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 (malakoi), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitē), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Timothy 1:9-10:
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitēs), for menstealers (slave traders), for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other things that is contrary to sound doctrine."
Arsenokoites (ἀρσενοκοίτης). Said to be a compound word made up by Paul taken from the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Leviticus 20:13: ἄῤῥην/ἄρσην [arrhēn/arsēn] and κοίτην [koitēn].
'Malakoi' is believed to be a passive homosexual while arsenokoites is believed to be the aggressive homosexual by so-named "Bible Conservatives." If one word goes with the other to emphasize both sides of a gay relationship, why is 'malakoi' left out of 1 Timothy? If arsenokoite is the catch-all word to mean all homosexuality, why is 'malakoi' used in 1 Corinthians? "Koites" was used centuries before Paul's usage and when used as a suffix in compounds it always indicated the penetrative aggressor, never the passive. That means it can not apply to both partners in a sexual act and cannot be a general term for all homosexual activity. No other writing puts arsenokoites next to malakoi as a word pair. Each is used independently of the other in all other instances.
What we see with Paul, as read by "conservative" exegetes, is the stereotypical "one has to be the female" supposition of a homosexual coupling by anti-gay proponents who believe all homosexual couplings must mimic the male penetrating the female paradigm of a heterosexual coupling. This bears no semblance to most current homosexual relationships. In other words, IF Paul had aggressive males with passive males in mind when writing 1 Corinthians, it can only be applied to Paul's Roman contemporaries who were free men past a certain age in Roman society who strictly played the role of aggressive male (penetrator) with those beneath him in Roman societal standing.
Also, If Paul meant to convey a condemnation of all homosexuality to the audience who was at the time reading his 1 Corinthian and 1 Timothy letters, they would have not gotten that meaning from what he wrote in those passages. The only homosexuality they knew was one of exploitation, pederasty, or injustice. The people reading Paul would have understood the word in those contexts. Paul indeed had access to words to convey a passive and aggressive homosexual (Greek slang; kinaidhos/kolombaras) or even a word for a lesbian (tribas) that is completely absent in any word form with what was popular and understood words of his day with homosexuality that would have left no question to his audiences what he meant. If Paul wanted to condemn homosexuals in Corinthians and Timothy, why did he feel he had to reach to the Jewish Code, a holiness code that he says is a curse to us (Romans 6:14, 7:6, 2 Cor 3:6, Galatians 2:21, 3:23-25, 5:14) that's also silent on lesbianism to do it? The Greek had no equivalent words for homosexual acts of idolatry. Since Leviticus puts the homosexual acts of the Canaanite Qadeshim* in only idolatry, Paul compounded words from Leviticus to make a new word that gives the meaning of the homosexuality he only wanted to speak of, homosexual acts of idolatry.
Even if the homosexuality of Leviticus is taken out of idolatry, the passages are still only concerned with anal penetrative sex according to the Rabbis (Sifra, Qedoshim 10:11; bSan 54a–b). The Hebrew expression mishkav zakhar denotes only penetrative anal sex; "When one male copulates another male... from THE MOMENT of (anal) penetration... both are punishable... " (Rambam, Hilkhot Issurei Bi'ah 1:14).
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitē), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Timothy 1:9-10:
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitēs), for menstealers (slave traders), for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other things that is contrary to sound doctrine."
Arsenokoites (ἀρσενοκοίτης). Said to be a compound word made up by Paul taken from the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Leviticus 20:13: ἄῤῥην/ἄρσην [arrhēn/arsēn] and κοίτην [koitēn].
'Malakoi' is believed to be a passive homosexual while arsenokoites is believed to be the aggressive homosexual by so-named "Bible Conservatives." If one word goes with the other to emphasize both sides of a gay relationship, why is 'malakoi' left out of 1 Timothy? If arsenokoite is the catch-all word to mean all homosexuality, why is 'malakoi' used in 1 Corinthians? "Koites" was used centuries before Paul's usage and when used as a suffix in compounds it always indicated the penetrative aggressor, never the passive. That means it can not apply to both partners in a sexual act and cannot be a general term for all homosexual activity. No other writing puts arsenokoites next to malakoi as a word pair. Each is used independently of the other in all other instances.
What we see with Paul, as read by "conservative" exegetes, is the stereotypical "one has to be the female" supposition of a homosexual coupling by anti-gay proponents who believe all homosexual couplings must mimic the male penetrating the female paradigm of a heterosexual coupling. This bears no semblance to most current homosexual relationships. In other words, IF Paul had aggressive males with passive males in mind when writing 1 Corinthians, it can only be applied to Paul's Roman contemporaries who were free men past a certain age in Roman society who strictly played the role of aggressive male (penetrator) with those beneath him in Roman societal standing.
Also, If Paul meant to convey a condemnation of all homosexuality to the audience who was at the time reading his 1 Corinthian and 1 Timothy letters, they would have not gotten that meaning from what he wrote in those passages. The only homosexuality they knew was one of exploitation, pederasty, or injustice. The people reading Paul would have understood the word in those contexts. Paul indeed had access to words to convey a passive and aggressive homosexual (Greek slang; kinaidhos/kolombaras) or even a word for a lesbian (tribas) that is completely absent in any word form with what was popular and understood words of his day with homosexuality that would have left no question to his audiences what he meant. If Paul wanted to condemn homosexuals in Corinthians and Timothy, why did he feel he had to reach to the Jewish Code, a holiness code that he says is a curse to us (Romans 6:14, 7:6, 2 Cor 3:6, Galatians 2:21, 3:23-25, 5:14) that's also silent on lesbianism to do it? The Greek had no equivalent words for homosexual acts of idolatry. Since Leviticus puts the homosexual acts of the Canaanite Qadeshim* in only idolatry, Paul compounded words from Leviticus to make a new word that gives the meaning of the homosexuality he only wanted to speak of, homosexual acts of idolatry.
Even if the homosexuality of Leviticus is taken out of idolatry, the passages are still only concerned with anal penetrative sex according to the Rabbis (Sifra, Qedoshim 10:11; bSan 54a–b). The Hebrew expression mishkav zakhar denotes only penetrative anal sex; "When one male copulates another male... from THE MOMENT of (anal) penetration... both are punishable... " (Rambam, Hilkhot Issurei Bi'ah 1:14).
Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77 (the earliest use of 'arsenokoitai' apart from Paul from a pagan source) lists it within its injustices category and not in its sexual category; "Do not steal seeds... Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information..." Acts of John 36 place it with economic injustices; "...robber, defrauder, arsenokoitai, the thief and all of his band..." Porphyrius places it between theft and witchcraft (Contra Christianos 023 88.13).
Arsen is placed with economic injustices by Theophiles of Antioch in his treatise addressed to Autolychus.
Koitai, in the Attic form arrenokoitas, was found on an inscription of a gate leading to the city of Thessaloniki (Greek Anthology 9.686.5.):
"...barbaron ou tromeeis, ouk arrenas arrenokoitas" ("you need not dread the barbarian nor the male arrenokoitai)." Public kidnappers for the purpose of trafficking (shanghaied) is more of a realistic placement here than "male homosexual" since homosexual practice was not forbidden in Thessaloniki.
1 Timothy patterned the last half of his sin list on the Decologue (the last 6 Commandments of the 10 Commandments). Timothy extended his adultery prohibition to include "boy raping" with arsenokoitai, a common practice in Christian sin lists that pattern themselves on the Decalogue. The specified "raping of boys," not male/male sex, was an extension of the 7th commandment along with; "Do not have sex with married women," "Do not have sex with prostitutes." The Didache uses the word παιδοφθορήσεις (boy-raper) as an extention of "Do not commit adultery." A word trick popular at the time with Christian sin lists commenting on acts of adultery at the time with no other mention of homosexuality.
The word is used to show a powerful aggressor raping a weaker one. Some translations do in fact put arsenokoitai as "boy rapers." (Jerusalem, German, "molesters." Dutch NBG translation of 1951, "knapenschenders" ("boy-molesters").
In the Apology of Aristides 13, Fragmenta 12, 9-13.5.4, 'arsenokoitai' refers to Zeus abducting and raping a boy named Ganymede. In Hippolitus Refutatio chapter 5, Nass, a Satanic being, is said to have had Adam sexually "like a boy." Babylonian Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 54a puts arsenos koiten in the context of only boy sex. Maimonides on the verse states it's about: 'child corrupting' (Moses Maimonides "The Guide for the Perplexed" p. 376). In the Babylonian Talmud Nid-dah 13b talks about "sporting with children," an explicit reference to pederasty.
Conclusion: Paul would not have used 'arsenekoitai' to convey a condemnation of male homosexuality with the absence of female homosexuality.
Nor condemn male homosexuality beyond the prohibition of anal sex that took place within the idolatry practices of the Canaanites.
It looks like the word can mean either a pederast action, possibly exploitive action, or if only going to Paul's compounding of words in Leviticus, homosexual acts of idolatry.
So no, arsenokoite is not a "Homosexual" nor a prohibitive of "Homosexuality."
*"If a man [ish] lies with a male [zakhar] as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination (Lev 20:13)."
Two different types of males are in this verse [a man is called an 'ish,' followed by who he is not to lie down with, a male called a 'zakhur']. Note; ish is not placed with ish (man/man) or zakhur with zakhur (male/male) in the verse.
Only two distinctions make a zakhur male, not an ish man. One is age, a male boy not yet a man ('zakan' is "beard," denoting age. 'zakayn' is "elder" in Hebrew). The other is a male having a religious distinction. Not excluded from this are priestly males (Assinu/Qadesh, also mentioned in Deuteronomy) in the land of Canaan who hold a function in religious idolatry prohibited to Jewish men whose cult practices involved homosexuality in the service of Moloch worship. My own belief.
