I recently posted an entry on homosexuality and the Bible. I have received some excellent feedback on this - read it here. However, one question is consistently asked, and that is to give more detail about the Greek words found in 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1. So, here is the detail behind the summary I posted a few days ago. For those who are genuinely seeking after Truth, I hope you find this detailed study helpful...

The Cultural Context

Before we consider these passages, it is important to understand the Hellenistic cultural context, especially related to sexual practice amongst the Greeks and Romans. Homosexuality was an accepted part of life in most parts of the Greco-Roman world (Virtually all of the historical references we have are to upper class society, and focus almost exclusively on men. However, there is nothing in any of the vast array of historical records that would indicate the situation was any different amongst the lower class or women.) Plato wrote: “Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.” (As quoted by John Boswell, The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective, 1979, a keynote address at the Fourth Biennial Dignity International Convention. Available online at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html. The late John Boswell is noted as one of the leading researchers in the area of Christianity and homosexuality.) However, since it was such a vast empire, and each of the city-states and provinces had autonomy and diverse cultures, over a period of a few centuries, it is dangerous to generalise. Yet, vast amounts of evidence exist regarding various culturally acceptable practices linked to homosexuality.

To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material. Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans…. Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females.

In particular, a form of homosexuality known as pederasty (literally the “love of boys”) was widely practised. This was invariably a voluntary relationship between an adult male and a young boy. The adult male assumed the active sexual role, while the younger was passive (i.e. did not achieve orgasmic release – in fact, if he did he was often considered no better than a prostitute). Key to understanding this practice is to understand both the pre-eminence of men especially in public life , as well as the Greco-Roman ideal of beauty which was focused almost exclusively on the young, androgynous male figure. “Public culture of these centuries was male oriented, and the apposite intellectual and, indeed, effective partner to a male was another male…. in this all-male society the beauty of the male youth was, perhaps, the key symbol and organising centre for adult male eroticism” (Scroggs, Robin. “The New Testament and Homosexuality.” Fortress Press, 1983. pg 72. emphasis in the original).

Pederasty was not hidden, but openly practised, almost universally condoned, in some quarters extolled and seen by many as an ideal in the normal course of growing up. Many of the adults engaged in pederasty would have been married. Many of the youths involved submitted to this relationship as a means of being educated or of developing military prowess and skills. Some of these relationships were possibly not of a sexual nature, especially those connected with gymnasiums and upper schools. In fact, many philosophers argued that this love for others males was a higher love than the love of a man for a woman. Protogones’ speech in Plutarch’s Erōtikos is indicative: “Genuine love has no connection whatsoever with the women’s quarters. I deny that it is love that you have felt for women and girls, any more than flies feel love for milk or bees for honey…. But that other lax and housebound love, that spends its time in the bosoms and beds of women, ever pursuing a soft life, innovated amid pleasure devoid of manliness and friendship and inspiration - it should be proscribed.” (Plutarch, Erōtikos 750C, 751AB. Quoted in Scroggs. Ibid. pg 47.) As these young boys grew up, they would often swap their passive role for a more adult active role, seeking their own passive partner.

In addition to voluntary pederasty, slave prostitution was also rife. This involved boys being forced to provide sexual services for their masters or masters’ friends. There were brothel houses filled with boys for this purpose, whilst others were household slaves. Apparently it was not uncommon to castrate such beautiful youths, in order to prolong their youthful appearance and therefore their usefulness for pederastic activities. This form of pederasty is never defended in the ancient texts.

A third category was the voluntary prostitute, who deliberately presented himself as an effeminate call-boy. This form of pederasty was normally treated with contempt in the literature. A strong distinction was made between the higher (voluntary) and lower sorts of pederasty (prostitutes). For example, in relation to the court case of a youth, Timarchus, the philosopher Aeschines explains about young boys: “To be in love with those who are beautiful and chaste is the experience of a kind-hearted and generous soul; but to hire for money and to indulge in licentiousness is the act of a man who is wanton and ill-bred.” (Aeschines, Timarchus 137. Quoted in Scroggs. Ibid. pg 40.) As these call-boys grew older, many attempted to sustain their livelihood by adapting their appearance, removing bodily hair, using perfume and wearing their hair long with women’s clothing and jewellery. Among several words used to slander such youths was malakos, a Greek adjective literally meaning “soft”, but metaphorically “effeminate” . These youths are particularly vehemently attacked in the ancient texts.

Many people in Greco-Roman times opposed pederasty in all its forms. Jews specifically did. The reasons include the fact that these young boys were effeminate and unmanly, were greedy and (in the case of the effeminate call-boys) had multiple lovers, thus provoking jealousy. There were also concerns about abuse and the impact of these relationships on the boys. These relationships were all characterised by gross inequality, impermanence, dehumanisation and potential humiliation. Of all the accusations against pederasty, the most common was that it is contrary to nature, and the intended natural purpose of sex, which is procreation.

This seems to have been the only form of homosexuality known in Greco-Roman times. There appear to be no texts of this era that refer to homosexual relationships existing between same-age adults . The concept of a lifelong, loving relationship between two same-sex, equal partners was a completely foreign concept in NT times. It is against this background that we can now look at the three NT texts that refer to homosexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11

In the discussions on homosexuality, we must consider the two Greek words, arsenokoitēs and malakos, used in 1 Cor 6, and arsenokoitēs is used in 1 Tim 1. They have been translated variously as “homosexual offenders” (NIV), “perverts” (NIV), “sexual perverts” (Revised RSV), “effeminate” (KJV), “abusers of themselves” (KJV), “them that defile themselves with mankind” (KJV), “sodomites” (NKJV) and “homosexuals” (NKJV, NLT and RSV). (Boswell points out that universally, malakos was translated as “masturbators” until the 15th century, until the KJV and other commentators changed this thinking to allude to “effeminates” and homosexuals.) The variation in translations is due to the fact that these are not well known terms, and are not the standard terms one would use in Greek to refer to homosexuals, same-sex relationships or to homosexual sexual acts.

Actually, “there was no word in classical, biblical or patristic Greek with the same meaning as the English word homosexual…. There appears to be no consciousness of a dichotomy such as the modern homosexual versus heterosexual. There were names, however for persons who practised homosexual activity. These included, for example, paiderastēs, pallakos, kinaidos, arrenomanēs, and paidophthoros.” (McNeill, John. “The Church and the Homosexual.” Beacon Press, 1993. p52) There are also technical terms, such as the lover (erastēs), the beloved (erōmenos, paidika), to give the body for purposes of intercourse (charis, charidzesthai), as well as slang terms that could have been used to indicate various forms of culturally accepted homosexuality, or even homosexuality in general. If it were Paul’s intention to indicate general homosexual activity as such, it is probable that he would have selected one of these terms. Instead, he chooses to use obscure terms that are difficult to translate.

Malakos

Malakos literally means “soft”. However, this makes no sense in the context of 1 Cor 6:9-10. “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes (malakoi) nor homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (NIV)

It makes more sense then to look at the metaphorical use of the term, best translated as “effeminate”, and in this case, in the masculine and plural. These verses may simply be referring to the “passive” partner in a homosexual relationship, or to male prostitutes. Some people understand them as referring to male sex slaves. Given the cultural context outlined above, it is most likely to refer to the “passive” partner in a pedaristic relationship. This makes even more sense in relation to the probable translation of arsenokoitēs (see below).

The difficulty is really that malakos is not a technical term to describe people involved in pederasty, and is an unusual choice by Paul. However, there are a few precedents for this usage in ancient literature. These include Socrates, who “thinks the base pederastic love seeks a person who is malthakon (Plato, Phaedrus 239C, where malthakon is a poetic form of malakos.) And the speaker in the Erōtikus (Plutarch, Erōtikus 751D.) speaks of the willing youth consenting to pederastic intercourse as one who acts with malakia” . Thus the use of malakos would almost certainly conjure up images of the effeminate call-boy, if the context otherwise suggested some form of pederasty. We must therefore turn our attention to an even more obscure word.

Arsenokoitēs

In both passages, the Greek word arsenokoitēs is used, in the masculine plural. “We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts (arsenokoitai), for slave traders and liars and perjurers-- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.” 1 Tim 1:9-11 (NIV)

Of the few usages in ancient texts, it appears as if the NT instances are the earliest records of this term. Paul may have actually coined its usage. This word is a compound noun made up of two root words, arsen (“male”) and koitē (“sexual intercourse”) (Although you cannot simply base an understanding of the compound word by looking at its component parts. For example, a “butterfly” is not a buttered-covered fly, nor does “understand” mean to stand under). These are the two words used by the Septuagint (the Greek Scriptures that Jesus and the NT church used) to translate the unusual phrases related to homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20. In Hebrew, the words are mishkav zekor (“lying with a male”). By NT times, this Hebrew phrase had become almost a technical term for homosexuality (remembering that Hebrew also had no word for “homosexual”) . However, as we have seen above, the cultural context of such usage was entirely related to abusive homosexuality, specifically to pederasty. In order to establish if this is the correct translation of this word, we need to look at the context.

In 1 Cor 5 and 6, this context is most clear. Paul is dealing with three specific issues of sinfulness that were manifest in the church at Corinth: (1) a man living with his father’s wife (5:1-5); (2) church members suing each other in civil court (6:1-8); and (3) church members going to female prostitutes and engaging in elicit, heterosexual sex (6:12-20). There is no reference to homosexuality. At the heart of Paul’s concern is the purity of the community. He instructs the church to exclude sinful members, reminds them that they are washed and cleansed of their old pagan practices, and must leave them behind. In order to make his point, he uses a standard literary device of the time, known as a “catalog of vices” (In addition to examples that could be cited from ancient texts, such as The Wisdom of Solomon 14:25-26, Sibylline Oracles III. 36-39, and Epictetus II. 16.45, Paul himself makes extensive use of this form. See Rom 1:29-31, 13:13; Gal 5:19-21; 2 Cor 12:20, and similar lists of virtues: Gal 5:22-23; 2 Cor 6:6; Phil 4:8, and both forms elsewhere in the New Testament as well). In 1 Cor 5 and 6 there are actually three such lists. It is easiest to see the flow of Paul’s usage of this device if these are laid out in a table format (all words from NIV, phrases under consideration left untranslated):

1 Cor 5:10	1 Cor 5:11	1 Cor 6:9-10
Immoral Greedy Swindlers Idolaters	Immoral Greedy Idolaters Slanderer Drunkard Swindler	Immoral Idolaters Adulterer Malakoi Arsenokoitai Thieves Greedy Drunkard Slanderer Swindler

It's clear that Paul is using these lists as a device to support his main point. As such, he is not so much concerned about the specific sins listed, but is using the items as a foil to create the contrast between former impurity and present (desired) purity and to serve as a warning of the consequences of sinful living, of allowing further impurity into the community. Having said that, these items are nevertheless considered sinful, and the translation of arsenokoitēs is still unclear.

Most of the 73 known uses of this term in the ancient texts place it in lists of vices (As per the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae (TLG) database as of 1997.) These lists often follow a set structure, usually listing sexual sins first, then violence and then others related to economics or injustice. Where arsenokoitēs (and, in fact, malakos) appears in these lists it almost invariably occurs between sexual sins and those of social injustice and impropriety, and as such, since the translation is obscure, we do not know in which category to classify arsenokoitēs. This placement appears deliberate, and as such could indicate that the term somehow relates to sexual injustice. This would make sense of the context in which this term appears. For example, the placement of arsenokoitēs just before “slave trader” in 1 Tim 1 is particularly appropriate, since, as we saw above, slaves were often used for homosexual sex in Greco-Roman times.

Of course, the literal etymology implies it is sexual, but there are two specific texts which indicate that this may not be the only meaning:

• “Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life). Do not arsenokoitēs, do not betray information, do not murder. Give one who has laboured his wage. Do not oppress a poor man.” (The Sibylline Oracle: 2. Quoted in Townsley, Jeramy. Greek Culture and Homosexuality. Available online: http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Greeks.html)
• “And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoitēs, the thief, and all of this band...” (The Acts of John: 36. Quoted in Townsley, Jeramy. "Greek Culture and Homosexuality". Available online: http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Greeks.html)

In neither of these texts do we find any hint of sexuality. In a detailed analysis of many related texts, Dale Martin indicates that the word usually infers some form of economic injustice, most probably related to male prostitution. He concludes: “I am not claiming to know what arsenokoités meant, I am claiming that no one knows what it meant. I freely admit that it could have been taken as a reference to homosexual sex. But given the scarcity of evidence and the several contexts just analyzed, in which arsenokoités appears to refer to some particular kind of economic exploitation, no one should be allowed to get away with claiming that ‘of course’ the term refers to ‘men who have sex with other men.’ It is certainly possible, I think probable, that arsenokoités referred to a particular role of exploiting others by means of sex, perhaps, but not necessarily, by homosexual sex. The more important question, I think, is why some scholars are certain it refers to simple male-male sex in the face of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps ideology has been more important than philology.” (Martin, Dale. Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences. 1996. Excerpted from Brawley, Robert, ed. “Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture.” Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. Available online: http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html)

The “plain meaning” of the text

It might be argued that the approach taken above has made somewhat of a meal of the translation and context of these two verses. It could be further argued that this seems to be a convoluted exegesis, and that it would be much simpler to take the texts at “face value”. While to be as simple as that has an elegance to it, I would argue that it is incorrect in this case. The main reason is that the words used in this text have no “plain meaning”. They are not the obvious choices of words if Paul’s intention was to prohibit homosexual acts in general (let alone loving homosexual relationships).

There is another reason for being cautious of such a simplistic approach. If we were to apply that thinking to other sections of the NT, we would say that women must wear head coverings (1 Cor 11:6, 10) or even full veils at church, be silent (1 Cor 14:25, 1 Tim 2:12), and not to wear any jewellery (1 Tim 2:9), while men “clearly” (“according to nature”) would need to have short hair (1 Cor 11:14) (It is interesting that the examples just listed come from the same two books we are currently considering). We’d also have to accept slavery as normal (Eph 6:5). It seems that, similarly to the Levitical laws, we have become quite selective in which Biblical verses we apply literally, in their “plain meaning”, and which we are willing to interpret according to culture. We need to be careful of simply applying the Bible to our preconceived judgments and prejudices. In doing so, we go against the very principles of interpretation that we established at the start of this journey. In applying those principles to these two passages, I believe its clear that we can only come to one conclusion.

Conclusion

This has been a fairly complex study of just two words. In summary, it would appear that Paul wants to highlight the evil nature of all forms of involvement in pederasty and abusive sexuality, including prostitution, effeminate call-boys, those who purchase sex and those who trade in sex slaves. All forms of abusive relationships that were culturally acceptable in Greco-Roman times are seen as reprehensible to God – the perpetrators are warned in dire terms that they will “not inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9, 10). However, this can in no way be taken as a blanket condemnation of all homosexual activity, and especially has no relevance to lifelong, loving homosexual relationships.

It may be that Paul was opposed to any form of homosexual behaviour, but we cannot use these two verses to make such a claim. Similarly to the OT texts we have looked at, it is only by reading into the text that any condemnation of mutual, consensual, adult homosexuality can be found.

Thanks for presenting the linguistic argument in more depth here. I'm still not convinced and here is why: if pedastery AS OPPOSED TO homosexuality in general was the target of Paul's comments and inclusion in his list of vices, why didn't he simply use the commonly known Greek terms for pedastery that were available to him? The link to the Septuagint version of the Hebrew terms in the passages in Leviticus and their correct interpretation seem to be decisive to determine his true intent. Maybe Gordon Wenham's comments on those OT references should be considered here as well. They can be found here:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html...
My question for you would be: why do Paul's comments in Romans 1 seem to make a blanket statement against all forms of homoerotic behavior (including lesbianism) if abusive behavior between men is the actual issue?

Posted by: Pastor Josh 18 Nov, 2008 - 04:38:56

<p>You will need to do a little bit of Prom Dressesand visit some Cheap Prom Dress to find out the important information you are not familiar with buying Prom Dresses 2010. It's always good to take the Prom Dress and check prices and see Prom Dresses 2010 you can afford. Everybody has a Cheap Prom Dresses taking some time out to check your local Plus Size Prom Dresses can really help you with your plan.Typically the type of <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/plus-size-

Posted by: 3333333333333 28 May, 2010 - 08:08:25

The Wholesale Wedding Gowns belonging to the an excellent high quality Wedding Gown needs to be colorless the clarity or Cheap Wedding Dresses, the capacity of the light to pass readily round the Low Price Wedding Dresses the cut will be the shape of the wholesale wedding gown the cut may also have an effect on the actual short wedding gown all appearance of the designer wedding gown.A poorly cut one will not casual wedding gown. The carat is the weigh from the formal wedding gownthat will have an impact the strapless wedding gowncost of the diamond.If you are trying to find diamond jewelry which simple wedding gown big and striking then a asscher or emerald cheap wedding gown is going to do.

Posted by: wedding 28 May, 2010 - 08:54:31

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it