In another post from long ago, Truthlover stated the following:
Rrhain focused on "that which is unseemly," which is all one word in Greek. He said it is a clear reference to male prostitution, but he gave no example where the word is ever used in such a context. He also insisted that the context here refers to temple activity.
It seems clear enough to me that even if the context referred to temple activity, which there is no indication of, the points cannot be missed. Women and men both turn "the natural use" into what is "against nature," according to Paul. In both cases it is "that which is unseemly."
2. "that which is unseemly"
Contrary to what Rrhain said, "that which is unseemly" has nothing to do with prostitution, whether male, female, or otherwise. It means "that which is unseemly," which is why they tranlated it that way. It is used twice in the NT. The other time is Revelation 16:15, which reads:
Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watches and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame....there is also aschemosune. It means unseemly or indecent, not male prostitution. It is from askemon, which means indecent, unseemly, or deformed. In fact, the only difference between the two words is one is an adjective and the other a noun. Askemon is used once in the NT, in 1 Cor 12:23, which reads, "Those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor, and our uncomely (askemon) parts have more abundanct comeliness." Even here, comeliness is euschemosune, which is probably (according to Strong's) the opposite of aschemosune (the a- meaning "not") and it means "charm or elegance of figure; external beauty." In other words, aschemosune means that which is not charming, elegant, or beautiful. In other words, "unseemly."
3. 1 Cor 6:9 The passage here is simple. Paul says certain people won't inherit the kingdom of God. The question is what he meant by the word "arsenokoites." The word consists of "arseno," which means male, and "koites," which mean coitus. I think the meaning there is obvious. Paul does mention a second type of person, obviously similar to the one just mentioned, because he lists them one after another. The word he uses there is "malakos." It mainly means "soft to the touch," but it was used of homosexuals, boys raised for the use of men, and male prostitutes. Rrhain made a point of saying that definition 2d (ignoring 1, 2a, 2b, and 2c) was definitely Paul's meaning, but "malakos" wasn't even the word under discussion. Even if "malakos" was a reference here to a male prostitute, it would then prove arsenokoites was not, because that would make Paul redundant (which he was prone to being, but not to making a list that includes the same thing twice). Out of context, in a list like it is, it is always more appropriate to take the general sense of a word, not a specific sense (especially the 4th one listed), so even malakos is a prohibition by Paul against homosexuality. The translators rightly distinguish between the two words by using the "soft" sense of one and the "coitus" sense of the other and translating "effeminate" and "homosexual." 4. Rrhain's assertion that ancients didn't classify people into homosexual and heterosexual.
I will say that even as a Christian, I am not inclined to see homosexual passion as a sin. Homosexual actions, however, are un necessary. I am not your judge, nor are you my judge, but it is my belief that God wants us to focus on loving Him instead of defending our right to lust after each other. Why can't the Creator of the Universe be our primary love?
808 aschemosune
from 809; n f
AV - that which is unseemly 1, shame 1; 2
1) unseemliness, an unseemly deed
1a) of a woman's genitals
1b) of one's nakedness, shame
As we can see "aschemosune" is derived from "askemon" (Strong's No. 809), which Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 12.
1 Corinthians 12:23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely (809) parts have more abundant comeliness.
809 askemon
from 1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of 2192
(in the sense of its congener 4976);; adj
AV - uncomely 1; 1
1) deformed
2) indecent, unseemly
In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul is figuratively describing the idea of body parts that are more indecent. He uses the related word "askemon" from which "aschemosune" is derived. Revelation uses "aschemosune" to figuratively refer to shame of nakedness. And so, in Romans 1:25, when Paul refers to men turn away from the natural use for women and instead lust after each other and work that which is "aschemosune," men with men, we can see that Paul is eloquently pouring into this phrase the ideas of shamefulness, nakedness, and the private parts of the body.
There is no doubt that Paul is referring back to Leviticus 18 and 20, which compare one man lying with another man with a man lying with his father's wife or with his son's wife. Sexual activity between men is in view here.
Furthermore, Paul's inclusion of the phrase "their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" indicates that he includes lesbianism among these unacceptable sexual practices and considers it equivalent with male homosexuality, which he lists side by side with it. Having demonstrated from the vocabulary and phrasing that Paul is indeed talking about sexual activity between two men in verse 27, we know that Paul is also talking about sexual activity between two women in verse 26, because verse 27 begins with the word "likewise." The Greek word for "likewise" is "homoios" (Strong's No. 3668), which means "likewise, equally, in the same way." Because of Paul's use of this word we know that verse 26 describes sexual behavior just as verse 27 does, only verse 26 focuses on women and verse 27 focuses on men. Therefore, Paul's statements in the New Testament also condemn lesbianism, not just male homosexuality.
In closing, we can see that there is nothing but uniformity and perfect consistency between the Old and New Testament regarding the condemnation of any man who engages in sexual acts with another man. The fact that no mention of "love" or "circumstance" or "how the two men feel about each other" can be found anywhere in the texts indicates that no consideration or exception was granted on such grounds. The only thing that mattered was if sexual action took place and if it did, then the two men were guilty regardless of circumstances.
[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-22-2004]
™ Version 4.2
