Those who enter into the various levels of sexual sin which Paul identifies, are those who do not confess their sins and receive God’s grace – they reject both the power to give and the power to be forgiven. As an example of sexual sin, Paul speaks of “male prostitutes” and “homosexual offenders.”

Thus, whereas in Romans 1, Paul makes homosexuality the lead example of depravity, and lists other sins thereafter to address the whole moral context, we see another angle here in 1 Corinthians 6. Paul is concerned with the evil of Christians filing lawsuits against each other, and then lists other sins thereafter to expand his concern to the whole moral context, beginning with a range of sexual sins. Thus, again, homosexuality is not any more sinful than other sins in the power to deceive, but its intrinsic nature can prove a deeper or more discernible pit from which people need to be delivered. Here again we see sociological degrees of sin, but no theological degrees in terms of where any sin will lead – no inheritance in the kingdom of God.

The word for “male prostitute” comes from malakos, which means “soft” or “effeminate one,” in the sense of the passivity of a male prostitute who becomes the subject of “an unnatural lust.” Of this there is little dispute, and if this were the only reference here to homosexuality, then Mel would be at least atomistically correct in his belief that intrinsic homosexual relationships are not being referred to here.

But with respect to the second term translated as “homosexual offender” by the NIV, there has been great debate. The word is arsenokoites, and it is the first time the word was ever used in the Greek language. Paul coined it. Thus, what does it mean? Various scholars have traced its later usage from the Didache (ca. 110 A.D.) on forward, and it is used to denote homosexuality. But for Mel White and others, this does not matter. They can argue that such post-biblical usages cannot determine the original biblical definition, and this is an important consideration. When I was musing about this, I thought I would check out the Septuagint (LXX) of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The LXX translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the middle of the third century B.C., and is a great help for understanding the Greek terms in a very Jewish New Testament.

The LXX of Leviticus 18:22 reads: Kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koite gunaikeian, bdelugma gar esti. A literal, if somewhat wooden, translation reads:

“And together with a male you shall not lie down in sexual intercourse as with a woman; it is detestable.”

The LXX of Leviticus 20:13 reads: Kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koite gunaikos, bdelugma epoiesan amphoteroi; thanato thanatousthosan, enochoi eisin. A literal, if somewhat wooden, translation reads:

“And whatever male shall lie down with a male in sexual intercourse as with a woman, they have both done what is detestable; let them die a death, for they are liable.”

What we see is that Paul coined a word from the exact Greek translation in Leviticus. Arsenos is a word for male, and koite is a word for sexual intercourse. Moses says, as the prophet of Yahweh, that an arsenos shall not koite with another man (i.e., with another arsenos). Period. This is the prohibition of intrinsic homosexual acts. When Paul brought both words together into a singular noun, he was coining the term arsenokoites for “homosexual” – to have sex with a member of the same sex. He took it straight from the LXX, thus his Jewish and Greek readers would know exactly what he was referring to – intrinsic homosexuality. The word arsenokoites does not refer to a “promiscuous” homosexual as a distinct idea, nor does it refer to a homosexual prostitute – rather, it stands following the malakos, marking a distinct category and thus applying to intrinsic homosexuality.

Paul is saying that both those who are male prostitutes and those who engage in any homosexual act – even if it can be rendered as a “faithful monogamous homosexual marriage” as revisionists like Mel White would like to do – will not inherit the kingdom of God; and too, in White’s case, he had to rationalize his heterosexual divorce in order to join with his homosexual lover he wants to “marry,” a theological reversal that says destruction is necessary for creation.

After our radio debate, I sent this exegesis of arsenokoites to Mel. Whether he read it or not I do not know. But later he published a pamphlet  called “What the Bible Says—and Doesn’t Say— about Homosexuality,” also reproduced on his website, www.soulforce.org. It is rooted in experiential opinion, is not a work of any serious exegesis, and is worth comparing to my exegesis of the entire subject in this chapter. He does give attention to arsenokoites though, and interestingly comes very close to the pretension of ignorance argument rooted in Cain, the Pharisees and the Roe Court by saying that it has “confused scholars until this very day.” But it hasn’t – all serious scholars know, or will readily agree with the simplicity of the LXX reality, and Paul’s dependence on it. Here is his conclusion on the matter:

“We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the Roman custom of married men (arsenokoitai) hiring hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure Just as they hired smooth skinned young girls for that purpose.”

Mel makes no note concerning the LXX and its true exegesis; arsenokoites is not a mysterious term, but a clear one. Rather he takes a perverted Roman custom that did exist, and forces it into the text to cover both words (malakos and arsenokoites) when it only applies to the first word. The second refers simply to people who commit homosexual acts, period. Of interest too here is Mel’s argument that homosexuality is a genetic given. How then do married Roman men commit homosexual (pederastic) acts with boys if they are heterosexual? In truth, Mel cannot escape the deeper pansexual reality.

In Sodom it was the attempted homosexual gang rape that was the epitome of its sin, but not as though it was distinct in nature from homosexuality in general. We have seen how the tracing of “sodomy” involves the largest range of sins which reject Yahweh and his moral order, and thus, the choice to embrace other gods. This range is also reflected in the lists Paul compiles in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6. And as the toevah of male shrine prostitution is linked with the toevah of intrinsic homosexual acts in the Hebrew Bible, so too does Paul link them together in Corinthians. Homosexuality reflects a reversal of the order of creation, and those who have experienced homosexuality who wish to inherit the final reversal of the reversal, cannot do so without repenting of homosexuality and thus depending on God’s grace.

In all this, the ethics and power of informed choice cannot be overstated. It is founded in the choice between the akol tokel (“in feasting you shall feast”) and the moth tamuth (“in dying you shall die”) of Genesis 2:16-17. In Leviticus 20:13, the same ethics of choice warning of moth tamuth is echoed in the literal Hebrew, again with two tenses of the verb “to die” (moth yiymathu – “in death you shall die”) and the literal Greek of the LXX (thanato thanatousthosan – “let them die the death”). Now, this is understood in the covenant community as a sentence of death to be meted out according to due process of law. But, too, there is nothing arbitrary about it. It is rooted in the reality of the active participle of the moth tamuth warning in the order of creation, namely, people who reject life choose death. No imposition of something unchosen. The integration of the reality of only Genesis into the whole biblical canon is relentless. Paul can be said here to have coined a word for homosexuality, and in the Greek language he does. But he has not coined the concept – the Hebrew Bible was the only religious text in antiquity that explicitly said no to homosexuality, and also defined homosexuality as a subcategory of pagan pansexuality.