1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Paul begins by saying that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Then he warns those who hear his letter not to be deceived and tells them, in Raymond F. Collins's translation, "Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor perverts, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the avaricious, not slanderers, not the greedy will inherit the kingdom of God." See my post from last summer for other translations.
The first point I'd make is that the list contains a number of things which I think very few would have trouble calling sinful — idolatry, adultery, theft, avarice, slander, and greed. And it's not all about sex either, for whatever that's worth. My opinion is that the things in the list are all things which Paul is clearly calling wrong, so wrong that they keep us out of heaven.
Next, although I listed sins — idolatry, etc. — Paul lists types of sinners. So it can be understood that he is talking about people for whom these are a way of life: the person somehow is characterized by the sin; it's not just an uncharacteristic lapse or a one-off.
But if it is true that those who fit these categories are not part of the kingdom of God, it is important to know just what Paul means by the words here translated "perverts" and "homosexuals." The former is μαλακοι (malakoi) and the latter αρσενοκοιται (arsenokoitai). The basic meaning of "malakoi" is "soft." According to Collins, in his commentary in the Sacra Pagina series, it "is a term that was pejoratively used in Hellenistic Greek to describe passive partners, often young boys, in homosexual activity." "Arsenokoitai" seems to be used here for the first time in writing. Collins explains it as follows, "The neologism may derive from the prohibitions cited in Lev 18:22 and 20:13." The reason for thinking so is that it is a compound of the words in the Greek Septuagint of those verses meaning "male" and "bed," so it means "those who bed males." Collins continues, "It came to denote male homosexual activity, which was, in the eyes of Jewish authors such as Philo, Josephus, and the Pseudo-Phocylides, a sign of Gentile moral depravity. Paul apparently shared the Jewish prejudice on the sexual mores of Gentiles."
Occasionally, one comes across the argument that the meaning of "arsenokoitai" is somehow unclear, based on it's being new with Paul. But given the fact that it is a compound of the terms from Leviticus, I think it is obvious what Paul has in mind. The fact that the same meaning is there in later writers' use of the word corroborates that understanding.
The argument is also raised that, because Paul was in agreement with Jewish opinion, this is nothing but a cultural matter, like what he said about hair and hats. Perhaps if Paul had only mentioned it once in passing, it might be possible to see it as a culturally conditioned expression of an underlying general principle. (And what would that principle be?) But considering the force of his condemnation, as well as its consistency with his writings elsewhere on the topic, I see this as part of the inspired teaching of the scripture.
I'd also note that, while these verses are not just about sex, the reference leads Paul to a discussion specifically about sexual morality in the course of which he says "For the two are, it is said, one flesh," referring to Genesis 2:24. And, as I have previously noted , I see that verse as showing us heterosexual marriage as God's plan for sex from creation.
I'd also note that, while these verses are not just about sex, the reference leads Paul to a discussion specifically about sexual morality in the course of which he says "For the two are, it is said, one flesh," referring to Genesis 2:24. And, as I have previously noted , I see that verse as showing us heterosexual marriage as God's plan for sex from creation.
10 comments:
Hmm, interesting. I don't know about the nature of compounds; compound's meanings are not always determined solely by the sum of their parts, but I appreciate this perspective all the same.
Lucky for Paul, I seem to be doing the celibacy thing just fine.
No wonder my Greek friends made fun of my when I'd worked in Malacca.
Many thanks for continuing this series.
Thus are the lutheran and french-as well the german catholic translations!Who am I to not follow the translation of my church? Propz Pilgrim
hmmm... I have heard this argument before. The most valid point that is made here is that the word paul is using here refers to leviticus therefore reinforcing the old purity laws regarding homosexual activity.
My problem with your position is two fold.
1) if paul is refering to the homosexual practices of the greeks and romans he is referring to pedastry, temple prostitution, or sexual practice which, far from being consensual and monogamous, was aimed at subjegating the 'passive' roles. These relationships were immoral because of the quality of their relationships... they were dehumanizing relationships not focused on the good of both partners. If he is indeed referring to these relationships then this says absolutely nothing about homosexual unions as we understand them today.
There is even an argument to be made that the old purity code regarding homosexualit was in place not because homosexual relations were innately evil, but because male prostitution in temples had become so rampant that in order to not succumb to the polytheistic religions that surrounded them the jewish people forbade such practices (much in the same way they forbade the mixing of milk and meat because it was a pagan practice).
so possibly paul is using the same words here in order to refer to other unequal and immoral homosexual activity, and not to condemn the whole of homosexual activity.
2) my second problem with your position is that it makes absolutely no sense. i dont mean to be an asshole here, but I really cant consider the notion that homosexuality is a sin serioulsy anymore. sure there are a fare share of dangerous and unjust homosexual activities... aids is out there, prostitutes exist ect. ect. but the same is true of heterosexual activity.
the truth is that far from being merely benign, healthy and monogamous homosexual relationships are beneficial not only to both partners involved but to society as a whole.
part of being human is being sexual and learning how to be oneself is learning how to express our sexuality in healthy ways. It's not healthy to sleep with ne thing with two legs and a penis, but it isnt healthy either to deny and repress our sexuality because of the fact that saint paul said some things which may or may not be condemning of homosexuality.
i think one of the biggest problems with christianity today is that it is unwilling to evaluate the evidence regarding certain issues... it's position is solely determined by 'what the bible says'.
but that is pure bullshit. that sort of reliance on scripture is dangerous because (1) it makes us dependant upon the intereprations of the bible which are handed down to us by humans, who are bound to be flawed and make errors at times and (2) it ameliorates our responsibility to impartially evaluate the evidence without a preformed ideological bias.
i honestly dont give a rip about what paul said because the truth of the matter, and i have seen this in reality, is that homosexual relationships can be healthy and normal, and that part of us learning to flourish as the gay persons God created us to be is learning how to healthily express our sexuality.
i'm not gonna sit around debating the specific meaning of a word which was written 2000 years ago in order to figure out how i shold live my life. i dont have time to engage in such a dialogue and frankly all the evidence is already in front of me... the evidence is in the fact that gay people are happier and healthier when they are in committed relationships.
the bible is not the only way we can find truth... if it were we'd really get no where in life because the bible is not a detailed ethical codex for the 21st century... it is a historical document which has worth, but ultimately cannot answer all of our lives questions.
i dont mean to be abbrassive, i just am being honest.
I have to agree with Jordan. It's at best naive to simply accept the bible, in it's many inconsistent versions, as the basis for an absolute position. Many of the interpretations, notably from ancient Greek, are frankly just that, interpretations. There is little or no hard evidence to 'prove' the accuracy.
When I abandoned the church, having lost my faith at a very young age, I did so not because I found the teachings incompatible with my being gay (it was too early in my life for that to be a criterion) it was for other far more complex reasons not least of which was the blind adherence of the clergy to an ambiguous set of texts.
Thank you Naturgesetz for providing a place where these issues can be examined and discussed. Agree or not, I welcome having your voice and influence in our community.
God bless you and take care!
Thank you, Naturgesetz.
Something comes to mind while reading both your post, and the comments in response.
The Gospel, which is found all throughout Scripture, should be the only foundation we have to stand on.
You can build theological castles out of any social perspective, and you can become a theologian with an expertise in any area life... But a life that is not founded on the Gospel, and that doesn't rely on the name of Jesus as their foundation aren't going to have a foundation on judgment day.
We only have the gospel, because of Scripture.
If any part of the Bible is misleading in regards to the heart, will, desires, or commands of God, then why even consider it when thinking about religion?
To say that the authors of Scripture were speaking merely out of social alliances and predispositions, then why would their arrogant words be considered as trustworthy and true?
If the words of Paul are meaningless, why give a rip about ANY word in the Bible?
I trust Scripture, because it contains the only hope I have of ever living an obedient life. It is the only source I have of the heart and wisdom of God. You can only learn so much through His general revelation through nature, and humanity.
The Bible is His specific revelation, and is how we KNOW God, not just know about Him. It's the only place we have the life, teachings, and wisdom of God. If it wasn't here, I wouldn't be either.
Naturgesetz, in case you're wondering, I totally agree with you, and it's refreshing to see your perspective. It's nice to know I'm not alone out here :)
Thanks for all the comments. It's nice to have the agreement from some, the respect for the project which many of you express, and the contrary thoughts for discussion.
A couple of comments question the relevance of the scriptures I've been writing about, or even the scriptures in general, to our lives today. It was not my purpose to mount a defense of the scriptures as a guide for our conduct. My idea was to give my understanding of what these passages mean for the benefit of readers who *do* consider them relevant. See my second post in this series. http://naturgesetz-takecourage.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-does-st-paul-say-introduction-part.html
Jordan raises a couple of other interesting points.
First there is the question of whether St. Paul even intends to speak of anything other than pederasty, temple prostitution, and non-consensual relationships. Doubtless those things were present in the Hellenistic culture of St. Paul's day. But was that all? Was there no consensual sex among adult males? I really think that consensual sex was well enough known that Paul would have been aware of it. There are references in literature, there is recently discovered gay pornography from the time. He could and should have limited or explained his condemnation if he had not intended to condemn non-cultic sex freely engaged in by equals.
The question of the relation of St. Paul's condemnation to the purity code of the Mosaic Covenant is at least tangentially connected. It seems to me that St. Paul transcends the purity code, from which he derives his vocabulary. And btw I think there is a strong case to be made that the purity code by itself is insufficient to conclude that the prohibition is binding. But Paul takes the prohibition on homosexual conduct away from the context of the purity code. For him, homosexual conduct isn't like boiling a kid in its mother's milk or wearing a garment with two kinds of thread. It's like idolatry, adultery, theft, avarice, slander and greed. It is immoral in his eyes, not because it is what the pagans do in their worship, but because it's inherently wrong.
I think Paul's treatment of meat sacrificed to idols sheds some light on the question. He said that although some people have scruples about eating the meat, which was sold in the markets, there was nothing inherently wrong with it. He said to refrain if it might scandalize other believers, but he wasn't worried about any possible entanglement with pagan worship. So I don't think he'd proclaim an unqualified moral teaching for Christians with a severe warning on some sort of idea that we have to avoid doing the things the pagans do.
The question of whether there are human benefits from a stable, loving relationship which includes homosexual activity,is similar to feetxxxl's central point. It isn't precisely a question of what St. Paul means in the verses I'm discussing. But I'll say that the idea that one needs to engage in a satisfying sexual relationship to be a fulfilled and happy human being seems to me to overstate the matter. I mean, you occasionally read of adulterers who claim that they *needed* the adultery, that it brought them joy and fulfillment as a human being in a way that the unhappy marriage in which they were trapped never could. Clearly, the feelings are there. Clearly, the personal development is not in itself an evil thing. But that does not prove that the method used to achieve it is moral.
I think a lot of what is moral and immoral can be figured out by brilliant minds using human reason, even apart from the Bible (and so does Paul, as he indicates early in Romans). That's the reason for my screen name. But I think the Bible, correctly understood, saves a lot of effort and helps us avoid letting our human fallibility and self-interest lead us astray.
Thanks again for the thoughtful comments.
I dont like the way you are comparing homosexuality with adultery. In the case of adultery it is plainly evident that it causes harm to other persons and especially to the partner who has been cheated on... I dont think we need to argue about the destructiveness of adultery.
Now it may be true that certain persons claim that only through adultery they are allowed to be fully human or fully themselves, but we can easily conclude that this persons idea of human flourishing is severly limited because they have failed to take into account the feelings of their partner as legitimate and failed to live up to the obligations of having a spouse. adultery is akin to betrayal and we all know that this is wrong.
But with regards to homosexuality you have offered no evidence as to how it, in monogamous committed relationships, is detrimental to either the self or others. There is nothing inherrent in committed homosexual relationships that is detremental to the self or to others, and if there is I suspect that it would be found in heterosexual relationsihps as well.
The only reason that you have to condemn homosexual behavior is your interpretation and understanding of the scriptures.
I could be wrong, but if you have evidential reasons to argue for the insufficiency of homosexual relationships please state them.
I see no reason to suspend a claim which seems evidently true to me, namely that homosexuality is not wrong in committed relationships, because of the ambiguous claims that one of the writers of the scriptures make. It is not altogether clear to me what Paul meant, and perhaps it is truly impossible to ascertain the true meanings of his words given our lack of linguistic and cultural knowledge. that sort of objective scriptural uncertainty coupled with my strong subjective sense of the rightness of homosexuality I am compelled and obliged to do what i see as right, which is to live out a life as a gay man. Could i be wrong? I suppose so, but I must choose and the path that makes the most sense to me and that is the path of commited homosexual relationships.
If I am wrong I hope and believe that God has enough grace to cover for my failings.
@ Jordan — Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
The difference between adultery and faithful committed homosexual relationships is as you described. My point is only that the feeling of participants in sexual activity is, by itself, insufficient to demonstrate that it is moral. (And if you'd prefer, we can speak of fornication, where there is no betrayal of another to whom one of the parties has made a commitment.)
As for whether homosexuality in a stable, committed, monogamous relationship is detrimental to the parties, two points. First, in my opinion the question goes beyond the question of what St. Paul says. Second, I don't concede that the standard of morality is simply whether or not there is obvious demonstrable harm to someone. In the first place, it can be that the harm is not immediately obvious and that it takes an analysis on the order of a Platonic dialogue to demonstrate it. Furthermore, God knows us better than we know ourselves and it is entirely possible that he reveals rules of conduct for our benefit even though we don't grasp where the harm is in the forbidden conduct.
One might ask where is the harm in coveting another's goods as long as one makes no attempt to steal them or in failing to keep holy the Lord's day.
I would not dismiss what St. Paul has to say simply because it is the writing of one man, since I believe that all scripture is the word of God in human language. Much more important is the question of whether he actually is saying what I think he is.
I think if we try honestly to understand what the scripture is telling us and ask the Holy Spirit to guide our understanding, then God is pleased with our effort to discern and follow his will. I think it is a process in which we use our God-given reason as well as God-given grace.
My series is an attempt to present some explanation of why I think God's word given through St. Paul should be understood in a certain way. As one man, I cannot do more than ask readers like you to consider what I say; and when you do so I am grateful.
Post a Comment