Q&A: Question 1

Ashurina asked:

Guys, very short answers to these. if its a yes/no question say yes or no

1. when the bible says neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of heaven, doesn't that say homosexuality is also a sin?

2. If your answer is no, then what does this verse exactly mean? and why is the word 'homosexuals' there?

My Response:

I want to note that given the subject spoken here it is difficult to give a clear black and white answer to this question Ashurina. If that was possible I doubt this post would exist.

1) NO. Reason the term 'homosexual' didn't exist at the time the Word was written.

Secondly, the KJV reads as follows: 

“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.” 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 10

The meaning of the word malaokois confuses scholars to this day. But many believe it was referring to “effeminate call boys”. Hence the King James (before the term “homosexual” existed and was used in translations of the modern Bible) translated to be “effeminate”. The Revised Standard Version translated to mean “boy or male prostitutes”. But it is certainly clear that it does not refer to what we today know “homosexual couples” or “homosexuality” to be. 

This word often meant also ‘the soft’, a feminine behavior. And Paul most likely was speaking in regards to this.If it was a sexual practice Paul had in mind, then what practice was that? To us, we would conclude it of course was a homosexual one. For the majority of us see stereotypically homosexuals showing signs of feminine behaviors and seeing effeminacy in men. But was this what Paul had in mind when using ‘malaokois’? The link may seem obvious to the reader, but our preoccupations are not those of all ages and all societies. In the Hellenistic world, masculinity was associated among other things with strength and self control, which was much prized and femininity and its associated qualities with it, was not liked much. Softness alone in men, not particularly homosexuals, could be derided and despised in ancient societies and cultures.

If he does have any homosexual in mind, it is ‘feminizing’, or the unfitting act precisely for a man which makes him soft that he is disapproving here. It is a rather a particular vision of what it is to be a man and a concern for ‘masculine’ qualities that he is underlying when using ‘malakoi’. The concern for masculinity also explains why Paul did not bother to include in his list a term to cover female homosexuals. This text, in my convictions, has little to do rather a man is homosexual or not, but everything to do with the male feminizing himself, throwing away masculine qualities in exchange for much more feminized ones.

We have to keep in mind that ACTING in a homosexual manner doesn't necessarily mean one is homosexual by nature, but rather behaved in a way that is homosexual--against his nature function or sexual drive etc. etc.

Again I understand you requested a short response but it is unlikely given the subject you will receive one. If you do tell the entire church and 'homosexual' cus this has been a subject of great pain and division Ashurina s.