What is the True biblical defintion of "Effeminate"?

[Ramie]

What is the True biblical defintion of "Effeminate"?

1Cor 6:9
"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..."

"Malakoi" is  a word that is often gets left out in most modern new-age translations, often merged with "Arsenokoitai"  to refer to both the Passive and Active participants in a homosexual relationship

Older translations translations translate it as "Wantons" or " Weaklinges".
"Malakoi" in its simplest form means "Soft". As in Soft clothing, or a Soft pillow.
And  "Malakoi" being listed alongside other sexual sins in the bible can give us a clue that it is  a form of sexual deviation.

I have encountered vastly diferring opinions and ideas througout my search, and im honestly becoming confused.

My Question is : What does it really mean to be Effeminate? What is it like?

Sure you have the very obvious transgenders, Drag  Queens and Transvestites. Men who purposely blurs the lines of Gender by wearing excessive makeup, Gowns,  Sassy-talking, and is basically a stereotypical Homosexual (minus the act of intercourse).

But i notice modern cultural ideas  have also creeped in. Ive heard Baptist Pastors Literally yell  that men shouldnt wear pink clothing.  Despite Pink being feminine is  a fairly recent concept.
  Tim Bayly , a reformed pastor, called a Man "effeminate for donning a "hipster" look ; Cuffed Sleeves, Thick Framed Glasses,  An Ascot and Skinny Jeans . 
 
This makes me wonder: Is Lack of Athleticism effeminate? Is Crying over a Sad movie a  bad thing? Is a man being interested to music, arts,  and cooking something to be repented of? Kilts? Shaving? Perfume?

Its so easy to simply call it as " a man who acts like a woman" , but to where we draw the line?

Another interesting definition i read about is "Moral Weakness". These men have no sense of responsibility. They are vain, luxurious, addicted to worldly pleasures and lazy. These men are cowards who cant stand up for the truth, nor their families. They are worthless and unproviding. They have no Self control.  (these MAY probably have sexual connotstions too, hence why Malakoi was translated as "Wantons" in some older versions...

As you can see, im just barely scratching the surface in this issue and i still have a few follow ups to ask. But right now, I would really need hear your thoughts, Biblical-based opinions on this

[heathertaylor]

This verse may be the answer to the true biblical definition of "effeminate"

Deuteronomy 22:5
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

If you read Chapter 5 and 6 of 1 Corinthians, you can see the context surrounding the word you are confused about. You don't need to look at the Greek Word of it, if that's what you was trying to do. You don't even need a dictionary. Paul is speaking to the Church of Corinth. The people were not using righteous judgement in matters of the church. They was going to unbelievers to judge between the brethren and Paul was saying They should be able to judge these small matters. Paul also is trying to get the brethren to see that those who are living in unrighteousness (sin) and calling themselves brethren is a big problem and they need to removed and not to eat with them. Effeminate are those who are those who are acting soft and feminine because it's the heart of the man desiring to be like a woman through how he carries himself and dresses.
 The born again believers should be able to judge these matters of who is being effeminate because the discernment of the Holy Spirit. I know when I see a man acting feminine and dressing feminine and talking like a woman that he most likely is displaying what's in his heart and that's to be like a woman. Visa versa with women acting like men. God created man and woman to be man and woman, not man be woman or woman be man. I understand that there are ppl who have certain attributes that may cause us to question whether they are effeminate or not but their actions will give themselves away by the words and actions they choose. And if they call themselves brethren and walk around all fruity acting then they need to be corrected of their error. The man needs to be a leader and lead in righteousness. If they struggle with the past of who they used to be then there needs to be prayer for self control to not do that which is wrong. If a man used to be effeminate before he was saved then the Lord opens his eyes to the wickedness of being effeminate (dressing like a woman and acting like a woman) and this man repent of this wickedness then the born again believers should be able to see and judge right that the "used to be" effeminate is now humbled and trying to do what pleases God and not themselves then there should be patience and prayer for this man.
The conclusion is... The born again believers should be able to know who is effeminate and who isn't.


Jeremiah 17:10
King James Version
10 I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

  Mark 7:21-23
King James Version
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

[Rowan M.]

This makes me wonder: Is Lack of Athleticism effeminate? Is Crying over a Sad movie a  bad thing? Is a man being interested to music, arts,  and cooking something to be repented of? Kilts? Shaving? Perfume?

Its so easy to simply call it as " a man who acts like a woman" , but to where we draw the line?

Another interesting definition i read about is "Moral Weakness". These men have no sense of responsibility. They are vain, luxurious, addicted to worldly pleasures and lazy. These men are cowards who cant stand up for the truth, nor their families. They are worthless and unproviding. They have no Self control.  (these MAY probably have sexual connotstions too, hence why Malakoi was translated as "Wantons" in some older versions...

As you can see, im just barely scratching the surface in this issue and i still have a few follow ups to ask. But right now, I would really need hear your thoughts, Biblical-based opinions on this

Hi Ramie.

I think Heather has given a really great answer, but I would like to comment on one or two of your specific questions. First of all, it is definitely not effeminate for a man to cry. After all, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself wept. King David was about as manly as they come - he killed lions and bears with his bare hands, slew a giant and fought in numerous battles. If anyone defines "manliness" in the Bible, David probably does. Yet David also cried - a LOT. Read through the Psalms and see how often he refers to shedding tears. For example, I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears. (Psalm 6:6) Or, My tears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say unto me, Where is thy God? (Psalm 42:3) Another man in the Bible that I remember crying was Peter after he denied Christ. Peter was a fisherman and pretty plain-spoken. Definitely quite a tough guy. But the Bible records him weeping bitterly.

Cooking is another thing that is certainly not effeminate. Again, Jesus cooked fish on the beach. And there are plenty of celebrity chefs who are male. Consider Gordon Ramsay - definitely not effeminate! (I'm not a fan of his, but effeminate is about the last word I would use to describe him.) As for music and arts, I wouldn't call an interest in that effeminate. However, there are certain kinds of music that should be repented of (clearly satanic music like rock, metal, hip hop etc.), but that applies to men and women alike.

I don't know why, but when I see a man in a Scottish kilt, I don't think he looks effeminate, even though a kilt is technically a skirt. Yet it still looks masculine somehow. Maybe it's the material it's made of, or the fact that the man wears other masculine clothing with it. In some of the Pacific Islands, men sometimes wear something that looks like a skirt. There is probably a name for it, but I'm not sure what it is. But again, they don't look feminine when doing so. Quite why, I can't explain, but they just don't. Maybe it's because they still behave as men. They carry themselves in an obviously male way.

Shaving is just part of a man's grooming. Even men like myself who have a beard still have to use a shaver sometimes in order to trim and shape it. Also, some men actually can't grow facial hair, or they can only grow it a little bit. So I certainly wouldn't say it's effeminate to shave, although men who ARE effeminate would probably not be wanting too much hair. (That said, I have seen effeminate men on TV that have beards.)

Some guys wear cologne, which is not the same as the perfume that women wear, although I guess it's similar. But I think as long as a guy doesn't put on women's perfume, but sticks to cologne or aftershave, he's not crossing any lines.

In general, I would agree with Heather that a man who is effeminate is very obviously acting like a woman, in terms of his mannerisms, way of speaking, and maybe dress. (Some effeminate men might still wear men's clothing.) And as Heather also says, it's manifesting a desire in his heart to be a woman, to behave like a member of the opposite sex. Moral weakness as you've described it isn't really effeminate - more a sign of immaturity.

Anyway, I hope this has been of some help.

[mpeay7]

I just want to briefly say that Kilts are not effeminate attire. They are traditional attire of the Scottish people.
We all know an effeminate man is the obviously gay man. I also believe an effeminate man is a harmless man.
More nuance on that if you request.

[heathertaylor]

I just want to briefly say that Kilts are not effeminate attire. They are traditional attire of the Scottish people.
We all know an effeminate man is the obviously gay man. I also believe an effeminate man is a harmless man.
More nuance on that if you request.

What do you mean by harmless? Just want to understand what you mean by this.

[mpeay7]

Hi Heather,

I made this post  before I had read the article: Why Millions of Believers are going to Hell.
I just wanted to mention that so you would know that I have since come to an understanding of the word, and my opinions may change now to reflect  biblical beliefs.

When I mentioned an effeminate man was a harmless man, that is a quote from Dr. Jordan Peterson. He is a university professor.

A harmless man is not a good man. A good man is a very dangerous man who has that under voluntary control": Jordan Peterson


I will just make my own modifications to what he is saying. There is no "good man".

Mark 10:18
“And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”

To put what Peterson is saying in my own words, I would change the word "good" to "effective". The quote would then read
"An harmless man is not an effective man. An effective man is a very dangerous man who has that under voluntary control"

The "Voluntary Control" portion of this quote seems to indicate that the effective man has mustered up this "voluntary control" from his own will.

voluntary
[ˈvälənˌterē]
ADJECTIVE
done, given, or acting of one's own free will.
"we are funded by voluntary contributions"


So, I would also say the "Voluntary Control" is also inaccurate, biblically. This scripture shows us why

James 1:17 - Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Because of this bible verse, we can see that a dangerous man cannot have "voluntary control". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I consider this "voluntary control" that Peterson is referring to as a gift from God. I consider the fact that for the most part, the men I have encountered, dangerous or not, have never been uncontrollably ballistic in my direction. I have not suffered a random attack from a man, ever.


Now, if the quote were biblically correct, it would read



This
"An harmless man is not an effective man. An effective man is a very dangerous man who has that under the authority of Jesus"


I would change the last part from "voluntary control" to "under the authority of Jesus Christ" Because in tis we see that Jesus is the ultimate Authority.

Matthew 28:18 - And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Again, this quote, if biblically correct, would read:

"An harmless man is not an effective man. An effective man is a very dangerous man who has that under the authority of Jesus Christ"



Why is a harmless man an ineffective man?  Please correct me if I am wrong. I am getting my understanding from the Bible, so I want to be spot on.

David, though not yet a full grown man slew Goliath and effectively cut off his head!

King James Bible
Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.


There are many examples in the Bible of men who were effective. David was a dangerous man- to Goliath. Goliath was in danger of death, even if he didn't recognize this.

Why is the effeminate man harmless?
I am not saying all effeminate men are harmless.
I am saying that harmless men are effeminate.


1 Timothy 5:8 - But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.


provide
[prəˈvīd]
VERB
make available for use; supply.
"these clubs provide a much appreciated service for this area"
synonyms:
supply · give · issue · furnish · lay out · come up with · dispense · bestow · [more]
(provide for)
make adequate preparation for (a possible event).
"new qualifications must provide for changes in technology"
synonyms:
prepare · allow · make provision · make preparations · be prepared · anticipate · arrange · make arrangements · get ready · plan · make plans · cater



I would consider the "provide" section of that scripture to also mean "Provide FOR another day". (we do not have the promise of tomorrow...) This can sometimes mean protecting the family. In some instances, if a stranger were to break into your house, during the night, and the Man of the house fired a weapon toward the intruder, the man would be considered dangerous. But he is also not to blame for providing security for his family.


A harmless/ pascifist man, as I understand it, is not effective at protecting himself, his family, or his community.


I have run out of time, I'm sorry! I will be back this weekend


MKenna

[Timothy]

Why is the effeminate man harmless?
I am not saying all effeminate men are harmless.
I am saying that harmless men are effeminate.

There are several problems with what you are saying, McKenna. Let me start by quoting a section of Scripture in Hebrews that is talking about Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 7:22-27 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

So according to your logic, Jesus Christ is effeminate because the Scripture says that He was harmless. Jesus Christ also taught us to be harmless which, according to you, would mean that He teaches us to be effeminate.

Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

What you are trying to do is take wisdom from the world and change it up a little bit to make it Scriptural. That's not how that is supposed to work. We can't take worldly wisdom and attempt to make it Scriptural because you would have to make the Bible secondary to "make it work."

1 Corinthians 2:12-13 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

The entire point he was making in his quote was false and unbiblical, so changing a couple of things doesn't make it any better. It would be wise to seek understanding solely from the Bible, and not rely on man's philosophies.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

[creationliberty]

McKenna, I completely agree with Tim, and he gave a really good answer. In addition to that, I don't see how you have the understanding to come here and try to teach everyone else things, when you just admitted to all of us that everything you were saying, doing, and studying was wrong. People who do such things are people that are arrogant (i.e. lifted up in the pride of their own imagined wisdom), that is not someone who has been humbled to repentance.

[mpeay7]

Dear friends

You are right to say, I was wrong. The bible is right, and I see here that it says the Lord was harmless. This is going to change how I think about that quote, and now I will be better at seeing corruption in what Jordan Peterson has to say. He is a professor I have listened to in the past. I have read that he believes in Jesus, and I wonder if he has any material he has shared; if it is leavened. I may be interested in testing what he says to the Word, especially if it is concerning anything biblical.

Now I know that the quote about the "harmless man" is not biblical in any sense.

My original, first comment was before I had any understanding of the Word, and I am blessed to now have understanding. The bible clearly states that Christ was harmless.

My explanation of the quote and use of scriptural context was also an explanation of how the false logic had settled in my mind at the time.

Thank you for showing me the error I had made, again, I will be adjusting my senses to distinguish between biblical assertions and non-biblical assertions

[creationliberty]

On that particular subject, I think you ought to have a look at these:

The Dangers of Using Lexicons and Concordances

The 'Original Greek' Scam

That being said, there is still something very off about what you are saying. Every time you are rebuked, you always blame something external. You always have a list of excuses. You never take personal responsibility for the things you say.

You came into this post to try and teach other people, and what you were doing was not teaching, you were just regurgitating what someone else told you, without any understanding. What you wrote could have potentially fooled other people, including the thousands of people that view this forum (who are not members and just read it). You have no care about what you are doing, you are just doing whatever you feel like doing, which is bad enough, but also, you are in ABSOLUTELY NO position to be teaching anyone anything right now because of how much leaven you confessed (and we can tell that) you have been influenced with. That is complete arrogance, and shows no humility whatsoever.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles [i.e. prophets/teachers] of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:12-14

That's why I am seeing you return to these robotic, cookie-cutter posts again, as if you are just saying words and phrases you think will fool other people so they accept your outward appearance, or in other words, you are trying to paint a picture of yourself you think we will accept. You're not doing it just in this post, I saw you doing this on the other thread as well, ever since you came back. You still have given us no testimony of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, and yet you claim to be a Christian, and everything you're writing is just blaming others for your wrong.

I'm glad that you told me that you're praying for a repentant heart because that is good, but in the meantime, you are making these arrogant posts in which you don't take any responsibility, and I have to call it out to protect others from being led astray. For now, I think I'm going to change your profile belief from "Christian" to "Other" because I have no idea what it is you actually believe, and since you have no testimony of salvation in Jesus Christ, I have no reason to think you are brethren with us.

[mpeay7]

Dear Christopher,

Okay, thank you for recommending these teachings. I do love learning these bible based teachings that you have available on your website. I was wrong, like I said. I have repented for this false teaching. I am going to change how I remember this quote.

The bible is the final authority in my life, and it clearly says that Christ was harmless. If the bible contradicts what I have to say, then I am wrong. Hopefully anyone who reads my comments will not be deceived and will see that I was rebuked and that I have said I have repented of this false teaching. I also now know that repent is grief and Godly sorrow of wrong doing. I have had grief and Godly sorrow for promoting this quote and teaching this quote with scripture.

I do not have any authority to be teaching, you are right. I will remember this before I attempt to do any more teaching. I can take this scripture very seriously because it applies to me outright:

Proverbs 3:5 - Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

I would pray that if someone sees my false teaching on this quote, they would see the correction as well.

[Timothy]

I have also noticed that you put the blame on someone or something else rather than yourself, McKenna. I want to point out where I'm seeing it in your response here.

You are right to say, I was wrong. The bible is right, and I see here that it says the Lord was harmless. This is going to change how I think about that quote, and now I will be better at seeing corruption in what Jordan Peterson has to say. He is a professor I have listened to in the past. I have read that he believes in Jesus, and I wonder if he has any material he has shared; if it is leavened. I may be interested in testing what he says to the Word, especially if it is concerning anything biblical.

What you did is start out saying that you are wrong, but you quickly shift the focus onto Jordan Peterson. You did the same on your new introduction post about Sheila Zilinsky. I don't see any repentance in what you are saying when you do that because those with a repentant heart focus on their own sin they have committed rather than someone else's. What you end up doing is blaming them for teaching you the wrong things instead of blaming yourself for the sin that you do. The 'repentance' that you are showing us is the false one that you defined before as a "change of mind."

Someone with true repentance (godly sorrow of sin) would have been disgusted with themselves for having called Jesus Christ effeminate just like Job abhorred himself for the things he said.

Job 42:6 - Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

It didn't seem like it bothered you at all that you said what you did. The only bother was that you believed the wrong thing prior to our correction.

We had a person a few months ago that we had to correct about his belief on repentance because he believed in a false definition of it. When we corrected him, he kept saying that he had repentance for his error, but all he was doing was changing what he was saying to us based on what we were telling him so that we would accept him. He never had repentance for what he did and he was only trying to convince us of it by just telling us that he did. I'm starting to see the same thing in you.

Okay, thank you for recommending these teachings. I do love learning these bible based teachings that you have available on your website. I was wrong, like I said. I have repented for this false teaching. I am going to change how I remember this quote.

Those who have had true repentance don't have to tell us that they have repented because they show that sorrow of what they've done in their writing. What you are doing is trying to convince us that you have repented simply by saying that you have when you really haven't.

The bible is the final authority in my life, and it clearly says that Christ was harmless.

Adding the part, "The bible is the final authority in my life" is unnecessary when you truly use the Bible as your final authority. But the reason you have to tell us that is because you actually don't use the Bible as your final authority. If you did, you wouldn't have used Jordan Peterson's quote as your final authority in this thread.

Hopefully anyone who reads my comments will not be deceived and will see that I was rebuked and that I have said I have repented of this false teaching.

That's the problem I'm trying to point out. You think that just because you said you repented that it is as good as evidence. Anyone can lie and say they have, but we look for the humility in what they say because that shows us whether they have or haven't.

I also now know that repent is grief and Godly sorrow of wrong doing.

Believing that is not the same as having it, and if you had it, you wouldn't have to keep telling us that you believe it.

I have had grief and Godly sorrow for promoting this quote and teaching this quote with scripture.

Again, the reason you keep having to tell us what you believe about repentance and that you have repented is because your words, so far, have not shown us the evidence. So the only way you can try to convince us is to just say that you have, but had you shown disgust in yourself for calling Jesus Christ effeminate none of us would have to question it.

I'm not saying all of this to be critical of everything you say, but because I care enough to tell you that there is a problem that we are seeing. We don't want you to just accept everything we say to you and "change your mind" about what you used to believe because that false philosophy of "changing your mind" and "turning from sin" to be saved that you now claim to reject is still there. Telling us that you agree with us on repentance does not mean that you have repentance, so I also hope you continue to pray that God would give that to you and that He would give you understanding of these things.

[mpeay7]

Thank you for showing me this,
I took the time to say that I had repented for calling the Lord effeminate because that is an account of what has taken place in my life since I have learned I called the Lord effeminate.
Repentance has taken place in my life, and I have now shared that it has taken place in my life.
I'm not turning away from my sin and wrongly calling the Lord effeminate. I have repented and come to tears of wrong doing and sobbing because of what I said.