The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Corinthians and Timothy

Arsenokoites (Strong # 733) and Malakos (Strong # 3120)

Here is the KJV rendering of 1 Corinthians 6:9&10 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

How to translate two words that appear in the Greek of this passage is the final issue of my dissertation. The word rendered "effeminate" is Malakos. Malakos is used three other times in the Bible, but in none of those occasions as a title of some specific sin or sinners as it clearly is here, and they're certainly not sexual in nature. On those three (twice in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25) occasions the KJV renders it "soft". Both passages Jesus is using it to describe people in royal courts who live decadent lifestyles.

The context here appears to be sexual in nature, following adulterers, but it can’t be known for certain, these two words, if they're sexual, end the sexual section, and are followed by economic sins. Instances of the use of Malakos in earlier secular literature are: Herodotus: Histories 7.153 & 13.51; Aristophanes: Wasps 1455, Plutus 488; Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics 1150a:33; Plato: Republic 556c. Where it can have sexual connotations, but not homosexual. Aristotle says specifically that "Malakos" refers to unrestraint in respect to bodily pleasures. This kind of fits with Jesus linking it to decadence.  The Aristotle work in question does discus homosexual acts, but doesn't link Malakos to them.  A little after Paul's time Plutarch in Dialouge on Love uses Malokos of a young boy being submissive in his Heterosexual relationship with an older Widow.

But even the extent to which "effeminate" could be accurate, what calling a male "effeminate" meant in Ancient Greeco-Roman culture was not exactly the same as today. For one thing, in Rome particularly, a man behaving effeminately for the sake of attracting a sexual partner was probably seeking women, we see this with Charicles in the Erotes of Pseudo-Lucian, Charicles was also quite Homophobic. Back then men looked down on "girly men" like they do today, and that tended to include those men who had homosexual inclinations. And I know it's trendy to act like women being attracted to feminine looking men is some new fad inflicted on the modern world by Pop Boy Bands and Twilight, but it's really not. Adonis was a pretty boy in Greek mythology, not a muscular hairy perfect manifestation of masculinity like people want to in-part on the word today.

Traits the ancient Greeco-Romans considered "effeminate" included such behavior as bathing frequently, shaving, frequent dancing or laughing, wearing cologne, eating too much or wearing fine undergarments.  Again, all this backs up how Jesus linked Malakos to decadence.

If Paul had meant Crossdressers as people tend to take him to mean now days, he'd have probably used androgynes like Philo did.

Arsenokoites is what’s rendered abusers of themselves with mankind. It appears elsewhere in scripture only once, another writing of Paul. 1 Timothy 1:10 “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;” is the KJV rendering. The italics is how the word in question is rendered.  More modern Bible translations often render this word simply Homosexuals, Homosexual offenders, practicing homosexuals, or Sodomites.

In this case the KJV is less indisputably about simply Homosexuality then most more modern ones. Because it uses words like "Abusers" or "Defilers". Yes I know from the current standard conservative POV homosexuality is itself an Abuse or a Defileing, but that's not how you build doctrine.  It's interesting that King James himself was Bisexual, but disapproved of "buggery", a British slang term for Anal intercourse.  (Those who deny King James was in any way Queer base their evidence solely on his love for his wife and that he disapproved of "buggery".)

The complication with this word is that Paul appears to have coined it himself. These two verses are probably the oldest examples of it being used at all. There were a number of Greek words for male-male Homosexual behavior Paul could have used, like erastês and erômenos, androkoitēs, paiderastia, catamite, arrenomixia, androbateo, androbates, arrenomanes, maiandro or ganymede.

A popular form of the traditional view is that Malakos means the passive partner and Arsenokotis the active partner.  However if that was Paul's intent he's have used erastês and erômenos.  But Kinaidos also existed as amore explicitly derogatory way of referring to a passive male homosexual.

Arsenokoites is a compound word, combining Arsen (which was already mentioned in the study on Romans 1), and the other is Koite (Strong # 2845) which literally means bed but can be an idiom for sex.  Compound words are not as easy to decipher as they look.   For example Lady-killer doesn't mean “Lady who kills” or “Killer of ladies”.

One interpretation is offered by Paul R. Johnson for “Second Stone” magazine titled “A New Look at Arsenokoitais” (1994 January/February issue). In this article he wrote:

“The Greek compound term arseno-koitais literally means ‘the male who has many beds’. The word arsen means ‘male’, the adjective o means ‘the’, and the term koitais is defined as ‘many beds’. Thus, the entire phrase means a male with multiple bed-partners; a promiscuous man. Everywhere that the word koitais is used in the plural in the Bible denotes promiscuity. However, when the same word is used in the singular form, the Bible gives approval because the singular denotes monogamy.”

Problem is I also disagree that The Bible only approves of absolute Monagamy.  And it's also in plural here because all the words listed are. 

A common theory is that it derives from the Septuagint renderings of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Where Zakar is translated Arsen and Mishkab is rendered Koite, and they are used right next to each other. I tend to reject the assumption that NT authors used the Septuagint, but it could likely have looked that way in any Greek rendering, including if Paul constructed one himself.  It is possible that Paul might have been referring to the same thing he addressed before in Romans, where he used the word Arsen. This view is the only option available really that uses Scripture to interpret Scripture. But the issue then is, what was Leviticus actually referring to? I addressed that (more then once) and also Romans 1.

Some early Christian writings turn the word into a verb as arsenokoitia. None of the early uses of the word are apparently using it to mean homosexuals. And some contradict it, like John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, around A.D. 575.

“One must also ask about the perplexing, beguiling , and shadowy sin of incest, of which there are not just one or two varieties but a great many very different ones. One type is committed with two sisters of the same father or mother (or both). [Jacob with Leah and Rachel] Another involves a cousin; another the daughter of a cousin; another the wife of one's son; another the wife of one's brother. It is one thing with a mother-in-law or the sister of a mother-in-law, another with a stepmother or a father's concubine. Some even do it with their own mothers, and others with foster sisters or goddaughters. In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives.”

Seems not to imply inherently Homosexual. It's confusing frankly cause it isn't even clear if he's left the subject of Incest when he uses this word. I have my own separate study on incest restrictions in The Bible, which does not exactly agree with this commentary on the subject.

There was also found an old inscription in a house in Greece somewhere that says "Beware a male arsenokoite". So again, further evidence it was a sin women could commit with men as well as men could, in fact it sounds like one being male is what's unusual in this example..

I believe the word is probably another reference to Temple Prostitution/sacred-marriage, or at most specifically Anal intercourse. Either way it’s certainly not a blanket condemnation of Homosexuality as a whole.

Around the year 2 B.C. Strabo (VIII,6,20) in his geographic/historical description of the town of Corinth wrote some remarks concerning female temple servants in the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth, which perhaps should be dated somewhere in the period 700-400 B.C.:[See Introduction in [Baladié]. The fragment is in Geographika VIII,6,20]

“The temple of Aphrodite was so rich that it employed more than a thousand hetairas,[The Greek εταίρα (hetaira) means literally: female companion, female mate.] whom both men and women had given to the goddess. Many people visisted the town on account of them, and thus these hetairas contributed to the riches of the town: for the ship captains frivolously spent their money there, hence the saying: ‘The voyage to Corinth is not for every man’. (The story goes of a hetaira being reproached by a woman for not loving her job and not touching wool,[One of the main tasks of these women was the processing of wool (source: [Radt,6], p. 484)] and answering her: ‘However you may behold me, yet in this short time I have already taken down three pieces’.)”
[The Greek text has here a blue pun which is hardly translatable. ιστός means: 1) (the standing posts of a) weaving loom (n.b.: ancient Greece initially knew the vertical loom); 2) mast; 3) (metonym.) woven tissue. καθει̃λον ιστους means then, firstly: taking down the woven web from the loom; secondly: lowering the mast. Thirdly the hint on ‘lowering’ some other kind of ‘mast’. (Sources: Greek dictionary, [Baladië], [Radt,2], [Radt,6].)]

The text in more than one way hints at the sexual business of those ladies. Remarks elsewhere of Strabo (XII,3,36: “women earning money with their bodies”) as well as Athenaeus (XIII,574: “in the lovely beds picking the fruits of the mildest bloom”) concerning this temple describe this character even more graphic.

In 464 B.C., a man named Xenophon, a citizen of Corinth who was an acclaimed runner and winner of pentathlon at the Olympic Games, dedicated one hundred young girls to the temple of the goddess as a sign of thanksgiving. We know this because of a hymn which Pindar was commissioned to write (fragment 122 Snell), celebrating "the very welcoming girls, servants of Peïtho and luxurious Corinth".[(French) Trans. Jean-Paul Savignac for les éditions La Différence, 1990.]

So Cornith was another ancient center of Temple Prostitution. None of these references confirm Males being used in the same purpose as we know happened with the Ancient Canaanites, but it still could have been likely. But again, maybe it's wrong even to assume the word Arsenokoitis refereed to men, though ending with an "s" in Greek is usually Grammatically Masculine, though some exceptions exist. Or it could be he's talking about the Men who are the clients of the Temple Prostitutes, or maybe both.

You may be thinking, "if you're saying it's so difficult to even know what this word means doesn't that hurt the idea of The Bible being inspired/preserved? Why would the Holy Spirit use a word He knew would become obscure?"  Well that's why I somewhat support the theory of connecting it to Leviticus 18:22, that's the only approach that qualifies as using Scripture to Interpret Scripture, everything I've pointed out just helps back up my view that to Paul Leviticus 18:22 meant the same thing I argued it meant.

But also we're not supposed to build Doctrine on Vice Lists (not moral doctrine), vice lists just say, so and so are sinners, but once your saved you're not longer considered whatever type of sinner you are, your name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life, which means at the White Throne we're judged based on Christ's works not our own.  You may lose your rewards or inheritance from continuing in those sins, but not your Salvation.  So for that reason it doesn't matter too much how certain we are what these verses refer to.

I have read some attempts to justify why Paul needed to invent a word rather then just use ones that already existed while maintaining it's all Homosexual behavior.  Two of them are exact opposites.

One argued that the other terms are to broad (My whole objection to saying it condemns all same-sex affection is that that is too broad).  Many examples they say are about any non reproductive sex particularly Anal, but don't these same Christians also think of those as sins?

In arguing that Androkoites is too broad they assert "Andros can also mean Mankind/Humanity", that is plainly wrong, Anthropos is the Greek for Mankind/Humanity, Andros is frequently clearly used as the counterpart to Gune which means woman/wife.  The Bible never uses Andros properly but it does use Anthropos in contexts clearly not meant to exclude women.  To this day, Misandry refer to hating males and Miantrobe to one who hates humanity.  Even so that doesn't change that no idiot would think a condemnation of Androkoites was any sex with a human being.

But another argued that Androkoites is too specific.  That Andros means "adult male" and thus Androkoites excludes Pedastry.  Why wouldn't Paul just use more then one word and list Pedastry as a separate sin?

But if the motive for constructing Arsenokoites to to be broad in it's same-sex condemnation, then it means something that he still constructed a word that cannot include Lesbianism.  Maleness is quite inherent in it, if it was a sin that could be committed by a woman or with a woman, or that a woman could be the victim of (which is implied by some Extra-Biblical uses of it) they'd have to do it with or to a male, or be something a male does to or with them.

If The Holy Spirit wanted to create a Greek term equivalent to our Homosexual, the Homo part does in fact come from Koine Greek, Homios, which means "the same" or "likewise".  If Paul had constructed Homiokoites no one would have thought any other sameness was being forbidden to have sex with, most sex was between people of the same nation/tribe back then since the world wasn't as globalized yet, the exceptions were often scandalous.  And Christians are advised to only have relations with people of the same faith.

To others the comparison to androkoites is key.  If Androkoites means male same-sex acts, and Arsen is basically a synonym of Andros, then how can Arsenokoites mean something different?

Again constructing composite words is complicated, sometimes the entire reason when creating a new one to replace one word in an existing one with a synonym is to prevent confusion when something different is very much your intent.  Both words likely have something to do with males and beds/sex, but putting those two nouns together could have lots of meanings, and one meaning "male homosexual" was already covered.

Mostly they argue for it drawing on Levitcus to prove their point.  But that presumes what Leviticus is about is being interpreted by them correctly.  And to me how Arsneokoites was used by many post Paul authors shows the word certainly could have been about ritual anal sex, which is what I argued Leviticus 18:22 is about.

Some of the earliest extra-Biblical uses of the word are in Vice lists that are not of Sexual sins but of economic or exploitative sins.  In the second century Apocryphal Acts of John, John condemns a rich man of Ephesus.

You who delight in gold and ivory and jewels, do you see your loved (possessions) when night comes on? And you who give way to soft clothing, and then depart from life, will these things be useful in the place where you are going? And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoités, the thief and all of this band. ...So, men of Ephesus, change your ways; for you know this also, that kings, rulers, tyrants, boasters, and warmongers shall go naked from this world and come to eternal misery and torment (section 36)

Sexual sins are denounced earlier in section 35, effectively a different list.

The two times Paul uses it are also next to Sins of an economic or exploitative nature, next to thieves in Corinthians and Manstealers in Timothy.  It could be some form of Sex-Slavery is in mind.  Which could overlap with forms of Temple Prostitution, since as I already showed some women were sold to Sex Goddess temples without their own consent.

It's also used in a similar fashion in the Jewish Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77.10.  This reference could work against the assumption Paul invented it, it's date of origin in uncertain but it's not Christian in origin, rather Hellenistic Judaism.  However most scholars agree it's under gone some Christian redaction.

Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life.

Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder.) Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. (Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need.)

Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly.

Nothing here is a sexual sin except disputably arsenokoitein  Another vice list in the same book is primarily about Sexual sins, 2.279-82.

Theophilus of Antioch in his treatise addressed to Autolychus, has a vice list that begins with sexual sins, then lists three economic or exploitative sins, then Arsenokoites, then more sins that are not sexual.  He does later in the same work have another list listing it next to Sexual sins, but also next to  greed and idolatry.

Hippolytus of Rome used it in Refutation of All Heresies 5.26.22-23.  Hippolytus claims to be passing along a Gnostic myth about the seduction of Eve and Adam by the evil being Naas. Naas came to Eve, deceived her, and committed adultery with her. He then came to Adam and "possessed him like a boy (slave)." This is how, according to the myth, moicheia (adultery) and arsenokoitia came into the world.  The language about Naas's treatment of Adam, which can be read "taking or possessing him like a slave," could connote exploitation and even rape. The context allows a reading of arsenokoitia to imply the unjust and coercive use of another person sexually.

The third-century writer Bardesanes is quoted in Eusebius's Preparation for the Gospel 6.1 0.2 5.  Bardesanes is remarking that the peoples who live east of the Euphrates River take the charge of arsenokoitia very seriously: "From the Euphrates River all the way to the ocean in the East, a man who is derided as a murderer or thief will not be the least bit angry; but if he is derided as an arsenokoités, he will defend himself to the point of murder. [Among the Greeks, wise men who have lovers (ermenous echontes, males whom they love; "favorites") are not condemned]"

The text seems to have gone through some corruption in transmission. The sentence in brackets does not occur in the Syriac fragments of Bardesanes's text or in the other ancient authors who seem to know Bardesanes's account, leading Jacoby, the editor of the Greek fragments, to suggest that Eusebius himself supplied the comment.  (Ibid.; see also Die Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen in Rufius Übersetzung, rev. 1 ed. Bernard Rehm, earlier ed. Georg Strecker (Berlin: Akademie, 1994), , 284-87.)  Thus Eusebius's text would provide evidence only that he or other post-Constantine Christian scribes wanted to equate arsenokoités with Homosexuality.

Hippolytus and Eusebius are the oldest references that even come close to using it in a way that backs up viewing it as Homosexuality.  Hippolytus is recounting a Gnostic myth in a work dedicated to condemning the Gnostics, Augustinian sexual morality comes from Augustine's Gnostic background.  And Eusebius was a leader in the post Constantine agenda to reconcile Christianity with socially conservative Roman culture.

On the subject of the last issue I addressed at the end of the Romans study. Reading on in 1 Corinthians 6 it's clear that there where Christians saved out of every Sin being listed here.

And that is the end of my dissertation, I hope I have succeeded in opening minds and increasing knowledge of God’s Word.

The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality: Romans 1

Romans 1:26&27

First it is imperative to understand the context here. Romans is one of the most important books of The Bible, Chuck Missler often calls it the most definitive statement of Christian doctrine.  But it is compartmentalized in it’s focus. The first 8 chapters are NOT about how Christians should live but about fully nailing down the matter of Salvation. That we are justified by Faith alone, other issues being addressed are incidental. Romans 9-11 are about Israel, 9 Israel’s past, 10 Israel’s present and 11 Israel’s future.  The remainder of the book after that addresses how Christians should live.

One thing Paul is doing here is addressing the prejudices that exist between Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome. All with the purpose of explaining that there is no difference between a Jew and a Gentile when it comes to Salvation. The first chapter is Paul negatively describing Roman (and probably also Greek) culture from a typical Jewish POV, but he goes on in chapter 2 to turn it on it’s head and inform them that they're not any better.

Next is that the behavior being described is not itself Rome’s problem, but a product of it. It’s earlier in this chapter that Paul says in verses 19-23

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” 

We don’t know a whole lot about very early Roman history, thanks to many records being destroyed by the Gaul’s sack of Rome in 390 B.C. But we know from Plutarch that Numa Pompilius, the second Pre-Republic king of Rome had outlawed Idolatry and frequently used Monotheistic terminology, and his outlawing of Idolatry was kept for over 140 years. Cicero in his Nature of The gods makes, (as a Pre-Christian gentile who died around 40 B.C.) all the basic common sense arguments for Intelligent Design that are so well known today. If your unable to find the book to read for yourself, the key passages are quoted here.
http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch1.html

The sin of Rome was rejecting God as the Creator.  And it should be pointed out that the verses in question follow this discussion of Rome's idolatry.

Verse 25 "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

But also a Strong Argument can be made that Romans 1:18-32 is a rhetorical speech Paul does not agree with, maybe even him quoting someone Else's words, there are similarities to the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon and Philo that have been pointed out, a lot of words used here are ones Paul uses rarely if ever in the rest of Scripture, it's generally not his usual style.  And in Romans 2 he refutes that rant.

Here are three sources on Paul refrencing Wisdom of Solomon to refute, but that don't make it about the homosexuality issue.

http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/07/romans-118-32-and-wisdom-of-solomon.html
http://www.realdevil.info/dig2.htm
http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/god-grace-righteousness-in-wisdom-of-solomon-and-paul-jonathan-linebaugh

Now for the two verses in question, 26&27.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

Some take the above wording to make this the one passage that does condemn Female homosexual affection.  Even if it is, if you only have one verse on something, you shouldn't build doctrine on it.

That’s really not the case however. There is something “unnatural” being done by women we’re told. Then when we’re told men are doing something "likewise", but it’s specified to be homosexual only for the men, even though it‘s the same thing the women are doing. If this is a specific sexual act, then the implication is it’s something that would have to be a homosexual act for a male to engage in it, but not necessarily so for a female, maybe even just the opposite. The primary act that comes to mind that fits that description is being the passive partner during anal sex.

But so many people I've argued this with just can't comprehend this. To them Paul clearly says "and likewise also", that means they're doing the same thing as in being same-sex relations. But the concept of orientation is a modern 19th century invention. In terms of the actual acts they perform, Lesbians and Gay men do not do the same thing. In fact what they do is arguably even more different form each other then either is from heterosexual intercourse. Lesbians tend to do things involving the parts of their anatomy unique to women. And male homosexuals that which is unique to males. In no way could they actually be confused as doing the same thing. Only a very modern way of thinking puts them in the same box.

"Natural use" clearly means a specific act. In my view that "natural use" being left is the use of standard intercourse involving female anatomy.   I could argue "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman". Is what's defining the similarity, and then the elaboration on Homosexuality is something needed only for the Men. The word for woman in both verses is not Gune, the standard Greek word for Woman/Wife. It's Thelus, a word used in total only five times in The New testament. Twice in these verses rendered woman by the KJV, the other three times it's rendered "female". But it's used in a different form both times here. In verse 26 is the only time it's plural. In verse 27 it's used with a special emphasis qhleiaV, while it's just ghlu the times it's clearly refers to female individuals. I could justifiably translate this "leaving the natural use of the female anatomy", because the root from which the word is derived is frequently used in reference to breast feeding.

The word translated "use" also means function. It is at least an equally valid interpretation that it means the "natural function" of vaginal intercourse in exchange for anal.

Greek is a very precise language, the words translated "receiving" and "recompense", are both economic terms. Meaning in the Greek it’s implied that this is also prostitution of some form. The same kind of ritual prostitution discussed earlier did also go on in ancient Rome, just the names of the goddesses had changed.

The phrase translated "against Nature" is also used of God's actions in Romans 11, grafting gentiles into the Tree of Israel.

1 Corinthians 11:14-15: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

The word rendered "shame" there is the same as Vile in the Romans verses in question. This passage is the most similar to Romans 1 in-terms of how Paul used those key words. Yet we don't interpret them similarly. There are Pastors who take a more Pharasitic approach to this Corinthians passage then I find appropriate, Paul intends this to be advice for how Christians present themselves, not actual Moral Law.  But even they don't interpret this as harshly as they do the Romans 1 usage.

The word translated men is Arsen (Strong # 730), I would render it "males" as I tend to view it basically as the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew Zakar. This word will be important latter.

In his fourth homily on Romans John Chrysostom (Fourth Century) had a very harsh view of the activity being condemned here.

"for suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully." He also said: “ But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere.”

However, he emphasizes, in P.G. 60:417, col. 1, near bottom of the column,that he (and Paul) is not referring to two men who are in love with one another, but who burn in their appetite for each other. He writes, clarifying Paul's position in Romans 1,

“ he did not say that they fell in love [< "eros"] or had passion for each other, but rather that they `burned in their appetite for each other'.”

This is not helpful particularly for determining what is in mind here, unless it's just a matter of saying lust is wrong but not love. But it shows even early Church Fathers didn't always necessarily view it as condemning all male homosexual affection. I'd add to pointing out that Paul didn't use the word "Eros" that he didn't use "Agape" either, a word he does use often elsewhere, in contexts that definitely include but aren't limited to Romantic Love between a man and a woman.  Nor did he use "Phileo", but that tends to have more brotherly love in mind so isn't very relevant.  The translation in the Link I provided is.

"For he does not say that they were enamoured of, and lusted after one another, but, they burned in their lust one toward another."

Still, being post Constantine, Chrysostom's own views were already a product of much Platonic influence on the Early Church. So I'd hardly endorse him.

One interpretation I've seen some fellow Pro-Gay rights Christians put forward is that this condemns men who aren't "naturally homosexual" engaging in homosexual acts. That is possibly an element of it, but the question is why, why are these men doing something against their general preference?  The cause of this effect is Idolatry.

Another incorrect alternative presented by some is that it just condemns the pederastic relationships common in Greek culture. But this is about Rome where that wasn't as condoned. Though sometimes the relationships Roman soldiers had with male slaves is viewed as analogous to that, but it's really not. There is no good indicator that's what's in mind here.

Philo on shrine prostitution. “(40) And I imagine that the cause of this is that among many nations there are actually rewards given for intemperance and effeminacy. At all events one may see men-women [androgynes] continually strutting through the market place at midday, and leading the processions in festivals; and, impious men as they are, having received by lot the charge of the temple, and beginning the sacred and initiating rites, and concerned even in the holy mysteries of Ceres [Ceres is another name for Cybele, the fertility goddess first century Romans referred to as the Mater Deum or Mother of the gods]. Remember, Philo lived from 20 BC to AD 40. He probably wrote this around AD 35. (41) And some of these persons have even carried their admiration of these delicate pleasures of youth so far that they have desired wholly to change their condition for that of women, and have castrated themselves and have clothed themselves in purple robes... [Philo here describes the castrated Galli priests who served Cybele or other fertility goddesses worshiped in Rome]. (42) But if there was a general indignation against those who venture to do such things, as was felt by our lawgiver..." [Moses was the Jewish Lawgiver. Philo refers to Moses' writings in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:17] Philo, The Special Laws, III, VII, 40-42.

Philo of Alexandria, clearly links the same concerns of Torah passages addressing the Qadeshim to things going on in his contemporary society. Also contemporary with Paul. Philo also condemns Pederasty in this same section of his work. But no evidence he considered all homosexual affection a Sin.

I'm citing Philo even though he is not always in agreement with me on these issues. He has been cited as being the first to insert Homophobia into the Judeo-Christian tradition, including being the first to suggest same-sex affection was the Sin of Sodom.  I think he did so partly in-response to these Pagan practices that were abhorrent to him, and partly from his Platonic influence.

So again, while activity that’s homosexual in nature is relevant, it’s also more specific then that. Paul is not condemning all homosexuals.

Now I want to address something I saw one particular Pastor who I don't want to name say on this passage. He takes "For this cause God gave them up" to mean homosexuals (he prefers to say fags and queers) are not even eligible for Salvation anymore. That, really disturbs me.

He backs this up by saying that the Bible never commands us to preach the Gospel to Homosexuals. There are a lot of specific groups The Bible doesn't specifically say to preach to, that's why we're simply commanded to Preach it to the WHOLE WORLD.

Now, leavening aside for a moment what the sin here is. The concept of God giving people over to a certain Sin appears elsewhere in The Bible. It never renders one ineligible for Salvation, it's often done in reference to people already Saved. This same Pastor happens to agree with me on using the narrative of Saul to back up the Doctrine of Eternal Security. Well the Evil Spirit that troubled Saul came from The LORD.

It may or may not be possible for an unsaved person to reach a point where they're not capable of becoming a Believer anymore, the Blasphemy of The Holy Spirit issue is something I still struggle with. But no specific external Sin should be viewed as evidence of such a thing. It's clear from the context of the entirety of the first three Chapters of Romans that no Sin discussed there is meant to be viewed as beyond the Saving Power of the Shed Blood of Jesus. Because he ultimately tells his readers that they're no better then the unsaved Romans they were criticizing.

Paul says near the end of Romans 11 that God Consigned All to Disobedience so that He might have Mercy on All.

This video's approach to Romans 1 is mostly compatible with my own.  I wouldn't recommend the companion videos on the other passages as much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZygH8d0XL0

The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Leviticus 18 and 20

The Leviticus verses

Regardless of your position on The Law, The Law doesn't condemn Homosexuality.

I actually want to start by saying I don't really approve of how the Leviticus verses are commonly written off by other Pro-Gay Christians. Not all of Leviticus is purely ceremonial law. So mocking the idea of Christians citing Leviticus 18 as if it's comparable to "don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk" or eating shellfish is just setting yourself up to look Biblically illiterate. The main Leviticus verse cited on this subject isn't in the same section as the dietary laws, it's sandwiched between verses on child sacrifice and bestiality. Both things no Liberal would view absurd to consider a Sin, but the latter we would have no direct Biblical basis for condemning if we went only by the New Testament. Same with the earlier Incest laws.

Don't misunderstand me, I have a position on the issue of where Christians should follow the Law that is not popular in the Hebrew Roots movement.  But it is irrelevant here, because the Law was not condemning all Same-Sex affection in the first place.  I believe you can be a practicing Homosexual and still keep Kosher or be a Torah Observant Christian.

So what's condemned in Leviticus 18 I do view as a sin, and as much a sin now as it ever was. But I don't view it as a blanket condemnation of all Homosexual, Homoerotic or Homo-romantic affection. Thing is I feel the New Testament references I'll need to discus latter are drawing on this Leviticus law, so Leviticus needs to be understood here.

"As with a Woman" is a qualifying statement.  So the broadest possible application is that it condemns male on male penetration.

Rashi (1040-1105)... in his commentary on Leviticus 20:13 explains that “as one would with a woman” means “if he inserts [sc: his membrum] like a stick into a tube” (a quote from the Talmud, Baba Metzia. 91a) which refers to an applicator inserted into a tube of kohl. 

You'll find it here http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9921/jewish/Chapter-20.htm#showrashi=true

The other Leviticus chapter in question is 20, which is clearly Israel's Civil Law.  I also believe that on this side of the Cross capital punishment is no longer permitted.

Most people don’t see it as significant that the wording of the alleged condemnations of same sex intercourse are all clearly male gender specific. But I believe what The Bible doesn't say can be important. Leviticus 18:23, the verse on bestiality that immediately follows the verse commonly cited as condemning homosexuality, does risk sounding redundant to make it absolutely clear that both men and women are forbidden to lay with animals. Yet verse 22 only appears to refer to "men lying with males", no female equivalent. So logically in my view we have two options, either women are allowed to do something men aren't, or the common modern understanding of the verse is incorrect. While there could be good reasons to argue for the first option (and I'm surprised more people haven't), I feel the second is the correct one as I shall explain.

There are two sections to Leviticus 18. The first section is sexual sins, mainly incest but a few others are addressed. Then the focus shifts to Idolatry. Here is the thing, verse 21 is where the change of subject occurs. So while the first two verses after that do have a sexual element to them, it’s not as sexual sins they're being addressed but as idolatrous sins. And that is key to understanding them.

The KJV rendering of Leviticus 18:22 is

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Before I get into studying the text, I want to point out that even in this English rendering, "as with Womankind" is clearly at most specifically only referring to one specific kind of sex act, penetrative intercourse of some form. ( "lying" alone in Biblical terminology would be enough to imply we were dealing with something sexual.) It means the one thing men can do together that can be seen as an imitation of the unique sex act only a man and woman can do.

Now bare with me because I’m going to have to break down pretty much every word here.

The first word I’ll address is actually the last, "Abomination".   Abomination has become a very loaded word in modern English, being commonly used in Frankenstein type Sci-Fi stories to basically mean a raping of nature itself. And this connotation is what’s meant by how the word is commonly emphasized when certain people quote this verse. A number of Hebrew words are translated abomination, none of them mean unnatural or anything like that, they're all about idolatry. The “Abomination of Desolation” uses a noun that is clearly a Hebrew derogatory term for an Idol itself, but the word translated "Abomination" here is more about the acts affiliated with Canaanite pagan customs and how God views them very negatively.

While I rejected above writing off this entire command by comparing it to the dietary and other ceremonial laws. I do think it's valid to address the over emphasis on the word Abomination here by pointing to how it is also used of those kinds of restrictions in the Torah. Leviticus 11:12 "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." Technically that one is a different word in the Hebrew, but to the most absolute of KJV onliers that is irrelevant. Deuteronomy 14:3 does use the same Hebrew word as Leviticus 18 talking about dietary restrictions, there it is translated "abominable thing".  It's also used in Ezekiel 43-44 to refer to Uncircumcised gentiles entering The Temple.

I actually think a more accurate translation of the word would be "taboo".

The word rendered "lie" is translated perfectly.

 The word rendered "mankind" is Zakar (Strong # 2145), technically accurate, but based on the first time Zakar is used (Genesis 1) I personally would translate it male or masculine. The word translated "womankind" is ishshah (Strong # 802), again technically accurate but I’d just render it woman, it is also the word for wife. Both are gender identifying words, as you’d expect, but the thing is they're not their main counterparts to each other. Zakar is usually paired with Naqebah (Strong # 5347) including when it‘s first used in Genesis 1:27. Which I would always translate female. And ishshah is the feminine form of iysh (Strong # 376) which is translated both man and husband. Technically none of that makes a drastic difference in the meanings of the words used, but I feel if the gender distinction was all God was concerned with here, he would have been more consistent in what terms he used.

The word translated "with" is Mishkab (Strong # 4904), in the verse in chapter 20 this is rendered "lieth". And both those renderings are off, they're not even the right kind of word, it’s a noun not a verb. Of the 46 times the word appears in the Masorectic Hebrew text, 34 of them the KJV accurately translates it bed, 4 times it’s rendered bedchamber and once it’s rendered couch. The two Leviticus verses supposedly about Homosexuality are simply two of 7 verses where the KJV translated it as a verb.

I’m not of course the first person to question the common interpretation of this verse, but my approach is different from many. Some have suggested the real intent here is to condemn a husband making love to a male in his wife’s bed. Because in the ancient world the bed in which a married couple made love was considered the wife’s bed, her property or domain. Such concepts do carry over into medieval and renaissance times, you see it on The Tudors in fact. I don’t believe that’s the main concern here, but it is possibly relevant.  And Hebrew 13:4 does refer to keeping the marriage Bed undefiled.

According to some super-literal interlinear bibles (like this one), the Hebrew uses a feminine pronoun before Tovah. So that could support the idea that it's a sin against the woman who's bed is being refereed to.

Now I refer everyone back to the last section of the Sodom and Gomorrah post. What I and many scholars believe is that what’s in mind here is the same practice being performed by the Qadesh male temple prostitutes. The context of idolatry to these verses already established makes that likely, but here is the thing. Specific details of the ceremony often involved the prostitute dressing in female clothing like it was her wedding night, and engaging in the sexual act in a sacred bed said to be the bed of Astarte.

Now for Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” The part I put in italics is different in how the KJV renders it, but in the Hebrew is basically identical to 18:22, so just copy and paste everything I said about that. I also already addressed the death penalty aspect. 

The word at the beginning rendered "man" is iysh.  That word is sometimes translated Husband.  I've heard some suggest you have to be married for it to apply but I don't feel quite convinced of that.  I know one website online dedicating to arguing this is only about Adultery, I don't feel that works with my understanding of how The Bible defines Adultery.

So while homosexual intercourse is relevant, It’s more specific then that. The context is describing a Pagan ritual. To some being involved in a Pagan ritual is enough to condemn it altogether. In my view that's flawed logic, Pagan rituals did many things, including many things very much the same as the Israelites did in worshiping YHWH. Skeptics of the Bible like to point those things out to say the Israelites just grew out of the Canaanite culture. That claim doesn't hold up of course.

The Law does condemn many things specifically citing usage in Canaanite rituals as the reason. Most notably that the Israelites were NOT to build altars to the LORD on High Places (mountain tops or hill tops). But in Ezekiel 40-48, when Paganism no longer even exists (and clearly the very geography of Israel has changed) God's Temple is on a High Place. But this command doesn't make doing anything on a High Place a Sin, acts of Worship even of the True God are advised against there. But it's not a Sin to build a house on a hill top, or to even walk on one. It's just about how to properly worship.

Leviticus 18:24 and to the end of the Chapter clearly defines the earlier commands in those same terms. "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants."

But you may be thinking, "in that case isn't beastiality in the same position"? An animal can't consent to sexual relations with a human, beastality is therefore inherently an act of Rape. So even if there never was a single Bible verse specifically on it, Christians should consider it wrong for the same reasons any other act that is abusive to animals is wrong.

At the most, you might might be able to convince me it's condemning Anal sex. It is only that form of male on male sex that is viewed as imitating the unique act only a man and a woman can perform. Society has a tendency to view anal sex and male homosexuality as synonymous. But this stereotype is in fact a very flawed assumption, and some studies have shown that only a minority of Gay or Bi men engage in it or like it at all.

Example, Magnus Hirschfeld, in his 1914 work, The Homosexuality of Men and Women, reported the rate of anal sex among homosexual men surveyed to be 8%, the least favored of all the practices documented. (William A. Percy and John Lauritsen, Review in The Gay & Lesbian Review, November–December 2002) Likewise, some scholars state that oral sex and mutual masturbation are more common than anal stimulation among gay men in long-term relationships, and that, in general, anal intercourse is more popular among homosexual male couples than among heterosexual couples, but that "it ranks behind oral sex and mutual masturbation" among both sexual orientations in prevalence. By the 1950s in the United Kingdom, it was thought that about fifteen percent of male homosexuals had anal sex. Other studies very, some about 50/50 and some more recent ones do imply a majority do it, (as if it's popularity has been increasing, perhaps simply from society telling them they're supposed to do it). But all clearly have a large number who do not.

Many Christians view how the risk of HIV and other STDs are higher with Gay men is itself proof that something is wrong with it. Of course they ignore that those same statistics have Lesbian intercourse as far less risky then Heterosexual. At any rate those statistics are flawed, being in part skewed by gay men being more likely to get tested because they believe they're at a greater risk. And the degree to which it is the case is only because of the Anal sex as I discussed above, which does have other health risks too.

But that is a big maybe. I stick to my argument that it is the Pagan ritual sex being condemned here. Which contrary to what you might assume does still go on today, in different ways but it does.

In the 1970s and early 1980s, some religious cults practiced sacred prostitution as an instrument to recruit new converts. Among them was the alleged cult "Children of God", also known as "The Family", who called this practice "Flirty Fishing". They later abolished the practice due to the growing AIDS epidemic. (Williams, Miriam (1998). Heaven's Harlots. New York: William Morrow/ Harper Collins. p. 320.) In Ventura County, California, Wilbur and Mary Ellen Tracy established their own temple, "the Church Of The Most High Goddess", in the wake of what they described as a divine revelation. Sexual acts played a fundamental role in the church's sacred rites, which were performed by Mary Ellen Tracy herself in her assumed role of High Priestess. Local newspaper articles about the Neopagan church quickly aroused the attention of local law enforcement officials, and in April 1989, the Tracys' house was searched and the couple arrested on charges of pimping, pandering and prostitution. They were subsequently convicted in a trial in state court and sentenced to jail terms: Wilbur Tracy for 180 days plus a $1,000.00 fine; Mary Ellen Tracy for 90 days plus mandatory screening for STDs.

"Hieros gamos" (holy marriage) and "Sex Magik" also exist in modern Neo-Pagan and occult movements, just search for those two terms on Wikipedia. As a Libertarian I disagree with such activity being criminalized, on among other things First Amendment grounds. But to a Jew or a Christian it is sinful, being a violation of the first two commandments, and something we should not do.

And interesting Hermetic Sex Magick is often a plot point in Eroge Visual Novels where Magick is a theme.  Like ones from Type Moon.  So the idea is far from dead.

The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Sin of Sodom

Sodom and Gomorrah

Even back when I was still under the impression homosexuality was a sin, I never agreed with the view that homosexuality was "The Sin of Sodom". Neither did anyone in Pre-Christian times, absolutely no Jewish source or commentary (Philo is the only exception, he was a Platonist) would claim it was.

I don’t believe it’s accurate to label anything "The Sin" of Sodom, I see Sodom and Gomorrah as places where it world be easier to list what sins they weren't committing. But many Jewish sources, including the Talmud and Midrashim, see in-hospitality, greed, and selfishness as the primary issue in question. Hospitality was and is very important in Semitic/Middle Eastern cultures, far more then it’s ever been in the west, which is part of why Western readers today have trouble getting this part of the point. Twice when the Bible itself later refers to Sodom it’s with this concern.

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.  Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.  And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

Ezekiel 16:48-50, and Jesus himself, when he sends the Apostles out in Matthew 10:1-15 and Luke 10:1-12, compares to Sodom and Gomorrah those who are inhospitable to his disciples. (In The Book of Judges, 19-21, there is an account, similar in many ways, where Gibeah, a city of the Benjamin tribe, is destroyed by the other tribes of Israel in revenge for a mob of its inhabitants raping and killing a woman.)

Hebrews 13:2 which famously says "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." Is there to encourage Hospitality, and what Paul mainly had in mind was Genesis 18, which is part of the same narrative as Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. So that's two New Testament witnesses that Hospitality is what's in mind here.

Leviticus 19 also demonstrates how Hospitality was an important value in the Mosaic Law. It's funny actually how some modern politically conservative Christians want to impose Leviticus 18 and 20 on modern America, but won't mention the following passage of the in-between chapter when discussing Immigration. Verses 33 and 34. Verse 34 draws on the phrase from the earlier verse 18 that is the only Leviticus statement ever directly quoted by Jesus, it's what he labels it the second greatest commandment.

"And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."

This notion of reminding the Israelites that they where strangers in Egypt is something God often does when telling them to be kind to their strangers. This is why Egypt is paired with Sodom when Jerusalem "spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt" in places like Revelation 11, where they celebrating he martyrdom of God's two messengers.   God is condemning Jerusalem for it's in-hospitality.

In Genesis 19, a sexual act is threatened in the narrative, but it's an act of rape, gang rape specifically, and is thus sinful regardless of the genders involved. Rape back then as now is more about Power then Sex, male on male rape particularly is about humiliation.  That's the reason for Prison Rape, those men aren't actually of a Homosexual orientation.

Yet I have critics of my view then asking me with a mocking tone"so what it Rape or In-Hospitality".  And I just rolls my eyes.  Can they really not figure out that raping a guest in your home or visitor in your town is the ultimate in-hospitality?

In various key verses of Genesis 18 and 19 the word you see translated "men" is actually 'enowsh (en-oshe') Strong # 582 (in it's plural form). Enosh is not actually a gender specific term, if the author wanted to be gender specific here he’d have used either iysh or zakar. Enosh is closer to how Adam is used, as a references to all humans. Enos was the name of an ancestor of Noah in Genesis 4 and 5, in other words we are all descendants of Enos just as we are of Adam. Elsewhere even the KJV simply translated it "persons". The Sodom and Gomorrah narrative uses it both of the angel visitors and those who seek to attack them. Genesis 19:4 says “the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:” The italics are Enosh, as seen by what I put in bold, it’s clearly NOT just the males doing this. I think it’s very conceivable it’d have been just the women actually screwing them and the men would have just watched, some people are into that sort of thing.

I've recently read some of Ken Johnson's material ('Ancient Post-Flood History: Historical Documents That Point to Biblical Creation' and 'Ancient Paganism: The Sorcery of the Fallen Angels'), he has a fixation on the so called "Book of Jasher" (which he also has an entire book dedicated to, which I don't have yet but I'm sure he makes the same statement). He believes the medieval Midrash Jasher is the "Jasher" mentioned in Joshua and Samuel, but I the real Jasher we don't have. But at any rate, when mentioning what Chapter 18 of this Pseudo-Jasher has to say about Sodom and Gomorrah, he unfortunately shoehorns homosexuality into it. Not even the text as he quotes it say anything emphasizing a homosexual nature to the men of Sodom, but instead do give many details testifying to their evident heterosexuality. Jasher 18, verses 13 and 14 reads

"And all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah went there four times in the year, with their wives and children and all belonging to them, and they rejoiced there with timbrels and dances. And in the time of rejoicing they would all rise and lay hold of their neighbor's wives, and some, the virgin daughters of their neighbors, and they enjoyed them, and each man saw his wife and daughter in the hands of his neighbor and did not say a word." Reading from verse 16 onwards however, the emphasis is on in-hospitality; it's discussed far more than any sexual issues. Verse 16 "the people of these cities would assemble, men, women and children, young and old, and go to the man and take his goods by force". And it lists many other examples of their ill treatment of visitors.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/18.html
This isn't the only thing he gets wrong either. His scholarship is horrible and I absolutely would not recommend his books to any young Christian not already well informed on these subjects.

Another extra-Biblical source would be Clement of Rome, besides the Didache perhaps our oldest extra-Biblical Christian document.  He too refereed to Sodom when discussing Hospitality.

Jude verse 7 is often cited by Chuck Missler and others as confirming the sin of Sodom was sexual in nature. I’m a fan of Chuck’s but we have disagreements, and here I’m actually going to use some of Chuck’s own arguments against him. The sin Jude is concerned with does have a sexual nature to it, but it’s not homosexual.

Here are both verses 6 and 7 as they read in the KJV “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

I have put "strange" in bold for a reason. The irony of trying to say this is condemning Homosexuality is that the word translated strange here is Heteros (het'-er-os) Strong # 2087, which is the word the hetero part of the word Heterosexual comes from. Homios means the same kind while Heteros means a different kind. In New Testament times neither was combined with a word meaning sexual to imply orientation, that is a modern development. Both words are commonly translated "another". Chuck Missler will often make points about there being 2 different words for "another" in Greek, Homios meaning "another" of the same kind, while Heteros means another of a different kind. But he fails to acknowledge that they're not always translated "another", and that Heteros is used here.

Homios is part of what’s translated “like manner” to indicate this being the same kind of sin addressed in the previous verse. I personally would in this verse translate Heteros as Alien, “Alien flesh” (Some scholars have already suggested that before me). Essentially it can be taken to mean foreigner, and thus consistent with the issue being their in-hospitality to strangers.

Secondarily, if you believe the Angel view of Genesis 6.  We do know from various references to the Raphaim that the region where Sodom and Gomorrah was located was a center of Nephilim activity, the servants of Satan trying to repeat what they did before The Flood as explained in Genesis 6 which Jude alludes to in verse 6. 2 Peter 2:4-10 also mentions that and Sodom & Gomorrah together in the context of explaining the signs of the end times. Chuck talks about this subject a lot, including “As in the days of Noah” from the Olivet Discourse, but the Luke account of the discourse adds to that a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah in 17:28-30.

I don’t believe these were the first Angels the people of Sodom had encountered, just the first not fallen ones. And I believe Human and Angel interbreeding is what Jude was referring to. It was rather the opposite of homosexuality; it's how the intended victims were different from their attackers that is the concern.

The Testament of Naphtali refers of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 3.3.4-5 refers explicitly to the Women of Sodom having Sex with Angels, with terminology that is similar to Romans 1 interestingly.

But I'm not so convinced of the Angel view of Genesis 6 as I used to be.

Another common mistake on this passage, do not leave it with the conclusion that God approves of Lot offering his Daughters.  He has the key value the Sodomites do not, Hospitality.  But he goes about that in the wrong way.  Lot is NOT meant to be an ideal role model, he's consistently depicted as a worldly believer.  God never condones what Lot did here, in fact the Angels there as God's agents who clearly understand God's will better then Lot does made sure it didn't happen.

What is a Sodomite?

The word Sodomite, both singular and plural, often occurs in the KJV of the Hebrew Bible. This term derives from Medieval interpretations of Sodom and Gomorrah being about male homosexuality. The way it’s used in many verses in the KJV and some modern Bibles makes it look like the text is referring back to Sodom and Gomorrah. Problem is that’s NOT in the Hebrew text at all.

The first occurrence is Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.” The reason why this is such an obviously bad rendering, is that in the Hebrew the word rendered Sodomite (Qadesh (kaw-dashe') Strong # 6945) here is actually just the masculine form of the word rendered whore (Q@deshah (ked-ay-shaw') Strong # 4948) . And it’s the same word all 5 times Sodomite occurs, the other 4 occurrences are all in Kings. Once the same word is translated differently by the KJV, in Job 36:14 it’s rendered "unclean". The feminine form is also often rendered "harlot".

The feminine form is closer to being translated accurately but not quite. It doesn't refer to just any prostitute (there were other Hebrew words for that), but specifically to Temple prostitutes engaged in ritual prostitution in the cults of goddesses like Astarte and Qedeshtu. The root of the word is "Qedosh" which means "Holy". Every time you see "Holy" in the OT it's "Qedosh", and "Holy One" (a title of the God of Israel) is it's noun form. It derives from similar practices involved in the worship of Inanna in Uruk of ancient Sumer, who later became known as Ishtar in Babylon. The prostitute (male or female) in question played the goddess while a male played the goddess’s husband and they then engaged in ritual sex.

From my studies of the contemporary equivalents to this kind of pagan practice, I've coined my own word to be a translation of the term. "Hierogamist" from "Hieros gamos" (holy marriage). It means one who engages in a ritual goddess worshiping sex act.

But I will add for the most radical KJV onliers reading this, that in 1611 "Sodomite" and "Sodomy" did not exactly refer to what we today call Homosexuality or even specifically male Homosexuality. The term simply meant Anal sex and could include heterosexual anal intercourse. There will be more on that in the next part.

But regardless of how the word is translated. The context of it's occurrences in Kings tell us it's about Canaanite pagan practices. Because it's linked to the tearing down of the Groves (phallic obelisks, named after the goddess Asherah) and High Places.