ἀρσενοκοῖται–Paul’s meaning is crystal clear

Jun 29

Arsenokoitai, Paul’s novel term he uses in his New Testament epistles to address homosexual sex acts, has spurred decades of controversy, but I've never understood why. Contrary to what some scholars and LGBT Christian activists may claim, arsenokoitai is crystal clear in it's meaning and conveys exactly what Jehovah has been saying since Leviticus; that homosexual sexual intercourse generally is a sin and counter to God's plan for the usage of procreative powers.

Paul mentions this term in 1 Corinthians 6:9:

“Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [arsenokoitai] ... will inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Corinthians 6:9

It’s likewise mentioned by the author of 1 Timothy:

“We also know that the law is made ... ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality [arsenokoitais], ... and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine ...”
1 Timothy 1:10

Arguments Discounting Arsenokoitai’s Clarity

The three main arguments against arsenokoitai’s plain meaning are as follows:

It’s a vague, mysterious term that cannot be accurately understood, so we should disregard it or pay it little heed.
Since we can’t clearly understand its meaning, it must be referring to pederasty, male-homosexual prostitutes, or homosexual sex in pagan cultist rituals.
Since the Ancients didn't have a concept for committed, monogamous homosexual relationships, the condemnations in Paul’s and Moses’ writings wouldn’t apply to such a relationship.

I’m reminded even of an article I read a few years back—which seems to get a lot of circulation in within the Christian LGBT community—written by an Ed Oxford titled, Has “Homosexual” Always Been in the Bible? He describes in the article that arsenokoitai is essentially only describing child molestation or exploitative forms of homosexual sex, however he only ever blames poor Biblical translation and exegesis without ever providing any contextual or contemporary evidence from the actual ancient Greek.

Etymology of Arsenokoitai

Is arsenokoitai really that ambiguous in its meaning? No, it’s not, and I’ll explain why.

Arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται in Greek) is a portmanteau of two Greek words: ἀρσενο (arseno) + κοῖται (koitai). Arseno translates as males (men), and koitai translates as couch or bed. The literal translation is males couch-ing/bed-ing together; being in bed or couching together being an ancient (and even modern) euphemism for sleeping with or having sex with someone.

That’s not that ambiguous or mysterious of a word now is it? “Well no, it's not, but how do we know Paul wasn't condemning male-homosexual prostitution or pederasty?” Great question, and this leads into the next more compelling evidence: the context surrounding the usage of arsenokoitai.

Other Ancient Greek Terms for Homosexuality

Lest I be accused of using the “etymological fallacy”—that just because one can show the etymology of a term doesn’t necessarily mean that it describes the contemporary meaning of said term—it’s crucial to understand the contextual usage of arsenokoitai compared to other terms used in the Greco-Roman world at the time.

In a larger essay by New Testament Professor James De Young, he refutes the argument at the infrequent usage of arsenokoitai by early Church Fathers denotes some alternate meaning other than “homosexual sex”: “It is infrequent because of its relatively technical nature and the availability of such a term as paidophthoria that more clearly specified the prevailing form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world. Wright also surveys the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic translations of 1 Tim 1:10 and 1 Cor 6:9. All three render arsenokoitai with words that reflect the meaning “homosexual,” i.e., they understand arseno- as the object of the second half of the word (144-45)” (James B. De Young, 1992). Meaning, it was understood by other contemporary Christians in other translations that arsenokoitai was a general term for homosexual sex in contrast with just meaning prostitution or pederasty.

So, let’s explore the terms that were already being used in New Testament times: The most commonly accepted homosexual relationship in Paul’s time, as aforementioned, was paiderastia (παιδεραστία). This was a mentoring, homosexual relationship between an older man and a younger boy or adolescent. The older, higher-status man would support, educate, and raise the younger boy into manhood, and yes, also engage in sexual relations with him. The older man was known as the erastês (ἐραστής) and took the active role in sex (the penetrator), whereas the younger boy known as the erômenos (ἐρώμενος) took the passive role in sex (received penetration).

Pornai (πόρναι) and hetairai (ἑταῖραι) are the Greek terms for male prostitutes. Pornai were your common male prostitutes. While they did service women, they primarily serviced older men. Hetairai where more “dignified” sexual partners, like an escort or mistress, who were rented by an older man for an extended period of time and were more doted on and provided for by their male clientele.

Aside from these most commonly used homosexual terms, there were these: arrenomanes (man mad after men or boy crazy), dihetaristriai (lesbian homosexuality), euryproktoi (effeminate, passive-role homosexual man), hetairistriai (female homosexuals), kinaidos (homosexual man who loves being pentrated), lakkoproktoi (male homosexual penetration), lesbiai (female homosexuals), pathikos (passive, penetrated male partner in homosexual relationship), and tribas (dominant lesbian partner).

If Paul wished to condemn male prostitutes, he could have used pornai or hetairai—but he didn’t. If he wished to condemn pederasty, he could have easily used paiderastia—but he didn’t. No, instead, he coined a completely new term; arsenokoitai. But where did he get this term from? Well, Paul was a highly educated Pharisee, and like most educated Jews at the time, he would have been fluent in Greek and Hebrew and would have memorised all or most of the Greek Septuagint, possibly along with the Hebrew Tanakh. Because of his knowledge of the Septuagint and strict observance of Jehovah’s commandments in the Torah, he would have known God’s strict commandments concerning sexual sin contained in Leviticus.

The Connection Between the Septuagint and Paul’s Writings

Among the many other commandments on correct sexual behaviour given to Moses in Leviticus regarding sexual conduct, Jehovah gives these commands in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13:

καὶ μετά ἄρσενος [arsenos] οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην [koiten] γυναικείαν, βέλυγμα γάρ ἐστι. (You shall not go to bed [have sex] with a male [man] like with a female [woman], for it is an abomination.)
καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετά ἄρσενος [aresenos] κοίτην [koiten] γυναικός, βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι· ἔνοχοί εἰσιν. (And whoever goes to bed [has sex] with a male [man] as in the marriage bed with a female, they have both done abomination.)

Notice the words used in the Septuagint (in bold above): arsenos (males/men) and koiten (to go to bed with, or have sex with, as in the marriage-bed). It’s not a coincidence that Paul’s term arsenokoitai is a composition of these two words. Just as Jehovah warned Moses millennia before him, Paul is not condemning merely one form homosexual sexual expression; he is condemning generally any sexual conduct between two males (and I would argue between two females as well). The Lord did not say “Don’t have sex outside marriage with male prostitutes or commit pederasty;” no, He plainly commands against any sexual acts between males generally. Likewise, Paul purposefully does not use the common Greek terms of the day to condemn just pornai or paiderastia, but rather condemns homosexual sexual acts generally as well.

“But, Tember,” you might query, “What about committed, monogamous homosexual partnerships? The Lord and Paul most definitely did condemn homosexual prostitution and pederasty, but they never condemned a loving, monogamous partnership between consenting adults. The Ancient Greeks didn’t have a concept for this type of relationship culturally. So, since this type of relationship was never fully conceptualised or lived back in Paul’s time, God could not have been condemning it, and would eventually make a way for its normalisation and acceptance in the modern Church.”

“Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother ... Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter ... Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman ... Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it.”

Leviticus 18:7-23 NIV

True; long-term, monogamous homosexual relationships were never truly conceptualised or lived in Ancient Canaanite or Greco-Roman culture, but the premise that homosexual sex is acceptable as long as it's done within a monogamous relationship is a highly flawed theory, and here’s why: Homosexual sex is condemned by Jehovah along with a long list of other sexual sins, including, but not limited to: a man having sex with his sibling; sex with his or someone else’s child; sex with his parent; and sex with an animal. If you apply the same logic to these different condemned sexual acts, that yes, they are condemned, but the Ancients never conceptualised or practiced loving, consensual, monogamous relationships in these instances, but if it were practiced, then it should make these sexual acts acceptable before God as well. For instance, it should be perfectly acceptable for a man to have sexual relationship with his sister (or his mother, or an animal) so long has they’re committed to each other and monogamous. Obviously, this logic would not, could not, and cannot be equally applied in those situations; so, why do some try to make it apply only to homosexual relationships? Because their agenda or worldview is more important than the truth.

The Lord, Jehovah, was clear 3,300 years ago as he spoke through Moses, and he was clear when he inspired his Apostle, Paul, to reiterate his earlier teachings; that homosexual sexual acts inside or outside of a committed relationship are sinful and counteract his plan for the proper use of man’s procreative powers. Instead of trying to interpret or conform scriptures according to our wills or the world's philosophies, let’s conform our wills and bridle our passions to better align with the bounds the Lord has set anciently and again established through modern prophets and apostles in these Latter Days. In this there is joy, my friends.

Obviously, this is a very condensed version of a much broader topic. For more authoritative resources on these subjects, I recommend the following references: