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

p66 Greek Manuscript

p66 Greek Manuscript

If Paul intended to condemn homosexuality, he could have used a word from the following list to make his point. Yet instead of using these words, Paul coined a new Greek word, arsenokoitai or arsenokoites, from the arsenokoit stem. Thanks for taking time to educate yourself by exploring the textual links.

Some people believe that Paul coined the Greek word arsenokoitai, from the words arsenos koiten, found in Lev 20:13 in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament, where the biblical, cultural, historical and religious context is temple prostitution.

There is not a shred of objective historical evidence to support the belief that anyone in the first century AD understood arsenokoitai to refer to male and female homosexuality in general or used arsenokoitai with that meaning.

If you disagree, please present factual evidence to support your disagreement. Thanks for remembering - your opinion is not factual evidence. Neither is your "strong" belief. Neither is your gut feeling on this issue. Neither is your hunch. Neither is the consensus of scholars who think differently.

When objective facts are honestly considered, not a shred of evidence exists to support the view that the arsenokoit stem means gay or lesbian.

Ancient Greek and Latin words
Paul could have used

  1. arrenomanes - meaning mad after men or boy crazy

  2. dihetaristriai - a synonym referencing lesbian sexuality, meaning essentially the same thing as hetairistriai, tribad, tribades, from: Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, Brooton, Bernadette, p. 23.

  3. erastes - a sometimes older man who loves a sometimes younger male

  4. eromenos - a sometimes younger male who loves an older male

  5. euryproktoi – men who dress as women, also a vulgar reference to anal penetration

  6. frictrix - Latin word referring to a lewd woman and sometimes used to refer to a lesbian. Tertullian, 160-220 AD, translated tribas (a masculine woman) as frictrix.

  7. hetairistriai - women who are attracted to other women, used by Plato’s character Aristophanes, in The Symposium. May also refer to hyper-masculine women, from Lucian’s Dialogue of the Courtesans, cited by Brooten, p. 52.

  8. kinaidos – a word for effeminate, κίναιδος or kínaidoi (cinaedus in its Latinized form), a man "whose most salient feature was a supposedly feminine love of being sexually penetrated by other men." Winkler, John J., 1990, The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece, New York: Routledge.

    Although some scholars, like Dr. Robert Gagnon, understand kinaidoi to mean the passive partner in a male couple, Davidson argues that kinaidoi refers to a man insatiable and unrestrained in his sexual appetites instead of merely effeminate or passive. Davidson, J. 1997. Courtesans & Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens, New York, p. 167-182.

  9. lakkoproktoi - a lewd and vulgar reference to anal penetration

  10. lesbiai - a synonym referencing lesbian sexuality, meaning essentially the same thing as dihetaristriai, hetairistriai, tribad, tribades, from: Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, Brooton, Bernadette, p. 23.

  11. paiderasste – sexual behavior between males

  12. paiderastes or paiderastïs - παιδεραστής derived from the Greek word pais, παῖς a boy, meaning lover of boys

  13. paidomanes - a male mad for boys or boy crazy

  14. paidophthoros - a Greek word meaning corrupter of boys

  15. pathikos – the passive penetrated partner in a male couple

  16. tribades - an ancient Latin word indicating the active female partner of a lesbian pair, sometimes interpreted to mean a pseudo-male, referencing genital contact between women. Rashi defines it as “rubbing in a sexual manner.”

  17. tribas - the active partner in a lesbian relationship, who takes the male role

If Paul had used one of these words in Romans 1:26-27 or 1 Corinthians 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10, we could be reasonably certain of his meaning.  However, Paul did not use any of these words, suggesting he had some- thing else in mind, like rape, interspecies sex or shrine prostitution, when he coined his interesting new Greek word, arsenokoitai.

Paul intended to remind his readers of the real meaning of arsenokoitai, based on the way first century Jews understood Leviticus 20:13. Therefore modern readers need to remind themselves that in the first century, Jewish religious leaders understood arsenos-koiten as used in Leviticus 20:13, as condemning shrine prostitutes and the sex rituals which accompanied their worship of false gods.

There is not a shred of objective historical evidence that anyone in the first century AD understood arsenokoitai to refer to male and female homosexuality in general or used arsenokoitai with that meaning.

If you disagree, please present factual evidence to support your disagreement. Thanks for remembering - your opinion is not factual evidence. Neither is your "strong" belief. Neither is your gut feeling on this issue. Neither is your hunch. Neither is the consensus of scholars who think differently.

When objective facts are honestly considered, not a shred of evidence exists to support the view that the arsenokoit stem means gay or lesbian.

Malakoi in 1 Cor 6:9

Return to Gay Christian FAQ

Return to
Gay Christian 101 Home Page

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

Click here to add your own comments

Aug 12, 2011
Your research is excellent
by: Pastor Marilyn

I just wanted to say that your research is excellent. I thought I found a lot but you've surpassed me. Keep up the good work.

Nov 08, 2011
Do they not want to know the truth?

The research that Rick does for gaychristian101 is excellent and precise. He approaches the subject from every angle: historical, linguistic, cultural and exegetical. The research he does and the facts he gleans are available to any pastor, theologian, Bible college student or any serious Bible scholar.

Is it not fair and reasonable to ask why anti-gay theology continues to dominate mainstream religion? Could it be bigotry or bias or laziness? Maybe they like the status quo.

We need to start challenging our pastors, rabbis, priests and other spiritual leaders. Ask him or her how sure are they of the information they are spouting from pulpits in the name of God.

Let us start holding them accountable because they are responsible to truth and to God.

Mar 23, 2012
Yet another word Paul could have used
by: Gato Gordo

"Phileos", usually translated into English as brotherly love, used for nine hundred years before Paul to mean "lover" and this is the masculine form. The feminine form is "Phile". Lest some homophobic scholar attempt to insist that this only refers to non-sexual companionship, permit me to point out passages where the context is explicitly sexual.

In the Iliad, Homer states that for Achilles, Patroclus is the "herairos" who is the most "philos" by far (XVII 411,655). Lest there be any doubt that philia is sexual, Achilles states in the next section (IX 628-638) that he loved (phile) Briseis as a man loves (phile) his own wife, even though she was only a prisoner.

In "Medea" by Euripides, the opening sililoquoy, Medea is addressing the "women of Corinth", says [231] "we women are the most unfortunate...[249]...when the man tires of his marriage bed...he gets his satisfaction with some lover (philos) or someone his own age".

In "Symposium (9.6)", Xenophon describes the marriage feast of Dionysus and Ariadne, speaking of the banqueters, "the action of those lovers (philos) as they kissed and fondles one another was a thing to contemplate."

In "Lysis" (221) Plato titles this paragraph: "Eros i the cause of Philos", and within the paragraph calims that "Philos can be eros". Usually translated as "love can be desire".

Again with the Plato, in "Euthydemus" (282)"pretty lovers (erastes) and friends (philos)they must be who want their favorite (eromenos) not to be, or to perish!"

As you undoubtedly know, in Athens the older male lover is called erastes, and the younger beloved is eromenos. But in Crete, says Strabo ("Geography" X.4.12)the older is called "philetor" making the word lover out of philia synonymous with the word lover out of eros. Strabo makes it clear that these lovers (philetors) are sexual lovers, comparing the practice to that of Zeus and Ganymede.

Aristotle says that the Cretans confine sex to men with men to avoid having children. "they segregated the women and instituted sexual relations among the males so that women wouldn't have children." (Politics II.10)

Here is a nine hundred year (before Paul) continuity of Greek literature where philia means love which is every bit as sexual as eros. And yet Paul commands us to "be devoted to one another in philia" (Romans 12:10), while the writer of Hebrews (13:1) commands "let philia continue".

Rick's comment: The Greek word, phileo, φιλέω has a semantic range broad enough that it can be used of love between friends or love between family members with no sexual connotation or love between lovers in the sexual sense.

Jul 08, 2012
Gay Christians not having sex?
by: Anonymous

Does this mean that gay christans don't have sex or wait till they are legally married?

Rick's comment: No, gay Christians are similar to non-gay Christians in that regard. However, gay Christians in general are not as sex-crazed as non-gay Christians.

For gay Christians, our sin problem is taken care of by salvation in Jesus Christ and justification by faith. Riddle me this Ms. afraid to use her name with her smart remarks: Who takes care of YOUR sin problem?

Jul 21, 2012
Not as sex crazed?
by: Anonymous

Then why devote a whole movement based upon sexual desires? Atheist lesbian didn't use name either and you were fine with it.

Rick's comment: You characterize gays as "a whole movement based on sexual desires" yet you do not characterize heterosexuals as a whole movement based on sexual desires.

Why do you ignore the facts about sex-crazed professing hetero christians and keep picking at gays? Your behavior is very strange indeed.

Jul 22, 2012

You are not gay, u need to repent before GOD, renew your mine by the washing of the true word of GOD, in truth,you can,t be gay, an say you are saved

at the same time,you have to be one or the other,
the word (christian)mean being christ-like!
and being gay is sin before GOD,same as lieing, steeeing, why is that so hard to understand, it,s not that you don,t understand, it is you don,t
belived GOD,s word is true.


Rick's comment: Drunk? High? Deranged? I'm not sure. I do see classic denial going on and refusal to consider the facts.

Jul 31, 2012
People do not choose to be gay or bisexual.
by: Ismaila

I am so tired of people saying that it is a sin to be attracted to the same sex, when people do not choose to be this way.

Rick's comment: Amen to that Ismaila! I always encourage people to obey 2 Tim 2:15 so at least they know what they're talking about when they present their arguments.

Aug 11, 2012
simplicity and the last days
by: Anonymous

All of your seventeen alternative greek words would have expressed only a partial condemnation of a particular expression of homosexuality had they been used by Paul. Arsenokoites refers to all forms of male to male sexual behaviour, committed or non-committed, passive or active, penetrative or not, just as the actual wording does in Leviticus 20:13.

Rick's comment: Superb job of ignoring context and redefining terms without regard to culture, history and truth. Did it ever occur to you to read and study and get familiar with the topic before you opine?

Anonymous' comment continues: The context is not pagan temple practices but rather a long list of practices that God's people are forbidden to do, some of these forbidden things are familial, some sexual, some private, some public. That there are long lines of "experts" complicating the ancient simple reading here without any compelling reason is normal for these apostate times when everyone exalts in whatever is new and improved.

Rick's comment: If you'll take time to read my Lev 18:22 and 20:13 pages AND the other pages I've linked to via textual links, you may be surprised to learn information you have not previously considered.

It may also surprise you to learn that John MacArthur who is decidedly NOT gay affirming, agrees with me on the context of Leviticus.

Anonymous' comments continue: These days one can find greek and hebrew arguments for anything one wishes to wiggle out of. That does not make them good arguments. We are in the last days and people have become very cunning at having a form of godliness and denying the power thereof.

Since so many think that Paul was coining arsenokoites from Lev. 20:13 in LXX it becomes obvious that the meaning is male to male sexual activity equalling "as one lies with a woman".

Rick's comment: No, that is incorrect. The ancient Jewish understanding of arsenokoitai is that it referred to temple prostitution.

Anonymous' comments continue: Moreover, it is your contention that asenokoites is not defined explicitly for hundreds of years after being coined.

Rick's comment: No, that is not my argument. My argument is that the ancient Jewish understanding and the early Pauline and Christian understanding of arsenokoitai is that it referred to temple prostitution.

Anonymous' comments continue: This actually is the most powerful testimony that Paul and GOD meant it to be understood as the sum of its constituent parts, harking back to the simplicity of just believing Leviticus 20:13; otherwise it would have been immediately defined, for God is not the author of confusion nor is He the minister of questions. "...And such WERE some of you..." I Cor. 6:11

Rick's comment: Your reasoning makes no sense and is at odds with historical facts. Hope you'll keep seeking truth.

Oct 04, 2012
Truth vs. Lies
by: David (www.righteouswarriors.com)

May the God of truth open the eyes of all those being deceived, to see and understand the truth of this matter (which is clearly revealed in His Word). Everyone will have arguments, opinions, facts to back their bias up. Neither side will convince the other based on personal arguments. It will take the inworking of the Holy Spirit of God to expose the lies of the deceiver and reveal God's intent for His creation. Light will always expose darkness. His Word always brings CONFIDENCE in His truth, never sowing doubt. Each of us will stand before the Master and give an account of our lives, and those whose names are not recorded in the book of life will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).

On that day, nobody will know or care what we believed about "arsenokoites". All that will matter is whether we ever truly belonged to Him or not. That day awaits us all.

David, Righteous Warriors

Rick's comment: Hello David - Your statement that no one will care about arsenokoites is a bit strange since your website makes such a point of ignoring English words and emphasizing the words of the original language. I hope you will grow interested in word meaning since knowing the meaning of words is absolutely essential to correctly translating the Bible. Thanks for stopping by.

Oct 05, 2012
Don't care about arsenokoites?
by: Gordon Clason

People who wish to ignore the Greek meaning and eschew the best efforts to arrive at the best possible original words and meaning aren't interested in what God REALLY said. They just want God to be their sock-puppet to spout 19th century fundamentalist dogma.

Oct 19, 2012
by: Larry

To be honest, I am confused by the meaning of this word. I am gay and am trying to decide whether I am "Side A" or "Side B." It seems that the word in 1 Cor. and 1 Tim is confusing. "Man" and "bed." Is it literally "man," or is it "men?" Is it "mankind" meaning everyone related to "bed?"

If it is believed to possibly have been taken from a Leviticus prohibition on homosexuality, could it mean in the 2 NT passages that it is wrong for a man to lie with a man as one does with a woman?

I'm confused. Not arguing or trying to make a point. Really I'm asking questions that I hope someone can help me with.

Rick's comment: Hi Larry. Thanks for the good questions. I answer those questions on my Arsenokoites pages. Look on the Navbar under: What The Bible Says and click on Arsenokoites. There is lots of information on that page and be sure to click on the text links for additional information.

Nov 10, 2012
by: Anonymous

First, I want to thank you for all of the good work that you have done through God. You opened my heart to go back to Jesus again. What can I do to spread your thorough analyses and help other LGBT Christians who are abandoning the faith? And also, help open the hearts of non-supporting Christians?

Rick's comment: Thanks for your kind words. What a blessing to know that you've opened your heart to Jesus again because of what you read on this website. That encourages me greatly!

Here are some ideas about how to communicate the message that God loves and saves gays and that we do NOT have to abandon the Bible and Jesus.








Feb 12, 2013
by: Anonymous

Robin Scroggs in his 1983 book (The NT and homosexuality) tells us that the Greek word "arsenokoites" was derived from the Septuagint version of the Levitical prohibitions in Lev 18 and 20, a fact confirmed by David F Wright in 1984, which means that in Paul's mind the Levitical moral prohibitions applied in his day, otherwise he could not judge the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5, the problem was that the church was being too tolerant. Also Scroggs shows that the Hebrew equivalent of "arsenokoites" is "mishkav zakur" it is a technical term used by Rabbis of homosexuals. Both the Lev. (Septuagint) verses contain the words arsenos and koiten. (lying with a male). Paul is correlating the compound term, arsenokoitēs to the Septuagint's Leviticus passages and to the Hebrew term, Mishkav Zakur. The reason Paul uses this compuund term "arsenkoites" that had not been used before is because it would have been neon sign for them pointing back to Lev 18:22 and 20:13.

Rick's comment: The neon sign related arsenokoitai to temple prostitution, not to homosexuality. These links explain in more detail.

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

Define arsenokoites

Origin of arsenokoites

Shrine or temple prostitutes

How do you answer the verse that says homosexuals will not go to heaven?

Feb 13, 2013
Paul's Style of Preaching
by: Anonymous

I have a question. I have heard that Paul's style of preaching is to create models or examples in which to follow. So while he does not condemn same-sex committed relationships, is there any place where he presents it as the perfect model of how God wants our relationships with one another to be? Or rather what is the perfect model that we should be following in regards to marriage?

Rick's comment: Because the culture of the ancient near east was primarily heterosexual, it makes no sense to expect to find lots of affirmation of same sex marriage. However, Marriage in the Bible has always been about character, commitment, faithfulness, love and mutuality. Those traits are just as true of gay marriage as they are of hetero marriage.

Feb 14, 2013
by: Nikki

I appreciate your knowledge on the subject. I myself am a lesbian who has been struggling between belief and translations of the bible. With the wisdom I have gained by your research I am so very thankful. Some people need to realize that it states in the bible the importance of gaining wisdom.

Feb 17, 2013
How does that even make sense?
by: Anonymous

Paul knew what he was doing. He clearly said man to man and woman to woman. He said it was an abomination. God doesn't like it. Why do people twist scripture? Paul said it was wrong period.

Rick's comment: Paul addressed the issue of pagan same sex rituals in temple prostitution in Romans 1:26-27. He did not use ANY of the ancient Greek or Latin words which would indicate he was talking about gays or lesbians.

Paul again addressed the problem of temple prostitution in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. He did not use ANY of the old Greek or Latin words which would have indicated he was talking about homosexuality.

Paul's use of the Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, in 1 Cor 6:9 indicates Paul was focused on temple prostitution since that is how first century Jews understood the words Paul joined together to form his neologism, arsenokoitai. A neologism is a new word.

If you'll click on the text links in my article, I provide lots of additional information to help you figure it out.

May 07, 2013
GayChristian Rocks!
by: Joel Kessler

As a straight Christian guy, I love you, and can't wait to see your work at the Judgment throne of Christ and Jesus says well done good and faithful servant. I continue to pray down the strongholds of hate and ignorance and schemes of malicious theology! I thank you for your work. God bless you and your relationships in the world! I trust you!

Rick's comment: Thank you Joel, for your prayers and for your kind words.

May 13, 2013
Arsenokoites and the Holiness Code
by: Anonymous

Hi. I seen someone asked you about this before, but you never answered her. If the Levitical Laws do not bind on people as Christians, then why would Paul use Arsenokoites to refer to Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13? I also heard that we don't go by the Leviticus Laws unless it refers to sin. Is that right? Also, why did you change Jesus's quote about marriage?

Rick's comment: The arsenokoit stem and the Greek word arsenokoitai are never used in the Bible with the meaning, homosexual. These links provide answers to your questions.

What does arsenokoitai mean?

How do you interpret Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13?

What does you shall not lie with a man as with a woman mean?

Why do you say that Leviticus 18:22 is about goddess worship?

What is a shrine prostitute?

To whom was Leviticus written?

Is Leviticus 18:22 about pagan worship?

Are Christians under law?

Gay Christian FAQ

I have never changed Jesus' quote about marriage. I do explain what Jesus said in Matthew 19:3-12 at these links.

Jesus and homosexual eunuchs

Jesus and same sex attracted eunuchs

May 19, 2013
God knows the truth, Rick
by: Aaron Saltzer

God knows what you did. So does the woman who commented on it as well. Remember what 1 Timothy 1:9-10 says: Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for LIARS, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; I'm not accusing you. I know what I saw. Don't try to deny it, bc God will always know.

Rick's comment: Hi Aaron. Interesting that you have ignored every factual resource I provided while you continue to make false accusations against me. Then you have the effrontery to say: "I'm not accusing you."

As long as you ignore truth and refuse to study and educate yourself, God's answers to your very real needs will remain elusive.

Jun 04, 2013
Mosaic Code
by: Kenny

I think that Moses was having to define Divine Law because the people were trying to justify their sexual activity any way they could. "I could have sex behind my wifes' back with a guy and it's not the same therefore it doesn't break my marriage covenant". Or' "sex with a relative because I already have a loving relationship'.
Funny how we justify our sins and become our own "gods". All I know is that Moses' father married his aunt and Moses' wrote the mosaic code. Abraham married his half sister and Israel came from that. According to Leviticus' Moses should have at least executed his father. Jesus even commented that Moses had to write a certificate of divorce to excuse the people even though there was no excuse for divorce. God seems to confound the wise with the foolish thing.

The most hurtful sin we deal with is the lack of love. Gods' church is swimming in self righteousness without believing we all are free and forgiving through Jesus Christ. We gay people are trying to reach out a hand in love and letting God justify our lives.

Will gay Christians be blamed for the next natural disaster or terrorist attack because we are told we are responsible for the moral decline in America? God will judge His own for a lack of love for whom Jesus Christ is our model.

The Lord commands us to test men against His word because of our own corruption and self justification. In Revelation' John was told to swallow the book until such times as these. Rev 10

Jesus even said that in the last days knowledge would increase. We have an obligation to find truth. Law was given that we could see how corrupt we are and how loving Our Father is to forgive us.

The greatest 2 commandments are "to love God and to love our neighbor". These cover and encompass all other divine laws. Our neighbors are people we know. This is the church!

The ark of the covenant did not contain the mosaic codes. It contained only the 10 commandments, vessel on manna and an olive branch. Mans code of moral was kept outside the ark. Can anyone see the symbolism?

Love, Mercy and Peace. Love is the greatest and most ignored. If the church ignores it God will find a remnant for Himself who will obey it.

Let us as gay people continue to examine our own hearts and reach out in love to those who hate us. Our Father holds a special place in heaven for us. God Bless Everyone who believes in love!

Jun 23, 2013
The bible does condemn homosexual behavior
by: Wolfy

I find it interesting that all the bibles I have ever read make this entry by Paul clear that Homosexual behavior is to be avoided and wrong.

How come then this from the Homosexual society makes a different claim. I mean, is there some type of motive here? I have seen politicians take what is clear and put their own spin and try to pretend to clarify what someone has said. But we all know why that happens. It is the same here.

Rick's comment: No Wolfy, that is not what we are doing here. I've provided a list of words Paul could have used. You are the one obfuscating truth by ignoring truth.

Further. Although some would like to put a spin on Gods word, God does condemn Homosexuality. Now keep in mind that these scriptures demonstrate what their religion suggests what Homosexual behaviors can eventually lead to and the acceptance of such practices between men and women as well. Medically there are other repercussions. But to cut them some slack. They mean well and that is a fact.

Rick's comment: Click on the scripture links to get the truth.

Genesis 19:4ff - the Sodom story - all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, both young and old surrounded the house.

Jude 6-7 - In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

1 Corinthians 6:9 - Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

Jun 25, 2013
Searching the scriptures
by: Rahway

I believe in Christ, and in our Creator God. I believe that it is my duty to serve him faithfully with my life. As this is true, it's been disconcerting to me to hear and read that it is sinful to be gay. As a result, I've done my own research and have seen much of the evidence you've highlightedin this site.

I applaud you and hope that you are rewarded well by both God and man. I know it's been slightly difficult to present this with all the opposition (believe me, I know) and that some people will turn their backs on you and other believers. Nevertheless, keep on the good fight.

I am from a particularly Bible-believing church and while it is extremely loving, I haven't been a regular attendee for two years. It's been hard to be there, but perhaps even worse for my family, who still attends. I don't know of another truthful and loving church in my area and because I love the truth I end up going back to my church. My pastor and several other officers there welcome me, because they believe that God is calling all men into the Ark of safety.

How tragic it is to see the strong few members that tear apart families and slander their fellow "brethren." Having been on both sides of the fence and knowing God, I lift up anyone else struggling with acceptance in prayer. God sent His Son to die for all. And now that we need not observe ceremonial Law, only the Supreme Law of Love, instead of trying to maintain an upper-hand, let us lift each other up. Keep praying for me, please.

Jul 03, 2013
Word of Encouragement
by: Solon

I'm a young straight Christian who has felt lead to deeply study the conflict of homosexuality being a sin or not. Whether it is God's will or not for Lgbt to live their sexual orientation, its hard for me to imagine a life where I wouldn't be able to have the opportunity to have a deep human relationship where I could love someone in a deep manner such as a marriage. I'm trying to take things in different view points in order to love everyone with as much genuine love from Christ as I can. I will continue to read your articles and keep an open heart about this topic, I ask you to pray for me in this journey and as I will pray for you, praying especially that we are not false teachers but truly displaying the love Christ has for us all. I do ask and plead that you would be more gentle in your reply to some of our brothers and sisters when they go against what we are for. Please, no name calling or questioning the intelligence of these people, for it will only harden their hearts deeper, we must "heap burning coals" by returning kind and encouraging words. Much love, My Friend.

Rick's comment: Thank you for keeping your heart open to the leading of the Holy Spirit. As a disciple of Jesus, my responses follow the biblical pattern; sometimes rebuke, sometimes more tenderness. It is unbiblical to never rebuke or to never correct false teaching.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." - Proverbs 26:4

"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." - Proverbs 26:5

In other words, answer some one way but others a different way, as the Holy Spirit leads.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." - Matthew 23:14

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." - Romans 16:17

"One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;" Titus 1:12-13

Jul 08, 2013
Sola Scriptura?
by: Dillon Coffey

Rick, Could you tell me the biblical basis for Sola Scriptura? Thank you, Jesse

Rick's comment: Yes, I'm glad to Jesse. Here is what Jesus believed, what Christians should believe and what we at Gay Christian 101 believe about the Bible. The verses on these pages form the foundation of our belief in sola scriptura.

What did Jesus believe about the Bible?

What should I believe about the Bible?

What Christians believe about the Bible

What Christians believe about inerrancy and infallibility of scripture

Jul 22, 2013
More Context Study
by: James Lee

Hello, I'd like to commend you for your sincere desire to know the truth and study the word. I myself believe that same-sex attraction and orientation are no more sinful than opposite-sex attraction or orientation. However, I do realize that the conclusions based on your study of the context of Leviticus 20 Clobber Passage and Romans 1 need more attention. Leviticus 20 does start with a condemnation of child sacrifice to Molech but the attempts to set the verse 13 that forbids same-sex intercourse in the context of Molech worship passages from verses 1-5 must also than wrestle with other prohibitions against adultery in verse 10, incest in verses 11-21, bestiality in verse 16, and sex during the period in verse 18. If one takes same-sex coitus prohibition of verse 13 in the context of the Molech worship, than other prohibitions must also be taken in the context of the Molech worship, which begs the question, then adultery and incest that are not done in idol worship permissible? Same thing with Romans 1. If the gay and lesbian sex condemnation of Romans 1 is to be understood in the context of idolatry, then other sins listed after the condemnation of homosexuality from verse 29-31, such as, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossips, slanders, God-hate, being insolent, arrogant, and boastful, inventing ways of doing evil, and disobeying parents must also be understood in the context idolatry, which also begs the question, are these okay outside of idolatry?

Rick's comment: Moses does not say that homosexuality is analogous with incest and bestiality. He is analogizing illicit sexual worship of false gods with beastiality.

Jul 22, 2013
Need More Context Study
by: James Lee

The I Cor 6:9 verse, about catamites and sodomites, the word malakos that is sometimes translated into old English word catamite is a word that was used to generally describe passive gay sex partner within the same-sex relationship in the ancient Greek world.

Rick's comment: No James, malakos was rarely if ever, used to describe gay guys and never used to describe lesbians.

There was more technical word for male prostitute in Greek that is not used in the passage.

Rick's comment: James you tell me I need more study and then you make assertions which indicate you don't know what you're talking about.

Also, the word you listed as arsenokoites is actually arsenokoitai a new word that Paul coined which is straight from Leviticus 20:13 that combines the Greek translation of the Hebrew that separately means "male" (arseno) and "intercourse" (koitai) as in coitus, which basically means "men having sex with men".

Rick's comment: No James, it does NOT mean "men having sex with men." It did NOT mean that when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and it does NOT mean that now.

Given the general Jewish and Pharisaic taboo and condemnation of same-sex intercourse in general during the time of Paul, of which Paul was from, it is quite improbable that Paul was saying that same-sex intercourse within monogamous marriage is fine. There were same-sex marriages in the Romans world and Paul was aware of that. Instead of over a dozen words describing same-sex activities in Greek as you have listed, instead of listing them exhaustively in Romans 1, Paul, instead of using technical Greek words, since he probably knew that people have the tendency to twist words or circumvent words to nullify them, he seems to be tediously using a more easily understandable and less able to twist and a longer way to describe precisely that men having sex with men and women having sex with women are the ultimate culmination of suppression of God's truth, that is, the suppression of God's truth leads to idolatry, and idolatry always expresses itself in sexual immorality because instead of the Creator God, man begins to worship the creation and the creative potential of man (his procreative potential) and that the natural outcome of sexual immorality is same-sex intercourse.

Rick's comment: Please read and digest the truth about Romans 1.

Would love to encourage you to open your mind and study the Bible without agenda for I believe that when one truly desires to seek truth honestly, they will ultimately find it.

Rick's comment: James, you are the one with an agenda. You seek to impose upon the text a 20th and 21st century viewpoint. You have not studied this much at all yet you encourage me to study?

Jul 23, 2013
Regretful Editing
by: James Lee

Hello Rick, Thanks for partially posting my comment. It is regrettable that you did not respond to the out-of-context comments about Leviticus 20 and Romans 1. Hope you have the courage to do this. Also, your responses to the other comments I made need to be substantiated objectively. I have realized that you are using others' comments for your agenda by editing rather than honestly seeking the truth. I find it futile to communicate any further on your own website. Bye.

Rick's comment: James, I posted almost the full text of both of your comments, with minimal editing. Objective substantiation of my views is found on this website. Click on any link on the NavBar under, What The Bible Says.

May I kindly point out that none of your comments was substantiated by objective evidence. You merely repeated false information, which, I must say, I have debunked on this website.

I get thousands of emails and comments because of this website. Most of them are short on facts and long on opinion. If you are going to take the position that the Bible condemns gays, you need to know what you're talking about.

It it not unkind to point out that you have not read much in the literature on this topic nor have you studied the clobber passages. Looking up a few words - in Strong's Concordance and reading a couple of English translations is not studying - it is only the beginning of study.

There are commentaries and other books which deal with the issue of gay Christians in depth. There are cultural and historical and linguistic and religious facts which one must know to intelligently discuss this topic.

I encourage you to do more reading and more study, with an open heart and mind. The blessed Holy Spirit has much to teach you on this topic if you are willing to listen to Him.

As far as your charge that I did not respond to your comments, did you read my response? I provided two text links which are my response to your critique. Here is one more page which you will find helpful on the issue of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 and context.

Lev 18:22 and 20:13 and shrine prostitutes.

Please notice that there are many links to additional info on that page. Will you read that info carefully and let me know what you think? Many thanks James.

Aug 21, 2013
by: Erick

Thank you so much for this information. I am a pastor and have been trying to make sense of the New Testament words typically translated as having to do with homosexuality. BUT when I look at Greek dictionaries the typical translations do not seem to follow the basic meaning of the Greek words. Not having a knowledge of the Greek language I have been looking for some one who can show me the extra-biblical writings that either confirm, what I consider a mis-translation, or deny the translation. Your GayChristian 101 site is the first one that I have found attempts to be honest by going back to the orginal sources rather then simply one scholar quoting another scholar. Again thank you for your work. May God richly bless you and yours.

Rick's comment: Hello Pastor Erick - I'm thankful I could be a blessing to you. We serve a wonderful Lord and Savior!

Aug 22, 2013
Exactly the Problem
by: gclason

All of the most readily available lexicons and Greek-English disctionaries of the Koine dialect of Greek are written by and for Fundamentalist. They take no notice of the uncertainty of some translations. They take no notice of the millions of words of contemporary written Greek.

Rick's comment: Gordon, I believe your comment that "All of the most readily available lexicons and Greek-English disctionaries of the Koine dialect of Greek" is inaccurate. For example, James Strong of Strong's Concordance, was more of a liberal than a fundamentalist.

Joseph Henry Thayer of Thayer's Lexicon, was a Unitarian, not even close to being a fundamentalist. Thayer's conclusions about word meanings when dealing with verses about the Trinitarian Godhead, the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, Biblical inerrancy and the eternal punishment of the lost are suspect because of his Unitarian beliefs.

I recommend The Source New Testament translated by Ann Nyland. This is the first New Testament translation done with reference to millions of pages of every day Koine usage discovered since 1970.


Rick's comment: The publisher of The Source New Testament sent me a copy years ago, to evaluate. While there are some interesting footnotes, the text is similar to the NIV, NASB and other modern translations. For example, Dr. Nyland omits words and verses based on the same faulty rationale upon which modern translations omit words and verses.

The LGBT community is much better off sticking with the old King James translation in my opinion.

Aug 23, 2013
sorry about the misstatement
by: Gclason

I understand what you are saying about the theological bias of both Strong and Thayer. However they both wrote in the nineteenth century and nineteenth century worldview affected their outlook.

Today's fundamentalist dogma is based on traditional nineteenth century world view with regard to women, gays, plenary inspiration, blood sacrifice, original sin, young earth creationism, and Scofield dispensationalism.

The words and verses omitted by Ms Nyland, along with the translators of the NIV, NASB and other modern translators do not exist in the early manuscripts discovered since the time of Erasmus. The King James translation is based on a Greek edition which used what was available in 1514. Not a manuscript, but an edition, compiled from several late Greek manuscripts and using Erasmus' judgement as a selection tool.

This doesn't make what you said wrong in any sense, I simply don't think it's complete. Translations based on manuscripts discovered since the time of the Textus Receptus are valuable for comparison and the King James can't be relied upon to show us exactly what God really said.

Rick's comment: Gordon, when I think about manuscript evidence, I remember that there are two distinct lines of manuscripts, the good line linked to the great missionary church in Syrian Antioch, Acts 13, and the bad line linked to Egypt (home of the Alexandrian School), Matthew 2:15, Jeremiah 42:20, 43:2, 44:1ff., Revelation 11:8. The Antiochian manuscript line, also known as the Majority Text, comprises most of the 5500+ NT Greek mss available to us today.

The Alexandrian line of manuscripts, includes Vatican ms 1209, aka Vaticanus, (4th century) and Sinaiticus (4th century), the best representatives of the corrupt manuscript line. These mss are the basis of most modern English versions, with their omissions of thousands of words of scripture. The old KJV follows the Majority text and contains much of what newer versions omit.

It helps me keep manuscript evidence in perspective when I remember that early church fathers quoted from early manuscripts and early versions, quotations which differ from the Alexandrian or minority texts mentioned above.

In plainer words, Greek manuscripts based on the Majority text were around early in church history. Those manuscripts were the basis of early versions of the Bible (mentioned below) and through those early versions, Erasmus in the 1500s and later on, the KJV translators in the 1600s, had access to the earliest readings from the earliest Greek manuscripts, readings which were closer to the originals than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. For example:

The Peshitta Version - AD 150
The Old Latin Vulgate - AD 157
The Italic Bible - AD 157
The Gallic Bible - AD 177
The Gothic Bible - AD 330-350
The Old Syriac Bible - AD 400

Sep 12, 2013
Romans 16
by: Karen

Please do a word study on the meanings of the names of Romans 16 up to 19 - For the report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is GOOD and innocent in what is EVIL. 20 - The God of peace will soon crush SATAN under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

You will see that the meanings of all those names amounts to a description similar to the myths of Ganymede - the very myth used to defend homosexuality and pederasty in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds.

It is therefore no coincidence that as faith in Christ falls this world is seeing the rise once again in defending homosexuality as 'normal' despite the simple truth which His creation declares - only men have seed and women eggs.

Along with it is coming pederasty and pedophilia because sexual molestation of youth arrests masculine authority, keeping many in an effeminate state. You are a temple of God within the temple which He builds. It is therefore no coincidence that the words used in scripture often relate to 'temple prostitution'.

Rick's comment: I cannot follow your logic. It seems to me you have things upside down and backwards concerning the text of the New Testament. Please help me understand.

Are you saying that God, through the process of biblical inspiration, led Paul in Romans chapter 16, to use names which defended the ancient Greek practice of pederasty?

Nov 04, 2013
paiderasste - inconsistency?
by: Phil

The article says "Greek word pais, παῖς a boy" yet defines paiderasste as sexual behavior between males. Should this not then be sexual behaviour with boys rather than men?

Rick's comment: Paiderasste as used in ancient times, described sexual behavior between males, sometimes boys, sometimes adult men. I provide more info about that on my Centurion and Pais page.

As noted there, one of the leading authorities on ancient Greece, Sir Kenneth Dover, and the leading anti-gay authority, Dr. Rob Gagnon, agree that pais had a semantic range broad enough to include adult males. In plainer words, its meaning was not restricted only to boys. Hope this is helpful Phil.

Dec 23, 2013
by: Daniel

Perhaps Paul didn't use those words because none of them conveyed what he meant. The list consists of words that refer to specific types of homosexuality - lesbianism, or male homosexuality, or pedophilia. None of them refer to homosexuality in general.

Granted, you would undoubtedly argue that arsenokoitai does not have that meaning, but that's a discussion for another day. Your contention here is that if Paul had been referring to homosexuals he would have used one of those words; however, none of those words actually fit. I think we can all agree that for Paul to convey that all homosexuality was wrong he would have to have used some other word.

Rick's comment: Precisely the point Daniel. On this website I provide one of the most in depth discussions of the meaning of arsenokoitai - see also the text links on that page.

There is no objective historical evidence that anyone in the first century AD used arsenokoitai with the general meaning of homosexual or to refer to gay men and lesbians.

Mar 24, 2014
Male Cult Prostitutes OR the men who used them?
by: Dr Lance Heath

Thanks for the thorough and compelling information. I agree with 99% of what you spell out and am grateful that you have done so. I'm just wondering if it is possible that the term "arsenokoitai" could refer specifically to the men who were visiting the shrines and engaging in the worship of the fertility gods (including Molech/Baal) by having same-sex intercourse with the male shrine prostitutes who worked/lived at these shrines?(rather than referring to these "priest-prostitutes" (who would obviously be called qadeshim in the Hebrew / and possibly "malakoi" etc in the Greek?. I also wonder if this isn't a reference to the anal sex which indubitably occurred during these specific rites? (Particularly given the fact that fairly early on reference is made to men committing this sin with their own wives). I would love to hear your opinion on these ideas of mine. Best, Lance

Rick's comment: Hi Lance - thanks for the good questions. The Hebrew text of Lev 20:13 includes both men, based on the Hebrew word shen·ah'·yim, translated in English as, both - "both of them have committed an abomination:" which indicts both participants in the abomination of using sex to worship pagan gods.

The anti-gay crowd displays a curious cognitive dissonance on points like this. For example, when Satan worshipers use heterosexual sex to worship Satan, the anti-gay crowd does not campaign against all heterosexual sex as evil and Satanic.

Yet when the Bible indicts same sex sexual worship of pagan gods, the anti-gay sage scrambles madly to grab his tin-foil hat, settles his silver sombrero upon his empty head and proclaims that ALL same sex activity is wrong, based on verses ripped out of context.

Yes, the act to which Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 alludes probably is anal sex in worship of the goat idols, Lev 17:7 and/or pagan gods, Lev 18:21-22, 20:2, 3, 4, 5, 13.

Anal sex as a primitive method of birth control has been a feature of heterosexual life for thousands of years. Some regard it as sinful although the Bible never condemns it as sinful except in the context of worshiping false gods.

Mar 25, 2014
by: Dr Lance Heath

Thanks for your response to my questions. Again I completely agree that the anti-gay lobby is forcing meaning on terms out of context and erring in doing this. I note that the Levitical commands are given to Israelites (not Canaanites) and at this point these men seem to be told not to fraternize with or engage sexually with the (male) cult prostitutes (and only later not to BECOME mcp's).

Rick's comment: Yes, the Levitical commands are aimed at Israelites although once Israel was in the land, the Canaanites are also under God's law, i.e., the law of Moses, Lev 18:3, 19:4, 10, 18, 34, Deuteronomy 27:19 and strangers must be treated with kindness.

Molech is mentioned a few verses before and subsequently/in close proximity. You mention the fertility gods of Egypt etc but could the goat gods be termed Molech in Hebrew - and could this be a reference to Canaanite fertility gods? After all the narrative context includes the fact that the Israelites were about to enter their 'Promised Land' (?).

Rick's comment: Scripture distinguishes between goat idols and Molech. They are different yet both are part of the pantheon of false gods. The goat idols are not specifically called Molech in the Hebrew text. What God indicts is shrine prostitution, whether with goat idols or Molech or Ashteroth or the Apis bull cult or any of the other pagan gods and goddesses.

I get that both participants would be condemned BUT surely the Israelites concern and focus would have been on the Israelites? i.e. at this stage no Israelites could have yet been Canaanite prostitutes (as they had yet to enter the Land).

Rick's comment: Worship of false gods was a carry-over from Egypt as exemplified by the tendency of the Israelites to commit prostitution with the goat idols or goat demons, Lev 17:7. Remember that the children of Israel spent 40 years wandering in the wilderness before they entered the promised land.

So, even before they got to the land of Canaan, they were worshiping false gods. Lev 17:7 gives us context, tells us what was happening then and why the prohibitions of Lev 18 and 20 were necessary even before they entered the land.

I am still left wondering if the "arsenokoitai" (later) could be a specific reference to the shrine worshippers (participants in and having intercourse with the cult prostitutes) rather than the priestitutes (qadesh/dogs). Is this possible?

Rick's comment: Arsenokoitai as a Greek word does not appear in history until Paul uses it in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. The words from which he coined his neologism are found in the Septuagint text of Lev 18:22 and 20:13. In the Levitical context, arsenos koiten includes both participants.

Mar 25, 2014
2 more questions
by: Dr Lance Heath

Apologies if I am bombarding you with questions! I'd just also like your opinion on the words "androbatn" and "androkoits" ... are these not also possible examples of contemporary options Paul could have used had he wanted to use more typical words to describe 'homosexuals'?

And also why are you leaning towards goat gods rather than Molech (who had the head of a bull)? Appreciating your inputs! :)

Rick's comment: Hi Lance - I am working on an expanded list of words Paul could have used. Androbatn and androkoits are on the list but I am still researching their usage.

I am not leaning toward goat gods rather than Molech. It is a both situation instead of one or the other because both are mentioned in scripture as false deities who were not to be worshiped by God's people.

Mar 25, 2014
Technical Problem?
by: Dr Lance Heath

Hi - sadly I cannot seem to see my comments or your replies (i could earlier see my first comment and your great reply but now cannot even see this one)... I'd really love to see what replies you've made (and I have received email notifications that you have replied!) - any advice on this one?

Rick's comment: Hi Lance - both comments show up for me. It may be necessary to reload the page to see the latest comments.

Mar 26, 2014
arsenokoitai vs qadeshim
by: Dr Lance Heath

Thanks for the help and inputs - most enlightening and helpful! I am aware that the Israelites were exposed to Egyptian fertility cult practices and prostitution BUT also aware that those Israelites that stood on the border of the Promised Land were not of the generation that left Egypt so strictly speaking none of them would have personally engaged in the abovementioned activities as they would either have been too young or not have been born yet, no?

Rick's comment: Hi Lance - The Israelites who stood on the border were Caleb and Joshua and the people less than twenty years old, who came out of Egypt plus anyone born during the forty years in the wilderness, Deuteronomy 1:35ff., Numbers 14:29ff. It would be assuming facts not in evidence to assert that no one in this group was practicing pagan worship rites.

And also aware (thanks to you) that the death penalty would have applied to both Israelite male shrine worshippers (engaging in "active" sexual roles with the qadeshim) as well as the qadeshim themselves. And although I'm harping on one particular point (a bit like a lawyer :) ) I am still wondering specifically if it is POSSIBLE that the word arsenokoitai (as used by Paul!) could not have referred only to those who visited the shrines and took on the active role in the sex rites (as opposed to the qadeshim who were the "receptors" or in the "passive" role there). So is it possible that this term might have applied only to the one party (and not to the "priestitutes"?

Rick's comment: It is possible but in my opinion, highly unlikely. Paul as a Pharisee was conservative. Jewish thinking in the first century AD and for centuries before that, was that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prohibited male-male incest and shrine prostitution. Paul would not create his neologism, arsenokoitai, and then divorce its meaning from its biblical context which indicted BOTH participants in the abominable worship.

Mar 26, 2014
arsenokoitai vs qadeshim
by: Dr. Lance Heath

I ask this obviously because there are a number of references to the qadeshim in the OT and possibly one or two in the NT BUT the qadeshim are not specifically mentioned in Lev 18 and 20. This omission is curious given the shrine context of Lev 18 and 20 and needs to be explained. I feel it could best be explained by the fact that in Lev 18 and 20 the Israelites were not yet in immediate danger of being shrine prostitutes but rather more imminently at risk of engaging with them in illicit ways). I would love to know your opinion on this? Is this something you have considered to date?

Rick's comment: I believe that Lev 17:7 indicates that when Lev 18:22 and 20:13 were given, many in Israel were already worshiping false gods including the goat demons and Molech and his fertility goddess consort. In the historical context then, every Israelite who heard Moses read Leviticus was already intimately aware of the cultural historical and religious context and the association of shrine prostitutes with the prohibitions. In addition, Moses does mention Molech with both prohibitions, which is an indirect reference to shrine prostitutes.

Mar 27, 2014
malakoi = qadeshim?
by: Dr Lance Heath

Rick, it is fascinating and enlightening (and also refreshing!) to engage with you on these matters. Despite really studying these things for many years (probably why I agree with you on 99% of what you say!) I have still learnt a thing or two in the brief interaction we have had thus far.

I am pleased to hear that it is possible (albeit unlikely) in your opinion that "arsenokoitai" COULD refer to the male adherents/ worshippers at the various fertility cult rituals. I definitely agree that the context of Lev 18 and 20 is cultic prostitution (be it Molech and/or other false deities.

For me the focus of the command would be aimed at the chosen people who although they may have engaged in these activities (in the desert? / in Egypt? - in Babylon! :) ) they would probably not have included the priestitutes amongst them at this stage. For me this settles the issue of the cultic context despite no mention (no need to mention) the qadeshim.

It is interesting to note the "progression" (or deterioration) in the OT where the qadeshim ARE mentioned: where in Deut 23:17 the Israelites are (first?) forbidden from becoming qadeshim, Job 36 describes the fraternising/dwelling with qadeshim and then in 1 Kings 14 how Israeli men became qadeshim and then later in 1 and 2 Kings how they are expelled but this also reveals the penetration of qadeshim from their own external shrines to this practice even becoming included in the Temple in Jerusalem!

Not sure if you have a section on the qadeshim on your site yet - I must look for it! I wonder if (sometimes) conservative St Paul did not also have a tendency towards being quite specific? I wonder if there might be any chance (even the slightest) that the "malakoi" he referred to (once) were not the qadeshim. Given that the translators of the Septuagint struggled with rendering the word qadeshim into Kione Greek - using 6 or so different terms in each of the 6 cases this word occurs in the OT.

Job 36:14 titroskomne hupo aggelos
Deu 23:17 porneuo, teliskomenos
1Ki 15:12 teletav/tetelesmenes
1Ki 22:46 tetelesmenon
1Ki 14:24 sundesmos
2 Ki 23:7 kadhsim

I'm left wondering if Paul used "malakoi" as a translation for "qadeshim". Highly speculative I know! But I wonder what your thoughts and leanings would be on this being a possibility?

Rick's comment: Hi Lance - I have two pages about malakoi, which explain how the word was used in the first and second century and what I believe malakoi means.

Malakoi in New Testament times.

Define malakoi.

Apr 03, 2014
malakoi sodomites qadeshim
by: Dr Lance Heath

Thanks Rick I found Rawlinson's ideas quite similar to my own. Of him I see you say: "Rawlinson is careful to accurately define malakoi by equating Galli priests with the KJV's sodomites, the qadesh of the Hebrew text."

Left wondering if the KJV used "catamites" or "sodomites" of the qadeshim.

Rick's comment: The KJV never uses the word, catamites. The old KJV uses the word sodomite(s) six times.

It's great to see people taking the Bible so seriously. Ironic that those who seem to (mis)quote it most often are the ones who take it at "face value" i.e. do the least work to understand it well. Keep up the great work! (I'm doing my bit this side of the globe too!) - Best, Lance

Apr 03, 2014
by: Dr Lance Heath

Thanks Rick. I see it's the Jerusalem Bible (1968, English version) that used "catamites" I wonder if any other versions used it. Any you know of?

Interesting re: the KJV using sodomites. I take it they have changed that in the more recent versions.

Rick's comment: Moffat's 1913 translation also uses, catamite. I reference about 40 translations on my malakoi page.

The New American Bible, a Roman Catholic translation, has this footnote about the word, catamites.

“The Greek word (malakoi) translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for the purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamus” (NAB).

Apr 04, 2014
You are a veritable mine of information!
by: Dr Lance Heath

Fascinating! Thanks once again!

Apr 07, 2014
A long bow
by: Dr Phil

"If Paul had used one of these words in Romans 1:26-27 or 1 Corinthians 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10, we could be reasonably certain of his meaning. However, Paul did not use any of these words, suggesting he had some- thing else in mind, like rape, interspecies sex or shrine prostitution, when he coined his interesting new Greek word, arsenokoitai. "

We do not know that Paul invented the word arsenokoitai. The word may have been in existence at the time but no text using it has survived. Its a pity the great library at Alexandria was destroyed.

Rick's comment: Hi Phil - there are two possibilities. Paul invented the word or Hellenistic Jews invented the word. Your objection comes off as pointless and adds nothing to the discussion.

'Rape in mind', don't think so as that is a given bad act in any culture, no need to mention it at all. Not tolerated on earth.

Rick's comment: If you take time to read the text links in the article you will discover that some who used arsenokoitai in their writing did believe it refers to rape.

Paul is fairly descriptive in Romans 1:27 - females gettin it on with females and males getting it on with males. Included with a lot of other bad behaviours in the passage.

Rick's comment: You haven't spent much time thinking about this nor have you studied Romans as is apparent from your comment.

And still you continue to to do these things spoken against and also approve of those who practice them. (Rom 1:32)

Apr 08, 2014
In addition to the discussion
by: Dr. Phil

Many of your commentors commend you on your research. They might be those advocating similar behaviour. I do not know about your research but some of your findings here have a tendency towards cherry picking bias and obfuscation.

"Rick's comment: You haven't spent much time thinking about this nor have you studied Romans as is apparent from your comment."

Oh dear, argumentum ad hominen! Rather than attack or dismantle my comment on Romans 1:27, or defend your position, you judge me. Such judgments, and I will use your words, are pointless and add nothing to the discussion. Maybe Lev 19:15 is for you. However, this too pointless and adds nothing to the discussion other than to keep it on track. What does Romans 1:27 actually say and how do you interpret it?

Rick's comment: Hi Phil - I do not believe it qualifies as ad hominem argument when I point out that you appear not to have studied Romans.

I have many pages devoted to Romans 1:26-27 on this website plus many more pages on Romans 1 in my Gay Christian FAQ..

I apologize that the rest of your comments appear to be missing. The interwebs somehow ate your other comments and my response when I posted them. In any case, thanks for the questions.

Apr 08, 2014
For Dr. Phil - In addition to the discussion
by: Rick Brentlinger

Hi Phil - I'll try to sum up your comments that were lost in the mist of the Interwebs. You stated that Lev 18 and 20 were definitely not in the context of temple prostitution. You also suggested that I used that argument to misdirect people.

Rick's comment: Leviticus chapters 17 - 26 are called the Holiness Code. They comprise a distinct section of the book of Leviticus. My belief that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are prohibitions of sex rituals which worship false gods is not my private interpretation. Instead, that is the widespread view of conservative Christian commentators down the centuries. Here is proof with page citations from more than a dozen world class scholars who link Lev 17:7, 18:22 and 20:13 to cultic worship of false gods.

Lev 17:7 and goat idols, Part 1

Leviticus 17:7 and goat idols, Part 2

How do you interpret Lev 18:22 and 20:13?

Who are shrine prostitutes?

In the Jewish Old Testament, we see Molech and Ashtoreth or Chemosh and Ashtoreth or Baal and Ashtoreth or Milcom and Ashtoreth linked together, 1 Kings 11:5, 11:33, 2 Kings 23:13.

Over the centuries these gods took different names in different cultures, yet always with the same demonic spirits behind the false gods, regardless of the names they used, Deuteronomy 32:16-17, Leviticus 17:7 and Leviticus 18:21-22 and Leviticus 20:2, 3, 4, 5, 13 and 1 Corinthians 10:20-21.

So we see Israel's false gods, Ashtoreth and Molech or Ashtoreth and Baal morph into Aphrodite and Adonis in Greece or Jupiter and Minerva in Phrygia or Fortuna and Jupiter in Rome or Rhea and Jupiter or Cybele and Saturn or Ceres and Jupiter or Kybele and Jupiter or Cybele and Jupiter or Cybele and Cronos.

Hope this helps to explain my views more fully.

Apr 10, 2014
Context, context, context
by: Paul Abraham

"Some people believe that Paul coined the Greek word arsenokoitai, from the words arsenos koiten, found in Lev 20:13 in the Septuagint...where the cultural, historical and religious context is temple prostitution."

First, you speak of context while not providing the full context of the quote. Arsenos is a Greek word for male and koiten means to lie with in a sexual manner. Now, if taken alone it would make sense that this could possibly mean prostitution; however, Leviticus uses these terms in a specific manner not confused with "temple prostitution" nor is it a term meaning homosexuality. Thus we need the full text to comprehend the meaning; "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act..."

This is not prostitution, this is a clear description that a man should not have sex with a man just as he would with a woman. Makes sense as this violates the very first command given by God to mankind in Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply." Homosexuals by their own accord cannot do so.

Rick's comment: Hi Paul - your comment indicates you have no acquaintance with the facts.

1. You have not studied this issue, nor have you read the commentaries or the scholarly literature. You perhaps read an English translation or two and concluded you knew exactly what it meant without bothering to factor in biblical cultural doctrinal historical linguistic literary and religious context.

2. Because you do not study, all have to offer is your unlearned opinion.

3. You are apparently unaware that two of the leading anti-gay conservative Christian scholars, John MacArthur and Dr. Robert Gagnon, agree with me that the context of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 is cult shrine temple prostitution.

4. I carefully document what I teach on this website. See my shrine prostitutes page and its carefully sourced information for my answer to your comment.

Apr 10, 2014
Context, context, context
by: Paul Abraham

Second, you make poor connections with other scripture generally speaking to only parts of the text rather than the whole text taken together. For example, in related article you refer to Romans 1:27 and focus solely on the "natural use" while ignoring the remainder of the text; "...and in the same way also the MEN ABANDONED the natural function of the WOMEN 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." (emphasis mine)

What I find more interesting is you note, "Paul may also have been referring to heterosexual women who engaged in anal sex with their husbands, a practice viewed as against nature in ancient times because it was not procreative." You strangely place this burden on heterosexuals while failing to acknowledge that all homosexual sex is not procreative (harkening back to the Genesis reference previously).

Rick's comment: Hi Paul - Ignorance is not the fruit of God's Holy Spirit. If you cared enough about truth to read and study and think before sharing your thoughts, your comments might be more relevant.

I have about twenty pages on this website dealing with many aspects of Romans 1. May I suggest that you need to obey 2 Timothy 2:15 in the old KJV and start studying? Memorizing and obeying that verse will change your life.

Third, Jude 7 using "strange flesh" does not imply sex with angels because it does not use the term "human flesh." The term used is heteros which simply means "one other." It does not necessarily imply the idea of a difference of kind. Of all the English use of "strange" in the Bible, none of them refer to angels. Indeed, there is no indication that the men who desired Lot's guests knew they were angels at all. They spoke to them saying, "“Where are the MEN who came to you tonight?" (emphasis mine) They did not ask, "Where are the angels...?" Consider for a moment how foolish that would be knowing full well what angelic servants of the Lord could do to them. While I agree that S & G were not destroyed simply for homosexuality, indeed Gen 18 merely spoke of their wickedness, homosexuality was merely one example as demonstrated by plight of Lot.

Rick's comment: Really Paul, your comments indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about. I deleted your other long comment because it was factually inaccurate and insulting. Leading conservative Christian scholars on Jude refute your sophomoric explanation, - see their carefully sourced quotations on my Jude page.

Apr 26, 2014
Eternally grateful for this website
by: Darius Wilder

I was expelled from a church because of my sexuality. And since then, I have been struggling to find myself. There were times where I was infuriated with God, wondering what could I have done to be placed in such a disadvantage. I even contemplated suicide on numerous occasions.

I am an African-American and our dominant religion is the Baptist denomination who speak extremely harsh against homosexuals. In the black community, possessing a same-sex attraction can be a HUGE no-no, forcing many black men to live on the "down-low": "public" heterosexuals living secret gay lifestyles.

I am eternally grateful to discover this website and your research; it has given me clarity, and I no longer harbor any guilt within my soul. I feel free to approach God as His proud, gay creation. Something inside of me suspected what was being said about homosexuality was untrue and misconstrued.

Now, thanks to you, I have the knowledge to talk to other gay people who feel ashamed and alienated, because of what's being said. Imagine if this information hits ABC, NBC, and CBS.

Rick's comment: Hi Darius - thanks for the kind comments. I'm so thankful we have been a blessing to you. God has a good spiritual purpose for you, as a witness for Jesus. "Walk in the Spirit" - Galatians 5:16 - and God will show you His plan, Ephesians 2:10.

May 01, 2014
What does the Holy Spirit tell me?
by: Apologist007

After picking up my spirit phone and tuning in; I ask what did Paul mean using arsenokoitai? "Softness of faith" was my answer.

Rick's comment: Just for the record, I do not believe the Holy Spirit told you what you wrote. Scripture warns us against seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils in the last days, 1 Timothy 4:1 so we need to get deeply into the word of truth.

I'm not sure if you are serious or joking in what you wrote. yet we are all about God's word in context on this truth-focused website.

May 01, 2014
Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot
by: Apologist007

King James Bible - "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" - 1 Timothy 4:1

I have not departed from the faith. My education is bible based and believing. This week I have been accused of this exact same thing using talking points from your book and website. Then I get it from you, Rick.

"softness of faith" - Actually the idea came to me in a thought, much how the Spirit of our Lord speaks to me, or visions in dreams. In my peace in subtle ways He reaches me moment by moment lighting my path. Rick, I was not making a joke here.

Lukewarm Christianity, or "softness of faith" is a common act of sin in many verses of the Word. Could Paul have included it, in your understanding?

Rick's comment: Arsenokoitai is a rarely used Greek word, used only 77 times in the first 1400 years of church history, based on the extant Greek texts available to us today. I list the first 56 times the arsenokoit stem is used.

Because it is not used with the meaning "softness of faith" we can safely reject that as its meaning. Word meaning must be based on how the word was actually used, not what the writers of Greek lexicons believe it should mean based on etymology, not on alleged meaning communicated from a spirit.

Sorry if I came off as harsh but these are serious issues. As Christians we work with facts and what scripture says, in context, never basing our views on impressions incapable of being substantiated by actual usage in church history.

May 01, 2014
In Continuum
by: Apologist007

Rick, I respectfully submit that we can be serious and maintain a sense of humor. I can't count how many times God had me ROTFL. We serve an amazingly serious, and humorous Lord. I think it came with the joy download at conversion... I agree we have very little evidence to define arsenokoitai during that period in Palestine...

You said: "Because it is not used with the meaning "softness of faith" we can safely reject that as its meaning. Word meaning must be based on how the word was actually used, not what the writers of Greek lexicons believe it should mean based on etymology..."

Rick, you know the lexicons are not entirely accurate better than anyone... Etymology sadly does not define arsenokoitai...
Forgive me Rick, that joy issue I have again.

Rick's comment: Yes, I point out on this website that etymology does not define the meaning of arsenokoitai. I edited your comment because your theory has no basis in historical reality, no basis in fact. When people want me to publish speculations yet will not use their real name or make comments using different names, it sets off alarms for me.

May 01, 2014
Ever had this experience?
by: Apologist007

Have you ever had an image of someone you admire, dare say a hero and you get to know them, and find out they're nothing like you expected them to be? It hurts, and I learn, and carry on. I'm still wearing your jersey but inside out today.

Rick's comment: I have no idea what you mean.

May 01, 2014
Final comment
by: Apologist007

Rick's comment: Just for the record, my regard for Rob Gagnon is similar to yours. He seems like a nice guy and I do not regard him as an enemy but I believe his conclusions are wrong and quite harmful to gays and lesbians. I do not have your email address, by the way.

I do not understand your insulting comments about me. Are they based on the fact that I did not post your comment quoting Joel Osteen or your non-factual arguments in support of your view of the meaning of arsenokoitai? Would Rob Gagnon allow you to post those comments on his website? I seriously doubt it.

"Bob has it," presumably your research which you were going to send to me but changed your mind? Okay, no problem.

May 31, 2014
Leviticus translation
by: Gary Arbach

Rick, I think your website is wonderful and affirming. I have a question:

Leviticus 18:22 in Masoretic Hebrew is: w'et-zäkhär lo tish'Kav mish'K'vëy iSHäh Tôëväh hiw - literally translated word for word as: "Therefore man not lie bed woman abomination it." using the Lexicon Concordance.


This is translated by most Bibles as "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, that is abomination."

mish'K'vëy is used 46 times in the Hebrew Bible; 34 as bed, 4 as bedchamber, 1 as couch, and 7 used in various ways, including once in Leviticus 18:22 as: "as with"

Is this not a mis-translation? Why would that word be used this one time meaning "as with" and not as "bed?"

I would think the translation should be: "Thou shall not lie in a woman's bed, it is abomination."

Rick's comment: Hi Gary - thanks for the good question. I do not believe Lev 18:22 is mistranslated in the old KJV. I believe they got it right. Bed is implied in the meaning of the Hebrew word because it is a euphemism which indicates having sex. In the Leviticus chapter of my book, I list 18 possible interpretations of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, one of which is that it is a reference to usurping the alleged prerogatives of the mother goddess, which corresponds to some degree with your view.

"Thou shall not lie in a woman's bed, it is abomination" seems an unlikely translation, given God's command to Israel to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth so that Israel's seed would be as numberless as the dust of the earth, the sand of the seashore and the stars of heaven.

When Moses wrote and read Leviticus 18:1-22 to ancient Israel, no one had to wonder what he was talking about. They all understood it as prohibiting pagan worship of false gods via shrine prostitution.

In my opinion, the correct explanation of Lev 18:22 is that God and Moses intend to prohibit pagan male-male anal sex or male-female anal sex rituals which were intended to propitiate the fertility goddesses of ancient Canaan and induce them to bless their pagan worshipers with fertile families, fields and flocks.

Jun 03, 2014
Definition of arsenokoitai
by: Dr Lance Heath

Hi Rick - I would like to get your opinion / critical view on the following definition of "arsenokoitai":

"all (male) participants in idol shrine sex rites"

would it be improved by stipulating the exact nature of these rites (e.g. anal sex)or not, in your opinion?

Rick's comment: If we were translating the New Testament into English today, I believe cult prostitute or shrine prostitute or temple prostitute would be the correct way to translate arsenokoitai.

Jun 04, 2014
Thanks - and Malakoi?
by: Dr Lance Heath

Thanks Rick - I assume you mean MALE cult/temple/shrine prostitutes.

And any concise definition of "malakoi"? (e.g. if you were to consult on a new Bible translation ... how would you advise them to handle it?) Much appreciated!

Rick's comment: Hi Lance - No, I favor simply: cult or shrine or temple prostitute without specifying male. In 1 Cor 6:9-10, Paul uses nine masculine nouns to describe people who will not inherit the kingdom yet the masculine nouns he uses in this case apply to both genders.

The issue is grammatical gender vs. biological gender. In the Greek language, masculine nouns (grammatical gender) include males (biological gender) but are not limited to or restricted to males. They can also include females.

If translators focus on grammatical gender and specify male for each of the nine masculine nouns Paul uses here, that would have Paul by implication, telling us that adulterous thieving females (biological gender) CAN inherit the kingdom. Do you see the theological problem we create if we specify male in this case?

On malakoi, we must be careful not to give the word a meaning in the twenty first century that it did not have in the first century. I believe the first century meaning Paul intended to convey was: a man who pretties himself with makeup, hair coloring and fancy clothing to attract females with whom to have sex. Of course, that is an inelegant expression so I'll stick with the old KJVs effeminate.

Jun 05, 2014
VERY informative
by: Dr Lance Heath

Thanks for clarifying and educating re "arsenokoitai" applying to BOTH genders. I do, indeed, see your point!

Thanks also for elaborating (concisely - quite a skill!) on "malakoi". I had to read the short paragraph a few times to get my head around it. (Because on the face of it it would seem odd and contradictory for a guy to make himself effeminate to attract women, of course). But then I thought of the very modern term "metrosexual" and that helped it all fall into place for me. (And I take it this too would not just apply to men then, but also to women who pay too much attention to their appearances to "catch" men?)

Rick's comment: Hi Lance - this page addresses grammatical gender vs. biological gender. Modern English has natural as opposed to grammatical gender. Consequently, in English, gendered language implies biological gender, so when we say he or she we mean male or female.

Jun 29, 2014
Unrighteous Judgment
by: Todd

If I may slightly deviate to a topic that I think is quite relevant to everyone involved in this discussion. The argument is rhetorical.

1. In 1 Cor 6:9, Paul places adultery on the list of prohibitions that will cause someone to not inherit the Kingdom of God. Drunkenness is also on the list. So we have: homosexuals (see below), adulterers, greedy and drunks to name a few.

*** I do not believe the term "homosexual" as used above is a correct translation. We do not know what Paul actually meant in this passage.

2. Jesus, in Matt 5:32 says: "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

To Wit: Anyone who is a Christian and is remarried is, according to scripture, unambiguously engaging in the sin of Adultery.

What is particularly troubling is the double-standard.

How is it possible that "the church" has handled this issue by booting out gay believers while remaining virtually silent on the topic of adultery? And simultaneously we host AA meetings and have many christian organizations working with those who have drug and alcohol related issues within the programs of the church. We don't bounce addicts from our congregations.

Seriously: why is this the case? Are we judging these issues fairly when a group outside the church is judged (not biblical - 1 Cor 6:1-8), and those inside the church are judged with hypocritical bias? Something is seriously wrong here.

Aug 17, 2014
ancient hebrew/greek
by: Kataryn

What recommendations do you have for studying the three ancient languages used to write the manuscripts?

I would like to actually read the ancient texts for myself, in a level to be able to competently translate.

Also, correct me if im wrong, but are you saying Paul only condemned same-sex fornication? (Illicit sex outside of marriage). Kind regards. Rpd

Rick's comment: Hi Kataryn - These two links are helpful for studying biblical Greek, which is Koine Greek, not modern Greek and biblical Hebrew.

Learn Koine Greek Online

Teknia is working on an online free course for biblical Hebrew but it is not yet available.

Biblical Hebrew courses and resources

I am not familiar with what is offered online for biblical Aramaic.

My argument on this website is that Paul did NOT make a general condemnation of gay and lesbian relationships which were unrelated to shrine prostitution. What the OT condemns and what the NT condemns are idolatry and the shrine prostitution which often accompanied idolatry, not gay or lesbian relationships. Hope this is helpful.

Sep 11, 2014
Thank you
by: Anonymous

I want to thank you for your clear exposition of the texts used to bash same-sex relationships. Both of my daughters are gay and we are all committed christians.

For several years I have lived with my faith reconciled with this in the belief that proper study of scripture and research into contemporary documents (with jesus time) would reveal the truth, just as it has with slavery and divorce. Your article is one of several I have read with intense gratitude as I see my faith rewarded with exactly what i have prayed for.

Sadly, the church we all have attended has been loving but clear, they will accept my daughters into fellowship in love but they will only accept their homosexual orientation if they acknowledge it as sinful and stay celibate. This has hurt immensely.

My older daughter has (for the moment) abandoned church altogether and my younger is being a trailblazer trying to share the new understanding with friends within the church, but she has been recently hurt as they refused to baptise her. I too have been hurt as my friends openly show their disapproval for me in my not condemning their homosexuality.

So to find the positive comments on here gives me hope that things are moving in the right direction. Thank you for your courage and time to study and share.

Rick's comment: Thanks for your kind comments. Back in the first century AD, it took years for the Holy Spirit to convince Christians that, Yes, Gentiles could be saved and followers of Jesus without keeping Jewish law, Acts 10-11, 15, 21.

Modern beliefs against gays seem to be more deeply ingrained in the psyche of some Christians than were similar beliefs against Gentiles in the first century. Our work will continue until God's truth is known and accepted by saved people everywhere.

Sep 19, 2014
by: Fernando

Could it be that Paul had available to all those words at the time he wrote the texts? Romans 1: 26-27 would be referring to what? Otherwise homosexuality?

Rick's comment: Hi Fernando - Yes, those words were available in the first century when Paul wrote Romans and 1 Corinthians. The link explains what Paul was referring to in Romans 1.

Romans 1 is not about homosexuality.

Oct 20, 2014
50 - 50 - Does Not Matter
by: Jeff

First, I want to say Thanks for all the research. I'm trying to find the Truth and maybe one day I will learn Ancient Greek and try to translate it myself. In fact, this topic actually made me find the Truth about many things in the Bible, because of simply reading it.

After many hours, days of praying and researching, I'm still about 50/50. One of my biggest concerns is that, if one were to believe that Paul was talking about male homosexuals, why not female? (Yes, I know the passage in the NT, but I think the focus is on Corinthians.) If he was so specific, then why not include all genders (both at the time at least). Only male homosexuality? Doesn't add up.

Paul makes point after point, explanation in detail, how the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Law. There is also, Hebrews 8:13., in any translation is clear. In fact, in John 1:14, we are shown that the Word was transformed into flesh, and we have seen His Glory and Love.

From what I have read, the Old Law was not fulfilled. So we can't go back, and especially if we are Gentiles. Gal 3:19. So I don't know why we are referring back in time to how God wants us to behave. Even if Christians, we take the Ten Commandments at face value today, there is nothing that in those Ten that support "Clobbering" anyone in the LGBT community or any community. Faith, Hope and Love and the Greatest of these is Love. Not Faith, not Hope, but Love.

In conclusion, I have to say that even if there was absolute support that Homosexuality is a sin, we cannot judge(judge not...). In fact it may be a test from God if you regard homosexuality as a sin, as you cannot follow the Golden Rule, or Matthew 22:34-40. To all that read this, Thanks for your time, and I wish all of you to continue to seek the Truth. - Jeff

Nov 08, 2014
Christian Marriage
by: Amanda

Pastor, I really appreciate the extensive, genuine research that you have made available to the public. Reading through what you have published on your website has really encouraged my own examination of the doctrine that I was handed from the pulpit for years. I do have an honest question that I have been grappling with that I would like your input on:

Where does gay marriage fit into a biblical picture of faith, in light of Paul's descriptions of marriage, whereby the man fulfills a metaphorical role of Christ, the head of the church, and the woman fulfills a role of Christ's bride, or the church?

This becomes a question of gender roles, and I'm not sure I see much freedom here for deviation from those roles. Are we to assume some unspoken exemption from these expectations for gays? Would that be speculating beyond the written Word? I am a woman who loves another woman and would like to eventually solidify our bond in marriage. However, I respect the Scriptures and want to base such a fundamental life decision on sound Biblical argument. Thank you so much.

Rick's comment: Hi Amanda - I would say, First of all, that the body of Christ as the bride of Christ already contains saved lesbians and gay men.

Second, the fact that the body of Christ contains gay men who are part of the bride of Christ and will marry a man, the Lord Jesus, indicates to me that the metaphorical question about gender roles is moot. Of course, God already knew that when He inspired those portions of scripture which talk about the bride of Christ. Spiritually speaking, God has already made that clear to us in Galatians 3:28.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Men are called the bride. Men as the bride are going to marry Jesus in heaven. Some of those men are gay and some of them are straight but both groups believe they will marry Jesus in heaven. I believe that God has left plenty of room for GLBTs to be legitimately included in the body of Christ and the bride of Christ, without twisting scripture or taking it out of context.

Third, the idea of gay marriage then, is not a surprise to God nor is it a perversion of His plan. Gay marriage is no more a perversion of God's plan than celibacy or polygamy are perversions of His plan. Neither are mentioned in the first two chapters of Genesis just as gays and lesbians are not mentioned in the first two chapters of Genesis yet celibacy, polygamy and gay marriage are important parts of God's wonderful plan. These links provide a bit more explanation.

Matthew 19 and the ketubah

How can I reconcile being lesbian and Christian?

Are gay relationships always outside God's created order?

Does Christs bride affirm or deny gay marriage?

Hope this is helpful Amanda. There are also more answers in the Comments section of the above links.

Nov 21, 2014
Light Rejected is Light Withdrawn
by: Angel Diaz

Rick, "because that, when [you] knew God, [you] glorified him not as God, neither [was] thankful; but became vain in [your] imagination, and [your] foolish heart was darkened.

Since "[you] changed the truth of God into a lie," and "did not like to retain God in [your] knowledge, God gave [you] over to a reprobate mind."

You are ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth. Repent and come to the Cross to be cleansed and set free. Jesus is waiting. Don't twist His Truth. He still can set you free. I am praying for you. I love you in Him. His love is Holy! God Bless in delivering you from the Enemy's lie! - Angel

Rick's comment: Hi Angel - I'm going to assume you are a young Christian who doesn't know much about the Bible. The Lord Jesus saved me from a devil's hell in 1958. I am washed in the blood of the Lamb, filled with the Holy Ghost and walking in the Spirit, Galatians 5:16.

I believe it will do you good to learn the truth about gays. You can do that by reading this website, looking up the scriptures and checking to see if I'm interpreting the Bible in context.

What must I do to be saved?

Nov 21, 2014
That's Besides the Point
by: Angel Diaz

It does not matter that you historically prove that Romans 1 included sex in temple Pagan worship. Paul still brings the point that God is against all uncleanness that includes "men with men" or "women... who changed the natural use," for it is all "against nature" and "unseemly," whether engaged in pagan rituals inside or outside a temple.

This is what happens when one so desperately wants to sanction his or her sin: the twisting, perverting and torturing of Scripture, which always leads to one's own destruction. There is still hope for you Rick. The answer is in the Person and Work of Christ - the Cross!

Rick's comment: Hi Angel - as you grow in the Lord, you will discover that the cultural doctrinal historical and religious context are important in getting the Bible right. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God…" 2 Timothy 3:16 and we are supposed to "rightly divide the word of truth" - 2 Timothy 2:15.

To rightly divide the word of truth, we must know the cultural and historical and religious context in which it was given. With all due respect, learning those things is not beside the point.

Paying attention to context is not desperately twisting, perverting and torturing scripture. Please keep reading and studying your Bible. The blessed Holy Spirit will illumine His truth to you as you approach scripture with an open and believing heart. God bless you Angel.

Apr 02, 2015
I am a Christian walking away from homosexuality
by: Ray McFarland

Hi Rick, I read a couple of your articles and found them interesting and read some things from other cites too. I am 23-years-old and I am a Christian man who grew up with homosexual desires longer than I can remember most other things about myself. I have peace with walking away from homosexuality with God's help with being either celibate or married to a woman one day if that is God's plan for me.

Rick's comment: Hi Ray - Thanks for the good questions. Homosexuality is an innate characteristic just like heterosexuality is an innate characteristic. It is not like you can throw a switch or push a button or walk away from the sexual orientation you were born with. Many thousands have tried to do that, without any real world success. For example, Exodus International closed their ministry after 38 years because they finally admitted it doesn't work.

But as I am still researching and always considering, I found your articles interesting that I do need to know exactly where I stand scholarly as well. I go to an evangelical bible college, and I will probably talk with some of my professors too. Hopefully they can tell me with no bias what their studies of the Greek have turned up as well in this area.

Rick's comment: This website has tons of helpful carefully sourced info to consider as you work your way through the issues. For example, before attempting something as impossible as changing your God-given sexual orientation, it makes sense to know what the Bible says in context in each of the clobber passages.

Well with that all said I don't ask or say anything in disrespect to you or your research. But what I will ask is how do you deal with all of the passages about marriage in the Bible and God's first command to multiply and fill the earth? Does that context of God's design and what is written about gender and marriage have any say in the big picture?

Rick's comment: Because about 95% of humanity is heterosexual, it makes sense that the Bible couches its description of marriage in heterosexual terms. My Gay Christian FAQ answers 100 of the most commonly asked questions about gay issues.

God's commands to be fruitful and multiply were given early in human history when earth's population was two people or eight people. Today there are more than 7.3 billion people on earth. Clearly we have obeyed God's command.

The big picture is that about 95% of humanity gets married and produces biological children. God never intended for everyone to get married and have children. We know that because God blesses people He has gifted with celibacy, 1 Cor 7:1-9.

What about LGBT people who have been given peace and healing from the sin they are free from in Christ whether any sin or that of homosexuality? Let me know what you think! Thanks!

Rick's comment: I take issue with the false premise of your question. There are no biblical facts which indicate it is a sin to be homosexual or that it is a sin to be in a committed gay marriage.

Those who disagree always cite verses which they take out of context in order to allege that the Bible condemns gays and gay marriage. They take the clobber verses out of context because if they leave them in biblical cultural doctrinal historical linguistic and religious context, their argument is seen to be specious.

I do not know of any genuine homosexuals who have been "healed" of being gay and who are now happily married heterosexuals. Some of them are heterosexually married but they are still gay. Those who profess to have changed are often in ex-gay ministries where their livelihood depends on keeping up the change is possible falsehood. Please reread my Exodus International page for in depth information.

Our wonderful Savior intends blessing for you, Ephesians 1:3, 2:10, as you walk the path of His purpose for your life. He intends to bless you as a gay man without making you endure the psychological and spiritual trauma so often associated with reparative therapy and ex-gay ministries.

Please feel free to keep in touch via my Contact Us form if you have more questions. Pastor Rick

May 08, 2015
Two Statements
by: Elly

A while ago I found a site that had had two statements. The first was "If a man also writes with his left hand, as he writes with his right hand, he has committed abomination." It then asked which of the following sentences defined the statement above:

A: It is abomination for a right handed man to ALSO write with his left hand.

B: It is abomination to be left handed.

The second statement was the same but using Leviticus 20:13 and to me made a lot of sense as condemning not a homosexual but a homosexual act by a heterosexual person. Just thought I'd share that.

May 08, 2015
Why didn't Paul use other words
by: Adam

Paul's grasp of Greek (bear in mind it was not his mother tongue) was around the high school level. He picked it up in the marketplace - as it was spoken there. As a Jew, he simply didn't have the vocabulary that a native greek speaker would have.

This is the main argument behind why the majority of pastors and scholars (who also love God, and wrestle with the pastoral implications of this issue) reject your particular argument.

Rick's comment: Hi Adam - That Paul had only a high school level knowledge of Greek is an opinion based on zero historical facts. No Greek scholar believes that and the 14 epistles of Paul in our New Testament contradict that view.

An hapax legomenon is a word that occurs only once in the New Testament. In Paul's case, he often used hapax legomenon and other unusual Greek words in his epistles. His extensive Greek vocabulary is demonstrated by his use of hundreds of unusual Greek words which no other author of the New Testament uses.

Considering how short most of Paul's epistles are, Paul employed a remarkably large and fluent Greek vocabulary. Here are statistics for just nine of Paul's epistles.

Romans - 111 unusual Greek words
1 & 2 Corinthians - 186
Galatians - 57
Philippians - 54
Philemon - 6
1 Timothy - 74
2 Timothy - 67
Titus - 13

I'm not sure why you say that is "the main argument behind why the majority of pastors and scholars (who also love God, and wrestle with the pastoral implications of this issue) reject your particular argument."

I have read thousands pages on these issues and no scholar I've read has advanced the argument that Paul's Greek language skills were poor and that's why he didn't use other words.

What objective facts support your view that God chose a man with only rudimentary knowledge of the Greek language to write 14 books of our New Testament in Greek? That view defies common sense.

Paul grew up in Tarsus, a city where Greek culture and language held sway from the time of Alexander the Great, 356-323 BC. Then, in 64 BC, Rome conquered the Selucids who ruled Tarsus and Cilicia and the influence of Greek and Roman culture continued. By the time Paul is born, Tarsus has been a Greek speaking city for more than 300 years.

Greek was the language of commerce and almost everyone, including Jews, grew up speaking koine Greek as well as Hebrew and other languages. Scholars believe that Paul was not only fluent in koine Greek but also spoke excellent classical Greek as well as having been tutored in Hebrew by Gamaliel in Jerusalem.

Paul testified to the Corinthians: "I thank God that I speak in foreign languages more than all of you." 1 Cor 14:18, International Standard Version. He was evidently a polyglot, a man with a well-honed skill in many languages.

Paul's Greek language skills

Also - homosexuality wasn't used prior to the mid twentieth century, because 'sodomisers' was the word used - which had become an archaic term to describe homosexuality at that point.

Rick's comment: Sodomite is not archaic and is still in use today. When that word or forms of that word are used in the Bible, it never refers to gays and lesbians. It is still found in law books and dictionaries today. By dictionary definition, sodomy described more than homosexuality, including a man having anal sex with a woman or any kind of male-female sex which was not procreative.

Language is constantly evolving and this is not an attempt to 'cover up' what scripture is actually saying - which it seems you're implying. There is no conspiracy here.

Rick's comment: You've misunderstood my views I think, since I've never contended or implied that there was a conspiracy.

The mistake the church has made is to read Romans 1, apart from Romans 2. Romans 1 sets the scene: we are all sinners, with sinful desires. Romans 2 says: therefore, since you are all sinners, be gracious to everyone who sins. The church has completely failed in this regard - and from someone who sits on the other side of the fence to you - I can only say "I'm sorry".

My sins of pride, self righteousness, my judgements on others place me in just as much need of a saviour as any sexual sin. May God Bless you on your journey - Adam.

May 10, 2015
Thank you!
by: Leo

I cannot emphasise how much this website has helped me right now. I have just recently, on my 18th, come out to my parents who aren't taking it well at all. They both say they still love me, but are completely ignoring the fact that I came out, and at one point in time, ignored me entirely.

We're on speaking terms again, but every now and then I debate with my mother about my orientation, which is just ridiculous. I keep telling her that what she knows about homosexuality, she must just forget, because it's wrong. My argument: why would God make someone gay just so they can burn in hell?

I prayed for 2 years, for God to make me straight, and I came to the conclusion that He either hates me, doesn't exist, or made me this way. This first two were ridiculous so I dismissed them. And I am grateful for the way I have been made. I am grateful that He has a plan, a future, and a hope for me.

But then when people, even my own mother, say that I "wasn't" made that way. I just lose it. How, can I explain that this is who I am? I say I've known about this attraction since three or four years old. I didn't know what it meant, I just saw my future and it had a husband in it. And a dog and a nice house but that's besides the point.

Rick's comment: Hi Leo - If someone was not reasoned into their anti-gay view, you cannot reason them out of it. Being anti-gay is sometimes an irrational belief.

I am being told that I should've prayed for longer. That God doesn't make mistakes. And that it isn't natural. "their natural use of women". What does that mean? How can I argue against it? I naturally am gay. But apparently this is unnatural.

WHAT REALLY GETS TO ME IS THAT I SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO ARGUE OR PERSUADE MY FAMILY TO ACCEPT ME FOR WHO I AM. And this is what almost drove me away from religion. But abandoning my religion felt wrong, so I stayed with it, despite the pain. And coming across your words has turned my recent depression around. I am now ready, should I be called to my mother's room for another round of debating. Thank you.

Rick's comment: Leo, walk with Jesus every day, obey the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Don't let your family tear you down. I encourage you to take the FREE Bible courses I link to on my home page so you know more about the Bible than the people who diss you. I'm glad this website has been helpful. God bless you!

May 12, 2015
Gay and Christian
by: Ryan

After reading so many comments on here that are quite disturbing. The Bible was written in Greek. To translate into any other language you would need to know the culture as well as all the ways words were used.

From what I have learned the Bible is speaking of temple prostitution. I have no doubt in my mind at all. I do have questions though. There are other places in the Bible where other things are mentioned. For example: Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Why would 2 men be sharing the same bed? Are they lovers?

Rick's comment: Hi Ryan - There is not enough information in the context to know if one of the men is gay or not. In ancient times, people sometimes shared beds without it being anything sexual. As I understand the passage, this is not the Rapture. In this passage, the one who is taken is taken for judgment.

Another thing is that Christ says in John 13:34-35 - 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

There are no exceptions to this law! Jesus said to love gay people. The only people Jesus condemns are the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law of Moses and anyone who passes judgment on another you condemn yourself. I have battled this my entire life and those that condemn us by their own judgment. Go ahead and judge me even kill me as some Church's signs post even though you have no idea if I have sex with anyone (male or female) or not.

I am gay and I am Christian. I know Christ is with me. I believe in him and fight daily to walk in the spirit of our Lord even though I know we as humans in the flesh can't possibly achieve it. We are sinners through and through no matter who you are.

Jul 01, 2015
by: Tyler

Why do you include Latin words in this list?

Rick's comment: Hi Tyler - Latin was the language spoken in ancient Rome. Beginning at least as early as the first century BC, Latin became established as the official language of the Roman Empire and thus Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire during New Testament times in the first century AD.

"And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin." - John 19:19-20

Latin loanwords in ancient Greek

Latin loanwords in the NT

Jul 01, 2015
by: Tyler

Could you cite a reference to "paiderasste" that means specifically "sexual behavior between males" and not "sexual behavior between a male and a boy."

This word looks awfully close to our English word "pederasty" which is a very specific kind of homosexual behavior.

Rick's comment: Hi Tyler - I don't have time to research that for you but you might try Googling it.

Word Origin and History for pederasty:

"sodomy of a man with a boy," c.1600, from French pédérastie or directly from Modern Latin pæderastia, from Greek paiderastia "love of boys," from paiderastes "pederast, lover of boys," from pais (genitive paidos) "child, boy" (see pedo- ) + erastes "lover," from erasthai "to love" (see Eros ).

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

Jul 01, 2015
Romans 1 Not Temple Prostitution
by: Angel Diaz

Rick, Romans 1 has nothing to do with temple prostitution. Paul tells us that homosexuality is not God's Will: "...women exchanged the natural use for what is AGAINST NATURE. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman... men with men committing what is shameful."

Rick's comment: Hi Angel - Even the best anti-gay scholars admit that temple prostitution was a fact of life in first century Rome. Your view goes against the biblical cultural doctrinal linguistic historical and religious context of Romans 1. I provide information which challenges your view on my Romans 1 page, which I hope you will read.

Jul 09, 2015
That's Beside the Point
by: Angel Diaz

Rick, I am not denying "that temple prostitution was a fact of life in first century Rome..." What has occurred to you is exactly what the chapter describes: Since you "hold the truth in unrighteousness" because "God hath shewed it unto [you] "[your] foolish heart was darkened...Professing [yourself] to be wise, [you] became [a] fool"... Rick, for the love of the Lord, Repent... The power is still in the Gospel, and this message is the Cross. I love you buddy, and thus, I speak to you this way! God bless you in truth, Who is our Lord Jesus!

Rick's comment: Hi Angel - I've been patient with you even though you keep making comments which have nothing to do with the topic and even though you keep accusing me of torturing scripture, having a reprobate mind, being given up by God, yada yada yada, because I disagree with you on the gay issue.

I get comments like yours more often than you might imagine, where you tell me God has abandoned me or given me up or I am not saved and then, you close with: I love you brother.

Stop your silliness Angel. Grow up, get serious for Jesus and start studying the Bible instead of hanging around gay Christian websites, making inane comments.

Jul 11, 2015
Recent Post with several questions
by: Ryan

It seems the most recent post (prior to today) I made asking a lot of questions was deleted? Is there a reason it was deleted? Are there any answers to any of the questions that were in the post?

Rick's comment: Hi Ryan - I don't know where your post went. You're welcome to ask questions but I do try to keep questions limited to the topic of the thread. If you want a private answer OR if your questions are off topic, please include your email and I'll answer via email so this thread stays focused on: Words Paul could have used if he intended to condemn homosexuality.

Jul 13, 2015
Sin vs sins
by: Steve John

There is a problem here..people do not know what sin is..do say homosexuality is a sin is like saying being born with blue eyes is a sin. Sin is not what one does, it is what one is. We do not sin and are therefore sinners; we are sinners and therefore we sin. And anything that is not of Faith is sin. I'm not sure we even need to build an 'argument' about the linguistcis used if one considers the sociological parameters around where Paul made his statements.

it simply does not make sense to refer to passages that all liars and adulterers and homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of heaven and then Jesus says there is nothing that cannot be forgiven neither in this world nor the next but Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

I believe Paul was referring to orgies and the like as well as what we call today, 'child molesters'. I have seen scripture taken out of context in some of the replies as well by some of the commentators who didn't not realize they were condemning themselves in the process. How? If one resorts to use the Law they are under the Law and not under Grace.

Anyone who points to The law, if they break any of the law they are guilty of breaking all of it. The law was not written so we could do it, it was written so we would break it otherwise Grace would not be Grace.

Rick's comment: "23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."
- Galatians 3:23-25

Are Christians under the Law?

But the truth of the matter it really seems is that where there is self will there's a way; prejudice and pride has this amazing way of blinding people to the truth. For some one to say that because another is not attracted to the opposite sex, they cannot be saved is completely unbelievable.

are these people even Christians at all? Perhaps this gay marriage issue is a blessing in disguise but not for what it might appear. Face it, marriage on earth is nothing more than a way to establish a legal contract between two people so that they can be under a supposedly beneficial form of governmental jurisdiction and has nothing to do with Love which Christ stated was a Union of Spirit and not of the flesh.

That which is flesh is flesh..that which is spirit is Spirit..Adam and Eve have kids because they were both sinners so how does a man and wife today have the righteousness to justify themselves just because they are married?

No. They are still sinners regardless. they are just married sinners. the holy looking priest is a holy looking sinner and the super intelligent very highly moral person is a very moral sinner. But of course, two same sex oriented people can't possibly have any sense of Commitment to the Lord and now how to behave rationally as one together, assuming that they in fact, are even engaging in an intercourse is another matter entirely, as that is not always the case at all.

Jul 14, 2015
I have a question
by: Dagudagu2

I believe that some decisions are private and are to be respected. we can reveal our private reservations about being gay, but we have no right condemn anyone. Stand for what you believe: don't attack what you don't!

If arsenokoites is from the part of Leviticus condemning temple prostitution, why does not Paul's use of that term also not condemn homosexuality? Sorry for my seeming lack of respect and knowledge, I don't mean to challenge anyone.

Rick's comment: Hi Dagudagu2 - The context of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 is shrine prostitutes. Paul would not extract the words, arsenos koiten from Lev 20:13 and create a new word, give that new word an entirely new and different meaning from Lev 20:13, and expect everyone to know that he had radically changed the meaning, without telling us he had radically changed the meaning.

Because Paul didn't tell us he had radically changed the meaning of arsenos koiten from how Jews had understood arsenos koiten for 1400 years, we believe that Paul was using the commonly understood meaning of arsenokoitai (his new word), meaning: shrine prostitutes and the pagan prostitution which they used to worship false gods.

Aug 24, 2015
Lev 18:22
by: Curious

I was reading through this and I am not really sure how you got that
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination - Is speaking of Shrine prostitutes

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes.

I understand the context. But I don't think it is what you are thinking. Is there proof you can show me that he was clearly only speaking of shrine prostitutes?

Rick's comment: Hi Curious - You say you understand the context but you think I am wrong. If I am wrong on the context, so are many world class conservative Christian scholars including anti-gay Christian apologists like Dr. Robert Gagnon.

Since world class experts also disagree with you and whatever evidence you possess which contradicts our beliefs about context, I am excited to say that we may be on the cusp of an incredible opportunity to learn the truth from you.

Can I prove to you that Paul was speaking only of shrine prostitutes. No, of course I cannot prove that to you. But think about it. The teaching of ancient Jews was that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 indicted shrine prostitutes and their pagan worship of fertility gods, not two gay guys or two gay gals who fall in love and spend their lives together as a couple.

Paul was an erudite Jew, a brilliant polyglot who also was tutored by Gamaliel, leading teacher of Judaism in the first century AD. It defies credulity to believe that Paul intended his neologism (arsenokoitai) to mean something different than it had meant to Jews for 1400+ years.

If Paul intended us to believe arsenokoitai meant something other than shrine prostitutes, he would have said so. The thesis of the article is that Paul had a wide choice of words he could have used if he wanted us to believe he understood arsenokoitai to mean something other than shrine prostitute.

Yet Paul did not use any of those words in the 14 books of our New Testament which he authored. When people insist, against the evidence, that Paul used arsenokoitai to mean homosexual, we have left reality and joined Alice in wonderland. For Bible believing Christians, that is not a good thing.

Sep 03, 2015
Thank you alot (and sorry for bad english)!
by: Swedish Agnostic

Hello Rick - I just wanted to say: Thank you a lot for your research. While I am not religious myself, I am really happy to see that christians, no matter if protestantic, catholic, anglekanic etc. start to question the dogma that has ruled for so long over the whole Christian World. It was such a interesting reading, and I am honored that I was allowed to read it. Thank you a lot, and I wish you the best luck for the rest of your life. Thank you.

Rick's comment: Hi Swedish Agnostic - I'm glad my website is a blessing to you. Thanks for taking time to let me know.

I am Christian but definitely not religious. Religion is what people do INSTEAD OF trusting Jesus to save them. Everyone should reject religion and instead, be a real born again disciple of Jesus.

Sep 12, 2015
Septuagint Terms
by: Dr Lance Heath

Hi Rick

Just wondering if you had come across any info on the origins/etymologies of the following words which the Septuagint used to translate "qadeshim":

syndesmos (that which binds together); teletas; telesphoros; teliskomenos; tetelesmenos (initiate/dedicate); endiellagmnenos (changed of sex); titroskomene (wound, pierce, crush ... by messengers/angels of death - LXX's Job 36:14b))? I'm specifically wondering if any of the above (particularly the first and last ones - might have any link to the "mediums and spiritists" referred to in Leviticus 20:6??

I am wondrring if these "mediums and spiritists" might also be shrine prostitutes / qadeshim? (after all these terms are couched between two reference to prostitution in this verse!) ... and also if there is any similarity or link in how "mediums and spiritists" is translated by the LXX thus strengthening a connection with the kadesim?

(Not sure if that is all making sense but would really appreciate your input on this if it is!)

Rick's comment: Hi Lance - I have not studied any of those words. I've been busy learning a new module so that I can bring every page of my website up to html-5 standards, to make it look spiffier. So I've been focused on other things.

It is possible that some shrine prostitutes were mediums or vice versa but I am not aware of a strong scriptural argument to prove that.

Sep 14, 2015
I knew it!
by: Nick Perreault

I knew it was odd for homosexuals to be sinful when it's not a choice, it made no sense to me! I've been looking and looking for non-biased answers and you provided them, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for this wonderful research you did! I always had a gut feeling something was wrong about the "sin" of homosexuality! I've told all my friends about you and your research :) Thank you once again for this educational find!

Rick's comment: Hi Nick - You're welcome - I'm glad the Lord used me to be a blessing to you. God loves gays and lesbians and transgender people. Jesus died for us and God will save all who call upon Him.

What must I do to be saved?

Oct 13, 2015
Looking for a loophole
by: Dave Wood

I'm not gay and am in a conservative church. However, I've known many gay people and I've been struggling to see how the typical conservative understanding of being gay is so abhorrent to my christian brothers. It goes beyond seeing it as "sin" and often comes with a scathing condemnation that embarrasses me. In my heart of hearts I cannot believe that Christ would not accept - fully accept - gays in a committed relationship.

So, I've searched for years for the loophole and now with Vines book and your website the lid is slowly being pealed back.

I think it will depend on understanding what was meant in the original writings and to do that we have to have the scholarship that you've provided. So thank you for that.

Rick's comment: You're welcome Dave. I grew up in the most conservative Baptist churches - KJV only types. I have known Dr. Peter S. Ruckman for almost 40 years. My first weekend in Pensacola, back in 1976, I stayed at Dr. Ruckman's house.

From that conservative, KJV Bible believing background, it was a long journey for me as I studied the scriptures, ancient history and the Hebrew and Greek words used in the clobber passages and twisted and misapplied by so many anti-gay people.

On this issue, as on the issue of slavery and other issues, the church has got it wrong. Jesus creates some of His children gay and lesbian and He says so in Matthew 19:11-12.

Dec 19, 2015
Thank you Rick
by: Coco St.Clement

I really appreciate your research. Do I have your permission to quote you? I hope so. Thank you!

Rick's comment: Hi Coco - Thanks for stopping by. Yes, brief quotes of less than 100 words are fine, with attribution to this website and a follow link if what you quote is posted online.

Some people have quoted entire pages of my website online. That is not okay and Google penalizes websites which do that.

For specific permission to quote, please contact me with details on what you want to quote and where. Many thanks for your interest and may God richly bless you this Christmas.

Jan 09, 2016
Looking at translations
by: Kristy

What is most interesting to me is that when looking at english translations of the bible there is not one without some level of bias.

Rick's comment: Hi Kristy - Your statement seems to imply that we cannot know what God intended us to know in the scriptures. I recommend the old King James Bible, for English speaking people. It is far more accurate than any of the newer versions.

When looking at translation it cannot be done without looking at all of the factors that make up the original text including grammar, syntax and the cultural context in which it was written.

And when you take out biases in translation much of the meaning would still have to be interpreted and then bias and our concepts of reality as we understand them today will influence the meaning.

None of us really know what happens anyway so why not live in accordance with Jesus and practice love and respect and let the rest take care of itself.

Rick's comment: I disagree with your hermeneutic of doubt, that "None of us really know what happens anyway so..."

Doubt is the wrong presupposition with which to begin Bible study. God gave us the Bible by inspiration and preserved it for us, Psalm 12:6-7, so that we have a trustworthy revelation of God in written form, to guide our study, 2 Timothy 2:15.

After all Judgment is the crime most punishable in the bible if the translation is correct.

Rick's comment: The Bible has many interesting things to say about judging, most of which are contrary to the popular post-modernist view which you've expressed. Should Christians judge?

Aug 17, 2016
Define "evidence"
by: Will T.

I find it interesting that you demand evidence, not opinions, hunches, or the consensus of scholars. Given the highly, HIGHLY limited number of times the word arsenokoites appears in historical documents, I really have to wonder what kind of evidence you're proposing we present.

Also, the entire article appears to be begging the question. Does your argument meet your own standard of required counter-argument? To be honest, your argument appears to be "If he'd meant homosexual, I think he'd have used a different word." Below is a link for a counter-argument. It goes through the debate and explains the reasoning on both sides. To me, using arsenokoitos to refer to Leviticus and its ban on homosexuality (I know, arguments there, too) is clear.


Rick's comment: Hi Will - I have written several articles on this website, pointing out that in actual usage, the arsenokoit stem was never used to mean homosexual in the first fourteen centuries of church history. Use our Search feature to find the articles about arsenokoites and arsenokoitai.

I asked for proof from the anti-gay crowd - Show us incidences of in context historical usage of the arsenokoit stem, where it was used to mean gay AND lesbian.

I'm a common sense practical guy. The kind of evidence I'm asking for is written citations in the first fourteen centuries of church history, from people who used arsenokoitai or arsenokoites with the meaning, gay and lesbian and homosexual. To help them out, I've even provided a list of the first 56 extant usages of the arsenokoit stem, from the first century AD to the 1400s AD.

Define arsenokoites

In the real world, wouldn't actual historical usage of arsenokoitai be weightier than someone's twenty first century opinion of its meaning?

You opined that my argument does not meet my own standard yet I believe my argument is much stronger than you suggest. Scholars, including Dr. Gagnon, trace the arsenokoit stem to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the Septuagint (a Greek version of the OT). Scholars also point out that the context of those verses is cult, shrine, temple prostitution.

The majority view, even among the anti-gay crowd, is that the context of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 is shrine prostitution. Based on that truth, I assert that:

Scripture cannot mean NOW
What it did not mean THEN.

If the context of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 was shrine prostitution back then, I assert that the meaning of those verses has not morphed over time so that today it also condemns gay men and lesbians.

Dr. Gagnon and others assert that Paul certainly had arsenokoitai in mind when he used arsenes en arsenes in Romans 1:27.

Dr. Gagnon further asserts that Paul's use of arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 indicates he intended to condemn gays and lesbians and homosexuality.

The problem is, that is not the way our ancient Jewish ancestors understood those verses and that is not the way Christian commentators and Bible scholars have understood those verses for the last two thousand years.

Leviticus 17:7 and goat idols

The burden of proof is on the anti-gay crowd. They must prove their opinion is correct by providing historical proof - without historical proof, it is just opinion.

In August, 2015, I had an hour and a half long phone conversation with Dr. Gagnon. He is a nice guy and I regard him as the leading scholar on the anti-gay team.

Yet in his 500+ page book (The Bible and Homosexual Practice), the best anti-gay book ever written, he does not prove his thesis about the meaning of arsenokoitai.

Instead, he offers his opinion, without providing any evidence from the 1400 BC time frame when Moses wrote Leviticus and without providing any evidence from the first century AD time frame when Paul wrote Romans. Dr. Gagnon does not provide even one citation where the arsenokoit stem was used to mean gay and lesbian or which used arsenokoitai to mean homosexual as we understand that word today.

If we were in a court of law, the Judge and the jury would be wondering:

Why hasn't the prosecution presented evidence to support their claims about the meaning of arsenokoitai?

I'm wondering that too and I'm also wondering:

Why isn't Will T. wondering that?

Aug 18, 2016
Temple Prostitution?
by: Will T.

Okay, so your claim is that in Leviticus, the sexual restrictions were in reference to temple prostitution, not homosexuality. I grant that Leviticus 17 discusses temple practices in verses 1-9, but verses 10-14 starts shifting towards more general commands (never, ever, ever eat blood) with worship as the motivation, and 15-16 further shifts to general restrictions with only tangential impact on temple practices.

Rick's comment: Hi Will T. - It will be necessary to read the pages I linked to, including Leviticus 17:7 and goat idols. Chapters 17-26 are the section of Leviticus known as the Holiness Code. Please Google Holiness Code for more info. This section comprises a unit of mostly related information.

The temple at issue in the Holiness Code is not the Jewish temple, which wouldn't be built for another 480 years. The reference to temple prostitution is aimed at the pagan temples (and their idolatrous pagan devotees) which already existed in ancient Egypt and Canaan at the time Moses wrote Leviticus.

Now in Lev 18, we shift to a general admonishment to avoid practices of Egypt/Canaan in verses 1-5. It's possible that the original Hebrew implied this was still in the scope of temple activities, but it's certainly not clear to me in any English translation I've read.

Rick's comment: I encourage you to read Lev 18:3 again and again. The admonishment is to avoid the pagan religious practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites.

6-18 then says don't commit incest (defined in terms of various relations). There is nothing about this that suggests it means "don't commit incest as part of temple worship", but rather that it's a general prohibition. 19-20 add two more restrictions, and 21 prohibits sacrificing children to Molek, which is the ONLY reference to worship rituals so far in this chapter.

Rick's comment: As I pointed out in my page about Lev 17:7 and goat idols, the Israelites had adopted the pagan worship practices of Egypt before they left Egypt. Those practices included worshiping Egyptian gods.

Those gods included incestuous brother-sister gods, incestuous mother-son gods, etc. I didn't make that up. Christian commentators wrote that and I quoted them on the page I linked to and on a second page about Lev 17:7 and the goat idols.

I also provided a bibliography citing books by world class scholars about the pagan religions of ancient Egypt.

Lev 17:7 and goat idols, part 2

The Bible was not written in a vacuum and so, we need to know about ancient culture, history and religions. The Jews for whom Moses wrote the Pentateuch had that cultural, historical and religious knowledge. If we refuse to educate ourselves in that area or factor that in, we make it difficult to understand the frame of reference Moses employed when he wrote the first five books of the Bible.

Now we hit 22 (appropriate translation in question) and 23 (bestiality). The rest of 18 is warnings and consequences.

Next is chapter 19, which talks about rules for harvests, conduct to one another, etc. Again, there's no reason to believe these laws pertain exclusively to temple worship.

So, with that context, I return to Lev 18:22. There is an assertion by some that it refers to temple prostitution, but I really cannot say the context provides that. To say that would suggest that the other sexual restrictions are ALSO in the context of temple worship. Despite that, we have a very clear presentation elsewhere of how temple worship is to be conducted, and sex of any sort just wasn't part of it. At all.

Rick's comment: I provided text links to additional information. Did you not read and digest the information on those pages? If you refuse to educate yourself about the cultural, historical and religious environment Moses addressed, you will never understand Leviticus.

So what I see is incest is prohibited (presumably at all times). Sex with animals is prohibited (presumably at all times). And based on every word-for-word translation, men lying with another man as with a woman is prohibited (presumably at all times). To change the final one to mean temple prostitution would suggest to me that bestiality and/or incest might also be permissible outside of temple worship. While an internally consistent position to take, I don't think that's reasonable.

Rick's comment: Your assertion that I have changed the man with man prohibition to mean temple prostitution is incorrect. I have changed nothing. Instead, you have assumed from your cursory reading and lack of study, that your interpretation is correct, and since I and a dozen conservative, Christian, world class scholars disagree with your opinion, you conclude, falsely, that we must have changed something.

So the question truly becomes, is there documentary evidence outside of Leviticus 18:22 to imply that the phrase refers to temple prostitution rather than general male-male sexual relations? Also, is there any reason to think that, given the details of how God is to be worshiped already provided, that temple prostitution would have seemed reasonable as a worship practice and in need of further prohibition?

Rick's comment: The documentary evidence is detailed in the text links I included in my previous reply and in the text links on the pages I linked to, text links which you seem to have ignored.

Again, from the Leviticus time frame, the Jewish temple would not be built for another 480 years. The temples at issue in the Leviticus time frame are the pagan temples which dotted ancient Canaan in the 1450 BC time frame, when Moses wrote Leviticus.

God and Moses are telling Israel NOT to worship the pagan gods which they have encountered in the wilderness and which they will encounter when they enter the land. That is the aim of the prohibitions in Lev 18:21-22 and 20:2, 3, 4, 5, 13.

Aug 18, 2016
Dual purposes in scripture.
by: Will T.

Let's take it as a given that Leviticus 18 serves as a condemnation of the Egyptian gods. That doesn't mean the commands don't stand, as stated, for the people of Israel, in general.

Rick's comment: Hi Will T. - Lev 18:3 is pretty clear - "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances."

Moses indicts and prohibits the pagan idolatry which typified Egyptian and Canaanite religion. Nothing in ancient history indicates that Moses was talking about two gay guys or two gay gals falling in love and covenanting to spend their lives together as a couple.

For 1400 years after Moses wrote Leviticus, no Jew and no Christian wrote down anything to indicate they thought Moses was condemning gays and lesbians. Jewish teaching about those verses has always been that Moses was prohibiting cult or shrine or temple prostitution.

Additionally, when we read a little further, we find the term "prostitution" clearly stated in Leviticus 19:29, 21:7, and 21:14. So now the question becomes, why would it state "man sleep with a man" instead of "man sleep with a (temple) prostitute"? Having read through the law numerous times, one of the things that has always struck me about it is how simple and precise it is.

To argue that one specific phrase is NOT precise stands in stark contrast with the rest of the law. Granted, there are often subtleties to be explored, but it's odd that only two passages get the sort of extreme reinterpretation from the plain-text reading that is accepted throughout the rest of the law.

Rick's comment: It seems to me you do not understand the argument so you have set up a straw man argument. I do not make the argument that Leviticus is simple and precise but "one specific phrase is not precise."

You frame the argument that way because you will not factor in biblical, cultural, doctrinal, historical and religious context AND because you want the verses to be about two gay guys or two gay gals.

You are comfortable with eisegesis (imposing your opinion onto the test) instead of biblical exegesis (drawing out the meaning of the text) because eisegesis fits your anti-gay presuppositions.

If you ignore the pagan idolatry context, you believe you can continue to press your belief that Moses was also addressing a problem in 1450 BC Israel with gay men running rampant, a problem so serious that Moses and God decided to condemn gays with the death penalty in holy scripture.

What you label "extreme reinterpretation from the plain text reading" reflects your lack of study and your lack of understanding of the context. It seems not to have occurred to you that a plain text reading of Leviticus is impossible as long as you ignore context.

Also, according to this site: http://thegreatgaydebate.com/leviticus_homosexuality_condemn.html - not all scholars agree that temple prostitution was common as something to be warned against. Instead, both Levitical uses of the "man lies with a man" phrase come in the context of prohibitions against sexual sin.

I'll agree that there's an argument to be made for the temple prostitution interpretation. Unfortunately, it's one that I don't find compelling. Outside of prophecy, God is consistently very, very clear. Perhaps another article could be titled "What words could Moses have used if he intended to condemn temple prostitution?"

Rick's comment: With all due respect, the arguments made in the great debate don't even scratch the surface of Leviticus. I have provided you in depth detailed information, page after page, which you refuse to address.

Bringing up the great debate, it seems to me, is your way of avoiding grappling with context by changing the subject to another website which also doesn't grapple with context.

That you don't find the temple prostitution argument compelling is odd since you have not presented any compelling reason for rejecting it and have not interacted with anything in the many pages of compelling information I have presented.

Aug 19, 2016
Your opinion please
by: Dr Lance Heath

Dear Rick, Thanks once again for your thorough and patient addressing of this issue (as evident in recent posts in this thread). I wonder how you (and your most recent correspondent) would respond to the following multiple choice item? I would particularly love to know your opinion but also would welcome Will's comment if at all possible.

We are justified in thinking that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 refer to male cult prostitution because:

(a) Leviticus 20:5 explicitly mentions "I will set My face against that man … and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit prostitution with Molech."

(b) Leviticus 20:6 reinforces this idea "The person that turns to those who are mediums, and to the wizards, to play the prostitute after them."

(c) Leviticus 17:7 introduces this concept into the Holiness Code with: "They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols to whom they prostitute themselves.

(d) Leviticus 19 is replete with references to the cultic practices and practitioners and also mentions "harlotry" (in likely cultic contexts) and "defiling" in similar vein to 20:6 above.

(e) The verse immediately preceding 18:22 mentions Molech by name.

(f) The verse immediately after 18:22 mentions another activity associated with fertility cult activities (bestiality).

(g) 86% of uses of the word "toevah" (abomination/taboo) in early/pre-exilic books such as Leviticus clearly use it to refer to unclean rituals used in idol worship.

(h) There is a strong link with 1 Kings 14:24, with its undisputed reference to male cult prostitution, in that both share the whole phrase "did all the abominations" (toevah) as well as echoing former inhabitant’s practices and the repeated statement that these were driven from the land because of these practices.

(i) All other commands in Leviticus 20 involving execution are repeated in Deuteronomy and the only remaining ‘similar’ verse in Deuteronomy which could possibly be linked with Lev 20:13 is Deut 23:17 which explicitly mentions male cult prostitution.

(j) Similarly all Deuteronomic death sentences are repeated elsewhere in the OT except for Deut 23:17 unless Lev 20:13 is in fact also referring to male ritual prostitution.

(k) References to cultic practices and histories frame (begin and end) both chapters – clearly setting the context.

(l) Unlike all the surrounding verses which pertain to both genders these verses do not include women (i.e. lesbian activity) suggesting that a specific form of same sex activity is being focused on.

(m) The severity of the condemnation suggests something other than consensual harmless activity is being addressed and rather something which contravenes Commandments 1,2 and 7 of the Decalogue, which male cult prostitution did.

(n) The fact that 20:13 contrasts the word "man" with the word "male" suggests something other than being overly similar is being prohibited, i.e. not referring to two adult, consensual, non-exploitive, equal partners but rather an adherent and a male cult prostitute.

(o) All of the above.

Rick's comment: Hi Lance - I believe you've provided an excellent summary of the textual evidence. Many thanks.

Aug 23, 2016
Using Prostitution except when you mean it?
by: Will T.

Lance, The first thing that struck me about your first four points is that in the context around the passage in question, the word "prostitution" is used fairly freely when (in my opinion) describing worship of other gods as contemptible. If the issue is male prostitution, why not state it clearly, since the language clearly exists to do so?

Rick's comment: Hi Will T. - I don't know why Lance dropped out of the conversation but I'll provide a few brief comments.

If you read the conservative anti-gay commentators, they agree that the context of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is cult or shrine or temple prostitution. It seems disingenuous of you to dispute that, not based on facts or textual evidence but because, in your opinion, it is not clear to you that the context is male shrine prostitution. You do that after ignoring the information I present on my shrine prostitutes page, with its many links to even more information.

To me, this suggests, and I believe is fairly well understood, that God views his relationship with Israel as being similar to that of a husband and wife. There is a unique commitment and God doesn't want others messing with it.

Rick's comment: So you see spiritual prostitution in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 but you don't see male shrine prostitution, which is the physical manifestation of the spiritual prostitution?

The start of verse 18 does explicitly state that God is setting up a system that is in contrast with the practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites. Note, however, that it doesn't specify that they are religious practices.

Rick's comment: Will, you just wrote: "I believe is fairly well understood, that God views his relationship with Israel as being similar to that of a husband and wife. There is a unique commitment and God doesn't want others messing with it."

And in your next paragraph you argue that it doesn't specify religious practices. It seems to me you are typing a stream of consciousness that is incoherent and incomprehensible.

If God is not talking about religious practices or idolatry, then what?

Farming practices? Traffic patterns on desert trails?

While it is certainly possible those practices were part of religious worship acts, it seems likely they were practiced outside of religious worship, as well.

Rick's comment: "it seems likely they were practiced outside of religious worship, as well."

It seems likely based on what? You haven't read the commentaries on Leviticus. You haven't read the scholarly books which address Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as a clobber passage.

You are not familiar enough with the biblical, cultural, doctrinal, historical, linguistic and religious context to discuss it and yet, based on almost no study and no familiarity with the literature, you conclude that "it seems likely they were practiced outside of religious worship, as well."

That sounds like wishful thinking to support your presuppositions about Leviticus, not a thoughtful conclusion based on facts.

Searching for "abomination" in the KJV (which is usually toevah, though I don't have an easy way to check), I find that eating shellfish, shrimp, and lobster is an abomination. Is this part of the 14% or a religious practice?

Eating raptors is an abomination. Same question. These are in Leviticus 11. Then Leviticus 18 identifies all incest as abomination. It's not until Deuteronomy that the abominations are clearly referring to idol worship or perversions of the prescribed worship practices.

For 1 Kings 14:24, isn't it interesting that it clearly states "male shrine prostitutes", not using the same language as "male sleeps with a male"? This lends support that part of the inspiration may have been male prostitution, however there's another possible reason for God to object to male-male sexual relations: Genesis 1:28, Gen 2:23-24. God's order was for men and women to pair up, have sex, and have children.

Deut 23:17-18 mentions male and female shrine prostitutes, but does not mention a death penalty. Instead, it forbids using the earnings from that activity. Moreover, it doesn't indicate who is sleeping with who. Based on that, it seems to weaken the argument.

I have noticed that woman-woman sexual activity is not prohibited in the old testament. It's something that always struck me as a bit odd, yet also makes a sort of sense if there will be cases of men having multiple wives. Would it be surprising for two wives to be affectionate? Then again, I'm not sure if "sex" would have been viewed as a biological possibility between two women at the time.

Here's my concern: Leviticus 18, while having a context of not following practices of surrounding nations, also seems to quite clearly define actions that should not be done under any circumstance. Incest is bad. Don't do it. Killing your children is bad, no matter how justified you may think it is. Sex with animals is bad, don't do it. Sex between men is bad, don't do it.

So, in a set of activities that we can all agree are bad things to do for social and scientific reasons, it seems odd to pick out one and say "except this one, it's only talking about the pagan religious practice, not the general act". Worse, it seems very odd to insist it's an oblique reference to male temple prostitution, when elsewhere it's made clear that Hebrew was quite capable of expressing the concept plainly.

So now we know Moses had no problem discussing male temple prostitutes as such, yet when he had the chance to forbid it directly, he instead indicated male-male sexual relations. Why would he be coy about speaking plainly, when he wasn't elsewhere?

Rick's comment: Your method of Bible study appears to be:

1. Ignore the context by ignoring the facts.

2. When your ignorance of facts is pointed out, draw conclusions based on your opinion and continue to ignore the facts.

3. When you are pointed to the world class scholarship of conservative Christian commentators, you ignore that too.

4. You then offer a stream of consciousness which asks questions, ignores context, ignores facts and concludes that if Moses didn't write it the way you think he should have, he was being coy. Views that disagree with yours are dismissed with no facts to support the dismissal and therefore, your opinion prevails.

Only in Wonderland Will T., only in Wonderland.

Dec 21, 2016
Just found this site!
by: James

I just stumbled across this site while doing some similar research. Thank you for making it a lot easier to find what I was looking for. I haven't seen your whole site but I really hope you point out that fundamental bigots point out Leviticus and yet still eat pork and shellfish while lying next to their wives while they are on their period.

Rick's comment: Hi James - You're welcome brother - I'm thankful I can be a blessing to you. I hope you will keep in touch - through Contact Us instead of through comments here.

I do have an extensive section on Leviticus and shrine prostitutes which I hope you will explore. It has links to many more pages of high quality carefully researched information. Thank you for being a blessing to me today.

Feb 02, 2017
Homosexuality in the Bible
by: Blaine

So you're argument is "Paul couldn't have used a phrase that the group he was writing to would have undoubtable understood because there are so many other words he could have used?" Koine Greek is a very broad and diverse language, as seen by the examples you have listen. Is it really difficult to perceive that there exists other words used in specific dialects that have not remained preserved over the thousands of years?

Rick's comment: Hi Blaine - Ummm, No, you have completely missed the point of my argument. Please read it again, slowly this time.

You said that koine Greek is a very broad and diverse language. Classical Greek could be considered broad and diverse. Koine Greek was the common language, not so broad or diverse, since it was the trade language of the Roman empire. Paul’s letter to the Romans was written in common or Koine Greek, not classical Greek.

Koine Greek was more practical than classical Greek, focused on clarity instead of eloquence, with simpler grammar and sentence construction. Koine Greek was the language of life while classical Greek was the language of education and oratory.

But even if you don't want to believe that, here's a logical syllogism just for fun:

1. If God condemns homosexuality in the Old Testament, he finds it immoral. We see this in Leviticus 18:22 where he straight up calls it "an abomination"

Rick's comment: If Lev 18:22 was a straight up reference to homosexuality, you might have a point. Unfortunately for your simple syllogism, gays and lesbians are not the point Moses makes in Lev 18:22.

Shrine Prostitutes in Lev 18:22 and 20:13

2. If God finds something immoral at one point in time, he finds it immoral at all points in time including today. We can claim this because God -- which include his morality/nature -- does not change (Malachi 3:6, Hebrew 13:8). He and his nature are the same yesterday, today, and forever onwards.

Rick's comment: No Blaine, as a matter of fact, that is not true. Have you ever read the Bible from cover to cover, all sixty six books?

Remember Genesis 20:2, 5, 12, 16, where Abraham married his half sister Sarah? That was okay then but it isn't okay now.

Remember Genesis 25:1-6, where Abraham had a concubine besides his wives Sarah and Hagar, Gen 16:3? He had sex with his concubine and she got pregnant and had children. That was okay then but it's not okay now.

3. Therefore, God condemns homosexuality at all points in time including today.

Rick's comment: If statement 3. is true, then it should be easy for you to find verse after verse which, IN THE CONTEXT OF GAY MEN OR LESBIANS, says that.

I challenge you, once you get around to finally reading the Bible from cover to cover, to find even one verse which, IN CONTEXT, says what you believe about gays.

And please remember, the sloppily translated new versions which put homosexual into the English text where it never appeared in the Hebrew text and the Greek text - they don't count.

There are other ways we may love others of the same sex that are not sexual; that one God has set aside from the others. I liken it to Adam and Eve in the garden. Just as as God gave them the command to eat from any tree but the one, so are we commanded to show any type love to others of the same sex except one.

Mar 02, 2017
A Couple of Comments/Questions
by: Trish T.

So, I am in the process of writing a paper on the biblical stance on homosexuality, and I'm very confused by your arguments (here, and elsewhere on your site).

Basically, despite researching on your site and elsewhere, I cannot find a solid argument for why Leviticus 18 and 20 are NOT against homosexuality, in the original context. Leviticus 18 is not contextually about idol worship and shrine prostitution, but rather about an entire list of sexually immoral acts (from what I have researched and been taught). Leviticus 18:21 references Molek, but it is simply one verse in the context of a whole chapter on immorality, and there is no reason (that I can see) to believe that the next verse (18:22) is directly related to the previous one, and is thus talking about prostitution.

Rick's comment: Hi Trish - I'll try to be helpful. May I say that, if you cannot find a solid argument, you probably haven't read the page carefully enough?

1. Our default position when beginning to study this passage of scripture, is neutral. When we approach the Bible, we must establish context before we decide what a verse means. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind" is viewed by people who ignore context, as a prohibition of homosexuality. Yet 3500 years ago, when Moses wrote Leviticus, that is not at all what he had in mind.

2. Moses and God intended to prohibit shrine prostitution. You wrote: "Leviticus 18 is not contextually about idol worship." Your unstudied conclusion goes against the context of Lev 18 and goes against the studied views of world class scholars, some of whom have two earned doctorate degrees.

In the real world, students who draw conclusions like yours must present evidence to support their conclusion. You present no evidence because you have not studied the context and have no evidence to present. One's opinion counts for nothing. We desire facts and you have presented none.

3. On my shrine prostitutes page, there is a huge amount of factual information from world class scholars. What facts do you possess which lead you to contradict their conclusion that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 ARE in the context of idolatry?

The entire chapter was a list of sexually immoral acts, in which the only direct correlation between verses was this more general idea. The same can be said for Leviticus 20, where references to idolatry and prostitution cannot even be seen in the nearby verses.

Rick's comment: Did you take time to read Lev chapter 20? The opening verses set the context. Lev 20:2, 3, 4, 5 - all mention Molech.

Did you click on any of the text links on my shrine prostitutes page? Did you click on: Lev 17:7 and goat idols? Did you click on: Lev 17:7 establishes context?

Besides this, your idea that MacArthur agrees with you on the context in Leviticus 18 seems to be quite a stretch. In his comments on Zephaniah he is referencing Leviticus 18:21, which DOES clearly refer to worship of idols/false gods, and this in no way goes against his belief that 18:22 is a condemnation of homosexuality.

Rick's comment: Quite a stretch? Your comment indicates you need to do more reading and give it more thought. I encourage you to read and reread my shrine prostitutes page and allow the information time to sink in because the conclusions you are drawing so far are upside-down and backwards from logic and truth.

I hope my above comments regarding my confusion makes sense. Based on this, I am wondering if you have any direct evidence as to why Leviticus 18:22 should be taken out of what (from my research) seems to be its historical context of sexual immorality in general, and taken to not refer to homosexuality at all. Again, the same goes for Leviticus 20:13. What in the original language causes such confusion among Christians? I still do not understand this.

Rick's comment: 3500 years ago in ancient Israel, there was not a problem with lesbians and gay men running rampant, so that, God and Moses had to prohibit their activities. Instead, the problem 3500 years ago was shrine prostitution - using sex to worship false gods. That is what God and Moses intended to prohibit and what they did prohibit.

You asked for direct evidence but apparently didn't bother to carefully read the page or click on links to other pages where I provide evidence. Research requires you to read and study and think and draw conclusions based on facts.

I have presented facts, including historical facts and placed them in an easy to understand format. I believe you have the intellectual horsepower to figure this out if you apply yourself and focus on this topic. Trish, I wish you the best in your endeavor.

Also, please know that these are genuine questions. I do not pretend to know very much about the historical context at all, and I am genuinely searching for the truth about this issue (having grown up in a very conservative home). I appreciate all the research you have clearly done on this issue, but I still cannot find a particularly convincing answer to my questions. Thank you for your time!

Mar 25, 2017
Comment Sources; also, Religion vs Spirit
by: Kris Michael

I came across this page today, and read through it all, including the comments and your replies. It's very interesting.

I'm compelled to note that the comments opposing your conclusions seem to not be based on linguistic scholarship, but rather, solely upon the English of the KJV and fairly-recent (in Biblical terms) interpretations of that English translation. On the other hand, your analysis is based upon linguistic and historical scholarship, especially documentation contemporaneous with the writers of the NT and Acts.

I have heard, and read, various "fundamentalist" notables (remembering only Jerry Falwell's name) and followers state, quite unambiguously and directly, that they reject scholarship because the English KJV, and not the original languages, are "the TRUE Word of God".

It is simply not possible to discuss what Paul meant by his use of the word 'arsenokoites', or the meaning of the phrase 'arsenos koiten' in the Septuagint, with someone who rejects everything which is not the English KJV.

I started coming across this sort of situation s few years back when I started looking into what, exactly, was meant by the term 'abomination', only to learn that it was merely an umbrella term applied to number of words, all of which actually had different meanings. What I found was that people who were heavily ego-invested in "being right" all the time, and/or in whatever viewpoints they had learned in early childhood, merely rejected anything which was not the English KJV.

That is what I see in *a few* of the threads here on this page: people who are intent, not upon learning and analysis, but rather, only upon spreading their own personal view, no matter how specious and recursive their dialectics.

A related situation seems to arise with the artificial conflation of 'religion' and 'spirituality'. And really, those who conflate the two things are the most likely to reject scholarship in favor of obedience to a particular view, since psychologically, the mind which is predisposed towards the one, will also be so towards the other.

That's rather long - my apologies for that. Mostly, I'm impressed by your patience, even when you're "spinning your wheels" with those who refuse to even follow your reasoning, which to me, seems completely clear and very well laid-out.

I'd like to comment a bit more on religion/doctrine versus spirituality, but I'll go to a second comment.

Rick's comment: Hi Kris - Thanks for your comment. I will point out, at gaychristian101, we believe, use and recommend the old KJV as the most accurate English translation, the most gay friendly translation and the translation that is God's infallible, inerrant word.

Mar 26, 2017
Religion v. Spirituality, and "sin"
by: Kris Michael

Having read the Comments, it pains me to see a repetition of the same suffering experienced by so very many people who fall outside of the bell curve in terms of whom they love, and/or their gender identity.

Scientific studies *very* strongly indicate a physical etiology for these differences that involves intrauterine events occurring at specific times during foetal development, possibly with a compound genetic component (since no absolute single genetic locus has yet been identified despite extensive research).

At the same time, humans *are* Spiritual beings, and merely being different from the majority does not mean that a person doesn't have sincere and deep Spiritual feelings, questions, and needs. It's tragic that huge amounts of unnecessary pain, and even torture, have been inflicted upon the minority merely because, for too many people, it's so much easier to blindly accept doctrines which claim hatred is divine, than it is to work at feeling benevolence towards all.

To all of those who endure the condemnations of those whose hearts are too small to hold the love/agapé towards others as Jesus instructed, I would say that it's a trial by fire, but to survive it, remember that they *cannot* condemn anyone other than themselves to damnation, and that their hatred says nothing about those whom they hate, yet says everything about what's in their own hearts, minds, and spirits.

Isn't it said that the pat is wide, but the gate is narrow?; that many are called, but few are chosen? If the new, and greatest, Commandment is "love one another", yet there are those who speak and act with hatred, and in whose mouths that love is a bitter and burning thing, you are in error if you allow their blindness to also be your own blindness. As painful as it is to endure false accusations and vituperation, remember that when they believe they are damning others, they only are condemning themselves. They are to be pitied, not followed; and their spiritual, emotional, and sadly often, physical violence is to be resisted and rejected, not submitted to. Leave them to wallow in the muck of their own deliberate, ego-driven ignorance, of the "doctrines" they echo so as to deafen themselves to the voice of Creation. Rise instead on the wings of Spirit.

Rick's comment: Hi Kris - People who don't like gays need to remember: Ignorance is never the fruit of the Spirit, Galatians 5:22-23. Thanks for your comment.

What must I do to be saved?

Mar 28, 2017
by: Kris Michael

Thank you for your notes, Rick.

Re: the KJV, overall, I've preferred it over the few newer translations I've seen, so your notes regarding it's being more complete and accurate are illuminating.

I've done translation professionally in the past, and I know that there is always some degree of interpretation involved, even with technical/scientific translation (which was what I'd done). That being said, I think that one of the main problems which arises in discussing the meaning of the Bibles and especially, with Jesus' teachings, is that many people either forget, or perhaps haven't been adequately taught, that the original languages were both ancient, and especially, had a distinct cultural context.

I sometimes wonder whether that's one of the reasons why some people dispute your, and most scholars', conclusions. When one has been taught only one way since infancy, it's extremely difficult to let go of that and broaden one's perspective.

At any rate, I'll inform others about your website, and encourage others (as I come across them) to remember that a translation is an approximation, and that it's important to try to reject mere memorization, and search-out those who, like yourself, offer broader insights into Jesus' teachings, and into God.

It saddens me not only that so much suffering had been imposed by perceived "orthodoxies", but also, that so many people are led astray by being convinced that God is a petty, vindictive, and sadistic deity, when Creation itself proves the opposite to be true.

Thnk you again for all of your work, and your patient and instructive comments. :)

Mar 28, 2017
Rationalization vs Gods ways
by: Steve

I cannot help but think that there is an enormous effort to rationalize things in order to help make things appear acceptable when the obvious rings true. Why is that the case? Well rather than me point out the obvious, I would like to see what others thoughts are. Just saying that there seems to be an elaborate amount of effort involved in order to try and justify ones actions with homosexuality, especially when what is said in scripture with terms that are black & white with the explanation. So I have to question if the amount of efforts involved with trying to justify things is simply an attempt to try and find a loophole in something that should never be in the first place.

Rick's comment: Sigh. When the views you hold require you to rip every verse out of context to support your views, that should be a clue that your views are wrong.

To rip every clobber passage out of context so you can make it say something it doesn't say in context, and then accuse us of "making an enormous effort to rationalize things" is so twelfth century.

Sadly, you missed your clue. Allowing the false presuppositions you bring to the discussion to rule your opinion guarantees you will get it wrong every time.

If you are open to truth, this website contains enough truthful information to help you reach a truth based conclusion. If you are not open to truth, nothing will persuade you.

Jun 13, 2017
by: Anonymous

Hi, I'm a lesbian Christian. I have only recently this year accepted my sexual orientation. So when this year I came into acceptance I was lead by GOD to do an in-depth study of homosexuality and Christianity. Thank you for your site it's been very helpful there is so much information.

I have questions though that I would like your help with if that's ok. Please note I'm still going through your site and I'm very new to the LGBT world since my acceptance has only been recent. I'm sorry if some of this may not belong here but I didn't know where else to ask for my questions to be answered.

My second: people who wonder what their gender is or are born both or neither gender can they be Christian too?

Rick's comment: Hi Anonymous - Yes, everyone can get saved and be a Christian including gender fluid individuals and intersex people because Jesus died for everyone and rose from the dead so everyone can be saved. John 3:16 is for everyone.

What must I do to be saved?

My third: what is your opinion on the Queen James Bible aka the Gay Bible? Is that translation accurate?

Rick's comment: As I understand it, the Queen James Bible is identical to the old King James Version except for the clobber verses, which have been re-interpreted (not re-translated) to sound more gay friendly. I recommend the old King James Version, not the New King James and not the Queen James.

My fourth: is one my Pastor brought up and this is more my Pastor's question than mine but I'm really struggling with this and so I would like your help with this, please. Please note my Pastor does believe homosexuality is a sin and I don't. My Pastor says that GOD is judge and has set the standard for what the family unit is supposed to look like and work and to go against that standard is sinful.

Rick's comment: Yes, of course the family unit normally consists of a husband and wife and children if God sees fit to bless them with children. That is how about 95% of the human population rolls because they are heterosexual.

But about 5% of the human population is GLBT and for us, a hetero marriage just doesn't work. I view it this way. Polygamy in the Old Testament is analogous to gay marriage today.

Polygamy in the Old Testament was not the majority practice but polygamy was culturally accepted, was legal, was normal and was blessed by God.

In modern times, gay marriage is not the majority practice but gay marriage is culturally accepted, is legal in many countries, is normal and is blessed by God.

My Pastor sees the family unit as what is supposed to reflect how the Trinity is. The Holy Spirit submits to the Son and the Son submits to the Father and my Pastor says this is how the family is supposed to work. The child submits to the mother and the mother submits to the husband. Of course, my Pastor knows the Trinity is also One as there is only one GOD and he says that's how the family is supposed to work as one. Also, my Pastor pointed out not only the garden of Eden and where Jesus points back to that talking about divorce but my Pastor also pointed out where the Bible talks about how the Pastor (Bible uses another word it means Pastor I forget what it is sorry) but it talks about how a Pastor is to only be husband of one wife and also has pointed out in the NIV where in Ephesians 5:22-23 it says "2 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

Rick's comment: Comparing the family unit to the Trinity is not a comparison God makes. Families have children. The Trinity did not get married, did not have sex, did not have biological children. Frankly, that is a very odd thing for a pastor to believe.

My Pastor said if you put all that together and plus add all the clobber verses of homosexuality all together he says it's very clear that the Bible condemns homosexual marriage period. Plus my Pastor said the family unit is supposed to have both genders and children not only deserve but need both mother and father and to not have both messes them up for life.

Rick's comment: Your Pastor has to take all of the clobber verses out of context in his effort to make them seem anti-gay. In context, none of those verses is talking about gays or lesbians or transgendered people and none of those verses is talking about gay marriage. I examine each clobber verse in great detail on this website, which I encourage you to read and study with an open Bible.

Plus my Pastor added that GOD gave both men and women a place both equal but both have their place. Women are to stay at home, cook, have children, clean, etc. This is how a woman is a helpmate as Genesis said the woman for Adam is a helpmate and the man is to be the provider. This is why my Pastor said that Proverbs says that if a man does not provide for his family he is worse than a non-believer and has denied the faith and does not say this about the woman as the woman is not the provider the man is.

Rick's comment: Modern hetero marriage is not at all like Adam and Eve's marriage or biblical marriage. It is not liberal or Bible denying for gays and lesbians to marry and have a family and raise children. For us, it is legal and moral and normal.

Would you please help me with this? It has me very confused. I'm not a theologian or scholar. Please note again with this last question is from my Pastor but it got me really confused and I didn't know where else to look for the answers I needed. Would you please be willing to help me sort this out, please? GOD bless you.

Rick's comment: I encourage you to keep reading your Bible, especially the New Testament. Read it Matthew to Revelation time after time after time. Then read it again. Make notes in the margins. High light verses or words or phrases that speak to you or that the Holy Spirit impresses on your heart. Memorize verses which are helpful to you.

I have 330+ pages of FREE Bible studies you can print out from this website and teach yourself the Bible. You will enjoy studying the Bible and growing in your faith in Jesus.

Don't allow anyone to rob you of your joy in the Lord. Don't allow anyone to put you under bondage to keeping the Old Testament Law. You are NOT under the law but under grace, Romans 6:14. May God richly bless as you walk with Him.

Jul 11, 2017
Thank you!
by: Laurie

Years ago (15?) I read a tiny, short blurb that was in concert with your research and shared it with progressive pastors. Even they were dubious, thinking Paul just got it wrong. But this morning I had a hankering for wanting to research this again and commit it to memory. So, I googled and voila! Your in-depth serious research and presentation should be part of every Sunday School program, and every Christian college/university program and more.

Understanding language and culture are crucial to interpretation of scripture, lest we oppress the very persons we are meant to affirm. I do have a question for which you may be able to shed some light.

Why were Temple Prostitutes the focus of condemnation (for some this may seem like a "duh" question but I suspect there is more to it.) Thanks!

Rick's comment: Hi Laurie - Thanks for your kind words. I agree with you and would love to see that happen!

Temple prostitutes were not believers in God or in the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead, they were pagan worshipers of the fertility goddesses, so common in ancient Israel and the ancient Roman Empire. They were the focus of God's anger, displeasure and wrath because God hates idolatry and the false worship that always accompanies it.

I provide lots of information about that on these pages and in the links on these pages.

What are shrine prostitutes?

Temple prostitutes in ancient Rome?

Is idolatry linked to pagan sex rituals?

Jul 22, 2017
by: Genesis

So you're telling me that God, who created all things, that is if you believe He did, the Creator of the Solar System that works on precision of our seasons etc, plus the Creator of Earth and ALL of its majestic powers, the Creator of Science, the Animal Kingdom and their schedules, food sources, and their capabilities, as John 1:1 says In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and all things were created by Him etc.

You're going to tell me that we need evidence with exact words? OR do you use common sense and apply Genesis. why did he vividly and explicitly say that He created Wombed Man aka Woman for Man? I mean, sometimes you just need to use a little logic and common sense.

He knew with Free Will that we would break the Law, but He wouldn't have commanded Adam and Eve to "replenish the Earth" if He'd intended on Man with Man, Woman with Woman, if He had any other commanded intentions. If fornication is a sin then homosexual acts will fall into sin period. While you're so busy looking for words and evidence. use the common sense given in the very first book.

Rick's comment: Hi Genesis- I don't know why you fear to put your real name with your views. God intends some people to be celibate, i.e., to not marry. That is clear in 1 Cor 7:1-9.

God intends some people to be born eunuchs, i.e., people who do not reproduce via traditional heterosexual marriage. That is clear in Matthew 19:3-12.

It seems to me, your problem is, God refuses to fit into the little box where you like to keep him so you vent your frustration at gays.

Wouldn't it be easier to admit the truth of Isaiah 55:8? "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD."

You asked: "You're going to tell me that we need evidence with exact words?"

Well Yes, that's what I'm telling you. You don't get to make it up as you go and ignore the meaning of the exact words God used vs. the exact words He could have used IF He agreed with you.

Nov 05, 2017
taking verses out of context
by: anonymous

If you read Deut 23:18, the context seems clearly to be temple prostitutes, but Lev. 20:13, I don't get any indication of temple prostitutes, as I think you claimed. And since I consider I have homosexual tendencies, I think I am being less bias than most.

Rick's comment: Hi Anonymous - There is a strong case to be made that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are in the context of shrine prostitutes. Even the most vociferous anti-gay conservative Christian scholars admit that and teach that in their commentaries and study Bibles.

Here is a long page of information with dozens of links to additional information. Please read it several times to digest it and let me know what you think. Many thanks for commenting.

Shrine prostitutes and Lev 18:22 and 20:13

Jan 08, 2018
by: jacqueline lisa

I appreciate you research, as does most comments. But by what assurance do we believe your research? Where are your sources, there seems to be very little referencing.

You insist that people should not comment with opinion but rather with facts but what assurance do WE have that your "research" is in fact research and not just opinion.

Note I am affirming but looking for good sites to share with my coming out friends - this would be good but WHERE IS YOUR RESEARCH COMING FROM?

Rick's comment: Hi Jacqueline - Throughout this website I list and link to hundreds of sources so that my readers can do further research. My research comes from ancient historical documents, books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, Bible commentaries, research papers and more.

Jan 20, 2018
God Loves Me!
by: Holly

Hello I wanted to thank you for the research you have done. I first wanted to point out; because I did not read it in any of the post.

To back you up, Paul when talking about akatharsian was writing to churches that had temples just down the street where they were taking young boys, and in slaving men in to homosexual prostitution for there temple rituals.

You will not find that information in your Bible, you will have to research the area Paul was writing about and the beliefs outside the Christian culture of the time. Paul was telling these churches that kind of specific behavior was wrong.

He was trying to make it clear by using this new word that this was for sure not appropriate, drawing a line between old beliefs on same sex and temple prostitution and forced homosexual acts. I know you touched on this on your main page. Not sure how many people know that or care to understand, they just want to hold on to there theology.

Further more I would like to address all the so called "Christians" lashing out against the fact that there maybe a second truth out there. I'm a woman that was born internally biologically male with issues related to how male I may be outwards as far as being male. A doctor and my parents made a decision that I would live as a boy.

I did not do this very well at all, feeling more like a sis gender female and being attracted to both male and female people, and very confused because everyone was telling me I was a boy and saying what I should, and should not do. Upon growing up and learning about life and biology I was very hurt that all this was not explained to me at a younger age.

I'm the daughter of a minister that graduated from bible college, the granddaughter of two ministers. I was raised very Pentecostal and had grand parents from the south, Mississippi, very turn or burn. I myself graduated form bible college, was a middle school pastor at a large church.

I say this not bragging; but as a testament that loving no matter what allows God to do his work. I started out with 18 youth, and had 100-114 depending on the week at one point. This was prior to me living as the person God made me to be, just trying to make Christians/family happy.

I stepped down in 2005 and have not stepped back in to a church since, after seeing how much harm the church is causing people if they do not conform to there closed minded theology. My youth would transition into adult service and struggle with the closed minded messages that passed judgment not love on to them.

I now see some of my youth that have given up on their faith; because of how, not the church has treated them but the people inside the church have treated them. I beg for them to not give up on God because of what man has created.

So here is my question to all the judges of Gods laws. Were will the intersex/hermaphrodite people go? If you argue that this is the cause of sin maybe do some non bible history research. We have been around since the writing down of history.

God created us through the reproduction process so if We/I'm sin how do We/I change that sin, since It is part of my birth? Where will We/I go? Do I have sex with a woman because inside I'm a man? Or do I have sex with men because things work better that way in a physical interaction way? Who decides what sex I am or who I should be, or who We/I should have sex with?

One last thought is that even if we take all the scripture that talks about same sex issues there are not that many, none from Jesus himself; but there sure are a lot on not judging others and love. So lets ask the question why is there so much judgment in the church? Why is there so much hate in the world? Are these not bigger issues?

My thinking is God loves us all and I just would like "Christians" to know he loves you also, he wants to save you. That is the true beauty of the cross we are all born into sin that was cleaned by Jesus on the cross; but the real cleaning happened in the resurrection.

Jesus was an outcast in his time and the religious control of that time, "Church" did not believe his teachings, he was a false profit. The religious control "Church" of the time begged, and allowed the Romans to beat him and hang him on a cross.

Maybe think about that while you're trying to convince yourself of your rightness. God is bringing us closer to him, we can not get closer when we are chained to the past!

Jan 27, 2018
by: jacqueline lisa

I asked you about sources and you said there are plenty of sources elsewhere on the site.
Sir, when you make a claim you need to follow that claim with an immediate reference so the reader can see if your sources are valid!

You state that all your research comes from ancient manuscripts etc etc but do you really expect everyone to just take your word for it?

The only reference I could find on you web page is a reference for a book written by a minister who advocates for 'boy love' (pedophilia)

Instead of accusing others of opinion and propaganda please provide sources to each claim so we can see for ourselves that your work is not itself o0pinion and propaganda!!!

With all due respect for the work you do for LGBTQI community - you write like a fundamentalists! making big claims with nothing to back it up!!!

Rick's comment: Hi Jacqueline - You can Google any of the transliterated Greek words in the article to locate sources.

Your accusation that I make big claims with nothing to back it up is argumentative and untrue. I don't know why you are being confrontational with me in both of your comments.

Yes, I am a conservative evangelical fundamentalist. I am not a liberal or progressive or Bible denying Christian. I do back up the truths I teach with hundreds and hundreds of references and links to additional information across the hundreds of pages of this website.

If something I write is common knowledge or can be easily found by Googling, I don't see any need to provide links and references for that information.

Jan 30, 2018
We Love Rick
by: Coco

You're the BEST, Rick. Keep it coming!

Apr 15, 2018
by: Amelea

1) How frequently were these terms used and what works?

2) When were these uses dated?

3) Are there any that specifically mean "man with man" rather than having a side connotation? (Man crazed after man, etc.)

Rick's comment: Hi Amelea - You may Google any of the transliterated Greek words in the article to discover frequency of usage, the original works in which they were found, dates of usage and specific meanings.

May 23, 2018
Same sex relationships in the Bible
by: Keith

Where in the Bible does God approve of same sex relationships. And where are there records in the Bible of same sex relationships?

Rick's comment: Hi Keith - Do Christians use that standard for anything besides same sex relationships?

Where in the Bible does God approve of heterosexual Christians getting divorced and remarried and divorced and remarried yet again and still pastoring and still deaconing? Wasn't Jesus crystal clear about divorce?

This page of my website may be helpful in answering your question.

Gay couples in the Bible?

May 27, 2018
by: Afraid to use my real name

But Paul created that name. arsenokoitai was 2 words put together in greek based off of the hebrew scriptures in Leviticus. "Arseno" means man and "koitai" means lying with another man. This is historically and Biblically proven. And just remember something. If you have to fight something so hard to prove that it is true and to convince yourself that the Holy Spirit inside you speaking is wrong, then you are probably wrong.

Rick's comment: Hi whoever you are. You claim to speak truth but don't have enough courage to use your real name? You left that line blank so I filled it in for you.

It's easy to take pot shots at your fellow Christians from the shadows of anonymity.

Shrine prostitutes in Lev 18:22 and 20:13

What does arsenokoites mean?

Jun 02, 2018
More imagined definitions
by: Kris

"Afraid to use my real name" (for no reason whatsoever) claimed that ""koitai" means lying with another man".

- Um, no. It's basically the word for "bed". Or do you also assume that any time someone says "they went to be together", it means the people involved MUST have been men?

- It's more likely that Paul meant it in a similar sense to what people today mean when they say "a testosterone-fueled action". Why? Because it is DEHUMANIZING. The whole focus, when it comes to physical relations, is that sex belongs in the context of a loving, caring relationship, a union of spirits and not merely brief physical pleasure.

- If you look at the Seven Deadly Sins, including physical lust, they are all about DEHUMANIZING other people.

Jul 10, 2018
Jesus on marriage
by: Landon

He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast 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 not man separate." Matthew 19:4-6

Nowhere in scripture is anything but a lifelong, monogamous marriage between a man and a woman recognized as natural marriage, and the place for sexual intimacy. Everything else is condemned. May God deliver you from bondage.

Rick's comment: Hi Landon - I have some helpful information about Matthew 19:3-12, which I think you will find interesting. Perhaps the Bible is not as narrow as you prefer to understand it. Here are three links.

1. Did Jesus define marriage as only between a man and a woman?

2. What about homosexual eunuchs?

3. What about polygamy in the Bible?

Oct 30, 2018
Just in case you haven't seen this
by: Sean

You probably won't be interested in this, but someone reading this page might be.


Rick's comment: Hi Sean - I find that article strangely unpersuasive. It is based on Dr. Gagnon's opinion.

I have two excellent pages of information about aresnokoitai on this website.

Arsenokoitai - What is the historical meaning of this rare Greek word?

Define arsenokoitai

May 01, 2019
What of a logic!?
by: Vency

I can’t understand the discussion here! It can’t be about homosexuality and the Bible, because Rick Brentlinger do not use the good, old, well attested in the English literature words as ‘sodomy’ and ‘sodomite’ or ‘pederasty’ and ‘pederast’. The word ‘homosexuality’ is new and made up in the resent decades. He can’t use it and mean intimate or sexual relationships of people of same sex! He could have used some of this other words!

Rick's comment: Hi Vency - The article I wrote refers to Greek and Latin words that Paul could have used, in the first century A.D. The article does not refer to English words.

Jul 04, 2019
Grateful for you!
by: Tee

In 2009 God spoke to my heart and said, "You cannot share my Truth if you are not bearing your own truth!" I pleaded with Him; please Lord I don't want to be gay! He responded, "Though none go with you; will you follow?" You see I had struggled with being a Lesbian for over 40 years!

I had tried Exodus and many other ways to change. When I was in college, I fell deeply in love with my math tutor. We never did anything. However unknowingly, she also fell for me.

So, right after this encounter with "God", We happened to find each other on FB. We have been together for 10 years! I am learning more each day about myself and the Word's position on Same sex relationships.

Is there a current Bible that uses a different term other than "homosexual?" Thank you, Tee.

Rick's comment: Hi Tee - What a blessing! God has worked in your life in a wonderful way! Thanks for letting me know this website is a blessing to you.

I believe, use and recommend the old fashioned King James Version (not the New King James Version). The KJV is the absolute best and most accurate Bible anyone can use, far better than any of the modern versions.

What must I do to be saved?

May 26, 2020
A Different Angle
by: Didn't give a name

Putting aside the dissection of the word, "arsenokoitai," putting aside the context and all that, let me ask you something different:

You feel strongly that homosexuality is not a sin. Okay. I believe, based on the Bible, that sex, between a man and a woman within the context of marriage, is also not a sin.

Rick's comment: Well aren't you the clever one! You portray me as going by feelings - "you feel strongly," while portraying yourself as believing the Bible - "I believe, based on the Bible."

You've framed it as if I am not a Bible believer and you are, yet you're the one who asked us to ignore the meaning of the words in the Bible and to also ignore the context of the Bible verses at issue here.

In fact, marriage sex between a man and a woman is celebrated in the Bible! I know you've read Song of Solomon, you know what I'm talking about! So since you so strongly believe that homosexuality is not sinful, why don't we see it celebrated in the Bible the same way we see heterosexual sex (within the context of marriage) celebrated? Sex is a gift from God. We know based on Matthew 7:9-11 that our Father in Heaven gives good gifts to His children. God created sex as a gift for human's pleasure, He wants His children to partake in the enjoyable gift of sex (within marriage). He gives it freely to married men and women.

So then, since you believe homosexuality is not a sin, do you believe that God thinks it's good? ...

So finally, here's my question: *IF* - for the sake of the argument - *IF* you found concrete evidence that homosexuality is wrong in the sight of God, maybe God audibly spoke to you and told you, I don't know, but if somehow you found out that homosexuality is in fact sinful before God, would you be able to humble yourself enough to submit, not to your feelings, but to God, the Creator and Master of the universe?

Rick's comment: Imagining God personally speaking to someone is never how Christians determine truth or discover the will of God.

The Bible has a very clear passage which answers your question, in 2 Peter 1:16-19.

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:" 2 Peter 1:16-19.

QUESTION: What is more sure than the voice of God Himself, speaking from heaven?

ANSWER: The written words of God in the Bible are MORE SURE, than the voice of God speaking from heaven.

How do we KNOW that? Because that is what the Bible actually says.

That’s why Bible believing gay Christians go by what the Bible says, in context.

That’s why we never put aside the meaning of the words and we never put aside the context of the verses we want to understand.

Nov 22, 2020
by: John

You just gave a very powerful argument, I hope you should send it to the Vatican, so that they can change the wrong interpretation of the Bible.

Dec 24, 2020
Thanks for Your Work
by: Charlie

I really appreciate your rather exhaustive research into this often times "thorny" issue of gays and Christianity. I truly appreciate your work. I have several gay friends. They are some of the most decent, kindest, most considerate compassionate and genuinely loving people I have ever encountered anywhere, and I have an extremely hard time visualizing a truly loving God (as I most certainly believe He is) condemning them due to their being gay. It just doesn’t make any sense! I certainly can see Him condemning idol worshipers and superficial lusts and such but not genuinely kind and loving human beings. And yes, I realize that being kind, considerate, compassionate etc. does not get anyone into Heaven. Those things are the things for which we will be judged by Jesus and according to the Bible these particular things will earn us praise with Him. The only way to Heaven is through one’s genuine love for Jesus, repentance of evil ways and acceptance of the priceless free gift Jesus has offered us – forgiveness of our sins through his suffering and sacrifice once and for all for all of us. Finally, I would ask others to not confuse my friends and I with the "militant" gay crowd who want to force themselves and their ways onto other people who are not interested in those ways. We are strictly from the "live and let live" crowd. If you don’t want to bake a cake for us, fine! There are plenty of others who are more than happy to accommodate us. Just don’t insist that no one be allowed to accommodate us. Thanks.

Jun 13, 2021
searching for the truth and a bit confused
by: Miko

Is this arsen word the same term used for all the other verses that address "homosexuality" or that are used to condemn it?

I have heard something like "malakoi" also being used to condemn effeminate or "weak" men. What does the nuance of these interpretations mean for Christians that have these inclinations?

How could we possibly know from such a broad term what God was really trying to say to us?

I really desperately want to know the truth of God’s Word in its entirety and specificity.

Rick's comment: Hi Miko- Thanks for the good questions.

The arsenokoit stem is only used two times in the New Testament - 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

The arsenokoit stem is NOT used in most of the verses which are taken out of context and then used to condemn gays.

I explain the meaning of arsenokoitai and malakoi at these links.

What does arsenokoites mean?

Define arsenokoitai

Meaning of malakoi

Define Malakoi

Jul 12, 2021
Hard Evidence
by: Weston

Quick and easy - You ask: "How can the church condemn homosexual relationships?"

Rick's comment: Hi Weston - No, as a matter of fact I did not ask that.

I answered a question sent to me.

I combined your Pt 2 comment with this comment.

"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,' and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife...'?" -Matthew 19:4

"Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Straight from the mouth of the ultimate source: Jesus. Simply because the context of this passage is about divorce doesn't nullify the truth of the intent of the book of Genesis.

And Jesus uses the book of Genesis to support his argument, therefore, at least the part he is referencing is still effective.

Rick's comment: Jesus was answering a question from heterosexual Jewish men about whether or not THEY could get rid of a wife when THEY got tired of her and get another wife.

Jesus wasn't asked about gay marriage but He did point out that not all men - meaning eunuchs - could receive the truth He spoke to heterosexual Jewish men who wanted an excuse to keep getting rid of THEIR heterosexual wives.

I have some helpful information about Matthew 19:3-12, which I think you will find interesting.

The Bible is not as narrow as you prefer to understand it. Here are three links.

1. Did Jesus define marriage as only between a man and a woman?

2. What about homosexual eunuchs?

3. What about polygamy in the Bible?

Oct 27, 2021
Response to Vency's original comment from May 01, 2019
by: Vency

Hi Rock, I hoped you will understand the irony of my point, but here it is. The main statement of your article is based on the idea that Paul should have used a particular vocabulary, but not the one he chose.

Rick's comment: Hi Vency - No, as a matter of fact that is not at all my point. Paul could have used other words IF he intended us to believe homosexuality is wrong.

My point is, Since Paul didn't use other words, telling us homosexuality is wrong was not the point Paul made.

Paul compared what was happening in first century Rome to what happened in ancient Israel. Paul was describing and proscribing shrine prostitution.

But you also do not use some of the other, older words for homosexuality as ‘sodomy’ and ‘sodomite’ or ‘pederasty’ and ‘pederast’. Do this give me right to claim that you do not talk about the issue of homosexuality? The chose of ἀρσενοκοίτης over other words changes nothing, because this word has that meaning, compare how ἀρρενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ, is explained in Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon as "A. Sodomite, AP9.686; (ἀρσ-) 1Cor. 6.9". Or the definition given in Diccionario Griego-Español: sodomita, homosexual (1Cor. 6:9), ἄρρην ἀρρενοκοίτης AP. l.c., cf. Bardes. 3.25.
Something more, with all do respect, the way you deal with the Greek & Latin vocabulary you give as alternative show clearly that you yourself do not know Classical Greek (or Latin) ← you make or keep mistakes in the transliteration of some word and you mix word forms in singular and plural; you do not take in consideration neither who are the authors and the documents (when and how frequent) using the given by you Greek words, or what is the context (the meaning) of this word; you are not familiar with the Classical Greek Dictionaries / Lexicon on your language and you only quote secondary sources (publications of someone ales), but not primary (Greek authors).

As conclusion of the previously pointed I will say that your claim for scholarly and objective critique is in fact unscientific and speculative – you have an unchecked hypothesis far from respectful and truth interpretation of the Scripture. The correct word study and study of the problem will confirm the historical understanding of this passages.

Rick's comment: You are adept at making up imaginary things, attributing them to someone else and then making false accusations based on the imaginary things you made up.

Dec 22, 2021
Koine or Attic Greek?
by: Jennifer

Dear Rick

I was wondering if the words you list here are Attic or Koine Greek and if you would be kind enough to provide your sources for their definitions? Thanks

Rick's comment: Hi Jennifer- The words are a mixture of Greek and Latin words. I no longer have my notes from when I wrote this page but you can Google the words to find sources for their meaning and whether they are Attic Greek or Koine Greek.

Dec 23, 2021
by: Jennifer

Dear Rick

I already tried that and I only got a page coming up of a conservative refuting some the words on this page

The refutations were nonsensical when you consider all things but this still leaves me in the dark for sources

Oh well

Sep 05, 2022
Two very different things
by: Anonymous

Man, I wish the words paiderasste and paiderastes weren't so similar. I know of so many people who hate gay people (or people in the LGBTQ+ community) and say they are equivalent with p*dos, even though gay people and p*dos are two very different things.

Oct 16, 2023
Why is straight marriage celebrated?
by: bree

Why is straight marriage celebrated in the bible but not gay unions?

Rick's comment: Hi Bree- If we go by the number of verses and chapters of the Bible which are devoted to the story of Jonathan and David, then the story of the same sex friendship / marriage of David and Jonathan IS the most celebrated human love story in the Bible.

King Saul, an eyewitness who knew both men, thought David and Jonathan were in a sexual relationship, 1 Samuel 20:30.

King David, a participant and one of the human authors of scripture, described his relationship with Crown Prince Jonathan as "wonderful, passing the love of women." 2 Samuel 1:25-26.

God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and God the Son made sure that the story of Jonathan and David receives more positive attention and blessing and commendation in the Bible than any opposite sex love story.

That is an undeniable biblical fact. God had a reason for doing it that way.

Could it be that God's reason was to point out that He affirms and blesses and celebrates same sex relationships?

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!