The Law is Good if Used Lawfully

“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted” (1 Timothy 1:8-11, ESV).  

The section of 1 Timothy chap. 1 marked at vv. 8-17 is an explanatory digression, as the discussion of vv. 3-7 resumes at vv. 18-20. In contrast to the mishandling of the law by certain ones just noted, Paul explains its rightful purpose and proper use.¹ While the word “law” [nómos] is applied with some flexibility in the NT, it normally relates to the old-covenant law of Moses. Notwithstanding the occasional exception to this general observation (e.g. Rom. 2:13, 14; Gal. 3:21b), the context normally clarifies the usage.

The Goodness of the Law

Since the term “law” in v. 9 is without the article in the Greek text (cf. ASV, NASB, NET), it has been suggested that the reference here may be to law in general, not strictly the Mosaic law. However, the article is appended in v. 8 (“the law”), and God’s law, as law, is generally true of all just laws. It is “good” [kalós] but only if used “lawfully” [nomímōs]. Its goodness is “because it truly does reflect God’s will…. related to its being used properly, that is, treated as law (intended for the lawless, v. 9) and not used ‘illegitimately’ as a source for myths and endless genealogies, or for ascetic practices.”²

During the fifteen centuries the Mosaic law was in force, provisions were made for atonement and forgiveness (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:13, 16, 18), salvation was attainable (1 Sam. 2:1; 2 Sam. 22:51; 1 Chron. 16:23; Psa. 3:8; etc.), and one could even be counted “blameless” (Luke 1:6; Phil. 3:6). Faith, love, and mercy were essential components (Deut. 6:4-9; 10:12-21; Mic. 6:8; Hab. 2:4; Matt. 23:23; etc.), and it was beneficial to all who submitted to it (Deut. 6:24; 10:13; cf. Psa. 78:1-7; etc.).³

Foreshadowing the atoning sacrifice of Jesus (Rom. 3:25-26; Gal. 4:4-5; Heb. 9:15, 26), persons were saved under the old Jewish covenantal law by God’s grace through faith (Rom. 4:3-16; cf. 3:25; 9:31-32), i.e., a faith that submitted to the divine will in humble obedience. Despite the fact that a number of 1st-century legalistic Jews misconstrued the law’s intended purpose (Luke 11:37-42; Rom. 2:23; 10:3), it was never meant to be a cold-hearted structure of meritorious works. While the old-covenant system was not faultless (Heb. 8:7), it successfully functioned as a temporary measure to keep faith alive until the advent of the promised Messiah and the establishment of his superior new-covenant system (cf. Gal. 3:16–4:7; Heb. 8:6-13).

The Necessity of the Law

The necessity of the law is explained with three pairs of descriptors. While they could be regarded as synonymous, the expression “lawless” [ánomos], lit. “without law,” applies here to “those who know the laws of right and wrong and break them open-eyed.”⁴ The “disobedient” [anupótaktos], more precisely “undisciplined,” “insubordinate,” or “rebellious,” refers to “those who will not come into subjection.”⁵ The word “ungodly” [asebēs] describes one who is “destitute of reverential awe towards God, impious,”⁶ while “sinners” [adj. hamartōlós], i.e., not free from sin or preeminently sinful, basically applies to “one who deviates from the path of virtue”;⁷ cp. vv. 6, 19. The ungodly are inwardly irreverent, whereas the sinful are outwardly disobedient. The terms “unholy” [anósios, cf. 2 Tim. 3:2], or “wicked” (BAGD 72), and “profane” [bébēlos, cf. 4:7; 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:16], “godless” or “irreligious” (BAGD 138), are descriptive of persons who reject sacred things. All these generically portray human rebellion against God.

The Prohibitions of the Law

More specifically, the designated sins that follow correspond to the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:12-16). God did not give his law for frivolous conjecture and pointless dialogue, but as “law” it prohibits the types of transgressions now listed. Such a vice list is not uncommon and stands in stark contrast to the virtue lists of 3:1-13; 5:9-10. Similar vice lists occur in Rom. 1:26-31; 1 Cor. 5:10-11; 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:2-4, none of which is intended to be exhaustive.

Regarding “those who strike their fathers and mothers,” two descriptive terms are employed here, patrolōas (“patricide,” or “father killer”) and mētralōas (“matricide,” or “mother killer”). Seeing that the literal sense would be included in the next expression, “murderers” (androphónos, lit. “manslayer”), parallel to the Decalogue’s sixth commandment (Ex. 20:13), it seems allusion to the fifth commandment (Ex. 20:12) is intended here, thus the unnatural treatment of mothers and fathers, applicable to those “who refuse all reverence, even all kindly treatment, to their parents”⁸ (cf. 5:3-16). “The words describe sons or daughters who are lost to gratitude, lost to respect and lost to shame. And it must ever be remembered that this most cruel of blows can be one, not upon the body, but upon the heart.”⁹ See also Prov. 28:24; Mark 7:10-13; Rom. 1:30; Eph. 6:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:2.

The “sexually immoral,” from the Greek pórnos (lit. a male prostitute), refers to anyone engaging in illicit sexual intercourse, i.e., a fornicator. The noun porneía applies to any type of illicit sexual intercourse or fornication, namely sex that is not within the context of a divinely approved marriage (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2; Heb. 13:4). More particularly, “men who practice homosexuality.” The expression here is arsenokoítai (see also 1 Cor. 6:9), a combination of arsēn (“male”) and koitē (“bed”).⁹ This is a sexual term descriptive of homosexual behavior (ASV, ESV, ERV, HCSB, ISB, NASB, NIV, N/KJV, NRSV, etc.), pertaining to women as well (Rom. 1:26-27).

Next is “enslavers” [andrapodistēs]. Christianity entered a world where slavery was already an established element of society and regarded as an economic necessity, though not necessarily comparable to harsher forms in other times and societies (cf. 6:1-2). The condition of slavery was typically the result of prisoners of war, criminal conviction, debt, abandoned children, or birth to a slave mother. What Paul mentions here is a more sinister means, i.e., slave-dealers, kidnappers, or those who steal and sell another’s slaves. In principle this would include all who exploit fellow humans for selfish gain. 

The itemizing concludes with “liars” (from pseústēs) and “perjurers” (from epíorkos), those who intentionally twist the truth and affirm falsehoods for their own perceived advantage (cf. John 8:44; 1 John 1:6; 2:4, 22; 4:20; Rom. 1:25; Col. 3:9; Rev. 3:9). Although a comprehensive list is not necessary to make the point, the concluding statement is all encompassing: “and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (cf. Rom. 1:32; Gal. 5:21; 6:1; 2 Tim. 3:5). 

The Divine Standard

The divine standard is “doctrine” (didaskalía, “teaching,” “instruction”) being “sound” [hugiaínō], a verbal for being in good health (Luke 5:31; 7:10; 3 John 2) or safe and sound (Luke 15:27), used by Paul only in his letters to Timothy and Titus with reference to what is taught and the accompanying faith (1 Tim. 1:10; 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Tit. 1:9, 13; 2:1, 2). In contrast to “the law” (vv. 7-9), misappropriated and misunderstood by the disruptors, the message advanced by the apostle and his associates is “the gospel” [tó euaggélion], lit. “the good news” or “the glad tidings.” Anything different is unsound and spiritually unhealthy (v. 3; 6:3; 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6, 7). 

The gospel message with which Paul has been “entrusted” (verbal pisteúō, cf. vv. 1, 12; 1 Cor. 9:17; Gal. 2:7; 1 Thess. 2:4) reflects God’s “glory” [dóxa], a revelation of himself in which recipients of the message are invited to share (Rom. 5:2; 9:23; 2 Cor. 4:4, 6). “Both the Law and the gospel are against sin. Both reveal the glory of God. The gospel does not tolerate sin any more than the Law.”¹¹ The difference is, the law condemns but cannot save, while the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16-17; 7:1–8:8; Gal. 2:16; 3:10-29).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Contrary to what is commonly assumed, Paul was not anti-law. He concedes faith’s reinforcement of the law (Rom. 3:31), the holiness and righteousness of the law (Rom. 7:7, 12), the spirituality of the law (Rom. 7:14), and the advantages of Judaism (Rom. 3:1-2; 9:4). Paul does not contradict himself in passages like Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16 and 3:11. His emphasis is consistently on the importance of understanding the law in terms of faith rather than dependence on meritorious observances (cf. Rom. 3:27-31; 9:30-32).

     ² Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus NIBC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988): 45.

     ³ Paul continued to be in favor of the law and its precepts with respect to those for whom it was an important part of their cultural heritage (i.e., within the context of ethnic Judaism), as long as it was not at variance with the Christian faith (cf. Acts 16:1-3; 18:18; 21:20-26; 1 Cor. 9:20; also Rom. 15:4). On the other hand, he was vehemently opposed to the enforcement of the law’s ritualistic ordinances on those for whom these practices had no relevance (i.e., non-Jewish Christians), especially if the imposition of such created division in the church and supplanted the “faith of Christ.”

     ⁴ William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians DBSS (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1975): 37.

     5 Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the NT (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985): 4:207.

     6 Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies: The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek NT for the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980): 31.

     7 Harold K. Moulton, ed. The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised (Grand Rapids: Regency, 1978): 17.

     ⁸ H. D. M. Spence, “The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy,” in NT Commentary for English Readers, ed. C. J. Ellicott (London: Cassell Petter and Galpin, 1884): 3:180.

     9 W. Barclay, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon 38.

     ¹⁰ The words arsēn (“male”) and koitē (“bed”) appear together six times in the LXX (Greek translation of the OT), four times referring to men lying with women (Num. 31:17, 18; Judg. 21:11, 12) and twice in reference to men lying with men (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).

     ¹¹ W. E. Vine, Exposition of the Epistles to Timothy (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1925): 14.

 

Related Posts: Fulfilling the Law, Is the Law of Moses Still Binding

 

Image credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:041A.Moses_Breaks_the_Tables_of_the_Law.jpg

Born Gay? A Scientific, Commonsense, Biblical Perspective

Are there determinative biological reasons for the broad range of human sexual proclivities, particularly among the LGBTQ+ population? Slate magazine, an online journal known for its “liberal contrarianism” and “left-wing slant,”¹ has published an article by gay journalist Mark Joseph Stern, asserting that homosexuality “is clearly, undoubtedly, inarguably an inborn trait.”²  Moral behavioral expert Lady Gaga, in her 2011 hit single “Born This Way,” lyricizes: “No matter gay, straight, or bi, lesbian, transgendered life …. I’m beautiful in my way, ‘cause God makes no mistakes, I’m on the right track, baby I was born this way.”³

Subjective, agenda-driven assertions like these have become commonplace in our modern world, but is there any hard evidence to back them up? Is this popular claim supported by neutral, fact-based scientific research? If God is brought into the conversation, how do we know what his role is and what his will is in all this? 

A Commonsense Perspective

In the never-ending debate over nature versus nurture, the “born gay” argument is heavy on nature’s role with little if any regard for environmental influences. While sexual desire is innate in nearly all post-pubescent humans, the development and focus of one’s sexual impulses cannot but be affected by external factors. An absentee father, a domineering mother, neglect, abuse, pornography, molestation, or any number of variables that conflict with God’s design for the home contribute to psychological inclinations that conflict with God’s design for the person.⁴ Even siblings raised in the same environment do not have identical experiences, and each reacts to stimuli in a unique way.

The normalcy of heterosexuality is a fact of biology and human history. Trying to legitimize an alternative sexual orientation, whether same-sex attraction, pedophilic desire, zoophilia, et al.,⁵ is an attempt to normalize something that is contrary to nature and biblical morality. While most advocates of the LGBTQ+ agenda would object to being lumped together with pedophiles and zoophiles (thus no “P” or “Z” in the acronym),⁶ if sexual orientation is innate, then the prevailing status quo is inconsistent, hypocritical, and discriminatory for not including others who are “born that way.” 

An Objective Scientific Perspective

With eager attempts to sustain a particular point of view, it is important not to oversimplify or exaggerate the evidence, or make unwarranted assumptions about what the evidence does or does not actually confirm. It is also helpful to clearly define our terms. What is meant by the somewhat ambiguous expression “sexual orientation”? Are we talking about feelings of attraction, fantasy, confusion, longing for relationship, sense of identity, secretive or overt behavior? Does it include various tendencies, mannerisms, and preferences? 

Neuroscientist Simon LeVay, in his study published in 1991,⁷ reported brain differences between heterosexual and homosexual men, which some have interpreted as “proof” of biological causation of sexual orientation. However, since these variations could have developed after birth, LeVay explains: “I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are ‘born that way,’ the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”⁸ Numerous other studies that have focused on the role of genetics, including identical twins studies,⁹ can neither establish a biological cause for sexual orientation nor discount the formative effects of environmental catalysts.¹⁰

Johns Hopkins University published a nonpartisan report in 2016, based on exhaustive research from biological, psychological, and social sciences, authored by Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh.¹¹ Dr. McHugh (M.D.) is former chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital and professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Dr. Mayer (M.B., M.S., Ph.D.), the lead writer of the report, is a biostatistician, epidemiologist, and research physician trained in medicine and psychiatry. Mayer states, “I support every sentence in this report, without reservation and without prejudice regarding any political or philosophical debates. This report is about science and medicine, nothing more and nothing less…. I strongly support equality and oppose discrimination for the LGBT community…” (“Preface” 4-5).

The 143-page report, which addresses sexual orientation, mental health, and gender identity, can be summed up with these words: “The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings – the idea that people are ‘born that way’ – is not supported by the scientific evidence…. there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation” (“Executive Summary” 7). The authors also note that the questions addressed in their comprehensive investigation reveal “a great chasm between much of the public discourse and what science has shown” (“Conclusion” 116).

Fluidity of Sexual Orientations

The idea that sexual desires, attractions, behaviors, and identities are biologically innate and unchangeable is not supported by scientific research. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health conducted interviews with a nationally representative sample of adolescents in the U.S. in 1994-1995, with follow-up interviews through to 2007-2008. The study found that of the adolescent males who had reported same-sex attractions, 80% later identified as exclusively heterosexual young adults. Over 80% of the adolescent males who had reported romantic attraction to both genders later reported no same-sex attraction. Considerable scientific evidence shows that sexual behaviors and identities can vary significantly under different social and environmental circumstances.¹² London’s Royal College of Psychiatrists collectively affirms: “It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life.”¹³

A Biblical Perspective

True science is based on empirical evidence and demonstrable data rather than individual preferences or popular opinions. In like manner, the Bible must be evaluated according to what it actually teaches instead of biased and misconstrued presuppositions. Irrespective of anyone’s sexual tendencies, moral purity is expected of all who profess allegiance to Christ.¹⁴ The New Testament Greek term porneía refers to any kind of forbidden sexual intercourse—that which is beyond the context of a divinely approved, heterosexual, monogamous, consensual marriage.¹⁵ Now if God is creator of all humankind and is both loving and just, it is inconceivable that he is responsible for making a person a certain way, or compelling a person to behave a certain way, while condemning that person for something he/she cannot control. Sexual activity between those of the same gender is contrary to God’s revealed will.¹⁶ Either the God of the Bible is unjust, or he is not responsible for making people gay.

The Free Will Factor

We are told, “being gay is not a choice” and “God makes no mistakes,” but these are narrow, undefined, misleading generalizations. At the same time, the idea that sexual desire and sexual attraction are simply matters of preferential choice is also naïve and unrealistic.

The crux of the matter is how these inclinations are expressed, or how these impulses are acted upon. Humans are created with the ability to think and the freedom to choose. God does not force us to act against our volitional choices.¹⁷ Stated from a secular point of view, sexual desire is “a powerful force, akin to hunger, that many struggle (especially in adolescence) to bring under direction and control…. What seems to be to some extent in our control is how we choose to live with this appetite, how we integrate it into the rest of our lives” (L. S. Mayer and P. R. McHugh, op cit. 19).

Philosopher and legal theorist Edward Stein, critical of popular cultural stereotypes overshadowing cross-cultural scientific facts, observes: “Regardless of whether sexual orientations are directly chosen, indirectly chosen, or not chosen at all … people choose with whom they have sex, people choose whether to be open about their sexual orientations, people choose whether or not to enter romantic relationships, and whether or not to build families.”¹⁸ Everyone has to decide either to reject biblical morality, or distort it to conform to the lifestyle of one’s choosing, or accept and comply with the creator’s design for life and relationships, whether in marriage or in single-hood.

Conclusion:

History professor and gay activist John D’Emilio is honest enough to admit that scientific evidence for the “born gay” mantra “is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.”¹⁹ Nonetheless, many sincere people believe it is a provable fact, which Edward Stein describes as “cultural chauvinism,” meaning “to think, in the absence of either strong scientific evidence or strong theoretical arguments, that our conceptual framework, which gives sexual orientation such a central role, is going to be confirmed by an advanced science of human sexual desire.”²⁰

We all have choices to make. Those of us who choose not to climb aboard the trendy “Gay Pride” bandwagon or embrace the “born that way” propaganda will continue to be stereotyped as “a group of toothless, anti-gay protesters coded as hillbillies who wear American flag tank tops and hold signs that say familiar homophobic slogans ...”²¹ But folks on either side of the debate can be just as ill-informed and hateful as the other. If we truly love God and our fellow humans, we will see one another as precious souls made in his image, created to live lives pleasing to him and worthy of him (Col. 1:10). Let’s encourage each other to do just that. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Daniel Engber, “Free-Thought for the Closed-Minded,” Slate (8 Jan. 2019), <Link>.

     ² Mark Joseph Stern, “No, Being Gay is Not a Choice,” Slate (4 Feb. 2014), <Link>.

     ³ “Born This Way (song),” Wikipedia (7 June 2019), <Link>.

     ⁴ Non-heterosexuals are about two to three times more likely than heterosexuals to have been victims of childhood sexual abuse (see Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” The New Atlantis 50 [Fall 2016]: 42-50). Sadly, as lesbian feminist Camille Paglia observes, “now, you are not allowed to ask any questions about the childhood of gay people anymore. It’s called ‘homophobic.’ The entire psychology establishment has shut itself down, politically …” (“Sexual Orientation is Fluid and Can Change,” Voice of the Voiceless [accessed 16 June 2019], <Link>.
     ⁵ Mirjam Heine, a German medical student, says “pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual orientation” (see Paul Boise, “TEDx Speaker,” The Daily Wire [18 July 2018], <Link>), and the pedophile rights movement is gaining momentum (see Selwyn Duke, “Shocking Times,” The New American [28 Sept. 2015], <Link>). Zoophilia is sexual attraction to animals, while bestiality is engaging in sexual intercourse with animals, the prevalence of which is becoming more and more recognized (see Phil Paleologos, “Bestiality Is Much More Widespread Than You Think,” 1420 WBSM News (28 Feb. 2019), <Link>.

     ⁶ Another proposed acronym or initialism is LGBTTQQIAAP, standing for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer (an ambiguous attempt to include all other non-heterosexuals), questioning, intersexual, asexual, ally, and pansexual. In addition to being cumbersome and confusing, this “abbreviation” still leaves out a number of other sexual inclinations and identities. 

     ⁷ Simon LeVay, “A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men,” Science 253:5023 (30 Aug. 1991): 1034-37, <Link>.

     ⁸ David Nimmons, “Sex and the Brain,” Discover (1 March 1994), <Link>.

     ⁹ Identical twins share the same DNA and prenatal conditions, so if sexual orientation is determined by genes, both siblings ought to be either gay or straight 100% of the time. In 1952 psychiatrist Franz Kallmann, having evaluated multiple pairs of twins, reported that if one twin was homosexual, they both were 100% of the time (“Comparative Twin Study on the Genetic Aspects of Male Homosexuality,” The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 115:1 [Jan. 1952]: 283-98, <Link>). However, Kallmann’s assertion has since been exposed as bogus. Among other problematic areas, his subjects represented an insufficient cross-section of the homosexual population, and his findings have never been replicated (Edward Stein, The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation [Oxford: University Press, 1999]: 145). A number of major studies of identical twins in Australia, Scandinavia, and the United States over the past couple of decades have all concluded that the predominant variables contributing to sexual orientation are post-birth and non-shared factors rather than genetic. If an identical twin grows up to be sexually attracted to the same gender, the chances of the co-twin sharing the same proclivity is comparatively small (Mark Ellis, “Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic,” OrthodoxNet Blog [24 June 2013] <Link>). For a thorough and informative survey of these and similar studies, see L. S. Mayer and P. R. McHugh, op cit. 13-58. Their report concludes: “Summarizing the studies of twins, we can say that there is no reliable scientific evidence that sexual orientation is determined by a person’s genes.”

     ¹⁰ See Zoe Mintz, “Does a ‘Gay Gene’ Exist? New Study Says ‘Xq28’ May Influence Male Sexual Orientation,” Science (14 Feb. 2014), <Link>.

     ¹¹ L. S. Mayer and P. R. McHugh, op cit. 1-143, <Link>.

     ¹² L. S. Mayer and P. R. McHugh, op cit. 50-51.

     ¹³ London’s Royal College of Psychiatrists, “Royal College of Psychiatrists’ statement on sexual orientation” (April 2014): 2, <Link>.
     ¹⁴ Matt. 5:8, 28; Rom. 6:11-14, 19; 13:14; 1 Cor. 6:13-20; Gal. 5:16-21; Eph. 4:17-20; 5:3, 5; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3-5; 5:22; 1 Tim. 4:12; 5:22; 2 Tim. 2:19-22; Tit. 2:12; Heb. 12:14; 13:4; Jas. 1:14-15; 1 Pet. 4:1-4; 2 Pet. 2:18-19; 1 John 2:12-17.

     ¹⁵ 1 Cor. 7:2; Heb. 13:4; cf. Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1 Cor. 5:1; 6:13, 18; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3.

     ¹⁶ Rom. 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 7:1-3; 1 Tim. 1:8-10; Jude 7; cf. Gen. 13:13; 19:4-7; Lev. 18:22; 20:13.

     ¹⁷ Deut. 30:19-20; Josh. 24:15; Isa. 55:6-7; John 3:16-17; 7:17; 1 Tim. 2:3-4; Jas. 4:7; Rev. 3:20; 22:17.

     ¹⁸ Edward Stein, op cit. 347.

    ¹⁹ John D’Emilio, interviewed by Sherry Wolf, “LGBT liberation: Build a broad movement,” International Socialist Review 65 (2 May 2019), <Link>.

    ²⁰ Op cit. 346.
    ²¹ Rebecca Jennings, “Taylor Swift’s ‘You Need to Calm Down’ wants to be a queer anthem,” Vox (17 June 2019), <Link>. 

Related Posts: “A Heterosexual, a Homosexual, and a Pedophile Walk Into a Church” <Link>; “The Queen James Bible” <Link>; “Postmodernism and the Homosexual Christian Part 2” <Link>.

Related articles: Brandon Morse, “America Vastly Overestimates the Size of the LGBT Community” <Link>; Doug Mainwaring, “200 Ex-LGBT men, women rally” <Link>; Wes McAdams, “The Sexual Ethics of Jesus” <Link>; Tom Feilden, "Most scientists can't replicate studies by their peers" <Link>; Doug Mainwaring, "Ex-LGBTs pray, repent" <Link>; Jonathan Lambert, "No 'Gay Gene'" <Link>; Rosaria C. Butterfield, "Are We Living Out Romans 1?" <Link>; John Stonestreet and Shane Morris, "'Born This Way' is Old Science" <Link>; Dewayne Bryant, "Is Homosexuality Hereditary?" <Link>; John Stonestreet and Shane Morris, Pedophilia and the Slippery Slope of "Born This Way"; Christianity Now, Born This Way? Then Be Born Again

Doug Burleson, "Homosexual" in the Bible

Image credit: https://www.rd.com/funny-stuff/10-funny-babies-making-faces/

Fornication, Pornography, and Homosexuality – Biblically Defined

     The noun pórnos (lit. a male prostitute) is employed in the New Testament of anyone engaging in illicit sex, i.e., a fornicator (1 Cor. 5:9, 10, 11; 6:9; Eph. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; Rev. 21:8; 22:15). The noun porneía applies to any type of illicit sexual intercourse, i.e., fornication (Matt. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mark 7:21; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1 Cor. 5:1 [x2]; 6:13, 18; 7:2; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Rev. 2:21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2). In its singular form porneía refers to the specific sex act, and under this broad umbrella term would be various types of porneía, such as adultery, incest, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. Porneía is any kind of sexual intercourse that is not within the context of a divinely approved marriage (cf. Heb. 13:4).

     While the English word “pornography” is derived from this Greek term, porneía does not mean the same thing as the English word, and vice versa. The English translation “sexual immorality” is somewhat vague, thus contributing to common misunderstandings. Although pornography is not “fornication,” it is still sinful, not only because of its addictiveness and the other immoral thoughts and behaviors it inevitably leads to (Rom. 6:19; Jas. 1:14-15; 2 Pet. 2:18-19), but its inherently selfish, lustful, lewd, degrading, objectifying nature is utterly contrary to the mental and moral purity that God expects of his children (Matt. 5:28; Gal. 5:16-17; Eph. 4:17-20; 1 Thess. 5:22; 2 Tim. 2:19-22; 1 John 2:15-17). Nevertheless, while the English word “pornography” is derived from the Greek porneía, viewing pornographic images does not constitute the sexual intercourse that is required for porneía to have occurred.

     The Greek malakoí (plural of malakós) in 1 Cor. 6:9 essentially means “soft,” and precedes arsenokoítai (see also 1 Tim. 1:10), a combination of arsēn (“male”) and koitē (“bed”). These are sexual terms descriptive of homosexual behavior (ASV, ESV, ERV, HCSB, ISB, NASB, NIV, N/KJV, NRSV, etc.).¹ Malakoí describes men who submit to dominant homosexual partners, and the compound arsenokoítai applies to men who actively engage in sodomy. The words arsēn (“male”) and koitē (“bed”) appear together six times in the LXX (Greek translation of the OT, the version Paul extensively quotes in 1 Corinthians), four times referring to men lying with women (Num. 31:17, 18; Judg. 21:11, 12) and twice in reference to men lying with men (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).² Dionysius of Halicarnassus (ca. 60-7 BC), in his Roman Antiquities, describes a man named Aristodemus, who was called malakos or “effeminate,” and one reason for the nickname was the presumed effeminacy of his youth, allowing himself “to be treated as a woman” (7.2.4).

     Irrespective of how these terms and concepts might be viewed in secular societies, to understand God’s revealed will on these matters we must define biblical terms biblically and then live and teach accordingly. 

-- Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Variously rendered “homosexuals” (NKJV), “effeminate” [by perversion] (NASB), “catamites” [those submitting to homosexuals] (NKJV mg) – descriptive of passive homosexual partners; and “sodomites” [male homosexuals] (NKJV), “homosexuals” (NASB), descriptive of active homosexual partners. The ESV combines these two words: “men who practice homosexuality.”

     ² See also Lev. 15:18, 24; 18:20; 19:20; Num. 5:13, 20. 

Related Posts: Biblical Doctrine of Divorce & Remarriage Part 1; Postmodernism & Homosexual Christian Part 2 

Related Articles: Mike Benson, Does Lust Equal Adultery?. Wayne Jackson, Is Lust Fornication?, Cindy Colley, Porneia in Matt 19:9

Image credit: http://ap.lanexdev.com/user_images/image/rr/2013/What-is-Sexual-Immorality--KB2.jpg

Religious Dialogue 101: For the Lazy and Dishonest (Part 4 of 4)

16. A False Dilemma is created when one offers two extremes as the only alternatives to a position, when there are actually other options. In response to an article I had written on 1 Cor. 14:34-35,¹ an anonymous critic accused me and other conservative Christians of inconsistency, because Paul’s admonition for “women to keep silent” in the assemblies and not “to speak” would prohibit them from singing (cf. Eph. 5:19); so if we allow women to sing in our corporate gatherings, we ought to let them preach. These limited choices form a false dichotomy, because it’s really not an either-or option. In context, the silence (sigáō) and the prohibition to speak (laléō) are also enjoined on male tongue-speakers (when there is no interpreter, v. 28) and on male prophets (when someone else is talking, v. 30). That is, they were not to speak as to lead the assembly. The silence here does not forbid singing (v. 15), saying “amen” (v. 16), or public confession (1 Tim. 6:12). The admonitions concern public speaking in leading the corporate assembly.²

17. Making a mountain out of a molehill is an overreaction or an overstatement that makes too much out of a minor issue. It has been alleged that among the surviving New Testament manuscripts there are up to 400,000 variations, leading many to infer that the scriptures have been substantially distorted over the centuries to the point they are no longer trustworthy.³ On the surface this may seem quite alarming until it is reasonably assessed from an informed perspective. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of these variants are so trivial as to not even be translatable. For example, the most common occurrence is an anomaly known as “the moveable nu,” where a word sometimes ends with the letter nu (the 13th letter of the Greek alphabet) and sometimes it does not. Either way the word’s meaning is exactly the same and the sense of the passage is entirely unaffected. But every time it appears in the multiplied thousands of pages of Greek manuscripts, it is counted as a textual variant. Most other variations involve relatively minor details, such as spelling, reduplication, and word order, but no fundamental doctrine of the Bible is in doubt because of textual uncertainty (see Changes in the Bible Part 1).

18. Ad Hominem is an attack on someone’s character or motives in an attempt to dismiss the person’s stated conviction rather than directly addressing the argument itself. If one objects to female leadership roles in the church, some will accuse him of patriarchal misogyny and oppressing women. To reject gay marriage and to oppose the homosexual lifestyle makes one susceptible to the charge of homophobia and hate speech. If, however, we could discuss these issues sympathetically and fairly, we could see that it’s conceivable to love and respect women while complying with scriptural guidelines on gender roles (cf. Eph. 5:22-23).³ It is also possible to be concerned and genuinely care about homosexuals without compromising biblical morality (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-11).⁴ Since only Jesus could legitimately know what was in a person’s heart (Matt. 9:4; 12:25), if a disputant attributes questionable motives instead of addressing the issue at hand, he is guilty of an ad hominem attack and not honest dialogue.

-- Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Let the Women "Keep Silent" in the Churches. Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ² In 1 Corinthians laléō (to “speak”) is used with reference to public speaking, particularly in the exercise of a spiritual gift (cf. 2:6, 7, 13; 3:1; 9:8; 12:3, 30; 13:1, 11; 14:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 39).

     ³ Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco: Harper, 2007): 7, 10, 89, 90.

     ⁴ See Wes McAdams’ I’m Tired of People Demeaning Women in the Church, <Link>.

     ⁵ See Adam Faughn’s A Personal Letter to My Homosexual Friends, <Link>.

Related posts: Religious Dialogue Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Related articles: Forest Antemesaris' More Bad Reasons to Reject Christianity

Image credit: http://theprincetontory.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CoupleFight-e1371308984845.jpg