0:00

What if the word homosexual was never meant to be

0:02

in the Bible? That's the question a

0:04

new documentary called 1946 is asking, and

0:07

it's part of a long-running effort to

0:09

misinterpret the Bible to say that it

0:12

never condemns sexual relationships between people of

0:14

the same sex. There have been

0:16

a lot of liberal and self-described gay Christians in the

0:18

past 40 years who have practiced

0:20

this kind of biblical revisionism, and the

0:23

arguments made in this film follow the

0:25

same tired pattern. So let's see

0:27

what they get wrong. The documentary

0:30

follows its director Sharon Rocky-Roggio,

0:32

a self-described gay Christian who

0:34

interviews people like Ed Oxford

0:36

and Kathy Baldick, who defend

0:38

the idea the Bible was

0:40

misunderstood and thus mistranslated on

0:43

homosexuality. The primary story in the

0:45

film deals with the 1946 translation committee of

0:48

the revised standard version of the Bible,

0:50

or RSV, and their decision

0:53

to include the word homosexual in

0:55

1 Corinthians 6, 9-10, which says

0:57

the following. Do you not know

0:59

that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom

1:01

of God? Do not be

1:04

deceived. Neither the immoral, nor idolaters,

1:06

nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves,

1:08

nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor

1:10

revilers, nor robbers will inherit the

1:13

kingdom of God. The documentary makes

1:15

a big deal about how these

1:17

two had to investigate old archives

1:20

and libraries and found a letter

1:22

from a 21-year-old self-described gay seminary

1:24

student David Fierdon who wrote to

1:27

the translation committee for the RSV

1:29

back in the 1950s, objecting

1:32

to their use of the word homosexual

1:35

in their translation. They also make a

1:37

big deal about how the word homosexual

1:39

does not appear in the Bible until

1:41

1946. 1946

1:44

is the first time in

1:46

any language, in any translation, the

1:48

word homosexual ends up in the

1:50

Bible, right? Can you tell us

1:52

exactly how you guys first discovered

1:54

that the word homosexual was

1:56

first written in 1946? And

1:59

my response... to these parts of the film is this.

2:02

Who cares? The word homosexual

2:04

was coined in Germany in 1868

2:08

and it didn't become popular until its

2:10

use in clinical psychology manuals in the

2:12

late 1800s. So it's no surprise that

2:14

the word homosexual would not show up

2:16

in the Bible until the 20th century.

2:19

Prior to that time translations of

2:21

1st Corinthians 6-9 would refer to

2:23

abusers of themselves with mankind or

2:25

liars with men and the same

2:28

point comes across. Illicit

2:30

sexual activity is incompatible

2:32

with God's plan for our lives and

2:35

I simply don't care what some 21

2:37

year old seminary student thought in the

2:39

1950s about how the Bible

2:41

should be translated. The whole thing

2:44

isn't interesting or even relevant to their argument.

2:46

What I do care about is figuring out

2:48

what the Bible means and looking at all

2:51

of the facts in order to do that

2:53

and the film completely face plants on this

2:56

point because it barely gives any time to

2:58

those issues. Let's look at 1st Corinthians 6-9-10.

3:00

Paul is giving

3:03

a vice-list to warn the

3:05

Corinthian Christians about sins that

3:07

will cost them their salvation.

3:09

The word rendered homosexuals in

3:11

the RSV is actually two

3:13

Greek words, Malachoi and Arsenio

3:15

Koitai. I actually agree with

3:17

the film that rendering both of

3:19

these words as homosexuals is not

3:21

an ideal translation. The RSV

3:24

even has to include a footnote explaining

3:26

the translation which says this, homosexuals

3:29

Greek has a feminine

3:31

nor sodomites. The Apostle

3:33

condemns not the inherent tendencies of

3:35

such but the indulgence of them.

3:38

A person won't be barred from eternal

3:41

life just because he has illicit or

3:43

disordered sexual desires beyond his control. In

3:46

modern language the word homosexual

3:48

can refer to one's orientation

3:50

like Christians who experience same-sex

3:53

attractions but practice chastity or

3:56

one's sexual behavior so it's an

3:58

unclear translation. translation

4:00

would be this, nor idolaters nor

4:02

adulterers nor the passive and

4:04

active partners in homosexual acts

4:07

will inherit the kingdom of

4:09

God. However 1946 goes

4:11

way beyond this point in claiming

4:13

that the Bible does not condemn

4:15

what is seen in modern same-sex

4:17

relationships. They say the Bible

4:19

only condemns rape between same-sex partners and

4:22

the filmmakers say that this was the

4:24

only kind of same-sex relationship in the

4:26

ancient world. You show one example in

4:28

the Bible that speaks of same-sex

4:30

relations in a positive way. One

4:34

example. No. No, because there are

4:36

none. Why? Because it was

4:38

written in the context of the

4:40

social sexual... There are plenty of

4:42

examples of marriage relationships in the

4:44

Bible, man and woman. Paul

4:47

gives very clear instructions about

4:49

sexual relationships in the book

4:52

of 1 Corinthians chapter 7. He

4:54

talks about how men and women should

4:56

come together and not deny one another.

4:58

He gives zero instructions of any other

5:00

kind of sexual relationship. I would think

5:03

if I'm writing a book on sexual

5:05

relationships and when you should have them

5:07

and when you shouldn't have them and

5:09

something is common in the church I

5:12

would include that which was common. It

5:14

was not. There was always an age or

5:16

power differential when there was the same sex

5:18

relationship. Emperors were well known for a whole...

5:21

Always an age and power differential.

5:23

But that's not true. Ancient

5:25

Mesopotamian texts like the Almanac

5:27

of Incantations do describe consensual

5:29

same-sex relationships in the ancient

5:31

Bronze Age when Leviticus was

5:33

written. And Plato's Symposium which was

5:35

written in the 4th century BC

5:37

talks about women who quote, do

5:39

not care for men but have

5:41

female attachments and of men who

5:43

exclusively hang about men and embrace

5:45

them. The Roman satirist

5:47

Juvenal writing after the completion of

5:50

the New Testament records his contempt

5:52

for men who married other men

5:54

in Roman wedding ceremonies. They

5:57

say the word malachoi simply means

5:59

soft, lazy, indulgent people, and

6:02

our Senecoy tie means pedophiles or

6:04

boy rapists. In the ancient world

6:06

not every Malacoi was a passive

6:08

recipient of a same-sex act. Some

6:11

Malacoi were men who overindulged in

6:13

food or even sex with women,

6:16

but every passive recipient of same-sex

6:18

acts was a Malacoi or a

6:21

softy because he made himself soft

6:23

and penetrable like a woman. Malacoi

6:26

is clearly being used in a sexual

6:28

context in 1 Corinthians 9 because it's

6:30

paired with our Senecoy tie. They

6:32

also say the Malacoi were boy

6:34

prostitutes who the our Senecoy tie

6:36

had sex with. Roman

6:40

Corinth. There was

6:42

a system called

6:44

pederasty. The idea

6:47

that an older man

6:50

would initiate a younger

6:52

boy into Roman

6:55

society. The older

6:57

man, the arson

7:00

of the arson of koi

7:03

tie was also penetrating the

7:06

younger man or

7:08

the Malacoi. So when

7:11

we think about the Black and

7:13

women age, it's men

7:17

who have power are

7:19

allowed to penetrate any

7:21

other person be it woman, child,

7:24

enslaved person, which

7:27

is very different. It

7:29

does sound like rape.

7:32

There's a huge problem for the revisionists

7:34

here because they don't want

7:37

same-sex sexual acts to be a

7:39

sin worthy of damnation. So they

7:41

say Malacoi and our Senecoy tie

7:43

do not refer to those kinds

7:45

of same-sex acts, but the

7:48

words Malacoi and our Senecoy tie have

7:50

to refer to some damnable

7:52

acts to fit the context. For

7:54

example, if you say Malacoi does

7:56

not refer to simply being the

7:58

passive recipient of sex between men,

8:01

then what does Malachoy refer to? Should

8:04

we believe that Paul thought merely

8:06

being soft or weak or cowardly

8:08

was on par with fornication, adultery,

8:11

or idolatry? Even

8:13

worse, if the Malachoy

8:15

were boy prostitutes and the

8:17

Arsenicoytai were rapists or sex

8:20

traffickers, then St. Paul would be

8:22

saying that rape victims deserve to go to hell.

8:24

To be honest, this isn't just a problem with

8:26

the 1946 film. The

8:29

Catholic New American Bible has a footnote

8:31

on this verse which says the following. The

8:34

Greek word translated as boy prostitutes

8:36

may refer to catamites, i.e.

8:38

boys or young men who were kept

8:40

for purposes of prostitution, a

8:42

practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world.

8:45

In Greek mythology, this was the function

8:47

of Ganymede, the cup-bearer of the gods,

8:49

whose Latin name was Catamitis. The

8:52

term translated sodomites refers to adult

8:54

males who indulged in homosexual practices

8:57

with such boys. Remember,

8:59

while the Bible is inerrant, the footnotes

9:01

are not. Boy or child prostitute

9:03

is a euphemism. We should be saying

9:06

boy or child rape victim. Ergo,

9:08

the LGBT revisionists are saying

9:11

that rapists, or the Arsenicoytai,

9:13

and their rape victims, the Malachoy,

9:16

are both going to hell, which

9:18

is a monstrous view. If Paul

9:20

wanted to condemn boy rape, he had

9:22

perfectly good Greek words covering this act

9:25

already. It was called

9:27

pederasty. But instead, Paul used

9:29

these two terms to equally

9:31

indict grown adult men

9:33

who were freely engaging in same-sex

9:35

acts that disordered the gift of

9:37

sexuality God gave us. Paul

9:40

possibly coined the term Arsenicoytai

9:42

because it literally means man

9:44

better. The same Greek words

9:47

are found in the Greek translation of Leviticus

9:49

2013, which says, If

9:51

a man lies with a male as with

9:54

a woman, both of them have committed an

9:56

abomination. Under this view,

9:58

Paul would be condemning moral behavior

10:00

among adults, just like all the

10:03

other sins on his Vice-list in

10:05

1 Corinthians 6,

10:07

not acts of evil committed against children, as

10:09

the revisionists seem to be saying. In his

10:12

commentary in 1 Corinthians, St. John

10:14

Chrysosom says this about Paul's Vice-list,

10:17

"...many have attacked this place as

10:19

extremely severe, since he places

10:21

the drunkard and the reviler with

10:24

the adulterer and the abominable and

10:26

the abuser of himself with mankind."

10:28

People in St. John Chrysosom time

10:30

understood that sexual disorder was

10:32

gravely sinful. They were more

10:35

concerned about the prohibition on partying,

10:37

which Chrysosom says is just as

10:39

sinful because of the way the

10:41

body and mind are abused. On

10:44

a side note, the filmmakers interview

10:46

a rabbi who says that Leviticus

10:48

is just condemning cultic prostitution and

10:50

rape between men, not sex between

10:52

men of equal standing in society.

10:55

In the absence of references

10:57

to lesbianism, they say, show

10:59

that this is about prostitution,

11:02

not homosexuality. One

11:04

way to read this could be

11:06

that the active partner is

11:09

liable for the violence and humiliation

11:12

of rape. But the passive partner

11:14

could very well be

11:16

under a category that appears later in

11:18

the Hebrew Bible of kadesh.

11:22

A kadesh is a male prostitute,

11:24

a ritual pagan male prostitute. What's

11:26

missing from the text is that

11:29

there's no reference to lesbian sex. Homosexuality

11:31

is not the worry of the Hebrew

11:33

Bible because if it was, then sex

11:35

between two women would be problematic. This

11:38

is wrong because there were many ancient

11:40

law codes that punished the active partners

11:42

in homosexual acts because they humiliated the

11:44

passive partners and showed dominance through rape.

11:47

But Leviticus doesn't do that. It

11:50

punishes both partners as being equally

11:52

responsible and Leviticus does

11:54

not use the Hebrew word for

11:56

male prostitutes or kadeshim. section

12:00

about what sexual relations are permissible.

12:02

The fact that lesbianism is missing

12:05

from the prohibitions doesn't mean that

12:07

the ancient authors thought that lesbianism

12:09

was okay. The same chapter

12:11

is missing a prohibition on fathers

12:13

having sex with their daughters, but

12:16

that was never considered okay in

12:18

ancient Israel. The wrongness

12:20

of unnamed crimes in Scripture

12:23

follows from the wrongness of named

12:25

crimes from which we can rationally

12:27

infer. And since the Levitical Code

12:29

was written for a male audience

12:31

and mind, the prohibition against male

12:33

homosexual acts would also apply to

12:36

any female acts. In Romans

12:38

chapter 1, St. Paul condemns male

12:40

homosexual acts and lesbian

12:42

acts, the latter of which in

12:44

the ancient world were always recognized

12:47

to be a relation between social

12:49

equals involving women, not the rape

12:51

of prostitutes because women did not

12:53

purchase female prostitutes, only men did

12:56

that. Paul says, their

12:58

women exchanged natural relations for

13:00

unnatural, and the men

13:02

likewise gave up natural relations with women

13:05

and were consumed with passion for one

13:07

another, men committing shameless

13:09

acts with men and receiving in

13:11

their own persons the due penalty

13:13

for their error. The filmmakers

13:15

say that St. Paul was just

13:17

critiquing Roman excess and that Paul

13:20

said nothing about homosexual acts in

13:22

general. Where Paul got those ideas

13:24

seem to be rooted in his own

13:27

culture, his own understanding, his own

13:29

reading of his sacred text.

13:31

Paul wants to show the excess

13:34

of passions, grieves,

13:36

licentiousness, and the

13:38

background of Roman imperial society

13:41

that allows those things to be an

13:43

excess where those who are powerful men

13:45

just get to do whatever they want to

13:47

do. And I think that's

13:49

where Paul's beginning to argue against that

13:52

idea and not necessarily how we just

13:55

read it as a blanket

13:57

condemnation. By unnatural, Paul did not

13:59

mean these relationships contained excess sexual

14:01

desire or that they were simply

14:04

a contradiction of social standards of

14:06

his time. Paul meant that the

14:08

general idea of same-sex relations violates

14:10

the image of God main known

14:12

in the human body, that we

14:14

were created male and female. Prior

14:17

to Romans 1.26, Paul says that

14:19

creation proves there's one true God,

14:22

and idolaters have no excuse not

14:24

to worship him. The

14:26

reason they have no excuse is

14:28

because God's existence is made known

14:30

in nature. You can look in nature

14:32

and see that God exists. However, Paul

14:35

says their minds were darkened, and they

14:37

exchanged the proper end of their worship,

14:39

God, for an improper end, idols.

14:43

Paul repeats the cycle of

14:45

destruction and exchange when he

14:47

talks about unbelievers' passions being degraded

14:49

and women exchanging the natural

14:51

object of their sexual desires,

14:54

men for women, and men doing the

14:56

same with other men. What all these

14:58

exchanges have in common is not a

15:00

failure to adhere to a social norm.

15:02

It's a failure to adhere to the

15:04

natural order that is obvious from looking

15:06

at creation itself, whether it's the worship

15:08

of the one true God or

15:11

sexual relations with your biologically

15:13

compatible partner. Paul even

15:15

uses the Greek words for male and

15:17

female instead of the Greek words for

15:19

men and women, no doubt a reference

15:21

to the creation account in Genesis 1

15:24

which describes how God made

15:26

humans male and female. In

15:28

fact, Saint John Chrysosom commented

15:30

on Romans 1 and said

15:32

he considered same-sex relations worse

15:35

than fornication. He writes, in

15:37

the case of the one, the intercourse,

15:39

even if lawless, is yet according to

15:42

nature. But this is contrary

15:44

both to law and nature, for

15:46

even if there were no hell and

15:49

no punishment had been threatened, this were

15:51

worse than any punishment. 1946 also repeats

15:53

the same trope that the sin of

15:55

Sodom and Gomorrah was not about homosexual

15:58

acts, but only in hospitality. It was

16:00

a great episode of the Catholic Answers Focus

16:02

podcast that breaks this down in detail with

16:04

Bible scholar Mary Healy. So I'll link to

16:07

that in the description below if you want

16:09

more on that subject. It's

16:11

also unfortunate that the film creates

16:13

two extremes through its director and

16:15

her father, who is a Protestant

16:17

preacher that affirms the Bible's traditional

16:19

teaching on this subject. Rodeo's

16:22

father has a very literal view of

16:24

the Bible, and he thinks sexual orientation

16:27

can be changed, but that isn't the

16:29

only position on the traditional side of this

16:31

issue. I would say

16:33

we don't know how or why

16:35

sexual orientation arises or changes, and

16:38

even those on the other side of this

16:40

issue use terms like gender fluid and sexual

16:42

fluidity. The Catechism says

16:45

of homosexual orientations, its psychological

16:47

genesis remains largely unexplained. Science

16:50

can definitely help us understand why

16:52

people have certain desires or how

16:54

they change, but science can never

16:56

tell us which desires are right

16:58

or wrong because science is not

17:01

in the business of adjudicating moral questions.

17:04

That's what reason and revelation are for. Finally,

17:07

the problem ultimately is not

17:09

homosexuality. The problem is

17:11

that this revisionist view of Scripture will

17:13

not stop there. Brandon Robertson,

17:15

who I've dialogued with before, has

17:18

defended polyamory from a Christian perspective.

17:20

I know that many people, not only in

17:23

our church, but Christian leaders that

17:26

are in open and polyamorous relationships. And

17:29

I've got to tell you that as I've interacted with

17:31

them and as I've got past my own bias and

17:34

listened to their experience and story, I've

17:37

walked away believing that what they have and what they're

17:39

doing will help them. Good.

17:42

Mark Regneris has conducted a survey

17:45

showing that self-identified gay Christians are

17:47

far more likely to support pornography,

17:49

fornication, and occasional adultery. My

17:52

point is that when your exegesis

17:54

of Scripture merely amplifies human feelings,

17:56

you will tear the Bible apart

17:58

to protect those feelings. If

18:00

moral sex only came down to

18:02

consenting adults, then why did John

18:04

the Baptist care who Herod was married to? Why

18:07

did Jesus say remarriage after divorce

18:09

constituted adultery? And why

18:11

did St. Paul say that a man

18:13

in Corinth who committed incest with his

18:16

stepmother was so dangerous to the community

18:18

he had to be handed over to

18:20

the devil, essentially excommunicated, until

18:22

he repented of his sins? If the

18:24

Bible's teaching on sexuality bothers us, what

18:26

about its non-sexual teachings that bother us?

18:29

To claim that only Christ saves us from sin,

18:31

or that not everyone will be saved. If

18:34

your standard for biblical interpretation is

18:36

it can't be right if it makes me

18:38

uncomfortable, then you're not interpreting the Word of

18:41

God. You're attempting to rewrite it. And

18:43

that's not a position I want to be

18:45

in when I stand in judgment before the

18:47

Almighty God who wrote the moral law both

18:49

in Scripture and our hearts so

18:52

that we would find perfect joy in Him.

18:55

Hey guys, thank you so much for watching.

18:57

Finally check out my related content on these

18:59

issues, and please like and subscribe to this

19:01

video to help our channel grow. And finally

19:03

if you want to help us to expand

19:05

and reach more people, definitely support us at

19:07

trenthornpodcast.com.