The Bible does NOT Condemn Homosexuality

The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Introduction

I'm giving this dissertation as a Fundamentalist Christian who takes the Bible literally, who once held the common assumption that it condemns homosexuality. I don’t change my views to appease anyone, but I always try to be polite towards and tolerant of people with different views, including those who may disagree with me on this. My views on this matter changed as a result of my carefully studying (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) all of the passages of Scripture relevant to this issue.

Before I explain everything in detail, here is the gist of it. Most of the passages are dealing with Pagan Goddess worship rituals involving Anal intercourse. And the Sin of Sodom was in-hospitality.

Now, I also want to make clear, that even when I did hold the common assumption, I was still very different from your typical Fundamentalist on the issue. I never obsessed over it as though it was the main spiritual problem facing the nation; in my view, that’s always been Darwinism. And I’ve never liked homophobes. Nothing is more offensive or blasphemous to me than to accuse God of hating anyone. “God is Love”- 1 John 4:8; and Jesus said to “love your enemies”. As Chuck Missler often says, “there is no sin God doesn’t hate but no sinner God doesn’t love“. He gave his only begotten Son to die for us, hatred is not in his vocabulary. It is of course only a loud minority of Christians who make the offensive statement that he hates homosexuals. But the majority of “conservative” Christians are also under the common misconception that the Bible condemns homosexuality, which is why I’m doing this.

Details matter.

Some will say I’m twisting things around to try and change what to them is the clear plain reading of the text. Many of these same Christians however will be unlikely to defend the out of context plain reading of many other verses in the KJV and other modern English translations as they're frequently cited by unbelievers to allege contradictions or make God look cruel. I believe that the design of God’s Word is perfect and precise, and every detail both of what it does and does not say is important.

Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The Jot/Yot/Yod is the smallest and most frequently used letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It would look to us like an apostrophe. A tittle is a small decorative hook on many letters. One doesn’t really need a brief Hebrew lesson to understand this, the point being that every detail of God’s Word matters, even the little ones, because seemingly insignificant details can make a world of difference, as any good detective would tell you.

Independent Baptists who are KJV-Only are the Christians most likely to be hostile to this interpretation. This is what makes my holding this view even more surprising, because I do basically consider myself an Independent Baptist. But being Independent means I don‘t just blindly follow what a Pastor tells me the Bible says, but rather I look it up for myself. I’m also basically KJV-Only, since I absolutely consider the King James Authorized Version to be the best English translation; it’s always the one I default to using. And I absolutely reject the changes made in modern translations based on the Alexandrian Manuscripts and the textual criticisms of Wescott and Hort, such as removing many critical occurrences of the word 'Blood'. Unlike some KJV-Only believers however, I do acknowledge certain imperfections of the KJV. It is in fact impossible to perfectly translate either Hebrew or Greek into English. NONE of those imperfections effect the Gospel, but some will be relevant to passages I will discuses on this issue. Unlike many KVJ-Onliers I do not discourage studying the original Hebrew and Greek; in fact I encourage it. I believe the Masorectic should be used for the Hebrew, and the Textus Receptus for the Greek (the sources for the KJV) are what should be relied upon.

Thing is though I do also believe even the KJV renderings are not blanket condemnations of all homosexual or even all male homosexual affection. And in some cases it's simply a matter of understanding the context of what those words meant in 1611 rather then what man has changed them to mean today.

In fact in some cases the modern versions are more blatantly anti Homosexual then the KJV. Which tells me the perception that The Bible condemns Homosexuality is something Satan really wants to promote. There is a popular meme out there that a "Lesbian goddess worshiper" helped write the NIV and that's why it removed Sodomite. Regardless of if such a person was involved however the NIV does blatantly condemn Homosexuality in the New Testament. In verses where the KJV is more ambiguous.

The point is, the common understanding of the relevant verses is based on just casually reciting the way they're usually rendered in modern English without putting much thought into them. What I have done is put a lot of thought and study into it - always under the starting premise that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inherent Word of God, using Scripture to interpret Scripture and doing so logically and consistently.

The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Leviticus 18 and 20

Regardless of your position on The Law, The Law doesn't condemn Homosexuality.

I actually want to start by saying I don't really approve of how the Leviticus verses are commonly written off by other Pro-Gay Christians. Not all of Leviticus is purely ceremonial law. So mocking the idea of Christians citing Leviticus 18 as if it's comparable to "don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk" or eating shellfish is just setting yourself to look Biblically illiterate. The main Leviticus verse cited on this subject isn't in the same section as the dietary laws, it's sandwiched between verses on child sacrifice and bestiality. Both things no Liberal would view absurd to consider a Sin, but the latter we would have no Biblical basis for condemning if we went only by the New Testament. Same with the earlier Incest laws.

Don't misunderstand, Christian aren't under The Law at all, not even the Decalogue (what we commonly call The Ten Commandments) we're under the New Covenant where God's Law is written on our hearts. My point is however is not all Leviticus verses are on the same level, and all of Leviticus could still be useful to help guide Christians, even the deity laws which had good health reasons behind them.

So what's condemned in Leviticus 18 I do view as a sin, and as much a sin now as it ever was. But I don't view it as a blanket condemnation of all Homosexual, Homoerotic or Homo-romantic affection. Thing is I feel the New Testament references I'll need to discus latter are drawing on this Leviticus law, so Leviticus needs to be understood here.

The other Leviticus chapter in question is 20, and that one is absolutely not something relevant to New Testament believers in terms of life style. (I won’t call it completely irrelevant because it’s still part of the Inspired Word of God.) Any passages that includes punishments to be carried out for the crime are part of the civil law code of the nation of Israel. For many reasons I believe New Testament believers should be more Libertarian then the Law of Moses was. God had a special arrangement with the nation of Israel, even before Christ I believe he would have always preferred less strict civil laws from Gentile nations, thus his approving of Gentile kings like Cyrus and Artaxerxes.

I also believe that on this side of the Cross capital punishment is no longer permitted.

Most people don’t see it as significant that the wording of the alleged condemnations of same sex intercourse are all clearly male gender specific. But I believe what The Bible doesn't say can be important. Leviticus 18:23, the verse on bestiality that immediately follows the verse commonly cited as condemning homosexuality, does risk sounding redundant to make it absolutely clear that both men and women are forbidden to lay with animals. Yet verse 22 only appears to refer to "men lying with males", no female equivalent. So logically in my view we have two options, either women are allowed to do something men aren't, or the common modern understanding of the verse is incorrect. While there could be good reasons to argue for the first option (and I'm surprised more people haven't), I feel the second is the correct one as I shall explain.

There are two sections to Leviticus 18. The first section is sexual sins, mainly incest but a few others are addressed. Then the focus shifts to Idolatry. Here is the thing, verse 21 is where the change of subject occurs. So while the first two verses after that do have a sexual element to them, it’s not as sexual sins they're being addressed but as idolatrous sins. And that is key to understanding them.

The KJV rendering of Leviticus 18:22 is “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Before I get into studying the text, I want to point out that even in this English rendering, "as with Womankind" is clearly at most specifically only referring one specific kind of sex act, penetrative intercourse of some form. ( "lying" alone in Biblical terminology would be enough to imply we were dealing with something sexual.) It means the one thing men can do together that can be seen as an imitation of the unique sex act only a man and woman can do.

Now bare with me because I’m going to have to break down pretty much every word here.

The first word I’ll address is actually the last, "Abomination". Abomination has become a very loaded word in modern English, being commonly used in Frankenstein type Sci-Fi stories to basically mean a raping of nature itself. And this connotation is what’s meant by how the word is commonly emphasized when certain people quote this verse. A number of Hebrew words are translated abomination, none of them mean unnatural or anything like that, they're all about idolatry. The “Abomination of Desolation” uses a noun that is clearly a Hebrew derogatory term for an Idol itself, but the word translated "Abomination" here is more about the acts affiliated with worshiping Idols and how God views them very negatively.

While I rejected above writing off this entire command by comparing it to the dietary and other ceremonial laws. I do think it's valid to address the over emphasis on the word Abomination here by pointing to how it is also used of those kinds of restrictions in the Torah. Leviticus 11:12 "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." Technically that one is a different word in the Hebrew, but to the most absolute of KJV onliers that is irrelevant. Deuteronomy 14:3 does use the same Hebrew word as Leviticus 18 talking about dietary restrictions, there it is translated "abominable thing". It's also used in Ezekiel 43-44 to refer to Uncircumcised gentiles entering The Temple.

I actually think a more accurate translation of the word would be "taboo".

The word rendered "lie" is translated perfectly.

The word rendered "mankind" is Zakar (Strong # 2145), technically accurate, but based on the first time Zakar is used (Genesis 1) I personally would translate it male or masculine. The word translated "womankind" is ishshah (Strong # 802), again technically accurate but I’d just render it woman, it is also the word for wife. Both are gender identifying words, as you’d expect, but the thing is they're not their main counterparts to each other. Zakar is usually paired with Naqebah (Strong # 5347) including when it‘s first used in Genesis 1:27. Which I would always translate female. And ishshah is the feminine form of iysh (Strong # 376) which is translated both man and husband. Technically none of that makes a drastic difference in the meanings of the words used, but I feel if the gender distinction was all God was concerned with here, he would have been more consistent in what terms he used.

The word translated "with" is Mishkab (Strong # 4904), in the verse in chapter 20 this is rendered "lieth". And both those renderings are off, they're not even the right kind of word, it’s a noun not a verb. Of the 46 times the word appears in the Masorectic Hebrew text, 34 of them the KJV accurately translates it bed, 4 times it’s rendered bedchamber and once it’s rendered couch. The two Leviticus verses supposedly about Homosexuality are simply two of 7 verses where the KJV translated it as a verb.

I’m not of course the first person to question the common interpretation of this verse, but my approach is different from many. Some have suggested the real intent here is to condemn a husband making love to a male in his wife’s bed. Because in the ancient world the bed in which a married couple made love was considered the wife’s bed, her property or domain. Such concepts do carry over into medieval and renaissance times, you see it on The Tudors in fact. I don’t believe that’s the main concern here, but it is possibly relevant.

Now I refer everyone back to the last section of the Sodom and Gomorrah post. What I and many scholars believe is that what’s in mind here is the same practice being performed by the Qadesh male temple prostitutes. The context of idolatry to these verses already established makes that likely, but here is the thing. Specific details of the ceremony often involved the prostitute dressing in female clothing like it was her wedding night, and engaging in the sexual act in a sacred bed said to be the bed of Astarte.

Now for Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” The part I put in italics is different in how the KJV renders it, but in the Hebrew is basically identical to 18:22, so just copy and paste everything I said about that. I also already addressed the death penalty aspect.

The word at the beginning rendered "man" is iysh. That word is sometimes translated Husband, I've heard some some suggest you have to be married for it to apply but I don't feel quite convinced of that. I know one website online dedicating to arguing this is only about Adultery, I don't feel that works with my understanding of how The Bible defines Adultery.

So while homosexual intercourse is relevant, It’s more specific then that. The context is describing a Pagan ritual. To some being involved in a Pagan ritual is enough to condemn it altogether. In my view that's flawed logic, Pagan rituals did many things, including many things very much the same as the Israelites did in worshiping YHWH. Skeptics of the Bible like to point those things out to say the Israelites just grew out of the Canaanite culture. That claim doesn't hold up of course.

The Law does condemn many things specifically citing usage in Canaanite rituals as the reason. Most notably that the Israelites were NOT to build altars to the LORD on High Places (mountain tops or hill tops). But in Ezekiel 40-48, when Paganism no longer even exists (and clearly the very geography of Israel has changed) God's Temple is on a High Place. But this command doesn't make doing anything on a High Place a Sin, acts of Worship even of the True God are advised against there. But it's not a Sin to build a house on a hill top, or to even walk on one. It's just about how to properly worship.

Leviticus 18:24 and to the end of the Chapter clearly defines the earlier commands in those same terms. "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants."

But you may be thinking, "in that case isn't beastiality in the same position"? An animal can't consent to sexual relations with a human, beastality is therefore inherently an act of Rape. So even if there never was a single Bible verse specifically on it, Christians should consider it wrong for the same reasons any other act that is abusive to animals is wrong.

At the most, you might might be able to convince me it's condemning Anal sex. It is only that form of male on male sex that is viewed as imitating the unique act only a man and a woman can perform. Society has a tendency to view anal sex and male homosexuality as synonymous. But this stereotype is in fact a very flawed assumption, and some studies have shown that only a minority of Gay or Bi men engage in it or like it at all.

Example, Magnus Hirschfeld, in his 1914 work, The Homosexuality of Men and Women, reported the rate of anal sex among homosexual men surveyed to be 8%, the least favored of all the practices documented. (William A. Percy and John Lauritsen, Review in The Gay & Lesbian Review, November–December 2002) Likewise, some scholars state that oral sex and mutual masturbation are more common than anal stimulation among gay men in long-term relationships, and that, in general, anal intercourse is more popular among homosexual male couples than among heterosexual couples, but that "it ranks behind oral sex and mutual masturbation" among both sexual orientations in prevalence. By the 1950s in the United Kingdom, it was thought that about fifteen percent of male homosexuals had anal sex. Other studies very, some about 50/50 and some more recent ones do imply a majority do it, (as if it's popularity has been increasing, perhaps simply from society telling them their supposed to do it). But all clearly have a large number who do not.

Many Christians view how the risk of HIV and other STDs are higher with Gay men is itself proof that something is wrong with it. Of course they ignore that those same statistics have Lesbian intercourse as far less risky then Heterosexual. At any rate those statistics are flawed, being in part skewed by gay men being more likely to get tested because they believe their at a greater risk. And the degree to which it is the case is only because of the Anal sex as I discussed above, which does have other health risks too.

But that is a big maybe. I stick to my argument that it is the Pagan ritual sex being condemned here. Which contrary to what you might assume does still go on today, in different ways but it does.

In the 1970s and early 1980s, some religious cults practiced sacred prostitution as an instrument to recruit new converts. Among them was the alleged cult "Children of God", also known as "The Family", who called this practice "Flirty Fishing". They later abolished the practice due to the growing AIDS epidemic. (Williams, Miriam (1998). Heaven's Harlots. New York: William Morrow/ Harper Collins. p. 320.) In Ventura County, California, Wilbur and Mary Ellen Tracy established their own temple, "the Church Of The Most High Goddess", in the wake of what they described as a divine revelation. Sexual acts played a fundamental role in the church's sacred rites, which were performed by Mary Ellen Tracy herself in her assumed role of High Priestess. Local newspaper articles about the Neopagan church quickly aroused the attention of local law enforcement officials, and in April 1989, the Tracys' house was searched and the couple arrested on charges of pimping, pandering and prostitution. They were subsequently convicted in a trial in state court and sentenced to jail terms: Wilbur Tracy for 180 days plus a $1,000.00 fine; Mary Ellen Tracy for 90 days plus mandatory screening for STDs.

"Hieros gamos" (holy marriage) and "Sex Magik" also exist in modern Neo-Pagan and occult movements, just search for those two terms on Wikipedia. As a Libertarian I disagree with such activity being criminalized, on among other things First Amendment grounds. But to a Jew or a Christian it is sinful, being a violation of the first two commandments, and something we should not do.

The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Corinthians and Timothy

Arsenokoites (Strong # 733) and Malakos (Strong # 3120)

Here is the KJV rendering of 1 Corinthians 6:9&10 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

How to translate two words that appear in the Greek of this passage is the final issue of my dissertation. The word rendered "effeminate" is Malakos. Malakos is used three other times in the Bible, but in none of those occasions as a title of some specific sin as it clearly is here, and they're certainly not sexual in nature. On those three (twice in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25) occasions the KJV renders it "soft". Both passages Jesus is using it to describe people in royal courts who live decadent lifestyles.

The context here appears to be sexual in nature, following adulterers, but it can’t be known for certain, these two words, if they're sexual, end the sexual section, and are followed by economic sins. Instances of the use of Malakos in earlier secular literature are: Herodotus: Histories 7.153 & 13.51; Aristophanes: Wasps 1455, Plutus 488; Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics 1150a:33; Plato: Republic 556c. Here it can have sexual connotations, but not homosexual. Aristotle says specifically that "Malakos" refers to unrestraint in respect to bodily pleasures. This kind of fits with Jesus linking it to decadence. The Aristotle work in question does discus homosexual acts, but doesn't link Malakos to them.

But even the extent to which "effeminate" could be accurate, what calling a Man "effeminate" meant in Ancient Greeco-Roman culture was not exactly the same as today. For one thing, in Rome particularly, a man behaving effeminately for the sake of attracting a sexual partner was probably seeking women. Back then Men looked down on "girly men" like they do today, and that tended to include those men who had homosexual inclinations. And I know it's trendy to act like women being attracted to feminine looking men is some new fad inflicted on the modern world by Pop Boy Bands and Twilight, but it's really not. Adonis was a pretty boy in Greek mythology, not a muscular hairy perfect manifestation of masculinity like people want to in-part on the word today.

Traits the ancient Greeco-Romans considered "effeminate" included such behavior as bathing frequently, shaving, frequent dancing or laughing, wearing cologne, eating too much or wearing fine undergarments. Again, all this backs up how Jesus linked Malakos to decadence.

If Paul had meant Crossdressers as people tend to take him to mean now days, he'd have probably used androgynes like Philo did.

Arsenokoites is what’s rendered abusers of themselves with mankind. It appears elsewhere in scripture only once, another writing of Paul. 1 Timothy 1:10 “For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” is the KJV rendering. The italics is how the word in question is rendered. More modern Bible translations often render this word simply Homosexuals, Homosexual offenders, practicing homosexuals, or Sodomites.

In this case the KJV is less indisputably about simply Homosexuality then most more modern ones. Because it uses words like "Abusers" or "Defilers". Yes I know from the current standard conservative POV homosexuality is itself an Abuse or a Defileing. But that's not how you build doctrine. It's interesting that King James himself was a Bisexual, but disapproved of "buggery", a British slang term for Anal intercourse. (Those who deny King James was in any way Queer base their evidence solely on his love for his wife and that he disapproved of "buggery".)

The complication with this word is that Paul appears to have coined it himself. These two verses are the only known pre-second century examples of it being used at all. There were a number of Greek words for male-male Homosexual behavior Paul could have used, like erastês and erômenos, androkoitēs, paiderastia, catamite, arrenomixia, androbateo, androbates, arrenomanes, maiandro or ganymede.

A popular from of the traditional view is that Malakos means the passive partner and Arsenokotis the active partner. However if that was Paul's intent he's have used erastês and erômenos.

Arsenokoites is a compound word, combining Arsen (which was already mentioned in the study on Romans 1), and the other is Koite (Strong # 2845) which literally means bed but can be an idiom for sex. Compound words are not as easy to decipher as they look. Lady-killer doesn't mean “Lady who kills” or “Killer of ladies”.

One interpretation is offered by Paul R. Johnson for “Second Stone” magazine titled “A New Look at Arsenokoitais” (1994 January/February issue). In this article he wrote:

“The Greek compound term arseno-koitais literally means ‘the male who has many beds’. The word arsen means ‘male’, the adjective o means ‘the’, and the term koitais is defined as ‘many beds’. Thus, the entire phrase means a male with multiple bed-partners; a promiscuous man. Everywhere that the word koitais is used in the plural in the Bible denotes promiscuity. However, when the same word is used in the singular form, the Bible gives approval because the singular denotes monogamy.”

Problem is I also disagree that The Bible only approves of absolute Monagamy. And it's also in plural here because all the words listed are.

A common theory is that it derives from the Septuagint renderings of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Where Zakar is translated Arsen and Mishkab is rendered Koite, and they are used right next to each other. I tend to reject the assumption that NT authors used the Septuagint, but it could likely have looked that way in any Greek rendering, including if Paul constructed one himself. It is possible that Paul might have been referring to the same thing he addressed before in Romans, where he used the word Arsen. This view is the only option available really that uses Scripture to interpret Scripture. But the issue then is, what was Leviticus actually referring to? I addressed that and also Romans.

Some early Christian writings turn the word into a verb as arsenokoitia. None of the early uses of the word are apparently using it to mean homosexuals. And some contradict it, like John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, around A.D. 575.


“One must also ask about the perplexing, beguiling , and shadowy sin of incest, of which there are not just one or two varieties but a great many very different ones. One type is committed with two sisters of the same father or mother (or both). [Jacob with Leah and Rachel]
Another involves a cousin; another the daughter of a cousin; another the wife of one's son; another the wife of one's brother. It is one thing with a mother-in-law or the sister of a mother-in-law, another with a stepmother or a father's concubine.
Some even do it with their own mothers, and others with foster sisters or goddaughters. In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives.”

Seems not to imply inherently Homosexual. It's confusing frankly cause it isn't even clear if he's left the subject of Incest when he uses this word. I have my own separate study on incest restrictions in The Bible, which does not exactly agree with this commentary on the subject.

There was also found an old inscription in a house in Greece somewhere that says "Beware a male arsenokoite". So again, further evidence it was a sin women could commit with men as well as men could.

I believe the word is probably another reference to Temple Prostitution/sacred-marriage, or at most specifically Anal intercourse. Either way it’s certainly not a blanket condemnation of Homosexuality as a whole.

Around the year 2 B.C. Strabo (VIII,6,20) in his geographic/historical description of the town of Corinth wrote some remarks concerning female temple servants in the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth, which perhaps should be dated somewhere in the period 700-400 B.C.:[See Introduction in [Baladié]. The fragment is in Geographika VIII,6,20]

“The temple of Aphrodite was so rich that it employed more than a thousand hetairas,[The Greek εταίρα (hetaira) means literally: female companion, female mate.] whom both men and women had given to the goddess. Many people visisted the town on account of them, and thus these hetairas contributed to the riches of the town: for the ship captains frivolously spent their money there, hence the saying: ‘The voyage to Corinth is not for every man’. (The story goes of a hetaira being reproached by a woman for not loving her job and not touching wool,[One of the main tasks of these women was the processing of wool (source: [Radt,6], p. 484)] and answering her: ‘However you may behold me, yet in this short time I have already taken down three pieces’.)”
[The Greek text has here a blue pun which is hardly translatable. ιστός means: 1) (the standing posts of a) weaving loom (n.b.: ancient Greece initially knew the vertical loom); 2) mast; 3) (metonym.) woven tissue. καθει̃λον ιστους means then, firstly: taking down the woven web from the loom; secondly: lowering the mast. Thirdly the hint on ‘lowering’ some other kind of ‘mast’. (Sources: Greek dictionary, [Baladië], [Radt,2], [Radt,6].)]

The text in more than one way hints at the sexual business of those ladies. Remarks elsewhere of Strabo (XII,3,36: “women earning money with their bodies”) as well as Athenaeus (XIII,574: “in the lovely beds picking the fruits of the mildest bloom”) concerning this temple describe this character even more graphic.

In 464 B.C., a man named Xenophon, a citizen of Corinth who was an acclaimed runner and winner of pentathlon at the Olympic Games, dedicated one hundred young girls to the temple of the goddess as a sign of thanksgiving. We know this because of a hymn which Pindar was commissioned to write (fragment 122 Snell), celebrating "the very welcoming girls, servants of Peïtho and luxurious Corinth".[(French) Trans. Jean-Paul Savignac for les éditions La Différence, 1990.]

So Cornith was another ancient center of Temple Prostitution. None of these references confirm Males being used in the same purpose as we know happened with the Ancient Canaanites, but it still could have been likely. But again, maybe it's wrong even to assume the word Arsenokoitis refereed to men, though ending with an "s" in Greek is usually Grammatically Masculine, though some exceptions exist. Or it could be he's talking about the Men who are the clients of the Temple Prostitutes, or maybe both.

You may be thinking, "if you're saying it's so difficult to even know what this word means doesn't that hurt the idea of The Bible being inspired? Why would the Holy Spirit use a word he knew would be obscure?" Well that's why I somewhat support the theory of connecting it to Leviticus 18:22, that's the only approach that qualifies as using Scripture to Interpret Scripture, everything I've pointed out just helps back up my view that to Paul Leviticus 18:22 meant the same thing I argued it meant.

But we're not supposed to build Doctrine on Vice Lists (not moral doctrine), vice lists just say, so and so are sinners, but once your saved you're not longer considered whatever type of sinner you are, your name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life, which means at the White Throne we're judged based on Christ's works not our own. You may lose your rewards or inheritance from continuing in those sins, but not your Salvation. So for that reason it doesn't matter too much how certain we are what these verses refer to.

I have read some attempts to justify why Paul needed to invent a word rather then just use ones that already existed while maintaining it's all Homosexual behavior. Two of them are exact opposites.

One argued that the other terms are to broad (My whole objection to saying it condemns all same-sex affection is that that is too broad). Many examples they say are about any non reproductive sex particularly Anal, but don't these same Christians also think of those as sins? In arguing that Androkoites is too broad they assert "Andros can also mean Mankind/Humanity" this plainly wrong, Anthropos is the Greek for Mankind/Humanity, Andros is frequently clearly used as the counterpart to Gune which means woman. The Bible never uses Andros but it does use Anthropos in contexts clearly not meant to exclude women. Even so that doesn't change that no idiot would think a condemnation of Androkoites was any sex with a human being.

Another argued that Androkoites is too specific. That Andros means "adult male" and thus Androkoites excludes Pedastry. Why wouldn't Paul just use more then one word and list Pedastry as a separate sin?

But if the motive for constructing Arsenokoites to to be broad in it's same-sex condemnation, then it means something that he still constructed a word that cannot include Lesbianism. Maleness is quite inherent in it, if it was a sin that could be committed by a woman or with a woman, or that a woman could be the victim of (which is implied by some Extra-Biblical uses of it) they'd have to do it with or to a male, or be something a male does to or with them.

If The Holy Spirit wanted to create a Greek term equivalent to our Homosexual, the Homo part does in fact come from Koine Greek, Homios, which means "the same" or "likewise". If Paul had constructed Homiokoites no one would have thought any other sameness was being forbidden to have sex with, most sex was between people of the same nation/tribe back then since the world wasn't as globalized yet, the exceptions were often scandalous. And Christians are advised to only have relations with people of the same faith.

To others the comparison to androkoites is key. If Androkoites means male same-sex acts, and Arsen is basically a synonym of Andros, then how can Arsenokoites mean something different? Again constructing composite words is complicated, sometimes the entire reason when creating a new one to replace one word in an existing one with a synonym is to prevent confusion when something different is very much your intent. Both words likely have something to do with males and beds/sex, but putting those two nouns together could have lots of meanings, and one meaning "male homosexual" was already covered.

Mostly they argue for it drawing on Levitcus to prove their point. But that presumes what Leviticus is about is being interpreted correctly. And to me how Arsneokoites was used by many post Paul authors shows the word certainly could have been about ritual anal sex, which is what I argued Leviticus 18:22 is about.

Some of the earliest extra-Biblical uses of the word are in Vice lists that are not of Sexual sins but of economic or exploitative sins. In the second century Apocryphal Acts of John, John condemns a rich man of Ephesus.

You who delight in gold and ivory and jewels, do you see your loved (possessions) when night comes on? And you who give way to soft clothing, and then depart from life, will these things be useful in the place where you are going? And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoités, the thief and all of this band. ...So, men of Ephesus, change your ways; for you know this also, that kings, rulers, tyrants, boasters, and warmongers shall go naked from this world and come to eternal misery and torment (section 36)

Sexual sins are denounced earlier in section 35, effectively a different list.

The two times Paul uses it are also next to Sins of an economic or exploitative nature, next to thieves in Corinthians and Manstealers in Timothy. It could be some form of Sex-Slavery is in mind. Which could overlap with forms of Temple Prostitution, since as I already showed some women were sold to Sex Goddess temples without their own consent.

It's also used in a similar fashion in the Jewish Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77.10. This reference could work against the assumption Paul invented it, it's date of origin in uncertain but it's not Christian in origin, rather Hellenistic Judaism. However most scholars agree it's under gone some Christian redaction.

Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life.

Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder.) Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. (Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need.)

Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly.

Nothing here is a sexual sin except disputably arsenokoitein Another vice list in the same book is primarily about Sexual sins, 2.279-82.

Theophilus of Antioch in his treatise addressed to Autolychus, has a vice list that begins with sexual sins, then lists three economic or exploitative sins, then Arsenokoites, then more sins that are not sexual. He does latter in the same work have another list listing it next to Sexual sins, but also next to greed and idolatry.

Hippolytus of Rome used it in Refutation of All Heresies 5.26.22-23. Hippolytus claims to be passing along a Gnostic myth about the seduction of Eve and Adam by the evil being Naas. Naas came to Eve, deceived her, and committed adultery with her. He then came to Adam and "possessed him like a boy (slave)." This is how, according to the myth, moicheia (adultery) and arsenokoitia came into the world. The language about Naas's treatment of Adam, indeed, which could be read "taking or possessing him like a slave," could connote exploitation and even rape. The context allows a reading of arsenokoitia to imply the unjust and coercive use of another person sexually.

The third-century writer Bardesanes is quoted in Eusebius's Preparation for the Gospel 6.1 0.2 5. Bardesanes is remarking that the peoples who live east of the Euphrates River take the charge of arsenokoitia very seriously: "From the Euphrates River all the way to the ocean in the East, a man who is derided as a murderer or thief will not be the least bit angry; but if he is derided as an arsenokoités, he will defend himself to the point of murder. [Among the Greeks, wise men who have lovers (ermenous echontes, males whom they love; "favorites") are not condemned]"

The text seems to have gone through some corruption in transmission. The sentence in brackets does not occur in the Syriac fragments of Bardesanes's text or in the other ancient authors who seem to know Bardesanes's account, leading Jacoby, the editor of the Greek fragments, to suggest that Eusebius himself supplied the comment. (Ibid.; see also Die Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen in Rufius Übersetzung, rev. 1 ed. Bernard Rehm, earlier ed. Georg Strecker (Berlin: Akademie, 1994), , 284-87.) Thus Eusebius's text would provide evidence only that he or other post-Constantine Christian scribes wanted to equate arsenokoités with Homosexuality.

Hippolytus and Eusebius are the oldest references that even come close to using it in a way that backs up viewing it as Homosexuality. Hippolytus is recounting a Gnostic myth in a work dedicated to condemning the Gnostics, Augustinin sexual morality comes from Augustine's Gnostic background. And Eusebius was a leader in the post Constantine agenda to reconcile Christianity with socially conservative Roman culture.

On the subject of the last issue I addressed at the end of the Romans study. Reading on in 1 Corinthians 6 it's clear that there where Christians saved out of every Sin being listed here.

And that is the end of my dissertation, I hope I have succeeded in opening minds and increasing knowledge of God’s Word.

Plato, Augustine, and Traditional Christianity

We are used to thinking of Calvinism and Catholicism as adversaries. Catholics like to define all Protestants (and Evangelicals who they don't consider distinct) based on Calvinism, calling it "Reformed Theology". And Calvinists too like to see themselves as the only true full rebels from Popery and label belief in Free Will as inherently Catholic.

However the truth is Catholicism and Calvinism are two sides of the same coin. That coin being Augustine, and the mint in which it was forged was Plato.

Calvinists are among the Protestants who in my view made a serious mistake by only rejecting about 1000 years worth of institutionalized error, and choose to prop up the "Early Church Fathers" as authoritative just as much as the Catholic Church does. And they may indeed in some areas agree with what those early fathers originally taught more then Catholic dogma does. But I still feel the early fathers were just as guilty of following the doctrine of the Nicolatians. Some I agree with more then others but none I consider authoritative.

Pretty much all of the major doctrinal issues Evangelicals have with Catholicism have their roots in Augustine's teachings. He may not have been the first to teach any of them but he played a major role is refining and popularizing them long before the Vatican really formalized any. His main gripe with the Pelegians was their rejection of Infant Baptism. On Mary he affirmed that the Virgin Mary "conceived as virgin, gave birth as virgin and stayed virgin forever". (Augustine of Hippo, De Sancta Virginitate, 18).

Calvin was quite open about how much he drew on Augustine. “Further, Augustine is so much at one with me that, if I wished to write a confession of my faith, it would abundantly satisfy me to quote wholesale from his writings.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.63).

Augustine originally believed in premillennialism, namely that Christ would establish a literal 1,000-year kingdom prior to the general resurrection, but later rejected the belief, viewing it as carnal. He was the first theologian to expound a systematic doctrine of amillennialism, although some theologians and Christian historians believe his position was closer to that of modern postmillennialists. The medieval Catholic church built its system of eschatology on Augustinian amillennialism, where Christ rules the earth spiritually through his triumphant church, (Blomberg, Craig L. (2006). From Pentecost to Patmos. Apollos. p. 519.). Dominionism follows the same basic error. At the Reformation, theologians such as John Calvin accepted amillennialism. Augustine is also credited with being the father of the Catholic notion of Purgatory, though the gist of that he borrowed from Tertullian, the first Church Father to write in Latin.

Augustine was also the first to try and reconcile Christianity with Evolution.

In Augustine's De Genesi contra Manichæos, on Genesis he says: "To suppose that God formed man from the dust with bodily hands is very childish. ...God neither formed man with bodily hands nor did he breathe upon him with throat and lips." Augustine suggests in other work his theory of the later development of insects out of carrion, and the adoption of the old emanation or evolution theory, showing that "certain very small animals may not have been created on the fifth and sixth days, but may have originated later from putrefying matter." Concerning Augustine's De Trinitate (On the Trinity), White wrote that Augustine "...develops at length the view that in the creation of living beings there was something like a growth—that God is the ultimate author, but works through secondary causes; and finally argues that certain substances are endowed by God with the power of producing certain classes of plants and animals."(White 1922, p. 53)

Augustine is also a major factor in developing the prudish attitudes towards sexual morality of "traditional" Christianity I have spent much time on this blog objecting to. While by no means the first to hold such views, he majorly popularized them. He even goes further with it then most modern Evangelicals or Catholics will at least admit to going. Stating outright it is a Sin to enjoy sex, even between a Husband and Wife for the purpose of reproduction. He also committed the error of thinking Sodom's main Sin was their sexual preferences.

None of this means I consider Augustine wrong on everything, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Like Ron Paul I wish more American Christians would follow his Just War principle. And I'm certainly not questioning his Salvation. But since he's also put a lot of Bad Fruit into Christian history, I feel we should examine his roots.

Augustine had been before he converted to mainstream Christianity a follower of Manicheism, a form of Gnosticism. And one that believed quite strongly in both Determinism (Predestination) and that the flesh is inherently evil. Like other Gnostic sects it rejected the Old Testament. Whether or not they were among those that believed the Old Testament God to be an Evil Demiurge I'm unsure. But it seems Augustine's preference was for just rejecting the Old Testament narrative altogether.

Many people who convert from one religion to another still bring the baggage of their old Religion with them. And this does include some Christians after getting Saved. Most who don't go over the top trying to be the opposite of how they were before, and will still bring all kinds of ideas with them. What evidence is there Augustine brought Gnostic baggage with him? Some I think is already apparent but there is more.

The main thing that kept him from fully embracing mainstream Christianity was his dislike of the Old Testament characterization of an Emotional God who in some areas changes. It was Ambrose convincing him that those Emotions could be allegorized away that converted him.

Gnosticism was among many Philosophical traditions influenced either directly or indirectly by Plato. Even Philosophical traditions that predicated themselves on rejecting (at least some of) Plato (like the Epicureans) were still influenced by him (for example Epicurus shared Plato's distaste for Homosexuality). Aristotle, Plato's most notorious direct pupil, also broke with Plato in many areas while agreeing in others.

The various descendants of Plato often disagreed with each other. Plotinus, the founder of Neo-Platonism, spent much time attacking the Gnostics, even though he was more similar to the Gnostics then some other Platonists like the Stoics.

Plato in Timaeus originates the idea of the Demiurge. A "creator deity" of sorts, but not truly, he merely rearranged and refashioned preexisting chaotic matter. To the Gnostics the Demiurge was an Evil god responsible for cursing humanity with fleshly bodies. Many Gnostics who presented themselves as a form of Christianity identified the Demiurge with the God of the Old Testament, and believed Jesus wasn't that God but a higher deity. But that isn't the only rout to twist Christianity into being Gnostic.

Augustine fully admits to being ok with adopting some of those pagan Philosophical ideas into "Traditional" Christianity.

Augustine writes: “Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said aught that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it. For, as the Egyptians had not only the idols and heavy burdens which the people of Israel hated and fled from, but also vessels and ornaments of gold and silver, and garments, which the same people when going out of Egypt appropriated to themselves, designing them for a better use, not doing this on their own authority, but by the command of God, the Egyptians themselves, in their ignorance, providing them with things which they themselves were not making a good use of; in the same way all branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil, which every one of us, when going out under the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to abhor and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God’s providence which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully prostituting to the worship of devils. These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also, that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life, we must take and turn to a Christian use.” (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 40, Section 60).

Augustine adds: “But they gave their gold and their silver and their garments to the people of God as they were going out of Egypt, not knowing how the things they gave would be turned to the service of Christ. For what was done at the time of the exodus was no doubt a type prefiguring what happens now.” (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 40, Section 61).

Augustine is forgetting that that Gold was used to make the Golden Calf.

Augustine is not the only means by which Gnostic and/or Platonic ideas entered the Judeo-Christian tradition. Many of the Greek Church fathers felt comfortable drawing on Greek writings to appeal to their Greek flocks. Justin Martyr claimed that Socrates and Plato were "unknowing Christians" and the Alexandrian Bishops are also an interesting case. In fact I don't know of an example of an Early Church Father who's writings have survived who was hostile to Plato.

Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenized Jew who adopted much of Platonism into his writings. Christians have from very early on liked to cherry pick certain teachings of his to make him sound almost Christian, he did happen to like some of the same key Greek words John did, but those are the same words the Gnostics also liked, like Logos. He is also credited with being the first to interpret the Sin of Sodom as being Homosexuality. Though whether or not he meant all Homosexual acts are a Sin is debatable.

There is also Valentinus, who followed a different brand of Gnosticism, and was prominent in Rome around 100-160 AD. According to Tertulian he almost became Bishop of Rome.

Bob Hill explains: “The Manichaeans stressed rational inquiry over authority. Augustine agreed with this method of ascertaining truth. The Manichaeans disliked the Old Testament because it revealed an angry emotional God. ... The Manichaeans believed God could not be mutable and retain his perfection. Augustine accepted this rationalistic philosophy as true and attempted to prove this doctrine with Scripture.”

“Augustine agreed with the Manichaeans that a mutable God was totally unacceptable. In this conflict between the Platonic doctrine of immutability and the literal interpretation of Scriptures, what had to change? Augustine’s answer was that the literal interpretation of Scripture had to change. For Augustine the plain narratives of Scripture had to be reinterpreted by spiritual or allegorical methods to agree with his philosophical presuppositions. The Manichaeans believed the Old Testament revealed a God who was mutable or could repent. Since the Platonists believed that God was immutable this idea of God repenting was a source of ridicule for the Church. Augustine was so embarrassed by these arguments that he chose to reinterpret Scripture rather than refute the Platonic philosophy.” (Calvinism Unmasked, chapter 2).

Even many modern Catholics and Protestants are unashamed of their Greek Philosophical influences.

Webster Tarply, is a fellow Conspiracy Theorist who's research I find helpful. He is regardless a devout Catholic, who condemns the Protestant Reformation for "rejecting Plato in favor of Aristotle". He's talking about the Politics mainly which confuses me because he seems to have the Politics of Plato and Aristotle switched around.

Plato's Republic was the original Communist Utopia (and I suspect a strong influence on Thomas Moore's (who advocated Freedom of Speech yet burned 6 Protestants at The Stake) Utopia). Aristotle directly criticized the Communism of The Republic. Republic was the hypothetical Communsit Utopia while Laws was the Socialist/Statist system he actually intended to implement. Not unlike how Socialism and Communism relate today. It recommends laws restricting every area of life. Including laws against "excessive wealth" making it not a Free Market system at all. Aristotle was by no means Libertarian, but his views were much closer to what being a "Republic" means to modern Americans.

I've also seen Plato and Aristotle quoted by Christians on WVCY as supporting their call for Censorship of Rock and other Secular Music.

People are often mistakenly led to believe Plato was a pro Same-Sex love author because of the Homoerotisism in his Dialogues. But only one character generally in each Dialogue represents Plato's own views (and that character is presented as the wisest). usually this is "Socrates", but in The Laws it's the unnamed Athenian. In Aristotle's critique of Laws he refers to this person as Socrates, which has caused some scholars think he wasn't originally unnamed.

Although the character "Socrates" concedes the supreme status of chaste love between males, any positive statements about homosexual sex all come from the less wise characters, never from "Socrates" himself. On the contrary, the wise character is confronted with a society in which same-sex sexuality is prevalent, and wishes to find ways to discredit it with an aim to abolishing it altogether. If Plato's work has a lot of seemingly positive ancient characterizations of homosexuality, that is only because those positive characterizations were current in his world. They are the starting point from which Plato wishes to lead his followers and his society into exclusive heterosexuality in marriage.

The original definition of "Platonic Love" was not how it's commonly used today, love that isn't romantic or sexual. It was originally Plato's ideal of Love that was Romantic and maybe even Erotic to a certain extent but ultimately Chaste, no sex or at least no orgasm, and certainly no penetration.

In the Republic, the Laws, and his other works, Plato sought to devise a system of education that would promote what he considered to be the qualities of an ideal man: wisdom, justice, temperance, and courage. Sexuality was fundamentally dangerous and antithetical to his project, so he said, because it was characterized by mental frenzy as opposed to rationality (Republic 403) and because sexual acts failed to teach courage to one partner (the passive) and temperance to the other (the active) (Laws 836). The only justification for sexuality to exist at all was for procreation. Therefore, all sexuality outside of marriage should be forbidden by law (Laws 838-9). "If only that were possible!" he laments (Laws 835). Getting everyone to agree to this moral code would be difficult, but once it was established it would perpetuate itself, if only all people could somehow be prevented from ever contradicting or denying it (Laws 838). He offers various potential means for establishing the acceptance of such a moral code, including telling children at an impressionable age that non-marital sex is hated by God (Laws 838), that abstinence from sex represents a victory even more glorious than any athletic or military victory, and that failure to be abstinent is ugly and makes you lower than the animals (Laws 840). He also suggests requiring that people hide their sexual practice, so that the sight of some people enjoying sex would not become an enticement to others (Laws 841). Finally, one could simply enact a law forbidding all homosexual sex and all sex outside of marriage or concubinage (Laws 841).

Two books on the subject of Homophobia originating with Plato are Classical Origins of Modern Homophobia by Robert H. Allen and Plato or Paul?: The Origins of Western Homophobia by Theodore W., Jr. Jennings.

I shall copy the part of Laws in question here.



There is speculation that Plato's ideas on Sexual Morality and many other things came from Zoroastrianism. Manicheism drew even more on Zoroastrianism having developed in Persia (modern Iran) for much of it's history. Zoroastrianism is often called the first Monotheistic religion (by those who teach the deception that Judaism wasn't always Monotheistic) but it's really Dualisim. It's Satan figure and God figure are equal, unlike in the Abrahamic Faiths.

Another theory is Plato got it from the Pathagoreans. The strict reproductive sex only morality Laws sought to codify does seem consistent with the cosmology laid out by the title character in Timaeus who was a Pathagorean. Timaeus is also the main Platonic text that was drawn on by the Gnostics in forming their cosmology.

The primary work taken to label Plato as approving of Same-Sex love is Symposium. Symposium is one of his early works while Republic, Timaeus, Critias and Laws are much later works. Thus some have suggested that Plato's view of Homosexuality changed at some point, perhaps as a result of encountering Pathagorens in Italy, like Robert H. Allen.

But I also think Symposium is being a bit satirical, the drunk pretentious partiers wax poetical about male-male love (and it even includes in Aristophanes speech the only positive statement about female same-sex love from a male Greek writer) when it's an abstract. But at the end once someone starts actually trying to get laid it shows it's trues color (in Plato's eyes) as being embarrassing and demeaning.

Diodorus Sicilus was another Philosophically minded Ancient Greek who wrote against Homosexuality. In his History, 32.10.9.3.

Pagan Roman culture was very socially conservative, contrary to our popular modern stereotypes. And Ovid, an important Roman poet of the first century BC argued that Homosexuality was unnatural in his Metamorphosis 9.758. Also from Ovid, Ars Amatoria 2.683–684; Pollini, "Warren Cup," p. 36.

All the accusations of homosexual activity leveled against the "Decadent" Emperors come down to us from Senatorial class sources that wanted to make those Emperors look bad. Suetonius was essentially an Ancient Tabloid reporter. Juvenal's second Satire also links Homosexuality to what he saw as wrong with the Rome of his day.

There are websites out there attempting to say Epicureanism was "Hedonistic" this is never based on any actual quote of Epicurus about sexuality. They are unaware of quotes like "Sexual intercourse never did anyone any good and it is fortunate if it does no harm." Lucretius was an Epicurean who was a major influence on Rome. The Epicureans were the chief promoting the ancient equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. They were naturalists and materialists, and the NT allusions to them practically treat them as the Greek equivalents to the Sadducees.

What does Fornication actually mean?

The word "fornication" was first recorded in Middle English around 1303. It comes from the Latin word "fornix," which literally means "a vault" or "an arch." So what does a vault or an arch have to do with committing fornication? At that particular time in Rome, prostitutes solicited customers in archways. It was like a red light district is today.

Of course, The Bible was not originally written in Latin; it was originally written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The first hand-written English language Bible was produced in the 1380's by John Wycliffe. Then came the Gutenberg Bible, the Oxford Bible, Luther's German Bible, the Tyndale New Testament, the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew-Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible, which was originally published in 1611. Since the word fornication was first used in the early 1300's and continued to be used in the King James Version of the Bible, which is still being used today, it seems logical that these translators spanning over 200 years must have believed that the word fornication had something to do with prostitution; otherwise, they surely would have used a different word.

The Strongs concordance has some problems from being influenced by modern assumptions and indeed what the Strongs Concordance says about "Porneia" Strong# 4202 (the word translated Fornication in the New Testament) is completely wrong and not based on any study of Greek etymology at all.

In Matthew 19:9 The sin of Porneia is the only valid excuse he allows for Divorce, it can't possibly mean simply extramarital sex here. He was asked to intervene in an internal debate between the Pharisees about divorce, but he shocked them all by being more strict then any sect of the Pharisees expected. All the Pharisees agreed that Adultery was a valid reason for divorce. The Shammai camp believed that adultery was the only valid reason, while Hillel allowed many others. Jesus was usually inline with Hillel's way of thinking but here he made an exception, he was shockingly to the right of even Shammai.

Some people think it means here Pre-Martial sex, or finding out the bride wasn't a virgin. But Jesus was all about forgiveness and not holding things against people, he would never condemn a bride for a pre-existing condition, that'd be even worse then allowing it for adultery.

Prostitution is the sin Gomer the wife of Hosea was guilty of and for which he divorced her. The only time in The Bible a divorce happens because God instructs it. But in the long run God prefers forgiveness even for this offense. The story is ultimately an analogy to Israel's spiritual Adultery and Prostiution with other gods.

People often tie this into Deuteronomy 24:1, especially if they want to say Jesus wasn't really doing away with The Law but clarifying it. But it was in chapter 22 that Deuteronomy dealt with if a husband accuses his bride of not being a virgin.

Defilement in Deuteronomy could refer to anything in Leviticus 18, as well a prostitution. Jesus made it clear his teaching on divorce was about how it was only to appease man it was allowed under The Law of Moses at all.

That Gomer's sin is what Jesus meant is the most Biblically sound and logical conclusion from using Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Porneia derives from pernaō, which means "to sell off". Putting that meaning in a sexual context clearly means Prostitution. Another related word used in The Bible is
Pornos (por'-nos);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 4205

a man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire
a male prostitute
Which is 5 times translated "Fornicator" but 5 other times "Whoremonger" which typically means one who visits prostitutes. King James English simply didn't know how to communicate the idea of a male Prostitute, Gigolo wasn't coined yet.

Also
Porne (por'-nay);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 4204

a woman who sells her body for sexual uses
a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain
an idolatress
of "Babylon", the chief seat of idolatry
8 times translated Harlot and 4 times Whore in the KJV.

So as you can see, it's about Prostitution, not simply any and all sexual activity one doesn't like.

1 Corinthians 6:13 and up when talking about Fortification explicitly defines it "shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."

Revelation 17 also used Fornication to describe the allegorical Prostitution of the Whore of Babylon.

Now sometimes words affiliated with prostitution are casually used more loosely to express disapproved of sexual behavior. A Biblical passage where that might be how it's being used is in Jude when discussing Sodom and the Pre-Flood world. But again premarital sex isn't the issue there, Human-Angel interbreeding is the main concern. But it certainly is possible prostitution was going on too. Actually Ezekiel 16 when talking about Sodom clearly mentions prostitution.

John 8:41 is one of the few where they're obviously using it loosely, but it's the villains of the narrative using it there, believers are supposed to understand everything they say to be wrong on every level.

Now I've seen some argue that New Testament usage of certain Greek words should be understood by how the Septuagint (The Hellenistic era Greek translation of the Old Testament) used them. Well to begin with the Septuagint is very flawed, and I feel the assumption that early Christian, and specifically NT authors where always following it is also flawed. Our main existing Septuagint manuscripts come from Christian copyists, so we should be careful what we assume about places where the LXX and the New Testament seem to match.

Now, I can't easily check how the Septuagint used Pornea. But I do know that all 5 occasions where the KJV of the OT used "Fornication", it's one of 2 Hebrew Words. Zanah (Strong# 2181) or Taznuwth (Strong# 8457). Both words that the majority of the times the KJV translated something like Whoredom, "go a whoring", Whore, Harlot, Whorish, and so on.

So again, there is no Biblical basis for the word meaning anything more then Prostitution.

1 Corinthians 5 verse 1 is a passage that one might consider the Achilles heel of arguing the word only means prostitution. "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife." Paul uses the word, but then specifies he's talking about a type of Incest.

First of all this is still a specific Sin specifically addressed in Leviticus 18. So it is still hardly enough to argue that the word means "everything" the way "Fornication" has come to mean to modern pharsiees.

Even if it did mean "sexual immorality" (as many modern Bible translate it) we'd still have to use the greater testimony of Scripture to determine what is sexually immoral. I have a separate study on that, and with the help of the Song of Solomon I refute the notion that all none reproductive sex is a sin. And argue that it's mostly reproductive sex God wanted to restrict, though Prostitution and Pagan sex acts have other reasons for being deemed a sin.

Secondly, we don't know the full details of this situation.

Since we're still in the first generation of Christianity, all Paul's readers were likely not born into the faith, so this individual's father's wife, may likely have been an unbeliever. Which leads back to the fact that Prostitution in the Bible is often used symbolically of Idolatry. That's what the "Strange Woman" discussed repeatedly in Proverbs is really, about, all the words translated "Strange" there mean Pagan or Heathen (foreign in a spiritual sense).

So I'd argue the only way in which The Bible would approve of loosening the definition of Prostitution is in the context of Believers getting involved with Unbelievers.

And at any-rate, as I discus elsewhere, ritual Prostitution was known to be going on in Corinth. Some scholars have seen an allusion to that here, but that's speculative.

Those verses where it might seem to casually be used more loosely are not passages that define sexual sin, they're simply stating that "Porneia" is/was going on somewhere. So just because you can cite a verse as seeming to mean more then just "Paying money for sex" doesn't mean you can then just jump to saying it means "Everything but sex between a husband and wife". Even today our using words like "whore" loosely does not change that when someone specifically says they disapprove of prostitution they clearly mean paying money for sex.

Originally Fornication was a perfectly accurate translation of the meaning of this word. Man has simply abused it since 1611.