT of sex happening between males in Greek culture; much of it between older men and teenage boys (the eromenoi), as had been the case for centuries. It was more or less normal for a middle-aged man to acquire a teenaged male lover, with guidance on how to be a man, professional instruction and other favors included as compensation to the young man. The latter were expected to marry at a certain age and beget children, such that the sexual nature of their relationship(s) with one or more older men / mentors were not permanent. Given that Paul grew up in a Greek city (Tarsus) and spent years of missionary work among Greeks all over the eastern Mediterranean, he was undoubtedly aware of the practice.

If Paul viewed that sort of homosexual activity as an overwhelming evil, it is remarkable that his letters and sermons contain nothing directed at it. Instead, as you point out, the mortal sin was to unite oneself with the temple prostitutes, because that represented complete abandonment of the True God.

Dec 29, 2013
Great read on this topic
by: Tony

Here is a great read on this very topic.


Rick's comment: I reference Dr. de Young's paper on my Arsenokoites page. We disagree on conclusions.

Dec 11, 2014
not true
by: Lincoln

Arsenokoite may come from Leviticus 20:13. Jut look at the verse in the Septuigint. Paul identifies it as something the law condemns. Leviticus forbids a man from laying with a man as one does with a woman. There is no statement that this is only a sin if idolaters do it. God was telling Israelites not to do that. Sleeping with your mother, also in Leviticus 18, is also a sin even if you aren't worshipping a Buddha statue while doing it.

This passage shows us also that it was a sin for Gentiles to do this and that they were being driven from the land for this kind of wickedness.

Homosexual relationships also don't fit at all with the design God has for marriage as revealed in the Bible. Marriage is supposed to communicate something of the mystery of Christ and the church. Male and female are necessary for a marriage in the Biblical sense.

Rick's comment: Hi Lincoln - On the origin of arsenokoitai, I agree with you. I point out that truth on my Arsenokoites page.

You've made some assertions which are consistent with anti-gay teaching but which ignore biblical, cultural, historical and religious context. If your mind is open to God's truth, you will find it eye-opening to read through the other comments and click on the links to additional info.

Jun 14, 2015
Comment given to Lincoln.
by: Allen

"Rick's comment: Hi Lincoln - You've made assertions which are consistent with anti-gay teaching but which ignore cultural historical religious and biblical context."

I don't know if you actually read Lincoln's comment, but I think he does consider the cultural and most importantly the biblical context while you merely assert that he doesn't and call it antigay as if that has any bearing whether what he is say is true.

"If your mind is open to God's truth, you will find it eye-opening to read through the other comments and click on the links to additional info."

I wonder given your position if your mind is open to God's truth rather than defending an ungodly position. I wonder how your position would hold up if you actually defended it against true Christians, for example James White or Michael Brown who defend God's Word rather than their sexuality.

Rick's comment: Hi Allen - You don't earn any points with God by being a low infor-mation christian - I'm just saying. BTW, truth is truth even when your anti-gay crowd rejects it.

Aug 17, 2015
Could you
by: Al

Could you do an article that talks about copyright? How do we avoid infringements when we cite other people's compilations over the internet? For example, what if I print-out a paragraph of our Catechism as it has been formatted (text, font, layout, etc.) over the internet by the Picayune, Mississippi, parish St.Charles Borromeo Catholic Church SCBCC. How do I attribute their work? I notice when I leave one portion of their Catechism site, and go to print a paragraph, that SCBCC's "case number" from the Vatican appears giving SCBCC permission to offer an eletronic version of the Catechism. So how do I properly attribute at that level? Thanks!

Rick's comment: Hi Al - I'm not sure I understand precisely what you're asking so I'll refer you to my Copyright page, which, at the bottom of the page, has links to online info about copyright legalities.

In general, if you're quoting a RC catechism to recommend it or to critique it, you provide a link to their website page where the catechism is found. If their website does not permit you to provide a link to the exact page, you provide a link to the website home page.

Copyright info

Sep 09, 2015
Romans 1:27
by: David

... "men with men (arsenes en arsesin)committing indecent acts" ...

Paul is quite clear in this passage. Subterfuge is not good hermeneutics. Otherwise I could use 1 Timothy 5:23 to justify getting drunk every night.

Rick's comment: Hi David - I have an extensive section on Romans 1 on my website, which I hope you will explore.

In any context of Romans 1 that we examine, biblical, cultural, doctrinal, historical, linguistic, literary or religious, we discover that Paul is not discussing gays or lesbians or transgendered individuals or homosexuality.

He is instead, making an argument about Gentile idolatry and then illustrates his argument in v. 26 by describing female shrine prostitutes and in v. 27 by describing male shrine prostitutes.

If you could use 1 Timothy 5:23 - "take a LITTLE wine" - to justify getting drunk every night, you must have a very low tolerance for beverage alcohol and a penchant for ripping verses out of context to defend your anti-gay views.

Sep 10, 2015
by: David

A very harsh reply, indeed.

Anti-gay? My boss is transgender (and celibate). As to low tolerance for alcohol I abstain from drinking.

I will gladly call "brother" any gay who is celibate, and any drunkard who is sober.

With regards to Romans, I have read all of the contrarian viewpoints and they are not dissimilar from the faulty exegesis that asserts G-d destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their inhospitality.

Look, we can't interpret the Bible from the bias of contemporary mores thousand of years removed from the original text.

You can't defend any type of behavior by asserting that the Bible doesn't say what it clearly meant to the ancient peoples to whom it was written.

This is evident in the Halacha (Oral and Written Law) which has preserved the Rabbinic interpretation of Torah that this particular act is to'aiva -- an abomination.

It is not a reference to prostitution nor pederasty, but (as the Talmud concurs) male-to-male sexual intercourse.

Curious how we are so enlightened that the teachings of Augustine, Luther and the Rabbin are irrelevant.

G-d is unchanging, and He will not be mocked.

Rick's comment: Hi David - Sorry that you thought my reply was harsh. My intent was to be truthful. You mentioned inhospitality, as if there is no biblical evidence for that as the sin of Sodom.

What was the sin of Sodom?

Was inhospitality one of the sins of Sodom?

Loving strangers = hospitality

Ancient Jews understood Lev 18:22 and 20:13 as prohibitions of shrine prostitution and incest.

Babylonian Talmud on Sodom

Philo, a contemporary of Jesus and Paul, a fellow Jew although not a fellow Christian, believed that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 indicted shrine prostitution.

What does arsenokoitai mean?

Paul probably coined the word, arsenokoitai, from arsenos koiten in Lev 20:13. Had he intended readers to believe he was prohibiting gay and lesbian relations in 1 Cor 6:9 or 1 Tim 1:10, there were many words Paul could have used yet he used none of them.

There is not a shred of historical evidence that anyone in the first century AD used arsenokoitai to refer to gays or lesbians.

I don't mean any of this to be harsh. If you know of any historical evidence that anyone in the first century used arsenokoitai to mean gay or lesbian, I would appreciate you sharing it with me.

Sep 10, 2015
by: David

It is not difficult to find arguments within Reformed Judaism to support your position. However, orthodox Rabbin hold to ancient tradition since G-d is unchanging.

I appreciate your respectful discourse, and offer some rather lengthy insights. Please forgive my lack of brevity as you are the host and I don't want to impose on your goodwill.

Ben Witherington wrote: "The word [arsenokoites] literally and graphically refers to a male copulator (cf. Sib. Or. 2:73; Greek Anthology 9.686), a man who has intercourse with another man... It is true that this term can refer to a pederast (an older man who has sex with a younger man or a youth), but the term is not a technical term for a pederast; rather, it includes consenting adult males who have sexual relationships in this manner, as well as any other form of male-to-male intercourse." (Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 198)

Andreas Kostenberger wrote: "In light of the discussion of teaching in the Old Testament and the book of Romans above, it appears very unlikely that what is universally condemned in the Hebrew scriptures might, in New Testament times as well as ours, be acceptable." Arsenokoitas most likely refers to "the general practice of homosexuality."

"It appears like that the term arsenokoitas, which does not seem to appear in the extant literature prior to the present reference, was coined by Paul or someone else in Hellenistic Judaism from the Levitical prohibition against males "lying or sleeping with males" (Lev. 18:22...). This suggests that the term is broad and general in nature and encompasses homosexuality as a whole rather than merely specific aberrant subsets of homosexual behavior." This is important since some want to make arsenokoitas refer specifically to pederasty.

The argument that Paul's use of arsenokoitas refers to pederasty falls short on six counts: a) There was a clear and unambiguous word for pederasty, the term paiderastes;

b) "The attempt to limit Paul's condemnation to pederasty... is contradicted by Paul's reference to the male partners' mutual desire for one another in Romans 1:27";

c) "In the same passage in Romans 1:26, Paul also condemns lesbian sex, which did not involve children, so that an appeal to pederasty does not adequately account for the prohibition of same-sex relations in this passage.";

d) "Even if (for argument's sake) Paul were to censure only pederasty in the passages under consideration, this would still not mean that, as a Scripture-abiding Jew, he would have approved of homosexuality as such. Quite the contrary. In contrast to the surrounding Greco-Roman world (which generally accepted homosexual acts). Hellenistic Jewish texts universally condemn homosexuality and treat it (together with idolatry) as the most egregious example of Gentile moral depravity.";

e) "Not only is Paul's view of homosexuality as contrary to nature in keeping with the foundational creation narrative in Genesis 1 and 2, but it is also illumined by prevailing views of homosexuality in contemporary Greco-Roman culture." (See the entire text for much more on this);

f) "Ancient sources do not support the idea that homosexuality was defined exclusively in terms of homosexual acts but not orientation." Paul refers to both. Some scholars erect a false dichotomy between the two, and then use the false dichotomy to reason that the concept of "homosexuality" has changed."

Rick's comment: Hi David - Your citations do not address my challenge to you. I asked for proof that anyone in the first century used arsenokoitai to mean gay or lesbian.

Witherington and Kostenberger do not answer the challenge either, because there is not a shred of historical evidence that anyone in the first century used the arsenokoit stem to describe two gay guys or two gay gals.

You apparently have already made up your mind on the topic because you didn't bother to read my page: What does arsenokoitai mean?

I have received many comments explaining to me that Dr. So and So says arsenokoitai means homosexual therefore, the case is closed and they refuse to consider any other possibility. Sadly,

A closed mind gathers no truth. - Old Etruscan proverb

May 22, 2016
Brilliant article
by: James

Thanks for writing a brilliant article. a lot of negative commenters sound like they were around in the first century lol. Truth is, life was very different and we lose contextually what the bible says or means. Jesus mentioned homosexuality not once, he emphasised how people could find salvation and peace by how we treat others.

Organised religions need people to demonise in order to keep the congregation tight knit and controlled (I grew up in a cult so I have some experience). Truth is, when you realise what's important to God and what isn't, there will not be anyone that can stand in your way of receiving the Holy Spirit and the peace it brings.

I pray that more people will search for the truth other than blindly follow those that pronounce their religion, their translations or that they themselves are gateways to the Divine.

Treat others as you wish to be treated- doesn't rule out a loving relationship but it does put the brakes on any sexually exploitative behaviour. We have laws now to protect children, slaves and the vulnerable, back in the first century there was very little to protect those categories, no wonder Paul wrote what he did and emphasised the freedom that comes through Christ and the Way.

Rick's comment: Hi James - Thanks for your kind words. That's why I keep reminding people that God saves all who come to Him by grace alone through faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ alone.

Jun 20, 2016
Greek Words
by: Brandon

The interesting part for me is that, while I don't know enough about the shrine prostitution to say one way or another, Paul had other options to describe homosexual behavior.

And more baffling to me is that, if Paul really meant to allude to Leviticus to prohibit same-sex relations, wouldn't it have been simplest to use the exact same phrasing, rather than coin a new word?

It seems to me that Paul could be referring to something new here, like exploitative pederasty.

Rick's comment: Hi Brandon - Good insights. Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, Romans 11:13, so he writes in a way they can understand. Coining a new Greek word which used two of the words found in Lev 20:13 in the Greek Septuagint is the way the Holy Spirit chose.

First century Jews already understood Lev 18:22 and 20:13 and arsenos koiten as prohibiting shrine prostitution. Paul's neologism, arsenokoitai, ties it all together with a Greek word coined from Lev 20:13, which was already understood in Jewish circles and educated Greek circles as a reference to shrine prostitution.

About exploitative pederasty as the focus of Paul's argument in 1 Cor 6:9, that is the view of Victor Paul Furnish, in: The Moral Teaching of Paul: Under the Judgment of Scripture - What Paul Had In Mind in His Passages on Homosexuality. Furnish argues that Paul only condemned exploitative pederasty.

In The New Testament and Homosexuality, Robin Scroggs sets out a view similar to Furnish, that exploitative pederasty is the issue.

My arsenokoites page provides some different views and concludes that the issue is shrine prostitution.

Jul 10, 2016
Defining arsenokoitai
by: Janan

Hi! I just wanted to ask, if we translate arsenokoite, how would you define it? To my understanding, it is a compound word.

Rick's comment: Hi Janan- You are right, in Greek, arsenokoitai is a compound word. I explain where it came from and what it means on my arsenokoites page. In the first century when Paul coined the word, it was understood to mean shrine prostitute or temple prostitute.

That is how first century Jews and Jews for 1400 years before the first century understood arsenos koiten, from the Greek Septuagint text of Leviticus 20:13, which Paul combined to form his new word, arsenokoitai.

Jul 19, 2016
by: Deborah

I'm a (non-religious) linguist interested in studying Koine Greek. Just a few questions:

1- You say that Leviticus was not seen as being applicable to lesbians, and therefore Paul would not have used "arsenokoitai" in Timothy and Corinthians to condemn them. I agree, given the literal meaning of this word as "man-lier"- one who makes their bed with men. However, Paul does mention (and condemn) lesbian sexual intercourse, as well as homosexual sexual intercourse in the below passage, doesn't he?

1 Romans 24-27:

"24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

It would then appear that his use of "arsenokoitai" in condemnation would be fairly consistent, given Leviticus and Romans.

Rick's comment: Hi Deborah - No, I don't believe Paul was referring to lesbians in Romans 1:26. There is nothing in the Old Testament or in Jewish belief to support that view.

Does Romans 1:26 condemn lesbians?

How did you decide that Romans 1:26 does not condemn lesbians?

Can you convince me that Romans 1 is not talking about gays and lesbians?

2- "Viewing 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 as universal prohibitions of lesbianism and homosexuality and interpreting these verses to mean that lesbians and homosexuals cannot go to heaven is a relatively recent interpretation. It is certainly not the predominant view for 2000 years of church history."

But for much of this time, there have been laws against homosexuality, upheld in the name of religion, so surely there must have been some earlier interpretation of these verses that formed the traditional view.

Rick's comment: Assuming the truth of an unproven general statement (for much of this time there have been laws against homosexuality)and extrapolating from that, that there must have been some earlier interpretation that formed the (now) traditional view, is the wrong way to discover truth.

The best way to discover truth on this issue is to look at how real people in real history used these words. That is the best way to discover their meaning. I do that at these links.

How is malakoi used historically and in the Bible?

Define arsenokoites as it was used historically.

3- With reference to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which I believed is referenced in Paul's writings, what is the standard interpretation of this story, according to newer views? It is interesting to note that the Qur'an, which uses the same story, interprets it 1400 years ago in the same way as the Christians did:

Surat- Al-Araf- 7:81

"Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people."

This sounds awfully like 1 Romans 26.

Rick's comment: Hi Deborah - If you scroll down the comments to September 15, 2015, I posted helpful links to additional information which sheds light on this topic.

About Surat- Al-Araf- 7:81, we should not assume that it refers to gays or lesbians or homosexuality. The most accurate historical interpretation is that it refers to male on male gang rape or male same sex activity as shrine prostitutes who worshiped the fertility goddess.

Were the men of Sodom sodomites?

Linguistically, Paul had choice of a number of words if his intention was to condemn homosexuality yet he used none of those words.

What words could Paul have used if he intended to condemn homosexuality?

Yet Paul did use a Greek word in Romans 1:24 and 6:19 which is a clear reference to idolatry and shrine prostitution.

What does the Greek word akatharsian mean in Romans 1:24?

Sep 07, 2016
by: George

I was in a debate and someone brought up a counter to Philo and his Special laws.

He claims that Philo understood ""Homosexuality is detestable and evil"

Then he quoted Philo talking about Sodom

"(137) But God, having taken pity on mankind, as being a Saviour and full of love for mankind, increased, as far as possible, the natural desire of men and women for a connection together, for the sake of producing children, and detesting the unnatural and unlawful commerce of the people of Sodom, he extinguished it, and destroyed those who were inclined to these things, and that not by any ordinary chastisement, but he inflicted on them an astonishing novelty, and unheard of rarity of vengeance;"

Rick's comment: Hi George - Your debater friend assumes, without a shred of historical proof, that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. Building on that false assumption, he then draws his false conclusion, that Philo called homosexuality detestable and evil. The info at these links contradicts the debater's assertion.

Was the sin of Sodom homosexuality?

Does Jude say the sin of Sodom was homosexuality?

The Babylonian Talmud on Sodom

Loving strangers means showing hospitality

And then about Transgenders

"and so, by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they made also their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of man, as far as depended on them."

Rick's comment: Ancient Jewish belief for more than two thousand years has been that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit cult or shrine or temple prostitution.

There is not a shred of biblical, cultural, doctrinal, linguistic, historical or religious information which indicates that the real problem in 1450 BC Jewish life was gays and lesbians. If anyone disagrees, my assertion can be shown to be false by presenting evidence which disproves my assertion.

Are Lev 18:22 and 20:13 talking about shrine prostitutes?

Arsenokoites was never used in ancient times to describe gays and lesbians.

Philo of Alexandria, & Yonge, C. D. (1995). The works of Philo: Complete and unabridged (597–598 & 422–423). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson

What's the counter to this? It kind of destroys the interpretation of Leviticus when Philo himself doesn't seem too happy about homosexuals.

Rick's comment: It only destroys the interpretation of Leviticus as focused on shrine prostitution if the debater's argument is true.

The counter to this argument is context and truth. A debater making an assertion does not equate to truth. The text links in my replies above provide a strong case against this argument.

Nov 11, 2016
Seems to Mean?
by: Micah

So every place I have been reading that affirms passages condemning homosexual always revert to "so-and-so Greek scholar says these passages SEEM to most likely mean..." or speculating on if Paul was thinking about Leviticus when writing the new Testament verses is just that-speculation!

Why are we hinging a major condemning issue based on people "seeming" to understand the meaning of a Greek they are merely guessing at if they were being honest or that Paul "might" have been thinking of other passages? I'm not willing at this point to condemn people based on a few Greek scholars who seem to know what the context is and don't KNOW what the context is.

Should we then go through other passages in the Bible and try to figure out what the writers were thinking and turn those into edicts as well? Isn't this the very example of reading into God's word and forming your own interpretation of what it says?

Rick's comment: Hi Micah - Amen - They want to condemn hundreds of millions of GLBT people based on their wobbly and deficient understanding.

Seems too mean to me.

Jan 18, 2017
by: j nel

I would like to know why the Greek uses two distinct words for male. Arsesin and Arsenes what distinguishes the two and why does the English not reflect this?

Rick's comment: Hi j nel - Thanks for your interesting question about the Greek words, arsenes en arsesin - men with men, in Romans 1:27.

Basically what we have is two forms of the same Greek word for men, the first one in the nominative case and the second one in the dative case.

men (arsenes | ἄρσενες | nom pl masc) with men (arsesin | ἄρσεσιν | dat pl masc).

The word in the nominative case is the subject of the sentence.

The word in the dative case is being acted upon by the subject of the sentence.

In the Greek language, word endings are different for nominative and for dative. That explains why the words for men are spelled differently while still being the same word, meaning men.

This link explains how it works. Greek Nouns

View the Greek text of Romans 1:27

Mar 03, 2017
dont be gay
by: ken

Whats the difference between male shrine prostitutes in ancient times and homosexuality today? It's the same. Gays just don't use shrines anymore. They hook up at bars among other places.

Rick's comment: Hi Ken - I encourage you to educate yourself so that you can present facts instead of opinion. To that end, please carefully read my shrine prostitutes page so you will know the difference between a gay man and a shrine prostitute.

Sex was meant for only male and one female that is married. In Lot's time the gay men got blinded. Today gays get aids with no cure.

God created Adam and Eve. Male and female. If God wanted two males He wouldn't have created Eve. Same goes for the animals. Don't twist God's Word.

Rick's comment: You've learned some sound bites often used by anti-gay christians to avoid thinking. If you are interested in truth, please do more reading and study on this website.

Real Christians love God's truth because God's truth is a blessing and a joy to our hearts.

Jul 16, 2017
Is being in gay relationship wrong?
by: Tw

I'm ever so commited with my partner and only truly want gods blessing for our relationship, but struggle with if what we feel for one another is right,an surely don't want to loose what we have. I'm so lost an in search of answers.

Especially when it says no man lie with other men an no woman lie with other woman like man an woman. I don't have the scripture in front of me to quote it exactly. But i know its along those lines.

Rick's comment: Hi Tw - This website answers your question - Yes, gay relationships are perfectly fine with God. This link answers your question.

Man lying with man?

On the NavBar under, What The Bible Says In Context, click on the links and read the life-saving information.

Of course, it is also good to know FOR SURE you are saved. You can find that out at this link.

What must I do to be saved?

May 04, 2018
Semantic range
by: ford

You are responding to people by citing contemporary understanding of sexual preference. In your estimation, the authors/Paul/contemporaries could not have used the word(s) to mean consensual homosexuality as it is understood in a modern sense. This is of course irrelevant because Paul did not qualify the term as such; rape, etc. You are artificially expanding the semantic range of the terminology/nomenclature to include non-consensual acts. It is poor hermeneutics to read into the text something that is simply not there. None of the quintessential lexicons (bdag, dbl, strong's) support such a redefinition.

Extra biblical citations are not conclusive in this case for multiple reasons. The philo reference is over and above the blanket prohibition. IOW, philo's comment is not mutually exclusive of a rejection of all homosexuality. The jews abhorred pagan customs and cultures. To say the term could have meant shrine prostitution to gentiles means nothing to Paul. Moreover, we know that god created male and female, they were to enjoy each other sexually (song of solomon) and to propagate. These considerations, along with the levitical prohibitions, show a jewish sense of purity over and against pagan practices. This harmonizes with Jesus describing marriage as between a man and a woman. He had ample opportunity to affirm alternative lifestyles but didn't which shows how the advocacy of homosexuality rests in a negative space between the positive affirmations in Gen 5:2 and Matt 19:4

In citing contemporary sexual preferences, you are also insinuating that today, we have a "heightened" or nuanced understanding of sexuality. This is a fallacy called the tyranny of the present. It assumes Paul didn't know what he was talking about and that his contemporaries didn't have good reason to avoid alternative lifestyles - something I haven't seen you address, conveniently. You're basically assuming that if they had the knowledge we have today, they would agree that homosexuality is acceptable which requires smuggled in authority on your part.

It is also fallacious to say that rejection of homosexuality is not the historically orthodox position. There are no orthodox theologians who affirm alternative lifestyles nor do we know of any instances when alternative lifestyles were openly accepted by an orthodox community unchallenged.

Rick's comment: Hi Ford- I appreciate your comments but it seems to me you have it backwards. You've ignored what I wrote and you attempt to answer arguments I never made.

For example, you accuse me of citing contemporary understanding of sexual preference. The truth is, I cited Philo and Paul and ancient Jewish understanding, not contemporary understanding.

And while I appreciate your debate tactic of assigning a false definition (calling it sexual preference instead of sexual orientation, as if being gay or lesbian is a sinful choice - sexual preference - made by the individual), that debate tactic is nothing more than a page from the old Exodus International playbook.

Did you know Exodus International shut down their entire 37 year old worldwide ministry about six years ago and admitted that attempts to change sexual orientation never worked?

You allege that I artificially expanded the semantic range to include non-consensual acts. You further allege that Paul did not qualify arsenokoitai as rape (and therefore it must not mean rape, an argument from silence) and yet, rape is and for several thousand years has been one of the primary meanings of arsenokoitai, along with shrine prostitution.

Paul didn't specify rape because his readers already understood arsenokoitai to mean rape and/or shrine prostitution.

You allege that extra-biblical citations are not conclusive for multiple reasons yet even virulently anti-gay conservative Calvinists like John MacArthur say:

"When you don't have a lot of uses of a word in the Bible you go outside (the Bible) to find out how it was used."

Citing, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, George W. Knight III, 1999, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI.

You say that Jesus "had ample opportunity to affirm alternative lifestyles but didn't…" as if that proves your point.

Jesus also had ample opportunity to decry slavery and socialism and serial killers but He didn't do that either. You seem to be relying on another argument from silence to support your point.

You accuse me of insinuating that our understanding today is better than the first century understanding and refer to that as the tyranny of the present.

I appreciate you using a computer term coined by the great Alan Kay but I made no such insinuation in my article.

Instead, I placed Paul's writing in its proper biblical, cultural, historical, linguistic, literary and religious context to help people understand what Paul meant when he wrote the Greek word, arsenokoitai.

You also charged me with saying it is:

"fallacious to say that rejection of homosexuality is not the historically orthodox position."

And of course, I never said that.

What I did is point out that for most of the last two thousand years of church history, the modern anti-gay view, which ignores the meaning of arsenokoitai, and instead, wails about homosexuals, has not been the predominant view.

The anti-gay view of those verses is a modern culture war invention, which is at odds with the views of Jews and Christians about the meaning of arsenokoitai for two thousand years.

When you read arsenokoitai and see it as a negative blast at gays and lesbians, you are the one committing the fallacy of anachronism, reading your views into scripture and ignoring context.

This is the bottom line for me:

Scripture cannot mean NOW
What it did not mean THEN.

If arsenokoitai didn't mean gay and lesbian when Paul wrote it in the mid-first century AD, then arsenokoitai doesn't mean gay and lesbian now.

If arsenokoitia was referring to cult or shrine or temple prostitutes when Paul wrote it, then that is what arsenokoitai is referring to now.

Arsenokoitai didn't morph, over the last two thousand years, to mean gays and lesbians.

Believing it did is not orthodox, it is heretical and is also hermeneutically unsound.

Try harder Ford - you can do better than this.

May 21, 2018
by: ford

my last response doesn't appear in the comments.

also, the word didn't "morph." no less than 7 patristics unequivocally condemn homosexuality using the word and they do NOT refer to rape at all. they, like paul, focus on the act itself without making any consensual/non-consensual distinction. that means your assertion that the word originally referred to pagan temple rituals is dubious at least and incorrect at most. this is partially why i made the point that extra biblical citations are not conclusive in this case. christians used the word in the same levitical/pauline context and never wavered from that.

Rick's comment: Hi Ford - Seven patristics unequivocally condemn homosexuality using the word arsenokoitai? Really?

Or do they simply quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and you assume the rest of your statement based on the pre-suppositions you bring to the Bible?

Why are you citing extra-biblical sources like seven patristics as authorities?

Aren't you the guy who insisted in your first comment:

"Extra biblical citations are not conclusive in this case for multiple reasons."

Jun 01, 2018
by: ford

"Or do they simply quote 1 Corinthians 6:9"

inconsequential. it doesn't matter either way. the point is, they understood the term to mean the act and spoke unequivocally in a harsh manner about it. again, your assertion that it meant temple prostitution is just wrong and the patristics prove it.

"and you assume the rest of your statement based on the pre-suppositions you bring to the Bible?"

i'm telling you the fact of the matter. you can read the patristics for yourself. it completely contradicts the point that extra biblical writers meant something else.

"Why are you citing extra-biblical sources like seven patristics as authorities?"

because they are? they prove what christians thought the word meant.

"Aren't you the guy who insisted in your first comment:"

extra BIBLICAL. as in secular. the patristics are repeating what paul says in THE BIBLE and they are not referring to temple prostitution. again, you can read it for yourself. even without the patristics, we know what paul/leviticus meant and it wasn't temple prostitution. the patristics merely provide additional substantiation.

and my prior response has still not appeared nor have you addressed all of the other points i made in it.

Rick's comment: Hi ford - Your anti-gay view is based on your faulty presupposition, that if seven of the early church fathers quoted 1 Cor 6:9, they MUST agree with you and your anti-gay views of 1 Cor 6:9.

That illogic doesn't make sense. It wouldn't pass muster in a freshman Theology class or in a freshman Theology essay.

Jun 03, 2018
by: ford

"Your anti-gay view" - i don't have an anti gay view. i'm telling you what the bible says and what the patristics say. you have now shifted from dealing with the facts to ad hominem which usually signals that the person has nothing substantive left to say... Edited.

Rick's comment: Hi ford - Pointing out the illogic and weakness of your assertion, that if seven patristics quote 1 Cor 6:9, they must agree with you that Paul was talking about gay men and lesbians, is not ad hominem argument.

"Nothing substantive to say?" I have this extensive website with lots of links to substantive information, all of which you've chosen to ignore.

My impression from your comments so far is, you are more interested in arguing than in truth. For that reason, I'll leave you to your own devices on this.

Jun 14, 2019
by: Russell

You're deluded. You're looking at scripture through the lenses of your sin instead of seeing sin through the scriptures. God will not be mocked. If you die in this, you will realize you made the biggest mistake of your natural life, but it will be too late. Repent.

Rick's comment: Hi Russell - I think you have that wrong. You approach the Bible with the false presupposition that God agrees with your anti-gay view.

Then, instead of factoring in the biblical, cultural, doctrinal, historical, linguistic and religious context, you ignore those and insist that the Bible is anti-gay

It is time for you to read, believe, memorize and obey 2 Timothy 2:15 in the King James Bible.

While you're doing that, you also need to get up to speed on justification by faith.

Jun 23, 2019
by: Miriam

Just a clarification for me: does the fact that you're justified by faith alone mean you can do whatever you want? If that's not the point you were making, why did you mention being justified by faith? Galatians 5:13?

Rick's comment: Hi Miriam - No, the fact that saved people are justified by faith alone is NEVER an excuse to do whatever you want.

I have, on the Home Page of this website, a verse by verse commentary on Romans chapters 1 - 11. It is about 740 pages of Bible teaching. You can read there, my views on justification by faith.

And by "anti-gay" you seem to mean, "not as clever and enlightened as me." This is similar to what Jehovah's Witnesses say to me, and when they are finally confronted with scripture they can't deny, then "that part of the bible can't say that, because it can't, because I don't want it to." Not a great argument, really.

Rick's comment: That's kind of snarky. There are many anti-gay Christians, all of whom rip verses out of context to support their anti-gay views.

By alleging that my arguments are similar to the false teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses cult, you have revealed three things.

1. You are unable to refute my arguments, or, more likely, you have not even bothered to read and understand them.

2. You are not willing to admit your lack of study on the clobber passages.

3. You are willing to smear my character by falsely equating my beliefs with the cult of Jehovah's Witnesses.

I encourage you to read and study and get up to speed biblically, before you assume that, when I disagree with you, I must be using cultic arguments.

What must I do to be saved?

Jun 29, 2019
Basic Truths must be understood
by: Kevin S.

It also seems to be the case that those who have an anti-gay stance using misunderstood and misquoted Bible verses, who also fail to consider the linguistics, culture, and history of the Bible and the people of the Bible, who also seem to have a basic misunderstanding of salvation being by GRACE through FAITH (alone).

WORKS, also seems to be the basis of their relationship with God (the idea that, the acts we do determine our position in Christ, and our eternal destiny). And THAT, is as far from the truth as one can get.

I think it is wise of Rick, to recommend that legalists go back and understand the basics of Salvation before attempting to understand the more difficult Scriptures on issues like Homosexuality.

Works-for-salvation, legalists will always make behavior the basis of the relationship with God. However, God did not require us to clean up our act before he offered us his salvation of grace and love.

Romans 5:8 - "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Repentance is not an act of changing your behavior.
REPENT, metanoeó, means: to change one's mind or purpose

Original Word: μετανοέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: metanoeó
Phonetic Spelling: (met-an-o-eh'-o)
Definition: to change one's mind or purpose

Many change their behavior, and their actions, religions across the world are based on that, yet they fail to put their trust in the person and shed blood of Jesus for their salvation. That is called religion.

Nov 16, 2020
Intentionality of God
by: Savannah

Where in the bible does God use a gay monogamous couple to show his glory?

Rick's comment: Hi Savannah- The proper starting point to determine what the Bible says is: What does the Bible say?

We look at particular passages of scripture to see if they really say what they are alleged to teach.

We don't start with the presupposition that God is anti-gay or that particular verses are anti-gay and then reason from that false presupposition, as you have done in your questions.

Does he not use one because he did not want to? Does he only describe marriage in ephesians for husband and wife for a reason? why does God not use a gay marriage examples? If Jesus came to correct the church on their different areas of religiosity, why didn't he reprimand them on their stance on gay marriage, and instead point to Genesis? Was his ministry lacking in this area? Was his ministry not perfect? How could Jesus Christ not correct the church on the slightest possibility that gay relationships could Glorify God? Didn't he come to bring glory to the father, and wasn't he perfect in doing so? So therefore, isn't the fact he did not liberate gay people enough to say that the way the bible describes marriage is exactly how God wanted the institution of marriage to remain?
If Arsenokoitai is about pedophilia, and gay marriage is okay by default, what can I marry besides a child? And through the logic you have proven, May I have sex with objects?? May I marry an objects? What bible verse condemns me marrying anything I desire ? ( I genuinely am interested, I am not being sarcastic )

I am asking these questions because I believe by defining marriage, we must use the Bible when it speaks to marriage, and aim for that explanation. Deviating from the specific explanations of the bible would be aiming for something else. (typically ones own desires) and instead, using the bible to as means to my own end (which is pleasure).
The institution of marriage is to be a narrow and strict description (Ephesians 5) and the fact that Jesus actually does not seem to be more fluid concerning the law (matthew 5) this would lead me to assume, why on earth would he all the sudden become more laxidasical concerning marriage? And if gay marriage were to suddenly be able to have a blessed marriage by God ( after all these years of it being historically condemned ) Where would they draw instruction from? Which verse lays out the commands for a man and a man? or a woman and a woman? The fact of the matter is the bible does not lay this instructions out. I just need to know, is it because God made a mistake or he was intentional in doing so. God is intentional. Marriage is too intentional to allow for this kind of mystery. God is too intentional for this kind of possibility and the bible is too absolute for this kind of possible error. You probably have your answers. It's probably your bread and butter. And it has by no means been my intention to insult your character with my opinion. They are simply the real questions I have. I seek to glorify God. Peace and Blessings.

Nov 29, 2020
Different Wording
by: Rain

So you said "Paul could have used many words if he intended to blast gays and lesbians. Yet Paul used none of those available words, choosing instead to coin an interesting new word, arsenokoitai."

What are some of the other "many words" that he could have used instead of "arsenokoitai"?

sorry I am not at least 16 but I had to check that box.

What words could Paul have used if he intended to condemn homosexuality?

May 02, 2021
Maybe you are all wrong
by: Believer

The research at the below link indicates that the word means pederast, not shrine prostitute:


Sure makes sense, considering pedophilia was the norm in those cultures back then (and even now for some cultures).

Rick's comment: Hi Believer- The meaning of Greek words in the New Testament isn't determined by how someone translated them 1500 to 2000 years AFTER they were written in the Bible.

I have multiple pages on this website about the meaning of arsenokoitai.

I encourage you to click on that word on the NavBar and explore the facts.

Thanks for stopping by.

Jun 02, 2021
by: Angela

So people are using that due to both lev18:22 using tobeah that means when the Bible used it on incest that mean incest is okay . How do a version this.

Rick's comment: Hi Angela- No, that is the wrong conclusion to draw. I address the general topic of specious arguments, which sound biblical but are not, at these links.

Shrine Prostitutes

Are incest and beastiality okay?

Jun 11, 2021
arsenes en arsesin
by: Daniel

In one of my disagreements I’ve encountered this argument. In Romans 1:26-27 they stated that the Greek version writes as arsenes en arsesin, this translates as men with men. They said these terms for "men" were also used in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

They said it was used in Matthew and Mark when referring to a quote from Genesis using "make and female." I’m certainly far from an expert with this, but I wanted to reach out to other sources for confirmation of this or anything else. Thank you!

Rick's comment: Hi Daniel- You are referring to Romans 1:27, where Paul uses that phrase.

Paul further drives home his point about shrine prostitutes by using the phrase, arsenes en arsesin, in Romans 1:27 - men with men.

This is a clear intertextual echo of arseno in the Septuagint Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Both Leviticus references are clear references to shrine prostitutes and were recognized as such by men like Philo, a Jewish intellectual and a contemporary of Jesus and Paul and a fellow Jew although not a fellow believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

My Romans Online Commentary has lots of helpful explanation and information. I encourage you to read it.

Explore Romans

Shrine Prostitutes

Jul 28, 2021
Very interesting
by: Morgan

This is very interesting and I don’t want to disprove your theory and facts as I am in the search if"homosexuality" was wrong by culture and Political Views and misinterpreted or if it was wronged by Gods words himself for I want to know the truth and only the truth.

My question is, can you explain why Jesus has said in his own words the marriage belongs to a woman and man ? In my studies (trying to disprove the anti gay scriptures) I cannot shake off what Jesus himself have said.

Rick's comment: Hi Morgan- Thanks for the good question about what Jesus said.

1. Jesus was asked by heterosexual Jewish men if THEY could divorce THEIR heterosexual wives for any cause.

2 No one in Matthew 19 asked Jesus anything about gay marriage.

3. Jesus answered the question He was asked by heterosexual Jewish men about THEIR ability to divorce THEIR heterosexual wives and marry another heterosexual woman.

4. Jesus responded by citing Genesis and the example of Adam and Eve and told heterosexual Jewish men THEY shouldn't be divorcing THEIR heterosexual wives for every cause.

5. Jesus didn't attack gay marriage or say anything negative about gay marriage.

6. Jesus is God. He can make a positive statement about heterosexual monogamy and say that heterosexual divorce is wrong without people concluding that He was making a negative statement about gay marriage since He didn't.

7. We know that because polygamy, even among God's people, was affirmed and blessed in the OT yet polygamy is definitely not Adam and Eve style marriage.

8. In plainer words, Jesus was not attacking or denying gay marriage in Matthew 19:3-12. He simply answered the question about heterosexual marriage and heterosexual divorce.

I have some pages on my website about Matthew 19 if you'd like to take a look.



Click here to add your own comments

Return to Gay Christian FAQ.

Enjoy this page? Get the html to share it with others.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

  1. Click on the HTML link code below.
  2. Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.
Site Build It! Site Build It!