My findings on the word Sodomite and Arsenokoites.

I’m really keen on using the very Book that is used against us to diffuse the clobber passages and this is a short version of 2 findings. I know we have a reference section but felt to post this here for feedback and instant access and viewing. Let me know what you think. 😉

Sodomite:

The Hebrew definition of the word sodomite is this: Strongs: From H6942; a (quasi) sacred person, that is, (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry: – sodomite, unclean.

Deu_23:17 There shall beH1961 noH3808 whoreH6948 of the daughtersH4480 H1323 of Israel,H3478 norH3808 a sodomiteH6945 of the sonsH4480 H1121 of Israel.H3478

Now the word its taken from H6942 says: A primitive root; to be (causatively make, pronounce or observe as) clean (ceremonially or morally): – appoint, bid, consecrate, dedicate, defile, hallow, (be, keep) holy (-er, place), keep, prepare, proclaim, purify, sanctify (-ied one, self), X wholly.

Now this would’ve been Pauls understanding of the word Sodomite, a Temple Prostitute…….It certainly doesn’t imply a Homosexual Orientation. The fact that they call a Temple Prostitute a Sodomite should make you think, to what level did Sodom practice this for it to be used as a word to describe someone such. Interesting thought. As we know the sin of Sodom is found in Ezekiel.

Lets look at Arsenokoites, as you will see it is a word made of two words with one being a joining word, it is not a whole word:

From G730 and G2845; a sodomite: – abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.

So even strongs seperates it into two greek words: g730: Probably from G142; male (as stronger for lifting): – male, man.

And

G2845: From G2749; a couch; by extension cohabitation; by implication the male sperm: – bed, chambering, X conceive.

G2749: Middle voice of a primary verb; to lie outstretched (literally or figuratively): – be (appointed, laid up, made, set), lay, lie. Compare G5087.

G5087: A prolonged form of a primary word ???? theo? (which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses); to place (in the widest application, literally and figuratively; properly in a passive or horizontal posture, and thus different from G2476, which properly denotes an upright and active position, while G2749 is properly reflexive and utterly prostrate): – + advise, appoint, bow, commit, conceive, give, X kneel down, lay (aside, down, up), make, ordain, purpose, put, set (forth), settle, sink down.

Did you get all that LOL :p

So if we are to go by Pauls understanding, he was explaining a male temple prostitute in Greek from his understanding in Hebrew the best way he could, no wonder they’ve never been able to find this actual word by defination.

The kjv is the closest to a proper translation:

1Co 6:9 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,

1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Notice how it says “abusers” well to me abuse is abuse not cohabitational sex out of relationship, it could also be humans abusing themselves with humans, I looked up mankind and it refers to humans but the word Arsenokoites is used so we know it couldn’t be that. Very few translations translate this as male prostitute although looking at it it could even mean promiscuous male sex.

1Ti 1:10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, (nkjv)

Again we see Sodomite to describe Arsenokoites.

So there it is. Romans is the only one that doesn’t use the word Arsenokoites only Arsen and Arrhen, one being giver the other receiver as per strongs. If you read Romans 1 leading up to this, the theme is Idolatry, so what would that lead you to think? Temple Prostitutes both men and women mentioned here, Paul gives a full description in Romans so why would he need to use the word Arsenokoites like in Corinthians or Timothy.

There you go, food for thought. 🙂 This is the reason I prefer the kjv,nkjv with a good interlinear and strongs.

Hi magsdee

It’s interesting too that ‘temple prostitutes’ were regarded as sacred priests and priestesses in other religions, or “quasi sacred” as your strongs reference says. Quite the opposite of how the patriarchy wanted to see things. Those so-called idolaters were worshipping in a different way and I’m not so sure it was as wrong as others have made out. That may be contraversial to some and I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers… However for those of us who are interested, I think it’s a worthwhile pursuit to look at the original meanings and contexts with open eyes and as little bias as possible.

Anyway, keep up the good work, magsdee. 🙂

Blessings,

Ann Maree

oh btw thanks i do my best with study 😉

It seems to me to be really important to see how the scriptures themselves define a Sodomite. As you say Ez 16:49-50 says “And these were the sins of your sister Sodom:..arrogant, overfed, unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy and did detestable things”. “Detestable things” is towebah in Heb. When one passage of scripture describes one event and another passage explains that event, that biblical interpretation superceeds all others. This is a classic case of this. Deut 29:17f says that idolatry was detestable (towebah) and v23-25 says how the people of Sodom practiced idolatry. So when Ez 16 said they did detestable things, Deut explains that it was idolatry that was being referred to, and NOT homosexuality. So Ez 16:49-50 defines what it means to be a Sodomite. Homosexuality is not mentioned. There would be many heterosexuals today who could be described as Sodomites using that scriptural definition.

BTW Gen 19:says “all the men” and “where are the men…” Both words for “men” there are enowsh, and have been translated dozens of times as “people”. eg Ex 10:7 “Let the people go” – same word. Why MUST we translate it as “men” in Gen 19:4-5? “People” is fine. What do the scriptures say were the sexual sins of Sodom? Of the 47 times Sodom is mentioned, only one says their sins were sexual – Jude 7. In NIV, 2 greek words are used “sarkos heteras” to translate it as “perverts”. Sarkos means “flesh” and we get our word “heterosexual” from “heteras”. The Scriptures clearly say the sexual sins of Sodom were heterosexual, NOT homosexual.

2 Peter 2:6-7 & 3:17 in NIV says Lot was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless MEN. That word “men” doesn’t even exist in Gk. It is just “athesmos” which just means the “wicked”. Sorry, but the translators lied. Why?

Isaiah 1 also lists the sins of Sodom. Homosexuality is not even mentioned but in v17 it says “Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the cause of the widow”. If “ALL the men” of Sodom in Gen 19 were gay, where did the fatherless and widows appear from? There wouldn’t have been any.

The decision to destroy Sodom was made in Gen 18. The alleged homosexual incident didn’t happen until after that in Gen 19. I am a father with a daughter and the thought of sending her out to be pack raped by a mob of homosexuals horrifies me. Does the morality of that bother you at all? If all the men of Sodom were gay, why did Lot offer them his daughters? If they were gay, they wouldn’t have been the slightest bit interested in Lot’s daughters. It just doesn’t make sense.

Jesus spoke of Sodom and never mentioned homosexuality. Strange? OK, so why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Deut 29 asks that very question and v 25 says “And the answer will be…” because they broke the covenant and committed idolatry. It wasn’t because of homosexuality. BTW Deut 29:23 says “It will be LIKE Sodom and Gomorrah” That word “like” doesn’t even exist in Hebrew. He IS talking about Sodom and Gomorrah. Sorry, the translators lied again.

The onus of proof is on the asserter. If anyone says God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality, the onus of proof is on them to prove that. Sodom is mentioned in scripture 47 times. It shouldn’t be too difficult. HINT There isn’t a single verse in scripture that says Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality or that it even occurred there.

Arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. The word for homosexuality in NT times was “arrenomanes” and that doesn’t appear in the Bible anywhere. “Arsenokoitai” was a new word that Paul invented and it only appears in those two verses. It was never known prior to this. If Paul wanted us to translate it as homosexuality, why didn’t he just use arrenomanes? Even the translators of the NIV couldn’t make up their minds what it meant. In 1 Cor 6:9 it is translated as “homosexual offenders” and in 1 Tim 1:10 they translated it as “perverts”. Now those are two vastly different things. I am prepared to accept a translation of “male prostitutes,” but not homosexuals.

This is IMP. I have heard it preached at least a dozen times that we get the word “arsenic” from “arsen” in “arsenokoitai” and that is a clear indication of the poisonous influence of gays on our society. “arsen” in Greek means “”male” and has absolutely nothing to do with “arsenic”. The Oxford Dictionary says “arsenic” comes from the Arabic “al zarnik”. They lied just to whip up as much homophobia as they could. THAT is sin. On the Gay Christian Network website, CEO Justin Lee has a good youtube video on arsenokoitai. http://www.youtube.com/GayChristianNetwork

1 Cor 6:9 also mentions fornication and adultery. A recent pastors conference estimated over 90% of people married in our churches have had sex before marriage and are practicing fornicators. How come churches focus on 5% (est) who are gay and ignore the 90% who are fornicators?

Jesus said people who were divorced and remarried are practicing adulterers. Yet we have compassion on them and they are usually treated the same as anyone else, and I agree with that. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if they has compassion on gays about whom the Lord said nothing.? (Tony Campolo).

Rom 1. IN CONTEXT, Paul spoke about those who have known the Lord and committed idolatry, then says “therefore v24” “BECAUSE OF THIS v 26” In context, ALL of that must be true before it can refer to homosexuals. Then Paul speaks about those who had a heterosexual orientation at some point, abandoned THAT to practice homosexuality. Note: Nothing about homosexual orientation. How can Paul or anyone accuse someone of abandoning something they have never had?

Note: Paul said nothing about those who were born homosexual and abandoned that to TRY to practice heterosexuality. Two things in scripture are against nature in scripture. Firstly that just described IN CONTEXT in Rom 1. Secondly “men with long hair” in 1 Cor 11:14. The Greek is the same in both places. Let us be consistent in the way we treat people.

The WHOLE POINT of Rom 1 is Rom 2:1 “You therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else”. I can’t remember hearing that mentioned in church.

Trust this helps.

Davidt (Former Baptist Pastor – now retired)

Cool David T, it is always interesting to me the different translations of the bible, i prefer the kjv and nkjv, its always been the closest in translation with a few hiccups as we know LOL some thoughts on sodom are almost silly i know. the daughters being offered by Lot is very disturbing, theres a few things in the old testament i find disturbing and am so glad for jesus and the new covenant 🙂

The understanding of sodomite in Pauls mind wouldve been temple prostitute connected to idolatry, no wonder he joined words together to describe it in a way the greeks wouldve clicked as to what he meant……….hmmm i guess sodomite being used to describe qadesh seems like an encompassing word, to encapsulate the picture of a temple prostitute and idolatry etcc in one go……..hebrew is quite the picture language and myself speaking a picture language know there are some things that would take half a page to describe so it gets encapsulated into one word……….either way at least we know the main thing, sodomite and arsenokoites does not mean homosexuality or a homosexual orientation 🙂 🙂 and the very tools the church uses to try and prove it, actually disproves it.