The Truth Sets You Free

However, questions remain regarding the source of Paul’s term. As Mendell points out, anyone wishing to explain Paul’s meaning must answer three questions: First, where does he get the word? Second, why does he use such an arcane word? Third, if the word is as ambiguous as Boswell claims, how can Paul expect that he will be understood?

The evidence suggests that Paul coined the term, based on the juxtaposition of the two words arsenos and koiten in the LXX of Leviticus 20: 13 (cf. similar phraseology in 18: 22). We cannot prove this supposition, but style, practice, familiarity with the LXX, and literary context make this theory very plausible.

Scholars have long pointed out words that seem to originate with Paul. Some 179 words found in his writings are seen nowhere else in pre-Christian Greek literature. Of these, eighty nine occur only one time. For example, in 1 Timothy 1: 3 and 6: 3 he uses the term heterodidaskaleo, “to teach a different doctrine,” which cannot be found in any extant writing from an earlier period. Only Ignatius is known to have used it later, in “To Polycarp” 3: 1. If he also coined arsenokoitai, then Paul likely designed two new terms within seven verses to advance his argument (1 Timothy 1: 3, 10).

In addition, Paul displays considerable dependence upon the LXX. He quotes more frequently from the LXX than from the Hebrew Old Testament. When E.E. Ellis classified Old Testament quotations in Paul’s writings, he identified the LXX as the source for fourteen and the Hebrew Scripture as the source for four. Obviously Paul was familiar with, and preferred to use, the LXX.

The New Testament particularly draws on Leviticus 18-20. The structure and content of these chapters mark them as special. Often identified as the Holiness Code, these chapters — unlike the remainder of Leviticus — are universal in scope. In this respect, they are on par with the treaty form of the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. The Jews held Leviticus 19 to be a summary of Torah, making it a central chapter in the Pentateuch. This sense was carried over to the writers of the New Testament. Christ, Paul, Peter, and James cited the section. “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” is Leviticus 19: 18. Paul alludes to 19: 19 in 2 Corinthians 6: 14 to illustrate why believers must not become unequally yoked with unbelievers. Here he uses heterozygountes, another word found nowhere before him, though an adjectival form of heterozygeo occurs in the LXX at 19: 19. It seems likely that the LXX suggested the coinage to Paul.

Literary Contexts

Most important, an examination of both literary contexts where arsenokoitai occurs suggest that Paul is thinking of the Levitical “code of holiness.” First Corinthians 5-6 includes several allusions to Leviticus 18-20. The theme is moral separation to God, as in Leviticus. Topics include distinction from the Gentiles (5:1; cf. 6:1-6; Leviticus 18:3, 24-30; 20:23) and future inheritance (kleronomeo, 6:9, 20; Leviticus 20: 23-24). The law of loving your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18) is reflected in 6:8. Of the ten vices in 6:9-10, only drunkenness is not found in Leviticus 18-20.

In addition, the literary pattern of incest (1 Corinthians 5:1-13) followed by homosexuality (6:9-10) and prostitution (6:12-20) parallels the pattern of incest and homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20, which in turn reflects the account of incest and homosexuality committed by Ham in Genesis 9.

Further connections with Leviticus are found in Paul’s call for discipline of immoral persons — specifically the one who has committed incest. By implication, Paul includes all the others in the lists of vices, including homosexuals, in his mandate for church discipline (1 Corinthians 5:1-11; 6:9-10). If the church fails to exercise discipline, Paul will deliver the immoral person to Satan for destruction of the flesh. Paul’s intention is to save his spirit (5:5) and to remove the contamination from the church (5:6-8). The mode and goals of discipline strongly reflect the karat idea expressed in Leviticus 18:29, whereby immoral persons, including those guilty of incest and homsexuality, were to be delivered over to God for present and future judgment.

Surely, then, both malakoi and arsenokoitai are drawn from Leviticus 20: 13 and point respectively to passive and acive same-gender partners. Even the rabbis applied Leviticus 20: 13 to both active and passive sodomy. Philo used malakia of effeminacy and said that the same penalty applied to active and passive sodomy. Leviticus suggested to Paul the use of two terms. The Leviticus passage holds both partners responsible; both have done a detestable act and are to be put to death. Leviticus 20: 13 records the penalty. The list itself offers parallels to the summation of Leviticus 20: 23-24 (cf. 18:29-30).

The same observations can be made about the literary context of 1 Timothy 1: 10. Paul deals with perversions of teaching regarding the Mosaic Law (1:3-8), moves to legislation in general (1:9-10), and ends with the gospel (1:11).

Paul introduces the list of 1 Timothy in a deliberate way, by affirming that law is made not for the righteous but for the unrighteous in three ways: (1) the lawless and rebellious; (2) the ungodly and sinners; and (3) the unholy and profane (1:9). Such groupings correspond to legal or civil, religious and moral aspects of ethical life. Paul affirms that his list of vices, including homosexuality, reflects legal, religious, and moral concerns. In a biblical worldview, one cannot divorce civil (legal) concerns from the religious (impure) and moral (ethical).

This literary feature reinforces our observation that the Levitical code is carried over to the new era, so that even purity (religious) rules have ongoing, universal import for both the Christian and the non-Christian.

With the Law of Moses dominant, it is not surprising that the list of specific vices corresponds to the fifth through the ninth commandments, in order. The tenth commandment deals with inward desire, which law cannot proscribe. Since the list uses both single terms and doublets to refer to the Ten Commandments, in an alternating pattern of 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, andrapodistais (“slave traders”) would seem to represent the eighth commandment, rather than that accompanying the preceding arsenokoitai.

This point casts doubt on Scrogg’s narrow sexual definition of andrapodistais (“slave-dealers who procure boys as prostitutes”). Similarly, unlikely is Countryman’s idea of linking prostitution with “stealers of men” (male prostitutes who were “legacy hunters who used sexual attraction as bait”) or “slave traders.” Countryman must have arsenokoitai refer to prostitution or a similar offense, rather than to homosexuality. If the latter is the meaning, Paul would be invoking the Levitical purity rule against homosexual acts, and Countryman’s whole system of distinguishing the temporary purity rules from ongoing moral principles would be in jeopardy. According to the arrangement of the list, and the biblical and cultural meaning of arsenokoitai, however, it is a surer translation to view pornois and arsenokoitai as representing the seventh commandment and “slave traders” as alone representing the eight commandment.

The fact that Paul was addressing Christians in the city of Ephesus is significant to this whole discussion. From Ephesus Paul wrote to the Corinthians, eight to ten years later he directed his epistle to Timothy there. Homosexuals are explicitly linked to Ephesus. Philostratus claims that Apollonius of Tyana found the city full of homosexuals in the second half of the first century A.D. — the era in which Paul writes.

In the lists of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, sexual sins are considered less serious than idolatry and murder but more wicked than property crimes. Within the sexual vices, the order is probably one of ascending sinfulness. Homosexuality is the worst, coming after prostitution or immorality, adultery, and effeminacy. The listing of homosexuality after effeminacy in 1 Corinthians reinforces the idea that the words together describe the passive and active partners in homosexuality. The rarity of the terms suggests this idea as well, as does the dual culpability of the partners, as stipulated in Leviticus. Again, the implications for the various revisionist interpretations are self-evident.

A Word with Clear Meaning

The preceding discussion of the literary structure of the contexts of the two passages justifies the claim that Paul coined arsenokoitai from Leviticus 20: 13. In light of the evidence, including the fact that no use of the term exists before Paul, it is strange that modern interpreters such as Countryman, Edwards, and Scroggs never consider the possibility that Paul himself coined the term from Leviticus 20. Of course, to have Paul so directly invoke the term and concept from Leviticus destroys the system of Countryman and Edwards, who restrict the Bible’s comment on homosexuality to temporal purity codes — a cultic worldview no longer in effect. This finding also contradicts all who refuse to find condemnation of adult mutuality in arsenokoitai. Mutuality must be included in its force in Leviticus 18 and 20. Leviticus condemns the behavior, whatever the motivation.

Two of Mendell’s questions remain. Why does Paul coin such a term? How does Paul expect his readers to understand the term?

Paul seeks to demonstrate the relation of believers to the Law of Moses. He wants to show which parts of the law of Exodus 20 and Leviticus 18-20 are universal moral standards, in contrast to those ceremonial and purity laws that are limited to Israel. These are the essential ethical elements in a biblical worldview. First Corinthians speaks to people who are acquainted with Judaism; note references to “Satan” and the penalty of being cut off (5:5), the “day of the Lord” (5:5), “leaven” (5:6-8), “Passover” (5:7), and judging angels (6:3). Deuteronomy 17:7 is quoted in 5: 13. Since Leviticus 18-20 became central to the Day of Atonement, which provided cleansing of the Sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, and the community, it would be natural for Paul to refer to this section of Leviticus (cf. Leviticus 16 and 23). In 1 Timothy 1, one of the main points is the topic of the believer’s relationship to law. Law has a role to play if it is used properly. This is an important point in light of the contemporary legal aspects surrounding homosexuality.

By coining a term, Paul makes reference to homosexuality explicit, within a Jewish and Christian worldview. Other terms were too general (such as porneia) or reflected Greek forms of homosexual behavior (pederasty). By coining a term, Paul both narrowly defines what he means and propounds a theological construct that homosexuality is sin. Paul denounces it as sin because it violates God’s law, it defiles the community and sanctuary, it places one’s position in the community and the afterlife in jeopardy, and needs to be atoned for by the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement — Christ. A biblical worldview is wrapped up in the term. That Paul coins a term reinforces the uniqueness of biblical morality.

Moreover, Paul assumes even among gentile readers a degree of knowledge of the Levitical system and the law. The contexts of 1 Corinthians 5-6 and 1 Timothy 1 refer directly or make allusion to Jewish law and culture.

Finally, how can Paul expect his Greek readers to understand the term? From the lexical evidence it is clear that compounds involving arseno- and arreno- and koite abound. The Greeks were adept at forming new compounds. Therefore, Paul coined a word which he knew would bring quick recognition.

The meaning of arsenokoitai is also aided by its place in both lists. It is tied closely to adultery — a concern of moral principle and not just purity codes limited to Israel. As Thomas Schmidt observes, “Every sexual act that the Bible calls sin is essentially a violation of marriage, whether existing or potential.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, arsenokoitai with malakoi comes after adultery, and in 1 Timothy 1:10, arsenokoitai with pornois takes the place of adultery. So Paul refers to homosexuality as a “supplement ot, or a substitution for, adultery. ” Paul uses these terms to focus on the commandment not to commit adultery, which helps his readers understand the term and realize its moral force.

The word arsenokoitai is general, reflecting the passage in Leviticus 20: 13. Paul did not use androkoites (“male having sex with a male”), which would not have encompassed the prohibition of pederasty. Paul’s term expresses gender but not gender and maturity; he condemns “males who lie with males of any age.” It is also in accord with the three-fold use of arsen- in Romans 1: 27, where Paul condemns same-gender sexual behavior among men.

This also explains why the word did not catch on with the secular world after Paul. Gentiles would not appreciate the biblical context of Old Testament moral legislation — its worldview. Paul was ahead of his time in coining this word, but he coined the word to contradict his time. Perhaps for the same reason, the terms sodomites and sodomy are fading now from general secular usage. The biblical terminology is losing ground in our increasingly secular and anti-Christian society. No other explanation makes sense but that Paul himself coined a new term, derived from the LXX at Leviticus 20: 13.

De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications

Such researchers as Wright and Henry Mendell have definitively shown that arsenokoitai must be defined broadly. One cannot limit arsenokoitai to pederasty or to active male prostitution. It also includes same-gender orientation, condition or mutuality.

A major difficulty with the studies of Petersen and those before him lies in their applications of linguistics and philology to the modern term homosexuals. Petersen has an erroneous conception of meaning and dictionaries when he claims that the English and Greek meanings are incompatible.

Although homosexuality was (and still is) popularly understood in terms of sexual acts, historical evidence does not allow limiting ancient ideas of homosexuality to acts alone. Both acts and orientation or desire fit the total secular and biblical use of arsenokoitai — especially in light of the contexts of Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 1, and 1 Timothy 1. Paul was not ignorant of the immorality in the secular cultures of Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus. Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians includes strongly implied references to homosexuality (cf. Ephesians 4: 17-24; 5: 3-12; these verses include lists of vices similar to the lists in 1 Timothy 1 and 1 Corinthians 6).

The subsequent question arises: Does modern usage limit the meaning of homosexual to orientation or inclination, excluding acts or behavior? Petersen answers in the affirmative and cites as support the meaning that the coiner of the word assigned to it and its meaning in the standard Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary. In a footnote, however, Petersen acknowledges that Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971) includes a reference to the one who “practices homosexuality” and “same-sex sexual activity” after the definitions referring to inclination and preference. He dismisses this as “popularized, perhaps Americanized usages,” as “slang,” and as a “corruption of the original meaning.” He indicts Webster’s lexicographers as “ignorant of the psychological facts of the case, even though they may be correctly recording the use of the word in popular speech.”

The problem is that Petersen has overlooked several important principles. The first principle concerns lexicography: Once a word has entered the stream of society it becomes defined by its entire context — what the users mean by it, regardless of the coiner’s definition. Dictionaries reflect usage, staying abreast of changes in meaning.

Popular and scholarly usage of homosexuals today includes same-gender sexual behavior; perhaps this has become the predominant definition. It also covers adult mutuality in homosexuality, If this be so, then the terms homosexuals and arsenokoitai cover a similar breadth of meaning.

A second principle is that meanings of words continually change. The earlier unabridged second edition of Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Langugage (1965) does not allow for “practice” under the defintion of homosexual and uses only the words “sexual relations between individuals of the same sex” as the second definition of homosexuality. But only six years later, as we have seen, the third edition (1971) included “practice” and “same-sex sexual activity.”

For Petersen to insist on restricting the meaning to the earlier dictionary and to call the later defintion a “corruption” is to ignore the realities of any dynamic language. Nor is change always a degrading of meaning. The meaning of a word may become deeper and more profound in implication. It can take on new value, take on a new meaning, or be given a new concrete application.

In the case of the term homosexual, several kinds of change apparently occurred over the last half of the twentieth century because of the increasingly frequent use of the word in contexts ranging from popular speech to scholarship. Total usage, not just scholarly usage, determines meaning.

A third principle is that words usually mark out a field of meaning. Words usually do not have or keep a narrow definition or point of meaning. The historical-cultural research reflected shows that homosexuality — under whatever name — existed in various forms, including prostitution, pederasty, lesbianism, orientation, and mutuality of relationship. The Greeks and Romans employed scores of terms to describe the orientation and behavior. Therefore, although the strict etymology of arsenokoitai is simply “male-bed” or “lying with a male,” it is plausible that it has a general, broad meaning when the context does not appear to restrict it narrowly.

A fourth principle is based on the first three. No two words have or keep exactly the same area of meaning, so there are no true equivalent synonyms within a language and no exact equivalents between languages. This suggests that arsenokoitai may be translated “homosexuals” even though there may be some imprecision. Terms of the past and of today can never be exactly equivalent because the cultural contexts can never be identical, especially given the span of time since Paul’s day. It may well be that “sodomites” represents better the idea of arsenokoitai since these two terms with their moral and biblical settings represent contexts closer to one another. Yet this usages would not well match contemporary popular understanding.

Actually, it may be that Benkert in 1869 misread the history of homosexuality in ancient times, or was unacquainted with this history. He may have unwittingly altered the whole discussion of homosexuality by limiting his new term to the homosexual condition.

Petersen asserts that the cultures are so different that the words arsenokoitai and homosexuals are anachronistic. The ancients had no concept equivalent to homosexual desire, while the English term is more limited to homosexual desire. This stretches the cultural equivalence argument too far, for Petersen clearly is in error, as our look at historical-cultural evidence and linguistic principles have shown. Certain terms, such as arrenomanes, “mad after males.” used in the fourth century A.D., show that a “cognitive structure” for the homosexual condition existed long before 1869. In 1 Corinthians 6: 11, Paul refers precisely to that condition when he writes, “and such were some of you.”

The most that can be said in favor of Petersen’s position is that no ancient term is known to have referred precisely to exclusive sexual categories, as can be conveyed in terms homosexual or heterosexual, whereas moderns are more likely to refer to homosexuality or heterosexuality as one’s primary attraction. Our concept of a homosexual probably differs to some small extent from that of the ancients, who tended to speak of what they considered to be a number of equal options. Given that caveat, references appear in ancient writings to a condition that can best be described as mutuality, among persons they identified as exclusively homosexual. Greeks had terminology with definitions sufficiently broad that they cannot be limited to acts. Petersen goes too far in restricting the definitional ranges of both ancient and modern terms.

 De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications

Proper understanding of the translation of arsenokoitai as “homosexuals” begins with the historical and cultural evidence. There is a general agreement that arsenokoitai does not appear before Paul’s usage, so no earlier historical settings for this particular word can be compared. Yet we have already begun to see much evidence that homosexuality was understood before the lifetime of Paul.

Petersen, Bailey, Boswell, Scroggs, Countryman, and others claim that arsenokoitai cannot be defined by the homosexual condition, desire, propensity, or inversion. Nor can arsenokoitai refer to the modern idea of commited adult mutuality. First, these advocates believe we must limit the term to acts of a particular kind, whether male prostitution (Boswell, Countryman) or pederasty (Scroggs). Or, second, we must see that the ancients did not know of the homosexual condition or adult mutuality (Bailey, Petersen, Countryman, Nissinen). They knew homosexual behavior only as pederasty or prostitution. They only knew it as something that was opposed to one’s biological sex.

Both of these positions are faulty. The first position will be addressed on linguistic grounds. Regarding the second view, one may ask: Did not the homosexual condition exist before 1869? Adult mutuality in homosexuality would not seem to be a modern phenomenon, particularly if, as some claim, these patterns are universals. Universal patterns must have existed in ancient times, even if the people of the times lacked sophistication in discussing them. Indeed, there is evidence that the ancients, unbelieving and first-century Christians, knew about all forms of same-gender activity, including transvestitism, and same-gender orientation and mutuality. Even Petersen admits that Plato in Symposium could be the “sole possible exception” to ancient ignorance. He discounts even Plato’s understanding, however, believing that even in Symposium, “acts appear to be the deciding factor.” If Plato in any sense an exception, he is a significant exception; given his influence he could hardly have been a “sole possible exception.” From Plato and from other quarters, substantial evidence can be found for a knowledge of both the homosexual condition and mutuality.

Plato’s Symposium is a collection of speeches by several friends of Socrates on the subject of love, and at the end includes Socrates’ own thoughts. Symposium frankly acknowledges the homosexual condition and its language would extend to adult mutuality. Aristophanes posits that from the beginning there were three kinds of human beings — male, female, and a third gender composed of male-females or men-women (androgynon). The three types of human beings were part of the “original nature” (palai physis). Zeus sliced these human beings in half to weaken them so that they would not be a threat to the gods. Since then, each person seeks his or her other half, either one of the opposite sex or one of the same sex. The speech of Aristophanes then declares,

Each of us, then, is but a tally of a man, since every one shows like a flat-fish the traces of having been sliced in two; and each is ever searching for the tally that will fit him. All the men who are sections of that composite sex that at first was called man-woman are woman-courters; our adulterers are mostly descended from that sex, whence likewise are derived our man-courting women and adulteresses. All the women who are sections of the woman have no great fancy for men: they are inclined rather to women, and of this stock are the she-minions. Men who are sections of the male pursue the masculine, and so long as their boyhood lasts they show themselves to be slices of the male by making friends with men and delighting to lie with them and to be clasped in men’s embraces; these are the finest boys and striplings, for they have the most manly nature. Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man’s estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind. Well, when one of them — whether he be a boy-lover or a lover of any other sort — happens on his own particular half, the two of them are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love, and are hardly to be induced to leave each other’s side for a single moment. These are they who continue together throughout life, though they could not even say what they would have of one another.

Should someone offer these two persons the opportunity to be fused for as long as they live, or even in hades, Aristophanes says that each “would unreservedly deem that he had been offered just what he was yearning for all the time” (192e).

Several observations about this passage are in order. First, the author gives consideration to lesbianism, as well as male homosexuality (191e). “Natural interest” (ton noun physei, 192b) reflects modern ideas of propensity or inclination. The words translated “born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man” (paiderastes te kai philerastes gignetai, 192b) reflect the modern claims “to be born this way (homosexual).” The idea of mutuality (“the two of them are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love, ” 192b) is present. Aristophanes even speaks of “mutual love ingrained in mankind reassembling our early estate” (ho eros emphytos allelon tois anthropois kai tes archaias physeos synagogeus, 191d). He knows the idea of permanency (“These are they who continue together throughout life,” 192c). There is further mention of, and/or allusion to, permanency (see 181d and 183e), mutuality, “gay pride,” pederasty, homophobia, motive, desire, passion, and the nature of love and its works.

Second, clearly the ancients could think of love (homosexual or heterosexual) apart from actions. The speakers in Symposium argue that motive is crucial in homosexual affection: money, office, and influence bring reproach (182e-183a, 184b). They mention the need to love the soul, rather than simply the body (183e). There are two kinds of love in the body (186b), and each kind has its “desire” and “passion” (186b-d). The speakers discuss the principles or “matters” of love (187c), the desires of love (192c), and being “males by nature” (193c). Especially noteworthy is the speech of Socrates, who gives much attention to explaining how desire relates to love and its objects (200a-201c). People feel desire for “what is not provided or present; for something they have not or are not or lack.” This is the object of desire and love. Socrates clearly distinguishes between “what sort of being is love” and the “works” of love (201e). This ancient philosopher could think of both realms — sexual acts as well as disposition or being or nature. His words have significance for more than pederasty, as the speeches show.

Third, in Symposium, Plato anticipates virtually every element in the modern discussion of love and homosexuality. Petersen, Countryman, and others err when they claim that the ancients could think only of homosexual acts, not inclination, orientation, or mutuality. In addition, the evidence for ancient knowledge of the homosexual condition extends widely beyond Symposium, as historican K.J. Dover, Boswell, and others demonstrate.

Fourth, the Bible takes into account homosexual inclination and mutuality in the contexts where writers describe homosexual acts. In Romans 1: 21-28 Paul’s concern for disposition and inclination is shown by his choice of terms: reasoning, heart, become foolish, desires of the heart, lie, passions of dishonor, burned in the desire, men with men, knowledge, and reprobate mind (see also vv. 29-32). The catalog of vices (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11; 1 Timothy 1: 8-10) are introduced by words describing how people “are” or “were,” and not by what they ‘do.” The habits of people betray them for what they are within, as also our Lord taught (Matthew 23: 28). The inner condition is as important as the outer act; one gives rise to the other (Matthew 5: 27-30; 15: 10-20).

Petersen makes other errors. The ancients apparently engaged in transvestitism. Canaanites, Syrians, people of Asia Minor, and Greeks, practised it, according to S.R. Driver and other scholars. Apparently, only a few moralists and Jewish writers condemned the practices. Seneca (Moral Epistles 47.7-8) condemns homosexual exploitation that forces an adult slave to dress, go beardless, and behave like a woman. In some detail, Philo describes the cross-dressing practices of homosexuals (On the Special Laws 3.37-41). In On the Virtues (20-21) Philo argues for the legal prohibition of cross-dressing. Even the Old Testament forbade the interchange of clothing between the sexes (Deuteronomy 22: 5).

Another error is that Christianity came up with the “new labels” of natural and unnatural for sexual inclination and behavior. These terms did not begin with Paul in Romans 1: 26-27 but extend far back into ancient Greece. Paul’s non-Christian contemporaries used them. Plato, the Testament of Napthali, Philo, Josephus, Plutarch, and others used these words and related concepts.

 De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications