The following is a response to Mel White's pamphlet "
What the Bible Says About Homosexuality," a product of
www.soulforce.org.
I want to mainly address the Hebrew word
toebah and the Greek
malokois and
arsenotoikai. I find it regrettable that White didn't give sources for his findings; perhaps because it was directly from his own translations and interpretations. I've gone ahead and included a few on the subject. In my own research I've found numerous debates over these words, telling me there definitely is controversy and indefinite understandings of what they mean, and why we think they mean that. Then I want to lay out a broad context of how I interpret the Bible.
Toebah
I think White used incorrect terminology in defining "toebah" too. It means more than unpleasant, but rather ritually impure. In pagan religions of the time and place when and where Leviticus was written, their worship included most of the only type of homosexual behavior known to the time. It was homosexual prostitution, for the sake of sexual exploration and worshiping other gods. (Greg Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View or S.M. Baugh. "Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society or Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics or James B. DeYoung, “The Contributions of the Septuagint to Biblical Sanctions Against Homosexuality”)
The word "toebah" is used a few times in Leviticus' Holiness Code. The sexual relations section of the holiness code is only part. The term is actually blanketed over a wide range of issues, including many we do not follow or even argue over today. Eating fruit if the tree is less than 5 years old, eating the food of an offering on the third day, cross-breeding animals and plants, wearing garments of different fabrics (throw out those poly-cotton blends)...these are all toebahs to God, according to Leviticus.
Rev. David Eck points out that "toebah" is translated in Greek as "bdelygma," which means, specifically, a ritual impurity. The word "anomia" most likely would have been used if homosexual practice itself was detestable because that word means an outright sin, not just something objectionable to the ritual practice of God's chosen. Furthermore, the homosexual acts described in Leviticus are surrounded by God's concern that we refrain from idol worship. "Toebah," when used elsewhere almost always refers to idolatry (ex. Deuteronomy 23:17). Alongside its mention in Leviticus, homosexual practices are tied with things like child sacrifice, idol worship, and the sex rites of fertility cults. All of these were common practice for pagans. One of the major themes of Leviticus is to present a Holiness Code to separate the chosen people from the rest, therefore, these things are abominations because they betray how God would have us worship. They are ritually unpure.
>Obviously this wouldn't retract everything in the Holiness Code. I, for one, do not agree with pederasty or beastiality, and that is because in cases where someone or something is an unwilling participant or is physically or emotionally hurt, it is not okay. See: Golden Rule<
Arsenokoitai
Arseno = men, and koitai (from koitaio = to lie down). Presumably, when used here, it means men who lie down with each other. This word is actually a Pauline neologism (he appears to have invented it). The precise meaning is actually only "known" to those already opposed to homosexuality; however it is a fact that the precise meaning is unknown. Yet I would agree with conservative scholars who say that the best way to understand this word is by framing it in context of his understanding of the Septuagint. Paul used the Septuagint mostly; their is substantial evidence that shows the Septuagint was used more than the Hebrew Bible in the writing of the New Testament when they cite Old Testament passages. In the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13, the words "arsenos" and "koiten" appear next to one another in the context of condemning to death "men who bed men as they do women."
Even with this, the exact meaning is not fully understood. There is a euphemism at play here, and it isn't clear exactly what it is. "Bedding" or "to lie down with" may refer to any number of sexual and affective intimacies. For example, is the injunction only against anal penetration? What about mutual masterbation, fellatio, heavy petting, frotting, kissing, cuddling, etc.?
If we assume it is talking about anal penetration, why exactly is anal penetration bad? The Bible makes no argument about it being an unnatural form of "showing affection" physically. In fact, it is quite doubtful that such a thing as physical affection between two men existed in common knowledge. What did exist with the connotations of anal penetration was what would happen at the end of a battle or war. The winning soldiers would often anally penetrate their fallen foes to demonstrate further power over them and to humiliate them. So if we go this route with the idea of arsenokoitai, you have to realize this was their world-view at the time. If you were a man having sex with a man, there is no way it was out of physical affection, there is no way it is because you are homosexual; that someone can actually be a homosexual is a relatively new concept. (If you believe that someone can be homosexual, you are already operating on a different view than those in Leviticus' time). So again, if you were a man having sex with a man, it was because you were perverting your nature to get-off (excuse me) in another man, and you were probably doing it to show dominance or as an act of idol worship. In either case, the act is detestable, but I suggest that it is not because of the act, but because of the motives.
Two Stories of Love
With a very literal reading of two famous stories in the Bible, one finds that profound love can exist between members of the same sex, and that love can show itself in the form of physical affection that would most definitely be considered homoerotic if not an outright act of homosexuality.
I didn't buy that take on the stories of David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi at first, but upon further examination, there is something going on. In 1 Samuel 18:4 we read, "Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt." Disrobing is bad enough, but relinquishing the very signs of his masculine potency, now that's downright scandolous! It would appear to belong to the same category of perversion as anal penetration between two men since it is an intentional emasculation. We read as well in 1 Samuel 20:30-31, "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established." This is a beautiful verse because it demonstrates what any reader of the Bible ought to already know: political infidelity is often described in terms of sexual pervsion, for example Israel's "fornication" with foreign powers in the prophets. How far we want to take that hermeuntic in this particular passage determines how we hear "you have chosen." There is a strong argument to be made that, whether fair or blasphemic, Saul is quite conscientiously deploying the double entendre of dynastic and sexual/nuptial infidelity/perversion. We must note, he does so with good reason since I Samuel 20:41- 42 concludes with a covenant statement of nuptial character after an exchange of kisses (sound familiar? maybe the first instance of gay marriage lol): "As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, "The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.' "
When David learns of Jonathan's death he laments:" I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." This is a tough passage to argue with because it plainly states that Jonathan's love passed "the love of women." It baffles me that a "plain sense" reading of the Bible interprets arsenokoitai as "homosexuals" without any doubt, but it wants to read any sexual sense out of this declaration. If David had wanted to intone it in a less romantic, sexual way he could have left out the whole women bit. He's obviously not referring to his mother and sisters. The love of women is an overt sexual/romantic reference. And it fits with what else we read about their relationship in Scripture. Of course, it could be argued that by this he meant that their love transcended those same sexual/romantic impulses, but then again so should his love for his family, his nation, etc. It's an odd comparison to make if he's not implicating Jonathan in some kind of romantic/sexual rapport since that's the quality that separates a woman's love from, say, a father's love. I feel like that is how opponents of homosexuality interpret this story to remove the possibility of homosexuality. They interpret the love as that between a father and son when it is clearly something romantic between a woman and man. If we replace Jonathan with the name of a woman, I don't think there would be any hesitance.
In the Book of Ruth 1:16-18 we read: "Ruth said, "Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die— there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!" When Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her." Ruth's words are so nuptial in character that they are actually used today in wedding ceremonies! Obviously, something's going on here that is rather unique and special, something beyond just "really good friends" or even "best friends"
Malokois
Literally translated, it just means "soft." Like English, "malokois" can be used to describe a man who is effeminate. If we assume "soft" means "like a woman," what does that mean? We do not know if there was a direct correlation to male-male sexual behavior. We do not know the extent of what is feminine and masculine; there has already been a great deal of debate over gender roles. If we read this plainly, and go by our understanding of soft, we can assume that a soft man is one who is generally non-confrontational, dislikes sports, and enjoys things like cooking, cleaning, and gardening. In this case, you don't have to have sexual relationships with other men to be found detestable to God. God wants his men manly. If we go beyond the plain reading, or draw from conclusions made by some scholars, we might decide that soft is more extreme--that it means "men who bed other men." Paul wrote (in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10) that men shouldn't be soft and men shouldn't lie with other men as with women. White highlights the confusion of the words because, quite frankly, there is some. The words arsenokotai, and malokois are used very infrequently. There is disagreement over them, though some claim that we are sure of their meaning. Some do believe that a further connotation with malokois deals with homosexual prostitution. It's very possible, but again, it isn't there. It is anything but explicit. As it is used, you could replace "men" with "metal" and suddenly God doesn't want gold, a soft metal, to exist. That is with a very literal reading of these verses.
To what extent do these writings of Paul get perverted against the wishes of Jesus Christ? How much focus should we have on debating moral rightness, especially when the things don't affect anyone but those involved and in love? To what extent were all of the old laws destroyed when Jesus ascended? Galatians 3:22-25 says "we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian" and it should be noted that it is by faith alone that we live in Jesus Christ. Jesus says nothing about homosexuality, but he does say everything about love, justice, mercy, and faith.
In God's Image
Aside from these very specific arguments, I want to go broader and delve into the question of what the Bible is, how God's hand is in it, and how we should be interacting with it. Simply speaking, I don't believe God wants us to passively take things the Bible says and just comfort ourselves with "well God said it, so it's our job to be flexible." Genesis says God created us in God's image. God, if anything, is creator. If this is so, I have to believe that we weren't created to be automatons. God didn't just make us on a whim. God wants us to wrestle with faith, scripture, etc. That's why we have such tremendous mental capacity to do so. That's part of the reason God specifically used human hands, and minds, to get the Bible out there. It wasn't meant to be taken as a uniform law code; it simply isn't written as one. I'll be frank, we could go back and forth on different interpretations of this verse and that verse, but ultimately what I believe it comes down to is the ability for us, as friends and fellow brothers and sisters of God, to understand that each of our interpretations of the Bible are not superior to another's. I believe the problem when people use the Bible to judge or condemn, whether violently, vocally, or even with an unspoken negative thought, is that people assume their understanding of the Bible is superior, and therefore gives them the right to grade another's correctness/value as a human being. With homosexuality, there are enough facts and logical reasoning available to cast enough doubt to keep hetero-minded individuals from judging homosexuals.
We could easily go back and forth, quoting different books, Bible dictionaries..etc. but ultimately, all of those resources were compiled by people like you and me who simply looked at the evidence and made specific decisions about things (like definitions) guided by their own agendas. In my experience, and perhaps your own, I've witnessed how it can be difficult, even impossible to translate one idea completely from English to Spanish (or vice versa). Thinking about that, it's easy to see why there is argument over the meaning of words in a language that has been dead for 1500 years. Some things just don't quite translate, and it requires lots of context for which there just isn't much for the three words we've discussed. Most of that context for homosexual behavior is in the setting of cults or idol worship and male prostitution. Others are in the context of the aftermath of war and a declaration of dominance. Two instances in the Bible fairly convincingly portray homosexual romance without condemnation from God. Scholars for centuries have struggled to understand this stuff, and every time we find a new original piece of writing we are able to put certain words into better context. Our understanding is always changing as well. Old translations are quite simply not as good as many new translations because newer ones have the opportunity to correct old translations that were obviously guided by the principles of the people who made them. For example: Victorians translated much of Cicero and when he would use an expletive for penis, translators would actually create a euphemism like "member" to appeal to their standards. This kind of thing happens, and it isn't outrageous to think that so many translations have embraced the abomination-quality of homosexuality because it was, quite frankly, easier to do so. There is a significant amount of doubt due to the rarity of these words in the original text and the context in which those words are used.
Some good resources you might be interested in:
http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious-
This one is on "arsenokoitai."
http://www.robgagnon.net/2VBiblio.htm
This one is actually from the site of probably one of the biggest public opponents of homosexual Christians, but this page has other resources on it from both lines of thought.
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm
This one is an interesting little dialogue between Tony and Peggy Campo (a husband and wife who disagree on the issue).
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel Helminiak
This is an excellently written viewpoint with a lot of original research about what we've been discussing. If you buy anything on the subject, this would be the book to buy.
Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture. Edited by R. L. Brawley
Abraham on Trial: The Social Legacy of Biblical Myth.
This offers a great treatment on a biblical world view along with all its assumptions and rhetoric around social, political and religious authority.
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the civil rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother-and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people." 
The word "toebah" is used a few times in Leviticus' Holiness Code. The sexual relations section of the holiness code is only part. The term is actually blanketed over a wide range of issues, including many we do not follow or even argue over today. Eating fruit if the tree is less than 5 years old, eating the food of an offering on the third day, cross-breeding animals and plants, wearing garments of different fabrics (throw out those poly-cotton blends)...these are all toebahs to God, according to Leviticus.
I didn't buy that take on the stories of David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi at first, but upon further examination, there is something going on. In 1 Samuel 18:4 we read, "Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt." Disrobing is bad enough, but relinquishing the very signs of his masculine potency, now that's downright scandolous! It would appear to belong to the same category of perversion as anal penetration between two men since it is an intentional emasculation. We read as well in 1 Samuel 20:30-31, "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established." This is a beautiful verse because it demonstrates what any reader of the Bible ought to already know: political infidelity is often described in terms of sexual pervsion, for example Israel's "fornication" with foreign powers in the prophets. How far we want to take that hermeuntic in this particular passage determines how we hear "you have chosen." There is a strong argument to be made that, whether fair or blasphemic, Saul is quite conscientiously deploying the double entendre of dynastic and sexual/nuptial infidelity/perversion. We must note, he does so with good reason since I Samuel 20:41- 42 concludes with a covenant statement of nuptial character after an exchange of kisses (sound familiar? maybe the first instance of gay marriage lol): "As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, "The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.' "
In the Book of Ruth 1:16-18 we read: "Ruth said, "Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die— there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!" When Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her." Ruth's words are so nuptial in character that they are actually used today in wedding ceremonies! Obviously, something's going on here that is rather unique and special, something beyond just "really good friends" or even "best friends" 
