August 14, 2010

The Effeminate and The Abusers of Themselves With Mankind


This post was solicited because I was told I was "not being very understanding of the plight of people that were not like me" and that I was a "narrow-minded anti-intellectual hatemonger" or some other expletives I can't remember. I must clarify, I am a Christian that views sexual immorality of any form as a sin. I can't stand the sin, but the sinner I can love. I hate my own sin the most because I am most acutely aware of it as opposed to other people's sin. I am a person that will maintain an open dialogue with anyone regardless of their opinion or orientation but it doesn't mean I accept their behaviors. Having said this, if this makes me a intolerant "hatemonger" or ignorant backwoods bible thumping be it. Anyone with an iota of sense can read back through my last 250 posts and see that they can safely remove the hatemonger, intolerant and ignorant adjectives from the repertoire of descriptions for me. They would be a misuse of the adjectives and only be applicable from the point of view of that person that is in conflict with my worldview. This would constitute a specialized usage of the word. In postmodernism it is called a deconstruction of the word meaning. Hence it would be used improperly for personally biased reasons. Conversely, I kind of like the backwoods and bible-thumping descriptions as I view them as badges of honor to my upbringing.

Thesis & Main Crux of My Post

The fact that ANY type of sexuality is openly being discussed in public media outlets and the market square is reprehensible and a sad state of affairs in our country. I cannot even watch the news without sexual immorality of all forms showing up in the evening broadcasts, the worst of which is the passe treatment of adultery (Tiger ring any bells?). It has forced me to get the news from Internet sources so I do not expose my children to this virulent garbage on literally a daily basis. It shows how far our country has fallen in terms of morality. When I see people flaunt their sexuality in public I take great pains to walk wide circles around them for the benefit of my family and myself, as I am not immune to sins reach. There was a time not long ago that the mention of just the word "sex" was reprehensible in public. It has now become blase because more graphic terms have replaced it. In particular Prop 8 and the demand for homosexual marriage has once again been plastered all over the media. Being so, it is the main focus of the sexual immorality aspect of this post along with adultery and fornicators in general as these are all sexual sins.

It is clear the secular and godless world has missed the boat on this one. What is sad is that much of the church may have missed the boat too. We have been tolerant of sexually suggestive wardrobes, immoral or amoral media, adulterous heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships when they are all sins equally denounced by God. We tend to often turn a blind eye to immoral heterosexual interactions and are dragging out the rhetoric and verbosity when we see an infraction by homosexuals. Many churches then set themselves in a real unhealthy position of hypocrisy and project a double standard to the world when they are found guilty of other sins common to man. We must denounce ALL sin equally, not just certain sins unequally because we find certain sins more objectionable than others. God views all sin as objectionable. They are an affront to His holiness. How God views them is how we should view them if we too expect to have a wholesome relationship with Him which requires our holiness also.

As for the homosexual relationships, I am in no way condoning them. The Bible is abundantly clear on this issue as I have outlined in a series of posts named Cultural Crossroads I to XXX which is my college thesis and starts at the link provided in italics. There are numerous other Biblical citations I can make but the one I need to cite specifically comes from the Apostle Paul and the nuances within it are explicit and distinct from other citations of immoral sexual behavior between two people of the same gender. I have also chosen the following passage because it doesn't just single out homosexuals but also everyone that has ever cheated on a spouse or habitual alcoholics, habitual thieves, etc. You cannot say God singles out certain sins, he judges them all.

I have taken the King James Version of this because I wanted the closest literal English translation from the Greek and the most common.

"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. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. ~1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)

Please Note: In this passage fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, swindlers are all grouped together because they are all equally viewed the sinners that will not inherit the Kingdom...unless they seek repentance.

Along with the other sins mentioned in the previous passage, homosexuality(Effeminate; Abusers of themselves with mankind) was widespread in the time of the Old and New Testaments (yes, I imagine Jesus ran into a few since he had come to save sinners, not those already saved). Many of the fertility cults allowed for not only male-female temple prostitutes but also male-male and man-animal and every other combination imaginable or unimaginable. They also allowed for non-sexual cult rituals that were more atrocious than the sexual practices (if that's possible) such as human sacrifices that included children (Molech through the fertility goddess Ashteroth). As is the case today it was not unusual to see a homosexual convert to Christianity. We need only read the passage above again to understand this and understand the context Paul wrote it in. He wrote this list of sins to the Gentile world in Corinth. A list of sins that would've been prevalent in a people coming from that culture to become part of the Church.

"Such were some of you"

These words imply something. They imply that these people that converted and became part of the church Paul was writing to at Corinth had previously been one of the types of sinners previously listed. A thief, an adulterer, an effeminate...and some of them probably still were (hence the need to write the letter, duh). What else can we learn from this passage. The word "were", past tense. It was expected that if you had come into the church as the sinner committing the sins listed you were to change and not be committing those sins now because you had been washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. It also needs to be understood that these people were allowed into the church in their previous sinful conditions with the expectations that they would change and become sanctified (more holy) by stopping these sins or at least fighting them, not openly accepting them or openly flaunting them.

The sexual sin words and in particular the homosexual references are very interesting from a Greek word study point of view, fornication, adultery, and two word/phrases distinctly referring to homosexuality: effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind are mentioned side-by-side or adjacent one another and this is not an accident as they were viewed as closely related or even connected. In Greek the following words, their translation and meaningful tidbits...

The word "fornicator" [Strong's G4205: pornos] man who prostitutes his body to another. The word "adulterer" is where this verse gets real interesting [Strong's G3432: moichos] meaning a (male) porno/paramour; figuratively, apostate. The implication being that this entire passage (v6-11) is leaning towards a male audience or intent. Also by implication, any of the things on this list are considered apostasy or falling away from the faith. In other words they are not getting closer to God performing these sins (adultery, homosexuality, stealing), they are getting farther away from Him. If you did not check this baggage at the door when you came into the faith, never actually came into the faith?

It must be noted here that the next two words are then used in isolation from pornos earlier by the word idolator. Paul then reverts back to another pair of sexual references that should be see as being together not just grammatically but also in real life.

The word "effeminate" [Strong's G3120: μαλακοὶ/malakoi] is an adjective but is referring to males as it is a nominative masculine case ending. As such it would mean (in its 1st century context) a catamite-effeminate (this is often missed by liberal interpretors of this passage) Masculine soft-ones. So what is a catamite? A catamite is the younger, passive partner in a relationship between a man and a boy. Usage of this word includes the effeminate passive partner in a homosexual relationship.

The words "abusers of themselves with mankind" [Strong's G733: ἀρσενοκοῖται / arsenokoitai] this is rare and is only used once in the Bible. It is also a nominative masculine noun. It means one who lies with a male as with a female (in a bed). Even if the grammatical default for Greek is male, Paul made no disambiguation here so it had to have been intentional. Male (malakoi) to male (arsenokoitai). As a masculine noun, this passage has referred to the arsenokoites as nominative 1st person plural that is a man and he is associated with "soft ones". This is a clear allusion to homosexuality and even bisexuality.

According to Gordon Fee the effeminate partner more than likely refers to young men who sold themselves to old men as "mistresses". It also probably refers to young cult prostitutes who took a passive role on pagan alters (Fee). This type of practice was so rampant that Nero (the emperor) was known to have castrated a boy named Sporus. Nero then married him and lived with him as his wife in his palace. To castrate a male is to effectively arrest puberty by removing the testicles. Thereby the young boy maintains his androgynous or effeminate attributes staying a catamite perpetually.

You can see from 1 Corinthians 6 that Paul understood that homosexuals of Corinth had come into the church. He understood their former practices which he denounced on the basis that they were sins that were not compatible with a Christians new life and worldview. He also knew that there was a passive effeminate male and an active masculine male in a homosexual relationship. He probably knew a lot more than he wrote down too. What he did write down in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 he denounced. There is no equivocation in this passage regardless of what modern "experts" have intented by misinterpretation.

To me it is disconcerting to even have to go into this type of explicit detail to get my point across but that is the type of world we now live in. I could've just as easily written this post and used Leviticus 18 to make my points along with Leviticus 18's multiple statements of abomination, sodomites and of wickedness. I chose not to. Although the words in Leviticus are true as is all of the Bible (The Inerrancy of Scripture), those are the passages that immediately erect a brick wall and cease dialogue between the two sides of this often volatile issue. Its no different than if I were a doctor and I walked into my office and told you, "You have cancer, you're chances of survival are zero". Is it telling the truth? Yes. Is it a proper way to do it? NO! Where's the compassion for people? The mind of Christ? Rhetorical bludgeoning of people with their sin can be daunting for people, especially if they have a lot of it in their life and have become conditioned to it. In my case, I was broken in stages of alcohol and drug addiction, anger, vanity, arrogance and egocentricity. Had I been broken completely and all at once it would've literally killed me. In the case of some of these sins, it is an ongoing battle (ego).

Rhetorical bludgeoning is ineffective and I will leave that to God as it is in His perfect judgment if it would be necessary. If I cannot explain to sinners the sin that they are committing and why they will be condemned because of them, what good is being that aggressive and divisive to begin with? It's just plain foolishenss. I'll leave that to Fred Phelps and the Westboro members whom I seriously doubt are in good standing themselves. Why would I attempt to be more divisive than I need to be when the 1 Corinthians 6 passage so clearly elucidates the fact that Paul and the early Christians did indeed understand the homosexual community. Having understood it, the people in the church still accepted homosexuals and other people committing sexual immorality into the church but denounced it and expected a change to non-sinful behavior once a person converted or chances are they had not really converted. To forgive a sinful behavior and expect a change due to a repentant heart is proper, to forgive and not expect that change is appeasement. At that point you stop being a sister or brother and become an enabler to sin...and that my friends is a sin also. Either way, you're playing a game you can't win.


To conclude I must stay this. There are many today (mostly postmodernists) that claim the Bible is a mystery and we can't really know for sure what the original writers like Paul meant when penning there books and letters. The intent is lost to history. This conjecture is nonsense and frankly...intellectually and academically lazy. Any contextual research into the culture surrounding Corinth and an understanding of some basic Greek can certainly understand the passage I have just broke down for the readers of this post. The authorial intent of 1 Corinthians 6 is clearly referring to the sexually immoral as unrighteousness [Strong's G94 ἄδικος-adikosas] wicked, sinful... it is stated directly in the text. How can anyone say this passage is not understandable? Even a hammerhead like me can translate it in its original context.

Fee, Gordon. 1 Corinthians (New International Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987. Print.


Anonymous said...

Thank you for writing this article. It really helped me to understand more strongly what I have always believed. I do believe that the bible says that sodomy is wrong. I have hermeneutically attempted to break down this scripture (1 Corinthians 6:9) but you have done a far better job. Good job and God bless!

Andy Pierson said...

If anything I write helps take the truth of the Word of God to the world I feel it was good to have written it.

You will find other sites on the web attempt to defend this passage as pro-homosexual (or at least not anti-homosexual) by dumbing down or deconstucting the meanings of the specific words and grammer like "malakos" and the us of the masculine case ending "-os". They take the word Paul uses and try to use it outside of the "norms of langauge" of 1st century Hellenized Jewish culture...and that is a hermeneutical no-no. They try to add meanings to the words that were not really intended in a lexical manner at the time they were written by claiming we have no way of knowing for sure which is just not true, its called postmodernism and more specifically it is considered: Radical Historicism. People with an agenda bend rules and meanings to suit their ends. We must always be discernful. Blessings, Andy :P

amanoffaith said...

I totally agree with what you wrote, and thank you. However, I am looking for an answer to what does "abusers of themselves with mankind" really mean? Is it homosexuality or something like master-----n? I hate even writing about this because I want to be sure to please our lovely Lord and Precious Savior, Jesus. Thank you again and answer my question if you want email is. Thanks

StocksDoc said...

awesome! Andy . . thanks for being so bold in your proclamations. The True Word needs to get out as the secular world attacks the foundation of our beliefs and the churches grow more lukewarm in its teachings.
Keep up the great work !!

Anonymous said...

The latest version of the NIV translates the passage as "men who have sex with men".

Anonymous said...

Amen! God Bless You! That was very good. Keep letting God use you.

Anonymous said...

Amen! God Bless You! That was very good. Keep letting God use you.

Anonymous said...

I am not a Christian at all. However, even I am irritated by those Christians who try to ignore their own holy books. Nitpicking is not to my liking.
Though I may not agree with your views whatsoever, I thank you for writing this article. Now I can explain to a woman who tried to convertme that the Bible does in fact say gays won't go to heaven (she tried to pull that line on me).

Andy Pierson said...

To Anonymous,

I am glad you appreciate that this is a consistent argument. I will merely state one thing and I will understand if you believe me to be disingenuous (or weasel-esque) when I state this. There are things in the Bible that I have had a hard time digesting as a Christian. I do not always come to the text liking what I read. Perhaps this is because I too am a wretched and depraved sinner saved only by the grace of God through Christ. I too have struggled with parts of the Bible that I find hard to accept but if I wish to be consistent to my worldview and Christian philosophy I must accept what the Bible says and obey it. Why? Because if it is truly the revealed mind of God whom I believe to be perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and sovereign it would therefore logically follow that any text from him would be inerrant and would be able to reveal an absolute truth about salvational and spiritual, not a subjective truth that comes from men - which is what the Bible is always accused of being (i.e.: The Bible is just an ancient book written by dopey Bedouin sheep herders, etc).

This being said…I am presenting a biblical argument on sexual immorality (specifically homosexuality) or an argument based on time honored hermeneutics/interpretation. These methods have been around since the time of the Apostles and Jewish inter-testamental writings (Mishnah, etc) with few variations. I am merely applying these methods to the text and also trying to stay within the historical, cultural and psychological contexts of the writers of the passages I pulled from.

These are not my views per se, they are God’s views as I believe that the Christian Holy Bible in its original autographs were inerrant and direct revelation from God through the Holy Spirit. I am only attempting to stay true to the original Greek and Hebrews texts and obey what I believe is the truth of the revealed mind of God…and then subsequently obey what I believe is the correct understanding of the text. It is the reason I attended seminary and learned what amounts to two dead ancient languages so that I would not be subject to other’s interpretations of what the original manuscripts say. I would be able to read them for myself. I pray that you eventually are saved and come to and true understanding of Jesus Christ even if you currently don’t want to and do not wish that I pray this way for you. My belief tells me that I am to do this for you also.

Tad Higgins said...

Thank you for your plain and easy to understand explanation.

Tad Higgins said...

You have been very helpful thank you

Aaron Saltzer said...

This is a refutation for all who believe that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, including God. Is it not hurtful to call someone names, such as a bigot or homophobe, because they don't approve of homosexuality? Is it not hurtful for pastors to risk losing their jobs if they don't "marry" a homosexual couple, because it will never be a marriage, no matter how much they want to believe it? Anyone who wants to quote verses such as Matthew 22:39, need to practice what they preach. I'm all for people who want the same rights as anyone else, as long as it doesn't contradict with what The Bible says. And that does not make me hateful or biased. Nor does it make anyone who agrees with me.

Anonymous said...

I understand your revulsion of open sexuality on tv etc... I stopped watching tv years ago...and stick to old western reruns However, although I know this was not your intent, I do believe that Christianity dropped the ball on discussion and attack of sexual abuse of children and rampant male adultery which women were forced to suffer in silence with in the 60's and 70's. I believe this bred much of the sexual perversion we see today.
When I was young there was no where to go r help. Sex talk at church was a strict "no no" so I suffered in silence from abusers including my parents. Even when suicidal, I asked for help, I was told to keep my mouth shut. People don't like scandal. Of course now, the only safety I feel in relationships is with another woman. I backslid once out of loneliness and pain for four years. But the conviction in me was so strong I left the love of my Life for Christ, and plead with Him daily to strengthen me never to go back. I feel like Im walking on a tightrope. I want to pour my life out for Him more than ever.
I just wanted to comment that SOME things DO need to be openly discussed. I have never met a lesbian who was not raped, abused, whos father did not abandon them at an early age...Ive even known one whos mother tried to kill her...These people NEED CHRIST! They are lst, hopeless and know it but are too afraid of the looks they get to walk into church. I have brought two women to church to try to help them and the response was terrible!

Anonymous said...

While I am not a homosexual nor have ever been one, I believe that there is too much of a focus on it. Where is the outrage over idolatry. The love of money is the root of all evil. Yet that is where most of our time and energy goes toward worshipping Mammon. I wish Christians would divert some of their disgust with what 2 adults do in the privacy of their own homes to the fact that greed and the love of money consumes us and are destroying us.

Andy Pierson said...

While I would normally tend to agree with your statement, that sex needs to remain behind closed doors, I find myself disagreeing that there is too much Christian focus on it. I believe this is more an issue of cause-and-effect and the application of biblical principles. The drive to have homosexuality legally recognized within the institution of marriage for same-sex couples has brought homosexual sex front-and-center. The church oscillating or giving into this sin has made it the most current pressing issue in many denominations. Those with a forceful agenda to get anomalous sexuality (based on a statistical societal whole) accepted at the cultural/societal level have purposely brought their sexuality into the public spotlight for that very purpose. I personally prefer that all sexuality remain hidden from the public eye including hetero. Unfortunately, when sexual sin both hetero and homo presents itself forcefully in the public eye which it is currently doing, silence about it from those that oppose it on biblical grounds constitutes acceptance or approval of it. Not making decisions still makes a decision through ambivalence or apathy. As Christians we are to preach the Gospel and reveal to people the depth of their sin and the need to repent of it...which then directs them to the Gospel preached. For people to repent, they need to know the damage of their sin. If we don't show people that they are trapped in their sin and slaves to will they ever turn from it?

As for the other sins, I myself have routinely been just as hard on adulterous cheating spouses, people with money idolatry, spousal idolatry, positional/power idolatry. One needs only read other posts in my blog. It is all forms of apostasy or falling away from holiness and God. Thanks for you comment.

Anonymous said...

Andy, what would you say about certain translations that translate Leviticus 20:13 as "WHOEVER lies with a man.... as oppose to "if a MAN lies with a man......"?

Andy Pierson said...

The Hebrew in Lev 20:13 literally translates like this…
אִשָּׁ֔ה---And a man (masculine gender distinction, not mankind), אֲשֶׁ֨ר---if he is lying down (on bed), זָכָר---with males, מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י---as those, אִשָּׁ֔ה --- who lie with women.
I don’t know what version says whosoever/whoever but if one does it trivializes what the original languages are trying to drive home in their use of masculine gender distinction/clarification. It is doing the same thing gender neutral Bibles like the TNIV often do. Based on the translation above, whoever or whosoever becomes a moot point. It is not in the original Hebrew. The words “as those” has an antecedent and it is “a man/men”.

Gary said...

I'm the anonymous that asked. Feel free to call me Gary. If you get a chance, look at the Greek within the Septuigant. It translates lev 20:13 as WHOEVER lies with a man.

Andy Pierson said...

Hello Gary. Yes, the English translation from the Greek ὃς and ἂν is translated to "who". Not seeing anything odd about it though. The án is nothing more than a conditional particle expressing possibility, based on a preexisting condition (context). This adds an important theoretical (hypothetical) sense to a statement which narrows down the sense of that statement. In the case of Lev. 20:13 it is referring to men. What is even more peculiar is the gender distinctions in the passage are words used for men and woman in a sexual sense in Greek...just as they are in Hebrew. This has to do with those who would lay with other men...who did so like women do. Man to man sexuality.
Peace and grace.

Anonymous said...

Great......Jesus is Lord.....the truth sometimes offends......but it is still truth!

Anonymous said...

The scriptures are written as a guide and model for how we are directed to live and behave. According to the Holy Word, we must live a holy life because we worship and serve Our Heavenly Father Who is Holy and Righteous.

The bottom line is, homosexuality/bisexuality, pedophilia and other sexual encounters outside of marriage between a man and a woman are sexual perversions, sexual abominations and sexual sins according to the bible.

Please, do not deceive or, be deceived, as it relates to this issue. Live a Holy life that is righteous in the sight of Our Heavenly Father and Our LORD Jesus Christ.

Anonymous said...

Please, let me add that we in the above in reference to Believers and Followers of Jesus Christ, Our LORD and Saviour.


Anonymous said...

Psalm 9:17- The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

Bottom line, America has forgotten God. Woe, anguish, misery, torment, affliction,and death to America!!!

Mara Natha said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vernandamy Spencer said...

Hi Andy,
I found your article when I was looking for someone who thoughtfully and carefully excegetes this passage. Thank you for doing so. Can you or have you or can you link me to to someone who has done the same re: "fornicators" and "adulterers"?

I have been told by multiple sources that "fornication" encompasses all sexual perversion. From the plain reading of this passage, I would say this is not so, as the list here isn't strictly a list of sexual perversion, though "idolatry" often involved some form of it. Also, "fornicators" and "adulterers" are not even next to each other in the list. People insinuate that "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" are the same people because they both refer to homosexuals, while you show quite clearly that they are different participants in the same act.

I believe that the same is true for "fornicators" and "adulterers", based on the historical meaning of the two English words. My question is what light does the Greek vocabulary and grammar shed on this? Thank you.

TruAgape1234 said...

So in this post, I’ll only consider μαλακοὶ for now. Like you stated in your initial comment, the Greek is referenced to get the meaning of the original text. I think to deviate from that is to in essence change God’s word. For example, for the translators that have opted to add to the original Greek so as to redirect the focus to a specific gender when the original greek does not do that is to go beyond the things that are written. For translators that have inserted the word “MEN” into the Greek and as a result extract the word “effeminate” not only does that reduce the application of “soft” to a particular sex, which Paul doesn’t do, it creates an additional problem — an extra-biblical stigma against certain men, who may not even be homosexual, but just by nature have what others may deem as feminine traits: how they walk, or talk, or an interest in things most men may not be interested in. Furthermore to say that μαλακοὶ “soft” is a specific reference to a male homosexual is not borne out by
1. other places in scripture where μαλακοὶ is used. And in each of those instances the Greek does not incorporate the word men just as it doesn’t at 1 Cor 6:9 again not singling its application to only a specific gender. If the Bible is to be your guide, you will clearly see “effeminacy” is not what Jesus was communicating at Matthew 11:8 or at Luke 7:25. It’s clear that Jesus was not calling the clothing of royalty homosexual, effeminate or anything of the sort. Nor was he accusing them of dressing as “men who submit to homosexual acts” as the jw Bible’s translation would suggest. Even in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint LXX, in translating Prov. 26:22 uses μαλακοὶ without a specificity to men or a reference to effeminate. “The words of the cunning knaves are “‘soft’”. In all of these biblical (and Septuagint) references, ‘MEN’ does not appear in the Greek and “effeminate” would be a misrepresentation of the Greek. So if the Bible is going to be used as the guide for understanding it’s meaning then it has to be accepted that in no place in scripture is μαλακοὶ a) specifically in reference to men only b) in reference to effeminacy, and c) in places that you believe discuss homosexuality nor is it there either ( like Romans 1 by the same author — Paul). Can you agree with me in recognizing this?

TruAgape1234 said...

Part 1 of 2
Even from a linguistic perspective, “homosexual” isn’t even capable of being synonymous with arsenokoitai. Note the Greek from the LXX you posted:
Lev. 18:22 - meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gynaiakos
(with a man do not lie [as one] lies with a woman)
Lev. 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos
(whoever lies with a man [as one] lies with a woman)
In each of the two quotes, how many times do you see a male-referenced term? Once.

And for comparison, note the Hebrew:
Lev. 18:22 - V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vei ishah to'evah hu
(And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman)
Lev. 20:13 - V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam.
(And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them.)
How many times is there a male-reference here? Once in 18:22 and twice in 20:13.

So the actual Hebrew for Lev.20:13 uses two words, “man” and “male” to literally communicate a “man who lies with a male”. Where as the Greek doesn’t do this. Nor can it. When you look at the phrase “lies with a man” for Lev.20:13, “arseno” is the word for ‘man’, while “koit” communicates the ‘lies with.’ And the Greek adds the word “whoever”, not “man” like the original Hebrew does, as the one who lies with a man. The Septuagint’s rendering of Lev.20:13 represents more of a transliteration than a translation, and would highly suggest that the translators understood Leviticus 20:13 to be condemning anyone who (or as the Greek words it - “whoever”) lies with a male…….., be they male or female. These facts changes the dynamic of your premise all together. Because if even a literal translation of the Septuagint’s Lev. 20:13 doesn’t make reference to a “man lying with a man” using the terms “arseno” and “koit” when constructed within a sentence, then it most definitely doesn’t equate to a “man lying with a man” when the words that surround “arseno” and “koit” are removed. Which is the highly faulty claim, your position tries to make in regards to Paul’s use of the word “arsenokoitai” in 1 Cor. and 1 Tim.

TruAgape1234 said...

Part 2 of 2
But even history captures and documents quite well the fact that “arsenokoitai” does not and cannot mean “a man who lies with a man”. The most obvious is the use of “arsenokoitai” being profoundly absent within early Church writings and teachings that condemned homosexuality. You name me one Church Father that equated arsenokoitai with homosexuality. Also consider many of the earlier bible translations that actually used a male-referenced term within their own translations for arsenokoitai. Almost all of these use the male gender once i.e. Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.), Bishops Bible (1568), Reims-Douai (1609) all of these render arsenokoitai as: “liers with mankind”. The Tyndale (1525), Great Bible (1539), King James (1611), The Revised Version (1811), Darby (1890), American Standard Version (1901), and The Millenium Bible (1998) all have – “abusers of themselves with mankind”. Of the few bibles that do use a male term twice, such as the translation I have, its usually supported by a reference containing the dishonest, and manufactured term “sodomite” for validation. A lie within a lie. So when many commentaries claim that it’s “obvious” today that arsenokoitai means a “man who lies with a man” as some concordances would have you believe, it is clear from even the earlier translations within history that this was indeed not the case.

Add to this the fact that “arsen” is used in Rev. 12:13. Given the context, it’s clear that this is in reference to a male child. When you consider this fact in conjunction with the bible translations that use a form of the term “pedastry” or as the Jerusalem Bible -German (1968) puts it - “child molesters” for what Jerome in writing the Latin Vulgate termed “liers with males”, suddenly the pieces of scripture, history and outside references begin to come together in regards to “arsenokoitai” and its meanings. And since the word itself isn’t linguistically capable of denoting same-sex activity, Paul's application of it would be able to apply to anyone, male or female, who partook in the abuse of boys, (the minors being abused within the Greek culture of his time). Even Luther, interestingly enough, translated “arsenokoitai” as "Knabenschaender" which meant "child abusers. And that’s pretty ironic given his personal opinion on homosexuality.

TruAgape1234 said...

Martin Luther- the father of Protestantism.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...