Although I do agree with those who declare that we do not have enough context to definatively define what Paul meant when coined the word arsenokoites, it does seem clear enough that he meant to echo the LXX translation of Lev 20:13 which includes the phrase arsenos koiten. So I have no objection to connecting the two Pauline verses to the two Levitical verses.
The weakness I referred to is based not in Paul's language but in the Mosaic Law.
Consider the incest laws. They take up several verses, many of those verses including several types of relatives. So there are dozens of examples of who is too close a relative, and they are in groupings that potentially include still more types. For example, Lev 18:9 speaks of a sister, a half-sister on the father's side, a half-sister on the mother's side, and a step-sister. However if there were a girl raised in your household who is not directly related to you, but is your half-brother's step-sister, she would be included here as well. It is just not possible to list every immaginable relationship. But they give enough examples to set up a general principle.
But there is only relation, indeed only one action, which is forbidden in Leviticus 18:22. Nor does Leviticus 20:13 add anything to the ban except the consequences.
The rabbis, who usually admitted that "built a fence around" the Mosaic Law in order to avoid even the possibility of accidently violating it. So that the few laws about unclean animals and about cooking a kid in its mother's milk became elaborate dietary laws in which certain cuts of meat are forbidden and you need separate settings for different meals depending on whether the meal includes meat or dairy.
Similarly, the "fence" the rabbis built around Lev 18:22 includes all forms of male-male sex. Significantly, however, it did not include female-female sex. The rabbis brought up the question, only to dismiss it. Whatever females "rubbing" one another was, it was not male-male penitrative sex.
OllieFranz,
First I want to say how sorry I am that it has taken me so long to respond to your post to me.
I was wondering if you could give me a link or the resource site where you learned that they spoke of including female-female sex for me to look over?
A question I would ask, since it appears you have study this in depth, is weren't woman considered pretty much property during this time of history? If that is so would they maybe not think it important what they did? These are just questions and not meant to be statements of truth or facts.
But the language of Lev 18:22 is a little unusual. There are only five significant words in the whole verse. A literal translation would read "With-a-male to-lie in-the-lyings/as-to-lie with/of-the-wife is-taboo."
The words for the man and the woman are not counterpart to one another. The word for the man is the one used when one is just aknowleging the sex of the person, while the word for the woman references a specific woman, his wife. Likewise, the two instances of "lying" are two different words.
I have seen different studies into the significance of the unusual language. If we assume all of those theories are true and have equal weight, then the conclusion is that the command simply forbids you from raping a strange man you find in your wife's bed! Clearly, not all of these studies are equally valid. But that does not mean none of them are.
Likewise, a case can be made for the command referring to a specific religious practice among the Canaanites, and so it is therefore an anti-idolatry command, not an anti-sex one. However that interpretation is not without its problems.
So there are competing theories of just what was forbidden, and under what circumstances. They cannot all be right. But does it really matter all that much?
Let's accept the broadest possible interpretation -- that it forbids being the "dominant" partner in male-male sex under any circumstances. It still only calls the act toevah, "taboo." Mosaic Law usually labels sexual immorality as zimmah, "wicked."
So it is taboo for an Israelite to engage in male-male sex, just as it is taboo for him to eat forbidden food (Deut 14:3), to share a meal with an unbeliever (Gen 42:32), or to remarry a woman he once divorced, if she had been married to someone else (Deut 24:1-4)
But those other taboos are intended mainly for the purpose of clearly showing the Israelite people to be different from the pagan Gentiles. They have been lifted with regard to Christian (Acts 10-11, Acts 15, etc.). If man-lying is not "wicked" then it should be lifted as well.
When I read over the scriptures I took it as meaning as you would lay with your wife, and since sex before marriage is wrong I took it they were using the example of a married couple and their sexual relationship(male/female marriage)
I could be wrong but are you saying that the section which speaks of man with man is just taboo, and not evil/sin? If that is true why would they be put to death for something that was just taboo?
Again, this is something I will be doing more studying on, and I want to thank you for the information.
If in the middle of a speech, or a letter, I quote a famous saying (for instance, "We have nothing to fear but Fear itself.") I may not attribute it, as I would in a more formal paper. I'd rely on its fame to speak for itself.
Paul quoted it, not for the lessons that Plato taught (although they would be in the back of his readers' minds), but because it was a well-known example of the kind of unbridled passion he wanted to mention at this point in the introduction to his real topic of Grace.
I can see why someone would assure that this is what Paul was doing, but don't really have any proof of this in my opinion.
It does cause a person to take another look at these things, but do have to say that as Plato grew older it does appear that he was saying that homosexuality is wrong/sin.
Will continue to study these things as I find them interesting and thought provoking. I want to thank you for the information and being patient with me.
I know that I have not covered well all of your post, but until I get past being on call 12 to 24 hours a day it will have to do.
I do apologize that I didn't have the time or enough sleep on board to response fully to your post, and hope to soon have that time and rest to do better.