Participles are one example of a substantive that can carry voice, certainly. But I'm talking about something more primitive than that. If I read the word "man+car" are necessarily going to hell, I'd understand that meant someone who actually drove, rather than someone who was somehow inclined to. If I meant to imply somebody who wanted to, I have other, standard vocabulary for that.
Thanks for the clarification. I cannot think of an example off the top of my head at the moment but I will keep an eye out in my readings.
I'd suggest that there is at least one more. All thought about adultery, proclivity towards adultery, etc. is not equivalent to adultery. Lust is not mere attraction. If someone sits down and thinks through an entire sexual escapade, then there's a problem. But there are much more subtle manifestations of the same thing that a person may not so responsible for.
As an example, a lot of attraction happens on a subconscious level - it can be shown that men and women react to even subtle stimuli before they've had a chance to form thoughts about it. Some men's eyes begin to dilate then moment they see a hint of something attractive, which could, in fact, turn out to be a scandalous fruit. If we roll all manifestations of homosexuality into one, put a stamp on it, call it all a sin, we have far fewer means by which to help people who, in my view, genuinely aren't sinning but are nevertheless dealing with the possibility of sin.
I believe the temptation, inclination, and even mindless ideation aren't in themselves sinful, but people are being made to feel they are a sin and therefore are less likely to seek help. The boy who's been told his "interesting" dream is sinful, even though he apparently exercised no will in bringing it about, may have just been cut off from confession of the things he actually does will.
I'm not, by the way, trying to fit this into any worldview - I simply disagree. Guessing at each other's hidden goals (hidden perhaps even to themselves) won't help.
If the word had larger attestation in Greek literature, we wouldn't need to read into it. I don't think looking into its etymology is an any sense looking too much into the word, especially given its lack of historical context.
In fact, I think implying the word has a clear meaning is a worse mistake. There is no surface reading for a word that, if it existed before Paul used it, wasn't used enough for other examples to have survived.
As an example of how rarely this word was used and why it's therefore necessary to read it carefully, here's a frequency search from Perseus, my favorite during my college years:
Word Frequency Information
It's worth keeping in mind that subsequent translators had as much available to them as we do; i.e. very little more than the etymology.
This reminds me of the debates around Acts 13:48. I know we will not be agreeing on the translation and the meaning of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 any time soon. But, I think between the two of us (and added with the replies from others), there exists a well-rounded view of the entire issue. You've been a challenging debater on this. You may not know it but if left to my own devices, I would have naturally wanted to plow through every response with a bulldozer and wrecking ball.
So I thank you for providing me the learning opportunity to refine my responses in a way pleasing to the Lord. As I feel that we've pretty much reached the end of the road, I will provide my final thoughts on the matter and I look forward to reading the same from you.
Regarding the view that temptation, inclination, and even mindless ideation aren't sinful in themselves, I would have to disagree on that. I would agree that those are not active sinful actions in of themselves (for example, wet dreams) but because of original sin, even wet dreams are "sinful." The theology I hold to, as you can probably surmise by now, would say that to help someone struggling with such "dreams" or "thoughts", the best way is to say it as it is - it is sin and it is sin that cannot be controlled. We are so sinful that even our dreams, our thoughts, and our natural tendencies will always gravitate toward sin-nature. It's the same reason why children can be cruel to each other even though they may not realize they are sinning. I'm sure children are capable of committing murder if parents and society weren't around to keep them in check. That is why even if we can carry out all the laws of God perfectly, we are still so far from him because of original sin. We are so depraved, worth so little that even the dirt we stand upon could be worth more than us. But for some unfathomable reason, God, in his holiness and love, wants to give us a way out - all the more reason we need Christ's saving grace and how blessed it is that wretches like us would be given such an undeserved gift!
Nevertheless, I do not believe that point is relevant to the verse we are looking at. In its context, the verse refers to those who are unrighteous. Strong defines it as "one who breaks God's laws," Kittel defines it as "servants of iniquity or ungodly," and Grosvenor defines it as "wrongdoers." This verse isn't about unknowingingly commiting sin or uncontrollable thoughts - this is about people who made the choice to violate God's laws.
In any case, you make an emphasis on the point of the rarity of arsenokoites. Your premise is that due to the rare use of the word (at least from the records we've found), we cannot assume that the word means specifically "homosexuals". It's no secret that I disagree with that assessment.
But suppose I am wrong (I am human, after all) and we cannot say that the word means "homosexuals".
To begin, for simplicity's sake, let's just stick with the masculine male gender. If we do not know the meaning of the word other than "men + bed" then we have the following possibilities:
1. Two men lying side by side in bed without sex
a) e.g. brothers in a family or friends on a camping trip in a small, single tent - no sex, no sexual relationship implied)
b) e.g. partners but not having sex, romance
c) e.g. consensual & non-consensual (straight men experimenting, rapist & victim, etc.)
2. Two men lying side by side in bed but in the context of sexual activity
a) consensual (e.g. homosexual lovers or perhaps even more perverse sins such as homosexual incest)
b) consensual prostitution (e.g. monetary, not necessarily with romantic interest, sexual experimentation)
c) rape (e.g. not including victim - that is, rapist, non-consensual prostitution - that is, slavery/forced prostitution)
Since we do not know what the word means, it can be any one of the above. But to narrow down the choices, we can look elsewhere. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 contains a laundry list of sins. The first part is about sexual sins and right after arsenokoitai, a complete switch from sexual sins to pretty much everything else starting with "thieves". (For idolatry, ref. Romans 1:18-32, ref. ISBE print 'idolatry') It is reasonable to assume that "men + bed" falls under the first category. 1.a can be eliminated from being a possibility.
But we still do not know what the word means. It can still be one of several other possibilities. Furthermore, is there a possibility that Paul refers only to the actual act rather than the fantasy/thought? Hence, we now look to the section of sexual sins for some commonality or insight. The most defined and well-documented sin in that list is "adultery". In Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus makes a clear-cut distinction between act and thought. A married man who looks at another woman with lust would have commited adultery in his heart even thought he may not have physically committed adultery. This isn't even at the stage of fantasy and it's already sinful. Yet, Paul makes no distinction between thought and act for "adultery" in verse 9 even though it is so well-defined and by Jesus himself, no less. From this parallel, we can conclude that the stylistics does not allow us to suggest that arsenokoitai makes a distinction between thought and act. Can, say, two men (lovers) simply sleep together but with no sex? In other words, celibate gays? No, because of the parallel with adultery. To identify oneself as a "celibate gay" requires a consensual relationship - lust cannot be avoided. Whatever arsenokoitai means, it is inclusive of 1.b and 1.c.
This leaves us with 2.a, b, and c to contend with. Is there a possibility that the word can be about just prostitutes or just rapists and have nothing to do with homosexuals? We know this is about sexual sins but can one or more be eliminated from list #2? Maybe we can do something with "consensual" and "non-consensual". Well, the verse is about sinning on purpose (see above, ref. unrighteous). So, non-consensual doesn't work. We can eliminate 2.c. This leaves us with 2.a and b.
At this point, we still don't know what the definition means. Personally, I would narrow it further and eliminate 2.b since prostitution is rarely consensual in Paul's time (and even today as well). But there people who enter prostitution because they want to so let's not eliminate 2.b. This leaves us with a definition that includes homosexuals and prostitutes neither of which can yet be eliminated from the definition. This suits me just fine if one wants to have a catch-all definition that includes both homosexuals and prostitutes under the list of sexual sins. So instead of one group (just homosexuals), the definition has been expanded to include two groups (homosexuals and prostitutes).
That's my concluding summary of the stance that says arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 refers to homosexuals.
