I have to say, Seth, that I’m not entirely convinced either regarding the application of these ideas, but hopefully it’s worth pursuing the creation logic a bit further in this direction.

1. Thanks for the link to Dale Martin’s article. I have commented on those statements that are most relevant to the interpretation of arsenokoitÄ“s.

This approach is linguistically invalid. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts.

Normally this would be correct: etymology is not a good guide to meaning. But in this case, in the absence of a history to Paul’s use of the word arsenokoitÄ“s and in view of the conjunction of the two terms in the Leviticus texts, it still seems to me highly likely that someone or some tradition more or less self-consciously coined the compound word arsenokoitÄ“s as a summary allusion to the Old Testament prohibition.

The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible.

It’s not as simple as that. A word may have one meaning in context A and a different meaning in context B. You can’t throw all the meanings from all the contexts into a big pot, stir it up, and claim that the end result is the meaning for context C.

Analyzing the occurrence of arsenokoités in different vice lists, I noticed that it often occurs not where we would expect to find reference to homosexual intercourse – that is, along with adultery (moicheia) and prostitution or illicit sex (porneia) – but among vices related to economic injustice or exploitation.

I find this rather odd. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 arsenokoitÄ“s occurs after moichoi and malakoi; in 1 Timothy 1:10 it is found alongside pornois. The evidence from the later texts certainly needs to be taken into account, but you would have to have very strong contextual arguments before reading these possible nuances back into Paul’s texts.

2. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Galatians 3:28 certainly doesn’t abrogate or nullify the creational distinction between men and women. Paul’s point is surely only that distinctions of race, social status or gender do not disqualify anyone from putting on Christ (27) and thereby inheriting the promise given to the free Jewish man Abraham (29). Or am I missing something?