A friend and fellow believer asked me to do a blog article on the same sex issue, so here it is. She commented that the LGBTQ advocates keep talking about the mistranslation of words that supposedly condemn homosexuality. There are two of Paul’s passages that conservatives say condemn homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:’⁹ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (arsenokoites: Homosexual, sodomite, a male who lies with a male as with a female. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon),  ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Timothy 1:⁹ realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and worldly, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, ¹⁰ for the sexually immoral, homosexuals (arsenokoites: Homosexual, sodomite), slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.”

In all openness, here is the pro LGBTQ argument that Paul is not condemning homosexuality, but instead certain typed of deviant sexual behavior. Their argument is based on what they say the original meaning of the Greek word Arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται) was.

LGBTQ supporters and progressive theologians argue that New Testament Greek words historically translated as “homosexual” actually condemned exploitative practices like pederasty, temple prostitution, or abusive sexual acts rather than consensual same-sex relationships. This historical debate centers heavily on the word Arsenokoitai found in the writings of the Apostle Paul (in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10).

1. Arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται)

• Literal Meaning: A compound of arsen (male) and koite (bed/sex), literally meaning “men who lie with a male”.
• LGBTQ Perspective: Scholars argue this term is a Jewish-Greek adaptation of Leviticus prohibition language (Greek Septuagint). They contend it originally referred to specific abusive acts like pederasty (relations between older men and young boys), male prostitution, or economic exploitation, rather than a modern, loving gay relationship.
• Historical Note: Critics of the traditional translation frequently cite the 1946 release of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) as the first major Bible translation to use the word “homosexual” for arsenokoitai, a term that did not exist in the English language until the late 19th century. Prior to 1946, it was often translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind,” “sodomites,” or “boy molesters”.

3. The Overall Consensus
While conservative theologians and certain translation committees maintain that the original Greek terms broadly encompass all same-sex sexual activity, many scholars agree that the cultural, ethical, and historical context of the ancient world is fundamentally different from modern understandings of LGBTQ identities and marriage. Determining the exact original intent of these words remains an active area of linguistic and historical research.”

I am not a Greek scholar. I rely on Thayer’s Greek Lexicon to tell me what the word originally meant, and Thayer’s says that it meant “homosexual; a male who lies with a male as with a female”. But let’s suppose we can’t be sure about what it meant in the first century. Is there any other way to determine if Paul is saying that homosexuality is a sin? Yes. The answer to that is found in Romans 1:²⁶ 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: ²⁷ 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 recompence of their error which was meet.” To me, this is clear. There are no Greek words to quibble over. There is nothing in this text about the forbidden sin being men with boys: this is men with men, women with women. How can advocate of homosexuality argue around this? So how do pro homosexual advocates explain this text? AI: “Homosexual advocates and affirming theologians interpret Romans 1:26–27 as a condemnation of unrestrained lust, pagan idolatry, and exploitative practices (like adult men having sex with boys) rather than a universal prohibition against loving, monogamous same-sex relationships.” I’m sorry but that explanation is putting a twist on the text that is just not there. Again, Paul clearly condemns sex between men with men and women with women. Paul calls this homosexual relations “changes the natural use into that which is against nature”. I know that the pro homosexuality advocates will say “there are many examples in nature of what looks like homosexual activity”. That might be true, but “in nature, reproduction strictly requires both male (sperm) and female (egg) genetic contributions. Because standard homosexual sex cannot produce both types of gametes, two males or two females cannot naturally bear offspring together” (AI). So what is the natural use of the sex organs that God created males and females with? So what is the God given model for sexual relations? A man with a woman. I mean you only have to look at the sex organs of a male and a female to figure that out! The male sex organ fits into the female sex organ. That is nature as God designed it. That is why God designed marriage in Genesis 2:²⁴ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” What does “become one flesh” mean? 1 Corinthians 6 says that is sex between two people. 6:¹⁶ Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.” (quoting Genesis 2:24).

Often the conservatives will quote the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.” But many argue that these verses target specific ancient practices—such as cultic prostitution, pederasty, or violations of societal honor—rather than modern, loving same-sex relationships. I’m sorry, but again: ” a man lies with a man as with a woman” looks pretty clear to condemn homosexuality. But then the homosexual advocates make this argument: passages like Leviticus 19:19 say that it is condemned to wear a garment of two kinds of material mixed together (like my polyester/cotton shirt), and yet Christians don’t believe that we have to obey that under the new covenant. They argue, “why would you enforce the law against homosexuality and not enforce the law about a mixed material garment? They argue that conservatives just pick and choose which verses in the Old Testament are binding on us today. I feel that there is a big difference between not wearing a shirt with mixed material and men having sex with men. But for the sake of argument, we don’t need the old covenant Law of Moses condemnation of homosexuality to argue that homosexuality is a sin. Romans 1:26-27 is sufficient.

Isn’t Romans 1:26-27 clearly condemning homosexuality? Does’t Paul clearly call homosexuality “degrading passions” (1:26), and “depraved minds” (1:28)? Paul is saying that homosexuality was maybe the final depraved sin that caused God to give the Gentiles over to their degrading pasions. Adultery (sexual immorality where marriage is involved) is wrong. Fornication (sexual immorality where marriage is not involved) is wrong. But homosexual sex is crossing a bigger more serious line. It shows that not just the passions are degraded but the mind is degraded b/c it says that homosexuality is not even a sin. That’s where our cultrue is today!

I hope this article has been a fair discussion, even giving the opposing views on homosexuality. The last debate might be over whether Paul was speaking by inspiration the words of God through the Holy Spirit or was he jsut expressing his homophobic opinions on the matter. In other words, do we have to obey what Paul wrote in Romans 1:26-27 even if we conclude that he is condemning homosexuality? Paul has been recognized as an apostle by Christians, churches, and church fathers since the first century. One of the requirements to be an apostle was to have seen the resurrected Jesus (Acts 1:21-22) and Paul saw the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus to imprison Jewish Christians (Acts 9). Seeing the resurrected Jesus is the only thing that could have changed Paul from being a persecutor of Christans to an apostle to the Gentiles who was martyred for his testimony of the resurrection. He had nothing to gain by becoming an apostle; instead, he lost everything he had in Judaism. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 12:¹² The distinguishing marks of a true apostle were performed among you (by me, Paul) with all perseverance, by signs, wonders, and miracles.” Apparently all the churches accepted Paul as a true apostle. Not one of the original 12 apostles, but a true apostle to the Gentiles. Some Jewish Christians tried to discredit his apostleship, but he defended his apostleship quite well. Then there is the affirmation of the apostle Peter. Surely all Christians believe that Peter was a true apostle (some even think he was the first Pope). Read what Peter said about Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:15 just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, ¹⁶ as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” Notice that Peter is saying that Paul’s letters are Scripture. That’s the word used many times of the old testament inspired writings. Peter is putting the letters of Paul on the same authority as old testament scripture. So if someon accepts Peter as an apostle, which most everyone does, then they should accept Paul’s letters as inspirred by the Spirit.

I thnk that wraps it up. Thanks for reading. I hope the arguments are clear and logical. I hope they are truth.