Transcription
Was the word homosexuality added into the Bible in the 19th century? Is it actually even really a sin? Can you be born gay? Are you able to be Christian and be gay? Let's talk about all these things.
>> All right, let's see it.
>> I believe as Christians, we are not supposed to shy away from conversations like this just because they may be harder, but we should talk about them in grace and truth just like Jesus did. You should also thoroughly research these issues and learn to think critically about them, which is the one thing that the overwhelming majority of people who try to present a Christian perspective on this refuse to do.
>> This one might be a little longer cuz we're going to go deep. So, stick with me. I threw one of the most controversial questions into a Bible app that I use. It's called Haven. And I just asked it, was this word actually added into the Bible in the 19th century? And what does the original language have to say about this? So, we'll talk about original languages in a moment, but here I want to point out that there's not really anyone who's arguing that the word was added to translations of the Bible in the 19th century. I'm unaware of any translation of the Bible into English from the 19th century that uses the word homosexual or homosexuals or homosexuality. The first occurrence of any such word in an English translation of the Bible is from 1946 with the publication of the Revised Standard Versions New Testament. And that has been pointed out by a lot of different people. Now, what the significance of that is precisely is something that we'll get into. But I think this content creator has misunderstood the observation that the word does not occur in any English translation of the Bible until 1946 for the claim that the word was added to the Bible in the 19th century, which it definitely wasn't.
>> It provided really good context of how this is a universal concept and principle that's talked about widely in the Bible in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. So, let's dig into that a little bit. So, I need to pause here to point out that if we're talking about the concept of homosexuality, it is not a universal principle because when we use the word homosexuality in English today, we are primarily talking about a specific sexual orientation. And with that usage comes all of the baggage associated with the modern scientific understanding of sexual orientations and human sexuality. And this understanding has really been developing since the 19th century. They understood the impulse to engage in same-sex intercourse in wildly different ways in the ancient world. So when we talk about homosexuality, we're primarily referring to a conceptual suite or a configuration or a constellation of ideas that is entirely modern and is not universal. And as much as I loathe having to appeal to a dictionary, here is the OEED's entry on homosexuality, and I show it only to point out that sense number one is the state or quality of being sexually or romantically attracted to people of one's own sex, homosexual character, nature, or identity. And then 1B is homosexuality as a countdown, a homosexual nature or identity, a particular experience or expression of this. So the primary sense is in reference to the modern scientific notion of a sexual orientation. When we get down to sense two, we get sexual activity or behavior between members of the same sex, homosexual sex. So this is where someone who may not have a homosexual orientation could still be understood to be participating in homosexuality in that secondary sense of any same-sex intercourse. But that is the secondary sense. And I'm trying to be clear here that when we're talking about homosexuality, the primary sense is a specific package of concepts and ideas that is not universal that didn't exist when the Bible was being written. And so the authors of the biblical texts cannot be talking about homosexuality as the concept is primarily understood today.
where the word homosexuality may not have been used in the original manuscripts as no English word is and in the 19th century the word homosexuality used as more of a general term to describe the concept written about in the original manuscripts the Greek word arenoites is used arsenic is a compound word arseno meaning male cites meaning bed there's a common argument with interpretation that this is actually talking about pedophilia but that's not true if that was the case then this Greek word here would have been used instead of arsenices This word that's often used in the New Testament to describe homosexuality is just a general term to describe sexual acts between the same sex.
>> So my main concern here is the fact that arsenocitis is not a general term that just refers to same-sex intercourse in general. It is a specific term that refers to a man who takes the insertive role in an act of male same-sex intercourse. And one of the ways we know that this is specifically referring to the man who takes the insertive role is because in 1 Corinthians 6:9, this word occurs right next to malose, which literally would mean soft one or something like that and is widely understood to be referring to the man who takes the receptive role in an act of male same-sex intercourse. And so a contemporary colloquial way to render these two terms would be bottoms and tops. And so if you say tops, you're not referring generally to any same-sex intercourse. You're referring to a specific role within a specific act of same-sex intercourse between men. So, it is quite precise and an attempt to turn it into a general term for any same-sex intercourse is wildly inaccurate.
>> We see this word used in the New Testament multiple times such as verses like 1 Corinthians 6 and:9 and it says, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor the idolattors, nor the adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, revilers, swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. So you'll note here that the rendering men who practice homosexuality is actually combining the two different terms into one clause because the two terms malaki in the plural and arsenoites in the plural refer to again colloquially bottoms and tops. And so this is still only referring to male same-sex intercourse as well. We need to be precise about what we're talking about. And again, it is inaccurate to misrepresent arsenocitis as a word that refers generally to same-sex intercourse when it doesn't even refer to all male same-sex intercourse.
>> So, it is obvious here in this verse along with many other verses in the New Testament that when it's talking about homosexuality, it is in fact talking about samesex sexual acts.
>> Again, that's not true. And this content creator put seven verses on the screen and only the middle three have anything at all to do with samesex intercourse. So this is misleading.
>> So the claim that this term or concept was added to the Bible in the late 19th century really falls flat when you see that it's a widespread concept throughout the Old Testament which we will look at and the New Testament which says multiple different places the same Greek word arenoites which is very clear in its meaning. So again, this is false. The word occurs a grand total of twice throughout the entire New Testament. Once in 1 Corinthians 6:9, where that is Paul writing, and then once in 1 Timothy 1, where it is someone pretending to be Paul and writing after Paul's death. And again, both times the word refers only to the man who takes the insertive role in an act of male same-sex intercourse. It is not a general reference to any and all same-sex intercourse. It is important to maintain that distinction if we are concerned for trying to accurately understand what these authors were trying to communicate.
>> Now let's look at the Old Testament. Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." Now, the word homosexuality wasn't even used here. It's actually describing the act of homosexuality. And so, the argument that that word was added can't even apply to this verse. It shows clearly that the act in which we know homosexuality to be today was an abomination even in the Old Testament.
>> And here's where it is important to acknowledge that homosexuality primarily refers to a sexual orientation. And the concept of homosexual orientations today didn't exist when these texts were being written. The practice of same-sex intercourse obviously has always existed and will always exist and that was understood. But it is important to keep separate the notion of same-sex intercourse as an act and the notion of homosexuality as a sexual orientation. When we refuse to make that distinction, we rope in folks who have a sexual orientation towards the same sex as an abomination. If we say homosexuality is an abomination based on something like Leviticus 20:13, which is only about male same-sex intercourse, we're expanding the scope of that declaration well beyond the language of the declaration. We're saying this is not just about male same-sex intercourse. It's also about female same-sex intercourse. It's also about just having a homosexual orientation, whether or not you ever engage in same-sex intercourse. That's the scope creep that results from refusing to understand, much less acknowledge the difference between homosexuality as a reference to a sexual orientation, which is the primary sense of the word as it is used today, and the notion of homosexuality as any reference to any kind of same-sex intercourse, which is only a secondary and less common use of that word today. And just one last verse, Romans chapter 1:es 26- 27. It says, "For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." It says they gave up natural relations. So just real quick, I need to point out that this is not a great translation. Natural relations is not what the Greek says. It says, which means natural use or natural utility. The women give up their natural utility and the men abandon the natural utility of their women, their sexual utility as receptive, passive sexual partners. That's what the verse is actually saying there.
>> Well, if our sexuality has a purpose, if there's an origin to all of this, if there is a natural way for this, the Bible should speak on it, right?
>> So, now we're presupposing certain things about what ought to be in the Bible. But we should point out that Paul didn't really have a good grasp on what was natural. Because we can look in first Corinthians to see Paul saying that nature itself testifies that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair. So that's Paul confusing a social convention for nature. So Paul didn't really know what he was talking about. and his presentation of why people engage in same-sex intercourse was also entirely factually incorrect because Paul is representing same-sex intercourse and the impulse to engage in same-sex intercourse as something that is unique to the Gentiles and is absent from Judaism because he presents it as the result of God turning over the Gentiles to these sexual desires, removing the limits on the sexual urges that these people experienced because they refuse to appropriately worship God. And Paul presents this as a problem with natural theology where if you observe the natural world, you should be able to deduce from it a correct understanding of who God is and how God is supposed to be worshiped. And because they end up worshiping the created rather than the creator, God is upset with them, punishes them by turning them over to these passions. So Paul presents the impulse to engage in same-sex intercourse as something that is limited to Gentiles and doesn't exist within Judaism or among followers of Jesus. And that is factually wrong. Paul is wrong in his presentation of what's going on with same-sex intercourse and its motivations in Romans 1.
>> Which may lead us right into the question, can you be born gay?
>> Well, newborns don't have sexual orientations. But when people talk about being born gay, what they overwhelmingly mean is that that sexual orientation is primarily an outcome of nature rather than nurture. And that position is far better in alignment with the current understanding of how sexual orientations develop.
>> First, I think we should look at how were we created and what were we born into. Genesis 1 and verse 27 says, "So God created man in his own image. In the image of God, he created them male and female. He created them." So you write it here. We were created in the likeness of God. We were created to be perfect. So then if you stop there, you could just assume that we're born perfect. that the desires that we're born with, God put in us and that we were innately designed to be exactly how we are. Right? Wrong. In Psalm 51 and verse 5, it says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me." Because of the fall of man in Genesis 3, where God specifically told Adam and Eve, "Do not eat of this tree, for in the day that you do, you will surely die." The devil came in and said, "Ah, did he really say that?" He didn't really mean that you're not going to die. He just doesn't want you to be like him. It's good fruit. you should eat it. So when Eve ate and she gave it to Adam, from that second forward, all of humanity was born into a curse. They were born into sin. They were born into temptation and fallen, broken humanity. And that's where you and I come from.
>> So the notion of the fall is a Christian ideology that was developed after the Bible was completed. None of the authors of the Hebrew Bible understood these passages to reflect the notion that is being presented here of original sin and the fallen state of humanity.
>> So, can you be born with homosexual desires? Yeah, I came out prideful, y'all. I came out defiant, y'all. Okay. God didn't create me to be that way. He created me in the likeness of him. But because of the fall, I was born into iniquity, born into sin, born into temptation. And my sin just may look a little different than the homosexual that could be watching this video. The sin that I was born with may not have been a homosexual desire and a samesex attraction, but that is the sin that somebody else was born with. Can these things be developed over time? Absolutely. But for some people, they truly never remember a time where these desires didn't exist, and that's valid. So this is a rhetorical attempt to take sexual desire and decouple a homosexual orientation from a heterosexual orientation and then reassign the homosexual orientation to a separate category of sinful impulses, hate and greed and all that kind of stuff, but leave the heterosexual orientation out of it. Now, this is not what Paul does because Paul wants everybody to be celibate because he was adopting a specific Greek philosophical understanding of human sexuality as one of the baser urges of the flesh that is ideally just overcome. Paul wants everyone to live a celibate life. But he understands that not everyone is blessed with that kind of discipline. And so Paul makes a concession and says, "In order to avoid sexual immorality, we're going to make the concession and allow you to get married because it's better to marry than to burn." And that means to burn with sexual desire, which might result in sexual immorality. And so Paul says, "Go ahead and get married. have your occasional prophylactic passionless sex in order to keep the urges at bay because the last thing we want is the urges to spill over. But a heterosexual orientation and a homosexual orientation come from the same place. They're just different sides of the same coin. And so the rhetorical attempt to decouple them so that one can be reassigned to other sinful impulses and the other can be left alone as something good as a good and natural impulse is biologically and logically problematic. Those sexual impulses all come from the same place. You can't say a homosexual orientation belongs to this group of sinful impulses here, but a heterosexual orientation does not. That's not how human sexuality works. That is just a rhetorical puppet show. You have a purpose in this life and it is to love God and love others. Your sexuality also has a purpose in this life. So, let's check out what that is. Genesis 2:es 24-2 says, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh, and the man and his wife were both naked, and they were not ashamed." Original design, man and a woman. Original purpose become one without shame. When it's done God's way, there is no shame.
>> So, two problems here. First, this passage is not describing the purpose of human sexuality. It is not a prescriptive text. It is a descriptive folk ideology for pair bonding and for independent kinship units. Because the becoming one part of that text is coming right after the explanation about leaving the father's household and starting up their own household. That is why some translations will say they become one family or household. This is a descriptive ideology for pair bonding and for independent kinship units. It is not describing the purpose of human sexuality. And then the part about them not being ashamed has nothing to do with the propriety of their sexual intercourse. It has to do with the fact that they had not yet matured. They were still in a naive almost animallike state. And it's not until they eat from the fruit that their eyes are opened and they are ashamed to be naked. It's not about the propriety of sexual intercourse. It's about becoming mature and realizing that it is socially shameful to be naked in front of other people. this content creator is wildly misunderstanding and misrepresenting what these passages were about.
>> And then Genesis 1 and verse 28 and it says this, "And God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." Purpose number two for your sexuality is to fill the earth to be fruitful and multiply. And obviously that's only possible between a man and a woman. God's original design and original purpose. And yet we still allow heterosexual couples that are unwilling or unable to procreate, get married, and have sex. So suggesting that it is a violation of this purpose to engage in same-sex intercourse, therefore it is wrong, is insincere and hypocritical.
>> Last question. Can you be a Christian and be gay? I have a simple answer to this. How do you become a Christian? It is by grace through faith, not on works of your own, lest you may boast. The way to heaven is not heterosexuality. The way to heaven is belief and surrender in the Lord Jesus Christ. There are many people that will come to know the Lord Jesus Christ who have yet to be convicted of the sin of homosexuality. Who have yet to lay that down at the foot of the cross. And who are you to say that they're not really a Christian if they struggle with this? This is not a permission for sin. This is the reality that sanctification comes with time and processing with the Lord through the word of God. One of the attributes of those who love well are those who are long-suffering, who bear the burdens of their brother and sister with them. So be patient.
>> So while this approach is trying to sound more empathetic and compassionate, it is still a wildly problematic and harmful take because it is still treating an innate, immutable, natural feature of an individual's sexuality as if it is something that doesn't belong. as if it is something that is sinful to leave intact. As if it is something that needs to be carved out of a person, as if it is something that can be carved out of a person. And that take is wildly harmful and contributes to hate and to the deterioration and even the ending of people's lives. And the only reason this phenomenally harmful dogma continues to be salient within Christianity is because it has become an identity marker. Something that can be leveraged for costly signaling for credibility enhancing displays for boundary maintenance. But it costs people their lives and their livelihoods and their well-being. It's time to get over this. It's time to grow up. It's time to let go of this biologically wrong and sociologically harmful dogma from 2,000 years ago.
>> If you wouldn't invite a homosexual to come and sit next to you at church, you are in the wrong. If you wouldn't have a conversation with somebody because they look differently than you, you are in the wrong. If you wouldn't bring someone in and embrace them and weep with those who weep because they have different attractions than you, you are wrong. This is what being a Christian is. Loving God and loving others.
>> And if you tell folks that their love of God is inadequate to save them unless and until they excise an innate, immutable, natural part of their being just because it has been a handy identity marker for conservative Christians for so long, you are in the wrong. Do better. And the fit for this video is the Ninja Turtles transformed from the norm by the nuclear goop.