Question on Deut. 23:17-19

Comparing Deut. 23:17-19 with Revelation 22:15.

The Hebrew word for dog (keleb keh'-leb)in context is referenceing a male prostitute. T or F

Could we then say that in the Greek the word dog as in (specifically) Revelation 22:15 could be inclusive of homosexual's?

Revelation 22:15 For <de> without <exo> are dogs <kuon>, and <kai> sorcerers <pharmakos>, and <kai> whoremongers <pornos>, and <kai> murderers <phoneus>, and <kai> idolaters <eidololatres>, and <kai> whosoever <pas> loveth <phileo> and <kai> maketh <poieo> a lie <pseudos>.

If not what is the opinion of who the dogs are Rev 22:14?

thjplgvp

 

Grasshopper,

So are the dogs in Revelation 22 Judaizing I think not.

I have all the commentaries I want to know if dogs in Rev would include homosexuals.

Thanks for your time

 

Whoa, Grasshopper,

Look at your answer to my post brother, I simply asked if dogs in Rev. 22 (based on the use of word dog in Deuteronomy) could include homosexuals. I have no "homosexual" belief or leanings on the matter at all. As a matter of fact the question arises after reading about another’s thoughts on the same passages.

To use a verse in Philippians and a couple of commentaries that do not even reference the question at hand and then post an aggressive response and assume I am already leaning one way or another is wrong.

Let us look at the usage of the word in Matthew 7:5, Give not that which is holy onto the dogs. The meaning of ‘huon’ in this passage suggests that the dog like the pig is only interested in himself and will not recognize holiness or the value of scripture. They (dogs and pigs) are wholly given to a base life and devoid of any spiritual understanding it is possible they are reprobate in their understanding of spiritual things (Romans 1) because they cannot recognize nor respond to truth.

In Luke 16:21 “the dogs came and licked his sores” once again usage shows that the dogs are only interested in satisfying their natural passion. No amount of shooing away or hollering would deter the beast from his desire. The dog is totally consumed in his own desires.

Philippians 3:2 beware of dogs while the meaning is unclear when the word is placed within the context of ‘evil’ depraved, wicked, injurious and ‘concision’ cutting up, mutilate it would be easy to make the argument that dogs are a people whose minds are set on pleasing self regardless of prevailing morals, once again reprobation comes to mind.

In 2 Peter 2:21-22 we see verses similar to Matthew 7, to turn from the holy commandment given unto them and as the dog is turned to his own vomit again. The dog in this passage has refused the holy and instead has returned to that which was not agreeable with him for the sake of self indulgence. Thus the dog proves again he cannot discern that which is valuable and that which is of no value and therefore operates only to fulfill his own desires.

When one comes to Revelation 22:15 we see that the dogs ‘huon’ are outside. We assume that it means out side the city but what if it means outside the kingdom in another word these dogs, and sorcerers, and mongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie are not just outside the city but outside the kingdom of God and therefore are denied access to the tree of life.

If this be the case then dog could be a reference to those who hear or had access to holiness and scripture but choose instead to live for the fulfillment of their own desires.
Could homosexual be encompassed in the term dogs? Grasshopper I would like your thoughts based on your own reasoning that is why I said I have most of the commentaries. Please forgive me if my response came across as arrogant I did not intend it to.

thjplgvp